Would it surprise anyone to know that airlines are lying to us? Probably not, but it's true. It happens every time you board a plane and are asked to turn off your electronic devices -- cellphones, laptop computers or MP3 players -- because they can "interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems."
Passengers face strict limitations on what substances, such as contact lens solution, they are allowed to bring on board because these materials can be used to construct explosives. Yet electronic devices that can supposedly cause a plane to go off course and crash in a fiery blaze are allowed, subject only to a polite request by the cabin crew that they not be used.
This bizarre logic prompts the question: Why would a terrorist bother with complicated liquid combinations when a simple cellphone would do the trick?
The answer: The airlines aren't being straight with us. There are two reasons why mobile use isn't allowed on flights, the first being that no sane passenger wants to be near another passenger using one. In fact, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in April reversed an earlier decision to allow calls because of passenger backlash.
But wait -- e-mail and text messaging on phones isn't obtrusive to other passengers, so why aren't these allowed? That's where the second reason comes in. In cases where devices and networks are powerful enough to actually connect despite being separated by thousands of feet in altitude, there's still the issue of who the passenger pays. Planes flying hundreds of kilometres an hour can hop between cellphone networks in seconds, which can play havoc with mobile roaming charges. From the carrier's point of view, it's easier to ban airborne mobile calls than deal with the resultant roaming mess.
But what about MP3 players? They don't emit any signals, yet we have to turn them off during takeoff and landing, too.
It's another case of airlines lying, and in this case it's particularly brash since the public is intelligent enough to understand the truth. The reality is, the cabin crew doesn't want us humming along to our favourite tunes while they're making announcements about how the plane's landing gear just fell off. It's galling that the airlines choose to misinform passengers instead.
Things are changing, however. Toronto-based Porter Airlines is mulling allowing BlackBerry use, while aircraft maker Airbus this week received approval from European aviation authorities to install on-board mobile phone systems. Passengers will be able to make and receive calls and send e-mail and text messages through an on-board transmitter, which solves the potential roaming billing problem. Cabin crew can also block voice calls, limiting passengers to e-mail and text messages, which solves the problem of noisy chatterboxes.
Of course, Airbus only builds the planes and it's up to the airlines whether or not to offer mobile services. One can only hope that if they offer the service, they introduce a good dose of honesty to go with it.
Things are changing, however. Toronto-based Porter Airlines is mulling allowing BlackBerry use,
Especially WJ
I find that Blackberry's are the worst. When I am flying and forget to turn off my BlackBerry the data signal causes the radio on my aircraft to start crackling and I can't communicate with ATC or even my Copilotfor those20 seconds.
It may not sound like much but on an ILS PRM approach such as in SFO, MSP, PIT and many more to come this can be a serious safety issue.
no airline every told me that my ipod would interfere with radio signals...they tell me that it may cause me to miss an announcement during an emergency or the wiring may catch me up during an evacuation....
more "mainstream" misinformation if you ask me....i thought reporters had to do "research"...all they seem to do these days is plug it into google and thats good enough.
i doubt anyone at the airline level actually buys into this whole signal disruption crap. The thing is, we're mandated by TC to enforce the 'phone off' policy, and are mandated to make the annoucments. So who's full of it? I don't blame the airlines in the least.
There are other reasons for those rules. Saying that cellphones will interfere with nav equipment is so that the passengers will simply understand.
If a rapid deplanment or evacuation is required, the last you want is half your passengers listening to their ipods or talking on their cellphones. If you tell that reasoning to the passengers you're always going to get some idiot who's not going to understand that.
Better to turn off the cellphones anyway at altitude. The lack of, or no signal will only drain the battery more quickly.
rightseatwonder wrote:no airline every told me that my ipod would interfere with radio signals...they tell me that it may cause me to miss an announcement during an emergency or the wiring may catch me up during an evacuation....
more "mainstream" misinformation if you ask me....i thought reporters had to do "research"...all they seem to do these days is plug it into google and thats good enough. :?
Naah, then it would just be boring facts....It don't sell...
---------- ADS -----------
...Seems they are going to remove the axe and the control column from the cockpits for security reasons.
Just think of it this way. Everything on an airplane is tested to the extreme. Thus the phenominal cost of aircraft parts.
Any electronic device emits an electrical field that could potentially interfere with the electronics of an aircraft. Can you imagine the cost to test every device in every location of an aircraft??? Now I admit...the chances are slim but since you can't test them all why take a chance? I have left my cell phone on (just forgot to turn it off) and realized it when I heard annoying clicks in the headphones so some interference is possible.
---------- ADS -----------
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
I read your article "Are the airlines lying to us?" with interest this afternoon after a friend sent me the link. Although there is some thoughtful insight into the issue of the use of personal electronic devices inflight, I must disagree with your premise that transmitting devices do not cause harmful interference to avionics. A simple search in the online Aviation Safety Reporting System, a joint venture between NASA and the FAA, reveals many incidents in which personal electronic devices were the probable cause of navigational errors, among other instrument malfunctions. Does every cell phone in the airplane cause this problem? No, of course the power output of the device and its location with respect to antennae and avionics would be among the variables to consider. Does every navigational error result in an accident? No, alert flight crews and air traffic controllers are all part of a safety net which usually mitigates the effect of such errors.
Even on aircraft with limited instrumentation, cell phone interference which is audible to the pilot over the aircraft intercom and through the communication radios is, at least, distracting, and usually disruptive.
As you have pointed out, there are other factors driving the ban on cell phone use inflight. The capability to use cell phones safely on most commercial flights does not yet exist, and it is irresponsible of any person claiming to have researched the subject to say otherwise.
