Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

That may be true, you probably know better than I do. What I'm not sure about is if they have the same broadcast signal strengths, same EM, etc.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Except that an email is a short burst of data using a fair amount of bandwidth for that time. Voice communication is low bandwidth over a long period of time. That could play a factor in how a cellphone might affect electronic equipment. For instance, a compass that quivers for a second or two, versus a compass that settles a couple of points off north for the entire time span of a long conversation.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

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.

I'm sure there are lots of people who "think" they know. I also don't believe anybody, including the FAA, is saying the devices are dangerous. What they are saying is that they have not been proven to be safe to the level of satisfaction that the FAA requires. That's not the same thing as saying they're dangerous.

Whether or not you agree with the policy, the idea is that if a device has not been proven to be safe, they do not allow it. It's one thing to say that we can't think of any reason there would be a problem, but it's quite another to bet several hundred people's lives on the answer.

It may seem silly to some people, but personally, I'm glad they take the issue more seriously. Are they being overly cautious... probably... but do we really want them not to be?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Except that an email is a short burst of data using a fair amount of bandwidth for that time. Voice communication is low bandwidth over a long period of time. That could play a factor in how a cellphone might affect electronic equipment. For instance, a compass that quivers for a second or two, versus a compass that settles a couple of points off north for the entire time span of a long conversation.

That's a very good point.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm sure there are lots of people who "think" they know. I also don't believe anybody, including the FAA, is saying the devices are dangerous. What they are saying is that they have not been proven to be safe to the level of satisfaction that the FAA requires. That's not the same thing as saying they're dangerous.

Whether or not you agree with the policy, the idea is that if a device has not been proven to be safe, they do not allow it. It's one thing to say that we can't think of any reason there would be a problem, but it's quite another to bet several hundred people's lives on the answer.

It may seem silly to some people, but personally, I'm glad they take the issue more seriously. Are they being overly cautious... probably... but do we really want them not to be?

But the point is that if people percieve a rule to be silly, they not only will resist compliance with those rules, but with all rules from the same authority.

[BenLee]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It may seem silly to some people, but personally, I'm glad they take the issue more seriously. Are they being overly cautious... probably... but do we really want them not to be?

Whatever gets me to the other side of the world ALIVE I'm in favor for. But then again, I don't fly as often as some people. I would imagine those who fly every week would either get annoyed or used to all these little security measures.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by BenLee

Whatever gets me to the other side of the world ALIVE I'm in favor for. But then again, I don't fly as often as some people. I would imagine those who fly every week would either get annoyed or used to all these little security measures.

I think that is where some of us, myself included are coming from. I flew every week for a year and a half. I got to know some of the flight crews fairly well. they were the first ones to say... yeah some of this stuff is stupid, but it's our job

[Rich_D]

I really don't understand why this is an issue. Whether I agree with the rule or not, I agreed to abide by it when I purchased the ticket so I turn it off. Anything else would be rude. It's as simple as that.

[afa]

I agree. It's really a non-issue.

So you have to turn off your e-readers for a few minutes. So what? Is that really such a gigantic hassle that we need a heated debate over the issue? We all love to read books, but I'm sure not being able to read for 20 minutes a day, even if we were travelling every single day, is something we can live with.

What Shaggy said is hundred percent correct. It's the FAA's (and EASA's) job to take a 'better safe than sorry' approach when it comes to aviation security and safety, and I fully support that.

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

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.

I'm not sure I follow. I can see why people feel that the rule about switching electronic devices off is unnecessary, but I don't see that as something that in any way "detracts" from safety. It doesn't. You can argue that it doesn't add value (or adds minimal value) but it certainly doesn't diminish security.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by afa

I agree. It's really a non-issue.

So you have to turn off your e-readers for a few minutes. So what? Is that really such a gigantic hassle that we need a heated debate over the issue? We all love to read books, but I'm sure not being able to read for 20 minutes a day, even if we were travelling every single day, is something we can live with.

What Shaggy said is hundred percent correct. It's the FAA's (and EASA's) job to take a 'better safe than sorry' approach when it comes to aviation security and safety, and I fully support that.


I'm not sure I follow. I can see why people feel that the rule about switching electronic devices off is unnecessary, but I don't see that as something that in any way "detracts" from safety. It doesn't. You can argue that it doesn't add value (or adds minimal value) but it certainly doesn't diminish security.

I think the argument is people don't have to turn off their digital watches which are about as dangerous as a sony reader or a kindle with the wireless turned off.

As for not diminishing security I'm not sure anything can since all they do right now is put on a show. Now if they really wanted to increase security the TSA screeners should offer to give hugs to anyone who's feeling insecure. Or perhaps security blankets.

[afa]

True, but I think in most people's minds, digital watches would never even crop up as a potential hazard. But they might look at the bloke sitting next to them using his Kindle/iPhone/iPad and wonder, "Gee, should he be doing that?"

As you said, it is, indeed, putting on a show. But if this show gives X number of people peace of mind (because there are a lot people who are scared enough of flying as it is), then there's no harm in that.

It's just something akin to a white lie, is all.

[jbjb]

Reasons to turn it off:

• When you bought the ticket you agreed to the airline's terms and conditions, which include obeying the cabin crew's instructions.
• It's courteous and polite to the cabin crew who are just doing their jobs.
• It's considerate towards your fellow passengers, who may be worried by your use of the device.
• While it *may* be safe to continue using the device, or just put it into sleep mode, you can't be sure of this. You may think you know, but you don't. This is a deeply technical area and layman's gut-feel doesn't work.

Reasons not to turn it off:

• A selfish desire to avoid a couple of minutes without reading.

Take your pick.

/JB

[John F]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Except that an email is a short burst of data using a fair amount of bandwidth for that time. Voice communication is low bandwidth over a long period of time. That could play a factor in how a cellphone might affect electronic equipment. For instance, a compass that quivers for a second or two, versus a compass that settles a couple of points off north for the entire time span of a long conversation.

That sounds backward to me? Text (an email) should take up very "little" data, where as digitized voice should take up a "large" amount of data?

[DawnFalcon]

Post removed.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

afa - And how can they tell the difference between a device in sleep mode in my bag and a device which is shut down in my bag? (And I'm going to keep asking that one)

It's not a matter of whether "they" (who are "they", BTW?) can tell the difference; it's a matter of whether you have an uncertified source of radio frequency transmissions in your bag which is potentially endangering the safety of the aircraft. Are you qualified to tell how much EM radiation your device is emiting, and whether or not it poses a risk?