F.A.A. to relax restrictions on passenger electronic devices

[Rudy]

Looks like passengers will be able to use their devices during takeoff and landing if transmitting functions are turned off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/techn ... =all&_r=1&

[AirFrame]

Well it's about time. Next make it okay to use devices that are receive-only (gps).

[sstaurus]

And how exactly could they ensure that transmitting functions are turned off?

God forbid people put down their devices for a few minutes and not be receiving electronic stimulation at all times.

[digits_]

Well it's about time. Next make it okay to use devices that are receive-only (gps).

Wouldn't that be automatically allowed by this new proposal ? Since it is receive only ?

[cgzro]

No such thing as receive only. Every electronic device generates RF especially high speed cpus. Thats what all the tin cans are inside, to try to limit it.

[digits_]

No such thing as receive only. Every electronic device generates RF especially high speed cpus. Thats what all the tin cans are inside, to try to limit it.

Okay, but the article states

Looks like passengers will be able to use their devices during takeoff and landing if transmitting functions are turned off.

So reasonably, one could assume a gps receiver is no problem.

[NeverBlue]

that's what it's supposed to mean i guess

it is true...any receiver usually has an oscillator in it which will emit frequencies.

most electronic devices have an oscillator of some kind for timing purposes.

I know for a fact that laptop computers with CD drives have caused porpoising problems on certain aircraft with autopilots engaged. This has been documented.


The radar detector detectors that the police have used in the past to catch drivers in Ontario using radar detectors actually detects the IF frequency of the receivers.

Today's Standard Practices when it comes to installing modern avionics and electrical systems in aircraft have addressed these issues and should prevent interference. But in aviation we side with caution because we can't control the whole electronics industry and their practices for manufacturing their products with proper shielding etc.

Most avionics installations require HIRF testing as part of the approval process now.

[cgzro]

we can't control the whole electronics industry

And thats the problem. People with gadgets bought all over the world, many with little in the way of requirements or testing of RF. One trip to an electronics store in Asia is eye opening.

I have little worry about Apple or Samsung etc but there are el cheapo knock offs by the zillions.
I picked up an iphone 3 clone a few years ago.. Dual sims, removable battery.. No compliance testing, little shielding.. How do you know if the software disable transmit even works?

Anyway not worth the risk.. Then again we run the risk anyway because almost nobody turns them off.

[AirFrame]

Well it's about time. Next make it okay to use devices that are receive-only (gps).

Wouldn't that be automatically allowed by this new proposal ? Since it is receive only ?

Except: try convincing a stew that your GPS is receive-only. I was almost thown off a commercial flight once because I told one that just because I turned off the GPS doesn't mean the radio signals go away... She insisted that I turn off the GPS signals. Eventually she asked the pilot and he intervened.

Also: my cell phone is now my most useful and portable GPS. Can't turn off the receive function without turning off *all* radio functionality.

[CID]

This doesn't constitute much of a change but it's nice to see that the regulators are taking a slow and careful approach to this potential problem. I have several issues with the whole "PED" thing. First and foremost, it seems that everyone who buys an airline ticket becomes an instant aeronautical engineer and has "better" information than the people who design, certify and operate the aircraft they are "riding" on. Second, why are there so many passengers that believe that very clear instructions from the flight crew don't apply to them? What else will they fail to comply with during the flight and any emergencies that may occur? These are the same people you see coming down the emergency slide with their carry-on.

And how about those engineering standards? Standards for transport category aircraft are very clear about the acceptable probability of single failures. The prescribed probability of single failures causing catastrophic events are supposed to be "extremely remote" which translates into about 1 failure per billion flight hours. How can we continue to meet that standard with an airplane full of transmitting PEDs? Yes, they design for HIRF and are shielded to death but we still have antennas that are optimized to accept radio frequencies, we still have RF apertures (we call them "windows") for RF to reach said antennas and we still have the possibility of a shield to a critical wiring bundle failing. If it does fail then what will be the effect of all that potential interference?

A few years ago there was an incident where a Bell Helicopter with an engine ECU lost power whenever the pilot transmitted on VHF. He would call "MAYDAY" to ditch and then would recover power when he stopped transmitting. He figured it out in time to save the helicopter. The fault was caused by a broken shield at the ECU electrical connector.

The writers of this piece didn't work very hard to find evidence of interference. NASA collects monthly reports from operators and RTCA DO-294 contains not only standards to prevent interference but studies that verify it's a very real threat.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/reportsets.html

I've seen it myself and have verified (more than once) interference between PEDs and aircraft systems, usually in VHF COMs and NAVs. LOC seems to be the most often affected. Many pilots may have heard the familiar buzzing from cell phone interference over the COMs. Imagine the problems that may cause as we move towards datalink for more than getting weather reports and METARs.

With respect to GPS receivers, it really depends on the platform. Many that are used for cars have Bluetooth which does "transmit" albeit at very low power. Many also have FM receivers to process traffic reports. Garmin likes to make it part of the power cord so unless you are plugged in to a cigarette lighter style power supply you probably aren't powering an FM receiver. But....if you are, be aware that it operates in the 88-108 MHz range just below VHF NAV frequencies and in the range of products are that are generally prohibited like FM radio receivers.

[AirFrame]

First and foremost, it seems that everyone who buys an airline ticket becomes an instant aeronautical engineer and has "better" information than the people who design, certify and operate the aircraft they are "riding" on.

Not me. It took 5 years of university to become an aeronautical engineeer.

With respect to GPS receivers, it really depends on the platform. Many that are used for cars have Bluetooth which does "transmit" albeit at very low power. Many also have FM receivers to process traffic reports. Garmin likes to make it part of the power cord so unless you are plugged in to a cigarette lighter style power supply you probably aren't powering an FM receiver. But....if you are, be aware that it operates in the 88-108 MHz range just below VHF NAV frequencies and in the range of products are that are generally prohibited like FM radio receivers.

The bluetooth on a Garmin GPS can be turned off. The FM receiver is just that... A RECEIVER. Oh, wait, do you mean they come with FM Transmitters now to transmit to your car stereo? If so, that's new. But still, none of that should preclude you from running a simple GPS *receiver*, that itself passes the CE/FCC/UL/whatever EMI certifications. Many do.

Really, there's nothing to stop someone who's so inclined from building a jammer that will interfere with GPS, NAV, etc. during a flight, and just powering it up when nobody is looking. The rule blocking the use of PEDs in flight does nothing to prevent it.

[CID]

Ummm...I didn't state that bluetooth can't be turned off. With respect to FM receivers, they use local oscillators to mix with the RF to produce an "intermediate" frequency or "IF". The local oscillator in FM receivers us commonly about 10 to 15 MHz above the signal being received. Right smack dab in the middle of the VHF NAV band.

UL? It means nothing in the airborne EMC certification game. FAR/CAR/CS 25.1353/1431 and the guidance in RTCA DO294 does.

So because it's possible to build a jammer with malicious intent all other PEDs are OK?

[NeverBlue]

Great posts CID!

You've got me curious...and forgive me if I can't reason this out myself right now... I've been into the Jamesons

Why does LOC seem to be bothered the worst?

Is it the Mod frequencies or the RF frequencies?

And therefore why not VOR or Glideslope?

TJ

PS...You should post more stuff like this!

[Maximus01]

Well it's about time. Next make it okay to use devices that are receive-only (gps).

Wouldn't that be automatically allowed by this new proposal ? Since it is receive only ?

Except: try convincing a stew that your GPS is receive-only. I was almost thown off a commercial flight once because I told one that just because I turned off the GPS doesn't mean the radio signals go away... She insisted that I turn off the GPS signals. Eventually she asked the pilot and he intervened.

Also: my cell phone is now my most useful and portable GPS. Can't turn off the receive function without turning off *all* radio functionality.

Who Cares turn it off for the flight.......people and their gadgets, its beyond insane nowadays...next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day...turn it off for the comfort of others please...

[AirFrame]

With respect to FM receivers, they use local oscillators to mix with the RF to produce an "intermediate" frequency or "IF". The local oscillator in FM receivers us commonly about 10 to 15 MHz above the signal being received. Right smack dab in the middle of the VHF NAV band.

Learn something new every day. I didn't know that.

So because it's possible to build a jammer with malicious intent all other PEDs are OK?

No. Because it's possible to build a jammer that has *no* regulatory controls and could be actively trying to bring a plane down, there's no point blocking PED's that are generally built *with* regulatory controls to satisfy the FCC, and that have been shown to have *no* effect on commercial aircraft. GPS, cell phone, etc.

next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day.

That day is already here. I haven't been on a flight recently where you couldn't pull a phone out of the seatback in front of you and call anyone you like. Using a Cell in flight isn't going to be any cheaper, as you'll still be going through the plane's onboard cell repeater, and they'll bill that pretty close to the seatphone calls. Captive audience, captive revenue stream.

[digits_]

Who Cares turn it off for the flight.......people and their gadgets, its beyond insane nowadays...next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day...turn it off for the comfort of others please...

I agree that people should be able to live a few hours without their gadgets, but if there are scientific arguments (like the FAA uses now for this change) that under certain circumstances there is no danger in using specific functions of your smartphone, then don't keep saying "turn off your smartphone completely or we will all die". That's just silly and has the opposite effect. Tell people the truth.

[Genetk44]

[/quote]
Who Cares turn it off for the flight.......people and their gadgets, its beyond insane nowadays...next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day...turn it off for the comfort of others please...[/quote]


+1000 !!!!!

[Rudy]

Who Cares turn it off for the flight.......people and their gadgets, its beyond insane nowadays...next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day...turn it off for the comfort of others please...

+1000 !!!!!

I don't know. I had a 12 hour flight the other day and the movie system wasn't working properly (what else is new?). The little tablet I brought was a life saver. I watched movies, read a book, and played games on it, and with headphones I don't think I bothered anyone.

[Genetk44]

Who Cares turn it off for the flight.......people and their gadgets, its beyond insane nowadays...next people will be aloud to use their cell phones on flights and I will have to listen to 50 windbags yapping about their frigging day...turn it off for the comfort of others please...

+1000 !!!!!

I don't know. I had a 12 hour flight the other day and the movie system wasn't working properly (what else is new?). The little tablet I brought was a life saver. I watched movies, read a book, and played games on it, and with headphones I don't think I bothered anyone.

Rudy....i think the issue is people blabbing non-stop into their phones, not people watching movies or listening to music through headphones.