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

[astra]

I don't switch off my Sony Reader, unless an attendant asks me personally. What is a point? The power button doesn't switch it off anyway, only visually clears the screen, so why bother?

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Jellby

As for the phones, I wouldn't like to be in a plane full of people shouting at their phones, it's already bad enough in buses and trains, thank you

I have to agree there. Planes are about the only place to get peace and quiet from hearing other people shouting into phones.

[300com]

Originally Posted by ChrisC333

I would turn it off out of courtesy - i.e. consideration for the staff and other passengers.

The staff really don't have the time, or probably the expertise either, to go round and assess every device on a case by case basis. Even if your particular device may not be dangerous you can still be causing other passengers unnecessary stress by leaving it on.

So I'd suggest that turning it off when asked is a reasonable thing to do.

yup ! We should all turn off our digital wrist watches. Peoples lives are at stake !

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I kind of tend to ignore this message with regards to my eReader when in a plane waiting for departure, or close to landing. I was told by someone sitting next to me that continuing to read brought his live in danger.

Do others switch off their eReaders when you're asked to switch of "electronic devices"? And what about MP3 players and the like?

Let's be pedantic: why not stopwatches?
Pacemakers?

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your mobile phone, on its own, would certainly not cause any problem. 400 of them, all transmitting at maximum power, might, however, very well do so. Hence the regulation.

Perhaps, if all of them were transmitting in phase.

Otherwise, it is just random noise.

Originally Posted by cmdahler

It all comes down to your view of acceptable risk. Given that there indeed have been incidents in which electronic devices caused issues with aircraft in the past, I for one am glad the rule is there to prevent cavalier attitudes from potentially causing a problem in the future.

Again, has this been documented, or just assumed?

Originally Posted by cmdahler

(That, and I can't imagine how awful a flight would be sitting next to someone who was jabbering away on a cell phone the whole flight. The rule is worth it just to prevent that alone, as far as I'm concerned.)

Well, that's another story. But you can already do that, if you want to pay the piper.

A number of airlines have phones built into the seats that can call the surface. Most people don't pay the price for more than a minute or so.

Of course, if I have my eReader, I can just tune them out anyway.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

Perhaps, if all of them were transmitting in phase.

Otherwise, it is just random noise.

The radiated power still adds up for incoherent transmission. Random noise still causes interference, and in any case the resultant radiation is far from random noise - the spectral density, for example, won't be random.

/JB

[Stitchawl]

Hey!! Our safety is at risk. That's why we can't bring nail files or pocket screwdrivers onto planes! (There really is a crazy out there somewhere who would try to file off a wing...)

Good cell phones may or may not be a problem. I'm sure my hearing aids aren't either, nor is your pacemaker or Harry's watch. But 'Uncle Joe, (the one who loves to 'tinker' with stuff,) made his own cell phone, and used a few wraps too many of wire and now the damn thing works like an electromagnet every time it rings! That electromagnet might just affect the plane's navi system enough to make us land in Cuba instead of Aruba. Now, if you're Canadian that isn't a problem. You're allowed to go there to buy your cigars and 161 proof rum, but we poor USAans aren't allowed to go without first getting special permission, and we most certainly can't purchase cigars while we're there.

So to eliminate problems that the Uncle Joe's of the world 'might' cause (though personally I'd love to go and do some scuba diving in Cuba) and instead of the navi system it might be the altimeter system that gets affected and we might land a minus 30 meters instead of a zero (where the ground is....)

PLEASETURNOFFYOURFREEKINE-BOOKSFORTENMINUTES! That really isn't too much to ask.

Thank you very much.

Stitchawl

[Kevin2960]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

PLEASETURNOFFYOURFREEKINE-BOOKSFORTENMINUTES! That really isn't too much to ask.

Thank you very much.

Stitchawl

See it's Simple, no need to argue, I'ts not unreasonable, and lets face it, it's only laziness stopping anyone switching off,

Be Polite do as asked by the owners of the Aircraft, as I said before if you asked a Smoker not to Smoke in your home ....you'd expect them to comply,

Why then can't you do as asked by the Airlines, after all it really is no bother Right ?

[pepak]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

See it's Simple, no need to argue, I'ts not unreasonable, and lets face it, it's only laziness stopping anyone switching off,

It is reasonable (or at least easier all around) to follow the request and turn your reader off, but the request itself is definitely not reasonable. It's just one more of those stupid things that are being done for no good purpose other than cover your ass (because if something DID happen, against all probability, you would be blamed if you didn't take every possible precaution, no matter how stupid that precaution is; it's the same reason why we have police maneuevers whenever a crazy seer decides that little green men from Jupiter are about to destroy the Statue of Liberty).

Be Polite do as asked by the owners of the Aircraft, as I said before if you asked a Smoker not to Smoke in your home ....you'd expect them to comply

What would you expect them to do if you, instead, asked them to stand on their head, stick their tongue out and recite Shakespeare because it drives mice and rats away?

Why then can't you do as asked by the Airlines, after all it really is no bother Right ?

Sure it is fine. No problem with such a tiny little thing itself. The problem is, if you add thousands upon thousands such tiny little things, you end up with a result which is so insane that you would never agree with it. But since it came gradually, it's OK, right?

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by pepak

Sure it is fine. No problem with such a tiny little thing itself. The problem is, if you add thousands upon thousands such tiny little things, you end up with a result which is so insane that you would never agree with it. But since it came gradually, it's OK, right?

Worked for the "Patriot Act," didn't it?

But in all fairness, it is an unreasonable request, just as not carrying nail clippers or crochet tools. But it IS their bat and ball, and if we want to play in the game, we gotta play by their rules... even if that means the end of 'due process' et. al.

Stitchawl

[Kevin2960]

Well I've had my say,

I just don't see why anyone can't just switch off briefly,

And then back on, it takes just a moment,

Its Polite,

Oh well, Whatever floats your boat,

I'd do it, what more can I say !

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

But in all fairness, it is an unreasonable request, just as not carrying nail clippers or crochet tools. But it IS their bat and ball, and if we want to play in the game, we gotta play by their rules... even if that means the end of 'due process' et. al.
Stitchawl

I think you're dead right with the "their bat and ball" argument, and the argument that others have made in favour of good manners.

One thing that really does irritate me though (and this isn't aimed at you specifically, so apologies for quoting you) is the number of people who feel able to claim with certainty that these devices won't cause a problem. Unless there's a serious statistical blip here, the vast majority of people making these claims have no relevant understanding of the technologies involved. What makes all these people feel they are qualified to make this statement?

Please note that I'm not claiming to know the answer myself. I'm simply saying that I know enough to know that I don't know enough to claim that these devices are safe. :-)

As it happens, I suspect they probably are safe (and I say that with some professional experience in this area), but I'm not about to claim that my opinion overrides that of those who have made the rules. Why do those with *no* expertise feel able to do so?

/JB

[Javed]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

I just don't see why anyone can't just switch off briefly,

And then back on, it takes just a moment,

Its Polite,

Agree, turning off the reader for a short time is easy to do.
Even if it isn't a safety hazard, it may help keep the attendants happy....this to me is reason enough!

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Well I've had my say,

I just don't see why anyone can't just switch off briefly,

And then back on, it takes just a moment,

Its Polite,

Oh well, Whatever floats your boat,

I'd do it, what more can I say !

Well said!

/JB

[pepak]

Originally Posted by jbjb

One thing that really does irritate me though is the number of people who feel able to claim with certainty that these devices won't cause a problem.

Your agument is sound, in that most people have little or no relevant information for their claims as to the safety of their gadgets.

On the other hand, I think the argument that these devices should be turned off because they might have an adverse effect on the plane is flawed - for pretty much the same reason you said, that there is no real statistical evidence that they are dangerous. I mean, there is an infinite number of things that could have an impact on airplane. It is possible that an electromagnetic emanations from your notebook ro reader will affect electronic components of the plane enough to put it into danger. But it is also possible that, say, bacteria living on your skin will be affected by your neighbor's aftershave in such an unfortunate way that they will mutate into plastic-eating species that will cause significant parts of the plane to disintegrate.

The point is, we should focus on known risks, and if we have enough free resources, on highly probable possibilities. There is little point in guarding against everything that could conceivably happen (killing all butterflies because they might, through a series of freak accidents, cause a plane to fall).

Why do those with *no* expertise feel able to do so?

I don't know about other people. I know about me:

Because, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no case ever where a running notebook caused any problems.

Because there have, historically, been many cases where we had such limitations for no good purpose at all (as revealed by later research).

Because the focus on perceived (not necessarily real) security is so insanely, absurdly overblown these days, that even reasonable precautions will look suspect unless reasonably explained.

If you want me to behave in a certain way, you need to give me better reasons than "it is possible".