Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[whitearrow]

It might help if so many of the rules connected to flying were not completely idiotic. Bring a factory-sealed bottle of water to the checkpoint -- you have to throw it away. But of course you can buy an identical bottle 3 feet past the checkpoint. 2.9 ounces of shampoo is not dangerous, but 3.1 is. Of course it's fine to bring two 3-ounce bottles if you can fit them in your stupid plastic bag. Doesn't matter if you're wearing rubber flip flops -- you have to remove your shoes and put them through the x-ray -- which can't see plastic explosives any more than the walk-through metal detector. Oh, and the shoes on your feet have to be x-rayed separately, but the ones in your carry-on can stay there.

We're told so much sheer nonsense that is supposed to keep us "safe" that it's hardly surprising that a lot of people call all of it into question.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's a perception problem, certainly. People "think" the rule is silly. The question is, how do you convince them that they're not as smart as they think they are.

Exactly. But perception is reality. And the fact that we even have a thread on this topic - not to mention that it's gone to 9 pages so far - is evidence enough that a significant number of people are questioning it, and probably deciding to break it too.

I'd forget about trying to convince people that they're not as smart as they think they are. That's probably impossible.

The truth is, it's probably impossible for a typical consumer electronic device with no radio transmission technology inside it to affect a plane. The last I remember seeing, there weren't any documented cases of that happening. There's a big difference between "probably impossible" and "proven impossible" though.

So maybe the question is: Which is more likely to be a danger to a plane - loosening the "no devices on during takeoff and landing rule" or encouraging passengers to get into the habit of circumventing the rules?

Is there some way to massage the rule a little bit so that a few common, very probably benign, devices can be used and then make the rule seem more sensible and, therefore, remove the incentive to question the rules?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

It might help if so many of the rules connected to flying were not completely idiotic. Bring a factory-sealed bottle of water to the checkpoint -- you have to throw it away. But of course you can buy an identical bottle 3 feet past the checkpoint. 2.9 ounces of shampoo is not dangerous, but 3.1 is. Of course it's fine to bring two 3-ounce bottles if you can fit them in your stupid plastic bag. Doesn't matter if you're wearing rubber flip flops -- you have to remove your shoes and put them through the x-ray -- which can't see plastic explosives any more than the walk-through metal detector. Oh, and the shoes on your feet have to be x-rayed separately, but the ones in your carry-on can stay there.

We're told so much sheer nonsense that is supposed to keep us "safe" that it's hardly surprising that a lot of people call all of it into question.

I think a lot of us frequent travelers are chafing AT the stupid rules and know how completely idiotic they are and are acting out in our own little ways. the post above is a good example. we are confined, subject to their rules, regulations and pricing. (and it sure does piss me right the f&ck off to have to BUY water as opposed to bring my perfectly good well water with me anyway...)

example of a stupid law that I break all the time but it is actually for safety reasons;

it is a law to wear a seatbelt while driving at all times. not disputed. I am fairly large busted, and trying to back up while wearing a seatbelt is actually dangerous as when I look to my left, the seatbelt rides up and obscures my vision. I ALWAYS back up without my seatbelt on.

it is a rule to have my Kindle off during take off and landing. I am most nervous during these two manuevers, a magazine will not hold my attention. I discreetly start reading my Kindle when the flight attendants have taken their seats. it is better for me, and those around me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

The truth is, it's probably impossible for a typical consumer electronic device with no radio transmission technology inside it to affect a plane.

There's a pretty fundamental problems with that, though, which is that an increasing number of consumer electronic devices do contain a radio transmitter. Kindle, Nook, iPad 3G, iRex DR800SG, etc etc.

Will people realise that a "you must turn off your mobile phone" regulation also applies to such devices?

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's a perception problem, certainly. People "think" the rule is silly. The question is, how do you convince them that they're not as smart as they think they are.

Put the plane in a nose dive and have the captain scream into the intercom "SOMEONE LEFT THEIR EREADER ON!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!"

I guess pilot is another career choice I should cross off my list...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

It might help if so many of the rules connected to flying were not completely idiotic. Bring a factory-sealed bottle of water to the checkpoint -- you have to throw it away. But of course you can buy an identical bottle 3 feet past the checkpoint. 2.9 ounces of shampoo is not dangerous, but 3.1 is. Of course it's fine to bring two 3-ounce bottles if you can fit them in your stupid plastic bag. Doesn't matter if you're wearing rubber flip flops -- you have to remove your shoes and put them through the x-ray -- which can't see plastic explosives any more than the walk-through metal detector. Oh, and the shoes on your feet have to be x-rayed separately, but the ones in your carry-on can stay there.

No doubt that some of the security stuff they're doing is ridiculous. As I mentioned though, this is about safety of flight (FAA), not security (TSA).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

There's a big difference between "probably impossible" and "proven impossible" though.

Yep, but are you willing to bet your life on it? How about the billions that fly each year?

That's what the crux of this really comes down to.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Is there some way to massage the rule a little bit so that a few common, very probably benign, devices can be used and then make the rule seem more sensible and, therefore, remove the incentive to question the rules?

The rule today would allow those devices as long as they're certified. There's nothing stopping any company from doing it. All you have to do is get Apple/Sony/Amazon to put their devices through FAA certification, and everyone would be able to use them on-board during takeoff and landing.

I can guarantee that such companies and the FAA have already talked about this, and there are reasons that it's never been done.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I can guarantee that such companies and the FAA have already talked about this, and there are reasons that it's never been done.

Money, I'd imagine. Getting hardware space-certified is even worse .

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No doubt that some of the security stuff they're doing is ridiculous. As I mentioned though, this is about safety of flight (FAA), not security (TSA).

Yes, but how much do ordinary people separate those in their minds? It's all part of the ridiculous, uncomfortable hassle of modern day air travel. Especially if, as in some airports, you are searched for a second time at the gate.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Money, I'd imagine.

Yes. It's really a money issue. It's not cost effective to do the necessary testing in order to allow these devices. The companies won't pay for it, because there's not enough benefit to make it worth it. The airlines won't pay for it, because there aren't enough people boycotting them due to the "turn off your devices" rule, and they don't exactly have a lot of cash lying around these days.

Of course, we could always upgrade the airplanes themselves with better design/shielding/etc. But then again, refitting a billion dollar airplane isn't exactly cost effective either.

If an airline decides to change their rule without the certification, besides breaking federal law, they're opening themselves up to multi-million dollar lawsuits if something bad does happen.

It's all about the money (usually is).

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yep, but are you willing to bet your life on it? How about the billions that fly each year?

That's what the crux of this really comes down to.

Actually, you are also betting your life that the significant percentage of people who ignore this rule because they "know" it's silly, aren't also ignoring some more important rule - and making a fatal mistake - because they've now gotten into the habit of picking and choosing which rules they will follow.

So which is the bigger risk? That someone's Nintendo DS is going to crash the plane on takeoff, or that someone packs something really dangerous, and against the rules, in their checked luggage because they think that rule is silly?

[Robertb]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I think a lot of us frequent travelers are chafing AT the stupid rules and know how completely idiotic they are and are acting out in our own little ways. the post above is a good example. we are confined, subject to their rules, regulations and pricing. (and it sure does piss me right the f&ck off to have to BUY water as opposed to bring my perfectly good well water with me anyway...)

example of a stupid law that I break all the time but it is actually for safety reasons;

it is a law to wear a seatbelt while driving at all times. not disputed. I am fairly large busted, and trying to back up while wearing a seatbelt is actually dangerous as when I look to my left, the seatbelt rides up and obscures my vision. I ALWAYS back up without my seatbelt on.

it is a rule to have my Kindle off during take off and landing. I am most nervous during these two manuevers, a magazine will not hold my attention. I discreetly start reading my Kindle when the flight attendants have taken their seats. it is better for me, and those around me.

Dear Kindlekitten:

Trying not to think too hard about this... how does breast size affect the seat belt other than adding length to the belt? Being a guy, I love your stance of freedom and applaud it... but this mental picture does not seem to come into focus.

I do the same thing. I turn off my Astak device when they say please turn off devices... and then turn it back on when the flight attendants are seated. Actually... I find most flight attendents LOVE eBook Readers and my blue device really brings them over to try it, play with it, and such. Still, after two years, I can walk the aisles of a large plane and not see another eBook Reader other than my own. I think there is a huge public out there to still be conquered !

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Robertb

Being a guy, I love your stance of freedom and applaud it... but this mental picture does not seem to come into focus.

Yeah, but that's for other reasons.

[MAT160]

I use mine all the time (last time was May 20, 2010) and haven't had any problems.
I'll see what happens in August.