DEFINITELY the worst MEPS question ever. (Like, EVER)

[Jim123]

...Later on after maintenance looked into the issue they found some wires that were not properly shielded.

The reason for shutting down all electronics is that theoretically, any electronics can have some leakage whether they transmit or not. So the FAA took the worst case scenario and said since the shielding in the plane is not tested for everything, nothing can be used.

I understand shielding (and how it won't work if it's improperly connected or disconnected... such as old, worn out wiring), basic RF theory, antenna theory, RF leaks/etc., and I understand the FAA's logic here.

A lot of consumer electronics inadvertently emanate weak, stray signals various freqs- but weak enough to pass FCC standards (I've seen a laptop's processor produce a trace on a spectrum analyzer). Many of us have heard a buzz in the headset when a cellphone starts ringing (cellphones usually default to max transmit power when they first receive a call, combine that with something amiss in your ICS or one of your radios and voila). Lots of us have been on a flight when some guy or gal nearby was yapping away on their phone just a few minutes before landing. 99% of the time it's a moot point, but...

A little experimentation and yup, it was the cell transmitting causing the screens to blank out.

Kinda surprised to read that this has actually happened but kinda not at the same time. I always figured that, under the exactly the right circumstances, it was actually possible.

Thanks, HAL, for an educational post.

 

[Brett327]

To paraphrase another perspective on this issue... if it were really a legitimate safety concern, the FAA wouldn't rely on what is essentially voluntary compliance from the PAX to secure their electronic devices. If it were that important, FAs would collect everyone's cell phones (and Kindle's, apparently) at the gate and return them upon landing.

 

[HAL Pilot]

The FAs are supposed to ensure compliance.

Your statement is like saying if the TSA was serious, no bags/pesonal articles and only naked pax would be allowed on airplanes - after their body cavity search.

Beides, we all know you would never dream of not supporting a policy, procedure or regulation coming down from Big FAA....

 

[Brett327]

The FAs are supposed to ensure compliance.

Your statement is like saying if the TSA was serious, no bags/pesonal articles and only naked pax would be allowed on airplanes - after their body cavity search.

Beides, we all know you would never dream of not supporting a policy, procedure or regulation coming down from Big FAA....

All I'm saying is that if it were really that critical to safety of flight, it would not be left in the hands of the PAX to decide whether or not they wanted to fire up their cell phones during the flight. You can't really argue with that. Any PAX is completely free to ignore the "enforcement" efforts of the FAs at any time during the flight that they're not being directly watched. If there was any real danger, cell phones wouldn't be allowed - period.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I've never said it was that critical. I just provided an example of a known case of cell phone interferance, the FAA's reasoning and told Otto he's a dick for disobeying/being an ass to the FAs. I don't for a minute think it will cause an airplane to fall out of the sky. I do think it could cause the pilots some unanticipated/unnecessary stress and distraction.

But my security/TSA analogy still stands. In both cases the powers that be are trying to ensure public safety without going to the intrusive extremes (although one has to wonder at times with the TSA).

I've also seen pax escorted off the plane (including gate returns) prior to t/o, and met by law enforcement on landing if after t/o for ignoring the FAs "enforcement" action. It all depends on how much crap the FAs are willing to take that day. 9 out of 10 Captains will backup the FA's desires when it comes to asshole pax.

 

[Renegade One]

I personally know of one incident where a guy talking on his phone caused the screens to blank out in the cockpit...and more

Very informative. Thanks for the reply. The precautions all make great sense to me now.

 

[hlg6016]

This thread scared me, so I took my Kindle out behind the shed and smashed it with a hammer. I'll bring a paperback

You could get a nice scary Steven King novel.

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

Don't pilots use iPads with great frequency now?

 

[PropAddict]

I've never said it was that critical. I just provided an example of a known case of cell phone interferance, the FAA's reasoning and told Otto he's a dick for disobeying/being an ass to the FAs. I don't for a minute think it will cause an airplane to fall out of the sky. I do think it could cause the pilots some unanticipated/unnecessary stress and distraction.

There was an article about this in Slate or Wired a while back where it was disclosed that a cell in the baggage comp received a call an interferred with the instruments and that a dude with a bluetooth mouse interferred with autopilot rudder contols (iirc) on an Airbus in flight. Those were the only instances the authors could find documentation of.

I think the bigger issue at play is that the FAs don't want to have 100 potential projectiles out in the cabin during takeoff or landing. And I can't blame anyone for that.

 

[BUDU]

I think the bigger issue at play is that the FAs don't want to have 100 potential projectiles out in the cabin during takeoff or landing. And I can't blame anyone for that.

I could be (read: probably am) completely talking out of my ass here, but I'd been told one of the biggest reasons doesn't come from the FAA, but rather the FCC. 250 cell phones hopping cell towers during critical phases of flight while they're still in reception range doesn't exactly do great things to a cell network.

 

[PropAddict]

I could be (read: probably am) completely talking out of my ass here, but I'd been told one of the biggest reasons doesn't come from the FAA, but rather the FCC. 250 cell phones hopping cell towers during critical phases of flight while they're still in reception range doesn't exactly do great things to a cell network.

Ah, yes. I remember reading that before, too. Probably covers the cell phone bit, but I stick by my story on laptops, kindles, etc.

 

[HokiePilot]

Remember many airlines now have WiFi in flight at cruising altitude. They are clearly not worried about interference in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands.

 

[sodajones]

Remember many airlines now have WiFi in flight at cruising altitude. They are clearly not worried about interference in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands.

 

[Flash]

Don't pilots use iPads with great frequency now?

With the WiFi turned off.

 

[HokiePilot]

Yes, but the iPads are now used for flight reference the whole flight. If the flight crew can have one on a few feet away from the instruments during an actual IMC approach, what will a few passengers with them in the back do?

The whole answer regarding this discussion if the FAA is a slow, bureaucratic institution. Like any bureaucratic they are adverse to risk. They can always say no and have no incentive to say yes. A few concentrated, large organizations with something to gain (the airlines) are more likely to get what they want than a large, unorganized, low density group. How many people are going to ask their congressmen about their stance on the FAA's mobile device policy before the election?