Take-off, Landing, and Your Ereader -- A Poll

[heeby]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And they hate being around us because we will not follow a clearly stated rule and are being selfish. So no one is happy.

It is not being selfish, it is being reasonable. If they didn't see it happen it wouldn't affect them at all...several have said things like "I just can't help but worry when I see a device on." etc. That is their irrationality and not my issue. Also people who blindly follow rules just because they are rules are not "better" and have no superior "righteous" position from which to demand anything. In addition they are also hypocrites because nobody follows ALL rules and laws. If humans used a little more common sense, and minded their own business, life would be much easier. But instead you have people always telling you what you should do because someone told them they should do it.

[tea2]

When we're taking off, I turn it off and put it in the seat pocket and then take it out again when it's ok to read. On landing, I turn it off and put it away. I'm such an obedient little soul.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

The rules say that it has to be turned off. The few times a Flight Attendant has said something to me directly they have specifically said I have to power it down and not just close the cover. Same with IPods and noise reduction head sets.

Originally Posted by ApK

There are devices that have no equivalent to "fully off" and are always at, best, in something like a sleep state. Digital watches come first to mind, but there are others.

Well, I can't turn off my PDA. The only way I can turn it off is by removing the battery.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

ApK: Not disagreeing with you, I am just relaying what I was told by the Flight Attendant. She/He was not satisfied until I had turned it completly off which meant shutdown. And yes, watches you don't have turn off.

Well, in case of my PDA, (s)he would have had to wait a long time as I don't want to remove the battery out of my PDA, because I'd have to do a restore as well afterwards, as it will reset the OS.

[piperclassique]

Out the window? Don't you scan? Window, instruments, mobileread on the ipad, window, instruments, mobileread on the ipad....?

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

So the question still remains; what do you believe gives you the right to pick and choose which laws you obey?

The admittedly over the top correlations (btw, it was somebody supporting the individual pick and mix approach to adherence to laws who brought up red lights - as one of the laws that he/she didn't need to obey) are just a vehicle to explore the principle.

There's something you learn about in your first year of law school called malum in se and malum prohibitum. Basically, it's things that are prohibited because they are bad in themselves, like murder, rape and theft that most of us would agree are wrong even if not illegal (in se) and things that are prohibited because the law says so, like driving on the wrong side of the road (prohibitum).

You can argue about which specific acts fall into which category (reasonable people could disagree about gambling or drug use), but in general, typically "law abiding" people are far more likely to commit a malum prohibitum crime than a malum in se, either because they disagree with the law (using your Kindle during takeoff) or they don't think it applies in a certain situation (a rolling right turn is fine at 3 am with no traffic).

[ProfCrash]

Technically, using your Kindle during take off is violating a rule and not a law. If you ignore a direct request from the Flight Attendant to turn off your Kindle and say you will not, then you are breaking a law because you are interferring with the Flight Crew.

"It is not being selfish, it is being reasonable. If they didn't see it happen it wouldn't affect them at all...several have said things like "I just can't help but worry when I see a device on." etc. That is their irrationality and not my issue. Also people who blindly follow rules just because they are rules are not "better" and have no superior "righteous" position from which to demand anything. In addition they are also hypocrites because nobody follows ALL rules and laws. If humans used a little more common sense, and minded their own business, life would be much easier. But instead you have people always telling you what you should do because someone told them they should do it. "

No, it is being selfish. Just because you, and I, have decided that said rule is silly and unnecessary does not mean that the person next to you thinks the rule is silly and unnecessary. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are the one breaking the rule. If that makes your fellow passanger enough that he or she asks you to turn off the device or rings the Flight Attendent to tell them that you are breaking the rule, you are the one in the wrong. You can argue until you are blue in the face that the person is being "irrational" and "righteous" all you want but you are still the person chosing to violate the rule. So you are putting your own needs infront of the needs of those who wish to see the rules followed.

I am selfish and read my Kindle during takeoff and landing. If my seat mate is not comfortable with it, I put it in sleep mode and read the silly magazines that they give us. I am the one breaking the rule, I am the one required to act like and adult when someone calls me on breaking the rule.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Technically, using your Kindle during take off is violating a rule and not a law. If you ignore a direct request from the Flight Attendant to turn off your Kindle and say you will not, then you are breaking a law because you are interferring with the Flight Crew.

Surely that also applies to the initial announcement telling you (it's not a request) to turn off your electronic equipment, doesn't it?

[wodin]

While I agree with:

Originally Posted by MovieBird

... Stupid rules just engender disrespect for all rules.

I find that blatantly ignoring them is just not worth the hassle. I (usually) obey the speed limits too.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely that also applies to the initial announcement telling you (it's not a request) to turn off your electronic equipment, doesn't it?

I doubt it. I have not heard of anyone booted from a plane for ignoring the initial announcement. I have heard of people booted from the plane when they were specifically told to turn off the device, return to their seat, control their screaming child who won't sit down, and the like.

It might be a grey line but it is there.

[ApK]

Sometimes a cop will let you go with a warning, that doesn't mean what you did was legal. It just means they have some discretion in enforcement. Could well be same with the annoucement. Maybe they could throw you off and lock you up for ignoring it, they just don't.

[garyanbear]

Originally Posted by Polyphemus

I usually close the cover and put in the seat back pocket in front of me. Then I browse the sky mall magazine or flip through the airline magazine.

I fly often enough to know that I get better service if I behave like a good passenger.

I agree with your reasoning. As a pilot's daughter, I've been around airline employees pretty constantly throughout my life. I either turn my e-reader off or put it to sleep, although I usually have it close by; probably on my lap or in the seat pocket in front of me. I actually enjoy watching take-off and landing (if I'm near a window) so it's not that much of a chore.
Although I might sneakily start reading earlier than we're technically supposed to turn electronics on once we're in the air. By that point very few people seem to care.

[ProfCrash]

I have a fear of falling, not heights, but falling. I cannot sit by a window on a plane comfortably. If I wnd up with a window seat, the blind is closed the entire time and I do my best to pretend that I am not near the window. Reading helps me take my mind off the fact that ground is a very long way below me and makes flying pleasurable for me.

If I am flying Jet Blue, I can watch the TV set and I am good to go. The Kindle is away. Harry and comp will be happy to know that Jet Blue is my prefered airline and I do my darndest to fly them so I am less of a rule breaker then you might think. (winks) I tend to get annoyed when the 9,000 announcements interupt my TV viewing though. Jet Blue has gotten better with those.

Essentially, I need the distraction in order to help me deal with my irrational fear of falling. (shrugs) I don't care if it is focusing on a TV screen (which for some reason can operate with the satellite receiver getting most channels during take off and landing and not causing the plane to crash) or my Kindle, I just need the distraction.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely that also applies to the initial announcement telling you (it's not a request) to turn off your electronic equipment, doesn't it?

I don't know whether refusing to follow the instructions of a flight attendant amounts to any kind of legal violation or not. But it's probably a contractual violation - i.e., you buy a ticket, subject to the condition that you obey the instructions of airline employees while in transit, else they an kick you off the plane. There's no difference I can see between refusing to follow a general request and refusing to follow a specific one, but I suspect that there are government regulations saying that the attendant can't kick you off the plane until you have been given your own personal request.

[heeby]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I don't know whether refusing to follow the instructions of a flight attendant amounts to any kind of legal violation or not. But it's probably a contractual violation - i.e., you buy a ticket, subject to the condition that you obey the instructions of airline employees while in transit, else they an kick you off the plane. There's no difference I can see between refusing to follow a general request and refusing to follow a specific one, but I suspect that there are government regulations saying that the attendant can't kick you off the plane until you have been given your own personal request.

I believe you are correct. From my understanding it is not a law nor is disobeying a flight attendant illegal in this instance. However what normally happens is they get law enforcement involved and get THEM to arrest you on some trumped up charge like disorderly conduct, assault etc. But since it is repeated so much in the media and gossip that it's ILLEGAL to "disobey" flight crews, the general public believes this. Perhaps our lawyer friend above could chime in on the accuracy of this?

[rjpawlak]

People may not agree with the rules, but there are consequences. I was on a flight last year when the guy behind me refused to obey the flight attendant after repeated requests to turn off his ipod. He took it a step further and insulted the attendant and another guy during the 'discussion'. We waited on the tarmac while this was going on. After another discussion and argument, he was given an ultimatum to shut off his device, or the marshalls would be waiting for him. He did not, and when we landed we all remained seated while the marshalls came on the plane and excorted him off. He was really apologetic then, and denied that he ever was abusive toward the attendant.

IMO, that moron got what he deserved. Not only was he rude and disrespectful, he delayed everyone else on the plane because of his selfishness.

I fly very often and turn off my phone and reader when taking off and landing. And I do not understand what is so critical about having to be contantly entertained or stimulated.

There should be no issue with a discussion of the scientific merits of having a particular device on or off. But that is a something that few people are qualified to discuss knowledgably.

Bob