Petition to allow ereaders to be used at all times during flight

[Sydney's Mom]

On one flight, I was told to put away my knitting. The flight attendent said she had been poked with knitting needles before (her own?). I said having a type A personality sitting there with nothing to do was more of a concern. Someone handed me a magazine.

How asinine. My knitting needles are in my lap. If she is worried about them flying around in the case of a crash, there are lots of worse things to ban. Purses?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

While there may not be actual evidence of devices affecting the operation of an airplane, there have definitely been proven incidents of electronic devices affecting the normal operation of certain hospital equipment, so the possibility isn't totally unfounded.

Problem is, these regulations are quite out of date. Original discman or even CD in your computer can affect to the operation of an airplane. Actual devices, not at all unless you have wireless connections on. And yes, I can understand the initial reasons and why they don't apply anymore if wireless connections are off.

[Sydney's Mom]

My husband, who has a commercial pilot's license (not a pilot by trade), once asked me to call his parents while we were landing (he was piloting). I said no, we will crash! He told me that was bull#$%, and to call his parents.

[Lutraa]

My DH is an international airline pilot and I'm a very frequent flyer. The FAA is not going to respond to a citizen petition. Its FAR is said to be "written in blood," meaning most flight rules are the product of past accidents. While I agree that eReaders with wireless radios off are no more a threat in terms of distraction or projectile injury than most magazines or "dead tree books," (and certainly much less of a risk to other passengers than a 20-30 pound lap child), I think the FAA's concern is that it's very hard to make a rule that discriminates between various electronic devices.

Devices allowed in the cockpit for use by pilots went through rigorous EMF tests. But FAs do not police the flight deck crew. It would be very difficult for the FAA to set a standard for cabin devices that a FA could actually enforce -- just imagine how hard it is to tell at a glance which device a passenger is using (especially when skins and covers obscure features) or whether its radio is on or off.

I take my Kindle on all trips, set in airplane mode once I'm in my seat. During deicing, taxi, take-off and landing, it sits in the seat back pocket, in sleep mode (not completely turned off). I actually look forward to trips as an opportunity to catch up on my dead tree reading backlog, e.g. Sun magazine which is not yet available electronically.

While agree that some FA decisions regarding knitting etc. are irrational, nonetheless, as we all know, FA instructions must be obeyed unless you want to risk no-fly list status -- a disaster for those of us who live on the far fringes of the continent, thousands of miles from friends, family, and work-related meetings.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I said no, we will crash! He told me that was bull#$%, and to call his parents.

I endorse Harry's #9 comment.

Dozens of people using all sorts of devices for the whole flight isn't the same as you calling his parents. If as soon as the call connected some instrument gave a strange reading, he could have asked you to hang up.

No question that the risk is small. And the risk isn't that it would crash the plane, but that some instrument would misread. This is only critical if it happens at the same time ten other things are going wrong.

Air safety is all about one in a million, or one in a hundred million, combinations of events.

As for making an exception for known safe devices, the problem is that a lot of people are already half-inclined to defy the regulation. Those sort of people will feel put upon if they see someone else using a favored device while their own is forbidden. Then you get some combination of surreptitious evasion and angry confrontation. If it gets to be a bad enough confrontation, the cabin crew informs the flight crew, causing distraction.

[wvcherrybomb]

Oh, for goodness sake! It's a pathetic reflection on our society when people can't sit quietly during take off and landing without being otherwise entertained.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Since some airlines (American, I think) are having their pilots use iPads in the cockpit, it can't be too much of a problem electronically. Distraction during takeoff instructions, I can see - but limit that to no headphones then, and let me read my kindle.

The problem is not one device, it's the effect waves emmited by all the passagers devices together could have.

Guess it also have to do with not being distracted / not having stuff hindering your movement all that...

[Bricorn]

I was on a long haul flight last week. A group of 4 in front of me used their smartphones all through take-off, the flight, and landing (online and texting, not calls). They were crew deadheading back to base, the working crew chatted to them, but not a word about phone use.

If they saw no risk................

[QuantumIguana]

Perhaps they should sacrifice a chicken before each flight to ensure safety. Makes about as much sense as banning e-readers.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Makes about as much sense as banning e-readers.

No it doesn't.

Recognized, seemingly legitimate, avionics engineers disagree as to whether electronic devices using WiFi and 3G present either a small risk, or no risk. The fact of this disagreement is documented here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-c...9#.UMj-Q4O5-C0

By contrast, there is no disagreement among such experts about the safety implications of pre-flight chicken sacrifice.

As for eReader vs. cell phone, my employer-supplied BlackBerry and my Kindle Keyboard 3G have similar radio transmitters and receivers, as far as I know. So I could say that differentiating between eReaders and cell phones would make as much sense as differentiating between pre-flight chicken and turkey sacrifice.

I have no idea which experts are correct. I do think it is wrong for the public to pressure them, as if this is a political question.

[DianNC]

I think I'd be more apt to take the threat of a potential incident seriously if the airlines weren't so casual in the enforcement of their 'rule'.

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

Oh, for goodness sake! It's a pathetic reflection on our society when people can't sit quietly during take off and landing without being otherwise entertained.

I have played around with electronics and radio equipment, which has given me the opportunity to see (and hear) radio frequency interference. I'm not an expert in the field, so I don't know how much it would take to create critical problems. Yet I know enough about electricity and radio to know that these are physical devices that are bound by the laws of physics. Bit's are more than 1's and 0's that flow along copper pipes. They are varying electrical signals that create electromagnetic waves. Radio isn't a perfect sinusoidal wave the go from point A to point B. They are modulated, and often creep beyond the frequencies that they are allowed to use.

The wonderful thing about modern technology is that we rarely need to think about how it works. The dangerous part is that we think that how it works is irrelevant.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DianNC

I think I'd be more apt to take the threat of a potential incident seriously if the airlines weren't so casual in the enforcement of their 'rule'.

Why? What expertise do airlines have here? The whole idea of having national aviation regulators like the FAA in the US, and the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK, is because it isn't practical for each airline to self-regulate.

It's obvious why the airlines are casual in enforcing the device rules. This is one of the most likely areas for conflict with customers. It even causes conflict between crew members. If they enforced it more stringently, it would create in-flight confrontations that themselves could be dangerous. Enforcement with a light hand greatly reduces device use without creating a lot of conflict.

Safety isn't yes or no. You could always be more safe if you, say, inspected engines more frequently. Or you could be safer if you demanded that the aircraft is in perfect physical condition before flying. A plane is too complex for such a perfection requirement. So you can have minor safety related items that are missing or inoperable. This is all balanced by a point system against other, actually more important safety-related factors, like flight crew experience and time of day. Here is a flight risk document used in the US, with equipment risks covered in item 37 ("MEL/CDL") of the checklist:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info07015.pdf

[DianNC]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Why? What expertise do airlines have here? The whole idea of having national aviation regulators like the FAA in the US, and the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK, is because it isn't practical for each airline to self-regulate.

Well, it's the airlines that enforce the regulations set forth by the FAA.

And my experience has been that they're fairly inconsistent with their enforcement of this particular regulation. They make the required announcement and do the required cursory cabin check, but that's about it; hence my reluctance to believe there's a serious threat to passenger safety if one (directly or indirectly) ignores their instructions.

[dakini]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

On one flight, I was told to put away my knitting. The flight attendent said she had been poked with knitting needles before (her own?). I said having a type A personality sitting there with nothing to do was more of a concern. Someone handed me a magazine.

How asinine. My knitting needles are in my lap. If she is worried about them flying around in the case of a crash, there are lots of worse things to ban. Purses?

actually, when i was on a plane whose right engine caught fire and we had to make an emergency landing, EVERYTHING got put away. in the 10 minutes we took to get to an international airport with a long enough runway (o'hare's wasn't long enough, we had to go to Detroit), the stewardesses stashed even most stuff that had been under the seats in the overhead bins.

it made sense: we landed hard and fast. very fast. and couldn't use the engine reverse thrust to slow us. we were all pretty knocked about, but we landed ok. i could easily imagine loose stuff being tossed about -- and that was a successful landing, not a crash, which i'm sure would be a lot worse.

thankfully, there was less resistance to the stewardess' actions on the plane than there is in this thread.