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

[speakingtohe]

Is this really a recent issue? I seem to remember phones and laptops being a no-no prior to takeoff even before wireless devices were common.

But even if recent and unfounded discrimination against ebook readers it seems to be more than slightly tacky to defy or ignore the attendant when he/she is simply following orders and enforcing a regulation that I was aware of when I purchased the ticket.

Helen

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that although Boeing state, in the article that Joe linked to, that there have been dozens of documented cases of handheld devices interfering with aircraft systems, that you actually know better than Boeing; that you are better qualified than Boeing are to decide what you should or shouldn't be using on an aircraft. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Actually, Boeing is saying that they have found ZERO correlation between reported PEDs and airplane issues.

Originally Posted by Boeing

Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight.

...

Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight

Or, if you think it's causing a problem, then turn it off. But that's a far cry from Boeing saying there IS a problem.

Of the three cases talked about at that link, supposedly the ones that showed the most promise of causing interference, we have:

1) Purchased the specific device from the passenger. Boeing was unable to duplicate the issue with the exact airplane and exact PED.

2) Boeing purchased two of five suspected PEDs. Boeing could not duplicate the issue.

3) Boeing purchased the same model from the manufacturer, could not get the exact device. Boeing could not duplicate the problem.

So, Boeing is saying "if you think there's a problem, then turn the devices off". But, Boeing has not duplicated any issues described in that link.

[Quake1028]

Top option, but I rarely fly.

[HistoryWes]

Plane travel today is one step away from traveling by cattle car.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Because law makers are flawed. They are human and sometimes pass legislation that is wrong. Plain and simple. There are more then enough examples of this in the United States, the Constitution allows for slavery and refers to Slaves as less of a person. Nevermind treating women as inferior by denying them the vote. What about that is moral or right?

I think we might be able to find a few examples of bad legislation in UK history. Heck, lets take a good long look at Germany pre-WWII.

We can find bad legislation here and now. SOPA is bad legislation (for example).

[ProfCrash]

Agreed, that is bad legislation. Is it on par with legal efforts to prevent people of color from voting?

Civil disobedience is honorable but lets not pretend that we are part of a great resistance movement because we are using out e-readers on airplanes in defiance of FAA regulations. I am not sure that SOPA even gets to the level of Jim Crow laws and the like.

More of lets keep the discussion on context and not overly inflate what we are doing or why we should stop breaking the rules when directly asked to.

[heeby]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

We will all watch the footage of you being handcuffed at the airport because you could not grasp the concept that it really is a minor thing and not worth all the huffing and puffing.

No you won't despite the malicious glee that would bring you it seems. And you won't because as I have said if pressed by a flight attendant that is going to make a "federal case" out of it I will pretend to turn it off and put it away...but it will still be on and not causing the least bit of problem for anyone's safety. However, no passenger will command me to do anything. In addition I am not stating I am part of some great revolution. I am taking personal steps to defy what I know to be a stupid rule and to defy those who try to force me to blindly comply. And I succeed at that WITHOUT going to prison.

Originally Posted by HarryT

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that although Boeing state, in the article that Joe linked to, that there have been dozens of documented cases of handheld devices interfering with aircraft systems, that you actually know better than Boeing; that you are better qualified than Boeing are to decide what you should or shouldn't be using on an aircraft. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Moviebird addressed this above quite well.

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

Plane travel today is one step away from traveling by cattle car.

When people can't stay in "their space" it IS very uncomfortable. When I fly I am quiet, polite and don't push myself into other's harmless affairs or space. Things are too close together to do so and not piss people off. I don't enjoy hearing a baby cry on a flight for example...but I don't presume to tell the parents to "shut that damn kid up" as I have heard others do. It is just a baby and not doing it to annoy me. Stay out of my affairs...and I will do the same unless you need help. If someone is attacked I will defend them. If someone needs medical assistance I will provide it. If someone needs out to go to the loo I will gladly move because I know bladders don't cooperate with us always. Those are reasonable things. Demanding someone else turn off their phone or ereader is not and I would never do such a silly thing.

[plib]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

Plane travel today is one step away from traveling by cattle car.

A step above, or a step below? I know which side has my vote. Though I suppose at least on a cattle car you can gore neighbouring cattle who try to impose their notions on you.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Actually, Boeing is saying that they have found ZERO correlation between reported PEDs and airplane issues.

They couldn't recreate the reported problem in each of the cases they analysed, however they also state that interference may still be a possibility.

Originally Posted by Boeing

However, susceptibility can occur in the airplane if an uncontrolled source of electromagnetic energy radiates emission levels above the susceptibility level to which the airplane system was tested or if the airplane system protection has been degraded.

Of the devices tested, two that they purchased from the passengers showed increased emission levels, although they were unable to recreate the reported interference (it may have simply been coincidence and another unrelated event caused the problems the crew had)

Originally Posted by Boeing

Consequently, some airplane systems that have not been reported as being susceptible to PEDs, such as the global positioning system, weather radar, and radio altimeter, may pick up energy from newer PEDs that operate in the high-frequency bands and whose harmonics or other noise may fall within one of these airplane systems’ operating bands.

I agree they did not find any correlation between the devices tested and the problems reported. But they also could not rule out interference as a concern with devices onboard the aircraft. Which is why they err'd on the side of caution to recommend the risk of interference be minimised during the most critical part of flight.

Originally Posted by Boeing

* Use of intentional transmitters should be prohibited at all times.
* Use of non-intentional transmitters should be prohibited during takeoff and landing (critical stages of flight).
* Operation of non-intentional transmitters should be allowed for use during noncritical stages of flight unless the operator of the airplane has determined otherwise.

If you read the part where they test the in-seat power, they say they tested 32-245 electronic devices and whilst no interference caused any ill effects during the tests they still state that noise up to 40DB above emission limits were found and that

Originally Posted by Boeing

Boeing has observed airplane antenna receiver susceptibility from "noisy" systems with levels significantly lower than those recorded by the laptop computers used in the tests.

tl;dr Despite the testing boeing has done for interference, they cannot say with any degree of certainty that interference is not a problem. Whilst there's no single case proving it can or will cause a problem, there's sufficient doubt for them to take a reasonable precaution and recommend no electronic device use during take-off/landing.

They designed and built the aircraft, if they have sufficient doubt to recommend a course of action, should we not heed that advise for the sake of 20-30 minutes inconvenience during take-off/landing?

[dkb]

I think most people put away their devices when requested to do so. That does not mean that the devices are actually turned off. I never intentionally disobeyed. I turned off wi-fi on my devices and put them to sleep. I thought I was complying.

The last two times I flew, the attendants made a big deal about actually powering off all devices. It seems to me that if this really is a serious safety issue, they wouldn't just rely on the honor system.

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by heeby

And you won't because as I have said if pressed by a flight attendant that is going to make a "federal case" out of it I will pretend to turn it off and put it away...but it will still be on and not causing the least bit of problem for anyone's safety. However, no passenger will command me to do anything.

Here is a link to a fairly well balanced article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ephones23.html

It indicates that while electronic devices usually don't present a problem, there are instances where they can be problematic. For the relatively minor inconvenience of turning off an e-device for a few minutes during takeoff and landing, I would rather be safe than sorry. If "heeby" above actually had the curate of his or her convictions he/she would let himself/herself be arrested and argue the matter before a judge. Leaving the device on but hiding it is simply an act of cowardice. I don't mean to be harsh but the author is being very self-centered.

[ProfCrash]

I don't think people mean to hide the device when they put it in sleep mode and put it away. I think that they think they are complying. In reality, compliance = powering the device off.

[pphilipp]

If the plane were to go down, even if you weren't to blame, your action of ignoring the rules would instantly place you in a potentially guilty category.

[ProfCrash]

If a plane were to go down I have a feeling that there would be more then enough people who 1) Accidently left things on and didn't realize it 2) thought that they had complied not realizing that sleep does not equal off 3) kept on using their device through take off or landing. There will be more then enough blame to go around, and that includes the IPads in the cockpit.

[pphilipp]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If a plane were to go down I have a feeling that there would be more then enough people who 1) Accidently left things on and didn't realize it 2) thought that they had complied not realizing that sleep does not equal off 3) kept on using their device through take off or landing. There will be more then enough blame to go around, and that includes the IPads in the cockpit.

And everyone of those folks would blame someone else for the tragedy.