On vacation: 71 percent prefer paper over e-books, survey claims

[Katsunami]

As said, I can understand if a take-off or landing takes 30 minutes. It'd be annoying. However, if a take-off or landing takes 5 minutes, then my opinion is that people are whining. You'll survive 5 minutes without reading...

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

By the way: I often see that people regard it as a problem that they cannot read during take-off and landing. I've never flown, so I have no idea: how long does this take? People make it sound as if take-off and landing takes hours on end. I'd be surprised if either takes more than 15 minutes... At 20+, it would start to get annoying if you want to get reading.

It's a major annoyance! Usually we're talking about something between 20 to 45 minutes... depending on flight traffic. Bad weather and/or busy airports can have a major impact on takeoff/landing times. The worst is if you are still on the ground knowing that it'll take another 30 minutes before it's your turn to take off, yet, because the takeoff sequences has already started, you're no longer allowed to use your e-reader.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

It's a major annoyance! Usually we're talking about something between 20 to 45 minutes... depending on flight traffic. Bad weather and/or busy airports can have a major impact on takeoff/landing times. The worst is if you are still on the ground knowing that it'll take another 30 minutes before it's your turn to take off, yet, because the takeoff sequences has already started, you're no longer allowed to use your e-reader.

I'm not exactly your business-type-2-times-a-week frequent flyer, but I fly about 7-12 times a year, sometimes more, and I have to ask: is this taken so much more seriously in the US than I remember (last time I was there was in 2010)?

Whenever I fly (US or elsewhere), reading with an ereader 5 minutes after take-off is never a problem. Nobody has ever said anything to me, not the flight attendants and not fellow passengers. Even if the fasten-seatbelt sign is still on, I basically feel free to go back to my reader after the steepest part of take-off is over (deactivated WiFi, of course).

An e-reader with deactivated WiFi is no different than a smartphone in flight mode; and people don't turn those off either.

Same goes for landing. I finish reading just a few minutes before the actual landing -- in full view of flight attendants (it's not like I'm hiding anything) and they do not seem to care.

Matt

[fjtorres]

Turning the device back on early doesn't get you in trouble because the attendants are strapped in until the plane is at cruise. It *will* get you in trouble before takeoff because they are free to roam and policing the policy.

I'm pretty sure that those regulations are from the bad old days, when electronics operated at frequencies much closer to aviation bands and at much higher power so interference was much more likely (even if the electronics were not intended to send or receive radio signals).

Still, there are so many different types of electronic devices these days that it's probably wise for those regulations to stick around. Without knowing what you have, it's hard to tell what it can turn out as radio frequency interference. That, and most people seem to believe that these devices operate magically thus the laws of physics do not apply.

The nature of the devices has changed too. Things such as cellphones and handheld game consoles are much more engaging, which could be an issue when instructions need to be provided.

[tompe]

You can turn on the electronics when you here the ping which indicates a certain altitude.

I was in San Antonio for Worldcon recently and in four flights I did not see any other reader than my own Kindle PW. I saw paper books and I saw iPads and computers used by people to watch video.

I did not bring any book this trip. The PW was perfect since I did not have to look for good lighting. On the other hand its light was noticeable so they told me to turn it off on each flight...

[Grace Elliot]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I'm pretty sure that those regulations are from the bad old days, when electronics operated at frequencies much closer to aviation bands and at much higher power so interference was much more likely (even if the electronics were not intended to send or receive radio signals).

Still, there are so many different types of electronic devices these days that it's probably wise for those regulations to stick around. Without knowing what you have, it's hard to tell what it can turn out as radio frequency interference. That, and most people seem to believe that these devices operate magically thus the laws of physics do not apply.

The nature of the devices has changed too. Things such as cellphones and handheld game consoles are much more engaging, which could be an issue when instructions need to be provided.

This sounds like something Mythbusters need to investigate. Didn't they look at the effect of mobile phones on aircraft navigation equipment and the phones made not one jot of difference?

[MattW]

Originally Posted by Grace Elliot

This sounds like something Mythbusters need to investigate. Didn't they look at the effect of mobile phones on aircraft navigation equipment and the phones made not one jot of difference?

Since a lot of airlines are already offering WiFi connectivity on board (except for take-off and landing), one can only surmise that electronics with no WiFi or cellular connectivity should be quite safe to use.

Another factor is that a change in safety regulations for aircrafts entails a very long and convoluted approval process where different levels of interference would have to be shown to cause no effects for each type of commercial aircraft. There are also older planes with anlog equipment still in use that are much more likely to react to interference -- again, the rules need to be consistent for the general public.

The NYT has a nice article about the issue.

Matt

Originally Posted by Katsunami

As said, I can understand if a take-off or landing takes 30 minutes. It'd be annoying. However, if a take-off or landing takes 5 minutes, then my opinion is that people are whining. You'll survive 5 minutes without reading...

It's not always "just whining". As I mentioned in my own post, unless I'm able to distract myself thoroughly during takeoff and landing, no matter how brief, I'm a wreck. My doctor wants me to take opioids because of it.

[piper28]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I'm surprised there's so much skepticism about these results. Anecdotally, most people I see still use paper books. All my friends and family prefer paper books (that is if they read). My husband only reads paper books despite having access to my e-reader and my tablet. I rarely see dedicated e-readers in the wild. Honestly, the people on this site (self included) are likely an enthusiastic minority when it comes to e-books. I read ebooks when I travel but I can count on my hands the number of people I see on planes and train that are reading ebooks.

I've really noticed it on cruises. I've actually been amazed at how many ereaders I see on cruise ships these days. If I see someone reading on a cruise these days, it's far more likely to be on an ereader than for it to be paper.

And actually, it kinda surprises me some, because it tends to skew towards an older demographic, and I suspect that that's a demographic that hasn't adopted ereaders as much. Then again, it's also a demographic that tends to have disposable income, which I'm sure correlates well with ereader ownership.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by piper28

And actually, it kinda surprises me some, because it tends to skew towards an older demographic, and I suspect that that's a demographic that hasn't adopted ereaders as much. Then again, it's also a demographic that tends to have disposable income, which I'm sure correlates well with ereader ownership.

It is also a demographic that benefits from the light weight and typographic controls. And, for Kindle owners, PC-free usage.