Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not sure if this is another one of your rhetorical questions, Shaggy, but on the off chance it isn't, then yes, a Kindle contains a cellular radio, exactly the same as used in a cellphone.

When someone is ridiculing owners who don't know the difference between "off" vs "sleep" you probably want to use the correct terms when talking about "cellular radio" vs "cellphone".

Regarding the same interference... do you know that for sure? Have you actually measured/tested it, or are you just assuming? Do you know the broadcast signal strengths of data signals vs voice signals, and if/how they interfere with on-board avionics?

To get back to the original topic (instead of making fun of people who don't know the difference between off/sleep), the reason the FAA has a general ban on these types of devices is because the potential interference has NOT been tested/certified.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

When someone is ridiculing owners who don't know the difference between "off" vs "sleep" you probably want to use the correct terms when talking about "cellular radio" vs "cellphone".

Nope. A Kindle is a cellphone. It has a telephone number. People may not commonly regard it as one, but nonetheless, it is one. So is the 3G iPad, and the nook, and the 3G Dongle which I plug into my netbook. They are all cellphones.

To get back to the original topic (instead of making fun of people who don't know the difference between off/sleep),

I'm not making fun of anyone. It is others in this thread who are making the claim that people don't know how to turn their Kindles off. I don't hold people in such low esteem.

the reason the FAA has a general ban on these types of devices is because the potential interference has NOT been tested/certified.

Yes - that's precisely the point. Given that they are not tested, the only safe course of action is to regard them as potentially hazardous and turn them off.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it a non-interfering device? A Kindle has a cellular radio in it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is still operating even when your Kindle is asleep, isn't it? I'm pretty sure that I've had books delivered to my Kindle by Whispernet even when it's "off" (ie, asleep, rather than powered off).

Yes, the airline must determine it's a non-interfering device or use wouldn't be permitted at all. Reread the regulation you quoted.

And yes, just as the radio on an iPhone or other device must be turned off, the wireless on a Kindle must be turned off. But again -- that is a different issue then whether the device needs to be off or in sleep mode once the wireless is turned off. The wireless isn't allowed to be on at *any* time, not just at takeoff and landing.

The point is that a Kindle with the wireless off in sleep mode is not putting out any more power (and therefore, interference) than a Kindle that is powered off.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

The point is that a Kindle with the wireless off in sleep mode is not putting out any more power (and therefore, interference) than a Kindle that is powered off.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. A Kindle is "sleep" mode is an operating computer. The memory is powered; the CPU is running. All these things emit EM radiation. A Kindle that is genuinely powered off is electrically inert.

[whitearrow]

Then why doesn't my battery go down when I keep the Kindle in sleep mode? I can keep it in sleep mode for days, and the battery never moves.

What you're saying is true for, say, a laptop in sleep mode. Without evidence, I don't believe it is true for a Kindle, otherwise the battery would slowly lose power.

[DawnFalcon]

Post removed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

Then why doesn't my battery go down when I keep the Kindle in sleep mode? I can keep it in sleep mode for days, and the battery never moves.

It's in a very low-power mode, to be sure, but it is operating - basically sitting there waiting for you to slide the power switch. As you say, the battery will last for several weeks. It's in a coma, but not entirely dead .

[HamsterRage]

The problem with these rules is that everyone suspects that they are overly strict and largely baseless. The result is that ordinary people begin to hold them in contempt. Note the posts in this thread were people have stated they just close the cover and put the device aside until the takeoff or landing is completed. They have chosen not to comply with the rule, because they are fairly certain that their eReader, laptop, Nintendo DS or iPod isn't going to harm the plane.

I'd say that's a fairly reasonable and predictable reaction. The real problem is that once people become used to deciding that this air safety rule isn't worth following, then they'll do it with others. That's just human nature, one rule that the general public holds in contempt will taint all of their attitudes to all of the rules.

Personally, I don't think it would be stretching it to identify a number of common devices and train the cabin crew recognize them and let passengers continue to use them during takeoff. So if you're traveling with your Diahuitzu MX-73P30 Portable Holographic Sound Infuser, don't expect the cabin crew to recognize it or let you continue to use it, but if you're playing Tetris on your PSP it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to let you play on during takeoff.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope. A Kindle is a cellphone. It has a telephone number. People may not commonly regard it as one, but nonetheless, it is one. So is the 3G iPad, and the nook, and the 3G Dongle which I plug into my netbook. They are all cellphones.

The point is, it uses data communications, not voice. That's where the difference may come into play. I believe what you're talking about is just the mechanism for how it is addressable on the 3G network.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

Without evidence, I don't believe it is true for a Kindle, otherwise the battery would slowly lose power.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the FAA believes. They are operating under the opposite scenario. Your position is that without evidence, you don't believe it is true. The FAA's position is that without evidence (certification) they don't believe it is false.

Given the risks involved, that's a good position for them to have.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Personally, I don't think it would be stretching it to identify a number of common devices and train the cabin crew recognize them and let passengers continue to use them during takeoff. So if you're traveling with your Diahuitzu MX-73P30 Portable Holographic Sound Infuser, don't expect the cabin crew to recognize it or let you continue to use it, but if you're playing Tetris on your PSP it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to let you play on during takeoff.

Do you know how expensive FAA certification is? Do you realize that any time the manufacturer tweaks the device, including firmware updates, they would have to get re-certified?

No consumer device is going to spend that amount of time/effort/money just so you can keep it on during takeoff/landing. It's not cost effective for the company.

If it were really that simple, companies would already be doing it.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

The problem with these rules is that everyone suspects that they are overly strict and largely baseless. The result is that ordinary people begin to hold them in contempt. Note the posts in this thread were people have stated they just close the cover and put the device aside until the takeoff or landing is completed. They have chosen not to comply with the rule, because they are fairly certain that their eReader, laptop, Nintendo DS or iPod isn't going to harm the plane.

I'd say that's a fairly reasonable and predictable reaction. The real problem is that once people become used to deciding that this air safety rule isn't worth following, then they'll do it with others. That's just human nature, one rule that the general public holds in contempt will taint all of their attitudes to all of the rules.

Personally, I don't think it would be stretching it to identify a number of common devices and train the cabin crew recognize them and let passengers continue to use them during takeoff. So if you're traveling with your Diahuitzu MX-73P30 Portable Holographic Sound Infuser, don't expect the cabin crew to recognize it or let you continue to use it, but if you're playing Tetris on your PSP it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to let you play on during takeoff.

Exactly right...

People 'know' whether it is technically true or not, that their devices are harmless. In fact, I would be that more know this, than know the difference between sleep mode and turning their device off. (I will tell you that there are PLENTY of people, and I know a few who are quite intelligent, who do not know that their devices are not off when they push the button to turn them off...

EDIT: And if they 'know' that it is harmless, then constantly being told that it is dangerous just weakens the credibility of those telling them of the danger.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The point is, it uses data communications, not voice. That's where the difference may come into play. I believe what you're talking about is just the mechanism for how it is addressable on the 3G network.

Remember, though, that voice communication is "data" as well. Whether it's speech or TCP/IP packets, it's all just a string of 1's and 0's transmitted digitally. There's really no difference at all between sending an e-mail from your cellphone or making a voice call, in terms of the mechanism of transferring the data from the phone to the cell.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Do you know how expensive FAA certification is? Do you realize that any time the manufacturer tweaks the device, including firmware updates, they would have to get re-certified?

No consumer device is going to spend that amount of time/effort/money just so you can keep it on during takeoff/landing. It's not cost effective for the company.

If it were really that simple, companies would already be doing it.

I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that when a rule flies against common sense yet continues to be slavishly enforced people will naturally find ways to circumvent it. And the next, inevitable step is that people will start to second guess all of the rules and decide which other ones they can also safely start to circumvent.

So in the interest of overall safety, the FAA should take a step back and look at that particular rule and put the "common sense" back in. I'm not saying that the right answer is to add FAA certification to particular products, I'm saying that the FAA should take a look at the regulation itself and decide how to implement it such that it adds to air safety not detract from it.

[LDBoblo]

I turn my stuff off. It's pretty easy. Then when it's all clear, I turn what I want back on. Do I think that my scary electronics are going to cause the plane to crash and burn? Probably not, but I don't need to be convinced of the necessity before I respect a simple request from the flight staff.

I also used to turn my phone off (not just vibrate-only) during exams in university. Yeah, I'm a sheep, I know...letting the system trap me within its arbitrary rules that need not apply to me specifically, watching the cage grow tighter and tighter until they won't let me breathe.

For now though, I'll turn off my stuff when they ask me to, instead of being a total prick about it.