Plane Answers: A rant in favor of cell phones on airplanes

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Bud vents a little frustration:

There is no data whatsoever that cell phones interfere with airplane navigation systems. In fact, there have been tests with cell phone signals amplified ten fold and without interference. So every time the flight attendent comes on the intercom and tells the cabin to turn off cell phones because “they may interfere” with the airplanes navigation system, I simply stop and think to myself, that if they would lie to me about something that doesn’t hurt at all, how much can they be trusted to tell me the truth about something that really might be harmful. I think that if you will lie about a small thing, you will lie about a big one. And since the Captain allows the lie to be broadcast, who can you really trust? Reminds me of the government agent arriving on a doorstep and saying “trust me, I’m here to help you!” Yeah! Right?

I don’t agree with your logic, Bud. The most frequently quoted study was done by Carnigie Mellon University in 2003. Their comprehensive findings were summarized as follows:
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 of causing interference to onboard avionics; and (3) onboard spectral activity was observed at flight critical phases.

The entire report is fascinating, but if you don’t have the time to read it all, here is a short interview with Bill Strauss, the person responsible for the report. He found that 1/3 of the time cell phones were being used illegally inflight, their frequencies actually crossed into the GPS band.

The FAA mandates in FAR 91.21 that carriers restrict the use of non-approved electronics devices. Flight attendants are required to enforce these regulations, and even the inflight announcements restricting cell phone use made by the cabin crew must be signed off by the FAA. So, instead of lying to you, these flight attendants are complying with the regulations of their job.

To borrow your logic a bit, let’s imagine a flight attendant who skipped the cell phone announcement. What other parts of their job might they be neglecting? Can you then trust them to check their fire extinguisher, oxygen and escape slide pressures before departure?

It’s been the policy of each of the airlines I’ve worked for that pilots and flight attendants are to be truthful with passengers.

It doesn’t matter what the delay is, we will always try to give as much insight as possible into the reason. There’s honestly no incentive for us to tell passengers anything other than the truth.

The airline I currently work for decided to go through the long and costly process to demonstrate to the FAA that cell phone use after landing and while taxiing to the gate was safe.

The test involved filling every seat with a person using a cell phone from a variety of manufacturers on each of the airplanes the airline operated.

Little regard was given to GPS and ground-based navigation interference, since the airplane was simply taxiing to the gate. Subsequently, each airplane type at the company passed, except for one. When this airplane, an Airbus, was tested, for some reason the smoke detector in a lavatory would activate.

After further modifications, the FAA approved cell phone use while taxiing in for each one of our aircraft types. I realize this is anecdotal, but it does represent at least some sort of interference, I suppose.

In the past, the FCC banned cell phones inflight because they would interfere with the networks on the ground. According to the author of the Carnegie Mellon study:

The FCC feels it can probably lift the ban, even if there are problems of interference [on board airplanes]. They’re saying to FAA, “If you want a ban, that’s your territory.”

Europe has recently approved cell phone use inflight, but that’s still subject to the European Aviation Safety Agency determining that interference isn’t an issue. I suppose in the U.S. if the public demands the use of cell phones on an airplane (a big if) then it’s going to be up to the airlines to convince the FAA it’s safe.

But please don’t blame the pilots or the flight attendants for following the regulations that are currently in place.


Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: Medical issues for pilots and the FAA

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Tom asks an interesting question:

Hi Kent,

I am a big fan of your website and your weekly additions here. Great stuff. But my true question comes down to this. I had a seizure two weeks ago and they did all the testing and EEG and MRI and CT scans and blood work and all came back negative. They are thinking that it was once in a lifetime type of thing. So I started wondering will I be able to still receive my First class medical if I have no seizures and I am on no medications and the doctors told me I am fine?

Hi Tom,

I checked with my AME (Aviation Medical Examiner) and he pointed me to this document from the FAA. It seems the FAA will look at your specific case and after you submit all pertinent medical records and a current status report, they’ll render a decision.

Good luck! I’d love to hear what you find out.

Steve asks:

I’ve been told that I’m red/green colorblind. Will this disqualify me for an FAA medical? Would I even be able to fly private aircraft just for fun?

Hi Steve,

In the U.S., apparently 8% of males have some sort of color deficiency. That percentage drops to just .04% of females.

Most have Deuteranomaly, which occurs in 5% of males. It’s more commonly known as the red/green color confusion.

Only .0005% of the population is totally color blind.

Most people won’t even realize they’re color blind until they try to get an FAA medical. If they can’t read the numbers in the color blind test, they’re given a restriction on their medical that says, NOT VALID FOR NIGHT FLYING OR BY COLOR SIGNAL CONTROL.

Take a look at this picture. What number do you see?

With normal color vision, you’ll see a five and If you’re red/green color blind, you’ll see a two. Of course, different monitors may affect the test, so you’ll want to be tested by an eye doctor to be sure.

If a pilot applicant is color deficient, they can apply for a waiver by demonstrating to an FAA representative that they are able to see the lights associated with a Farnsworth lantern test or, alternatively a light ‘gun’ test that’s beamed from the tower to aircraft that have lost radio communication, an extremely rare situation to be in as a pilot, but it’s an effective test apparently.

If the prospective pilot wants to get a first class medical, which is needed to fly for an airline, they would also have to fly with an FAA inspector to come in contact with the lights most commonly encountered inflight. If they can demonstrate proficiency during this flight test, they will then be issued a waiver.

I have met a number of pilots at various major airlines who’ve successfully gone through this process.

So for most U.S. pilots, the color vision issue is not disqualifying. You might want to try to get the waiver early on in your flight training, to be sure you’re able to continue commercially. Of course, this is all based on the current FAA U.S. rules which are rumored to be changing soon. I don’t know what the requirements are in Europe or Asia. Good luck!

Luke asks:

Do pilots need to have perfect vision to fly at the airlines?

Their vision needs to be correctable to 20/20 or better to be eligible for a first class medical. Most airlines have long since dropped the requirement for uncorrected 20/20 vision, but the military still requires it at the time you begin your flight training. After getting through your flight training, you’re allowed to wear glasses, from what I understand.

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and he’ll try to use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: Is “Free Flight” the answer to ATC delays?

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Kent:

I know a lot has been written lately about airport delays, I have also read something about “Free Flying.” With TCAS is ATC obsolete? Should ATC be more focused on ground operations, to get planes in the air? I know from most recent articles the ATC system is operating on antiquated systems and in need of a massive overhaul. I am interested to hear your opinion, is “Free Flying” in our future?

-Justin

Thanks Justin,

We’re not able to navigate or adjust our spacing using our Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). This device, which is almost like a radar screen showing the other traffic within 40 miles of our airplane, is solely to keep us from running into someone. Think of it as a backup to the Air Traffic Control system. And just like passengers aren’t generally interested in pilotless airplanes, pilots may not be interested in a world without controllers directing traffic and keeping us safe.

The ability for airplanes to fly directly to a destination is one thing that would shorten travel times, but it’s important to put the benefit in perspective. The FAA is hoping to develop a system that would allow for a direct routing versus today’s system of waypoints and VOR’s that define a more jagged path, but it will only save a few minutes of flight time.

The FAA is even more interested in the ability to space flights closer when near the airport using a new technology called NextGen. Why are they so excited about this?

Because it’s low hanging fruit.

Even at $20 billion, it just might offer the best answer to the capacity problem. Using computers and GPS, we can have more direct flights and airplanes can take care of their own spacing as they approach the airport. Take a look at this video on “NextGen” by David Pogue for CBS News that explains what the FAA is trying to do (after the jump):

While they make the small airplane owners look like the bad guys in this story, it’s hard to see any reason to force Cessna 182 pilots to pay $6,000 for a box that will help ATC control traffic around a hub like DFW or ORD, an area that most general aviation (Cessna) pilots avoid anyway.

Unless we start doing formation takeoff and landings on ultra-wide runways out of JFK and other saturated airports-a highly unlikely scenario-we’re not going to see delays improve without capacity reductions or huge investments in new infrastructure. So the next step is to improve the infrastructure at airports by adding gates, revising taxiways and adding more runways. The trouble is, people living near these airports equate that to more traffic and subsequently, noise. And it’s yet another cost.

At airports with most frequent delays, airlines need to ‘bump-up’ the size of airplanes. A 19-seat Beech 1900 takes up nearly the same airspace that a 747 does. It might take the government to step in and mandate a minimum size of aircraft at these ultra-saturated airports, but this could be an effective way to fix the problem. The smaller airplanes might begin flying more point-to-point trips from lesser used airports in the same way Southwest does now.

We’re going to get some short term relief from the airlines that are cutting back later this year for economic reasons. But that’s no reason to sit back and wait until we’re near gridlock once again to fix the problem.

Thanks for the great question, Justin.

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

FAA whistle blowers blow and spill about Southwest Airlines violations

Yesterday CNN broke a story that two FAA inspectors have decided to come forward and start talking. And have they talked. According to Bobby Boutris and Douglas Peters, the issues with Southwest Airlines not complying with FAA safety inspections is an old problem that the FAA has known about, but has ignored. Boutris and Peters, uncomfortable with the FAA protocol not being followed, decided to spill because they feel they owe taxpayers a job well done.

They said that FAA looked the other way when Southwest flew 70 airplanes–or more, 30 months past the time they should have had their rudders inspected. The rudder is one of those important parts. It’s connected to the steering mechanism. Another not inspected part FAA knew about according to these two? The fuselage, or the skin. This inspection finds cracks. There were 47 planes that weren’t inspected when they should have been. During inspection 6 of them had cracks that could have been dangerous. That’s a comfort. Glad they found those. CNN has not been able to snag an interview with FAA higher ups, thus far.

Today there’s a hearing on Capitol Hill with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to help find out WHAT THE (fill in an expletive)?! CNN is staying up on this one. Boutris and Peters want whistle blower protection. I wonder who will play them in the movie version? Remember Russell Crowe in “The Insider,” the movie about the tobacco industry?

See previous Gadling posts about Southwest’s inspection story here, here, and here.

Get a pilot license in 20 hours and for $340 bucks

At some point in the last couple of years, chances are you’ve come across the term “very light jets” or the catchy acronym VLJ. These are Chevy Suburban-sized planes that let you avoid the hassles of flying commercial.

But what about the flip-side of this trend towards the ultra-small? I’m talking about propeller planes that fit only two passengers and weigh less than 1,300 pounds. To encourage people to get a pilot’s license, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has come up with a new class of licenses for these “sports planes.”

Instead of the standard 40 hours of flight-time instruction as well as many hundreds of dollars you’ll have to pay, you can get the sports pilot license in 20 hours and for a couple hundred of dollars. Best of all, these sports planes can cost half as less as conventional planes: $80,000 instead of something like $200,000.

Hell, even I can afford to do this (maybe).

%Gallery-15647%

Curious to know what it’s like to fly a 757 for a commercial airline? Follow along with Gadling’s resident pilot, Kent Wien, in Cockpit Chronicles.