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

[pepak]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

We are not talking about thousands of tiny things, Just One, Switching offf very briefly, at request of the Aircraft Owners, why does being polite have to become a political arguement ???

1) Every single limitation of our freedoms is "just one, very minor" thing. Harmless in itself. But if we can accept "turning off gadgets on take-off for no good reason at all", why not other tiny, negligible thing? And another? And another? Where will it stop? (Yes, I may be too sensitive to these things. But as I have lived in a totalitarian country, I do have a first-hand experience on how these tiny things tend to accummulate...)

2) I for one see a vast difference between "being polite" and "doing whatever someone tells me to do".

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by pepak

1) Every single limitation of our freedoms is "just one, very minor" thing. Harmless in itself. But if we can accept "turning off gadgets on take-off for no good reason at all", why not other tiny, negligible thing? And another? And another? Where will it stop? (Yes, I may be too sensitive to these things. But as I have lived in a totalitarian country, I do have a first-hand experience on how these tiny things tend to accummulate...)

2) I for one see a vast difference between "being polite" and "doing whatever someone tells me to do".

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by pepak

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.

That's a very reasonable response - but here's why I think it's wrong!

It's all about levels of risk. I agree there is an infinity of things that can't be proved not to be a risk, but this case is different. We *know* that EM interference can cause electronic systems to fail. We also know that we don't have any mechanism of proving and certifying safe emission and immunity levels. (Anyone who thinks that FCC class certification is flawless needs to look a bit more closely.)

Given the above, and the obvious danger caused by anything going wrong in a high-speed flying metal tube, erring on the side of caution seems entirely sensible in this case.

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by pepak

2) I for one see a vast difference between "being polite" and "doing whatever someone tells me to do".

When you buy a flight ticket, the terms and conditions require you (effectively) to do whatever they tell you to do (in this area). It's a contractual agreement. Do you feel sufficiently strongly about this to break a contract to which you've agreed?

/JB

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by pepak

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

Wow, did you even bother to read this thread before writing this?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Wow, did you even bother to read this thread before writing this?

A story from flight crew like

"We were flying the plane. Suddenly the autopilot started malfunctioning. We found some passenger had his phone switched on. We asked him to switch it off. The autopilot was restored. So the cell phone must have been causing the problem."

is not convincing. At a minimum such a story needs to go like this

"We were flying the plane. Suddenly the autopilot started malfunctioning. We found some passenger had his phone switched on. We asked him to switch it off. The autopilot was restored. Since we were flying in an empty sky at 30K feet and there was no real danger from a malfunctioning autopilot, to double check we asked the passenger to switch on the phone again. The autopilot malfunctioned again and when we the passenger switched it off, it was restored."

And to be really convincing, a regulatory body needs to carry out a few thousand flights with a few hundred cell phones switched on in each flight, at random locations on the plane, and perform the above procedure each time a malfunction happens and record the percentage of flights in which a malfunction happened.

Now that would be convincing to someone used to scientific methodology.

[pshrynk]

That would involve spending money, which airlines are loathe to do.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by pepak

1) Every single limitation of our freedoms is "just one, very minor" thing. Harmless in itself. But if we can accept "turning off gadgets on take-off for no good reason at all", why not other tiny, negligible thing? And another? And another? Where will it stop? (Yes, I may be too sensitive to these things. But as I have lived in a totalitarian country, I do have a first-hand experience on how these tiny things tend to accummulate...)

2) I for one see a vast difference between "being polite" and "doing whatever someone tells me to do".

I've lived long enough to have seen what you are talking about. And I sometimes worry (but not much though) about my fellow Americans. More than I do any legal emigrants.

But I can't agree about #2.

Two months ago I was in a store shopping. An announcement was made to leave the store. My best guess was that it was a drunk ex-employee or kids playing a prank. Who else would be so stupid as to call in a bomb threat?

So I left my cart, half full of food, and went home. Was it real? No. But I didn't know. The store management didn't know. And the police I didn't know at the time of the call.

Like wise, if the management of a theater turns on the lights and asks everyone to leave they don't want to explain to 200 individuals why they want you to leave.

There may be a small fire in the office with almost no chance of it spreading. You may not smell the smoke. Do you stand there and object to "doing whatever someone tells me to do"?

Suppose the small fire in the office turns out to be from a much larger fire under the office".

I have made the biggest fool of myself whenever I "know that I'm right".

P.S. - What "totalitarian country" did you live in, New York City, New Jersey, or Washington DC?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

That would involve spending money, which airlines are loathe to do.

True, which is what makes us loathe to follow their unreasonable requests.

[Jellby]

I hope those saying a phone cannot affect the plane's instruments are not the same who claim the cell towers are a serious threat to the health of those living nearby...

[cmdahler]

At a minimum such a story needs to go like this

"We were flying the plane. Suddenly the autopilot started malfunctioning. We found some passenger had his phone switched on. We asked him to switch it off. The autopilot was restored. Since we were flying in an empty sky at 30K feet and there was no real danger from a malfunctioning autopilot, to double check we asked the passenger to switch on the phone again. The autopilot malfunctioned again and when we the passenger switched it off, it was restored."

Surprisingly enough, pilots in general aren't considered to be complete idiots. In fact, *gasp*, many actually do have actual degrees in various sciences and are in general fairly well educated folks. I know it's hard to fathom from that high perch up there, Kovid, but amazingly, this is precisely what the pilot of this flight actually did! Wow! Imagine that! A pilot, someone who is by the nature of their trade a fairly analytical individual, actually didn't leap to a totally asinine conclusion, formed a theory, and performed a test of the theory before arriving at the conclusion. Gee, the wonder of it all...

Six years ago, Boeing received word that a laptop computer was suspected of shutting off the autopilot system on one of its jets during a commercial flight from London to Paris. The pilot conducted tests by turning the computer on and off, which the airline said again triggered the autopilot error. The airline "felt 100% confident that it was a particular laptop" causing the problem, says Bruce Donham, a senior electromagnetics engineer at Boeing.

Boeing sent engineers to Europe, purchased the laptop from the passenger, and tried unsuccessfully to re-create the problem from the same seat and during the exact time of the flight. Later, Boeing arranged to fly the empty plane on the London to Paris route, moving the laptop throughout the aircraft. No interference was discovered. The aircraft maker then brought the laptop back to Seattle and tested it in a Boeing lab. Donham says the tests showed no correspondence between electronic emissions from the laptop and the autopilot computer.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

A story from flight crew like
....
Now that would be convincing to someone used to scientific methodology.

Now that would be convincing to someone used to trial and error.

And what flight crew would want to stand before a judge and say "Well, I didn't think it would cause a problem the second time"?

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I hope those saying a phone cannot affect the plane's instruments are not the same who claim the cell towers are a serious threat to the health of those living nearby...

Cell towers do not cause problems unless your ear is next to the transmitter.

Power flowing from the outlets in my home are making me senile though.

[kovidgoyal]

@cmdahler: Why so defensive? I never said either you or pilots are complete idiots, though in your case, I'm beginning to wonder.

And the story you quote just goes to show that when the plane manufacturer actually performed tests, they found nothing.

All I'm asking for is to have more of such tests and have their results published so that an informed decision can be made, based on *gasp* actual experiments that *gasp* allow us to reach a *gasp* informed decision.

[Conor]

Why not a flight mode on ebook readers that switches them off while leaving the E ink display showing the page you're reading? Then all you have to do is make that page last for 20 minutes.