Japanese Airlines Ban DS, PSP

Gamespot is reporting that Japanese Airlines such as Japan Airlines and ANA have banned the use of wifi-capable game devices, including the DS and PSP, over 'safety concerns'. From the article: "A law banning on gaming systems with wireless capabilities came into force on Monday, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Japan's transport ministry has concluded that the electromagnetic waves from the wireless networks can interfere with aircraft navigation systems, so it's no Nintendogs for passengers flying with Japanese airlines. The new law also bans wireless computer mice, and headphones that have not been provided by the airlines, although the use of electric razors, calculators, and cassette players is permitted, readers may be relieved to know."

Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[EchoD (1031614)]

Just in time for Microsoft to announce a hand-held without wireless capabilities! Sure, it'd be opportune... but I doubt I'm the only one who wouldn't buy it.

Re:

[dintech (998802)]

Also there's nothing worse than flying a red-eye while surrounded by kids playing pokemon at high volume. Victory!

Re:

[edwdig (47888)]

Try a red eye that's got an entire troup of girl scouts with a large supply of pixie sticks.

Re:

[dintech (998802)]

I think maybe Hell is something like that. A never ending late night, long haul flight with a bunch of kids making loads of noise while all the adults try to sleep.

No so bad if you're Gary Glitter...

Re:

[7Prime (871679)]

There's something strangely... arousing... about what you just said.

Fleecing?

[tepples (727027)]

Wireless computer mouses have also been banned aboard flights, along with headphones that are not provided by the airlines.

If airlines ban even wired headphones, then why does this remind me of the roughly 70% or larger gross margin that movie theaters take on candy (e.g. $0.88 Wal-Mart candy sold for $3.00)?

Re:

[CRiMSON (3495)]

You mean the headphones they hand out free? Not sure how you can fleece someone with a free product. I've been on 4 different airlines in the past year and the headphones were always free to use.

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

The headphones handed out for free by airlines are horrible. I always use my own which sound great, and actually FIT.

Re:

[Gwala (309968)]

A lot of US airlines make you pay like $2.00 for them. American is a particularly guilty offender.

Re:

[ForestGrump (644805)]

Yes, they may charge you 2 bucks for the headphones, but they are "yours to keep". I think it's reasonable then.
However, their 5 dollar sandwiches and 2 dollar bottles of water are a wee bit too much.

Grump

Re:

[pthor1231 (885423)]

Why? That food is "yours to keep" as well. They don't make you shit it out or vomit it back up before you get off the plane.

Re:Fleecing?

[SighKoPath (956085)]

That entirely depends upon the pilot and the weather.

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

But why would I WANT $2 headphones when they totally suck and I already HAVE headphones that are awesome?

Many airlines (such as United) charge you $4 or so for the "movie" and either give you the headphones or allow you to use your own. Not being allowed to use your own would really suck.

Headphones?

[Kozar_The_Malignant (738483)]

Sorry, but I fly on noisy commercial turboprops a lot (EMB 120 Brasilias), and I wear noise canceling headphones starting the instant those loud bastards start up. Many regular passengers do. I don't plug them into my ipod until the "OK to start your electronic devices" announcement. I've never had any question from a flight attendant. They're all wearing hearing protection too.

well,

[joe 155 (937621)]

whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

Re:well,

[king-manic (409855)]

whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

That idea can get pretty silly. For instance Peanut butter can kill people with severe allergies, ought we ban all peanut butter in public places? Bee stings can kill certian people, ought we ban bees? A CD could presumably kill someone in exactly the right circumstance ought we ban CD's? A Scarf could kill someone too (and have killed many children), it's only a small inconvenience to go without one so ought we ban scarves?

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

This is the nanny society we live in. In fact, many schools DO have a total ban on peanut butter just for that reason. Having a "peanut free" table instead would discriminate against the poor kids suffering with a peanut allergy. Yes, even at a high school, where the kid with the allergy should have enough sense not to eat another child's food by that age. I've lived with severe allergies my entire life, but a total ban on anything like that is insane.

Re:

[Tofystedeth (1076755)]

I doesn't matter if the kid has sense not to eat other people's food. A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

Re:well,

[Babbster (107076)]

Yeah, you know what? Anyone that allergic ought to be wearing a fucking surgical mask. Hundreds of people - whether adults or children - should not have to change their eating habits for one person. Peanuts are not only tasty but they're nutritious as well. I'd certainly rather kids be enjoying some peanuts at lunch rather than some of the crap served by, and present in, public schools...

Re:well,

[Mattintosh (758112)]

Hey, if your kid is so allergic that my normal kid has to eat bologna sandwiches instead of PB&J, you can either pay to have your kid put in a bubble, pay to have your kid put in a private school, or pay to have my kid eat bologna. Your rights end where my nose begins, and this works both ways. I may have no right to knowingly make your kid sick, but you have no right to expect me to pick up the tab for it either.

Re:

[Tim C (15259)]

Ok. Lets say you have a kid. this kid is so allergic to peanuts that they could die, not from eating, but simply by being around someone that is eating peanuts or a product prepared with peanuts.

No, let's not say that. First, let's see if there's any evidence at all to back up claims of such hypersensitivity, because without some I simply cannot believe that anyone could suffer any reaction at all from being near me as I eat peanut butter. If it were true, then those people would have to refrain from going

Re:well,

[Cecil (37810)]

A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

Myth. Peanut allergies can be severe, but never that severe. If you were in a peanut processing facility, or the person a few seats over was smashing hundreds of peanuts into peanut butter, maybe. Just eating peanuts is going to produce an infinitesimally small amount of dust. The likelihood of inhaling even a single particle of dust in that scenario approaches zero, and is not far from the likelihood of inhaling a piece of peanut dust that was picked up on the wind from a chinese peanut factory and blown around the world and directly into your mouth. They are both statistically implausible. And even if it were to happen, a single piece of peanut dust is not enough, in any recorded case of peanut allergy, to cause even a noticeable reaction.

Enough peanut allergens can actually be transferred through saliva (kissing) to cause a mild reaction in the severely allergic but even that is very infrequent, and I can't find a single case of death as a result (No, the death of the Quebec girl had nothing to do with her peanut allergy, contrary to the media reports, it was a cigarette-induced asthma attack)

Re:

[Sensible Clod (771142)]

I know someone who has this kind of peanut allergy, and he really dislikes the smell of peanuts. As far as I know, it doesn't cause a reaction per se, but he really hates the smell of peanuts or peanut butter, even if it's just one person eating it near him. I figure it may cause a very mild immune response, which is why he hates the smell. (Prior to his first reaction, he liked peanut butter.)

Re:

[CRCulver (715279)]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even being in the same room where they could smell them is potentially fatal.

Re:well,

[AcidLacedPenguiN (835552)]

I believe there was a man who went by the name of Darwin who would have something to say about this.

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

Then those people should probably be wearing masks. Seriously. If you life is at stake, would YOU take the chance that someone forgot about the ban and brought in a PB&J? Or had a snickers bar?

Re:well,

[mchale (104743)]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking about peanuts is potentially fatal.

Re:

[bentcd (690786)]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even being on the same planet as a peanut is potentially fatal.

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking in a language that has a word for peanut is potentially fatal.

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even the existence of the idea of something that may be vaguely peanut-shaped is potentially fatal.

Re:

[darkmayo (251580)]

Hey I dont know about you but if wireless signals from said devices do/can cause issues with flight instrumentation I'd rather just play it safe. That being said I'd like to actually see studies on this.. maybe some tests have everyone on the play have a ds and playing mario kart wirelessly against each other while the plane is on the ground.

Re:

[adavies42 (746183)]

It's a minor inconvenience to the public if we lock you up for the rest of your life on the off chance that you might someday, accidentally or deliberately, kill someone, hurt someone, or hurt someone's feelings. If it saves just one person's life, limbs, or dignity, how can it not be worth it?

Re:

[Voltageaav (798022)]

You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it.

Screw You Japanese Airlines

[by Anonymous Coward]

Next time I'll just WALK to Japan.

Ob.

[pushing-robot (1037830)]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30 [penny-arcade.com]

How enforcable is this ban?

[antifoidulus (807088)]

the DS and PSP are obviously easier to ban because everyone knows what they look like and that they have wireless, but for most electronics, can you really tell just by taking a look at them whether or not they have wireless? For example, some mp3 players have wireless, some don't. Other than perhaps Zune(and who actually has one of those?) and the iPod touch(which could be an iPhone in airplane mode once it reaches Japan :P) I doubt very many flight attendants could tell you on the spot whether or not a given device is wireless or not. So if they cannot enforce the ban, why have it at all? You are just going to make people angry without adding any safety.

But this does make the environmentalist in me happy, maybe more people will take the train vs. a plane for domestic travel, and having lived in Europe, the US and Japan, I can say that the Japanese is by far the best. Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

Re:

[Babbster (107076)]

Here's my problem with this banning: It would be a trivial exercise to teach flight attendants how to tell if the wireless is active on a Nintendo DS, and I assume that the PSP has a similar activity light. 30 minutes (or less) of training for its employees and they could avoid angering their game-playing customers - that sounds like a pretty good deal.

Re:

[moonbender (547943)]

Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

Not sure if this is true for anywhere else, but here in Germany fuel and energy is heavily taxed, which factors into the train ticket prices. Airplanes, however, are excempt. We pay about EUR 0.60 per liter of gas, the airlines pay EUR 0.00 per liter of kerosene. Compared to driving in a car, railway travel is somewhat competitive.

That's not the only reason, but it's on

Intentional Transmitters

[Detritus (11846)]

Any RF transmitter has the potential to cause interference with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems. Besides the intended signal, transmitters also produce spurious outputs and noise at other frequencies. This can be a real problem for systems that deal with weak signals like GPS receivers. It doesn't take much power to jam a GPS receiver. A plane full of wifi devices could create an interference nightmare.

Inconsistent regulation

[sunderland56 (621843)]

So, they ban wireless computer mice - but not laptops, which all have 802.11 wireless capabilities, and many of which also have bluetooth?

They should ban transmission of RF - so your laptop/cellphone is fine as long as you turn off the radio part. I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.

Amazing how people in government/management are all technically inept, isn't it?

Re:

[Skuld-Chan (302449)]

I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.

The psp can - it has a switch on the left hand side - or if its the new one its on the top.

What happened yesterday?

[Applekid (993327)]

So, nobody in Japan ever thought to bring and use a DS or PSP on a plane before today? How come planes weren't dropping out of the sky left and right? All of a sudden they interfere with navigation systems?

Call me nutty, but, wouldn't it just make more sense to shield the instruments better? I mean, EM radiation and potential jamming isn't just something that exists only on the inside of the cabin.

Why the PSP?

[sqlrob (173498)]

You can easily turn off the wireless with a switch.

There isn't a switch in the DS, but it's not on unless you use a game that turns it on.

Re:

[fbjon (692006)]

All games on the DS I've seen have a standard icon to mark actions that will activate the wireless, it's probably required. They usually ask to confirm if you want to connect to WFC as well, not sure about local play though.

Re:

[Danse (1026)]

q[Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?]q
Not sure about that, but I just had a stopover in Tokyo a couple days ago and it seemed like half the Japanese people in line for the plane were playing with a DS. It wasn't a JAL flight, but I figure their passengers are probably about the same. I think there's gonna be some real grumbling about this regulation, if not outright protest.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[EtoilePB (1087031)]

No. I just flew cross country (JFK/LAS) twice in the last four days. The speech says that anything with an internal transmitter must have that transmitter disabled but the devices themselves are allowed. In fact I was playing MarioKart on my DS Lite most of the way back from Vegas (and my boyfriend was playing Phoenix Wright on his).

Re:

[walt-sjc (145127)]

Every laptop I've seen has the ability to turn off wireless features. What braindead laptop have you found that doesn't?

Re:

[Moridineas (213502)]

Why exactly shouldn't we use wireless devices? I can think of a lot of good reasons--like not wanting to hear assholes chatting it up the whole flight (if possible), but from what I've read, there's no technical reasons cellphones shouldn't be able to be used--if you know more than I do, feel free to correct me.

This article is kinda funny... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/25/memphis.air.snafu/ [cnn.com]

Modders to the Rescue!

[bigdady92 (635263)]

If this 'wireless' thing is such a big issue and the people see that there is no wire, they'll ask you to stop using it.

Now, we being the ingenious lil monkies we are, can easily take a single black wire and electric tape it to the inside of the headphone and then to the device. It doesn't have to be molded or connected in any way shape or form to something useful, just a nice thick attachable cable that stewardess can see and identify and pass on by.

Stewardess: Excuse me papa san, you can't use that headph

Re:Umm...

[toriver (11308)]

That's a myth: Statistically there are usually some switched-on mobile phones on a plane, and those devices are anyway regulated for frequency bands other than the ones used by air traffic systems and the like.

The real reason is that when you are in the air, they will try and contact - at their maximum power because of the distances involved - the multiple cell network stations the plane passes as it flies at a high speed. This screws with the switching system.

So it's in the interest of the user to turn it off to preserve both battery power and their genetic material :) and in the interest of the cell phone companies to preserve network stability.

It's a cell tower problem.

[tepples (727027)]

It's funny how cell phones are banned in planes, where they've never caused a serious wreck, but in the US are allowed in cars, where they've caused a bunch of wrecks.

Standard (GSM or UMTS) mobile phones are designed to use terrestrial antenna towers. In most cases, you'll get a much stronger signal from one or two of these towers at once, and your phone will remain connected to one tower for a long period of time. In an airliner, you're so far off the ground that your phone can see more towers, and you're traveling so fast (900 km/h for a Boeing 747) that several towers might come in and out of range per minute. This load on the roaming system is why the mobile network operators don't want you using mobile phones on an airliner flight.

Re:Irony

[Detritus (11846)]

That's debatable. They are suspected of causing the crash of Crossair flight LX 498.