back to article FCC urges rethink of aircraft personal-electronics blackout

The head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has written to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asking for a rethink of the current ban on using electronic items in flight. Currently all electronic devices have to be switched off on US aircraft operating below 10,000 feet, and can only used in flight-safe mode …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bugger in the air...

        Well, if you will insist on living in the planets richest third world country....

    1. EvilGav 1
      Thumb Down

      Re: Bugger in the air...

      Whilst you are still airside (i.e. before going through customs) you are effectively in limbo (on international flights) - you don't exist in the country you left and you aren't yet in the country you arrived at. You have no rights.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Canada (was Re: Bugger in the air...)

        "You have no rights."

        Too true. Many years ago I traveled to Calgary from Chicago, I was on a skiing trip and had my ski gear with me.

        Canadian customs, having viewed my passport and seeing who sponsored my L1 visa, decided I was really going to Canada to steal work from struggling Canadians. So, they escorted me to a locked room and left me for 7 hours. Sometime around 11PM the heavies arrived and recited Canadian law and informed me I was not wanted in Canada under paragraph something or other and that I was to be deported the next morning. My passport was withheld, and I had to find my own digs for the evening. I was directed to arrive for the 7am Air Canada flight to ORD the next morning. i was at that time provided with a ticket and escorted to the aircraft.

        I still have the paper ticket, upon which the price printed was "FREE".

        Anonymous, naturally - but the story is none the less true.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Airliner brought down by Angry Bird-strike!

    That is all...except maybe for the plane behind it that pankcaked because someone had a whole Raspberry Pi!!

    Black helicopter, because they're out there right now, slurping up my all my electronic communications, I know they are.....

    1. James O'Brien
      Angel

      Re: Airliner brought down by Angry Bird-strike!

      Don't understand why someone down voted this. I had a good chuckle reading it. Humorless plods :P

  2. Cipher
    Linux

    Much easier to track and record data if the devices are turned on and fully operational...

    I don't beleive that there is any other reason other to facilitate NSA/FBI scanning...

  3. Mahou Saru

    Bwuh...

    Don't planes go near thunder storms?

    I'm pretty sure that the electronic bits must be proofed against them, so how the {insert expletive of choice} can my piddly little gadget affect it?

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Bwuh...

      Simple. Lightning is OUTSIDE, and since the plane isn't contacting earth, at worst the bolt would go around the outer shell and onward. We haven't had lightning down a plane in nearly 50 years. The gadgets are all INSIDE and therefore inside the EM-shielding shell. Plus many planes are decades old: well before the age of rampant consumer electronics.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Bwuh...

        There's a suspicion that lightning played a small part in the downing of a transatlantic 747 in the early 1990s (The plane blew apart after a spark in the wingbox fuel tank ignited vapours. SInce then all 747s were retrofitted (initially with nitrogen bottles) to provide an inert atmosphere in tank airspaces)

      2. Philip Lewis
        Happy

        Re: Bwuh...

        I have been inside a modern aircraft that was struck by lightning. It scares the living shit out of you. Even for someone like me with a few of million miles on the clock. There were no apparent bad results and I am here to tell the tale.

        The reason we were anywhere near lightning (pilots studiously avoid it if they can), was that we were on approach to LHR.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: " inside a modern aircraft that was struck by lightning."

          There's modern, and there's modern.

          Aircraft traditionally have lots (callit 100%?) of metal in the wings and fuselage, and the behaviour in lightning strike is well understood.

          Some trendy modern aircraft have carbon fibre composite instead in many places. The vendors and airframe builders say "don't worry, it'll be OK". So we'd better trust them, right?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bwuh...

      The body of the plane is a Faraday cage. Your "piddly little gadget" is on the inside.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bwuh...

      "Don't planes go near thunder storms?"

      No, they don't, not voluntarily, not if the driver wants to maximise his chance of arriving OK.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Annoying air travellers?

    "There's no denying that the ban annoys air travelers, particularly since the rules as they stand make little sense"

    Do we really want to listen to vacuous one-sided mobile chatter on long flights ?

  5. MachDiamond Silver badge

    No talking

    I find it hard to believe that anybody is able to get a phone connected at cruising altitude. It's several miles up while you are jacketed by an aluminum can (or carbon fibre if you are on a 787). Cell phones are probably not going to mess up an airplane's electronics. The blanket ban on electronics just makes it easier for flight crew or they would have to remember pages of approved and disapproved devices. And, that list would change every month. Not all radio devices are certified by some government agency like the FCC. There is a ton of kit on eBay that made in asia, is illegal to operate nearly everywhere and suffers from almost non-existant quality control. Take a book or a magazine to stay occupied until you can fire up the mp3 player or a movie on the laptop.

  6. Haku

    "Everything is amazing and nobody is happy"

    Louis CK on Conan O'Brien's show - watch and enjoy, or listen to a longer (uncut sweary) version.

  7. tkioz
    FAIL

    You left out one of the major reasons for the ban to stay... PROFIT. If customers are prevented from using their own devices they'll either use the ones provided (such as in-flight movies) or other ways to dull the pain of travel (booze!).

    Who the hell would use those stupid airline provided things if you could use your own stuff?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Holmes

      @tkioz

      You were on the right track, but then missed the turn:

      Profit is a motive, but you don't think for one moment that the wifi or picocell connection is going to be gratis, do you? Maybe for the politicians and CEO's in fist class it will be, but for the rest of us peasants I'll wager a whole lot of money that we're talking about the sort of eye watering charges that you thought died out in the last century.

      The airlines can't wait for the ban to go, I suspect. All they need to do is put in the picocell equivalent of a 14.4k modem (shared by all 300 passengers), lash up a pay to play wifi registration page, and arrange a premium rate on all voice calls (incoming and outgoing, just like international roaming works).

      And the best thing of all for the airlines? That on longer flights passengers won't be in the jurisdiction of any telecoms regulator, and they can charge what they like.

      1. Shooter
        Happy

        Re: @Ledswinger

        "fist class"

        Can't decide if that typo is deliberate or not...

      2. Philip Lewis
        FAIL

        Re: @tkioz

        Well, you would be wrong.

        http://www.norwegian.com/en/customer-services/travel-information/onboard/wifi/

        It's free on Norwegian and it works pretty damned well. Not all airlines are American (though the one's that hate their customers almost always are).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Only the clueless use electronic toys in flight

      The majority of airline travelers have better sense than to lug electronic toys with them for flight. Only the clueless who need to entertain themselves haul this crap onboard. The younger generation in particular are easily bored. They wouldn't think of watching a movie or reading or doing something educational. They desire to be entertained 24/7. That explains electronic toys, Farcebook and social media.

      1. Greg J Preece

        @AC

        You sound like such a moaning old fart I'm tempted to call troll.

        They wouldn't think of watching a movie or reading or doing something educational. They desire to be entertained 24/7. That explains electronic toys, Farcebook and social media.

        I'd love to know how you're going to watch a movie without an electronic "toy". And I read a lot, from an electronic reader. If my solutions to being bored on a flight are inferior to yours because they're newer, then I suggest you go the whole hog and take an aeroprop to your destination. I'll be waiting for you in the bar at the other end, watching YouTube vids to pass the time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC

          "And I read a lot, from an electronic reader"

          A book too heavy for your puny little boy arms? Stop trying to justify your childish little strop.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: @AC

            No, too heavy and too big for the draconian weight and size limits imposed on carry-on luggage. Ever thought we necessarily have to carry other stuff along for the trip and that the checked luggage is either expensive or already packed? Books are bulky and take up precious space. An e-reader can reduce all that to something the size of a Reader's Digest, without the need to condense the content of the books. And before you think "1984", the reader I use can and does accept unprotected ePub formats which the distributors cannot control.

          2. Greg J Preece

            Re: @AC

            A book too heavy for your puny little boy arms? Stop trying to justify your childish little strop.

            Strop? He's moaning about electronics, then watching the in-flight movie, and I'm wondering how. I might also be taking the piss somewhat.

            Unless you have an answer for how he can sit on a modern, electronically controlled airliner, watching a digitally recorded film via an electronic device, and have the testicular elephantitis required to call anything he doesn't use a "toy" for them filthy young 'uns...

            Or do electronic things scare you, old man?

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Only the clueless use electronic toys in flight

        As for those in-flight movies, almost always (1) I've seen it before or (2) I'm not interested. The in-flight music is a bore, and I usually go through the magazine before takeoff. Books are bulky and there is a carry limit, so I'll go with my e-reader or listen to music I really like on my iPod (one of the older ones that focused on music).

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Only the clueless use electronic toys in flight

        "The majority of airline travelers have better sense than to lug electronic toys with them for flight. Only the clueless who need to entertain themselves haul this crap onboard. The younger generation in particular are easily bored. They wouldn't think of watching a movie or reading or doing something educational. They desire to be entertained 24/7. That explains electronic toys, Farcebook and social media."

        BANG ON!

  8. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Flame

    The obvious reason for the request to lift the ban...

    ... is that the Yanks have finally developed their own in-house electronics.

    They slapped the ban on when the Europeans developed an in-plane phone system and allowed it in European aircraft several years ago. Fairly standard practice in US aviation. If it's not invented here, ban it until we have a home-grown product....

  9. no_RS

    Passenger generated electro-smog..

    The real issue is the immunity of the RF systems (particularly safety critical ones) is probably well known by now but the sources of potential interference brought in by the passengers are not. This leads to a situation where several identical devices operating together may actually exceed the immunity level of an aircraft system causing mis-operation. Some devices are very popular so many passengers on the plane could have the same device or using the same interface e.g. Wi-Fi, it's all about emissions adding up.

    The passengers would be pretty unhappy if they got lost or worse because of passenger generated electro-smog, being disconnected for a few hours is not too high a price to pay for getting to your destination in one piece.

    1. Rambler88

      Re: Passenger generated electro-smog..

      "but the sources of potential interference brought in by the passengers are not."

      Amen. No telling what's coming from China next year.

      "several identical devices operating together may actually exceed the immunity level of an aircraft system"

      And if it's a popular toy, the RF-safety alpha testing will begin en masse on the day of release.

  10. fawlty
    Big Brother

    ?Ban

    Is that the same rules that say airlines shouldn't force pilots to work up to the max of their capability to stay awake, or that say pilots shouldn't have a dram for courage once every now and then before a flight?

    Probably also the ones that say I'm not allowed to take 125ml of deoderant into the cabin in case I'm a lunatic hell bent on destruction.

    None of the Russians on my last trip to Moscow paid any attention to a mobile phone ban so what's the point of having one? Better to invest the money spent on a ban on better shielding, or a better idea I like from a previous commentard of putting a cell on every plane. Then, even if you didn't want to sell air time you could play a message back to anyone using the network that said you're flouting the ban, and you won't get through.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    The usual nonsense

    The ban is utterly ridiculous, but in true Brit style can I suggest a compromise?

    1. Use your devices all you like.

    2. But no talking.

    3. And no one else must be able to hear what you are doing with it.

    So you can text/tweet/email all you like but the rest of us can get some sleep/do some work/concentrate on doing whatever.

    Penalty for violation - confiscation of said device by grumpy, armed air marshal.

    'Course, take someone's phone away and they'll be the first to whine about their f**king first amendment rights.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. dssf

      Re: The usual nonsense... shutter clicks and monkeys...

      Do not forget Korea- and Japan- based mobiles and tablets.

      Due to fucking pervs snapping photos under girl's dresses on escalators, and on trains and platforms by lens-tipped shoes, the phones sold TO those markets must hsve audible shitter clicks. It is most utterly stupid and annoying a tactical response, though. To my mind, the real response should be to detect the offender by monitoring mics, then seizing the phone, and physically punishing the offender. But, seriously, the hardened/hardcore pervs just root their phones to kill the click.

      My galaxy tab is annoying as fuck cue to the shutter clicks. My pocket panasonic and htc evo 4g sold in the usa market are my main snappers, though for quicker updares, i use my tab, or for snapping food and items not banned, i use my tab.

      Witth a bazillion immature or memorabilia-minded girls in coffee shos, on trains, and in buses snapping away, it produces numbness in many surrounding people. In me, though, it induces rage. I expect shutter clicks from bona fide mechanical classic cameras or those with real shiputters, not devices that only have rocker switches and special buttons as their only moving parts.

      .

      Now, in Asia, the shutter clicks probably serve a side purpose of shutting down snappers. But, i will have to ask around to find out which Asian countries come down hard on the recalcitrant snapper.

      And, then, all those monkey games... Cute and funny at first. But, it would be pure hell having to listen to berserk digital monkeys on a longer-than-20-minutes flight...

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Not a good idea

        Didn't the voyeurs beat that rap by switching to HDTV-resolution video cameras in the shoes? Since they record audio, they CAN'T have shutter sounds or any other kind of indicator that could bleed into the scene, and the ones that don't bleed they can conceal.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Safety rules

    In addition to the very real safety concerns, there is no God given right to subject other people to your inappropriate conduct. If you are that ignorant you are not suitable to use public transportation.

  13. Chubbymoth
    Mushroom

    Crash and Burn

    1995, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Guy walks into my office,.. his phone rings, he picks it up and every friggin computer in my office shuts down and reboots... Freaky ain't it. Mobes that time operated on the 90 Mhz bandwith I think.. so did my Pentiums.

    I for one always ask anyone I see using a phone in an airplane to turn it off after that experience. Oh poopsy,.. you wanna play Angry Birds? Well,.. maybe once we're in flight? And there are plenty of examples of airplanes dropping from the sky without explanation to make someone edgy. Turn it off please,.. or I'll have to kill you.. Huh? Yes,.. quite mad.. and dangerous at the slightest provocation... Thank you miss...have a nice flight.

    Granted,.. modern CPU's live on another frequency, but LTE is in the 2.4 Ghz range? How possible is it that some badly designed mobe emits an EM pulse through that?

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: Crash and Burn

      I for one always ask anyone I see using a phone in an airplane to turn it off after that experience.

      Yes, because '95 phones and Pentiums are IDENTICAL to an Airbus A330.. And I think your understanding of CPU clock speeds may be somewhat flawed...

      And there are plenty of examples of airplanes dropping from the sky without explanation to make someone edgy.

      No there aren't. It might take longer in some cases than others to figure out why a plane crashed, but most accidents are resolved to a startling degree of accuracy. You might stop paying attention when the crash leaves the newspapers, but the NTSB, etc don't. Most people still think Air France 447 was never resolved, for example. Nonsense.

      Turn it off please,.. or I'll have to kill you.. Huh? Yes,.. quite mad.. and dangerous at the slightest provocation... Thank you miss...have a nice flight.

      You sound more dangerous than the devices. Dick.

      1. An ominous cow heard

        Re: "Air France 447 was never resolved"

        In the case of AF447, a selection of allegedly very improbable things happened on the same flight at roughly the same time. Some of them were so improbable that the regulators and airframe builders considered they could be ignored (e.g. the chance of flying through rough weather rather than round it was considered negligible, not waking up the Captain when things started getting rough:negligible, identical failures of two out of three pitot tubes:negligible, iirc). Which is a shame for the friends and family involved.

        Negligible doesn't mean won't ever happen.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Gary S.

    American logic

    It's okay for the United States government to inspect its citizens' crotches for toothpaste and demand that foreigners submit themselves to the DHS before ever leaving their own soil, because these might keep us safe, somehow. But being asked to put away untested electronics on final approach? Unacceptable!

    I don't get it. Why is trampling Constitutional rights an acceptable sacrifice for "safety", but pausing Angry Birds an intolerable encroachment of our liberties?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    Electroniks....

    Well when we go back to valve radios and compasses and the pilots actually navigating on a table with a compass and a chronometer - with cables, rods and hydraulics, operating everything - then by fuck it... we shall have everyone on board lighting up with megawatts of illuminations from the devil.

    No smoking mind you, all your seats are tins of motor spirit with a cushion on top.

  16. Cyberelic

    Screaming little bastards...

    quote - It is funny how irritating screaming/crying babies can be on an aeroplane unless the critter in question is your progeny. - unquote

    Sometimes I think people deliberately bring their little bastards to supermarkets to exercise their (the bastards) lungs. Why else do they then ignore them.

    P.

  17. Aldous
    FAIL

    Brace Brace

    So imagine a birdstrike on final approach leading to the above statement.

    cue loads of lawsuits from all the muppets with headphones in at full volume (long term stock investment tip:hearing aids) who bang there heads into their beloved iWotsits

    10 minutes each end of a flight with no electronics the horror

  18. Greg J Preece

    Christ, there's some miserable old farts on here, especially considering it's a tech site. If there's some class of consumer device that brings down planes, it hasn't managed it yet, and if it exists, then leave that class of device banned. Other than that, why assume that "electronic device" refers to "something that will annoy your whingeing arse"?

    Everything is electronic these days. I've been harassed before for an eBook reader. It barely uses any power to begin with, but no, can't read for large sections of the flight. That would be dangerous...somehow....somewhere....in some alternate dimension...

    If I want to fire up my PSP on a flight, how is that any different to you watching the in-flight movie? And if my PSP or reader is going to bring down the plane, why wouldn't your wristwatch or the headset monitor? I wouldn't be surprised if my own body put out a larger EM field than some of the electronic kit I use.

    The fear over EM fields here is exactly the same as the fear over wireless routers in schools; a load of crap perpetuated by people who don't get how stuff works. As for "keep them banned, I'm grumpy", no thanks. You can stare at the back of the seat in front for 10 hours if you like. I'm going to play God of War.

    1. pxd

      At last, the voice of reason . . .

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Grow up son. You know nothing.

      If it ain't tested as being no harm, banned they should remain.

      What's wrong with you? You must pull out a device for a poxy 10 hours!

      Christ!

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        The same thing applies to underwear.

        AFAIK there is no established FAA standard for thongs so they should be removed before take off

      2. Greg J Preece

        What's wrong with you? You must pull out a device for a poxy 10 hours!

        I enjoy keeping my brain stimulated? I'll admit, that's a clear difference between us.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All this armchair RF engineering is absolutely fascinating. I will be sure to think of it when I am next flying to divers Scandinavian nations, with free in-flight wifi internet access :)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like