Flights with no e-readers?!

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Robertb

Dear All:

I work for Astak and we make eBook Readers such as the Pocket PRO.

I am almost afraid to say it but my wife works for TSA. She says there are no rumors at all of TSA banning eBook Readers on planes.

There is a possibility where they might be treated as a laptop computer (which they are not) and you might have to turn it on at the screening to prove that it is what it looks like... a simple eBook Reader.

But, for now, I think this is much ado about nothing! Us eBook lovers will still be reading away in the air. And... at $199... it may well be on a Pocket PRO with Text-To-Speech!!

Seems as it should be...she married you.

[m-reader]

Could this "ban" have to do with the fact that most popular new e-readers (Kindle 2) have GSM radio which is turned on by default? IMO this is the same as having your mobile phone turned on, which is a big no-no onboard passanger aircrafts.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by m-reader

Could this "ban" have to do with the fact that most popular new e-readers (Kindle 2) have GSM radio which is turned on by default? IMO this is the same as having your mobile phone turned on, which is a big no-no onboard passanger aircrafts.

What "ban"? There is no "ban".

Yes, you're right that it's illegal to have a cellular radio turned on on board on aircraft in flight in the US. So you turn it off .

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What "ban"? There is no "ban".

Yes, you're right that it's illegal to have a cellular radio turned on on board on aircraft in flight in the US. So you turn it off .

That's why I put "ban" inside the "quotes" If I was talking to you face to face I'd probably be making the "quote" fingers gesture (lame, I know)

As far as mobile phone radio onboard aircrafts - this rule is pretty much the same world wide - turn it off.
The problem (or rather the issue) with e-book readers is that not everybody would know that there is a mobile phone inside! I wouldn't put it past the security regulation authors to ban the whole thing outright rather than try to educate people.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by m-reader

That's why I put "ban" inside the "quotes" If I was talking to you face to face I'd probably be making the "quote" fingers gesture (lame, I know)

As far as mobile phone radio onboard aircrafts - this rule is pretty much the same world wide - turn it off.
The problem (or rather the issue) with e-book readers is that not everybody would know that there is a mobile phone inside! I wouldn't put it past the security regulation authors to ban the whole thing outright rather than try to educate people.

It's astonishing to me how worked up we get about a bit of completely unsubstantiated speculation. We've gone from an unconfirmed hypothesis that, maybe, someone in authority might conclude that a possible approach to avoiding the last weekend's kind of incident might be to consider the option of introducing some kind of ban or other restriction on electronic devices to the fear that, because some e=readers have 3g radios in them, they'll all be banned.

Come one guys (and gals), please - let's deal with the issues that we know are affecting us (or will be) rather than conjuring spectres.

Maybe a ban'll happen; maybe it won't; let's deal with it when it does.

By the way, those of us who used to fly a lot in the 90's remember that it was routine (not universal, but quite common) then to ban the use of portable CD players, laptops and the like, in case their electrical emanations interfered with aircraft systems. And that was devices that had zero radio components in the. Miraculously, we all survived this privation. Maybe we could again.

[HarryT]

It either already has happened, or it's about to happen, that mobile phones are permitted on many flights in the EU. Basically, the aircraft itself is fitted with a "base station" and then re-transmits the calls to the ground. I suspect that the days of planes being "mobile free zones" are limited .

[nick101]

And here are some thoughts from someone who actually knows something about security:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/...ter/index.html

For those who don't know Bruce Schneier, he is an established specialist in security matters, notable for his thoughtful and considered approach to the conflict between security needs and the need to be able to get on with a life.

[Robertb]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

Seems as it should be...she married you.

Dear Brecklundin:

Hope you had a great Holiday Season and wishing you all the best!!

[johnc]

Actually since most readers contain lithium batteries they are not recommended to go in checked in baggage ditto for laptops, cell phones admittedly its not a prohibition http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...batteries.shtm and http://safetravel.dot.gov/whats_new_batteries.html they recommend protecting against accidental turnon of the device, and prohibit spare loose batteries.

[whitearrow]

Those rules only apply to giant batteries, like the kind used in professional TV cameras and similar gear. Not the small batteries used in laptops and most other consumer devices.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Since the ruling is senseless in the first place I wouldn't expect sense from the details either.

Even wirelessly connected devices have been proven to not interfere with the plane's electronics-but you're still required to turn them off.

You're probably right. I can tell you though that anytime a new piece of electronic equipment is installed on a plane it has to go through LOTS of testing before it can be approved. This goes far beyond the FCC stuff that they do for consumer devices.

Would consumer devices really interfere with a plane, probably not. But since every consumer device doesn't go through that level of testing the default policy is that they should be turned off. It's basically one of those "we're not 100% sure, so the answer is no" deals. The FAA tends to be pretty picky about safety, which isn't really a bad thing.

[nick101]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The FAA tends to be pretty picky about safety, which isn't really a bad thing.

It's textbook risk asessment. The probability of a plane crash as a result of a problem from a consumer e-device is very low; but theimpact )no pun intended) of such an incident is very high indeed (planes falling from the sky are A VERY BAD THING). Especially planes that have me on them

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nick101

It's textbook risk asessment. The probability of a plane crash as a result of a problem from a consumer e-device is very low; but theimpact )no pun intended) of such an incident is very high indeed (planes falling from the sky are A VERY BAD THING). Especially planes that have me on them

I think you get a higher expected bad outcome for cars. So I do not think this is a reason. I think it is a psychological reason and the fact that you overestimate the risks when you get a lot of news reports about airplane crashes (but no reports about car crashes).

[nick101]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think you get a higher expected bad outcome for cars. So I do not think this is a reason. I think it is a psychological reason and the fact that you overestimate the risks when you get a lot of news reports about airplane crashes (but no reports about car crashes).

I don't agree. Plane crashes happen very rarely, but when they do, dozens or hundreds of people die. Car crashes happen a lot, but when they do, only relatively small numbers of people die. This is partly because planes carry up to 500 people and cars only carry up to about 7, but mainly because car crashes are very survivable whereas plane crashes just aren't.

Yes, there's psychology in the fact that we spend less time worrying about deaths for car accidents than any other cause of death. But, with respect to plane crashes, there's that simple reason - they don't happen much, but when they do they're always very bad.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nick101

I don't agree. Plane crashes happen very rarely, but when they do, dozens or hundreds of people die.

But they don't, that's the point. In the overwhelming majority of emergency landings of aircraft, nobody is hurt. It's because plane crashes in which people die are so exceedingly rare that they do make the news which they happen. Eg, look at an airline like British Airways. How many untold millions of passengers have they carried, and yet in all their years of operating they've never had a fatal accident in flight - not one. Flying really is an astonishingly safe activity.