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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

It remains my firm belief that if the authorities believed that there was any real risk they would not allow these devices on an aircraft at all. The chance that there is no device turned on either purposefully or accidentally on any given take off or landing is negligible. Given the number of aircraft taking off and landing every day common sense tells me there is no risk. This has been real world tested thousands of times. I am quite sure that every flight has dozens of devices that remain on despite the rules.

It really does all boil down to this (^^). I don't understand why that's so hard to see. Either these devices are not dangerous... or the airlines are knowingly being negligent by allowing dangerous electronics on board. Which is it? It can't be both.

[polly]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

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.

I'm with you. I hold it in my lap through the last cabin check and go back to reading when the flight attendants are seated. I think that people are less likely to follow rules if they have doubts about whether the rules are necessary. The corollary to this is that people are much more likely to follow the rules when they understand the risk and the rules make sense.

And HarryT, it's not just a few minutes at the beginning and end of the flight. It's all the time it takes to taxi from the gate, get in line behind the other jets, and wait until time to take off. After all of that, it's about five minutes. At a busy airport, that can be an hour.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It really does all boil down to this (^^). I don't understand why that's so hard to see. Either these devices are not dangerous... or the airlines are knowingly being negligent by allowing dangerous electronics on board. Which is it? It can't be both.

They balance the risks involved in being able to fly safely with the desires of the passengers, who are the reasons they are flying at all. Just like in almost any public endeavor that involves some inherent risk. The balance they found here, between utter prohibition, and "have a ham radio festival aboard" is "turn it off during these two high-risk periods."

Same reason each passenger doesn't have an ejector seat with a 5 point harness.

I don't understand why THAT is hard to see.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by polly

At a busy airport, that can be an hour.

Oh my, how ever will you survive without your ereader for a whole hour?

What's far more inconvenient to me is having to circle the airport for an hour in rough weather and not being allowed to leave your seat to go to the rest room. I admit I've broken that rule a few times, and the passengers around me are probably glad I did.

ApK

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whether or not they are there for a good reason, the "you must switch off electronics" rule IS there, and it's a part of the deal when you fly that you abide by these rules.

Loathe as I am to disagree with Harry (since he's the editor of my favorite e-book version of Sherlock Holmes )...

We have quite a spectrum of laws, rules, and regulations in the US. Some are of the variety of making it illegal to eat peanuts in church, while others are completely sensible.

Maybe I have an inherent dislike for authority, but I rather enjoy adding a bit of common sense into the mix. For example, if I'm at a red light at 3AM with unlimited visibility in all directions and there's no one coming (and the locals didn't have the sense to turn the light into a four-way red flasher between 12 and 5)...I'm probably going to stop, look all ways, then sail right through.

Similarly, if I'm going to enter into a sexual act with another consenting adult, the chances of my checking the local statutes to see what's legal in the jurisdiction is pretty low. In fact, given the aforementioned dislike of authority, if I knew of any such statutes, I'd probably go out of my way to violate them (the statutes, not...well, never mind).

My only point is I don't think it's inherent upon us to automatically respect anything that someone managed to get passed as a law, or written down in a rule book. I've never thought that blind obedience was required to be a good citizen.

I have no idea about the potential RF interference of my various devices, so personally I'd turn my devices off...but now I'm wondering if there's a difference (from an RF interference perspective) between putting a device in "airplane" mode, putting it to sleep (low power usage...but what's it dreaming about?), or turning it off altogether...but I think I'm already off topic enough.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fine, in theory, but...

How many people with a 3G Kindle realise that it contains a cellular radio, or know that it's a transmitting device that needs to be turned off? We all know (I hope), but I'm damned sure that there are an awful lot of people out there who don't know.

And if they don't know and they let the screen go to the screen saver and put the Kindle away without turning it off, the 3G will be on the entire flight. They won't be looking at the book and they will think that screen saver = off.

Lets face it, how many folks know how to turn off an IPod, Kindle, Sony reader? For most people off=no text for me to read = screen saver. I had a flight attendant show someone how to turn off their IPod. Something that I had no clue was needed. In my mind off for the IPod was not listening to music.

I would guess that the majority of e-readers that are put away before flight are actually "on" and in screen saver mode. If someone has accidently left on the 3G or the WiFi they are not trying to kill everyone, they just didn't realize that it was on. I have forgotten to turn my cell phone off in the past. It was not an intentional oversight, I normally turn it off. The plane landed just fine. No one died, there was not even problems with turbulance, no navigation systems were impaired (we arrived early even).

The reality is that even when people follow the rules, there is a percentage that is accidently not following the rules. And no planes have gone down or ended up massivly off course because someone left their cell phone or or their WiFi on during take off or landing.

I am sorry, but it is a non-issue. If it was an issue we would have heard about it by now. Instead the FAA is discussing running the necessary tests to prove it is a non-issue and allow people to use these devices.

Personally, I hope that they never allow cell phones to be used because I don't want to listen to peoples converstations. I can see myself being very rude and talking to the person on the other end of the conversation if my seat mate starts jabbering away. I am not concerned that using cell phones will crash the plane, I just don't want to be stuck listening to people talk on their cell phones while flying.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

Loathe as I am to disagree with Harry (since he's the editor of my favorite e-book version of Sherlock Holmes )...

We have quite a spectrum of laws, rules, and regulations in the US. Some are of the variety of making it illegal to eat peanuts in church, while others are completely sensible.

Maybe I have an inherent dislike for authority, but I rather enjoy adding a bit of common sense into the mix. For example, if I'm at a red light at 3AM with unlimited visibility in all directions and there's no one coming (and the locals didn't have the sense to turn the light into a four-way red flasher between 12 and 5)...I'm probably going to stop, look all ways, then sail right through.

Similarly, if I'm going to enter into a sexual act with another consenting adult, the chances of my checking the local statutes to see what's legal in the jurisdiction is pretty low. In fact, given the aforementioned dislike of authority, if I knew of any such statutes, I'd probably go out of my way to violate them (the statutes, not...well, never mind).

My only point is I don't think it's inherent upon us to automatically respect anything that someone managed to get passed as a law, or written down in a rule book. I've never thought that blind obedience was required to be a good citizen.

I have no idea about the potential RF interference of my various devices, so personally I'd turn my devices off...but now I'm wondering if there's a difference (from an RF interference perspective) between putting a device in "airplane" mode, putting it to sleep (low power usage...but what's it dreaming about?), or turning it off altogether...but I think I'm already off topic enough.

Given that you live in a democracy, what is it that gives you the right to pick and choose which laws you follow and which you ignore?

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Given that you live in a democracy, what is it that gives you the right to pick and choose which laws you follow and which you ignore?

People pick and chose what laws they obey and don't obey every day. Speeding, jay walking, littering, picking up their pets poop. It is a pretty long list.

If you get caught, you get ticketed and fined. If the Flight Attendant comes by and tells me to put away my device, I do. Heck if my seat mate asks me to turn it off and put it away, I do.

If not, I use it.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

People pick and chose what laws they obey and don't obey every day. Speeding, jay walking, littering, picking up their pets poop. It is a pretty long list.

If you get caught, you get ticketed and fined. If the Flight Attendant comes by and tells me to put away my device, I do. Heck if my seat mate asks me to turn it off and put it away, I do.

If not, I use it.

Fair enough. Just don't complain when you get burgled (the burglar doesn't like that law, so chooses to ignore it) or t-boned by JDK1962 at a set of lights (because red lights are optional as well).

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am disturbed by this seemingly prevalent attitude that "the rules don't apply to me". Whether or not they are there for a good reason, the "you must switch off electronics" rule IS there, and it's a part of the deal when you fly that you abide by these rules. If you don't like the rules, find some other means of transport!

I am as well, Harry T. Even more disturbing is the number of people in these type of threads who think they are knowlegeable on the subject of the FAA, technology and regulations when they are anything but.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Skydog

I am as well, Harry T. Even more disturbing is the number of people in these type of threads who think they are knowlegeable on the subject of the FAA, technology and regulations when they are anything but.

You don't have to have special knowledge on any of those things to have an opinion on this. Are they allowing passengers to carry potentially dangerous electronic equipment on airplanes or not?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Skydog

I am as well, Harry T. Even more disturbing is the number of people in these type of threads who think they are knowlegeable on the subject of the FAA, technology and regulations when they are anything but.

The stuff about what can go on an airplane, and the roles of the TSA vs the FAA vs the flight crew, I get from directly asking the agencies involved, and from reading their written policies. It comes up a lot for folks who want to travel with guitars, so I've spent some time on the phone to Washington.
Was there something incorrect about what I've passed on? Please let me know.

As for the effect of RF from consumer devices on airplanes, I simply hold the opinion that it's best to follow the rules of the authorities rather than each individual deciding for themselves if the rule is stupid and to be ignored. Until someone shows me that the authorities involved have acted negligently or incompetently, I'll probably stand by that position.

ApK

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Fair enough. Just don't complain when you get burgled (the burglar doesn't like that law, so chooses to ignore it) or t-boned by JDK1962 at a set of lights (because red lights are optional as well).

I believe I pointed it out that there are consequences if you violate those rules and are caught. If you run a red light and are caught you pay a fine and get points on your liscence. If you run a red light and hit another car you pay for the damage done to the other car, a fine for violating the law, and points. If you hurt someone while running a red light you can face even more serious criminal charges.

If I am asked by a fellow passanger or a Flight Attendent directly, I put away my e-reader and memorize the silly Skymall crap. If I were to refuse to do so I could be removed from the plane and potentially charged with a crime.

No one is saying that anarcy should reign, just that there are very few people who follow every law and rule to the T. There are some that are commonly broken, traffic rules are the best example, that there are reasonably minor punishments for and others that are far more serious. Murder.

In this case, people are chosing to use IPods, headsets, and e-readers after they have been told to turn off all electronics based on a large amount of evidence that points to using said devices as being safe.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I believe I pointed it out that there are consequences if you violate those rules and are caught. If you run a red light and are caught you pay a fine and get points on your liscence. If you run a red light and hit another car you pay for the damage done to the other car, a fine for violating the law, and points. If you hurt someone while running a red light you can face even more serious criminal charges.

Well that's all fine, except you don't seem to be taking any account at all of the other person. I'm sure that the children of the person you killed when running the red light will be perfectly happy once they find out that you got a bigger fine and a prison sentence

Similarly, if your e-reader is that one in a billion that brings a plane down, I'm sure the relatives of the 300 dead will be able to shrug it off once they see you imprisoned for years (yeah, you miraculously survived the crash).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If I am asked by a fellow passanger or a Flight Attendent directly, I put away my e-reader and memorize the silly Skymall crap. If I were to refuse to do so I could be removed from the plane and potentially charged with a crime.

Skymall has some pretty cool stuff, and the prices are not all that bad.

No one is saying that anarcy should reign, just that there are very few people who follow every law and rule to the T. There are some that are commonly broken, traffic rules are the best example

Part of it is a matter of attitude and approach. When my young son points out I'm speeding, I tell him he's right, going the speed limit would be safer, and it would save gas, and I wouldn't want to get a ticket in any case. And I'll most likely slow down. I might offer some justification about the safety of going with the speed of traffic, but I'll slow down (at least until his attention is elsewhere).

It would not occur to me to trumpet how proud and noble a free thinker I am for bravely disregarding the speed laws and how he should learn from my example.

I don't mean that it's OK to do it as long as you act like you're sorry about it, I just mean that the attitude is it's own issue, and may be a more important element the rule involved.

Here's another example:
A cop kills a murderer who was holding a gun to a hostage's head.
What attitude do you want in the cop?
"Any death is a tragedy, but I know I did what I had to do to save an innocent life."
or
"Yeah, baby, I got to kill a bad guy today, woo hoo!"