PDA

View Full Version : What Alec Baldwin doesn’t know about air travel


TightSlot
13th Dec 2011, 12:12
I'm aware that this is something of an old chestnut on PPRuNe but the issue seems to have raised its' head from under the rock once more (nothing quite as much fun as a good mixed metaphor).

I thought that this article (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/what_alec_baldwin_doesnt_know_about_air_travel/) was rather good, but then it is written by a pilot, and my outlook tends to be in that direction - wondered what you all thought?

Ancient Observer
13th Dec 2011, 12:34
There was a quote in the Times from someone, who had spoken to someone else, who may or may not have been an expert. (Says a lot about to-day's reporting standards).
In essence, there was a "one in a million" chance that such a device would impact critical Aviation systems.

I hope that Baldwin is on the flight when that interference takes place.

Billions of passenger kilometres are travelled, and the last estimate that I saw said that there were 90,000 commercial flights per day, worldwide, with 30,000 per day in the USA.

So, in approx 10 days, the one in a million problem will arise at least once.

Bealzebub
13th Dec 2011, 13:58
Everyday that I go to work, I walk around the outside of the aircraft. That walkaround is essentially to check that all the various bits of the airplane are where they are supposed to be. Many of those "bits" are radio aerials. Some look like sharks fins, some are round, some are flat. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes on the various parts of the fuselage and empannages. However they are all carefully built into the physical and electrical structure of the aircraft, so that they work efficiently, and also so that they don't interfere with each other.

Once the passengers board, another 300 odd radio aerials are much less precisely introduced. Given the "cage effect" of an aircraft fuselage, those little radio boxes usually need to up their reception and transmission strength in order to overcome the "cage" obstruction.

Many is the time, when we have to deal with electrical glitches that may or may not be contributed to by the operation of these devices, so for the sake of this one illustration, let's ignore them.

One thing that these phones do without any doubt, is cause interference to the aircrafts radios. That interference manifests itself in a way that is obvious and will be familiar to anybody who has ever tried speaking on a landline telephone with a cellphone placed nearby, or nearby the wiring.

That DA.DA.DA.DA acquisition signal that makes communication difficult, and is solved by moving the cellphone away. When that happens in the pilots headphones (as it regularly does) it can and sometimes does, result in mis-heard and blocked communications. That really is something that is not good. Communication degradation can be a frequent nuisance from other sources as well, but this is one that can be largely eliminated if the laid down rules are properly complied with.

The worst disaster in civil aviation history (los Rodeos 1977,) was in significant part down to communication failure, including hetrodynes that blocked out ATC communications. People often get excited about Ipads taking over sophisticated electronic control systems. In truth the real threat is much more mundane, and one that anyone can experience for themselves, just by leaving their iphone next to their bedside landline tonight.

radeng
13th Dec 2011, 14:37
Beelzebub

As a professional radio engineer who has produced EMC standards and equipment that had to meet them, in my opinion, those who use/fail to switch off cellphones, ipads, wifi etc when told not to are dangerous bloody fools who shouldn't be allowed on an aeroplane.

The only devices that can have radio transmitters in them that can't be switched off are pacemakers and hearing aids. In both cases, the level of the radiation is about 1/10,000 of a cellphone or WiFi - which is why they are acceptable.

EEngr
13th Dec 2011, 15:44
I'm sitting here in my favorite coffee shop, reading PPRuNe, listening to a small pocket FM radio. Its a pretty good radio, sensitive but still selective and I'm getting great reception from a local FM station.

Then this guy walks in the door (about 20 ft from me) with a laptop bag slung over his shoulder. Suddenly, the station is nearly buried in static. I know its not objective data, but I'd hate to have to contend with something like this if I were attempting to contact ATC (VHF comms aren't that far from the commercial FM band).

edi_local
13th Dec 2011, 18:27
Some people clearly think it's all :mad: and that it doesn't interfere with anything. They probably read it in a magazine or in the Mail and think that these outlets have more knowledge or authority than a fully trained and certified air crew.

Short of outright banning phones from aircraft cabins (which itself would not be that easy to enforce) there is nothing that can really be done to stop the idiots who think they are above the safety of others.

Perhaps mentioning it in the in flight safety video with graphics of how they interfere might get some peoples attentions, or indeed playing that "da, darra, dar, darra, da" noise loudly into the cabin to demonstrate what phones can do the pilots systems might be more effective, but then there's always that all important "should be in the car park in 10 minutes" text to be sent. :=

grounded27
13th Dec 2011, 18:35
It is simply the unknown and threat of RF interference. The chance of an electrical device interfering with the avionics is very low but we operate on the side of caution.

Di_Vosh
14th Dec 2011, 10:39
I'm a Dash8 FO and whenever we hear the "Da.da. etc" we check our own phones. Nearly every time it is either the Captains, mine or one of the FA's who've left their phone on in the forward wardrobe.

If a pax has their phone on, we wont hear it in our headphones unless they're in row 1 or 2.

Hotel Tango
14th Dec 2011, 11:00
Perhaps mentioning it in the in flight safety video with graphics of how they interfere might get some peoples attentions

The fact that they don't, and that very little additional emphasis is ever made, leads me to believe that it's not the problem some people want us to believe it is. Having said that I'm FULLY in favour of mobile phones being switched off for the entire duration of the flight so that I don't get arrested at destination for ramming one down a fellow passenger's throat!

Smoketrails
14th Dec 2011, 11:33
But what about me? I can switch my phone to fly-mode but love using my hi-quality camera on my phone to record take offs and landings!?

easyflyer83
14th Dec 2011, 11:41
Thats ok in flight but for take off and landing most airlines operate a blanket ban on electronics.

TightSlot
14th Dec 2011, 12:10
But what about me? I can switch my phone to fly-mode but love using my hi-quality camera on my phone to record take offs and landings!?
... pretty much what Alec Baldwin appears to believe it would seem. Rules are for other people?

dClbydalpha
14th Dec 2011, 12:47
I'm with Radeng on this. The rules are there for a reason.
In addition to all those antennas, there is also the simple fact that all electronic devices have a series of characteristic frequencies, based on the various electronic switching frequencies inside them. As the world relies on relatively few chipset manufacturers, the chances are that the emissions from one device will match the susceptibility characteristics of another. Not to mention various noisey motors etc. The emitted signals are incredibly low power, and techniques such as shielding, filtering and segregation are used to minimise the risk. Ultimately though, as aircraft equipment is very sensitive and there are so many routes for the interference to inject itself, the risk is there, and in practice is unmeasurable.

As far as I am aware, no-one who has any knowledge of the subject has ever said that the aircraft will roll over and dive into the sea because of interference. What it can do is cause glitches, mis-leading information etc. that can cause the pilots distraction. Therefore during the high workload phases of flight it has been chosen to minimise the risk by removing the potential source of interference. This seems reasonable to me.

As for the rules, they are the rules. I carry a laptop with me. It is designed, and regularly tested, so that it does not produce interfering emissions when operating (well as long as the wireless connection is switched off). I know for a fact that this item will not interfere with the aircraft at any time, but when on a commercial flight I switch it off during take off and landing, as I am instructed to do. It is the rule, and I do not expect an exception. Unless you are an expert in EMC, and an expert in that aircraft's systems and susceptibility levels, then you cannot say anything with any certainty, so shut off and put up with it.

There, it's good to get that off my chest.

grounded27
14th Dec 2011, 17:29
I'm with Radeng on this. The rules are there for a reason.
In addition to all those antennas, there is also the simple fact that all electronic devices have a series of characteristic frequencies, based on the various electronic switching frequencies inside them. As the world relies on relatively few chipset manufacturers, the chances are that the emissions from one device will match the susceptibility characteristics of another. Not to mention various noisey motors etc. The emitted signals are incredibly low power, and techniques such as shielding, filtering and segregation are used to minimise the risk. Ultimately though, as aircraft equipment is very sensitive and there are so many routes for the interference to inject itself, the risk is there, and in practice is unmeasurable.

As far as I am aware, no-one who has any knowledge of the subject has ever said that the aircraft will roll over and dive into the sea because of interference. What it can do is cause glitches, mis-leading information etc. that can cause the pilots distraction. Therefore during the high workload phases of flight it has been chosen to minimise the risk by removing the potential source of interference. This seems reasonable to me.

As for the rules, they are the rules. I carry a laptop with me. It is designed, and regularly tested, so that it does not produce interfering emissions when operating (well as long as the wireless connection is switched off). I know for a fact that this item will not interfere with the aircraft at any time, but when on a commercial flight I switch it off during take off and landing, as I am instructed to do. It is the rule, and I do not expect an exception. Unless you are an expert in EMC, and an expert in that aircraft's systems and susceptibility levels, then you cannot say anything with any certainty, so shut off and put up with it.

There, it's good to get that off my chest.


Well said sir, the funny thing is I have never seen a pilot abide by these rules!

Bealzebub
14th Dec 2011, 19:31
Really!

I've never seen a pilot not abide by them. What would they be doing with a laptop during take off or landing?

GrahamO
14th Dec 2011, 19:52
So, ignorant question from me.

Hoe come AA pilots can use an iPad in the cockpit, right next to the computers, displays, control systems, flight control safely, but a passenger cannot use it in an area some distance from these allegedly sensitive devices ?

redsnail
14th Dec 2011, 20:29
The screens are in the front, but the computers may not be.

edi_local
14th Dec 2011, 20:58
Presumably the pilots will not be using the iPads during take off and landing and will only refer to them instead of a bulky manual when/if needed.

The iPads will also not be transmitting or receiving any data as they will also presumably have these features switched off, if not removed totally, so will not interfere.

Lord Spandex Masher
14th Dec 2011, 21:19
I recently partook in an iPad for EFB trial.

We are not allowed to use it at all below 10,000' and it must be switched to flight mode and turned off before departure and prior to arrival. The full range of transmitting and receiving capabilities will be kept as they are used for operational purposes.

It's mostly a farce as we quite often need to refer to the manuals, which it is supposed to be replacing, below 10,000'.

PAXboy
14th Dec 2011, 22:58
Time for the FAA, or someone's CAA, to collate a series of audio recordings on the flight deck. They need to monitor the FC r/t for internal and external comms. It will take a while no technical problems.

Then do a good media launch and let pax here: "AB123 this is XYZ, descend to #!!!!!!!# and ????? heading." then "AB123, repeat please?" and so on. Pax behave stupidly = Yes. So educate them.

Nervous SLF
15th Dec 2011, 00:19
I am confused now ( nothing new there then ) but in another thread on PPRuNe
a poster says interference won't happen.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/471687-cockpit-crew-now-allowed-use-ipads-faa.html

stepwilk (http://www.pprune.org/members/208912-stepwilk)

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 703


The one thing that everybody seems to be missing about these electronics-shutdown rules is that they actually have nothing to do with imagined "radio interference." The reason for these rules is that the airlines and the FAA want passengers paying attention, undistracted, able to hear cabin-crew instructions during the crucial phases of flight. They don't want them playing word games, or having earphones clamped on their heads, or making cellphone calls when they should be at least minimally paying attention.

You can argue all you want about whether the stuff needs to stay off till 10,000 feet, or whether sitting at a gate with the door closed counts as "flight," but the whole frequency-interference thing is a red herring.

The airlines would be better off making this point rather than to continue hinting that the electronics "could interfere with avionics," which nobody believes anyway. A few people might at least minimally accept the explanation that they should not be distracted.


So who do I believe as both arguements seem valid.?

PAXboy
15th Dec 2011, 00:47
In this topic, which is a regular in the forum, I have chosen to only believe radeng. Firstly, because he is a RAdioENGineer and secondly, he travels a lot on planes. I take him to be independent of others. Lastly, he always go for the safest option.

One of the problems with humans is that we very easily get lulled into a false sense of security, "It's worked fine for 1 week/year/century - so it'll be fine this time too." Maybe not!

edi_local
15th Dec 2011, 00:48
Time for the FAA, or someone's CAA, to collate a series of audio recordings on the flight deck. They need to monitor the FC r/t for internal and external comms. It will take a while no technical problems.

Then do a good media launch and let pax here: "AB123 this is XYZ, descend to #!!!!!!!# and ????? heading." then "AB123, repeat please?" and so on. Pax behave stupidly = Yes. So educate them.

Good idea in theory except some PAX would probably be encouraged by that and would purposefully sit using mobile phones on board just to cause interference, thinking it's all such a big laugh. The mentality of some people is stunning.

I mean we all know lasers are bad, but it doesn't stop idiots shining them at cockpit windows. We all know you can't take sharps or liquids on planes, but you still get frequent flyers arguing with security personnel who take these things off them. We all told not to stand up and get our bags until the seat belt sign is off, but we still see people getting up on the taxi to the gate to get things, ignoring the CC demands to sit down...and then moaning when they get hurt from sudden braking.

Being unaware of regulations is one thing, but when it comes to commercial aviation too many pax are just ignorant and deliberately flout the rules. :=

PAXboy
15th Dec 2011, 01:07
edi_local = True. The lowest common denominator must take precedence.

notlangley
15th Dec 2011, 04:56
Only a very tiny minority of airline passengers are qualified to fly the plane. However almost all passengers are qualified to drive cars.
Quite honestly I have never ever heard of any car-driver ignoring regulations like speed restrictions or traffic lights.

And in the most unlikely event that there were to be a case of a driver with excessive drink/drugs in him with two passengers in the back who are not wearing safety belts, then the employer of the chauffeur can always say that the fatal crash was deliberately caused by the Secret Service.

dClbydalpha
15th Dec 2011, 08:45
So who do I believe as both arguements seem valid

Both arguments are, at their core, valid.

Can I say that I am currently sat about 6 feet away from a man who has spent the last 15 years of his life ensuring the Electromagnetic Compatibility of airborne equipment. It is a massive job to ensure that equipment that is fitted to an aircraft doesn't interfere with each other, let alone introducing unknown quantities. All electrical/electronic devices emit RF and all are susceptible. All we are talking about are the differences in level and whether the equipment continues to funtion as designed at those levels. If this is all bull, then the aircraft manufacturers are spending a fortune trying to design out something that doesn't happen, not to mention having aircraft carry a large amount of weight in shielding and filters etc. The fact we don't see that many incidents is a tribute to those that practice the art of EMC design. They will be the first to admit that they can't mitigate for everything though. Hence the rule, it is a precaution. Just like fastening your seatbelt, if everything goes to plan then you won't need it. But if it goes wrong it has the potential to go very wrong, so why take the risk?

As for the argument that they want you paying attention during these phases, I absolutely agree with that too. I pay attention as if my life might depend on it, strangely enough it might. Yes, I am that man on the 'plane that gets irritated if you don't put your tray table up, return your seat to the upright position, and my pet hate, leave your laptop on the seat next to you. I get irritated because someone has decided to lower my chances in the incredibly unlikely event of something happening. I think that is just the height of discourtesy. But I also understand that the average person does not understand that an aircraft seat has been designed to provide protection but only under certain conditions. I also understand that the average person doesn't really appreciate the fact that a 5kg laptop, in a 10g crash will seem as if it was 50kg. So i politely ask them to comply with the rules, written by those who do understand.

If the pilot wants to break these rules, well they are in charge I trust them to fly me, I'll trust them to use their I-Pad safely whilst doing it.

radeng
15th Dec 2011, 11:09
The fact that the aircraft is EMC tight when made does not mean that it stays that way as cables move, shielding abrades, and even connectors get some corrosion. A particularly evil case is with avionics bays below galleys or lavatories: without EMC, there can be enough problems - look at the AAIB reports. Add EMC possibilities to the mix and the results are not readily predictable.

The business about lap tops etc flying in the event of a crash - how about a YMMM incidence? - is so obvious. Ironically, it's because air and train travel is comparatively so safe that people are not aware of the possibilities.

Incidentally, what is the maximum decelerating g force that the seats will stand without coming adrift and crushing you?

Ancient Observer
15th Dec 2011, 11:27
notlangley

:D:D:D:D:D

dClbydalpha
15th Dec 2011, 11:33
radeng, from memory I think JAR25 had something like 9g forward, 6g downward and 3g sideways.

Rollingthunder
15th Dec 2011, 19:11
Passengers can check flight schedules on their iPad, check in before the gate, as well as view terminal maps... but so can the cockpit now too.

The Federal Aviation Administration says pilots are now approved to use iPads during all phases of flight starting Friday.

Passengers, however, must still keep theirs on airplane mode.
Approved: The FAA has approved the use of iPads in the cockpits of planes as a means to cut down on paper waste which adds to fuel costs
American pilots last year tested the iPads as a way to replace paper manuals in the cockpit and with their following success have mutually succeeded in reaching the FAA's approval.
According to Seattle Pi, the electronic swap of manuals, maps, and charts into a thin handheld device will save 35 pounds of paper and therefore $1.2 million worth of fuel each year.

'By eliminating bulky flight bags filled with paper, (electronic flight bags) mean less weight for pilots to carry, reducing the possibility of injury on duty,' First Officer Hank Putek, a member of the APA Safety Committee, said in a news release obtained by SeatlePi.

'In addition, they enable pilots to immediately download updates, rather than waiting for paper versions of required documents to be printed and distributed,' Mr Putek said.

Test: American plots have been testing the use of the iPads over paper maps, reports and charts in the cockpit over the last year before getting the FAA's approval
American Airlines will be the first airline in the world to take on the transition starting Friday, according to zdnet.com.

The FAA acknowledges that the iPad is a 'commercial-off-the-shelf electronic hardware that is not approved or certified by the FAA,' according to a released 'Information for Operators' guide.

'However, it can be authorized for use by a principal operations inspector if it meets ... operation specification or management specification...' the FAA further explains.
First: American Airlines flights will be the first to use the iPads on Friday
In addition to going paperless, the iPads were also recently chosen as the designed device to carry a new program offered to pilots called 'Inflight 911 Services.'

This new program is said to establish a 'top-priority connection' between the aircraft personnel and emergency services team through the aircraft's Wi-Fi internet connection, according to InFlight911Services.

'We envision several iPads being available throughout the aircraft from the cockpit through the cabin ready to be used as a source of 'air-to-ground' communication during an in-air emergency,' Joseph Bekanich, a spokesperson for InFlight Labs said in a release.

The FAA reminds however that their operators 'transitioning to a paperless cockpit [will] undergo an evaluation period during which the operator should carry paper backups of the materia

redsnail
15th Dec 2011, 20:42
iPads were approved by the FAA to be used inflight/on the flight deck with EJM (NetJets)

ExXB
16th Dec 2011, 10:14
So, pilots can use their iPads during all flight phases. But I am forbidden to use mine (in flight mode) from the door close to TO +? and from initial descent to door open.

But I can distract myself with newspapers, books, magazines.

IMHO I believe nobody wants to change the rules 'just in case' something might happen and then they would get their nether regions sued by unscrupulous lawyers.

When instructed by the crew I diligently turn off my iPad (actually I put it to sleep by closing the cover) and grin. My better half, on the other hand, shushes me when I tell her to pay attention to the safety announcements and returns to her (bodice-ripping) book.

Mr Optimistic
16th Dec 2011, 13:29
Witnessed a spat on EZY a few weeks ago as someone wanted to keep itunes all the way into Luton. It's only a few minutes at either end so I don't see what there is to get upset about as a passenger. Also probably increases attention and awareness in the unlikely event of..............There was an article in (I think) The Times this weekend which touched on this. Seemed to say that the pilots found the sound of their phones going live again on descent to be rather welcoming: but no texting, OK guys ;)