# FAA: Airplane Passengers Can Safely Use Electronic Devices During All



## jebr (Oct 31, 2013)

> If all things go as planned, this year's holiday fliers won't have to turn off their smartphones at any point during their trip. The Federal Aviation Administration announced today that airlines can safely allow passengers to use portable electronic devices during all phases of flight. But first the competing companies must each submit plans to the government department detailing their plans to manage the electronics, and policies could potentially vary among each airline.


More: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/10/31/faa-airplane-passengers-can-safely-use-electronic-devices-during-all-phases-of-flight-including-takeoff-and-landing/

and http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15254&cid=TW189


----------



## jis (Oct 31, 2013)

Just to clarify, only in Airplane Mode.

The bit about using cell phones in non-Airline Mode while in flight is something that FAA alone does not regulate. That is primarily an FCC thing, and actually there is some technical basis for that prohibition since the cell system is not designed to handle such usage.

There are airlines that are exploring ways to set up micro-cells on their planes to allow such usage, but that is a separate matter.


----------



## jebr (Oct 31, 2013)

jis said:


> Just to clarify, only in Airplane Mode.
> 
> The bit about using cell phones in non-Airline Mode while in flight is something that FAA alone does not regulate. That is primarily an FCC thing, and actually there is some technical basis for that prohibition since the cell system is not designed to handle such usage.
> 
> There are airlines that are exploring ways to set up micro-cells on their planes to allow such usage, but that is a separate matter.


This is correct. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth can be used, but not cellular signals/data/calling.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 31, 2013)

Several factors to consider w.r.t. cellphones:

1. Transmit power is much higher than Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.

2. Mobile networks were not meant to have intercell handoffs at 500 mph.

3. In much of the country, cellphone coverage is limited to a mile or two either side of a major highway. In other words, network coverage is sparse.

4. Base station antennas are deliberately not designed to radiate upwards.

And sitting next to someone on the phone would make me go nuts. I'm happy for the FCC to continue to ban them in-flight.


----------



## brentrain17 (Oct 31, 2013)

So what does this do about Amtrak?


----------



## jis (Oct 31, 2013)

brentrain17 said:


> So what does this do about Amtrak?


Nothing. That is why it is posted under "Non-Rail Transport" in case you did not notice. If you are not interested in Non-Rail Transport you can simply avoid looking at anything under this group.


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 31, 2013)

You don't honestly expect people will actually put their phones in "airplane mode", do you?


----------



## jis (Oct 31, 2013)

fairviewroad said:


> You don't honestly expect people will actually put their phones in "airplane mode", do you?


I do it all the time, to use it as an iPod, and I know many others do. Of course there will be some who out of carelessness may not, like even now there are some who put their cellphones in the overhead without switching them off.

What I normally do is put the phone in Airplane mode before switching it off for takeoff, so that when I switch it on above FL 100 it comes up with Airplane mode and I can happily proceed to listen to music. Now I will simply be able to forgo the switching off thing, and be able to use my Bose QC 10 through takeoff and landing.


----------



## jebr (Oct 31, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> And sitting next to someone on the phone would make me go nuts. I'm happy for the FCC to continue to ban them in-flight.


A call could still be made over VoIP on Wi-Fi, assuming the airline does not block that traffic. (Many will, but there's usually ways around that.)


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 31, 2013)

I set mine to airplane mode too. I was taking photos with my phone when the FA came around to check our arm rests and seat belts, and she (politely) asked me to shut my phone off. I showed her I had it in airplane mode, and she let me continue to take photos and video while listening to music. Once we were in the air, I was able to access Virgin's wi-fi.


----------



## jis (Oct 31, 2013)

jebr said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > And sitting next to someone on the phone would make me go nuts. I'm happy for the FCC to continue to ban them in-flight.
> ...


Right. It is important to understand that FCC has no specific opinion about the obnoxiousness of people yapping on phones. They restrict cell technology usage purely due to technical reasons. Similarly airlines may try to block VoiP (or any streaming) use due to bandwidth issues on the uplink, not because they have an opinion about people yapping on the phone. 

The fact that this issue is now settled means that one will not have to ostensibly do sneaky things to use your camera/video camera during takeoff and landing. It is not like half the world did not already use them anyway as they saw fit.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 31, 2013)

At least one of the on-board providers does, in fact, block VoIP including Skype. This starts a cat-and-mouse game. But the reality is that on-board connectivity often has too much jitter and packet loss for VoIP to be useful.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 31, 2013)

I bring a camera on each flight but I'm nervous to use it during takeoff and landing because the crew says to turn off all electronic devices. Is it OK?


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 31, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I bring a camera on each flight but I'm nervous to use it during takeoff and landing because the crew says to turn off all electronic devices. Is it OK?


It will be once all the details of the rule are worked out.


----------



## railiner (Oct 31, 2013)

I suppose that radio/television receivers, including scanners, would still be banned at all times, as they potentially could interfere with aircraft nav/com due to their superhet circuits that do generate some RF energy......

And I also wonder if handheld GPS receivers would be included in that....

I would love to monitor the cockpit inflight. I believe UAL still allows listening to some ATC during takeoff and landing on a video channel, with Captain's discretion....


----------



## jis (Oct 31, 2013)

Handheld GPS has been allowed on United for at least 15 years now. I have used one on trans-Pacific flight attached to my laptop displaying a large moving map while the Captain (off duty) was sitting next to me. This was in First Class on a 747-400.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 31, 2013)

railiner said:


> I suppose that radio/television receivers, including scanners, would still be banned at all times, as they potentially could interfere with aircraft nav/com due to their superhet circuits that do generate some RF energy......
> 
> And I also wonder if handheld GPS receivers would be included in that....
> 
> I would love to monitor the cockpit inflight. I believe UAL still allows listening to some ATC during takeoff and landing on a video channel, with Captain's discretion....


Yep, Channel 9. On my past two United flights, the Captains both allowed Channel 9, which was interesting to hear during takeoff and landing. However, still boring in the bulk of the flight.

I used to whine about United, but I guess they're not so bad. I had to fly that time because it was overwater.


----------



## PerRock (Nov 1, 2013)

I was flying last week and never turned off my devices (even though AA said I had to, just stuck 'em in Airplane mode). On one of the flights, the Attendant making the announcement said something interesting. They announced over the PA how many devices were turned on still. Now I'm not fully familiar with airline technology (although more then the average Joe) but I don't believe there is any way he would have known that. I figure it was just a number he pulled out of a hat (happened to be 9). But does anyone know if there is such technology?

peter


----------



## Ryan (Nov 1, 2013)

No. Completely made up.

I love Channel 9 on United. Hoping that we have it on our trip at Christmas.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2013)

Technically it is possible to detect precise number and protocol type of each device, well actually each transmitter. They would require special equipment to detect and count devices. The information is available, blowing in the wind, in a manner of speaking.

An example of such a device is http://www.cellbusters.com/cell_phone_detector_zone_protector/?gclid=CMv50prSw7oCFUyk4Aod6GgAYA

We have used such devices to sweep rooms where confidential meetings covered by CDA requiring no transmitting devices be present, are held.

As for whether AA or any airline installs such in their planes, I have no clue.

OTOH there are small pocket devices like this one:

http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/cell-phone-detector-with-white-noise.html?utm_source=cell-phone-detector-with-white-noise&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=Google_Products&gclid=CKvg0JbTw7oCFY6Z4AodTHsA8w

available too, and are quite affordable, though not as precise and as capable as the more professional stuff.

Some of these small hand-held units are so cheap that it is quite conceivable that a pilot carries one in his pocket just for the fun of it. So I would not rule out them knowing close to an actual number just out of hand.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm not sure how a pilot would be able to tell if his gadget was detecting the cell phone of the person sitting 25' behind him as opposed to the cell phones of all the people standing at the gate 25' in front of him.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2013)

With a sufficiently capable device (even of the pocket variety) one can actually get a pretty good idea of the direction and with a little extra footwork a rough estimate of the distance to the device too typically using relative signal strength information from two points. The Physics is pretty straightforward and the level of sophistication needed in the detector is really not that much.

I think the issue really is whether someone would bother carrying such a device around. Not if it can be done. It certainly can be done with a great deal of precision if one cares.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 1, 2013)

jis said:


> Handheld GPS has been allowed on United for at least 15 years now. I have used one on trans-Pacific flight attached to my laptop displaying a large moving map while the Captain (off duty) was sitting next to me. This was in First Class on a 747-400.


Handheld GPS has been allowed above 10,000 feet for quite a while on some airlines. I'm surprised about the 15 year claim on United, simply because it predates 9-11 and we all know how much personal liberties were being targeted for further restrictions during that time. You can generally push the boundaries of what's allowed in international first class cabins much further than you can in coach, so perhaps that may have played a role.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> Yep, Channel 9. On my past two United flights, the Captains both allowed Channel 9, which was interesting to hear during takeoff and landing.


These days most of my United flights out of my hometown are on tiny little regional jets with no Channel 9, no legroom, and no serivce to speak of. It's also nearly impossible for a tall person to use their tiny little restrooms, even on flights that can run as long as four hours each. It's a bit of a mess really and as of February United is splitting their partner awards into an entirely separate chart that apparently run 47%-87% more above the current levels for premium cabins. I don't have a lot of points directly with United but I do have a lot of points with Chase's Ultimate Rewards, of which United is a core transfer option.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2013)

No it had nothing to do with first class. It was well documented in Hemispheres Magazine even back then.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 1, 2013)

jis said:


> No it had nothing to do with first class. It was well documented in Hemispheres Magazine even back then.


I don't doubt that it was true 15 years ago. I don't doubt that it's true today. I'd just be surprised if it was true for 15 continuous years without deviation. In the period immediately following the 9-11 attacks it was anything but business as usual. Random hunches and assumptions became "rules" and "laws" seemingly overnight and weren't relaxed until years later. It was very different period when an approved device was whatever the staff said it was. In many cases that's still true today. Having a magazine saying otherwise is only useful if you have a crew willing to read it. The off duty captains aren't the ones you have to prove anything to, it's the technologically clueless flight attendants on a power trip that you have to worry about. Back in coach they don't take kindly to contradiction.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 3, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, Channel 9. On my past two United flights, the Captains both allowed Channel 9, which was interesting to hear during takeoff and landing.
> ...


I do agree about the RJs. They have very poor legroom, hard seats, terrible stability, and tiny restrooms. I fly mainline whenever possible and if not, I ride to the nearest major airport for a cheaper and more comfortable flight. Works well so far. I won't comment about the mileage because I'm not a heavy Mileage Plus member.

You could just ride to IAH or DFW to get a better flight. Of course that dosen't work if you don't have much time.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 3, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> You could just ride to IAD or DFW to get a better flight. Of course that dosen't work if you don't have much time.


That'd be one hell of a long ride from Texas to Virginia.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 4, 2013)

RyanS said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > You could just ride to IAD or DFW to get a better flight. Of course that dosen't work if you don't have much time.
> ...


Uh, I meant IAH. A United hub, ex-Continental.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 5, 2013)

Delta, JetBlue and American have received approval to allow passengers to use their devices "gate to gate."

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/11/05/thanksgiving-travel-airlines-now-boarding-personal-electronics/


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 7, 2013)

Interesting point about what is, and what is not, a handheld device.

Airlines implement gate-to-gate handheld device rules faster than expected


> United and American have joined Delta and Jet Blue in permitting gate-to-gate use of portable electronic devices, following the FAA ruling making it legal to do so....
> 
> There has still been no clarification on what constitutes a ‘handheld’ device, but airlines so far appear to be saying yes to tablets and ebook readers and no to laptops. With many tablet and Bluetooth keyboard combos being visually indistinguishable from ultrabooks to non-technical cabin crews, we shall watch with interest to see how the rules are enforced.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 7, 2013)

I have always felt that if there was any reality to turn off your electronics there was something that needed serious fixing with the airline/FAA communication system because that would indicate they were way too sensitive to interferences which could well be from other sources than in the plane electronics.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 7, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Delta, JetBlue and American have received approval to allow passengers to use their devices "gate to gate."
> 
> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/11/05/thanksgiving-travel-airlines-now-boarding-personal-electronics/


United got the go ahead yesterday, and US Airways joined the party today (11/7).


----------



## saxman (Nov 8, 2013)

If you don't put your device in airplane mode, your battery will be pretty low by the time you land. May as well put it in safe mode. Sometimes, there is interference with the aircraft radios when a cell phone is still on. You ever get your phone next to a speaker on your tv or radio? That's exactly what is heard in the headsets. Doesn't seem to happen very often though.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 8, 2013)

Cell phone interference is mainly an issue with smaller regional aircraft, at least from my understanding, but it most certainly does happen.

I tend to just leave my phone on airplane mode but without turning it off completely.

As for the handheld vs. laptop there's more than the obvious differences to consider.

First, the device has to make it easy and obvious to monitor and turn off individual antennas, which many laptops do not bother with.

Second, the device should still be light enough that it won't kill someone if there's a sudden movement that causes it to go flying.

That's partly why things like magazines and newspapers have been allowed at all stages for a long time now.

I can see someone surviving a hit from a lightweight single purpose e-book reader, but maybe not laptop or an iPad.

There has also been rather little research into radiation levels experienced from the signals of a hundred personal phones bouncing around inside an enclosed tube, but early evidence is that it vastly exceeds regulatory maximums allowed for any single device.

If a given reading is high enough to be harmful from one source then presumably it could also be harmful from a hundred different sources.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 8, 2013)

Silly-sounding question, but I wonder how bad the effect from lots of devices on a train is?

As to books...somehow, I think a well-aimed hit from War and Piece Peace might do more damage than you give it credit for.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 8, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Silly-sounding question, but I wonder how bad the effect from lots of devices on a train is?


I'm not aware of any issue with personal sized consumer devices causing interference for railroad communications when operated in the usual and legal fashion. If you're referring to the potential for increased radiation I would presume it's less of an issue than on an airplane due much larger windows with far fewer passengers per equivalent area. Although the actual potential for harm doesn't appear to be well understood at this time so who knows.



Anderson said:


> As to books...somehow, I think a well-aimed hit from War and Piece Peace might do more damage than you give it credit for.


Indeed.

However, we're also dealing with a numbers game on some level.

Number of electronic devices seen on aircraft I've flown: 10,000

Number of War & Peace books seen on aircraft I've flown: 1


----------



## railiner (Nov 9, 2013)

On an airliner flying at higher altitudes, I think gamma ray radiation may pose more of a health issue than RF energy from cell phones, et al.....


----------

