14 CFR 91.21 essentially states that portable electronic devices are not allowed on a flight being operated by an air carrier, or any aircraft operating under IFR (instrument flight), with an exception for “any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.”

I’m sure there’s a good chance the FAR will be updated as 5G becomes more prevalent if it’s found to pose a risk of interference.

As noted earlier though, EFBs are in common use now by MANY pilots, including air carriers in some cases. I’m not aware of any instance in which a phone caused a crash purely from interference with instruments, comms, or anything else. I can’t say the same when referencing the physical act of using a phone, however. Surprisingly, numerous crashes have occurred as a result of pilots being distracted sending texts or what not, which is hard to believe but nevertheless still true!

Hitech nav system on a KC135 from the NJANG 108th ARW back in the late 90's.

Notice the hi-tech pencil sharpers probably pirated from a grammar school somewhere in NJ.

quote:

Originally posted by Basher42:
14 CFR 91.21 essentially states that portable electronic devices are not allowed on a flight being operated by an air carrier, or any aircraft operating under IFR (instrument flight), with an exception for “any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.”

I’m sure there’s a good chance the FAR will be updated as 5G becomes more prevalent if it’s found to pose a risk of interference.

As noted earlier though, EFBs are in common use now by MANY pilots, including air carriers in some cases. I’m not aware of any instance in which a phone caused a crash purely from interference with instruments, comms, or anything else. I can’t say the same when referencing the physical act of using a phone, however. Surprisingly, numerous crashes have occurred as a result of pilots being distracted sending texts or what not, which is hard to believe but nevertheless still true!

The gold standard isn't really "well, we didn't crash, so it must be okay."

The issue isn't whether aircraft crash as a result of interference with navigation or other systems, but whether there is interference. As noted before, the ASRS database contains thousands of reports of interference.

There's no question that internal and external sources can interfere with navigation. Instrument approach courses are protected for certain types of operations due to interference caused by ground vehicles or aircraft near the localizer or glideslope antenna. There are several places around the world that I'm familiar with where all nav signals cease; the most notable is anywhere in the Pacific near Shemya. It's been well known for many years.

On board, it's more than just noise in a headset. Presently the reports tend to reflect more issues with fires in phones and chargers than interference, though those reports do continue, as well.

A sampling of the ASRS database with just 50 accounts on a .pdf (https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf) references more fires than anything, but a few cases of interference in navigation, and one case of an argumentative passenger who didn't want to turn off his phone. Note that the device interference is not restricted to cell phones.

A quick check on cell reports came back with 2,175 such reports.

https://akama.arc.nasa.gov/ASR...ay.aspx?server=ASRSO

Again, the rationale specifically with cell phones is not an FAA issue, but one from the federal communications commission, and goes back to days when airborne use interfered with cell networks on a large scale (and resulted in massive fees and fines). That doesn't really happen now. The restriction on electronic devices, not restricted to cell phones, still goes on, and puts the requirement to verify compatibility and safety in the lap of the operator.

If the low power output of a cell phone could cause problems with an aircraft's electronics, I definitely wouldn't want to fly that phone.

There are a ton of other transmitters that put out a lot more power than a cell phone does, and aircraft pass through them all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Basher42:
14 CFR 91.21 essentially states that portable electronic devices are not allowed on a flight being operated by an air carrier, or any aircraft operating under IFR (instrument flight), with an exception for “any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.”

I’m sure there’s a good chance the FAR will be updated as 5G becomes more prevalent if it’s found to pose a risk of interference.

As noted earlier though, EFBs are in common use now by MANY pilots, including air carriers in some cases. I’m not aware of any instance in which a phone caused a crash purely from interference with instruments, comms, or anything else. I can’t say the same when referencing the physical act of using a phone, however. Surprisingly, numerous crashes have occurred as a result of pilots being distracted sending texts or what not, which is hard to believe but nevertheless still true!

The gold standard isn't really "well, we didn't crash, so it must be okay."

I don’t seem to recall stating anywhere that the “gold standard” was whether or not it caused a crash. In the interest of not spending a lot of time typing a complex reply that most here really wouldn’t be too interested in, the “ultimate outcome” of a crash/no crash that the general public seems so concerned about was merely an easy avenue to highlight what the FAR states and back up the fact that using a phone rarely causes significant issues with regard to the safety of flight these days. That’s all I was pointing out. Exploding batteries and other issues are another problem entirely IMO.

Edit: After re-reading my reply, I realized it may have come off as confrontational, which wasn’t my intention at all. Just clarifying my earlier response is all.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
There are a ton of other transmitters that put out a lot more power than a cell phone does, and aircraft pass through them all the time.

Just as an interesting aside/random fact, there’s actually a safety notice in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the Robinson series of helicopters advising pilots to be weary of operating near radio towers, as they can interfere with the operation of the throttle’s governor, tachometers, or other electronic equipment onboard.

quote:

Originally posted by Basher42:

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
There are a ton of other transmitters that put out a lot more power than a cell phone does, and aircraft pass through them all the time.

Just as an interesting aside/random fact, there’s actually a safety notice in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the Robinson series of helicopters advising pilots to be weary of operating near radio towers, as they can interfere with the operation of the throttle’s governor, tachometers, or other electronic equipment onboard.

Commercial TV and Radio stations are generally restricted to an ERP (effective radiated power) of 50,000 watts in densely populated areas and 100,000 watts in more rural areas.

Ham radio operators all over the country are broadcasting up to around 15,000 watts ERP with the correct antenna.

That's a lot more than the 1 watt a cell phone puts out.