Timeline for Instrument landing: why do all electronic devices need to be shut off?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2019 at 20:17 | history | protected | Ralph J♦ | ||
| Jan 16, 2015 at 4:59 | answer | added | UnrecognizedFallingObject | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 15:54 | comment | added | reirab | @MasonWheeler If you have a better source for your claim that it's been 'debunked,' please write an answer citing that source. Also, please note that just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen every time or most of the time. Even if it happens once in every 1,000,000 times, that would be an unacceptably high risk when you're flying 300 people around at ~150-200 mph on an approach. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 15:53 | comment | added | reirab | @MasonWheeler And what you're saying is wrong and there's nothing 'magical' about it. Is EMI likely to bring down a plane on any given flight? No, of course not. Is it possible for it to cause erroneous ILS indications? Yes, it is. Could that potentially result in crash? Yes, it could. And the FAA doesn't seem to think it's been 'debunked,' which is why they say that pilots will still request passengers to turn off devices during low-vis instrument approaches, even under the new rules allowing the use of electronics during normal landings. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @reirab: So first you say "uh huh, magical interference that can crash a plane is totally real and you're completely wrong," and then you say "this magical interference that's totally real can't actually crash a plane." So which is it? I am in no way denying the existence of RF interference; what I'm claiming is that the idea that interference from ordinary electronic devices can somehow magically bring down a plane (which is what has been used as justification for making passengers shut them off during takeoff and landing) is utter nonsense and has been debunked repeatedly since the 80s. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 15:00 | comment | added | reirab | @NicolaMiotto I think Bob Jarvis' comment was directed at copper.hat, not you. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 14:55 | comment | added | reirab | @MasonWheeler Ummm... no. I'm both a pilot and an engineer who designs electronic devices for a living and I can assure you that electronic devices do, in fact, create RF interference. There's nothing magic about it. Anything with a current flowing through it emits an e-m field. Ideally, this EMI should not be within the frequency spectrum of the ILS, but electronics don't always work like they're supposed to. See my answer for more information. Also, the chance of a laptop crashing a plane is not 100% (or even 1% or 0.001%,) which makes it rather ineffective for terrorism purposes. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 11:17 | answer | added | Brian Towers | timeline score: 21 | |
| S Jan 11, 2015 at 5:23 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Jan 10, 2015 at 19:50 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | There is simply no truth to any of it. The idea that electronic devices produce magic "interference" that can cause an airplane to crash has been thoroughly debunked, over and over, at least as far back as the 80s. But if science isn't convincing, how about sociology: it's common knowledge that terrorists exist that want to cause airplanes to crash. If it was as simple as leaving a laptop turned on (safely stowed in a bag where no one could see it) why hasn't it already happened, ever, even once, in the 13+ years since 9/11? | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | Nicola Miotto | @BobJarvis Or I can just post a question here. 0 costs, 0 risks, less time. | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 16:23 | comment | added | Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні | Tell ya what - you get you a pilot's license and instrument cert, go up on a day with 0/0 visibility, switch on a hundred electronic devices, make an instrument approach, and let us know how it goes. Then repeat 10,000 times. | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 9:50 | vote | accept | Nicola Miotto | ||
| S Jan 11, 2015 at 5:23 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2015 at 4:25 | comment | added | copper.hat | It is just a precaution like not turning devices on and off at the petrol station. If it was a real threat, we would have seen many more accidents by now... | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 17:56 | history | edited | rbp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
its called an "instrument approach" versus a "visual approach"
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 15:26 | history | edited | Nicola Miotto | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 15:16 | history | edited | Danny Beckett |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 15:07 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @NicolaMiotto, reirab: That is good news for anyone wishing to take photos during take-off and landing :) | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 15:01 | comment | added | reirab | @O.R.Mapper That requirement used to be nearly universal, but it's been dropped in some countries. In the U.S., for instance, the requirement was dropped back in late 2013. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 14:58 | history | edited | Nicola Miotto | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improvement
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 14:43 | history | edited | rbp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 12:28 | vote | accept | Nicola Miotto | ||
| Jan 9, 2015 at 10:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAviation/status/553504621692747776 | ||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | Nicola Miotto | @O.R.Mapper before October 2014 they were demanding to switch them off. Then a new regulation came out and now it is possible to keep them on in "flight mode". The flight company always has the last word regarding this allowance of course, but in the last EasyJet flight I took, it was clearly stated that we could keep our devices on during take-off. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 15:48 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | Isn't it a general rule that electronic devices always need to be disabled during the take-off/climb and landing phase? I have so far heard a respective announcement on every single flight I have been on, and some airlines even disable the built-in entertainment systems (screens in the seats in front of passengers) during those phases. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 15:41 | answer | added | reirab | timeline score: 71 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 15:31 | answer | added | Jon Story | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 13:10 | answer | added | ravingraven | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:54 | comment | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | "CD player"? About 8 years ago I was snickered at in a developing country for using a portable CD player. Most recent flight I was on the stew told everyone switch off transmitting functions on their portable electronics as she could see that there were "a lot" still on (presumably SSIDs or whatever from a wifi/bluetooth scan) | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | Federico | related: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2021 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:18 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:06 | history | asked | Nicola Miotto | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 12:00 | answer | added | Mister Mystère | timeline score: 8 |