Tag Archives: airlines

Interesting Links, November 28, 2011

Posted on by

Here are links I found interesting on November 28, 2011:

Why Are We Still Powering Down All Electronic Devices on Airliners?

Posted on by
6

There’s no real reason for it.

A Twitter/Google+ friend of mine, Chris, linked to an article on the New York Times website today, “Fliers Still Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why.” His comment on Google+ pretty much echoed my sentiments:

I do all my book reading on an iPad, and it’s annoying that I can’t read during the beginning and end of a flight, likely for no legitimate reason.

This blog post takes a logical look at the practice and the regulations behind it.

What the FAA Says

In most instances, when an airline flight crew tells you to turn off portable electronic devices — usually on takeoff and landing — they make a reference to FAA regulations. But exactly what are the regulations?

Fortunately, we can read them for ourselves. Indeed, the Times article links to the actual Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) governing portable electronic devices on aircraft, 121.306. Here it is in its entirety:

121.306 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.

(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 part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

So what this is saying is that you can’t operate any portable electronic device that the aircraft operator — the airline, in this case — says you can’t. (Read carefully; a is the rule and b is the loophole.) You can, however, always operate portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers (good thing!), and electric shavers (?).

So is the FAA saying you can’t operate an iPad (or any other electronic device) on a flight? No. It’s the airline that says you can’t.

Interference with Navigation or Communication Systems

In reading this carefully, you might assume that the airline has determined that devices such as an iPad may cause interference with navigation or communication systems. After all, that’s the only reason the FAA offers them the authority to require these devices to be powered down.

But as the Times piece points out, a 2006 study by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics found no evidence that these devices can or can’t interfere. Sounds to me like someone was avoiding responsibility for making a decision.

In the meantime, many portable electronic devices, including iPads, Kindles, and smart phones have “airplane mode” settings that prevent them from sending or receiving radio signals. If this is truly the case, it should be impossible for these devices to interfere with navigation or communication systems when in airplane mode. And if all you want to do with your device is read a downloaded book or play with an app that doesn’t require Internet access, there should be no reason why you couldn’t do so.

And can someone really make the argument that an electronic device in airplane mode emits more radio interference than a pacemaker or electric shaver?

And what about the airlines that now offer wi-fi connectivity during the flight? You can’t have your device in airplane mode to take advantage of that service. Surely that says something about the possibility of radio interference: there is none. Evidently, if you’re paying the airline to use their wi-fi, it’s okay.

What’s So Special about Takeoff and Landing?

Of course, since you are allowed to use these devices during the cruise portion of the flight, that begs the question: What’s so special about takeoff and landing?

As a pilot, I can assure you that the pilot’s workload is heavier during the takeoff and landing portions of the flight. There’s more precise flying involved as well as more communication with air traffic control (ATC) and a greater need to watch out for and avoid other aircraft.

But in an airliner, the pilots are locked in the cockpit up front, with very little possibility of distractions from the plane full of seat-belted passengers behind them — even if some of them are busy reading the latest suspense thriller or playing an intense game of Angry Birds.

Are the aircraft’s electronics working harder? I don’t think so.

Are they more susceptible to interference? I can’t see how they could be.

So unless I’m wrong on any of these points, I can’t see why the airlines claim that, for safety reasons, these devices need to be powered off during takeoff and landing.

It’s a Control Issue

I have my own theory on why airlines force you to power down your devices during takeoff and landing: They don’t want their flight attendants competing with electronic devices for your attention.

By telling you to stow all this stuff, there’s less of a chance of you missing an important announcement or instruction. Theoretically, if the aircraft encountered a problem and they needed to instruct passengers on what they should do, they might find it easier to get and keep your attention if you weren’t reading an ebook or listening to your iPod or playing Angry Birds. Theoretically. But there are two arguments against this, too:

  • You can get just as absorbed in a printed book (or maybe even that damn SkyMall catalog) as you could in an ebook.
  • If something were amiss, the actual flight/landing conditions and/or other screaming/praying/seatback-jumping passengers would likely get your attention.

But let’s face it: airlines want to boss you around. They want to make sure you follow their rules. So they play the “safety” card. They tell you their policies are for your safety. And they they throw around phrases like “FAA Regulations” to make it all seem like they’re just following someone else’s rules. But as we’ve seen, they have the authority to make the rule, so it all comes back to them.

And that’s the way they like it.

How Cell Phones Fit Into This Discussion

Cell phone use is a completely different issue. In the U.S., it isn’t the FAA that prohibits cell phone use on airborne aircraft — it’s the FCC. You can find the complete rule on that in FCC regulation 22.925, which states (in part):

22.925   Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off.

There are reasons for this, but an analysis of whether or not they’re valid is beyond the scope of this discussion.

I just want to be able to read books on my iPad from the moment I settle into my airliner seat to the moment I leave it.

Airlines are Still the Best Deal for Point-to-Point Travel

Posted on by
2

Seriously; their planes might be bigger and costlier to operate, but there are more people footing the bill.

It happened again this weekend. I got a call from a guy here in Phoenix looking for a charter flight. He started by saying that his dad had died in Salt Lake City and that he couldn’t afford the $600 airfare to get up there.

I replied with two very truthful things:

  • I was sorry that his dad had passed away.
  • The airlines were the best deal for a flight from Phoenix to Salt Lake City.

I gave him some numbers to back up that second fact. I get about $500/hour for charter flights. Salt Lake City is at least a 4 hour flight from Phoenix. I had to be paid for the trip up there and the trip back. So he was looking at at least $4,000 plus any overnight fees to keep me there until he was ready to come back.

Sure beats $600, no?

And I don’t have a beverage service or rest rooms.

He then proceeded to ask me if I knew anything about a charter operator who flew out of Scottsdale to Salt Lake City. I didn’t.

He then told me he figured he could find someone with a small plane, “like a Cessna,” who’d take him up there for $150. I told him that was very unlikely.

It was difficult to extract myself from the conversation without being rude, but I managed.

I get calls like this pretty often. I’ve had calls for flights to Albequerque, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and even Montreal (which I still can’t believe; do you know how long that flight would take?). People assume that because my aircraft is smaller than an airliner, it would be cheaper to fly with me than with Southwest or United. This is not the case.

The simple truth of the matter is that airlines are the cheapest way to fly point-to-point if you need to go from one airline-serviced city to another. There are several reasons for this, the main reason being that the cost of the flight is covered by the 100+ people on the plane.

Yes, the cost of flying my helicopter between PHX and SLC is lower than the cost of flying a Boeing 737 between PHX and SLC. But I can carry 3 passengers; the B-737 can carry more than 150. So even if it costs me $3,000 and it costs the airline $30,000, $3,000 ÷ 3= $1,000 per person and $30,000÷150 = $200 per person. Doing the math, you can clearly see that the cost per passenger is considerably lower for the larger aircraft.

And that’s not even counting the money the airline is collecting for hauling mail and cargo on the same flight.

So folks, the next time you need a cost-effective way to travel 200 miles or more between two cities serviced by the airlines, just bite the bullet and buy the plane ticket. You won’t be saving any money with me.

Or if you’re that cost conscious and have a car that gets good mileage, just drive.

Interesting Links, September 11, 2011

Posted on by

Here are links I found interesting on September 11, 2011:

Interesting Links, August 24, 2011

Posted on by

Here are links I found interesting on August 24, 2011:

  • Steve Jobs’s Best Quotes – I think the title says it all. Just remember folks: he's not dead yet. Stop talking about him as if he is. It's creepy.
  • Jobs’s Departure Is the End of an Extraordinary Era – Putting the significance of Steve Jobs and his achievements into perspective.
  • 12 Types of Bad Tech Names – Fun article about product names.
  • iPads Replacing Pilots’ Paper Manuals – "The Federal Aviation Administration has authorized a handful of commercial and charter carriers to use the tablet computer as a so-called electronic flight bag. Private pilots, too, are now carrying iPads, which support hundreds of general aviation apps that simplify preflight planning and assist with in-flight operations."
  • United Pilots Get iPad Flight Manuals – "United Airlines said on Tuesday that it would give iPads to the 11,000 pilots who fly United and Continental Airlines planes. The new iPads are being labeled electronic flight bags, or E.F.B., and the airline said they would completely replace the pilot’s paper flight manuals." Don't miss the paragraph about how much weight and fuel the switch to iPad will save.
  • The New Apostolic Reformation: The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare – "An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus, is becoming more of a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role." I don't know about you, but I find this frightening.