Qantas is just using the average person's ignorance to escape blame and waste time.

closhedbb

I just stick with traveling on only Boeing aircraft. My favorite is the 767 and 737.

MadMacs

I was an aircraft mechanic my first four years in the Air Force. One thing that I learned is that our electronics DO NOT cause interference with any of the avionics. The FCC pretty much controls at what frequency everything can transmit and you would need a defective piece of equipment in order to cause such interference, and it would be minor.

Can it happen? Sure, but the probability is slim to none, and slim is out of town.

Nogard13

+ Watch video

babj615

...what a bunch of baloney.......

Qantas is looking for the easy way out...

I personally blame horribly made Airbus aircraft...

..besides, are the Airbus not the ones that like to crash on takeoff, regardless of pilot input???

babj615

im sure the drunk sleeping pilot had nothing to do with it.

JohnDeere

Mythbusters anyone? The likelihood of a cell phone or any electronic device disrupting a plane's electronic systems is almost unfathomably remote.

@jim20j: sorry if I just restated what you were saying, wasn't sure if you meant some other show or article you'd dug up somewhere :(

Oropix

You know, I have to wonder how spoiled we are that we can't bear to not use our personal gadgets for the 15-20 minutes at both ends of the flight that the cabin crew politely asks us to keep them turned off.

I'm also for never, ever allowing cell phone conversations on planes.

BillyShears

Pfft, using gadgets on a plane, losers. Haven't you ever heard of the mile high club?

shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog

@Red-Panda: I posted that already! Seems like nobody paid attention... :(

Polybius

@dfwguy: If I could type I would be dangerous.

dfwguy

I thought everyone knew the dangers of gadgets at 20,000 feet...

[www.penny-arcade.com]

Red-Panda

If you can't use your persoanl electronics it presents an opportunity fot the carrier to provide that service...for a fee of course.

dfwguy

Sorry 'bout that. It was me. I was listening to Cool the Engines by Boston and the damn plane started shutting down. Thinking quickly I switched to The Steve Miller Band and Jet Airliner. My lightning fast eye-hand coordination saved the day but later that night the stewardess I had picked up in flight was sadly disappointed....

Jrsy is the dude, playing the dude, disguised as another dude

@tollboothwilly: Agreed. Terrorists would be dropping plans from the sky with juiced up iPhones and Blackberrys if this was the case.

EBone

Since you just never know what could go wrong these days, I'd rather abide by FAA regulations and put my phone in Airplane Mode than to risk the possibility that something like this could happen.

I'd hate to think that I thought I knew better and did it anyway and somebody got hurt.

shorty63136

Oh comeon, they busted that myth last year

jim20j

If passengers can inadvertently cause these problems by using out-of-the-box personal electronics shouldn't TSA be more worried about someone modding out an iPod to purposefully produce this "interference" than my toothpaste? I call bulls**t.

tollboothwilly

I love this comic...

Polybius

I like sitting next to a worried passenger pulling out x-plane, and going whoops when we hit turbulance. Sorry didn't mean to do that.

Honestly though you are not supposed to have any wireless transmitting devices on you can turn that off easily on any device now days. I don't see how the general electrical noise from todays devices would be such a huge impact even if everyone had a device running.

Maus

diefldrmas

@ghostbusterbob: Simpson

Jrsy is the dude, playing the dude, disguised as another dude

@Overheal:
Bart who?

ghostbusterbob

I've gotten cell phone calls from people on private jets during take-off & landings. Those folks are still with us today. I'm not that concerned about it.

FЯeeMan is slowly cЯawling out of the new commenting system

Well now that I know listening to my ipod when I shouldn't be will cause a 300 ft nose-dive I'll be sure to keep my seatbelt latched too.

bmoctta

I thought it was weird when everyone looked at me funny when I asked where I could plug in my microwave.

marc_wtih_a_c

so quantas is trying to blame this on products that emit pretty much not wireless signals... and ones that do most likely dont operate at the frequency consider europe allows inflight calling and more carriers offering wi-fi and in-flight satellite tv...

the people over at quantas must be watching our presidential debates

purple-pillows

Anyone else reminded of Bart's Gameboy?

Overheal

That's the one I was thinking of...

Lite

@FЯeeMan is slowly cЯawling out of the new commenting system: That's actually a fcc rule and not a faa rule. If you're up at 40,000 feet or so, your cell will connect to ever cell tower it can "see". They have absolutely no effect on any aircraft electronics. The faa plays it extremely safe with portable electronics though. Even if they are ul and fcc approved, who's to say it hasn't been modified, or even partially broken? I'd rather not use my iPod for 10 minutes or so and not have that brat that keeps kicking the back of my seat with a chinese knock off game boy bring down the plane.

Barry99705

@Overheal: Actually, it reminded me of the Dilbert in which the PHB won't close his laptop as the plane is crashing because he has to save it, then asks the stewardess if he can do that in excel.

Lite

I call bullshit. Qantas, after a reasonbly unblemished safety record (and they've never lost an aircraft), have come under some scrutiny lately after several maintenance-related issues (bits falling off, doors blowing out).

They are just trying to divert attention away from what is probably yet another maintenance issue.

gadgetophile

@babj615:

holy shit, whats the story on that?

ford4life

[quote]On the other side, claims of the insulation degrading in older jets making them more susceptible to interference make sense.[/quote]

This is in reference to electrical insulation that is being degraded (as in the plastic is becoming less flexible and breaking off), which has nothing to do with the capability of those wires to block electro-magnetic interference (EMI). If the EMI shielding was going to pot we'd have the planes falling out of the sky every time they flew within 100 miles of a radio tower, cell tower, CB radio, etc.

MacGyverS2000

@Overheal:

LOL

Uh, folks, we're experiencing some moderate Godzilla-related turbulence at
this time, so I'm going to go ahead and ask you to put your seatbelts back on.
When we get to 35 thousand feet, he usually does let go, so from there on out,
all we have to worry about is Mothra, and, uh, we do have reports he's tied up
with Gamera and Rodan at the present time. Thank you very much.

ford4life

I do lightning testing at a major avionics manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus, Cessna are our big customers) and these items are capeable of causing interference on an airplane. I dont think that is what happened. 99 percent of the time failure on an aircraft is mechanical in nature and not through some sort of EMI interference from a GameBoy.

Stabio

@shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog: Heard of the Mile High Club? Certainly. Have any chance of becoming a member? Not so much.

Canthros

I'm supposed to believe my 2 year old Ipod and/or $100 DVD player can interfere with million dollar avionics that are made to withstand lightning strikes? Really?

Wouldnt the next group of terrorists just hop on a plane and turn on their DVD Players and Ipods if this was really the case?

dcmidnight

besides, airplane mode increases the play time on music phones :)

Ornament

@purple-pillows: A wireless mouse emits no wireless signals? Huh, does it work on magic beans or something?

Lite

This is such BS. Pass the buck!

JEmlay

Yeah, this shouldn't cause any problems - i left my cell phone on during a flight from SC to MD and we made it back fine

ryanobo66

@BillyShears: Well its not that I can't do without them, I just hate rules with no (or worse stupid) explanation. If they just said that my iPod had no chance of taking down the plane, but they are being forced to play it safe I might feel differently.

Jkoenig96

"Earlier this week, a Qantas A330 inexplicably climbing 300 feet then nose-diving back down."

eh... needs proper grammar.

Earlier this week, a Qantas A330 inexplicably climbing 300 feet FOUND ITSELF then nose-diving back down.

Kimistry

@jim20j: Did they? Who busted it? MythBusters gave it a plausible. They're was definitely interference from personal electronics with the equipment they tested it on.

RoboChop

@drivintin: "Miss, you forgot the coffee!"

Lite

Shouldn't they be focusing on improving avionics and keeping up with technology?

oh right, that costs airlines money... nevermind.

YourHero

@Lite: And to this day there is some controversy over the details of the crash. Accusations of fabricated data, etc.

If you want to put a tinfoil hat on, it looks like someone in government was covering up for an Airbus deficiency to keep the company's reputation in good standing world-wide.

However even the engines for these planes were modified after the fact. The pilot of the flight did jail time for manslaughter.

Lite

As an airline pilot, i can say that this did in fact occur because of a portable electronic device. It was the pilot with his foot resting on the yoke playing the air drums when he kicked off the autopilot.

drivintin

@ford4life: Air France flight 296 at an air show... The voice-over is sort of misleading... This is an Airbus 320 w/ Fly-by-wire. Basically, the computer attempts to prevent the pilot from doing things that would overstress the airframe.

There was a VERY large scandal over this crash, including switched flight recorders.

The plane design had engine acceleration issues that Airbus had posted a notice about, but Air France had apparently neglected to pass the info on to pilots.

The pilot was supposed to fly no lower than 100'...

Lite

I travel a lot for work and am almost always using my iPod during take-off and landing, except on the rare occasion that I have a cold or something and am dealing with the ear popping issues.

Wear a hoodie, tuck the cord underneath the shirt, hood up, and you're gtg.

yorktronic

I don't understand what an ipod or other non-radio-signal-transmitting device could possibly do to interfere with plane avionics. Cell phones, bluetooth and wi-fi devices? Maybe...but I don't see how a device that doesn't transmit a signal can have any affect. I've seen people sending text messages on my flights and I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

GTgeek

I can hear the cabin directions better with my noise canceling headphone inside my ears and on. Instead I wear earplugs and go to sleep after the passenger briefing.

DeadWriter

Reminds me of the West Wing episode. Toby, who is on a commercial plane, has to make an emergency phonecall to the President. He turns on the phone and dials...

Flight Attendant: Sir I'm going to have to ask that you turn off your cellular phone.

Toby: We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle Series L-1011. Came off the line twenty months ago. Carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system, and you're telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?

Harkonian

Hell of a first sentence there, Giz!

BumpinUgglas

My phone has "flight mode" that I switch on while we taxi and turn back on when we've landed safely, but I still keep it on

JymmyZ

@MacGyverS2000: It's possible the hull of the plane itself acts as a shield from the outside.

ripfire

Why would any of you assume that every electronics you carry would be safe on any flights. Oh sure, FCC prevents frequency overlapping, but that compliancy is only for US devices. When you're dealing with international flights or have international passengers, you can't guarantee all devices are FCC compliant. That is why the FAA rule is there regardless of the safety from FCC.

ripfire

@BillyShears: it's the fact that they don't allow them the first 15-20 minutes at each end of the flight on 50 minute flights... 15 minutes of work get done, then I have to shut the computer back down.

my cell phone stays on vibrate, just like the rest of the BB users out there.

freelunch

@dcmidnight: They all have copies of Pootie Tang in the DVD players. That will kill everyone.

Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->

@babj615: It's weird how you hear the engines spin/throttle up right before you see the smoke.

Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->

never been a fatal event with an a330...or with quantas in 60 years...makes this pretty scary...

urbanturban666

Well, they may have lost altitude, but (according to Rain Man at least) Quantas never crashed.

EricAlder

There seems to be some confusion about the rules regarding the use of portable devices on airplanes.

Here are the reasons you need to keep everything turned off in the first/last 10 minutes:

1. Turn them off so that you are not distracted from the crew's instructions in case of trouble.

2. In case of a mishap (which is most likely to occur at takeoff or landing), your devices can become projectiles, which is why you need to have them stowed in the overhead bin or under the seat.

You are allowed to use these devices while the plane is cruising at altitude.

You are not allowed to use RADIO devices at all, as they can cause interference with the navigation systems (ground-to-air transponders, etc.). All of you who think you know better than the crew, please just stay off the planes. (By the way, the expensive, in-seat phones and all the other radio devices on the plane use frequencies that are known NOT to cause interference... It is not the same as your cellphone or radio controlled car.)

Soundman1402

Even if there's only a 0.001% chance of my iPhone causing the plane to crash, I'm not gonna risk other people's lives.

Galley

I always turn my gizmos off when requested and it annoys me when I see people leave them on for takeoff or turn them back on right as the plane is landing to make that ever-so-important phone call. Come-on folks, can't you want that extra 5 minutes??? Whatever you think you need to say can wait, I promise.

I was originally a bit skeptical of all the concern (though I still turned things off) until about 5 or 6 years ago while checking-in to a Southwest flight of Burbank Blvd. I had placed my StarTac phone on the counter while getting my boarding pass but the attendent's computer screen went blank or froze or was otherwise out-of-commission. I removed my phone and all was well. Just one datapoint, to be sure, but it convinced me.

lisnter

@EricAlder: its sorta true... theyve had issues but no ones lost a life aboard quantas for over 60 years...

[www.airsafe.com]

urbanturban666

@MadMacs: dont know about that... airsafe.com has listed 66 fatal events on 737s and 6 on 767s... the entire airbus fleet has suffered less fatal events than the 737 on its own...

[www.airsafe.com]

airbus jets are pretty safe...

urbanturban666

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->: I personally think it was an .mp3 player.

blindaxs

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy-->: Yeah, see my above post about engine acceleration issues. The pilot throttled the plane up, thought there was a problem in the fly-by-wire, de-throttled, and throttled back up again.

Lite

any other airlines experiencing this? or just Qantas-branded planes? and where do they get off not using a "U" after the "Q" is what I want to know.

Elcheecho

Obviously searching for a scapegoat is obviously searching for a scapegoat.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

@babj615: For some reason that is effin hilarious!

--Tito--

As an air traffic controller, I am around aircraft and piles of electronics every day. Years and years of this and not a single issue. We have all sorts of interfering radio signals flying through the air including cell phones. It's crap. How many cars die each year on the highway because someone's cell phone shut them down? I am all for people never being allowed to talk on their phones on planes just for the annoyance factor but seriously, a bluetooth mouse causing an airliner to nosedive? Have they checked to see if there was an SBX tracking radar nearby in the water? A floating radar the size of an oil rig is much more likely to have confused the computer.

Gustatus Similis Pullus

I am a pilot, and i can tell you that the wiring on the aircraft is so heavily shielded from EMI that any normal device a person has will have no effect.

aeroworks

Does anyone honestly believe that the aircraft engnieers would really be so foolish as to leave critical flight components unshielded and vulnerable to interference from consumer electronics? Especially considering how right around 10,000 ft everything becomes "safe" again.

The only reason I can think of that everyone is asked to keep electronics shut off during take-off and landing is so that they don't distract the pilots with loud, unusual noises.

wiregr

@Lite: The problem with the fly by wire in that accident was the airplane thought it was in a different phase of fligt (landing) than the pilot did (go around), and the airplane did not respond to his inputs the way he expected. It was a flawed understanding of the software on the part of the pilot in command.

pdok

A good friend is a Southwest first officer, and he has witnessed the effect of his own cell phone on the flight instruments. He forgot to turn his off on a flight, and when they dialed up the localizer course (final approach), he received a phone call at the same moment and the course indicator swung to the opposite side. It stayed there until he turned off his phone, then returned to normal.

pdok

@Elcheecho - QANTAS is an acronym. That's why no U.

And it's all a media beat up. QANTAS hasn't said they're looking at onboard consumer electronics.

arawata

Yeah, Yeah, gadgets are waaaayyyyy too dangerous to be used at takeoff or landing, but they are perfectly safe at 37,000 feet.....Does anyone else see how ridiculous that is? If personal devices were thought to cause a massive safety problem on flights, do you really think they would even allow them on the plane? I doubt that they would take the chance of letting stupid, or devious, passengers take them onboard.

That's like saying "ok, you can take your sidearm on the plane if you promise that you didn't bring the bullets with you...no, no... no need to prove it, I'll just take your word for it. Welcome aboard."

If there was proof or some verifiable incident, we'd be getting onboard with nothing but a newspaper. All carry-ons would be stowed in the hold in a shielded cargo box and you would be patted-down for gadgets.

lifetraveler

@Nogard13: Well said. Reason wins the day.

I've always thought of it this way too: If you can use all sorts of crazy electronics in a car, where you're much much closer to the electronics that keeps the car running, and they don't freak out, why would a plane do any of that?

FightingChance

I'd suggest spending less time investigating personal electronics and more time checking the cockpit for evidence of the pilot gettin' it on with the stewardess.

Purple Dave

wow the poll is almost exactly 50-50......but hey those are the kind of numbers McCain is hoping for....too bad this poll doesnt apply to him as he is completely technologically inept

tiredman9

Why don't they just shield the damn cockpit and be done with this crap?

hagrun

Ok...So i have many pilot friends being in the aviation field and they have assured me over and over again that there is no commercial gadget that the public would have that even if all turned on at once would effect anything on the plane. So, my answer to them...Look at your pilots, did they put the bottle down before flying??

Symbient

dude this is rediculous, my dad has actually done the testing for northwest to prove that cellphones dont do crap to a plane during flight. i'm pretty sure if a phone whont do anything not much else will.

SundariRubis

This is like that baloney myth that you can't use a cell phone at a gas station. They still have stickers at the pumps here warning you not to use them, even though there has never been an explosion, it was only deemed 'theoretically possible', and extremely remote at best.

UmitCamill

While I think it's ridiculous to blame something like airplane failure on handheld gadgets, I've never had a problem just turning off my crap for takeoffs and landings. It's not like it's hard to do. If you just can't live without your ipod for 15 minutes then maybe you might have a problem.

korybing

Hasn't anybody besides me seen the Mythbusters episode that proved that these devices have absolutely NO effect on in-flight instruments? Everybody like to place blame on everybody else, rather than just face the facts that it was either crappy equipment or human error.

EugeneNordys

holy crap, poll is pretty much tied at 50.0% to 50.0%

zack13532

I've been flying Airbus fly by wire aircraft for 17 years. I was somewhat sceptical about electronic interference until I had an incident and that was enough to convice me. I had just commenced descent when both of the navigation displays failed simultainously. Shortly after that, the Purser reported that a passenger was using a mobile phone in the first class cabin and refused to turn it off. He was seated directly above the avionics compartment. The passenger was again instructed to turn his phone off, and this time he complied. Shortly after, both nav displays returned to normal. That occurred early on in my 'electronic aircraft' experience and was only the one time, but that was enough to convince me. I've also been struck by lightning in an airbus, right where the avionics compartment is. No problem with any of the aircraft systems, just some burn marks along the fuselarge. Transmitting devices should never be used by passengers on board aircraft, fullstop. It is, however, deemed extremely unlikely that non transmitting electronic gadgets can cause interference, and that's why they are allowed to be used, but at cruise altitude only. If there's a chance, however slight, of a ghost getting inside the machine, at least then the crew would have time (height) to recover. Imagine the consequences of the Qantas incident if it had occured during takeoff or on approach. For those even more in the dark......... Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services is where the QANTAS name is derived from.

LianaKnukka