FAA to allow electronics to remain on during take-off and landing??

[AlexGrama]

Does it really matter if you close your gadget for 5 minutes?

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

Does it really matter if you close your gadget for 5 minutes?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

Does it really matter if you close your gadget for 5 minutes?

Congratulations! By not reading the posts of the people on this thread who have repeatedly pointed out that the rules are applied not "at takeoff" but rather "whilst sitting for hours on the tarmac", you have managed to completely misconstrue people's legitimate concerns!

Take an "attaboy" out of petty cash.

[polly]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

Does it really matter if you close your gadget for 5 minutes?

It might not matter if it was really only five minutes. The unfortunate reality is that it is all the time required to push back from the gate, taxi to the end of the take off line, and wait in that line until such time as the plane might take off. After that, it's five minutes before you can officially use the device. At the other end of the trip, it's more like ten to fifteen minutes for the plane to make its final descent and landing. All of that time added together can easily equal an hour or more. The point of having an e-ink reader is, in part, so that I don't have to carry a bunch of books around. It's frustrating that I have to bring something to fill that hour when I'm holding a device that sends a signal for less than half an inch and couldn't possibly cause any interference.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Then the solution is a simple one: install the electronics away from people. For example RF emitting devices shouldn't come within 20 cm of a pacemaker.

No amount of idiot-proofing will protect you from junk science.

[laughingdragons]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

Will it mean an ugly "FAA Approved" sticker on my ereader?

Hmmm, would such a sticker be worth it, if it meant you could read during take-off and landing?

eP

I would take it, I have a Sony 350 and I always get told to turn mine off doesn't matter that it has no wifi or 3g.

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by laughingdragons

I would take it, I have a Sony 350 and I always get told to turn mine off doesn't matter that it has no wifi or 3g.

Yeah, I have a 650 and it's the same thing except I don't even have to wait for the flight attendants to tell me to turn it off... because MY OWN DAUGHTER tells me to turn it off right when they make the announcement! And I kind of have to model good law-abiding behavior in front of her...

eP

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They made many, many tests. There was no measurable interference even when every seat was occupied and every single person was running and using a device, including cell phones. It is clearly a matter of going against the public perception of danger they have created over the years and of bureaucratic inertia. Nobody wants to be the first to make a move. And nobody is pushing hard for it. So it is us frequent travellers who lose out.

What tests? Who did them? On ground or in flight? Links?

There have been several instances of electronic devices causing interference with aircraft systems.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by polly

It might not matter if it was really only five minutes. The unfortunate reality is that it is all the time required to push back from the gate, taxi to the end of the take off line, and wait in that line until such time as the plane might take off. After that, it's five minutes before you can officially use the device. At the other end of the trip, it's more like ten to fifteen minutes for the plane to make its final descent and landing. All of that time added together can easily equal an hour or more. The point of having an e-ink reader is, in part, so that I don't have to carry a bunch of books around. It's frustrating that I have to bring something to fill that hour when I'm holding a device that sends a signal for less than half an inch and couldn't possibly cause any interference.

WOW, a whole hour you have to amuse yourself without an electronic device.

This is the same sort of arguement used by those who text while driving.

And how do you know that it only radiates 1/2"? I know of someone who has held a conversation across the Atlantic Ocean on about 0.00002 watts of power.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

What tests? Who did them? On ground or in flight? Links?

There have been several instances of electronic devices causing interference with aircraft systems.

Show me proof that they interfere in normal use, first.

[Zetmolm]

If the interference is a real problem, why don't they build Faraday cages around the plane's cabin, to isolate the cabin completely from the plane's sensitive electronics?

[polly]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

WOW, a whole hour you have to amuse yourself without an electronic device.

This is the same sort of arguement used by those who text while driving.

And how do you know that it only radiates 1/2"? I know of someone who has held a conversation across the Atlantic Ocean on about 0.00002 watts of power.

Well, I'm not driving, so there's that.. I trust the engineer who said that it e-ink devices give off detectable signal for a few millimeters. I broadened it, just because. It's good to know that you are happy to sit strapped in a seat for an hour doing nothing, but I'm not. If I have the window and it's daylight outside and it's not cloudy and I'm not over the wing, then there's something to see during part of that time. The rest of the time, I read when the flight attendants are seated and leave it in stand-by the rest of the time. I haven't brought a plane down yet.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

WOW, a whole hour you have to amuse yourself without an electronic device.

This is the same sort of arguement used by those who text while driving.

And how do you know that it only radiates 1/2"? I know of someone who has held a conversation across the Atlantic Ocean on about 0.00002 watts of power.

I agree. I also think we should be concerned that radio might interfere with traffic lights. Just to be on the safe side, let's issue a mandatory recall on car stereos.

[Penforhire]

Zetmolm, agreed. Because if the risk was real can you imagine how trivial it would be for terrorists to create EM noise in the 'sensitive' spectrum with modified hand-held devices? So I'm calling bogus on the risk myself.

[SteveEisenberg]

Re requests for evidence of harm, this controversial Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) article is frequently linked:

Unsafe At Any Airspeed? Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Because if the risk was real can you imagine how trivial it would be for terrorists to create EM noise in the 'sensitive' spectrum with modified hand-held devices?

Aircraft instruments giving inconsistent readings can be one cause of a crash, but, by itself, an instrument problem is not going to destroy the aircraft. If the kind of low risk we are talking about does, in fact, exist, the terrorist would still have to target millions of flights to create one crash -- not trivial at all.

Originally Posted by polly

It's frustrating that I have to bring something to fill that hour when I'm holding a device that sends a signal for less than half an inch and couldn't possibly cause any interference.

I can see the frustration when your eReader does not communicate by radio, or the radio is switched off. But, just glacing at your device, there is no way for aircrew to know that. I have a Kindle with 3G. As far as I am concerned, the killer app for Kindle models with cell phone network connectivity is the New York Times Latest News blog. This frequently communicates by radio unless I turn off wireless.

One could say that telling people to stop eReading is pointless because a stowed Kindle may still be communicating by radio. Without question, some Kindle owners accidentally leave the wireless on when putting their device away. However, I also think that the current regulations reduce the amount of radio traffic in the cabin.

A lot of things have to gone wrong at once to bring down an airliner. Suppose, shortly after the electronic device rules were rescinded, there was a crash in which one of the contributing factors was inconsistent instrument readings. There would be widespread speculation that passenger-held devices had something to do with it, and much more draconian rules than we now have could result. So I would go very slow in easing up on current rules.