"... and please switch off all electronic devices."

[EowynCarter]

The general public is not competent to judge whether or not their device will interfere, therefore it's a perfectly reasonable expectation that passeneger should just turn off their devices when asked to do so.

With proper explanation, they can be. Most of time, they will know if their device have 3g, wi-fi, or bluetooth.
If they don't understand, they might let their phone on in their bags, not by malice, but because they don't understand why it can be a danger.

*All* electronic devices radiate, to a greater or lesser extent, so the theoretical risk is not limited to wireless transmitting devices.

True, but save for wireless stuff, i can't think of anything (in term of everyday use can-be-carried-in-a-plane stuff)

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you do with electronic devices which cannot be turned off? Do you take the battery out of your digital watch?

Clearly not!

It's all just comes down to statistical risk - every electronic device radiates and thus adds something to the level of risk. Somebody somewhere has deemed that getting people to turn off their electronic devices is worth doing, presumably by weighing up the risk reduction vs the minimal inconvenience in doing so. A few non-turn-offable devices, such as digital watches, hopefully won't add too much to the risk. Those who make the rules clearly don't expect people to take the batteries out of their watches (otherwise they'd make people do so), so presumably they agree.

It's just a trade off between very low levels of extra risk and very low levels of added inconvenience. Up to a point it's worth turning things off, and afterwards not.

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

With proper explanation, they can be. Most of time, they will know if their device have 3g, wi-fi, or bluetooth.

A lot of people will not even understand that - to be safe, turning off all electronics (which can be turned off straight-forwardly) at takeoff & landing is a sensible precaution.

True, but save for wireless stuff, i can't think of anything (in term of everyday use can-be-carried-in-a-plane stuff)

It *all* radiates. Your ereader radiates, for example. Not much, but a measureable amount.

/JB

[EowynCarter]

It's all just comes down to statistical risk - every electronic device radiates and thus adds something to the level of risk.

Once again, we're speaking of every day stuff. Stuff that follow norms saying among other things, a maximum value for there "radiation".

So sorry, i'm having trouble understanding why my reader would cause problem.

It *all* radiates. Your ereader radiates, for example. Not much, but a measureable amount.

My bad I meant :
true, but save for wireless stuff, i can't think of anything (in term of everyday use can-be-carried-in-a-plane stuff) that would radiate enough to cause trouble.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Once again, we're speaking of every day stuff. Stuff that follow norms saying among other things, a maximum value for there "radiation".

So sorry, i'm having trouble understanding why my reader would cause problem.


My bad I meant :
true, but save for wireless stuff, i can't think of anything (in term of everyday use can-be-carried-in-a-plane stuff) that would radiate enough to cause trouble.

It's not so much that your reader would cause problems as the dozens of other people without your knowledge of what an eink screen really is seening you be able to use a box with a switch on it and deciding that it's okay to fire up all sorts of electronic gadgets, which theoretically can bolix the aircraft's electronic gear. Airlines make a blanket ban on everything with a switch to keep the nercissistic entitlements from becoming out of hand.

[EowynCarter]

It's not so much that your reader would cause problems as the dozens of other people without your knowledge of what an eink screen really is seening you be able to use a box with a switch on it and deciding that it's okay to fire up all sorts of electronic gadgets, which theoretically can bolix the aircraft's electronic gear

Hence what I said about explaining what can or can't be done, and why.
Another ting is that electronic have evolved. We've learn way to make devices radiate less, and shield them from external radiation.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

So sorry, i'm having trouble understanding why my reader would cause problem.

Your reader by itself in all probability wouldn't. You're not stopping to consider that you are not the only person on the plane with an electronic device. If your device is allowed, then shouldn't everyone's device be allowed? And what then of the cumulative effect of all those devices' EMFs potentially causing a navigational issue at 200 feet off the ground?

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

My bad I meant :
true, but save for wireless stuff, i can't think of anything (in term of everyday use can-be-carried-in-a-plane stuff) that would radiate enough to cause trouble.

But that's the issue - are you sure you are competent to judge whether or not it would? (Absolutely no offence intended!)

Do you know the radiation spectrum of your reader? Do you know what devices everyone else in the plane is using, and what the combined radiation of all those devices is? Do you know where all the plane's potentially sensitive control systems are? Do you know the details of the EM sensitivity of all the plane's systems?

Unless you know all of that, and much more, you're not in a position to be able to say what extra statistical risk allowing people to use electronic devices would add.

Having said all that, eInk readers are clearly a bit of an oddity, as turning them "off" often doesn't actually turn them off, unless you do a shutdown.

/JB

[Tamara]

We turn off our readers out of courtesy for everyone around us. We figure we can survive the 10 - 15 minutes without using the reader during takeoff and landing.

[CyberSmoke53]

I turn off my ereader and also double-check my cellphone to insure that its also off! Its the polite courteous thing to do, as well as a good example to others.

I too think my one little reader probably wouldn't do any harm, but several hundred could possibly cause an issue with something in the airplane's control system. I take along a pbook or magazine for the times I can't use the electronic reader.

When I fly its not just about me but others too, so I'd much rather err on the side of caution.

[mores]

Aren't we talking about the first and last 5-10 minutes of a flight where ALL devices need to be switched off? How can you not be able to do away with your reader for this time? Read the safety instructions or something.

[EowynCarter]

We turn off our readers out of courtesy for everyone around us. We figure we can survive the 10 - 15 minutes without using the reader during takeoff and landing.

Don't know it seamed to me that "safety time" is more like 20-30 minutes.
That time was long enough to annoy me during the filght in denemark. I remember growing tired of reading because i couldn't do anyting else (still had good old paper book at the time).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mores

Aren't we talking about the first and last 5-10 minutes of a flight where ALL devices need to be switched off? How can you not be able to do away with your reader for this time? Read the safety instructions or something.

Or even - shock, horror! - the airline magazine. I actually had a nice surprise the last time I did that; it had a very good review of my own software in it!

[EowynCarter]

Do you know the radiation spectrum of your reader? Do you know what devices everyone else in the plane is using, and what the combined radiation of all those devices is? Do you know where all the plane's potentially sensitive control systems are? Do you know the details of the EM sensitivity of all the plane's systems?

Do you ?

Unless you know all of that, and much more, you're not in a position to be able to say what extra statistical risk allowing people to use electronic devices would add.

Well, if someone in the know would care to explain ?

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Do you ?

Straw man! You're the one who at least seems to be claiming that your reader couldn't possibly do any harm; asking you on what basis you believe that is a valid question, and you're just ducking the issue by trying to deflect the question. Basically, the point is that if you think your particular electronic device is perfectly safe, then you ought to have some basis in fact for that. If you can't answer the question, then it remains merely an uninformed assumption on your part that your reader is indeed safe.

Not trying to be overly snippy here, but that is indeed why electronic devices are prohibited: because these devices have in the past caused random minor problems with equipment on airplanes, and these problems are random enough that Boeing and Airbus engineers along with various regulatory agencies have been unable to duplicate the problems reliably. Without being able to absolutely isolate specific circumstances, specific levels of EM radiation, specific transmission strengths, and on and on, that can cause these problems, and thus by inference be able to say that if your device doesn't meet those thresholds then it cannot cause a problem, it is simply the only responsible and safest course of action to prohibit electronic devices from being used close to the ground.

In reality, even if you were able to define some kind of EM threshold to reliably cause a problem, it likely wouldn't mean you could use your device, because that would only really define a single device in a specific location on the plane. When you start allowing multiple devices in random locations, it throws all your test data right out the window (and that's assuming you were able to reliably reproduce a specific problem in the first place).

Now, all that being said, I happen to agree with you that modern airplanes are hardly likely to have problems from EM fields on tiny little devices such as computers, iPhones, etc., and almost certainly not from your reader. However, the one time I certainly wouldn't want to take a chance with it would be in a very low visibility landing when the pilots are entirely dependent on the interior instruments of the airplane to be able to land because they cannot see out the windshield. Bad time to find out you were wrong about that reader...