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

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am disturbed by this seemingly prevalent attitude that "the rules don't apply to me".

It is a sad commentary on society today. I want what I want, rules or laws be damned.

[ProfCrash]

On 9/11 people were making cell phone calls from the airplanes. Unfortunetly for many folks, the use of cell phones did not cause those planes to fall from the sky and prevent them from hitting their intended targets. The planes kept on flying while many passangers made very sad last calls home.

I am sorry, but there is more and more evidence that the use of electronic devices is not dangerous when flying commercial planes.

WiFi is now offered on planes and many passangers are using it. We have yet to hear of a plane crashing because of the use of WiFi inflight.

My point? It is really hard for me to take a rule seriously when there is more and more mounting evidence that there is no danger from using these devices. I turn off my cell phone and the 3G/Wifi on my Kindle while flying. The amount of electricity used to turn the page on my e-ink reader is miniscule, which is one reason why the batteries last so bloody long on the thing.

Point me to one case where a plane crashed because a planeful of people continued to listen to their IPods, use their noise reduction head sets, and read on their e-readers, netbooks, or tablets.

You can't.

The truth is that they want devices off so that people are paying attention during take off and landing because those are the most dangerous time in flight. So when you tell the people with the big honking paper backs to put those away, I will put away my book. Until then, I will put away my e-reader until the Flight Attendents are seated and then pull out my book and read.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Until then, I will put away my e-reader until the Flight Attendents are seated and then pull out my book and read.

And, if I am sitting near you when you do so, I will press the "Call" button and point out to the cabin crew that you evidently consider yourself to be "above the law". And it IS the law: disobeying an instruction from the cabin crew on an aircraft is a criminal offence.

[nursedude]

^^^Ditto. I find one of the problems with society today is the prevalence of the "screw you, I'll do what I want" crowd in restaurants, theaters and public transit.

While there may only be a 1 in several million chance of causing an aircraft to malfunction by using my electronic device I would certainly hate to be a contributing cause of it happening.

As outdated as it seems sometimes I also feel I have no right to endanger the lives of people around me.

Common courtesy seems to be on it's way to joining common sense in the dustbin of history.

[DiapDealer]

It's OK to ignore stupid and/or overly oppressive rules/laws. It's called civil disobedience. It's been effective in the past. No... I'm not saying this particular rule/law is oppressive; I'm saying it's stupid.

But you are well within your rights to tattle, too. So everyone seems to be doing their part.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And, if I am sitting near you when you do so, I will press the "Call" button and point out to the cabin crew that you evidently consider yourself to be "above the law". And it IS the law: disobeying an instruction from the cabin crew on an aircraft is a criminal offence.

As you can see from the OP, it won't be the law much longer. When all the expert now come out in favor of doing away with these restrictions I don't feel obligated to abide by them anymore.

A few questions Harry, what will you do when removing DRM becomes illegal in the UK? Will you stop doing it? If you had lived in the US during the prohibition era, would you never have had a drink for 14 years?

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's OK to ignore stupid and/or overly oppressive rules/laws. It's called civil disobedience. It's been effective in the past. No... I'm not saying this particular rule/law is oppressive; I'm saying it's stupid.

So you are saying Rosa Parks would not have turned off her ereader? NICE!

[where's the "fanning the flames" smiley?]

eP

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's OK to ignore stupid and/or overly oppressive rules/laws. It's called civil disobedience. It's been effective in the past. No... I'm not saying this particular rule/law is oppressive; I'm saying it's stupid.

But you are well within your rights to tattle, too. So everyone seems to be doing their part.

With regard to this regulation you are right on the money. It needs to be changed and we can do our part by showing how obsolete it is.

In California they even had a rule for speed limits in the 1980s. If a certain percentage of drivers stayed above the speed limit and the number of accidents did not increase on a particular road then the city had to raise the speed limit and refund all the fines they dished out to motorists who went "too fast".

Unlike Europe, where a lot of speed limits seem specifically designed to maximize speeding ticket revenue...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As you can see from the OP, it won't be the law much longer. When all the expert now come out in favor of doing away with these restrictions I don't feel obligated to abide by them anymore.

A few questions Harry, what will you do when removing DRM becomes illegal in the UK? Will you stop doing it? If you had lived in the US during the prohibition era, would you never have had a drink for 14 years?

I make a distinction, Hans, between what I do in the privacy of my own home, and what I do on an aircraft which has the potential to endanger other peoples' lives. So yes, I would remove DRM for my own personal use, even if it were to become illegal in the UK.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I make a distinction, Hans, between what I do in the privacy of my own home, and what I do on an aircraft which has the potential to endanger other peoples' lives. So yes, I would remove DRM for my own personal use, even if it were to become illegal in the UK.

That does, of course, make sense. Our point is that we are 100% convinced that we do not endanger others by keeping our ereaders on.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That does, of course, make sense. Our point is that we are 100% convinced that we do not endanger others by keeping our ereaders on.

That's very likely true, Hans, but can you guarantee that the same is true for every electronic device that someone may decide to bring onto the aircraft? It is really safe to leave it up to each individual passenger to decide whether or not to turn off their devices?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is not really an option when you have seen the scenery 100s of times already.

I don't fly that often, lucky me.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It shows that wrist-watches and pacemakers are not a problem, certainly. I guess that the fundamental issue is that the airline cannot know what sort of electronic device a passenger may bring on to the aircraft, and there may well be some which could conceivably pose a hazard to avionic systems. The only practical solution, therefore, is to enforce a "don't use electronics during take-off and landing" rule. The irritating thing is that so many people seem to consider themselves "above the law" and think that the rules don't apply to them. Really, don't you think that a public announcement should be sufficient here, rather than the cabin crew having to tell everyone individually to obey it?

No, it shows that the fact that a device runs on electricity doesn't mean that it will bring down the navigational system. If they decide for example that devices with GPS tracking are a problem, then those should be the ones restricted.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

No, it shows that the fact that a device runs on electricity doesn't mean that it will bring down the navigational system. If they decide for example that devices with GPS tracking are a problem, then those should be the ones restricted.

Do you really think that's feasible? Eg, we had a poster earlier in the thread who declared that she was going to use her camera on board the aircraft no matter what the rules said. Many cameras these days contain GPS receivers, to automatically "geotag" each picture with its location. Do you expect cabin crew members to know which camera contains a GPS receiver and which doesn't?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ApK

And people who think rules are stupid just because they don't understand them endanger everyone.

I happen to work as an aerospace engineer, albeit on the power side. In an academic setting, I've also worked through several theoretical control system designs, to include inertial navigation.

I don't know as much as some, but I do have a bit of a background in this. I cannot unequivocaly state that x-type of devices cannot possibly cause a problem. I do find it extremely hard to fathom how a gameboy, or other single purposed but wifi enabled device could cause a problem.

I can also state, unequivocally, that my ereader, which does not have wifi or cellular capabilities, cannot possibly cause harm to an airplane's electrical systems.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really think that's feasible? Eg, we had a poster earlier in the thread who declared that she was going to use her camera on board the aircraft no matter what the rules said. Many cameras these days contain GPS receivers, to automatically "geotag" each picture with its location. Do you expect cabin crew members to know which camera contains a GPS receiver and which doesn't?

It's easy to have the flight attendants carry a receiver that would let them know if they pass by a device that emits in the range where it would cause interference.