Cleared for Disconnect: The Definitive Technical and Regulatory Analysis of “Airplane Mode” in Modern Aviation

Introduction: The Pre-Flight Ritual

The familiar cabin announcement is a staple of modern air travel, a pre-flight ritual as common as the safety briefing: “Please set all portable electronic devices to airplane mode for takeoff.” For decades, this instruction has been met with a mixture of compliance, confusion, and skepticism.

Passengers dutifully toggle the setting on their smartphones and tablets, yet many harbor persistent questions.

Is this precaution truly necessary in an age of technologically advanced aircraft? What would actually happen if a device were left transmitting? Is the entire premise a myth, a relic of a bygone era of aviation, or is there a genuine risk that justifies the global mandate?

The public discourse is often polarized.

On one side is the fear that a single transmitting phone could interfere with critical flight systems, potentially leading to disaster.¹

On the other is the widespread anecdotal experience of individuals who have forgotten to enable airplane mode with no apparent consequence, leading to the conclusion that the rule is pointless security theater.²

The truth, however, is far more nuanced and complex than either of these positions suggests.

The “airplane mode” rule is not a simple myth to be debunked but a carefully constructed risk-management tool with a deep history rooted in physics, engineering, and a methodical, precautionary approach to safety.

This report provides a definitive, evidence-based analysis of the requirement for airplane mode.

It deconstructs the issue from multiple expert perspectives to deliver a comprehensive understanding of the science, regulations, and operational realities that underpin this seemingly simple instruction.

The analysis begins with the fundamental physics of electromagnetic interference, explaining how the invisible “noise” generated by every electronic device can pose a theoretical risk to the hyper-sensitive receivers that guide an aircraft.

It then traces the four-decade evolution of the regulatory framework, detailing how agencies like the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) moved from outright bans to a sophisticated, performance-based system of aircraft tolerance certification.

The report critically examines the real-world evidence, from pilot reports of mysterious “gremlins” in the avionics to the extensive, yet often inconclusive, laboratory tests conducted by manufacturers like Boeing.

It will introduce the engineering principles of Probabilistic Risk Assessment and the “Swiss Cheese Model” to explain why the absence of a confirmed PED-induced crash does not equate to an absence of risk.

Furthermore, the recent global conflict between 5G cellular deployment and aircraft radio altimeters will be presented as a powerful, contemporary case study, validating the long-held concerns about radio frequency interference.

Finally, the analysis looks to the future, exploring the technologies—from onboard picocells to high-speed satellite internet—that are actively managing the electromagnetic environment in the cabin, rendering the traditional mandate obsolete and paving the way for a new era of gate-to-gate connectivity.

The story of airplane mode is the story of aviation safety itself: a continuous, evolving effort to manage low-probability, high-consequence risks in a complex technological system.

Section 1: The Physics of Interference: A World of Invisible Noise

The foundation of the “airplane mode” rule lies not in a specific, known flaw in a particular aircraft, but in the fundamental principles of physics that govern all electronics.

Every device that uses electricity generates an electromagnetic field, creating an environment of invisible energy.

The core issue is managing how this energy, often called electromagnetic interference (EMI), interacts with the sensitive electronic systems—the avionics—that are essential for safe flight.³

Understanding this interaction requires a basic model of how interference occurs.

1.1 The Source, Path, and Victim Model

Any electromagnetic interference problem can be broken down into three essential components: a source, a path, and a victim.⁵

• The Source: This is any device that generates electromagnetic energy. Portable electronic devices (PEDs) are the sources of concern in the aircraft cabin. This energy can be an intentional transmission, such as a Wi-Fi or cellular signal, or it can be unintentional radiation—the stray electromagnetic “noise” produced by the high-frequency digital circuits, processors, and power supplies inside virtually all modern electronics.⁶ Even medical equipment like neonatal incubators and ventilators are known sources of EMI.⁴
• The Path: This is the route the electromagnetic energy takes from the source to the victim. The primary path for PEDs in a cabin is radiated, meaning the energy travels through the air as radio waves.⁵ A secondary path is
  conducted, where the energy travels along physical wires, such as when a device is plugged into an in-seat power supply.⁵
• The Victim: This is the electronic system that is adversely affected by the energy. In an aircraft, the potential victims are the critical avionics systems, particularly the communication and navigation radios.⁵

The challenge in an aircraft cabin is not necessarily one powerful source, but the cumulative effect of hundreds of sources.

An effective analogy is trying to hear a faint whisper (a navigation signal from a distant ground station) in a room full of people talking at various volumes (the PEDs).

A single conversation might not be a problem, but the combined chatter of hundreds of people raises the ambient noise level to a point where the whisper becomes indistinguishable.

This is precisely the concern with PEDs: their collective emissions can raise the overall electromagnetic “noise floor” within the cabin, potentially masking the critical, low-power signals that pilots and automated systems rely on.¹⁰

Another useful analogy is the effect of wind on water.

A light breeze creates small, predictable ripples on a lake’s surface.

However, a strong wind—or the chaotic interaction of many smaller breezes from different directions—can create turbulent waves that completely obscure the surface, making it impossible to see what lies beneath.

The cumulative EMI from hundreds of PEDs can create a similarly turbulent and unpredictable electromagnetic environment.¹²

1.2 Why Avionics are Vulnerable

Aircraft communication and navigation systems are, by design, extremely sensitive receivers.

Their function is to detect and interpret very weak radio signals broadcast from ground stations or satellites that may be hundreds of miles away.¹⁴

These systems include the Instrument Landing System (ILS), which guides aircraft during final approach; the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), which provide course and distance information; and the Global Positioning System (GPS).⁵

This inherent sensitivity makes them vulnerable to a phenomenon known as receiver desensitization.

A powerful radio signal from a nearby source, like a passenger’s cell phone transmitting at full power, can overload the front-end circuitry of an avionics receiver.

Even if the phone’s signal is on a completely different frequency from the navigation signal, its raw power can effectively “deafen” the receiver, preventing it from picking up the much weaker, desired signal.⁸

Another mechanism is intermodulation, where signals from two or more transmitters mix within a non-linear component of a receiver (like an amplifier) to create new, spurious signals.

These new signals can fall directly within the frequency band of a critical navigation system, creating what appears to be a valid but erroneous signal, a particularly dangerous failure mode.¹¹

1.3 Types of Interference: Front-Door vs. Back-Door Coupling

Interference can enter an avionics system through two primary mechanisms: front-door and back-door coupling.¹¹

• Front-Door Coupling occurs when interfering energy enters a system through its intended receiving path—the antenna. This is the most direct way for a radio signal from a PED to affect an aircraft’s communication or navigation receivers. Because antenna-based systems are designed to actively seek out and amplify low-level electromagnetic signals, they are inherently more susceptible to this type of interference.¹¹
• Back-Door Coupling is a more subtle pathway where interference bypasses the system’s front-end protections. The energy can “couple” onto the system through unintended paths like power cables, data lines, or even small gaps and seams in the aircraft’s metallic structure, which is supposed to act as a shield (a Faraday cage).⁸ This is why even non-transmitting devices can be a concern, especially if they are electronically “noisy” and plugged into the aircraft’s power system, creating a conducted path for interference.⁵

1.4 Intentional vs. Spurious Emissions

The electromagnetic energy produced by PEDs falls into two categories, both of which are regulated and tested for.

• Intentional Emissions are the radio frequency (RF) signals that a device is designed to transmit to communicate. These include cellular (GSM, 5G), Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals. These are typically the most powerful signals a PED produces.⁵
• Spurious Emissions are the unintentional RF noise generated as a byproduct of the normal operation of digital circuits. Components like microprocessors, memory clocks, and switching power supplies radiate a broad spectrum of low-level electromagnetic energy.⁶ While much weaker than intentional transmissions, the cumulative effect of spurious emissions from hundreds of devices can still contribute to the overall noise floor. Boeing’s laboratory tests have found that some devices, such as laptops and electronic games, can be quite “noisy” and produce emissions that exceed the standards for installed airplane equipment, even with their intentional transmitters turned off.¹⁴

The central scientific problem is therefore not a simple binary one.

The risk does not stem from a single phone guaranteed to cause a failure.

Rather, it is the management of a complex, dynamic, and unpredictable electromagnetic environment created by hundreds of diverse, uncertified, and increasingly powerful consumer devices operating in close proximity to safety-critical avionics.

This complexity is compounded by the trend of technological convergence; a device that looks like a simple e-reader may contain multiple hidden transmitters, making it impossible for cabin crew to assess risk on a device-by-device basis.⁵

This reality—the impracticality of individual device assessment—was a key driver behind the evolution of the regulatory strategy, shifting the focus from the devices themselves to the resilience of the aircraft.

Section 2: A History of Precaution: The Evolution of PED Regulations

The rules governing the use of personal electronic devices on aircraft did not emerge from a single decision but evolved over more than six decades of careful study, technological change, and regulatory adaptation.

This history reveals a methodical, research-driven process aimed at mitigating a perceived risk, rather than an arbitrary or outdated ban.

It also highlights the distinct but complementary roles of two key U.S. government agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), whose separate mandates shaped the rules we follow today.

2.1 The Genesis: 1961 and the FM Radio Ban

The origin of modern PED regulation can be traced back to May 1961.

At that time, the FAA established the rule that would become Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 91.21 (it was originally designated § 91.19).

The initial rule was narrow and specific: it prohibited the operation of portable frequency modulation (FM) radio receivers aboard aircraft.

This was not based on speculation, but on a determination that the local oscillators within FM radios emitted signals that could cause harmful interference with VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) navigation systems, which operate in a nearby frequency band (108-117.95 MHz).¹⁷

This first step established a crucial precedent that remains central to aviation safety: when a specific technology is demonstrated to pose a credible risk to critical aircraft systems, a rule is created to mitigate that risk.

2.2 The FCC Enters: Protecting the Ground Network

For thirty years, the FAA’s rule was the primary regulation governing electronics in the cabin.

The landscape changed dramatically in 1991 with the rise of cellular telephones.

In that year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a ban on the use of cell phones on airborne aircraft.²

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the “airplane mode” story.

The FCC’s primary motivation was not aircraft safety, but the protection of the terrestrial cellular network on the ground.²⁰

The ground-based cellular system is designed with the assumption that a phone will connect to only one or a few of the closest cell towers.

A phone at altitude, however, can establish a line-of-sight connection to a vast number of towers on the ground simultaneously.

This creates two problems for the network operators.

First, it can cause significant interference and clog the frequencies at multiple cell sites.

Second, as the aircraft moves at high speed, the phone rapidly jumps from one tower’s coverage area to the next, placing an enormous and unmanageable load on the network’s handoff mechanisms.¹⁰

While the FAA supported the FCC’s ban for its own potential safety reasons, the initial regulatory action came from the agency responsible for managing the radio spectrum, not the one responsible for aviation safety.²⁰

2.3 The Regulatory Pivot: From Device Bans to Aircraft Tolerance

As the 1990s and 2000s progressed, the variety and number of PEDs brought aboard aircraft exploded, including laptops, CD players, electronic games, and eventually smartphones and tablets.

It quickly became clear to regulators that trying to test and certify every single model of every device was “impractical”.¹⁷

This realization prompted a fundamental and elegant pivot in the regulatory philosophy.

Instead of the FAA maintaining a list of banned devices, the regulations (§ 91.21 for general aviation and § 121.306 for air carriers) were structured to prohibit the operation of any PED unless the operator of the aircraft has specifically determined that it will not cause interference with the aircraft’s communication or navigation systems.¹⁷

This shifted the burden of proof.

The default position became “prohibited,” and the responsibility for demonstrating safety was placed squarely on the airline or aircraft operator.¹⁸

This performance-based approach provided flexibility.

An airline could, through testing and analysis, approve the use of certain devices on its specific aircraft models.

This pivot, however, created an urgent need for a standardized, reliable, and universally accepted methodology for making that safety determination.

2.4 The Role of RTCA: Developing the Standards

To create these methodologies, the FAA turned to RTCA, Inc., a private, non-profit organization that convenes experts from industry and government to develop consensus-based technical standards for aviation.

Over several decades, special committees (SCs) at RTCA produced a series of influential reports that became the backbone of modern PED policy.

• Early Studies (Non-Transmitting PEDs): RTCA SC-156 and SC-177 produced reports RTCA/DO-199 (1988) and RTCA/DO-233 (1996), respectively. These studies focused on the potential interference from non-transmitting devices like CD players and laptops. Their findings were instrumental in helping the FAA establish the policy that allowed the use of these devices during non-critical phases of flight, such as at cruising altitude.¹⁷
• Addressing Transmitters (T-PEDs): As Wi-Fi and cellular capabilities became common, the FAA tasked RTCA SC-202 with studying intentionally transmitting PEDs (T-PEDs). This work resulted in RTCA/DO-294, first released in 2004 and updated several times since. This document provided guidance on how operators could assess the risks posed by specific wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.¹⁷
• The Landmark Shift to Aircraft Tolerance: The most significant development was the creation of RTCA/DO-307, “Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance,” released in 2007. This document represented the culmination of the regulatory pivot. Instead of focusing on the PEDs, it focused on the aircraft. DO-307 defined a rigorous set of test procedures and performance standards that an aircraft manufacturer could use to prove that their aircraft’s systems were robust enough to tolerate the electromagnetic environment created by PEDs. An aircraft that successfully passes these tests can be certified as “PED-Tolerant”.¹⁸ This allows airlines operating that aircraft model to permit much wider use of PEDs, including during all phases of flight.
• Guidance for Existing Fleets: Recognizing that not all aircraft in the existing fleet would be fully PED-tolerant, RTCA SC-234 later developed RTCA/DO-363. This document provides guidance for operators of non-tolerant aircraft to conduct a detailed safety risk assessment of their specific fleet. This assessment allows them to identify critical systems, evaluate potential failure modes, and implement mitigations that could allow for expanded PED use, even without full DO-307 certification.¹⁸

This evolution from a simple prescriptive ban to a flexible, multi-path, performance-based system is a hallmark of modern safety regulation.

It allows for technological innovation while maintaining a high safety standard.

An airline operating a brand-new aircraft with factory-installed Wi-Fi (which requires the aircraft to be certified as PED-tolerant) can have a very liberal policy on device use.⁷

In contrast, an operator of an older aircraft type might conduct a more limited risk assessment and maintain a more restrictive policy.

The regulation focuses on the verified

performance of the aircraft-PED system, not a one-size-fits-all rule.

This evolution also spurred the growth of a new sub-industry dedicated to performing the complex EMI testing required by these standards, demonstrating how safety regulations can drive both technological advancement and economic activity.²⁶

2.5 Global Harmonization and Divergence

While much of this foundational work was led by the FAA and RTCA in the United States, aviation is a global industry, and a broadly harmonized approach to PED rules has emerged worldwide.

Major international regulatory bodies have adopted similar performance-based frameworks, placing the responsibility for safety assessments on the airlines.

• EASA (European Union): In 2013 and 2014, EASA updated its guidelines to permit the use of PEDs in non-transmitting mode during all phases of flight. Crucially, it also opened the door for gate-to-gate use of transmitting devices, provided the airline completes a thorough safety assessment and proves its aircraft can tolerate the signals.³⁰ Europe has been more aggressive in enabling onboard cellular services via picocell technology.³⁰
• Transport Canada: In 2014, Canada’s aviation authority relaxed its rules to align with the U.S. and Europe. It now permits the gate-to-gate use of non-transmitting PEDs, contingent on the airline demonstrating to Transport Canada that its aircraft are not adversely affected and that all necessary procedures and training are in place.³⁴
• CAAC (China): After maintaining a strict ban for years, the Civil Aviation Administration of China shifted its policy in 2017-2018. It removed the government-level prohibition and transferred the authority to the airlines themselves to develop policies based on their own safety assessments. Chinese airline policies often include specific rules regarding the size of devices and their stowage during takeoff and landing.³⁷
• CASA (Australia): The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia has largely followed the FAA’s lead, permitting gate-to-gate use of devices in flight mode, provided the aircraft has the appropriate shielding and the operator has approved their use.⁴⁰

The following table provides a comparative overview of these global regulations, illustrating the widespread consensus on the underlying safety principles.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Global PED Regulations

Regulatory Body	Key Regulation Date	Gate-to-Gate Use (Non-Transmitting)	Gate-to-Gate Use (Transmitting/Wi-Fi)	Key Responsibility
FAA (USA)	2013	Permitted	Permitted with certified PED-tolerant aircraft or operator risk assessment	Aircraft Operator
EASA (EU)	2014	Permitted	Permitted with operator safety assessment; enables onboard cellular (picocell)	Aircraft Operator
Transport Canada	2014	Permitted	Prohibited except for taxi-in; Wi-Fi permitted with operator approval	Aircraft Operator
CAAC (China)	2018	Permitted	Permitted with operator assessment; specific rules on device size/stowage	Aircraft Operator
CASA (Australia)	2013	Permitted	Permitted with operator approval and aircraft tolerance	Aircraft Operator

This global alignment demonstrates that the “airplane mode” rule is not a parochial quirk but a key component of a worldwide aviation safety consensus, built on decades of research and a shared commitment to a performance-based, risk-managed approach.

Section 3: Assessing the True Risk: Evidence, Probability, and Precaution

The debate over “airplane mode” often hinges on a single question: “Has a phone ever actually caused a plane to crash?” While the answer is no, this question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how risk is managed in aviation.

The industry’s safety philosophy is not reactive; it does not wait for a catastrophe to occur before implementing controls.

Instead, it relies on a proactive and precautionary approach, using anecdotal evidence, laboratory testing, and sophisticated risk assessment models to identify and mitigate potential hazards long before they can align to cause an accident.

3.1 The Anecdotal Evidence: A History of “Gremlins”

For years, pilots have submitted voluntary, confidential reports to the NASA-administered Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) describing unusual and anomalous behavior from their aircraft’s systems that they attributed to passenger PED use.⁴²

These reports are a rich, if unverified, source of raw data.

A 2001 NASA technical paper compiled and analyzed 14 years of these ASRS reports, finding numerous instances of suspected PED interference.⁴²

Pilots reported events such as navigation compass systems deviating significantly, autopilots disconnecting without warning, flight management computer displays blanking, and aircraft initiating uncommanded rolls.¹⁴

A common theme in many of these reports was that the anomaly ceased shortly after an announcement was made for passengers to turn off their electronic devices.

The NASA analysis found that navigation systems were by far the most frequently affected, and that a significant percentage of incidents occurred during critical phases of flight like approach and landing.⁴²

In some cases, air traffic control radar provided independent confirmation that an aircraft was off course, even while its cockpit instruments indicated it was on course, suggesting a subtle but significant system degradation.⁴²

It is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this data.

ASRS reports are voluntarily submitted, are not formally investigated, and represent the pilot’s perception of the cause, which can be subject to confirmation bias.⁴³

However, the sheer volume and consistency of these reports from highly experienced flight crews provided enough of a signal to warrant serious investigation by aircraft manufacturers.

3.2 The Challenge of Replication: The Boeing Experience

In response to these operational reports, aircraft manufacturers like Boeing have conducted extensive investigations.

In several cases, Boeing went so far as to purchase the specific PED suspected of causing an incident directly from the passenger to analyze it in their laboratories.¹⁴

The results of these investigations are telling and highlight the complexity of the problem.

In many instances, laboratory testing confirmed that the suspect PEDs were, in fact, “noisy.” They produced electromagnetic emissions that exceeded the stringent limits set for permanently installed aircraft equipment.¹⁴

For example, a palmtop computer suspected of causing a 747 to initiate a shallow bank turn was found to emit energy up to 37 decibels above the allowable limit in a key frequency range.

A laptop suspected of causing autopilot disconnects on a 737 also exceeded emission standards.¹⁴

Despite this, Boeing has found it “almost impossible to duplicate” the specific reported anomaly in a controlled test environment.¹⁴

Even when using the actual suspect device on the same model of aircraft, the interference could not be reliably reproduced on command.

This difficulty in replication is often cited by skeptics as proof that the risk is not real.

However, to an electromagnetic compatibility engineer, this is not surprising.

The occurrence of interference is dependent on a complex and fleeting alignment of variables: the specific operating mode of the PED, its precise location and orientation within the cabin, its proximity to specific aircraft wiring bundles, the shielding integrity of that particular airframe, and the cumulative RF noise generated by all other PEDs at that exact moment.

The inability to replicate an event does not prove the absence of risk; it proves that the risk is unpredictable and stochastic, which from a safety perspective, can be even more challenging to manage.

3.3 The Engineering Approach: Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

The public perception of risk is often based on historical precedent.

The engineering approach to aviation safety is fundamentally different; it is based on a forward-looking methodology called Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).⁴⁵

PRA is a systematic process used in safety-critical industries like nuclear power and aerospace to evaluate the risks of complex systems before failures occur.⁴⁷

PRA seeks to answer three core questions ⁴⁷:

1. What can go wrong? (Identifying potential failure scenarios, or “initiating events”).
2. How likely is it? (Estimating the probability of each failure scenario).
3. What are the consequences? (Assessing the severity of the outcome if the failure occurs).

In the context of PEDs, the ASRS reports and Boeing tests help answer the first question: interference from PEDs can cause avionics to malfunction.

The answer to the third question is self-evident: the consequences of a critical navigation or communication system failure, especially during landing in bad weather, are catastrophic.

Therefore, even if the probability (the answer to the second question) is extremely low, the principle of PRA dictates that the risk is unacceptable and must be mitigated.

The “airplane mode” rule is that mitigation.

This highlights the disconnect between public and engineering risk perception: the public sees a rule with no accident to justify it, while the engineer sees a prudent safety control that has successfully prevented that accident from ever happening.

3.4 The Swiss Cheese Model of Cumulative Risk

A powerful analogy for understanding this approach is the “Swiss Cheese Model” of accident causation, developed by psychologist James T.

Reason.⁴⁹

This model likens an organization’s safety systems to a stack of Swiss cheese slices.

Each slice represents a layer of defense: aircraft design standards, robust avionics with built-in shielding, certification regulations, flight crew training, and operational rules like the PED mandate.

Each slice, however, is imperfect; it has holes, representing latent weaknesses or temporary failures.

An accident occurs only when the holes in all the slices momentarily align, allowing a hazard to pass straight through all the layers of defense.⁴⁹

The “airplane mode” rule is one of those slices of cheese.

Arguing for its removal because it has never been the single point of failure in a crash is to misunderstand its function.

Its purpose is to be one of many redundant barriers, ensuring that even if other layers fail—for example, a particular aircraft has slightly degraded shielding, or a specific avionics unit is unusually susceptible—this final operational rule will still be in place to stop the “trajectory of accident opportunity.”

3.5 Beyond EMI: Other Risks of PEDs

Finally, it is important to recognize that electromagnetic interference is not the only risk associated with PEDs in the cabin.

Regulators and airlines manage a portfolio of risks, and some rules serve multiple purposes.

• Lithium Battery Fires: A significant and well-documented hazard is the potential for lithium-ion batteries in PEDs to experience “thermal runaway,” leading to intense fires that can be difficult to extinguish.⁵⁰ This is a primary reason why regulations require most PEDs and all spare batteries to be carried in the cabin, not in checked baggage, so that flight crews can be trained to recognize and respond to a fire immediately.⁵²
• Physical Hazards: During turbulence or a survivable accident, unsecured items can become dangerous projectiles. Larger PEDs like laptops must be stowed during takeoff and landing to prevent them from injuring passengers or blocking aisles during an emergency evacuation.⁷
• Pilot Distraction: The concern over distraction is so significant that it has its own set of regulations. The “Sterile Cockpit Rule” explicitly prohibits flight crew members from engaging in any non-essential activities—including the personal use of laptops or wireless devices—while on the flight deck during critical phases of flight (generally below 10,000 feet).⁵⁶ This rule is designed to ensure that pilots’ full attention is dedicated to the task of flying the aircraft.

These additional factors underscore that the management of PEDs on aircraft is a multi-faceted safety challenge, and the rules in place are part of a comprehensive system designed to address a range of potential hazards, not just EMI.

Section 4: Case Study – The 5G C-Band Conflict

For decades, the risk of electromagnetic interference from personal devices was largely a theoretical and probabilistic concern, supported by anecdotal reports but difficult to prove definitively.

That changed dramatically between 2021 and 2023, when the rollout of new 5G cellular technology in the United States created a direct, measurable, and undeniable threat to aviation safety.

The 5G C-Band crisis serves as the ultimate real-world validation of the principles of EMI, demonstrating that the fundamental physics of radio frequency interference remain a potent and present danger to even the most modern aircraft.

4.1 The Collision Course: Spectrum Allocation Meets Aviation Safety

The conflict began when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned a portion of the radio spectrum—the C-Band, from 3.7 to 3.98 GHz—to telecommunications companies for the deployment of high-power 5G services.⁵⁷

The problem was that this newly allocated 5G band lies directly adjacent to the globally protected 4.2-4.4 GHz aeronautical band.

This band is used exclusively by aircraft radio altimeters (also called radar altimeters), a critical piece of safety equipment.¹⁵

For years leading up to the auction, the aviation industry—including the FAA, airlines, and equipment manufacturers—had formally warned the FCC about the potential for harmful interference.

They argued that the high power levels of the 5G transmissions, combined with their close proximity on the frequency spectrum, posed a significant risk to the performance of existing radio altimeters.⁵⁷

These warnings, however, were not sufficient to halt the spectrum allocation, setting the stage for a major conflict between a commercial enterprise and a safety-critical system.

4.2 The Nature of the Threat: Erroneous Data

Radio altimeters are crucial for modern aviation.

They are the only sensor on an aircraft that provides a direct measurement of the plane’s height above the ground, and this data is fed into numerous automated systems.¹⁵

This information is particularly vital during the final phases of flight, where it is used for autoland systems, ground proximity warnings, and low-visibility approaches.⁵⁹

The threat from 5G interference was twofold.

The first risk was that the powerful 5G signals could overwhelm the altimeter’s receiver, causing a loss of altitude information.

The second, and far more insidious risk, was that the interference could cause the altimeter to provide incorrect altitude information to the pilots and flight computers without triggering any failure warning.⁵⁷

An automated system that “thinks” it is 50 feet above the runway when it is actually at 5 feet could command a catastrophic landing flare.

The 2009 crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 in Amsterdam, which was caused by a single faulty radio altimeter feeding erroneous data to the autothrottle system, was repeatedly cited as a stark example of the potential consequences.⁵⁷

4.3 The Response: A Scramble to Avert Disaster

As the January 2022 deadline for the 5G rollout approached, the FAA determined that the risk was unacceptable.

The agency took several drastic steps to ensure safety:

• Airworthiness Directives (ADs): The FAA issued urgent ADs that applied to the entire U.S. transport and commuter aircraft fleet. These legally binding orders prohibited pilots from conducting certain critical operations—such as low-visibility landings and using specific automated systems—at airports where 5G C-Band interference was possible.⁵⁷
• NOTAMs: These ADs were implemented through thousands of Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs), which identified specific airports and runways where the radio altimeter was deemed unreliable, effectively threatening to grind air traffic to a halt in bad weather.⁵⁷
• Voluntary Mitigations: Following high-level negotiations involving the White House, telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon agreed to temporarily delay their 5G rollout near key airports and to voluntarily limit the power of their transmissions in these areas to create buffer zones.¹⁵

These temporary measures bought time for a permanent solution.

A massive, industry-wide effort was launched to design, manufacture, certify, and retrofit tens of thousands of aircraft with new radio altimeter filters.

Companies like Collins Aerospace and Mini-Circuits developed specialized hardware—small filters that could be installed on existing altimeters—designed to reject the interfering 5G signals while allowing the desired 4.2-4.4 GHz signals to pass through.⁵⁹

By mid-2023, a significant portion of the U.S. fleet had been retrofitted, allowing the FAA to lift the most severe restrictions.

4.4 Lessons Learned

The 5G C-Band crisis was a watershed moment that provided several crucial lessons.

First and foremost, it was a powerful, large-scale demonstration that even the most advanced aircraft are not inherently immune to electromagnetic interference.

The fundamental physics are real and have real-world consequences.

Second, the event highlighted a systemic weakness in how radio spectrum is managed, where the push for commercial expansion can overlook warnings from safety-critical industries.

The need for closer coordination between spectrum regulators like the FCC and safety regulators like the FAA became painfully apparent.

Most importantly, the crisis validated the entire precautionary principle that underpins the “airplane mode” rule.

It provided a perfect, large-scale analogue for the PED problem.

The 5G towers were the powerful Source; the radio altimeter was the sensitive Victim; and the Path was radiated RF energy in an adjacent frequency band.

The risk was deemed unacceptable, leading to operational restrictions (the ADs), and the ultimate solution was a hardware fix (the filters) to improve the victim’s tolerance.

This entire sequence mirrors the concern over PEDs: a large number of uncoordinated transmitters creating an RF environment that poses a potential risk to critical avionics.

The 5G conflict proved, in no uncertain terms, that these concerns are not merely theoretical.

As more wireless technologies are deployed for commercial and consumer use, the potential for unexpected, harmful interference with legacy safety-of-life systems will only increase, making proactive management of the electromagnetic spectrum more critical than ever.¹¹

Section 5: Myths, Annoyances, and Human Factors

While the scientific principles of EMI and the precautionary approach of aviation safety provide the technical foundation for the “airplane mode” rule, the public discourse is often shaped by myths, misunderstandings, and non-technical factors.

To fully understand why the rule persists, it is essential to separate the valid concerns from popular fiction and to acknowledge the social and psychological dimensions of the issue.

5.1 Debunking the Crash Myth

It is critical to state unequivocally: there has never been a confirmed aircraft accident caused by a passenger’s mobile phone.¹

The popular fear that forgetting to enable airplane mode could directly cause the plane to lose control and fall from the sky is a myth.¹⁶

Modern aircraft are designed with multiple layers of redundancy and are subject to stringent certification standards for electromagnetic compatibility.

Their critical systems are shielded to protect them from both external interference (like high-power radar) and internal interference from the aircraft’s own components.¹⁶

Acknowledging this fact is crucial for establishing credibility and moving the conversation beyond sensationalist fears to the more nuanced, real-world reasons for the rule.

5.2 The Real, Non-Catastrophic Interference

While a single phone will not cause a crash, it can cause real, documented problems that, while not catastrophic, are undesirable in a safety-critical environment.

• The Audible “Buzz”: The most commonly reported and easily verifiable effect of a transmitting cell phone in the cockpit is an audible noise in the pilots’ audio systems. The phone’s radio signals can couple into the wiring of the pilots’ headsets, creating a distinctive “dit-dit-dit” ticking or buzzing sound.¹⁶ This is the same phenomenon that can sometimes be heard when a cell phone is placed near a speaker or an older car radio. While this noise is not physically dangerous, it is a significant source of distraction and annoyance for flight crews. During critical phases of flight, such as final approach, clear and unambiguous communication with air traffic control is paramount. Any interference that degrades that communication channel or distracts the pilots from their primary tasks is considered an unacceptable safety risk.¹
• Ground Network Disruption: As established by the FCC in 1991, a key reason for the ban on in-flight cellular use remains the protection of the ground network. A single aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers with active cellular phones would see all those devices attempting to connect to ground towers at maximum power. As the plane travels at high speed, these phones would rapidly try to connect to dozens of different towers, potentially overwhelming the network’s capacity and causing service disruptions for users on the ground.¹⁰

5.3 The Social Factor: The Fear of “Air Rage”

Technology and safety are not the only forces that shape aviation policy.

In 2013, when the FCC, under then-chairman Tom Wheeler, proposed relaxing the rules to allow in-flight voice calls, it was met with overwhelming public and industry opposition.

The backlash was not primarily about safety, but about social harmony.²

Airlines, flight attendant unions, and a vast majority of the traveling public voiced strong objections to the idea of being enclosed in an aluminum tube with hundreds of fellow passengers making loud, personal, or business-related phone calls.²

The prospect was described as a recipe for increased tension and “air rage.” This powerful social pressure was a major factor in the FCC’s decision to ultimately abandon the proposal and maintain the ban on in-flight voice calls.²

This demonstrates that regulations are sometimes influenced as much by considerations of passenger comfort and social order as they are by pure technical risk.

5.4 The Bottom Line: Compliance is Mandatory

Regardless of one’s personal opinion on the necessity of the rule, one fact is indisputable: federal law requires all passengers to comply with the lawful instructions of the flight crew.²

When a flight attendant instructs passengers to enable airplane mode, that instruction carries the force of law.

Refusing to do so is a violation of federal regulations and can lead to consequences ranging from a stern warning to fines and, in cases of persistent non-compliance, removal from the flight or even arrest upon landing.

The “airplane mode” rule, therefore, persists due to a powerful confluence of factors.

It is supported by a plausible, if low-probability, technical safety case (EMI), a documented real-world nuisance effect (headset buzz), a separate regulatory justification (FCC network protection), and strong social and political backing (preventing “air rage”).

Any single argument against the rule is insufficient to overcome the combined weight of all the reasons for it.

In this sense, the rule also serves as a form of safety ritual.

In the high-stakes environment of air travel, simple, clear, and easy-to-follow rules create a sense of shared responsibility and reinforce the idea that passenger cooperation is essential for collective safety, even when the direct link between the action and a potential disaster is not immediately obvious.²

Section 6: The Future of the Connected Cabin: Managing, Not Banning

The decades-long conflict between personal electronic devices and aircraft systems is poised to be resolved not by stricter prohibitions, but by technological innovation.

The future of in-flight connectivity is one where the electromagnetic environment is actively managed, rather than simply restricted.

This shift, driven by powerful market demand for seamless connectivity, is leading to a new generation of aircraft where the traditional “airplane mode” mandate is becoming increasingly obsolete.

The solution is to engineer around the problem, creating a controlled, safe, and fully connected ecosystem within the cabin.

6.1 The Technological Solution: Onboard Cellular Systems (Picocells)

The most direct solution to the problem of cellular interference is to install a small, low-power cellular base station, known as a “picocell,” on the aircraft itself.²

A picocell creates a miniature, self-contained cellular network that covers only the aircraft cabin.⁶⁴

When this system is active, passengers’ mobile phones connect directly to the onboard picocell.

The system instructs the phones to transmit at their absolute minimum power setting, as the distance to the antenna is only a few feet.

This dramatically reduces the strength of the RF signals within the cabin to levels that are far too low to interfere with sensitive avionics.65

The picocell then acts as a gateway.

It aggregates all the voice and data traffic from the passengers’ phones and routes it through the aircraft’s own certified, built-in satellite or air-to-ground communication system.

This completely bypasses the terrestrial cellular network, solving the FCC’s concern about ground network disruption.³³

This technology effectively transforms the problem of uncontrolled RF emissions into a managed and contained service.

In a significant step toward this future, the European Union has already designated specific frequencies to enable 5G services on aircraft using picocell technology.³⁰

6.2 The Rise of High-Speed Satellite Internet

While picocells handle cellular voice and messaging, the explosive demand for data is being met by a revolution in in-flight Wi-Fi, powered by new generations of satellite constellations.

This technology has progressed rapidly from early, slow systems to a state that rivals ground-based broadband.

• Technology Roadmap: Early in-flight internet relied on Air-To-Ground (ATG) networks, which used ground-based towers and had limited coverage and bandwidth, or older Geostationary (GEO) satellites, which orbit at approximately 36,000 km and suffer from high latency (delay).⁶⁶ The modern era is defined by two major advancements:

1. High-Throughput GEO Satellites: Newer GEO satellites from providers like Viasat and Inmarsat offer vastly more capacity than their predecessors.⁶⁷
2. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Constellations: This is the true game-changer. Companies like SpaceX (Starlink) and Eutelsat OneWeb are deploying thousands of satellites in orbits just 500-1200 km above the Earth. This proximity dramatically reduces latency and allows for massive data throughput, enabling services like video streaming, gaming, and video conferencing that were impossible with older systems.⁶⁶

These advanced satellite internet systems are installed on aircraft under stringent FAA or EASA certification processes.

A core part of this certification is proving that the aircraft, with the system installed, is “PED-tolerant” according to the standards laid out in documents like RTCA/DO-307.

This ensures that the onboard Wi-Fi system itself, and the passenger devices connected to it, do not interfere with any critical aircraft systems.⁷

6.3 The Goal: True “Gate-to-Gate” Connectivity

The combination of PED-tolerant aircraft and certified onboard connectivity systems (Wi-Fi and/or picocells) eliminates the original reasons for the “airplane mode” rule.

The RF environment is no longer an unknown variable but a managed system.

This is enabling airlines and regulators to move towards a future of true “gate-to-gate” connectivity.³²

In this paradigm, passengers can board an aircraft, connect to the onboard network, and remain connected for the entire duration of their journey, from pushing back at the departure gate to arriving at the destination gate.⁶⁹

The cabin instruction will fundamentally change.

It will no longer be a prohibition—”turn off your radios”—but an invitation: “connect to our network.” This represents a profound shift in the passenger experience, transforming air travel time into productive and entertaining time.

This shift is not just a passenger convenience; it is a major competitive differentiator for airlines and a significant source of ancillary revenue, creating a powerful market incentive to adopt the technology.⁶⁷

The regulatory problem of uncontrolled transmissions is thus being solved by a market-driven technological solution.

6.4 The Evolving Regulatory Landscape

This technological evolution is reflected in the forward-looking roadmaps being developed by global aviation authorities.

The FAA and EASA, in collaboration with industry partners, are creating strategic plans for the future of aviation that incorporate advanced connectivity, increasing levels of autonomy, and even the use of artificial intelligence.⁶⁹

These plans are built upon the safety foundation established by the decades of research and the development of the performance-based certification standards that govern PED tolerance today.

Ultimately, the term “airplane mode” itself is likely to become an anachronism.

The function it performs—disabling a phone’s powerful, long-range cellular transmitter—will remain essential.

However, this will likely be achieved automatically and seamlessly in the background when a device connects to the aircraft’s managed, low-power, onboard network.

The explicit user action of toggling a switch will fade away, replaced by the simple act of logging into the plane’s Wi-Fi, marking the final stage in the long journey from prohibition to fully managed, ubiquitous in-flight connectivity.

Conclusion & Recommendations

The requirement to enable “airplane mode” on portable electronic devices is not a myth, nor is it mere security theater.

It is a legitimate and historically justified risk-management tool rooted in the fundamental physics of electromagnetic interference, a robust history of regulatory caution, and the uncompromising safety culture of the global aviation industry.

The central principle is not that a single phone will cause a crash, but that the cumulative and unpredictable electromagnetic environment created by hundreds of uncertified devices poses a low-probability, high-consequence risk to the sensitive avionics that ensure safe flight.

The aviation safety framework, built on principles of Probabilistic Risk Assessment and defense-in-depth, dictates that even such low-probability risks must be mitigated.

The “airplane mode” rule serves as a simple, effective, and universally understood mitigation—one slice in the multi-layered “Swiss Cheese Model” of accident prevention.

While direct evidence of PED-induced catastrophe is absent, the wealth of anecdotal reports from pilots, the laboratory findings of manufacturers, and the recent, stark reality of the 5G C-Band crisis provide compelling validation that the underlying risk of EMI is real and persistent.

The rule also persists due to a confluence of non-technical factors, including the need to protect ground-based cellular networks and strong social opposition to in-flight voice calls.

However, the very technology that created the problem is now providing the solution.

The future of in-flight PED use is one of management, not prohibition.

Certified, PED-tolerant aircraft equipped with onboard connectivity systems like picocells and high-speed satellite Wi-Fi are creating a controlled electromagnetic environment within the cabin.

These systems solve the interference problem through engineering, transforming a potential hazard into a safe, reliable, and commercially valuable service.

As this technology becomes ubiquitous, the explicit instruction to enable “airplane mode” will inevitably be replaced by an invitation to connect, marking the successful conclusion of a decades-long effort to harmonize passenger technology with aviation safety.

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following recommendations are put forth:

• For Passengers: It is essential to understand that the “airplane mode” rule is part of a complex, multi-layered safety system. Compliance with flight crew instructions is not only a matter of courtesy but is legally mandated. Passengers should recognize that their compliance contributes to a predictable and safe operational environment, primarily by preventing distractions to the flight crew and eliminating even the small, residual risk of EMI.
• For Airlines & Industry: The industry should continue to invest in and accelerate the deployment of certified, PED-tolerant connectivity solutions across all fleet types. As policies evolve, airlines must prioritize clear, consistent, and standardized communication to passengers to reduce confusion and ensure compliance. Harmonizing policies as much as possible across carriers will further enhance the passenger experience and reinforce the credibility of the safety measures.
• For Regulators: Aviation authorities like the FAA and EASA should continue to support the global harmonization of performance-based standards for aircraft PED tolerance. Crucially, they must work more closely with spectrum management agencies like the FCC to proactively identify and mitigate potential conflicts between new commercial wireless deployments and existing safety-of-life aviation systems. The 5G crisis should serve as a lasting lesson in the need for a holistic and safety-first approach to managing the increasingly crowded radio frequency spectrum.

Works cited

1. What Happens When You Don’t Put Your Phone in Airplane Mode? – Travel Noire, accessed August 9, 2025, https://travelnoire.com/what-happens-when-you-dont-put-your-phone-in-airplane-mode
2. The myth of your phone’s airplane mode – Quartz, accessed August 9, 2025, https://qz.com/phone-airplane-mode-myth-1851286214
3. Technical Discipline: High Energy Electromagnetic Effects | Federal Aviation Administration, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/step/disciplines/high_energy_electromagnetic_effects
4. Effect of electromagnetic interference by neonatal transport equipment on aircraft operation, accessed August 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751593/
5. Electromagnetic Interference to Flight Navigation and Communication Systems: New Strategies in the Age of Wireless, accessed August 9, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050232846/downloads/20050232846.pdf
6. Electromagnetic Interference: It’s Not Just Science Fiction – Intel, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/research/blogs/electromagnetic-interference.html
7. Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) – Code7700, accessed August 9, 2025, https://code7700.com/peds.htm
8. EMI Effects in Flight Control Systems and Their Mitigations – ResearchGate, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329606663_EMI_Effects_in_Flight_Control_Systems_and_Their_Mitigations
9. Influence of Aircraft Power Electronics Processing on Backup VHF Radio Systems – MDPI, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/7/777
10. ELI5: What does airplane mode do and why is it so important? : r/explainlikeimfive – Reddit, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vc0sjs/eli5_what_does_airplane_mode_do_and_why_is_it_so/
11. Radio Frequency Interference, Its Mitigation and Its Implications for the Civil Aviation Industry, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/12/2483
12. Electromagnetic Interference Explained — EMI-EMC-EMF Surveys, Tests, Investigations, and Mitigation Consulting Services | ELEXANA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.elexana.com/journal-emf-emi-information/2020/6/2/electromagnetic-interference-emi-explained
13. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) – ELEXANA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.elexana.com/electromagnetic-interference-emi-emc
14. Boeing Aero Magazine :: Interference from Electronic Devices, accessed August 9, 2025, http://hibdz.skydiving.co.uk/757/767_tech/boeing/aero_10_interference.htm
15. Radio Altimeters and 5G C-Band Deployment – FAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/22-02-Radio-Altimeters-5g-Deployment-Clausnitzer-Silagyi.pdf
16. Common Airplane Myths, Debunked by Science – Northrop Grumman, accessed August 9, 2025, https://now.northropgrumman.com/common-flight-myths-debunked-by-science
17. Advisory Circular – FAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91.21-1C.pdf
18. AC 91.21-1D – Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft – FAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91.21-1D.pdf
19. ELI5: What happens if no one turns on airplane mode on a full commercial flight? – Reddit, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17c7aki/eli5_what_happens_if_no_one_turns_on_airplane/
20. AC 91.21-1B – Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft – NBAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/communications-navigation-surveillance-cns/electronic-flight-bags/advisory-circular-91-21-1b-use-portable-electronic-devices-aboard-aircraft/
21. Airplane Mode: Clearing the Air and Debunking the Myths – APEX, accessed August 9, 2025, https://apex.aero/articles/airplane-mode-madness/
22. 14 CFR § 91.21 – Portable electronic devices. – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.21
23. 14 CFR § 121.306 – Portable electronic devices. – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.306
24. eCFR :: 14 CFR 91.21 – Portable electronic devices., accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.21
25. RTCA DO-294 – Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices – Standards, accessed August 9, 2025, https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1210694/rtca-do-294
26. T-PED Testing – Porter Aerospace, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.porteraerospace.com/tpedtesting
27. Annex III to ED Decision 2019/008/R – EASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.easa.europa.eu/et/downloads/71950/en
28. Forest Service Aviation TECH BULLETIN, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/FSTB-19-01-PED-Onboard-Aircraft.pdf
29. Technical Airworthiness Authority Advisory (TAA Advisory) – Canada.ca, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/technical-airworthiness/english/taa-2015-02.pdf
30. Airplane mode – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane_mode
31. Use of Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) on Aircraft | SKYbrary Aviation Safety, accessed August 9, 2025, https://skybrary.aero/articles/use-personal-electronic-devices-peds-aircraft
32. EASA allows electronic devices to remain On and Connected …, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-allows-electronic-devices-remain-and-connected-throughout-flight
33. 5G on planes, Wi-Fi on the road – Commission decision opens up new opportunities for innovation | Shaping Europe’s digital future – European Union, accessed August 9, 2025, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/5g-planes-wi-fi-road-commission-decision-opens-new-opportunities-innovation
34. Regulations for portable electronic devices (PEDs) – Canada.ca, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/05/regulations-portable-electronic-devices-peds-.html
35. NACC welcomes the expansion of PED use aboard aircraft – Newswire.ca, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/nacc-welcomes-the-expansion-of-ped-use-aboard-aircraft-514356461.html
36. Transport Canada relaxes in-flight mobile device rules, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/transport-canada-relaxes-in-flight-mobile-device-rules/93951
37. Fly Safe – China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd csair.com, accessed August 9, 2025, http://www.csair.com/us/en/tourguide/flight_service/passenger_safety_rules/
38. China removes the ban on portable electronic devices onboard – Pandaily, accessed August 9, 2025, https://pandaily.com/china-removes-the-ban-on-portable-electronic-devices-onboard
39. 开放机上PED (kaifàng jishàng PED): Use of personal electronic devices allowed during flights | govt.chinadaily.com.cn, accessed August 9, 2025, https://govt.chinadaily.com.cn/s/201801/19/WS5d3510b7498ed6fd11ca209f/kai-fang-ji-shangped-kaifang-jishang-ped-use-of-personal-electronic-devices-allowed-during-flights.html
40. CASA expected to follow US ruling on in-flight device use – iTnews, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.itnews.com.au/news/casa-expected-to-follow-us-ruling-on-in-flight-device-use-359012
41. Portable electronic device (PED) | Civil Aviation Safety Authority – CASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.casa.gov.au/resources-and-education/regulatory-index/portable-electronic-device-ped
42. Personal Electronic Devices and Their Interference With Aircraft Systems – NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed August 9, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20010066904/downloads/20010066904.pdf
43. Commuter and Corporate Flight Crew Fatigue Reports – NASA ASRS, accessed August 9, 2025, https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/com_fatigue.pdf
44. ASRS Database Report Set – Passenger Electronic Devices – Aviation Safety Reporting System – NASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
45. Probabilistic risk assessment – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment
46. Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment – How They Play Together – NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed August 9, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150002964/downloads/20150002964.pdf
47. Backgrounder On Probabilistic Risk Assessment | NRC.gov, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/probabilistic-risk-asses.html
48. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA): Analytical Process for Recognizing Design and Operational Risks, accessed August 9, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200001598/downloads/20200001598.pdf
49. Swiss cheese model – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
50. Portable electronic devices | UK Civil Aviation Authority, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/airlines/dangerous-goods/portable-electronic-devices/
51. Dangerous Goods | EASA – European Union, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/air-operations/dangerous-goods
52. PackSafe – Portable Electronic Devices Containing Batteries | Federal Aviation Administration, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/portable-electronic-devices-with-batteries
53. Electronic Devices Regulation | China Airlines – 中華航空, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.china-airlines.com/la/en/fly/on-board/electronic-devices
54. Carriage and Use of Personal Electronic Devices and Portable Electronic Flight Bags in the Cockpit | EASA Community, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/carriage-and-use-personal-electronic-devices-and-portable-electronic-flight-bags-cockpit
55. Portable Electronic Devices – CAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/safety/reports/portable-electronic-devices.pdf
56. Prohibition on Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck – Federal Register, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/02/12/2014-02991/prohibition-on-personal-use-of-electronic-devices-on-the-flight-deck
57. Aircraft Operations and Radar Altimeter Interference from 5G – ALPA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.alpa.org/resources/aircraft-operations-radar-altimeter-interference-5G
58. Assessment of C-Band Mobile Telecommunications Interference Impact on Low Range Radar Altimeter Operations – RTCA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf
59. 5G and Aviation – Collins Aerospace, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/industries/commercial-aviation/flight-deck/navigation-and-guidance/radio-navigation-and-landing/5g-and-aviation
60. 5G C-BAND Transport/Commuter Airplanes – FAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/domesticnotices/dom23020_gen.html
61. Filtering Solutions for 5G C-Band Interference with Radar Altimeter Receivers, accessed August 9, 2025, https://blog.minicircuits.com/filtering-solutions-for-5g-c-band-interference-with-radar-altimeter-receivers/
62. Debunking flight myths: Separating fact from fiction – myflyright, accessed August 9, 2025, https://myflyright.com/blog/debunking-flight-myths-separating-fact-from-fiction/
63. Mobile phones on aircraft – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
64. AeroMobile chooses Picocell from ip.access for New Inflight Mobile Phone Service – Albatross Airport News, accessed August 9, 2025, https://airport-information.com/data/news/aeromobile-chooses-picocell-from-ip-access-for-new-inflight-mobile-pho-9525.html
65. New technology could facilitate safe in-flight cell phone use | Business Jet Traveler, accessed August 9, 2025, https://bjtonline.com/business-jet-news/new-technology-could-facilitate-safe-in-flight-cell-phone-use
66. The Future of In-Flight Connectivity: Will Wi-Fi Ever Feel Like Home …, accessed August 9, 2025, https://42kft.com/the-future-of-in-flight-connectivity-will-wi-fi-ever-feel-like-home/
67. In-Flight Wi-Fi Takes Off: The Sky-High Race for Satellite …, accessed August 9, 2025, https://ts2.tech/en/in-flight-wi-fi-takes-off-the-sky-high-race-for-satellite-connectivity-2024-2030/
68. Blog – Advancing In-Flight Connectivity: The Impact of Innovative ESA Technologies – Gilat Satellite Networks, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.gilat.com/advancing-in-flight-connectivity-the-impact-of-innovative-esa-technologies/
69. FUTURE CONNECTIVITY FOR AVIATION EU/US task force White Paper – EASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/137252/en
70. The Future of In-Flight Connectivity – HORISEN, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.horisen.com/the-future-of-in-flight-connectivity/
71. Roadmap for Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft type certification – FAA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/air-taxis/NAA-Network-Roadmap-Advanced-AirMobility-Aircraft-Type-Certification-Edition-April2025.pdf
72. Digital Aviation Roadmap – Inmarsat, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.inmarsat.com/content/dam/inmarsat/corporate/documents/aviation/insights/2022/Inmarsat%20Aviation%20-%20Digital%20Aviation%20Roadmap.pdf.coredownload.pdf
73. FAA Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Safety Assurance, Version I, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/step/roadmap_for_AI_safety_assurance