Skeptoid Podcast: Cell phones and airlines

[Jeff Wagg]

I had the pleasure of listening to Brian's "Cell Phones on Airplanes" podcast.. while on an airplane. And I noticed two cell phones that were turned on during the flight. I know I've accidentally left mine on as well. If there's a threat from an active cell phone, the airlines are doing a terrible job of protecting us from it. I suspect there is no threat.

I did have a thought though. If everyone is listening to iPods, it makes it difficult for the crew to issue orders. However, I think an emergency would be obvious enough that people would notice.

I just wish they didn't lie to us.

[Pyrrho]

The pilots are responsible for safely flying and landing an aircraft carrying many dozens of people. I'm not. Although it has not been firmly established that cell phones interfere with avionics, I'll take the aircrew's word for it and respect their wish to not have cell phones on during flight.

FCC's take on it:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html

also

http://www.fcc.gov/kidszone/teachersguide/isittrue.pdf

FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/information/

Consumer Affairs:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/cell_phones_planes.html


The study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers has found that cell phones and other portable electronic devices, like laptops and game-playing devices, can pose dangers to the normal operation of critical electronics on airplanes.

Maybe they're lying, maybe they're not. I think their concerns are genuine.

Aside from those concerns, there is the consideration of common courtesty to other passengers:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/cell_air2.html


Among reasons poll participants cited for keeping the current cell phone ban in place:

• 78 percent of participants agreed that cell phone use in already-tense, close quarters of an airplane could lead to increased passenger unruliness and interfere with flight attendants' ability to maintain order.
• 78 percent believed that cell phones might distract passengers from hearing life-saving instructions in an emergency.
• 82 percent said cell phones might "make planes uncomfortable and be disruptive" to passengers wishing to read or nap.
• 87 percent were alarmed when informed that pilots have reported many cases of problems with navigational equipment possibly caused by cell phones or other electronic devices turned on in flight.
• 84 percent agreed that it is too soon to lift the ban while the Federal Aviation Administration is still studying whether cell phones interfere with aircraft systems.

[briandunning]

Maybe they're lying, maybe they're not. I think their concerns are genuine.

Not according to their own research, or that of the aircraft manufacturers. Check the references given in the podcast.

[Pyrrho]

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar06-41.pdf


This study provided the first reported characterization of the RF environment in the cabins of commercial airline flights. The key conclusions were that (1) onboard cellular telephone calls were observed in-flight and activity is appreciable; (2) signal activity was observed in the aviation critical frequency bands at field strengths capable on causing interference to onboard avionics; and (3) onboard spectral activity was observed at flight critical phases.

I'm not willing to risk avionics interference by using a cell phone on a flying aircraft.

[briandunning]

Could you speculate on why there are no restrictions against bringing cell phones on board planes, inside the passenger cabin? Surely this would not be allowed if they were dangerous.

[Pyrrho]

Could you speculate on why there are no restrictions against bringing cell phones on board planes, inside the passenger cabin? Surely this would not be allowed if they were dangerous.
No, I can't, but the fact that people are allowed to bring cell phones, pagers, etc. on board does not mean people should be allowed to use them on board, or that there is no valid concern regarding avionics interference.

[Pyrrho]

Press release from Carnegie Mellon:

http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html


"We found that the risk posed by these portable devices is higher than previously believed," said Bill Strauss, who recently completed his Ph.D. in EPP at Carnegie Mellon. "These devices can disrupt normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital for safe landings." Strauss is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Md.

[Pyrrho]

The IEEE online article:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069


In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.

Our data and the NASA studies suggest to us that there is a clear and present danger: cellphones can render GPS instrument useless for landings. Clearly, the cause of the problem is that the FCC issues RF emission standards for consumer electronics, conferring only minimally with the FAA and with no formal consideration of the implications of those standards for the aircraft environment. For its part, the FAA relies on the airlines to initiate safety plans and, like other government agencies, defers to the FCC on questions of electromagnetic radiation.

Print version, with charts and graphs.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3069

I'll comply with the request to turn 'em off, thanks.

[briandunning]

Certainly it's pointless to go back & forth like this - For every piece of research I present, you can certainly find an editorial or magazine article refuting it, and vice versa. In any question like this one, where there are interested parties on both sides of the debate, there will be conflicting data published.

Another point I find interesting - that I wish I had included in the podcast - is the FCC's current proposal for allowing cell phone calls on planes. It will install a miniature cell tower on board commercial planes, which will then communicate with ground stations in a way that the FCC likes better. Notice that you'd still be using your normal cell phone. Even this "next generation" proposal concedes that there's no realistic conflict between cell phones and avionics.

[Pyrrho]

Certainly it's pointless to go back & forth like this - For every piece of research I present, you can certainly find an editorial or magazine article refuting it, and vice versa. In any question like this one, where there are interested parties on both sides of the debate, there will be conflicting data published.

Another point I find interesting - that I wish I had included in the podcast - is the FCC's current proposal for allowing cell phone calls on planes. It will install a miniature cell tower on board commercial planes, which will then communicate with ground stations in a way that the FCC likes better. Notice that you'd still be using your normal cell phone. Even this "next generation" proposal concedes that there's no realistic conflict between cell phones and avionics.
I don't think it's pointless to discuss different sides of an issue, or to present conflicting research. I do not agree that there is no realistic conflict between cell phones and avionics; to agree to that premise would be to dismiss the valid expert research I've sourced previously.

Even the proposed pico cell solution has its limitations and they have yet to develop and test a system. This isn't a "case closed" question by any means.

Certainly, the ability to use cell phones during flight will benefit business interests in this age of constant contact. Allowing people to use cell phones during flight might also provide them with some convenience. Despite this, until it can be demonstrated that there is no risk to avionics communications, my vote is to keep the cell phones and other devices off. I can accept not using my cell phone use for a few hours. I can't accept the aircraft being flown the wrong way.

[Pyrrho]

Incidentally, the FCC proposal seems more concerned with preventing interference with ground-based cellular systems than with avionics, although they still specifically mention prevention of harmful interference with aviation systems:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255246A1.doc

[firecoins]

I prefer cell phones stayed banned because I find people on cell phones annoying. I do not want to hear someone yammer on the entire flight about utter nonsense. It interferes with by normal thought pattern.

It is stupid to ban cell phones on the basis no one will hear life saving announcements. No one listens to those anyway.

[Jeff Wagg]

Pyrrho, the problem is, if cell phones are dangerous, then we're all in grave danger, because people DO leave them on, and if they're on, they're sending and receiving signals.

So, it seems to me, that either we're in danger due to lax regulations, or the current rules are silly (or a misdirection).

I do, however, comply with the cell phone rules (when I remember).

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho, the problem is, if cell phones are dangerous, then we're all in grave danger, because people DO leave them on, and if they're on, they're sending and receiving signals.

So, it seems to me, that either we're in danger due to lax regulations, or the current rules are silly (or a misdirection).

I do, however, comply with the cell phone rules (when I remember).
It's not necessarily an either/or issue, and it is not a given that the rules, even if misguided, are either silly or a misdirection.

The IEEE authors contend that there is in fact a clear and present danger regarding cell phones and GPS instruments. They address the question of whether or not cell phone use has caused or contributed to aviation accidents:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069/4

So what about accidents? We can extrapolate by looking at the existence of interference. Beginning in the 1930s, industrial safety pioneer H.W. Heinrich found—across many industries—that the ratio of incidents to accidents is about 300 to 1. Since then, this ratio has been approximately confirmed in a number of studies, including ones by the U.S. Air Force in the early 1970s. If this ratio holds true for the aviation industry, then we would expect PED interference to be a factor in an accident about once every 12 years, if we use the upper boundary for reporting that we described previously. If cellphone use increases dramatically with new regulations, we can expect the risk to rise correspondingly.

They make some rather sensible recommendations on page 5 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069/5

I stand corrected about the development and testing of pico cell systems--the article states that this has occurred.

[rjh01]

The mythbusters did a session on cell phones and aircraft. They failed to prove that phones interfere with aircraft. However they said it was plausible.

[CFLarsen]

So, it seems to me, that either we're in danger due to lax regulations, or the current rules are silly (or a misdirection).

Not lax regulations. Lax enforcement of regulations.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm with firecoins.
The principal danger of permitting cellphones on aircraft is that after five hours sitting next to some moron rabbiting on a cellphone, it would be quite understandable if any decent , meek , mild human being tore the bastard's throat out. As no sharp edged tools are permitted, he would have to do so using teeth and a plastic fork, which could be messy.

The day they permit these tools of the Devil to be used is the day I release my patented pocket EMP device for public use. And I don't care if I'm on an Airbus and the flight controls default to DOS 5. Given the choice between listening to boring lackwits on cellphones or falling 33,000 feet in a spiralling plunge to a fiery death, pass me the flamethrower !

[Jeff Wagg]

Not lax regulations. Lax enforcement of regulations.

Well, I was suggesting that since enforcement is lax (how could they know a cell phone in someone's carry on bag was left on?) that a new regulation preventing cell phones from going through airport security would be in order.

[Soapy Sam]

Good business opportunity for cellphone rental there. Step off the plane, there's a rack of the things in the arrivals hall. Tap in your credit card number to release. Put in your SIM card. Bingo.

Let's face it though- cellphones are no longer phones. They are evolving as we watch. How many phones just make calls?
I loathe the things, but don't expect them to go away.

[Jeff Wagg]

Good business opportunity for cellphone rental there. Step off the plane, there's a rack of the things in the arrivals hall. Tap in your credit card number to release. Put in your SIM card. Bingo.

Let's face it though- cellphones are no longer phones. They are evolving as we watch. How many phones just make calls?
I loathe the things, but don't expect them to go away.

Just an FYI: We don't have SIM cards in the US.

Maybe, the two industries could get together and make the phones safer?

[dann]

Hush! The enemy is listening! Don't say I didn't tell you when you hear about the suicide command that steered a Boeing into the Empire State Building using only their cell phones!

[Soapy Sam]

Just an FYI: We don't have SIM cards in the US.

Really? I was not aware of that.

Maybe, the two industries could get together and make the phones safer?

Let's hope they at least communicate.

[fuelair]

I'm with firecoins.
The principal danger of permitting cellphones on aircraft is that after five hours sitting next to some moron rabbiting on a cellphone, it would be quite understandable if any decent , meek , mild human being tore the bastard's throat out. As no sharp edged tools are permitted, he would have to do so using teeth and a plastic fork, which could be messy.

The day they permit these tools of the Devil to be used is the day I release my patented pocket EMP device for public use. And I don't care if I'm on an Airbus and the flight controls default to DOS 5. Given the choice between listening to boring lackwits on cellphones or falling 33,000 feet in a spiralling plunge to a fiery death, pass me the flamethrower !

Bic Pen, not teeth and plastic fork.

[rjh01]

Just an FYI: We don't have SIM cards in the US.

Maybe, the two industries could get together and make the phones safer?

So if you want to upgrade your phone you get a new number? If you want to keep the old one you need to get the phone company to do something? And changing phones means you lose your contact lists?

In Australia the SIM card contains all such information. I could take my SIM card out and put it in another phone and that phone would act like my own phone.

[briandunning]

Correction:

I said in the podcast that there are no FAA laws regarding personal electronics. A pilot friend and I were going through his FAA book this morning and found the reference. I can't give the exact text since he already left with the book, but the closest law says that all devices are banned by default except any that the operator or pilot allow. So it was a trifle misstated, but still comes to the same thing.

:)

[Pyrrho]

Might be found in here somewhere:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

[TsarBomba]

Isn't it all just a transparent attempt to keep us using those expensive phones that they put on the planes already?

Someone's got to be making money on those things, and they won't anymore if people can just use their cell phones.

[CFLarsen]

Well, I was suggesting that since enforcement is lax (how could they know a cell phone in someone's carry on bag was left on?) that a new regulation preventing cell phones from going through airport security would be in order.

You think that would work out? :)

[Pyrrho]

Isn't it all just a transparent attempt to keep us using those expensive phones that they put on the planes already?

Someone's got to be making money on those things, and they won't anymore if people can just use their cell phones.
Well, with the advent of cell phones, FAA allows Internet access via seatback phone, which is likely to be a larger demand.

Still, regarding cell phone use, I am not inclined to dismiss the IEEE article and the research conducted by the authors.

[Pyrrho]

You think that would work out? :)
IIRC, during a certain high alert period last year, passengers were required to put their laptop computers in their checked baggage and were not permitted to bring them aboard aircraft, or were required to put them in gate-checked bags and were not allowed to bring them aboard aircraft. Cell phones are of course easily concealed, unless maybe the authorities want to tune their metal detectors or use other means to find concealed phones or other radio devices.

[dann]

Wasn't that a question of what you would be able to hide inside a computer? I have heard people tell that they were asked by airport security to switch on their computers in order to prove that they were fully functional and not merely used as a means of transporting explosives (whatever) onboard.

[CFLarsen]

IIRC, during a certain high alert period last year, passengers were required to put their laptop computers in their checked baggage and were not permitted to bring them aboard aircraft, or were required to put them in gate-checked bags and were not allowed to bring them aboard aircraft. Cell phones are of course easily concealed, unless maybe the authorities want to tune their metal detectors or use other means to find concealed phones or other radio devices.

There's a huge difference between a high alert period and the everyday humdrum. I could see that cells were not allowed on board during a high alert period, but I cannot imagine it would be accepted that people leave their cells at home, if they are to fly. No business man would ever fly again.

The cells could be stowed away during flight, though.

[Jeff Wagg]

You think that would work out? :)

It would work out just as well as the new liquid rule.

[CFLarsen]

It would work out just as well as the new liquid rule.

No, because people can go without carrying a bottle of Coke on board. But try to ban cell phones, and you'll have a revolution on your hands.

You can get a new bottle when you land, but demand that people get a new cell every time they travel somewhere? No way.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

All I know, is that if they do end up banning cell phones in the cabin, and I then see someone carrying a cell phone, I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

[Pyrrho]

No, because people can go without carrying a bottle of Coke on board. But try to ban cell phones, and you'll have a revolution on your hands.

You can get a new bottle when you land, but demand that people get a new cell every time they travel somewhere? No way.
All people need to do is to turn them off. A ban is probably not required. They'd probably be asked to put them in checked luggage or in a gate-checked bag. Luggage compartments can be shielded, etc.

[Jeff Wagg]

No, because people can go without carrying a bottle of Coke on board. But try to ban cell phones, and you'll have a revolution on your hands.

You can get a new bottle when you land, but demand that people get a new cell every time they travel somewhere? No way.

The urge to smoke is much stronger than the urge to use a cell phone, and look.. no smoking on planes.

[briandunning]

Pyrrho - What is your theory on why cell phones are permitted through security and not required to be checked in luggage, like a firearm?

[Inquisitive Raven]

Just an FYI: We don't have SIM cards in the US.

Maybe, the two industries could get together and make the phones safer?

Actually, yes we do. My cell phone from T-Mobile has a SIM card. The trick is this. SIM cards are used in phones using one particular communication protocol (I think it's GSM). That protocol is used more or less universally in Europe and, apparently, Australia. Cell phone carriers in the USA use about four different protocols. Sprint, f'rinstance, uses CDMA IIRC. Sprint phones do not have SIM cards. T-Mobile, obviously, uses the European protocol whether it's GSM or something else. Every phone I've ever gotten from them had a SIM card.

[CFLarsen]

The urge to smoke is much stronger than the urge to use a cell phone,

Oh, I dunno...

and look.. no smoking on planes.

You can carry cigs on board, but you can't lit'em up. Likewise, people can carry cells on board, but simply not be allowed to switch them on.

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho - What is your theory on why cell phones are permitted through security and not required to be checked in luggage, like a firearm?
Firearms go "boom". Cell phones don't.

[CFLarsen]

Firearms go "boom". Cell phones don't.

I could. But I won't.

[Jeff Wagg]

Oh, I dunno...



You can carry cigs on board, but you can't lit'em up. Likewise, people can carry cells on board, but simply not be allowed to switch them on.

You missed my point. Unpopular regulations CAN be enforced.

Also, it's easy to check whether someone's smoking or not. Not so easy to check a cell phone in a carry on bag.

[Jeff Wagg]

Firearms go "boom". Cell phones don't.

Both have the potential to bring down the plane.

[briandunning]

Firearms go "boom". Cell phones don't.

I'm not sure that answers my question. They don't have to go boom to represent a danger, as you've proposed. I'm asking for your theory on why they're allowed to be brought into the passenger cabin at all, if they can interfere with avionics. Generally anything that's dangerous is either not allowed on board the plane, or is required to be checked.

[Pyrrho]

I'm not sure that answers my question. They don't have to go boom to represent a danger, as you've proposed. I'm asking for your theory on why they're allowed to be brought into the passenger cabin at all, if they can interfere with avionics. Generally anything that's dangerous is either not allowed on board the plane, or is required to be checked.
First, I don't have a theory. All I could possibly offer are guesses and opinions, which do not qualify as "theory".

If I had to guess, I'd guess that cell phones are allowed aboard aircraft because cell phones are not inherently dangerous, just as DVD players, laptop computers, and GameBoys are allowed aboard--they are not inherently dangerous. There is concern that cell phones can interfere with avionics; the IEEE article supports this concern, yet does not go so far as to claim that cell phone use can bring down an aircraft, although they do speculate on the possibility that cell phone interference might have contributed to accidents. It seems unlikely that isolated cell phone use can cause a crash, yet it does seem likely that cell phone use *could* interfere with avionics and thereby contribute to accidents. One of the the IEEE authors' concerns was for cell phones that are not properly made, i.e. they are not properly shielded, etc. This could be a very real problem.

Most people seem to obey the request to turn of their cell phones, but of course, there are people who either forget or who think they know better or who think they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do. Isolated use may not be a problem. Unrestricted use might be a problem, as is evidenced by the valid research done for the IEEE article.

A firearm is inherently dangerous, so they are not allowed in the cabin, except in the hands of a qualified air marshal.

There is a real risk here of dismissing evidence we don't like because it interferes with our opinion. Should evidence show that cell phone use couldn't possibly interfere with avionics, sure, let everybody yammer on their phones during any given flight. I'll take the train.

[Pyrrho]

Both have the potential to bring down the plane.
I think the primary concern is that a firearm has the potential to kill people. So might a cell phone, but it would take a lot more work trying to use a cell phone as a deadly weapon. The risks from a firearm vastly outweighs the risk from a cell phone, and it would be incorrect and fallacious to equate the two.

A cell phone or other electronic luxury item interfering with avionics might cause a navigational error, and in crowded skies, especially when leaving or approaching an airport--let's say Dulles, for example--an error of a thousand feet might prove fatal to more than one aircraft. Air travel has become so routine that people take for granted the skill and attention to detail that is required to successfully pilot an aircraft--and the last thing I want to do is make the pilot's job any harder than it is. Sure, maybe the pilot can execute a course correction, but why take the risk of giving him or her the extra problem, especially when the aforementioned interference has not been definitively ruled out?

[CFLarsen]

You missed my point. Unpopular regulations CAN be enforced.

Yes, I argued that earlier. The problem is not the rules, but how they are enforced.

Also, it's easy to check whether someone's smoking or not. Not so easy to check a cell phone in a carry on bag.

I should hope it was! :eek:

You may be able to hide a few cigs in the bottom of your pocket, but you go through metal detectors, and your carry on bag is screened, too. Cell phones will definitely be found.

[Pyrrho]

You may be able to hide a few cigs in the bottom of your pocket, but you go through metal detectors, and your carry on bag is screened, too. Cell phones will definitely be found.
Right. We have to pass through metal detectors and have to empty our pockets before we do. However, the system isn't foolproof, and people can pass through metal detectors with prohibited items. The advent of full-body x-ray screening will probably do much to prevent people from concealing items on their person...aside from the privacy concerns.

[rjh01]

I would not like to have to have an x-ray every time I get on board an aircraft. X-rays are dangerous. This would be very true for frequent fliers.

Maybe we need two levels of security. One level for frequent fliers and another higher level for people who rarely fly.

[JamesDillon]

Also, it's easy to check whether someone's smoking or not. Not so easy to check a cell phone in a carry on bag.

It's quite easy; carry-on bags have to go through an x-ray at security, it would be easy enough to catch any smuggled cell phones there. And it would be pretty hard to slip one through the metal detector.

That said, I leave my cell phone on when flying all the time, and I haven't died yet. Not even once. I do, however, favor the regulation against using them, but only because I don't want to be stuck in a window seat listening to someone's 5-hour conversation with Aunt Mildred.

[Alliebubs]

It's quite easy; carry-on bags have to go through an x-ray at security, it would be easy enough to catch any smuggled cell phones there. And it would be pretty hard to slip one through the metal detector.

That said, I leave my cell phone on when flying all the time, and I haven't died yet. Not even once. I do, however, favor the regulation against using them, but only because I don't want to be stuck in a window seat listening to someone's 5-hour conversation with Aunt Mildred.

I'm sure they wouldn't want you listening on their conversation with Aunt Mildred, either. Don't be such a nosy seat neighbour, then. :p

[CFLarsen]

Right. We have to pass through metal detectors and have to empty our pockets before we do. However, the system isn't foolproof, and people can pass through metal detectors with prohibited items. The advent of full-body x-ray screening will probably do much to prevent people from concealing items on their person...aside from the privacy concerns.

You don't even need a full-body X-ray screening. You have to go through a metal detector anyway.

[Pyrrho]

You don't even need a full-body X-ray screening. You have to go through a metal detector anyway.
Yes, but people have been known to pass through metal detectors with objects that should have been detected. Not that I'm recommending full-body x-ray.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but people have been known to pass through metal detectors with objects that should have been detected. Not that I'm recommending full-body x-ray.

You will still catch the vast majority of cell phones.

No system is without holes.

[Crossbow]

Hello all!

If I may interject here since there is some confusion regarding the use of cell phones on aircraft.

As a pilot myself, there is a regulation that essentially states that no personal electronics (cell phones, computers, electric shavers, radios, etc.) should be used by the passengers when the plane is in the landing and take off phase. During cruise, the pilot has the discretion to allow the use of such devices.

The idea is that during landing and take off (the most critical phase of aircraft operation) there is a possibility that the use of personal electronics could interfere with the aircraft's navigation and/or communication equipment.

Now then, larger commercial aircraft tend to use shielded and robust electronics and as such it is quite unlikely that personal electronics could actually cause such problems. However, there has not been the extensive testing and evaluation that would be required to actually establish the fact (it would probably take years and cost millions to do such testing). Therefore, the FAA has taken the conservative stance of implementing rules which restrict the use of personal electronics.

As for my experience, I have the good fortune to do flying and I have seen plenty of people use cell phones, computers, radios, etc. during landing, cruise, take-off, etc. and it has not caused any problems at all except for some occasional clicking sounds over the intercom.

However, until such a time when (and if) the rules are updated, then one still needs to follow them. So if you are on board plane, then please use (or not use) your personal electronics as directed.

Thanks much!

[Pyrrho]

Thank you, Crossbow.

[CFLarsen]

and it has not caused any problems at all except for some occasional clicking sounds over the intercom.

Uh oh.

[Crossbow]

Thank you, Crossbow.

You are most welcome!

:)

[Pyrrho]

Firearms go "boom". Cell phones don't.
In light of recent events, I withdraw the second half of that statement.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16467412.htm

[SteveGrenard]

yup. So does this event spell the end of cell phones on all airplanes and tighter enforcement of current prohibitions?




Jan. 16, 2007 4:06 | Updated Jan. 16, 2007 4:07US: Man burned after cell phone ignites in pocket

ASSOCIATED PRESS, VALLEJO, California
A cell phone apparently ignited in a man's pocket and started a fire that burned his hotel room and caused severe burns over half his body, fire department officials said. Luis Picaso, 59, was in stable condition Monday with second- and third-degree burns to his upper body, back, right arm and right leg, Vallejo Fire Department assistant chief Kurt Henke said.

More at:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467741722&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


A few more references to the above:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/15/cell.phone.fire.ap/

http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/24302.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4937611

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16467412.htm

[Geek Goddess]

Didn't the Mythbusters have an episode about cell phones - the older analog phones did cause interference, but the new ones did not, if I remember correctly.

One pilot, with a commercial line, told me that the FAA wasn't concerned about having phones on after takeoff, as much as the FCC, Federal Communications Commission, which regulates phones, radio frequencies, also does not want this. For example, this quote:

"The FAA is not alone in its prohibition of in-flight cell phone use. The Federal Communications Commission has a ban of its own, although it has nothing to do with safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air have the potential to engage multiple cell towers and thereby cause interference with calls on the ground. There is no scientific proof behind the FCC dictate, however; the agency never commissioned a study that conclusively proved its hypothesis." (from a 2002 article from Cable World)

[Ducky]

When I flew back from TAM 4 I had my video ipod on and was watching Dawkins' Root of all Evil. During takeoff I was asked to turn my ipod off.

My ipod?

WTF?



ETA: I would love to know exactly how an ipod causes interference.

[Ducky]

You don't even need a full-body X-ray screening. You have to go through a metal detector anyway.

And yet, all my titanium doesn't set off the metal detectors when I fly.

[Crossbow]

When I flew back from TAM 4 I had my video ipod on and was watching Dawkins' Root of all Evil. During takeoff I was asked to turn my ipod off.

My ipod?

WTF?



ETA: I would love to know exactly how an ipod causes interference.

Your ipod probably does not cause interference problems.

However, the FAA has not conclusively proven that an ipod does not cause interference problems and until they do so, then use of your ipod during the flight will continue to be restricted.

[Ducky]

Your ipod probably does not cause interference problems.

Quite right. While I could be on board with devices that actively emit radio emissions like laptops with wifi or cellular cards, cellular phones, PDAs with wifi or bluetooth etc. I have to roll my eyes at the restriction of devices that have no capacity for emitting anything of consequence.

However, the FAA has not conclusively proven that an ipod does not cause interference problems and until they do so, then use of your ipod during the flight will continue to be restricted.

Actually iirc, it would be the RTCA that would make this reccomendation to the FAA (Wasn't there a report due in 2005 from them?) Interestingly they haven't thought about certain digital hearing aides that can cause interference with certain other technologies...

Like I said, certain technologies are most certainly an understandable thing to restrict, however I highly doubt any specific restrictions will translate well to untrained flight attendants that may not know a PDA from a cell phone...

[kmortis]

Quite right. While I could be on board with devices that actively emit radio emissions like laptops with wifi or cellular cards, cellular phones, PDAs with wifi or bluetooth etc. I have to roll my eyes at the restriction of devices that have no capacity for emitting anything of consequence.

Actually iirc, it would be the RTCA that would make this reccomendation to the FAA (Wasn't there a report due in 2005 from them?) Interestingly they haven't thought about certain digital hearing aides that can cause interference with certain other technologies...

Like I said, certain technologies are most certainly an understandable thing to restrict, however I highly doubt any specific restrictions will translate well to untrained flight attendants that may not know a PDA from a cell phone...

Hello all!

If I may interject here since there is some confusion regarding the use of cell phones on aircraft.

As a pilot myself, there is a regulation that essentially states that no personal electronics (cell phones, computers, electric shavers, radios, etc.) should be used by the passengers when the plane is in the landing and take off phase. During cruise, the pilot has the discretion to allow the use of such devices.

The idea is that during landing and take off (the most critical phase of aircraft operation) there is a possibility that the use of personal electronics could interfere with the aircraft's navigation and/or communication equipment.

Now then, larger commercial aircraft tend to use shielded and robust electronics and as such it is quite unlikely that personal electronics could actually cause such problems. However, there has not been the extensive testing and evaluation that would be required to actually establish the fact (it would probably take years and cost millions to do such testing). Therefore, the FAA has taken the conservative stance of implementing rules which restrict the use of personal electronics.

As for my experience, I have the good fortune to do flying and I have seen plenty of people use cell phones, computers, radios, etc. during landing, cruise, take-off, etc. and it has not caused any problems at all except for some occasional clicking sounds over the intercom.

However, until such a time when (and if) the rules are updated, then one still needs to follow them. So if you are on board plane, then please use (or not use) your personal electronics as directed.

Thanks much!

Speaking as an EMI Engineer in the Aerospace who's responsible for the EMC properties of flight control, engine control and cabin entertainment systems for commercial aircraft, cell phones are a pain in the butt. The problem is, the FCC standards that the phones have to me are way more laxed than the ones that define the envrionment that my boxes do. To allow cells on aircraft would mean re-testing each of them to the new environment, and (more importantly) getting FAA certification for each and every cell phone (or other electronic device).

Every one.

Every upgrade.

Every time.

This would tie up the FAA for years. It takes a considerable amount of time to qualify these things. Primarly for all the paperwork involved. I do know that there are some items out there that are sensitive to cell phones (at least one of these things as since been upgraded to remove this vunerability, but AFAIK the old version is still in use). It's way easier for all involved to have a blanket ban than do the qualification.

And not everyting in a big airliner is shielded. Cable shielding is heavy, so it's used judiciously. We prefer to filter, unless the magnetics would weigh more than the associated cable shielding would. Bear in mind, that if I were to have a cable that ran the length of a 747 (say), that's approx 600' of cable, even a 1 oz/ft increase of weight amounts to a considerable increase. There are some things that HAVE to have shielded cables (Ethernet, ARINC, RS485 and other com protocols), but those tend to be shorter runs and the exceptions. There's WAY more single ended and differential discretes than there are coms.

Fowl, why was you iPod requested to be turned off? Partly for the reasons above, partly due to an institutional paranoia that hit a zenith after 911. It's very easy to make a transmitter look like something else (iPod, cell phone etc). Now, why a bad guy who's gonna do naughty things with a look-alike item would comply with the "not during take-off" request, I have no answer; I've rarely been able to make sense of prohibitive rules/laws.

I have some cow-irkers around here who have iPods...maybe I should take one into my lab and just see what the emissions are across the RF band.

[Crossbow]

kmortis:

Mucho thanks!

I sure do appreciate your well placed perspective.

[kmortis]

kmortis:

Mucho thanks!

I sure do appreciate your well placed perspective.

No Problem. I just hope that you like our boxen as much. ;)

Also, Thanks to the Waggmeister for giving me another podcast.

[briandunning]

As a pilot myself, there is a regulation that essentially states that no personal electronics (cell phones, computers, electric shavers, radios, etc.) should be used by the passengers when the plane is in the landing and take off phase. During cruise, the pilot has the discretion to allow the use of such devices.

We were just looking in the regs the other day. Wish I had written down the rule or page number, but I didn't.

Essentially, everything is blacklisted by default, however pilots and operators can allow any personal electronics devices they want. There is no mention of "cruise phase only", they can be used during takeoff and landing also by the same rule. Airlines make that up on their own.

[Crossbow]

We were just looking in the regs the other day. Wish I had written down the rule or page number, but I didn't.

Essentially, everything is blacklisted by default, however pilots and operators can allow any personal electronics devices they want. There is no mention of "cruise phase only", they can be used during takeoff and landing also by the same rule. Airlines make that up on their own.

Sorry if I sound a bit fussy, but that is not entirely correct.

True, the airlines do fly with an internal rule that essentially states no passenger electronics are to be used during the landing and take-off phase. Then at cruise, the pilot has the discretion to allow such devices to be used. The airlines also have other rules that do not appear in the FAA regulations such as having the crew wear uniforms, provide inflight entertainment, and so on.

But in this case, the FAA also has a rule about the use of personal electronic devices while on the plane.

Specifically, I checked my 2004 FAR/AIM last night and here is what I found:


91.21 Portable Electronic Devices

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, no person may operate, nor may any op-
erator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on
any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft.
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, or
(2) Any other aircraft while it operated under
IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply
to -
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the
operator of the aircraft has determined will not
cause interference with the navigation or commu-
nication system of the aircraft on which it is to be
used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a
holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an
operating certificate the determination required
by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made
by that operator of the aircraft on which the partic-
ular device is to be used. In the case of other air-
craft, the determination may be made the by pilot
in command or other operator of the aircraft.


Anyway, since commercial flying is usually done under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) even when the weather is plenty good for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) since flying under flying under IFR provides clearances, radar monitoring, separation from other aircraft, communications with those on the ground, etc. Anyway, the concern is that since the landing and takeoff phase is the most instrument intensive portion of the flight, one has to be very, very careful that the use of personal electronic devices do not interfere with the communication and/or navigation equipment. While it is equally conceivable that use of personal electronic devices could cause problems at this portion of the flight as well, it is generally far easier to recover from such event several thousand feet above the ground as opposed to dealing with them when one is just a few hundred feet above the ground.

I hope this helps!

[Ducky]

Sorry if I sound a bit fussy, but that is not entirely correct.

True, the airlines do fly with an internal rule that essentially states no passenger electronics are to be used during the landing and take-off phase. Then at cruise, the pilot has the discretion to allow such devices to be used. The airlines also have other rules that do not appear in the FAA regulations such as having the crew wear uniforms, provide inflight entertainment, and so on.

But in this case, the FAA also has a rule about the use of personal electronic devices while on the plane.

Specifically, I checked my 2004 FAR/AIM last night and here is what I found:



Anyway, since commercial flying is usually done under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) even when the weather is plenty good for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) since flying under flying under IFR provides clearances, radar monitoring, separation from other aircraft, communications with those on the ground, etc. Anyway, the concern is that since the landing and takeoff phase is the most instrument intensive portion of the flight, one has to be very, very careful that the use of personal electronic devices do not interfere with the communication and/or navigation equipment. While it is equally conceivable that use of personal electronic devices could cause problems at this portion of the flight as well, it is generally far easier to recover from such event several thousand feet above the ground as opposed to dealing with them when one is just a few hundred feet above the ground.

I hope this helps!

Certainly appreciate the clarifications there! Thanks.

Functionally I see no difference between a digital voice recorder and any of the ipods (expept the video ipod, which actually uses a hard drive) due to the use of flash ram, and a digital converter. They are in function the same essential thing, except that most ipods don't record voice without an additional piece of 3rd party hardware.

[Ducky]

Speaking as an EMI Engineer in the Aerospace who's responsible for the EMC properties of flight control, engine control and cabin entertainment systems for commercial aircraft, cell phones are a pain in the butt. The problem is, the FCC standards that the phones have to me are way more laxed than the ones that define the envrionment that my boxes do. To allow cells on aircraft would mean re-testing each of them to the new environment, and (more importantly) getting FAA certification for each and every cell phone (or other electronic device).

Every one.

Every upgrade.

Every time.

This would tie up the FAA for years. It takes a considerable amount of time to qualify these things. Primarly for all the paperwork involved. I do know that there are some items out there that are sensitive to cell phones (at least one of these things as since been upgraded to remove this vunerability, but AFAIK the old version is still in use). It's way easier for all involved to have a blanket ban than do the qualification.

And not everyting in a big airliner is shielded. Cable shielding is heavy, so it's used judiciously. We prefer to filter, unless the magnetics would weigh more than the associated cable shielding would. Bear in mind, that if I were to have a cable that ran the length of a 747 (say), that's approx 600' of cable, even a 1 oz/ft increase of weight amounts to a considerable increase. There are some things that HAVE to have shielded cables (Ethernet, ARINC, RS485 and other com protocols), but those tend to be shorter runs and the exceptions. There's WAY more single ended and differential discretes than there are coms.

Fowl, why was you iPod requested to be turned off? Partly for the reasons above, partly due to an institutional paranoia that hit a zenith after 911. It's very easy to make a transmitter look like something else (iPod, cell phone etc). Now, why a bad guy who's gonna do naughty things with a look-alike item would comply with the "not during take-off" request, I have no answer; I've rarely been able to make sense of prohibitive rules/laws.

I have some cow-irkers around here who have iPods...maybe I should take one into my lab and just see what the emissions are across the RF band.

Thanks!!! That clears much up for me.

However if you do test the ipod,l do make sure to test the video ipod as well as the nano or shuffle. Since as pointed out above personal recorders (which are mostly flash ram and digital converters nowadays) are allowed, the only one of the ipods that really doesn't fir that design schema would be the video, but I would be interested in both of them as well as a personal digital recorder (any standard model will do I suspect) being tested and having the results to look at.

[Crossbow]

Certainly appreciate the clarifications there! Thanks.

Functionally I see no difference between a digital voice recorder and any of the ipods (expept the video ipod, which actually uses a hard drive) due to the use of flash ram, and a digital converter. They are in function the same essential thing, except that most ipods don't record voice without an additional piece of 3rd party hardware.

Personally, I think you are quite right and there should be no problem. As for me, I have seen quite a few personal electronic devices (cell phones, satellite phones, satellite radios, portable DVD players, laptop PCs, handheld games, digital cameras, etc.) used on planes over the last few years and they have not caused any real problems whatsoever.

However, you should be advised that the FAA is about the most conservative regulatory agency there is and until they are completely satisfied that there is no problem with your ipod, then they will continue to rule that they do have a problem with your ipod.

Sorry, but that is just the way it is!

[Ducky]

Personally, I think you are quite right and there should be no problem. As for me, I have seen quite a few personal electronic devices (cell phones, satellite phones, satellite radios, portable DVD players, laptop PCs, handheld games, digital cameras, etc.) used on planes over the last few years and they have not caused any real problems whatsoever.

However, you should be advised that the FAA is about the most conservative regulatory agency there is and until they are completely satisfied that there is no problem with your ipod, then they will continue to rule that they do have a problem with your ipod.

Sorry, but that is just the way it is!

That may be the way it is, but I certainly don't have to agree with their practices, even if forced to abide. ;)


ETA: Interesting that the military hasn't been asked to report on the use of computers/non-flight related technology, as they run many aircraft with a whole slew of equipment not intended to be taken into the air originally. IIRC, Air Force One (or more accurately the 747 comissioned to the president that uses that call sign most) has quite an impressive slew of communication, computer and other equipment on it as well...

[briandunning]

In my experience, takeoff and landing are about the only times that you DON'T use the VOR.

[Crossbow]

In my experience, takeoff and landing are about the only times that you DON'T use the VOR.

Ummm,

The VOR is quite extensively during landing. Many airports have VOR Approaches and for those with Precision Approaches, most systems make use of the VOR Head that is equipped with a Glideslope Indicator (that really comes in handy).

Now then, during the immediate Takeoff phase (which lasts just several minutes, at the most), the VOR is not used. But again, that VOR Head with the Glide Slope indicator is often used.

However, during this period the VOR will be pre-tuned to the appropriate frequency and when the plane is ready to go on course, then the VOR is used pretty much from then on out.

On the other hand, if you just wish to limit your discussion to say about the last 60 seconds before you land or the first 60 seconds after you takeoff, then yes, one can say that the VOR is not used during these periods.

[kmortis]

That may be the way it is, but I certainly don't have to agree with their practices, even if forced to abide. ;)


ETA: Interesting that the military hasn't been asked to report on the use of computers/non-flight related technology, as they run many aircraft with a whole slew of equipment not intended to be taken into the air originally. IIRC, Air Force One (or more accurately the 747 comissioned to the president that uses that call sign most) has quite an impressive slew of communication, computer and other equipment on it as well...

Well, one thing to note is that the military have different standard that they build non-aircraft boxen to. All the boxen associated with the 747 (from the FADEC to the Yaw, Spoiler, Aleron controllers and other flight controls) are built to a version of RTCA/DO-160, and all the coms gear etc is built to MIL-STD-461. Taken as a whole, the MS is stricter (althought you could make a case for the emissions levels, but I'd return with that the scan rates are slower for the MS, so it's still the harder test).

Plus, if the Military puts it on an airframe, it's been built for that purpose in mind. That's what keeps people like me employed. :D

In other news, I discussed the idea of quickly scanning an iPod with a cow-irker and he liked the idea. I have an empty chamber with a spare ground plane already installed (the test unit is out for post-test functional testing). We might be able to sneak in and give a quick scan. If I do, I'll post the data here. It'll be to the RTCA DO-160 RF Radiated Emissions (sec 21) limits, cause that's what I was testing, and it's the most applicable limit.

Understand, this does not constitute a qual test. This, at best, would be an enigineering evaluation. Do not use this data to try to get the FAA to change. It could get me in trouble, ok? Ok.

[kmortis]

Update:
I've secured an iPod Nano. I have the chamber. Hopefully here soon, we'll be in test, and I'll be able to sneak it in during lunch or something.

[SkepticSteph]

I prefer cell phones stayed banned because I find people on cell phones annoying. I do not want to hear someone yammer on the entire flight about utter nonsense. It interferes with by normal thought pattern.

It is stupid to ban cell phones on the basis no one will hear life saving announcements. No one listens to those anyway.

Yep. I want airplanes to be a cell-free zone just because I don't want to listen to the person next to me arguing with his/her spouse, boss, whatever while confined in close quarters. I don't give a rat's arse whether or not it is safe. People can and do survive flights without smoking and without talking on cell phones.

[kmortis]

Update: I've taken the data. I need to scan it and get it up here.

Summary: It emits alot more than I thought it would, but nothing over the DO-160D RF Radiated Emissions with radio notch.

If I have the time tonite, I'll scan it in and post it.

[kmortis]

Ok, here it is.
Test Conditions:
iPod nano, playing Pink Floyd's Division Bell. Screen active, but light was off. Headphones supported above via a wooden strut that I had laying about the lab, we tried to arrange the headphones as much like they would be on your head, but since we don't have a Buster, we had to improvise.

Test Results (narrowband only):
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/549045c27ee663e81.jpg

Like I said, there was a lot more content than I thought there would be, but nothing extraordinary.

[Ducky]

So in other words, an ipod poses no real danger to a plane?

[kmortis]

No. Not without a major attempt on your part. There isn't anything in this frequency range, with this iPod that I can say would be "a threat" to a commercial aircraft.

Of course, I STILL would follow any and all FAA regs that you're told to do. And even some that you're not told to do.

[briandunning]

One aircraft manufacturer has announced that it's going to use iPods as flight data recorders. Guess they didn't get the memo about the fearful danger they pose!
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/07/02/22/ipods.used.as.black.box/

[Soapy Sam]

So, let's get down to brass tacks.
How do we build something that looks like a cellphone or a laptop, will pass security checks, but does radiate enough noise to jam avionics?

Because if we don't, somebody will, because there's a big demand from the terrorist market and godsdammit, I thought we were capitalists here?

(And if it makes cellphones explode, so much the better. Put me down for two.)

[rjh01]

The answer to soapy Sam's question is
Build an cell phone that works as a cell phone, however at a certain time it will switch itself on and send out a powerful EM (radio) pulse or three. Any electronics nearby gets knocked out. May drain the batteries but who cares?

If it works then delete one aircraft with passengers. Cause unknown. Do it often enough they will be forced to ground all aircraft until they can work out the cause. Very hard.

If it does not work then you do not lose anything. Just rebuild and try again.

Even if it works you do not have to lose a volunteer. Just give it to your worst enemy as a 'peace offering' just before they depart on a plane flight.

Cost - a few hundred dollars per phone.

[MondoAtheist]

So many freedoms are lost when one decides to go on an airplane. How dangerous do people think airplanes would be if guns were allowed on, cigarettes were lit, and cellphones activate and everyones talking to sweet ol' grandma at the same time? Would it still be safer than driving? I always thought airplane travel was pretty safe, even if all those things would be added in the situation. Wouldn't someone who wanted to take down the plane and/or hi-jack the plane do it illegally, or by some low-tech way no one thought of? So are these rules really doing much help?

I mean, these laws and rules just seem to limit average joes who wouldn't want to do bad things. If guns were allowed and people tried to hijack the plane with guns with the possibility of gun owners on the plane wouldn't that be scary for them? Or maybe since cellphones and cigarettes are such big threats someone could say; "Oh yeah, I'll turn my cellphone on....WHILE SMOKING!" Wouldn't that be scary now. Maybe that will be the new way people will hijack planes since they can't do it with box cutters anymore.

Do cellphones really do bad things? How long have they been around, and how many people have died or been injured due to them on being activated on airplanes? Does it really make sense, that numerous planes travel daily yet I hardly hear of airplane crashes. And I've personally never heard of one going down due to cellphones. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm just saying I never heard of it happening.

I also apologize for making this about freedom and terrorism, but I think when one is speaking about airplane rules and possible myths. Then freedom must be included. We should try to give ourselves as much freedom as possible. Even though it could lead to some of the worst things ever imagined.

And I'm pretty sure some airlines would not change the rules, and some could if the FAA stepped aside on this. And then customers could choose which airline appeals to them the most. The one with no guns but yes smoking+cell phones, or the one with guns and cellphones allowed but not smoking, or the one with all allowed,etc. If this is a Myth, then is it okay for the FAA impose? Or should it be up to the airlines and the customers?

[d3z]

"The FAA is not alone in its prohibition of in-flight cell phone use. The Federal Communications Commission has a ban of its own, although it has nothing to do with safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air have the potential to engage multiple cell towers and thereby cause interference with calls on the ground. There is no scientific proof behind the FCC dictate, however; the agency never commissioned a study that conclusively proved its hypothesis." (from a 2002 article from Cable World)

I doubt the FCC is going to perform studies, since the reasoning for not having allowing cell phone users in airplanes is based on the design of the cellular phone network.

The cell network is designed around a set of users all residing in a simple plane (not airplane, the geometric kind). At a given location, an individual user's transmission decreases with the square of the distance from the cell tower. For the simple case of analog cells, this means that after a certain distance, frequencies can be reused. For digital cellular it means that a given slot or coding only interfers with the cell towers that are near that user.

Essentially, each cell tower is able to handle a certain number of users transmitting near it. This includes the users using that tower directly, plus the signal that is "visible" from users using neighboring cells.

This all breaks down when people on airplanes start using their cellphones. Typical cell separation in non-dense area is about 10 miles. It can be much higher in dense urban areas. A user that is several miles up will have a signal visible to a larger number of towers. Another way of thinking of it, is that a single user on the phone on an airplane interferes with the network the same way that perhaps a hundred would on the ground. A cellular network designed to handle 10,000 users in a given area could be completely unavailable with just 100 users in an airplane above.

Aside from all of this, people on airplanes are unlikely to find cell phone usage to be a very pleasant experience. The networks were designed to handle terrestrial users travelling at speeds under 100MPH. Users outside of these parameters are unlikely to maintain connections for long periods of times without dropouts and dropped calls.

I suspect there are two unrelated issues here. One is the fear and such coming from the airlines over possible safety issues. The other is the FCC (and the cell companies) trying to make sure that their networks aren't overwhelmed by a small number of users in the air.

If the cell companies were somehow required to provide service to air users, they would probably come up with a way to detect this, and charge significantly more for the service.

Dave

[briandunning]

So, let's get down to brass tacks.
How do we build something that looks like a cellphone or a laptop, will pass security checks, but does radiate enough noise to jam avionics?

I doubt you could. People tend to forget that commercial avionics are well hardened against this kind of attack. This is probably why Grant chose a 1960's-era radio direction finder for his Mythbusters "test".

[kmortis]

I doubt you could. People tend to forget that commercial avionics are well hardened against this kind of attack. This is probably why Grant chose a 1960's-era radio direction finder for his Mythbusters "test".

I bet I could do it. But then again, that's my field of work.

[vIQleS]

I recently tried to use a radio scanner on a plane - one of the crew noticed it and asked the pilot who said no. which surprised me as it's purely a reciever, no more interference than a walkman, radio or ipod.

cf:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2564635#post2564635

[Bfizzle]

I became skeptical of Brian's podcast after I heard M. Granger Morgan on the Scientific America Podcast talk about the POSSIBLE risks that may be associated with electronic use on airlines. For anyone interested, the podcast is SCIENCE TALK and the episode is the week starting 3/08/06. Granger is the head of the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Melon and he is the third speaker in that podcast episode. I am now up in the air about this one