Take-off, Landing, and Your Ereader -- A Poll

[ProfCrash]

The passenger was an idiot. If you are asked, you turn it off. It does not matter if it is the flight attendant or the passenger sitting next to you. No matter your position on the subject, the person breaking the rules is responsible for politely turn the device off when asked directly.

Yes, you are responsible for turning it off when the announcement is made to the plane. The entire reason we are discussing this is because there are those of us who don't. If you are in that category, you are asking for really serious trouble if you ignore a direct request from the Flight Attendant and then abuse them. We are the ones breaking the rules, we are the one responsible for being smart when someone calls us on our rule breaking.

[laughingdragons]

I put my reader to the side when they ask.

[heeby]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

The passenger was an idiot. If you are asked, you turn it off. It does not matter if it is the flight attendant or the passenger sitting next to you.

I disagree regarding passengers "telling" me to do something. No passenger has any authority over me and I will ignore them. But as we have seen here there are those who will tattle and bring the FA into it and since they have the assumed authority I will deal with that when it happens to avoid further problems. Anyone who would try to "command" a fellow passenger is just wanting to be in charge and have things their way...not actually making things "right" or "better". Again this is not about safety but about power and control. Some people cannot mind their own business. Blindly following rules is not an admirable trait...nor is pushing yourself into another's affairs when there is no danger...and there is NOT any danger here. This reminds me of the kind of people who approach strangers and berate them for their reading choice or something similar. There is no valid reason to inject yourself into someone else's affairs in these cases.

I wonder if those passengers who have the cheek to tell their fellow passengers to turn something off will tell the pilots to turn their ipads off as well? The ipads used in cockpits aren't specially shielded or anything. So if there is a danger then you should speak up. But there isn't and it's just about being a good little follower and following rules...not about common sense and being a thinking individual who choose right and reasonable over "because I was told to". I do not do things that would harm or endanger others...THAT would be wrong. Reading a Kindle isn't.

[JoeD]

I think anyone who doesn't follow a rule that is put in place for your own and others safety on an aircraft deserves to be banned from future flights. It doens't matter whether we think the rule won't improve safety in any way (as long as it doesn't harm safety).

I'm pretty sure my devices with all transmissions turned off won't interfere with the aircraft systems, but I'm not an expert, it's not my job and most importantly it's not my plane nor do I have the right to risk other passengers lives no matter how certain I am that I'm right.

The choice you have is follow the airlines rules, change airlines to one that doesnt have such a rule (if you can find one) or don't fly at all.

If you take electronic devices totally out of the equation and for a moment consider the rule is, you can't read a paper book during take off or landing because of safety concerns over interferance. I'm sure we'd all consider it utter rubbish, but if I want to fly on that airline, I'd still abide by the rule and hope that in time airlines take expert advice and realise a book won't impact the aircrafts systems. Until then, if you disagree, don't fly and lobby for change.

Now if the rule wasn't about safety, for example they decide you can't eat your own sweets onboard but have to buy their overpriced selection. I'd be much more supportive of those ignoring that rule, why? because them doing so does not put my life at risk in any way, nor does it inconvenience me or cause any discomfort.

[DiapDealer]

The choice you have is follow the airlines rules, change airlines to one that doesnt have such a rule (if you can find one) or don't fly at all.

Actually... like it it or not, ignoring the rule seems to be a feasible option that often seems to carry no consequences.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by heeby

I believe you are correct. From my understanding it is not a law nor is disobeying a flight attendant illegal in this instance.

If you're in the US it's afaik a federal crime to disobey a flight attendant. Now if they instructed you to do something that put you or others at risk, I'm sure when it came to a trial you'd get off scott free and the flight attendant would be out of a job, but when it comes to them enforcing airline rules that are in place on the grounds of safety, I'd expect a court wouldn't be so lenient.

@ProfCrash: The reason they probably don't penalise not following the initial announcment is that it's easy for passengers not to hear it or claim they didn't. You don't have that luxury once a flight attendant has specifically told you. I would however be rather miffed if a plane was delayed because the attendant had to visit each passenger in turn to ask them to turn their device off.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually... like it it or not, ignoring the rule seems to be a feasible option that often seems to carry no consequences.

I don't believe it is a feasible option as you're still potentially putting others lives at risk. If you don't like a rule that is in place over safety concerns imo you either suck it up and follow it or don't fly.

Sure you might get away with not following it as I suspect 99% of those who don't follow it will do. Chances are high that it will also have no impact on the aircraft. That doesn't imo make it right to do so.

For what it's worth, I think we should be allowed to use electronic devices at any point during a flight (as long as wifi, bt and other transmission options are turned off), but it's not my call, my plane, nor just my life. So until airlines change their minds, I'll continue to follow the rules.

[heeby]

Since we have no other way to get to other continents in most cases "not flying" is impractical. You often there the "if you don't like it don't so and so" when someone has a problem with stupidity. That is a very weak response to wrongs. The TSA and airlines have used the guise of safety to implement a lot of stupid rules and actions. Those who so blindly defend this actions are part of the problem not someone who reads a harmless Kindle on a plane. Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.

Every flight you take has active consumer electronics on it...whether people who don't turn them off and aren't noticed, or those who forget items in their bag, or those used by the pilots of flight crew...and planes are not falling out of the sky and in fact none have EVER crashed due to this. Common sense people. I do not text when driving, or get drunk and fly a plane, or shoot at houses or any other irresponsible behaviour. But I will not turn off a Kindle unless backed into a corner...most of the time you can just cover it up or say you are turning it off and when they leave get on with it and nothing happens. Again proof is in the pudding about safety.

I would love to see a list of the rules those of you who are so insistent break every day, and I know you do because nobody follows all rules.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by JoeD

If you're in the US it's afaik a federal crime to disobey a flight attendant. Now if they instructed you to do something that put you or others at risk, I'm sure when it came to a trial you'd get off scott free and the flight attendant would be out of a job, but when it comes to them enforcing airline rules that are in place on the grounds of safety, I'd expect a court wouldn't be so lenient.

@ProfCrash: The reason they probably don't penalise not following the initial announcment is that it's easy for passengers not to hear it or claim they didn't. You don't have that luxury once a flight attendant has specifically told you. I would however be rather miffed if a plane was delayed because the attendant had to visit each passenger in turn to ask them to turn their device off.

This is a rule dating back to the stone age of electronics. That not even the airlines are taking it seriously is shown by the simple fact that they don't scan for devices that are not turned off. It would be extremely easy to just move through the plane and locate every device that has not been powered off.

Also please note that they want to abandon that rule. If there was even 1/1,000,000th of a % of a chance that something might go wrong if every single passenger on a plane had a dozen devices running they would not even consider it. There are only two things standing in the way. The first is bureaucratic inertia, the second are passengers who through years and years of conditioning have become afraid of this ghost. Just imagine if they rescinded the rule and then a plane had some problem. Even if it was completely unrelated (and all studies have shown that there is no interference) that decision would be blamed in the press and heads would roll.

So it is quite likely that this nonsense will continue over some time and will not be strictly enforced because the airlines know how ridiculous it is. So those of you who are afraid will just have to get over it or take the bus/boat/train.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JoeD

@ProfCrash: The reason they probably don't penalise not following the initial announcment is that it's easy for passengers not to hear it or claim they didn't.

Or not understand the language that the announcement was made in.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by heeby

Since we have no other way to get to other continents in most cases "not flying" is impractical. You often there the "if you don't like it don't so and so" when someone has a problem with stupidity.

Then lobby for change. When you make the choice to board an airline, you should agree to follow their safety rules throughout the flight.

That is a very weak response to wrongs. The TSA and airlines have used the guise of safety to implement a lot of stupid rules and actions. Those who so blindly defend this actions are part of the problem not someone who reads a harmless Kindle on a plane. Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.

You misunderstand me. I _agree_ that kindles and other electronic devices probably post little risk during take off and landing. I believe there's quite a bit of evidence that supports the lack of interference. However, it's not my plane and whilst that rule is in place over safety concerns and there are other passengers onboard, I'll follow it.

I would love to see a list of the rules those of you who are so insistent break every day, and I know you do because nobody follows all rules.

I doubt you'll find anyone who doesn't break one rule or another. However when it comes to rules in place for safety and when breaking that rule might impact others, we should all follow them (and if we disagree with it, lobby for change).

There may be a load of laws/rules about safety I don't follow in my life, for example when I'm in my own home, because at the end of the day, I'm the only one who will be impacted by it. Yet when my actions might impact others, I do follow the rules.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

WiFi is now offered on planes and many passangers are using it. We have yet to hear of a plane crashing because of the use of WiFi inflight.

That particular wifi device much like the inbuild flight entertainment systems are specifically tested for causing interference with the particular model of plane they're installed on.

Any device which has passed those tests can be used safely.

However, how can cabin crew be expected to know which devices passengers use have or have not been tested? They can't, so it's easy to just have a blanket ban during the most dangerous part of a flight.

Point me to one case where a plane crashed because a planeful of people continued to listen to their IPods, use their noise reduction head sets, and read on their e-readers, netbooks, or tablets.

You can't.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority found electromagnetic signals emitted by phones can produce 'errors' on instrument displays and noise on pilot radios.

Blase: passengers don't think their devices will affect the plane

It received 35 safety alerts blamed on phones over six years.

Phone interference was cited as a possible factor in a 2003 crash in New Zealand in which eight people died after the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.

The pilot had been calling home.

And in 2007, the navigational equipment of a Boeing 737 in the U.S. failed after take off, only to reactivate after a passenger was told to turn off a sat-nav.

David Carson, an engineer with Boeing, stressed that problems do not occur in every case.

'And that's good,' he said.

Warning against complacency, he told the New York Times: 'It's bad in that people assume it never will.'

Emphasis mine.

It's unlikely you'll find a case that is 100% down to an electronic device interfering and causing a crash, because crashes are usually never down to one specific incident but a culmination of events where any one part not occurring could have averted the accident.

There is evidence for and against the use of electronic devices on planes. Especially with planes been designed to avoid interference from electronic devices. Some will not cause any interference and I hope in time a way is found to certify devices for use on a plane and that airlines can find a way to police that. Then we can all be happy.

Also, as extra info on the 2003 crash, as the above quote makes it sound like the pilot was on the phone at the time of the crash rather than flying the plane, he wasn't but the phone was still active.

The report can be found here

Now it's a stretch of an example as the pilots device was _MUCH_ closer to the electronics than any passengers device likely would be and it wasn't the sole reason for the crash, nor the most probable (despite what the news paper reports at the time would have people believe) as mentioned there's usually many events that lead to a crash and the papers wanted to run a panic story about phones bringing planes out of the sky (as they try to do with pretty much any story they can)

Going back to passenger devices, I still believe the chance of interference very slim from devices like kindles and ipads, but it's not my call, nor my plane and in that regard I think whilst the rules are in-place we should follow them.

Also whilst there remains a slim chance of interference during the most critical parts of flight (take-off/landing) where pilots have next to no time to react/troubleshoot, we should do what we can to minimise risk even if it means a slight inconvenience of not reading or listening to your music for 30 minutes. Now if kindles and iPads can be certified as safe for use during that part of flight, it's a different matter.

Edit: More food for thought

[heeby]

Originally Posted by JoeD

There may be a load of laws/rules about safety I don't follow in my life, for example when I'm in my own home, because at the end of the day, I'm the only one who will be impacted by it. Yet when my actions might impact others, I do follow the rules.

But they DON'T impact anyone's safety in this case. The just do not. But people keep using the "might" word, They do not.

It is a stupid as saying you cannot eat bananas because someone MIGHT drop the peel and someone else MIGHT slip and fall like in cartoons. I really doubt people would stop eating bananas if some moron made that a law. And that is what it sounds like to hear people defend the issue.

Re lobbying...ineffective without loads of cash and I have other more pressing issues. So I will deal with this one how I can. Resistance,

Re your example...it is vague and said "possible factor". That is not an example of it as a cause. And GSM noise interference is well known and harmless. I can give you "anecdotes" about people dying from choking on an apple. That is not an example of apples being dangerous.

[HarryT]

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that although Boeing state, in the article that Joe linked to, that there have been dozens of documented cases of handheld devices interfering with aircraft systems, that you actually know better than Boeing; that you are better qualified than Boeing are to decide what you should or shouldn't be using on an aircraft. Is that a fair summary of your position?

[ProfCrash]

Resistance is appropriate for Jim Crow laws and things of that nature.

Reading your e-reader during take off and landing is not on the same level. So I will turn mine off if my seat mate asks me or the Flight Attendant tells me to directly. Because it is not that big of a deal.

We will all watch the footage of you being handcuffed at the airport because you could not grasp the concept that it really is a minor thing and not worth all the huffing and puffing.

I prefer to read on my Kindle and will break the rule but I am not going to pretend that it is such a big thing that I should resist the man when asked to turn it off.