Cell Phones on Airplanes
Cell phones are perfectly safe on airplanes. So why can't we use them?
You should follow me on twitter here.
| Skeptoid #14 December 15, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to fly up to 40,000 feet, flip open our cell phone, and call the Twilight Zone to tell them we're doing something that's supposed to be deadly dangerous.
I love Mythbusters and it's my whole family's favorite show, but with their episode on the cell phone ban aboard aircraft, they did a disservice to those of us who hope to get this groundless ban dropped. In case you missed it, they did a test and concluded that cell phones can potentially interfere with an aircraft's navigation system. The only instrument they tested was a radio direction finder called a VOR, which detects a radio beam coming from a ground station and points its direction. In practice, VOR is on its way out, in favor of GPS. VOR stations are each assigned a unique frequency in the VHF range between 108 MHz and 117.95 MHz, which is right above the FM radio frequency range. By contrast, the lowest frequency used by any US mobile telephones is 700 MHz; and in European mobile telephones, 450 MHz. Since the frequencies are so incredibly different, the whole debate is ended right there, for all practical purposes. Mythbusters used an older VOR receiver that could be tuned to receive a much broader range of frequencies, which is why they were able to detect the mobile phone signal. To be more responsible, they should have admitted that this frequency was wildly different than what any aircraft might possibly tune to. As it was, they left viewers with an inaccurate, and alarmist, impression. Mythbusters called the myth "plausible". No, it's really not plausible; a cell phone cannot affect an aircraft's navigation instruments in the real world, and we'll have more on that in a moment. Maybe if you threw a cell phone really hard at the GPS, you could break something.
So this raises an obvious question: why aren't cell phone calls allowed on airplanes, if there's no harm in it? The real reason has nothing to do with the FAA; it comes from the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. It has nothing whatsoever to do with safety or security. When you're seven or eight miles up in the air, your phone can hit any of hundreds of cell towers, and there is supposition that this could cause a problem. As we know from 9/11, cell phones work fine from the air, but nevertheless the FCC has enacted a law making it illegal to operate a cell phone in a commercial plane that's not touching the ground. I've used mine from general aviation aircraft on a number of occasions and never had a problem either. A non-profit called RTCA is the Federal Advisory Committee for the FAA, and their report finding that cell phones pose no risk to aircraft safety is detailed in their report DO-235A, Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the GNSS. The only law that the FAA has is in support of the FCC law.
Boeing and Airbus routinely bombard their aircraft to harden them against every conceivable type of attack, physical and electronic, certainly including cell phone signals. If cell phones had the potential to endanger an aircraft, you'd be allowed to bring them on board in the same way as you bring dynamite on board. Meaning, not at all.
All other devices that you're not allowed to use during takeoff and landing (PDA's, video games, iPods, laptops), are not restricted by either the FAA or the FCC. You'll find the authority for this in RTCA document DO-233, Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft. These rules are arbitrary and are invented by the airlines, without any legal authority. It is their plane and they're within their rights to make whatever rules they want, but travelers should know that there are no laws against using these devices at any time, and that the research has been conducted and the devices have been demonstrated to be safe. Feel free to put this on the comment card next time you fly.
When you listen to the flight attendants explain the rules, it's clear that their training includes a simple mention that portable electronics and cell phones represent a danger. The trainers probably believe it and the flight attendants have no reason to question what they've been told. If you've ever wondered how your 1.5 volt LCD Palm Pilot could be so dangerous, you were on the right track. When you hear something that sounds far fetched, be skeptical.
So what's the deal? Are Men in Black secretly going from airline boardroom to boardroom, handing out corporate welfare payments in exchange for the promise to support the government's evil plan to convince us all that we're on the brink of destruction? Are there paranoid, over-cautious, or ignorant policymakers in charge at all the airlines? Personally both of those are a little too conspiracy theory for my taste, but I also think there might be a small element of truth in each.
Take the example of the terrorist train bombing in Madrid in March of 2004. The bombs were set off by cell phone calls, since cell phones are easy to get and are reliable. One reaction, which thankfully has not been put in place so far that I've seen, was the immediate proposal to jam cell phone signals anywhere that was bombable. Airports, national monuments, stadiums, train stations. Was this a logical reaction? No. If the bombers couldn't have used cell phones they would have used walkie talkies from Radio Shack. If they couldn't have used those they would have used mechanical wind-up clocks attached to detonators. If they couldn't have used those, they would have used slow burning fuses. There are a million ways to set off a bomb and no law can prevent it from happening. Any reasonable person understands this. Unfortunately, our politically correct, alarmist, liability hysterical culture demands that government do something. The culture doesn't know or care whether it's logical, or makes any difference. Our culture sleeps better knowing that Big Brother is babysitting. Satisfy the public's emotions, and you have a happy population. I guarantee you that Osama bin Laden is not rending his garments in despair over all his plans being ruined, now that Americans aren't allowed to bring a bottle of water on board a plane. It's a useless and inconvenient law, but it shows that government cares, and our culture is willing to be walked all over and curtailed in any way necessary to feel protected.
I think the cell phone ban on airplanes is just another example of this. Big Brother has cultivated and nourished a supposed danger, and leveraged it into another opportunity to babysit. Now I promise you that I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not some paranoid anti-government guy who thinks the government is out to get us. But I can't think of a better explanation for the absurd inflight cell phone ban, than the one I've just given. If you can, I welcome your comments on the web site.
You should follow me on twitter here.
Drop a tip in my tip jar? or become a supporter
© 2006 Skeptoid.com
References & Further Reading
Cardenas, E., Gorman, E. The Hummer: Myths and consumer culture. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007.
Corbet, J., Koehler, H. "Updated emissions from ocean shipping." Journal of Geophysical Research. 29 Oct. 2003, Volume 108, Number D20: 4650-4666.
De Place, Eric. "How SUVs Can Save the Climate." Sightline Daily. Sightline Institute, 19 Dec. 2007. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/12/19/how-suvs-can-save-the-climate>
EPA. "Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. US Federal Government, 1 Feb. 2005. Web. 20 Dec. 2006. <http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm>
Padgett, Martin. Hummer: How the Little Truck Company Hit the Big Time, Thanks to Saddam, Schwarzenegger, and GM. St. Paul: Motorbooks International, 2004.
US Dept of Energy/US EPA. "Fuel Economy." Fuel Economy. US DOE/US EPA, 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/>
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Cell Phones on Airplanes." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
15 Dec 2006. Web.
10 Mar 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4015-1>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 35 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
The Pit Bull analogy is indeed valid. Since I run a dog rescue & have had dozens of them come thru & get adopted successfully, I know that they are one of the more stable and people-friendly breeds -- usually even after being abused & fought.
Another aspect of the debate that gets ignored quite often is that many people have a real NEED for a van or SUV-type vehicle, unlike the urban yuppie scum that whine & moan about mileage and carbon footprints.
I live in a rural area where snow happens, and there are no buses or subways to get me to the grocery store or feed store when there's a foot of snow on the ground. For urban dwellers, no problem. For me -- it's damned essential that I have something that will work in ice or snow (high ground clearance & 4wd), people & 35 dogs will get hungry.
Also, unlike the urban bums that annoy me so much -- most of us rural dwellers do our own home maintenance & repairs, build sheds, fix fences ... and I need something that will carry plywood & lumber, hundreds of lb of dog food at a time. Expecting us to drive some little Asiatic abortion of a hybrid, not much larger than my Great Danes, is ridiculous. And I'll be damned if there's any reason I should get stuck with higher fees. I already pay more in gas because of my needs.
The real problem with the growing mob of urban voters is that they barely have a life, and want to turn the rest of us into THEM.
The worst fascists are the liberals.
G. White, Arlington VA
September 04, 2009 11:13pm
To further James from Harrogate's points SUV's might also cause more accidents. My premise is that these are more dangerous for those of us driving smaller cars due to not being able to see around them. In this way they are like freight trucks, except that they don't cary cargo.
In my estimation the real problem is americans needing a larger foot print every time we turn around.
Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
November 02, 2009 10:30am
Well, try not to tail gate next time you drive!
I still love my BMW 4.8is
Not many people tail gate me, as when they do, I usually drive over the centre of the road (you know, the part with the grit!) and you can see them back off in a hail of grit and a huge dust cloud!
HAVE THAT!
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 20, 2009 4:38pm
I hate the argument that "SUVs are too big on the road." So are Mack trucks. Do you want to ban those? People in urban areas would starve without trucks bringing in food.
"SUVs don't fit in compact parking spaces." So make larger parking spaces.
SUVs are valid choice, and here in America, we have that sort of freedom.
I think the hype against SUVs is finally dying down as rationality reasserts itself. People can't make a groundless argument forever unless it's backed by a church or political group.
Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 10:01pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
We should ban SUV's because I can't see around the damn things. That's reason enough.
Seriously, though, my main criticism is that, although Brian made a good point in that we should look at the fuel efficiency of the individual types of cars and SUV's rather than just banning them, I heard very few numbers comparing the actual fuel efficiencies of the models. So I get the impression that there are a couple of exceptions here or there, but that for the most part SUV's really are less fuel efficient than the average car.
A bigger, heavier car is also more likely to seriously injure or kill the other driver in an accident than a normal sized car. Couple that with James' point about handling, and SUV drivers are more likely to get into accidents in which they will kill another driver.
Jarek, Ohio
August 23, 2009 11:22am