So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not turn off their devices.<p>The probability that something happens is minuscule, but above zero.<p>Other examples where the trade off between security and convenience has to be made is the driving of cars and liquids on a plane. I'm really curious in which direction this debate will swing. (FTR: I'm all for convenience ;) )
If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is likely dubious.<p>Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and <i>is</i> designed to work despite minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small its likely its not even worth testing.
Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer?<p>Even in the absence of hard data, I would prefer to ensure all cockpit instruments work with minimal interference, than read another email or send another tweet. Then when data is available to make a conclusion as to the effect or lack thereof, informed decisions can be used to create procedures.<p>People are so attached to their devices that they take any inconvenience towards using them as some sort of rights violation.
Wow, Title is a bit misleading; One piece of anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. I would also like to take this time to bitch about the fact that airplane mode on many devices also prevents WiFi, which is allowed on board many flights.
RF is somewhat like magic. Crappy 802.11 devices can cause interference with radios and antennas. I have one computer system that I can't use in the same room with a HAM radio. It causes too much interference. When I shut it off, everything works fine.
In these anecdotal reports, I'd like to see whether or not the actual navigation devices have been tested. In my opinion and past experience, it's possible that there actually is interference, but it's very like it's a result of a faulty/fragile board or bad shielding. In that case, it would seem like the prudent thing to do is to verify that it's not the actual device that is faulty/fragile, and routine testing of essential navigation devices should be as important as checking the engine.
Like using mobile phones at gas stations, this is an issue I've heard numerous justifications for over the years.<p>One interesting one was the health effects of having 200-300 mobile phones ranging at full power inside a sealed metal tube in the sky. Not so much an issue for passengers, but flight crew on long haul flights subject to these signal levels for 8 or 9 hours several days a week! Obviously Airplane mode would solve this but telling everyone to switch off sounds a better way of enforcing this. Of course this assumes there are any adverse health effects from mobile phones at all, but that's a whole different can of worms.<p>Another 'theory', I've since dismissed, relating to the requirement to switch off particularly at take off and landing, is because a plane load of 300 mobiles roaming between base stations at 400mph can cause the mobile operators a few headaches!
So where are the tests? Actual reports, not anecdotes? The whole FAA report is based on word-of-mouth from flight crew. Surely the industry can spare some change for research in such an important area.
Avionics design must be resistant to interference.<p>Unfortunately, perfect resistance is impossible (see GPS and LightSquared).<p>The notion that you should turn off "anything with an off switch" as an open-loop solution to the problem is folly. Short of removing the batteries from a device, it's hardly guaranteed that it is truly de-powered.<p>Furthermore, plenty of things don't have an off switch. Pebble watches run via Bluetooth. I doubt users think to turn them off.<p>It's not an easy problem. Sealing the passenger cabin into a Faraday cage may be the only way to ensure RF isolation of instrumentation.
Remember that sound your computer speakers made when you put your old cell phone near them? Try landing a plane and listening to direction from the tower with that going on in your headset. Interference is a real thing and mitigating it is just a small inconvenience to the passenger who entrust their lives to their pilots.
Would TSA allow the passengers to carry cell phones on the plane if there were any perceived risk?<p>Passenger electronics are so obviously safe that screening for them would break suspension of disbelief even in the airport security theater.
I have a friend who's a pilot for one of the major commercial airlines. He uses his iPhone during flights all the time (seems to be common among pilots). I guess only the passengers are subject to the regulations. Though, I do realize that the pilots can easily turn theirs off if there's an issue; it's a little harder to track down the phone causing problems if it's one of the passengers'.<p>Regardless, the data doesn't seem to concretely prove that phones are causing any of the problems
My last flight said you couldn't use iPhones during the whole flight even in airplane mode. What's the deal with that?<p>The person next to me just lied and said he had and ipod touch ...