FAA to lift mobile shut-down rule

airdale said:
The FCC regulates cell phones, not the FAA. IIRC the FAA activity is dealing with pretty much everything except cell phones.
Click to expand...

The FAA regulates all airborne electronic devices. The rule for that hasn't changed in the thirty years I've been flying. There's been some "non-regulatory" guidance that the FAA has given the carriers over the years as far as how to interpret the reg, and that in fact is all that's really on the table now.

The only FCC reg on cellphones in aircraft is also by and large obsolete. It covers only those services licensed under Part 22 subpart H the original analog (AMPS) cell phone rule. Stuff licensed under PCS or other services (while it quacks like a cell phone) aren't subject to that section and no other section has any prohibition on airborne use. The main impeteus on that by the way is not that it has any bearing on the aircraft but it messed up the old analog cell system royally. The rule was pretty much lost on the common man. The only real mandate it had was that cell phones installed in aircraft had the "not to be used in the air" placard put on them.
 
flyingron said:
The FAA regulates all airborne electronic devices. The rule for that hasn't changed in the thirty years I've been flying. There's been some "non-regulatory" guidance that the FAA has given the carriers over the years as far as how to interpret the reg, and that in fact is all that's really on the table now.

The only FCC reg on cellphones in aircraft is also by and large obsolete. It covers only those services licensed under Part 22 subpart H the original analog (AMPS) cell phone rule. Stuff licensed under PCS or other services (while it quacks like a cell phone) aren't subject to that section and no other section has any prohibition on airborne use. The main impeteus on that by the way is not that it has any bearing on the aircraft but it messed up the old analog cell system royally. The rule was pretty much lost on the common man. The only real mandate it had was that cell phones installed in aircraft had the "not to be used in the air" placard put on them.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and look at the specs of your modern iPhone 5s...it still uses 800 MHz as one of it's transmission bands. Every cell phone and data card out there uses that band, and there is no way to tell it not to.
 
JeffDG said:
Go ahead and look at the specs of your modern iPhone 5s...it still uses 800 MHz as one of it's transmission bands. Every cell phone and data card out there uses that band, and there is no way to tell it not to.
Click to expand...

The difference is HOW it uses that band, the frequency is not the determinant factor. No one anymore to my knowledge uses AMPS.
 
Without getting into this too deeply, suffice to say that I know the FAA's chief scientist on EMC and he is on the committee. Whatever they come up with will likely be well considered and researched. I'd like to have my Bose QC15s turned on from the git-go. Heck, they're analog and absolutely not an issue (and, yes, I know some of the EMC folks at Bose, too). However, under the current handling of the rules by the airlines, they have an on-off switch, so they must be off during taxi, takeoff and landing. It will be nice to have that go away. And being able to stop reading on my Nexus 7 when I want to would be nice. Otherwise, this really is a big to-do about nothing. Get a life.
 
John221us said:
They are going to allow electronic devices below 10,000 now (no radio).

http://www.zdnet.com/faa-to-lift-mobile-shut-down-rule-7000021045/?s_cid=e550&ttag=e550
Click to expand...

That article has a link to a New York Times story that has more information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/technology/faa-nears-new-rules-on-devices.html?_r=0

Excerpt:

"Instead of testing devices, the F.A.A. will ask that the airlines certify that their planes can tolerate interferences — something they have done when installing Wi-Fi on board, for instance."​

I find myself wondering if the airlines will be willing to take on the responsibility (and liability?) of certifying that their avionics can tolerate interference from thousands of different types of devices. When Delta petitioned the FAA on this subject, they asked that the agency make the determination.
 
Ghery said:
Without getting into this too deeply, suffice to say that I know the FAA's chief scientist on EMC and he is on the committee. Whatever they come up with will likely be well considered and researched. I'd like to have my Bose QC15s turned on from the git-go. Heck, they're analog and absolutely not an issue (and, yes, I know some of the EMC folks at Bose, too). However, under the current handling of the rules by the airlines, they have an on-off switch, so they must be off during taxi, takeoff and landing. It will be nice to have that go away. And being able to stop reading on my Nexus 7 when I want to would be nice. Otherwise, this really is a big to-do about nothing. Get a life.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have changed your opinion on this subject.
 
JeffDG said:
Go ahead and look at the specs of your modern iPhone 5s...it still uses 800 MHz as one of it's transmission bands. Every cell phone and data card out there uses that band, and there is no way to tell it not to.
Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise? I am quite aware of how mobile phone technology works.
 
For me, it's really just a matter of being constantly amazed at how addicted a lot of people have become to constant stimulation. Even at the dentist's office, they now have TV monitors at every chair. They have remotes so you can channel surf while getting your teeth drilled and filled.

The first thing I do when I sit down is turn the blasted thing off. I find the mindless claptrap on daytime TV to be far more vexatious than any dental work I've ever had. The sound of the dentist's drill is comforting compared to the mind-numbing twaddle emanating from the screen.

-Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
It sounds like you have changed your opinion on this subject.
Click to expand...

No, I still worry about interference to nav/comm equipment. As long as cell phones are banned in flight I think we'll have the vast majority of those problems taken care of. Heck, I've used WiFi in flight. Back in the days of the Boeing Connextion (sp?) offering. Middle of the Pacific on a SG flight. They didn't fall out of the air, but the EMC testing had been done. Ask Scott Migaldi about his reaction when I posted to PoA from FL350 over the middle of the ocean. :D

I want cell phone banned in flight because of a specific EMI issue I learned about last year (and posted here) plus I DO NOT want to be stuck next to a long play salesman on a transcon flight. No, I do not want that. The rest of the stuff isn't likely to cause hate and discontent and I'll bet they back off on it. Fine with me.
 
The smartphone/tablet on an airplane is a modern day newspaper... just with every newspaper in the world, up to the minute weather, video, most of the knowledge of the human race, and far better crossword puzzles built into something easy to carry.

And yeah a few people out there talk on their phones at inappropriate times. But most of us just use text messages now most of the time. Personally I don't know why you'd want to talk on the phone with a bunch of strangers around listening to your conversation but I guess some just don't care.
 
cowman said:
The smartphone/tablet on an airplane is a modern day newspaper... just with every newspaper in the world, up to the minute weather, video, most of the knowledge of the human race, and far better crossword puzzles built into something easy to carry.

And yeah a few people out there talk on their phones at inappropriate times. But most of us just use text messages now most of the time. Personally I don't know why you'd want to talk on the phone with a bunch of strangers around listening to your conversation but I guess some just don't care.
Click to expand...

My job requires that I be available as much as possible - as such, I usually don't turn my phone off or put it in airplane mode until I've lost signal. I don't generally answer phone calls unless it is an emergency situation, but I will answer emails and text messages as long as I can.

For us, every second of downtime for our systems costs the company a LOT of money. As such, my time is very valuable, so sitting on an airplane without any connectivity can be dangerous. Sure, I delegate when I'm away, but at the end of the day, I know my systems and vendors better than anyone, and I'd really rather not have someone else work it if I could have done it myself.
 
Henning said:
The difference is HOW it uses that band, the frequency is not the determinant factor. No one anymore to my knowledge uses AMPS.
Click to expand...

The FCC regulations cover the band, and they still clearly prohibit the use of 800 MHz while airborne.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, the nice thing is when I'm in a different part of the world including the middle of the ocean, as long as I have a wifi connection, my phone number operates with no roaming charges. I just wish my folks had Skype, I can't get my mom to touch a computer or iPad or even a smart phone, and dad's not up to dealing with any of it anymore.:(
Click to expand...

Will your folks touch a phone handset? Remove the complexity, yet get then on Skype:

http://shop.skype.com/phones/#/cate...ce_range=~75|75~150|150~225|225~&page=1&mac=0
 
Ghery said:
No, I still worry about interference to nav/comm equipment. As long as cell phones are banned in flight I think we'll have the vast majority of those problems taken care of. Heck, I've used WiFi in flight. Back in the days of the Boeing Connextion (sp?) offering. Middle of the Pacific on a SG flight. They didn't fall out of the air, but the EMC testing had been done. Ask Scott Migaldi about his reaction when I posted to PoA from FL350 over the middle of the ocean. :D

I want cell phone banned in flight because of a specific EMI issue I learned about last year (and posted here) plus I DO NOT want to be stuck next to a long play salesman on a transcon flight. No, I do not want that. The rest of the stuff isn't likely to cause hate and discontent and I'll bet they back off on it. Fine with me.
Click to expand...

If spurious emissions from unintentional transmitters on a flight ever interfered with avionics sufficiently to cause an accident, do you feel that we have the means to find out that that was the cause?

Another concern I have is that I have no idea how the flight attendants would be able to police whether all the different makes and models of PEDs on board were in a non-transmit mode. It seems like that would require an impractical level of training on an on-going basis.
 
Palmpilot said:
If spurious emissions from unintentional transmitters on a flight ever interfered with avionics sufficiently to cause an accident, do you feel that we have the means to find out that that was the cause?

Another concern I have is that I have no idea how the flight attendants would be able to police whether all the different makes and models of PEDs on board were in a non-transmit mode. It seems like that would require an impractical level of training on an on-going basis.
Click to expand...

Considering how the NTSB operates, very likely, especially if it's a modern plane.
 
Palmpilot said:
If spurious emissions from unintentional transmitters on a flight ever interfered with avionics sufficiently to cause an accident, do you feel that we have the means to find out that that was the cause?

Another concern I have is that I have no idea how the flight attendants would be able to police whether all the different makes and models of PEDs on board were in a non-transmit mode. It seems like that would require an impractical level of training on an on-going basis.
Click to expand...

The specific example I refer to was duplicated in the laboratory after interference to the GSP was noted in flight test. Duplicated with every sample of the specific mobile phone they could obtain for the test. So, for that one, case solved. Solution - ban mobile phone use in flight.

For your concern in the second paragraph, I couldn't agree more.
 
According to CNN just now, the FAA is going to allow it. It just said "Breaking News" and no detail was available.
 
Ron Levy said:
Here's the article. Gonna be a bit before the paperwork's complete.
Click to expand...

And a while until each airline checks their planes to ensure that they won't have problems. I've got a trip on Saturday and I'll bet United doesn't say "go for it". :D
 
They are saying by the end of the year, many will do it. I have been flying commercial almost weekly, so it will be welcome for me. It is a pain to shut everything down and then fire it back up, plus I usually bring an extra magazine for below 10,000. I fly Southwest mostly, with some United thrown in. Most of Southwest's flights have Wifi, so maybe that will help, since they are also newer planes.
 
SkyHog said:
My job requires that I be available as much as possible - as such, I usually don't turn my phone off or put it in airplane mode until I've lost signal. I don't generally answer phone calls unless it is an emergency situation, but I will answer emails and text messages as long as I can.

For us, every second of downtime for our systems costs the company a LOT of money. As such, my time is very valuable, so sitting on an airplane without any connectivity can be dangerous. Sure, I delegate when I'm away, but at the end of the day, I know my systems and vendors better than anyone, and I'd really rather not have someone else work it if I could have done it myself.
Click to expand...


Thats why you buy the new cirrus with the sat phone. your connectivity issues will be solved. and the value/cost of your company probably offset the 800,000 price tag. :yes::yes::yes:
 
SkyHog said:
My job requires that I be available as much as possible - as such, I usually don't turn my phone off or put it in airplane mode until I've lost signal. I don't generally answer phone calls unless it is an emergency situation, but I will answer emails and text messages as long as I can.

For us, every second of downtime for our systems costs the company a LOT of money. As such, my time is very valuable, so sitting on an airplane without any connectivity can be dangerous. Sure, I delegate when I'm away, but at the end of the day, I know my systems and vendors better than anyone, and I'd really rather not have someone else work it if I could have done it myself.
Click to expand...

BOFH syndrome. You're utterly replaceable. Trust me on this one.

Hire another guy or two you trust and get a life.

I'm about to go 100% on call because the other Linux Engineer turned in his two week notice. I'm not looking forward to it.

The company will gladly lay you or I off if it means saving some exec's beach house. I promise. I don't care how much you make or how brilliant you are. There were complex critical systems I maintained by myself at one past place that I never had time to document.

It took the next guy a week to figure then out when they went back to hiring after dumping. 4/5ths of the employees in a single layoff. Years of design and building and the replacement figured it out in five business days.

It's easy to replace IT folks. Even if you wrote the code and didn't document it. Easy.
 
Skywest allows phone use now. They just ask to see that it is in airplane mode.
 
Henning said:
The difference is HOW it uses that band, the frequency is not the determinant factor. No one anymore to my knowledge uses AMPS.
Click to expand...
The frequency has been and remains the determining factor. FCC Part 22 only covers the 800MHz band and that is where the original FCC prohibition against airborne use of cellular appears. In the US the 1900MHz band is covered by FCC Part 24 and it contains no such prohibition.

The use of electronic devices in a non-cellular mode is not covered by either of these regulations. I believe that there is an FAA FAR about those, but the FCC tends to shy away from blanket rules.

FWIW both of these parts of FCC rules are way out of date for cellular. A couple of days ago I was talking to the FCC and they will try once again to update the rules. But frankly there is no interest in doing so by the industry. The really higher ups at FCC aka the commissioners also have no interest in doing an update. The only interest is from the engineering staff who want more concise regulatory language in their rules. I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon. But if it does move to some sort of re-write. I am sure I will be in the middle of it as I helped write both Part 22 and 24 many years ago.
 
The FCC changed from an engineering based organization to a political one in my lifetime. Sad to see.
 
A non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Just turn off your dang devices. You can live without them for, what, 30 minutes?
 
I'm wondering how long it will take to see whether there is an increase in unexplained anomalies in the operation of avionics or aircraft systems.
 
After reading this, I remembered an old Mythbusters episode where they tested this. Looked it up and watched it...

Now, knowing something about the avionics they tested and rules they're talking about, watching it was painful.
 
cowman said:
After reading this, I remembered an old Mythbusters episode where they tested this. Looked it up and watched it...

Now, knowing something about the avionics they tested and rules they're talking about, watching it was painful.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem so bad to me. What errors particularly bothered you??
 
ScottM said:
You are much older than I thought. It became a political organization at 00:00:01 Eastern Time on 19 Jun 1934.
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl:

Try "they stopped looking at engineering skill as a requirement to serve on the Commission, instead focusing on who's political friend's technology would be approved". ;)
 
denverpilot said:
:rofl: :rofl:

Try "they stopped looking at engineering skill as a requirement to serve on the Commission, instead focusing on who's political friend's technology would be approved". ;)
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a time when there was an engineer on the commission, not just staff?
 
New Commish made political hay with the announcement again today I see.

I welcome hoardes of inane idiots talking on cells on airliners. It'll continue their path toward bums peeing in the corners and catering to the lowest common denominator like all the "best" examples of public transit, and spur on GA growth!! ;)

Heh heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top