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

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by mjhudston

Just because you ebook reader does not have 3g or WiFi does not mean its not radiating electronic signatures. Depending on where it made, and to what quality, the emissions from your device could be interfering with the electronics of the aircraft. The problem stems from the fact there are so many of these devices and to test them all against every aircraft type would be financially prohibitive, especially as new devices are coming out all the time.

The sensible thing to do is to ask people to turn them off during the most crucial phases of flight.

A problem with testing.

We all read that the battery of X model will last for so many hours. Under some rigid and reproducible conditions I'm sure that it will. But not in real life.

Does anyone think that a manufacturer will send a device to be tested that will fail?

Do manufacturer ever cut cost later by substituting cheaper, but similar, components at a later date? I'd bet on it. EDIT - after using substitute parts will a manufacturer will send a device back to be tested?

A Boeing 747-400 can accommodate 524 (2-class) passengers. I would be willing to take off with all of the passengers using an ereader at the same time. I really don't think that it's a problem. But that's only my opinion so "I'll turn mine off".

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was responding to the arrogance and condescension that implied that the pilots of this particular flight had a simple autopilot problem, saw a guy using a laptop in the cabin, and leapt to the conclusion the laptop had caused the problem without doing even something as simple as asking him to turn it off and then back on again to see if the problem was reproducible. If that was not your intent, then you have my apologies.

The flight crew did in fact perform such a test and were able to reproduce the problem multiple times. Their conclusion that the laptop was causing the problem thus had a scientific basis. This particular incident led the FAA to a great deal of concern because Boeing could not reproduce the problem even after lengthy testing. The FAA did not leap to the conclusion that the pilots on this flight had no scientific methodology to back up their assertion but rather accepted their version of the event and the informal testing they performed on the spot as sound and valid input. Given that you accept the original version of events as sound, any responsible scientific conclusion would include at least the possibility that the failure to reproduce the problem through subsequent testing could be due to some unknown condition that Boeing didn't accurately mimic. That possibility is what gives the FAA headaches.

[mjhudston]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

Do manufacturer ever cut cost later by substituting cheaper, but similar, components at a later date? I'd bet on it.

yes they do, and those components have different Electromagnetic properties. However there is not always a requirement for re-qualification testing.

A recent example was a PSU for Sony Laptops which suddenly interfered with wireless keyboard and bluetooth adaptors. The design for the PSU's were not changed, but some components were substituted for similar ones, that performed the same function but had slightly different tolerances and EMC characteristics, yet managed to blank-out the Wireless Spectrum for a 15 meter radius.

Just imagine what electronics or cabling linked to those electronics are with-in a 15 meter radius of your aircraft seat, if some manufacturer has changed a few minor components within your ereader.

To not switch them off when requested is bordering on Criminal Irresponsibility.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

Actually, this thread demonstrates that people want reasons for the restrictions that are placed on them, as opposed to accepting them because they are told so.

This thread doesn't prove anything.

Some people may want reasons but I see it more as people think they are entitled to do what they want without regard to the rules set by the airline. It's kind of funny that people are carrying on about not using a device during takeoff/landing but no one asks for explanations why you can't smoke in the mall or why movie theatres tell you to turn off your devices. Do I have to give someone an explanation why I don't want them to smoke in my house?

Heck, some restaurants and museums have signs requesting that cell phones be set to silent but there is always a couple who think the rule doesn't apply to them.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

If that was not your intent, then you have my apologies.

No that was not my intent. I don't think it's the responsibility of flight crews to determine the risk electronics pose. I do think it is the responsibility of the FAA/plane manufacturers. And I do think that they have not lived up to this responsibility.

In fact, if anecdotal evidence indicates that electronics do cause problems, I think that there needs to far more work on this. For instance, people often forget to turn of their phones on flights. If it were to be established that cell phones really do cause problems, then I would expect airlines to be far more strict about enforcing the no cell phones rule.

My complaint is that, it is not established. And given the following points, I am inclined to believe that it is at best an isolated risk that will manifest itself only in certain situations, with individual planes, rather like bird hits:

1) People routinely forget to turn off phones on flight.

2) Airlines are moving towards allowing phones/wireless broadband on flights

3) Aeroplanes are subjected to EM radiation of higher intensity than from cell phones, form other sources, like cosmic rays.

I will admit that with regard to (3) there could be mitigating circumstances, that make radiation from the environment more benign than radiation from electronics.

So the important question is to determine what the systemic risk is from electronics in planes and then to make an informed decision based on that determination, on whether to allow them or not.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by mjhudston

To not switch them off when requested is bordering on Criminal Irresponsibility.

No, that responsibility is entirely on the test labs, who have a responsibility to test all broadcasting devices for undue radiation of precisely that nature. If they failed to properly test the Sony device...

An ebook reader sitting in my bag, not being used, radiates far less than many devices which are not required to switched "off". I am not arguing for leaving wireless on, or for using it during takeoff and landing...

(But, bluntly, there is a strong argument given at least one cellphone is left on, per average, on every flight, that a low-power cell which blocks calls during takeoff/landing should be compulsory)

[Rich_D]

Really? This is still going on?

Personally, I think all cell phones should be banned, I should be allowed to smoke cigars on airplanes and everyone should bow down when I enter a room. However as my wife frequently reminds me, I don't rule the world (yet!).

By purchasing a ticket, you agree to comply with all the rules and regulations that the airline tacks on. If you don't like it, don't buy the ticket. Otherwise suck it up and deal with it. When you own an airline, you can make the rules.

JMHO.

[astra]

Airlines are just paving the way for future revenue.
At some point they will say it is safe to use mobile phones or wi-fi as long as you go through OUR system. It will cost you ....

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by astra

Airlines are just paving the way for future revenue.
At some point they will say it is safe to use mobile phones or wi-fi as long as you go through OUR system. It will cost you ....

I was allowed to use a phone during flight. Only two-way pagers and satellite phones were not allowed... It's only during take-off and landing that they ask you to turn off electronic devices. And while I didn't turn off my Mini (it is turned off as long as I don't turn a page...), I wouldn't even want to read during take-off and landing!



(it's almost embarrassing, btw, to hear all those "pings" from phones that are turned on again as soon as you touch down...)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

(it's almost embarrassing, btw, to hear all those "pings" from phones that are turned on again as soon as you touch down...)

My phone is my watch so I need to turn it on to know the time.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

(it's almost embarrassing, btw, to hear all those "pings" from phones that are turned on again as soon as you touch down...)

I have noticed.
The moment belt sign goes off, all over the plane you can hear ringing and people start to talk. As if they cannot live a few hours without talking on the phone

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by astra

I have noticed.
The moment belt sign goes off, all over the plane you can here ringing and people start to talk. As if they cannot live a few hours without talking on the phone

Do they actually wait for the sign to go off? In my experience, they start as soon as the wheels touch the ground, or at most when the plane leaves the landing lane and starts taxiing around the airport. When the sign goes off most passengers are already standing and getting their bags from the overhead compartments...

[Logseman]

I turn my iPod touch off in those matters (and of course wifi during the duration of the flight). BUT it's clear that there are people some rows in front of me who can use their devices. Mainly because they paid for that. If I ever get in the Business seats of a plane, I'll make sure to use them in all their full glory.

[Stitchawl]

"Remain seated until the seatbelt light goes off" gets ignored as much or more than any other airline rule, yet it's one rule that seems to make sense from a safety standpoint. Perhaps that's why it's violated so often! It's not as if you're going to get off the plane any quicker. If I'm going to pay so much money, I'm going to sit as long as I can! At least once the sign is off I can turn on my e-reader!

Stitchawl

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by astra

I have noticed.
The moment belt sign goes off, all over the plane you can here ringing and people start to talk. As if they cannot live a few hours without talking on the phone

I remembered this morning that my phone was still off (and we came home on thursday!)

Originally Posted by Jellby

Do they actually wait for the sign to go off? In my experience, they start as soon as the wheels touch the ground, or at most when the plane leaves the landing lane and starts taxiing around the airport. When the sign goes off most passengers are already standing and getting their bags from the overhead compartments...

Yep, the plane is still taxiing to its final place and people are already swinging bags into your face (one reason I always want to sit near the window).

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

"Remain seated until the seatbelt light goes off" gets ignored as much or more than any other airline rule, yet it's one rule that seems to make sense from a safety standpoint. Perhaps that's why it's violated so often! It's not as if you're going to get off the plane any quicker. If I'm going to pay so much money, I'm going to sit as long as I can! At least once the sign is off I can turn on my e-reader!

Stitchawl

When we landed in Malaga, we just sat there and waited till the plane was almost empty. We were in the back and there was only an exit in front. In Bremen, both the front and back were opened and we got out a bit earlier.

Often you're way ahead of your luggage anyway, so why the rush?