Seriously, I fly often enough that I've heard that said to someone. The commercial flight ban on electronics started in 1991. Electronics have to be turned off during take-off and landing. After 9/11, some electronics were ok in airplane mode and some were a "no-no" no matter what. We can have certain items legally on after the plane reaches cruising altitude over 10K feet and the pilot comes over the intercom to give the "go". Those certain items are part of the FAA approved list that was actually finally published in 2009. Don't expect any government agency to move fast, right? It includes anything in airplane mode that needs an airplane mode--like our precious cell phones, PDAs--iPads, Tabs and the such, music players and computers. The airlines of course are offering "in air" Wi-Fi, albeit most at an extra cost. The FCC recommended the ban in 1991, but very few of us are probably aware that the FCC has been urging the FAA to get off their perverbial butts and reconsider their rules on electronic devices. In fact, the FCC asked them to re-consider previously, and in 2004, the FAA did "reconsider". It took them until 2007. No changes. So the question then is really how much danger are you in?
One, consider that in the 1990s, cell phones were just becoming a new household commodity. The phones didn't have all the fancy seach equipment for satellite connections and consistently cycling to find the nearest network. No, those phones to our kids today would be little more than walkie-talkies. They were expensive to maintain and most people didn't use them all day, everyday. They certainly didn't do away with their landlines and substitute the cell phone. In the 90s, the FCC recommended ban only extended to devices using the 800 MHz frequency range. Pretty limited range when you consider that your 3G and 4G phones operate at 1710 MHz to 2690 MHz, depending on the phone, network, et cetera. All cellular phones operate between 700 and 2690 MHz. Funny thing is that aircraft communications operate either at low frequency--200-415 kHz (that's right kHz), medium frequency--2850-3000 kHz (aka. 2.85-3.00 MHz), high frequency--2.85-24.9 MHz, and VHF (the most common now)--108-135.9 MHz. Huh? There's not even a potential overlap of these signals.
So why is it the FAA ever expanded these rules to beyond the 800 MHz range? First of all they didn't even capture the ones in the 700 MHz range. What was the use? Well, about 6 months to a year ago, the FCC started asking the FAA to reconsider its rules again, and last year the FAA struck back with an interview on 60 Minutes with the Boeing engineer who wrote these rules. Yes, a Boeing engineer in Wichita, Kansas. In the interview he cited two examples of the supposed danger basically explaining that the search program most phones use. It could hang up one of the antennas on the aircraft. Ok, one. The aircraft, any aircraft, is built with redundancy upon redundancy. The safety of life factor for engineering any aircraft demands it. Any system will have at least two antennas and at least one back up system. But, if you have 200 people on an airplane, he explained, 200 cell phones (or more--hell, I carry 2, plus my Tab and iPod) could theoretically interfere with all of the aircraft's antennas--potential for disaster. Hmmm.
Perhaps it's the engineer in me or the former aircraft electronics technician or just friggin' common sense, but bullsh*t. First of all, the antennas that are passive wouldn't give a care if your cell phone is searching from here to Timbuk too. Seriously. Passive antennas receive signals--all signals technically, but it's the system that they're attached to that is looking for a certain band of signals and processes only that band of signals. These passive systems take the hodge podge and through a series of electronic circuits cut down the signals retrieved by the antenna to the specific signal the system is looking for. The flight systems for navigation are passive systems. It receives a mishmash of signals because the antenna is a dummy, grinds it down to its one frequency it's looking for and voila--navigation signal. It doesn't give a rat's butt about all the other signals coming in unless they are on the same frequency. Note previous paragraph, not the same frequencies, not even remotely close. Secondly, non-passive systems that send signals could be interfered with. Ok, same hogwash. Let's put it this way if every signal could interfere with a aircraft radio transmission you couldn't even listen to the radio while sitting on the tarmac. Sounds overly simplified but it's a fact. Consider something that a lot of people are more familiar with: Police Radar. The thing sends out a signal, receives it back and does some mathematical calculations to determine your speed. Radar detectors pick up the signal and tell you "whoa there Charlie" with an annoying beep or some other nonsense; they are passive. Jammers are devices specifically built to scramble the signal when it gets hit. How? It sends out its own signal on the same frequency. Jamming devices have to be built for the specific radar you are trying to stop from catching you. If they are not on the right frequency, the cop's radar will still read your speed. Our cell phones, in theory, could act as a jamming device close enough to the antenna on the right frequency, but as we've established, our cell phones are not on the right frequencies.
Frequency bands are regulated--at a global level. Have been since the beginning of the last century, particularly after World War 1. Radio stations that we listen to on our way to work have the same Frequency Modulated (FM) and Amplitude Modulated (AM) frequencies as they have for more than a century--yes, a century plus. I mean honestly do you ever remember a new frequency over the 107 point something or under the 88 something? No, of course not. Those radio signals are picked up by any and every passive antenna on the planet in range, but they are sliced out of the processed signal because they are not in the right bandwidth. So this Boeing engineer on the FAA board obviously had some proving to do. Guess what? They were asked to produce tests where these anomolies could occur. Even more interesting was that they couldn't prove any of it. Not Boeing, not other aircraft companies, not the FAA, nobody.
I distinctly remember someone claiming that cell phones could ignite gasoline fumes at a gas station pump in the 1990s. It turned into decals and signs all over every gas station across this nation stating not to use a cell phone in the area of the pumps. In fact, the Sam's Club pumps in Wichita still have those ridiculous decals. (Must've been a Walton kid that came up with it.) Turns out that was hogwash and nobody knew it until a little Discovery television show, Mythbusters, came on the scene trying to blow something up with a cell phone. You can still get a good laugh if needed on YouTube with them actually having to artificially ignite the plastic room they built because nothing they did with the cell phone worked. The poor cell phone had been ostracized for its inability to protect itself from stupid people who shoot off at the mouth with no testing behind their little hypotheses. In fact, the last time I was on the aircraft, I had my iPod going full volume and was reading on my Tab and never heard the notice from the pilot. Neither stewardess even tapped me on the shoulder to remind me. In fact, it was the shaking as the wheels made contact with the ground that made me realize--ooops, I didn't turn off my electronics. The reality is with Wi-Fi in the air the pilots could put the planes on auto-pilot and could forget to pay attention to where they are going. There is probably a more likely reason for a ban on electronics. Last month there was actually an incident that made brief headlines because the aircraft staff was too busy on their electronics to pay attention that they had overshot their destination.
The FCC has taken back their 1990-91 recommendation. They've told the FAA to reconsider their previous recommendation and the currect FAA regulations. The FAA wants no part of it. Instead of worrying about the clowns in the cockpit playing Angry Birds, they will put all their energy into an improved list of "approved devices". Even the staff on aircraft know it's all hogwash now. I have a better threat. Excuse me, Air Marshal, can you arrest the FAA for stupidity? Oh right, the Air Marshals are governed by the FAA regulations too...and of course, I probably don't want that weirdo next to me on the phone yelling over their popped ears for the whole flight either, but hell, that's what my iPod is for...
No comments:
Post a Comment