Ask the Captain: The debate about in-flight electronics continues
— -- Question: Captain, thank you so much for dedicating your time to educate everyone concerning electronic devices. I am a flight attendant, and I can honestly say the biggest challenge I face daily is obtaining compliance from passengers concerning their electronic devices. FAA is the BOSS of air transportation! Whatever studies they have conducted and rules they have made based on those studies should be enough for someone to understand the safety of a flight. Just because passengers, have no proof they do interfere, they have decided that gives them the authority to break the rules. Are we waiting for that day when a fatal accident happens and just one of the reasons was interference from an electronic device?
And let's just set the opinions of the passengers aside. What happened to following rules and obeying the law (failure to comply breaks two Federal Aviation Rules, the one that states they must be turned off, and the other failure to comply with a crewmember instruction). I would never dream of going to someone elses work place and tell them how to do their job, challenge their authority, or break their company rules, especially if other people are directly involved. When rules of the road are violated, we are hit with citations. I would love to see FAA give flight attendants the authority to issue citations as well. When you board my flight, I expect you to follow the rules set forth by the FAA. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Greyhound still operates!
-- submitted by reader FAJan
Answer: You face a tough task with the proliferation of electronic devices flying on airplanes today. It seems almost everyone travels with something electronic. Flight crews do not make the rules, but are required to enforce them. Passengers with complaints or recommendations regarding the use of electronic devices (or any other matter regarding aviation) should direct their comments to the FAA. Compliance with the rules, including following lawful crewmember instructions, is mandatory. A crewmember, and/or the airline, can be fined by the FAA for failure to enforce the rules. Passengers who refuse to comply with the rules can be removed from a flight. Unfortunately, I have had to have the police remove more than one passenger for refusing to comply with Federal Aviation Regulations.
The debate of whether certain electronic devices should be allowed to be operated in flight is one that will certainly continue.
It is up to the FAA to decide if a change to the current regulation is warranted. Until there is a rule change passengers should realize that flight crewmembers are doing the job they are required to do.
Q: United Airlines is replacing paper in the cockpits with iPads. Since pilots reference geographical content during or near to approach, why is it OK for the "front office" to use electronic devices at times they would normally not be available to the passenger? Also, if microvolt emf (electromagnetic emissions) can affect ILS (instrument landing) instrumentation, how is the EMF induced by the various high power electronics in use at airports - radar, ILS radios, general purpose radio signals, etc. all of which are capable of creating microvolt level EMF?
I suggest that the FAA studies that are commonly used to define when and where electonics are used may not be up todate. And that most modern electronics, when radios are turned off, do not emit sufficient radio signature to affect current mainline instrumentation. This may not be true for the smaller and older regional jets where weight saving construction may have reduce the normal shielding due to running instrumentation wireing through metal ducting in the airframe.
Regardless, if United and other airlines are considering allowing tablets in the cockpit, why can't they be used in the cabin?
-- Rubber_Ducky
A: The iPads issued by United, and some other airlines, are certified for use in flight. Currently, the only method to ensure that an electronic device does not cause interference with an onboard system, such as a navigation receiver, is to demonstrate it to a designated representative of the FAA. Once a device is successfully demonstrated, it can be certified safe for flight.
There are certainly many transmitters near airports. Airplane navigation systems are shielded to resist some forms of interference.
However, if a transmitter exceeds its allowed limits it can interfere. There are examples of cases where transmitters on the ground have been found to cause problems. I am aware of one case in the Northeastern U.S. in recent years. It is, therefore, essential that the transmitters and the receivers be tested to ensure proper operation.
I encourage you to send your suggestion to the FAA for consideration. They are aware of the issue and will consider your suggestion.
Q: Not to beat a dead horse, but as a former FAA certification employee, I would like to support your comments regarding in-flight electronics.
It costs the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus, etc.), millions of dollars to certify aircraft, or parts thereof, like an in-flight WiFi system.
Although few devices would probably cause interference, it would be enormously expensive for the FAA to guarantee that - to certify each of the hundreds of new models of personal phones and laptops that come to market each year - and the phone makers aren't going to pay that fee. And the phone would be obsolete by the time the certification process was complete. I have heard that when the software for in-flight avionics is upgraded, it cost a million dollars per line of code to certify that upgrade.
Yes the certification process is sometimes slow and cumbersome, but that is why we have the safest airspace system in the world. If a passenger cannot be disconnected from the 'outside world' for a few minutes, that passenger has serious personal issues that the FAA cannot solve.
-- Mikedinghy
A: Thank you for your input into this long running debate. The proven process of certification for electronics used in aircraft is, as you say, cumbersome. However, it has served us well. Technology has outpaced the testing process, with new products coming out faster than older models could be certified. Your reminder of the safety of our aviation systems is very important. We can complain about the process, but we have to respect the results.
John Cox is a retired airline captain with U.S. Airways and runs his own aviation safety consulting company, Safety Operating Systems.