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

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Well I've had my say,

I just don't see why anyone can't just switch off briefly,

And then back on, it takes just a moment,

Its Polite,

Oh well, Whatever floats your boat,

I'd do it, what more can I say !

Politeness and courtesy to those around you is dying. We live in a world of self entitlement. Sadly, as this thread proves, a lot of people are ME, ME, ME types who lack courtesy for those around them.

[kovidgoyal]

Incidentally I predict that in 5 years people will be using their cell phones to make calls from planes, or using their mobile broadband connection to surf the internet. The only difference will be that the airlines will charge you for the privilege.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Incidentally I predict that in 5 years people will be using their cell phones to make calls from planes, or using their mobile broadband connection to surf the internet. The only difference will be that the airlines will charge you for the privilege.

I flew Delta recently and they had a Wi-Fi hookup above 10K feet. Which they charged for...

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Surprisingly enough, pilots in general aren't considered to be complete idiots. In fact, *gasp*, many actually do have actual degrees in various sciences and are in general fairly well educated folks. I know it's hard to fathom from that high perch up there, Kovid, but amazingly, this is precisely what the pilot of this flight actually did! Wow! Imagine that! A pilot, someone who is by the nature of their trade a fairly analytical individual, actually didn't leap to a totally asinine conclusion, formed a theory, and performed a test of the theory before arriving at the conclusion. Gee, the wonder of it all...

Here's the thing... We are VERY bad at making risk assessments. Our brains are wired to deal with trees and grasslands, and ephemeral waves traveling at near-infinite speeds, personal movements at somewhat near the speed of sound, and chemical reactions that can level buildings.

To quote from Bruce Schneier on security

Originally Posted by cmdahler

Six years ago, Boeing received word that a laptop computer was suspected of shutting off the autopilot system on one of its jets during a commercial flight from London to Paris. The pilot conducted tests by turning the computer on and off, which the airline said again triggered the autopilot error. The airline "felt 100% confident that it was a particular laptop" causing the problem, says Bruce Donham, a senior electromagnetics engineer at Boeing.

Boeing sent engineers to Europe, purchased the laptop from the passenger, and tried unsuccessfully to re-create the problem from the same seat and during the exact time of the flight. Later, Boeing arranged to fly the empty plane on the London to Paris route, moving the laptop throughout the aircraft. No interference was discovered. The aircraft maker then brought the laptop back to Seattle and tested it in a Boeing lab. Donham says the tests showed no correspondence between electronic emissions from the laptop and the autopilot computer.

[/quote]

I'm trained as a scientist and work as a science teacher. If it is not reproducible, it doesn't matter how confident the airline feels.

But let us say it was the laptop, and it happened on this particular flight. What are the odds that it happens again?

Let us say that the US bans laptops on flights as a result of this data. How much money would be lost to productivity due to long flights where they could not use their laptops? How many fliers would switch from US airlines to foreign airlines where they can use their laptops? How many fliers would use their laptops and hide them when flight attendants come by?

You can worry about any threat. If you are really worried about threats, you can wrap yourself in steel and bubble wrap and only leave the house when nobody else is around. And even then, there are risks.

The question is how much effort we are willing to go to, in order to reduce risk, and how effective these efforts are.

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

Now that would be convincing to someone used to trial and error.

And what flight crew would want to stand before a judge and say "Well, I didn't think it would cause a problem the second time"?

What flight crew will be standing in front of a judge if the problem were caused a second time? As has been pointed out, either it would not be a problem, or the flight crew would be dead.

Now, I will turn off my cell phone on flights. It serves no useful purpose while flying and it is not worth fighting the flight attendant, who is just doing his/her job anyway in order to keep it on (although to be honest, if I don't turn it off, nobody will notice unless it rings)

However, when I used to read on my cell phone, the one flight I took, I turned off the radio function and kept reading on it. If asked, I would have shown the flight attendant that I had done so, but kept reading unless an issue was made of it.

I never had an issue flying with my PDA on to read from, and although I rarely fly, I doubt that there will be an issue with my ebook reader, but in either case, if a flight attendent should be concerned, I will explain that there is no radio signal from them and ask politely if I can keep reading. I expect that there will be no problem if explained clearly, but will deal with it when it happens.

Of course, given how little I fly these days, it is not really a problem.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Politeness and courtesy to those around you is dying. We live in a world of self entitlement. Sadly, as this thread proves, a lot of people are ME, ME, ME types who lack courtesy for those around them.

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.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I flew Delta recently and they had a Wi-Fi hookup above 10K feet. Which they charged for...

Cool, I'm flying Delta in a couple of weeks to Seattle. I would be thrilled to have an internet connection on the plane. Though paying the airline for it, not so much

[pshrynk]

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.

And that's a good thing. In it's time and place. Imagine the scenario presented above with the theatre fire, etc. I'm all for the idea of proving one way or another that personal electronics have an effect on avionics. But I'm also with the guy who enjoys not having to hear someone yelling his conversation with someone on a cell phone while flying.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Cool, I'm flying Delta in a couple of weeks to Seattle. I would be thrilled to have an internet connection on the plane. Though paying the airline for it, not so much

I didn't find out how much it was, since I had my Kindle and plenty to read and really did not care what my boss was wanting me to do when I got back from vacation.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

And that's a good thing. In it's time and place. Imagine the scenario presented above with the theatre fire, etc. I'm all for the idea of proving one way or another that personal electronics have an effect on avionics. But I'm also with the guy who enjoys not having to hear someone yelling his conversation with someone on a cell phone while flying.

I would be fine if airlines imposed a rule saying no talking on cellphones as it disturbs other passengers. I'm not OK with using that as a justification for keeping cell phones turned off.

[HorridRedDog]

kovidgoyal, I notice that at the bottom of your messages it say:
"Notice to all: I can not provide assistance with DRM removal"

I don't see any reason that DRM should apply to me. Can you help me with a book that needs DRM removal?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

kovidgoyal, I notice that at the bottom of your messages it say:
"Notice to all: I can not provide assistance with DRM removal"

I don't see any reason that DRM should apply to me. Can you help me with a book that needs DRM removal?

I imagine you think you are making a point here? Perhaps, I need to clarify my position some more. I am not really talking about whether you should or should not obey airline rules on turning off electronics. I am saying that the rule itself needs to be justified based on empirical data.

Personally, if someone, either cabin crew or my fellow passengers ask me to switch off a reader, I always do, as I don't think the argument is worth it.

Nonetheless, I still feel that the rule itself is wrong and needs to be questioned. Are you saying (like lots of politicians seem to do these days) that the act of questioning a rule/law is itself wrong?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Nonetheless, I still feel that the rule itself is wrong and needs to be questioned. Are you saying (like lots of politicians seem to do these days) that the act of questioning a rule/law is itself wrong?

On board an aircraft is, however, the wrong time to question it. Contact the FAA and argue with them about it it - it's their rule, not the airlines'.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On board an aircraft is, however, the wrong time to question it. Contact the FAA and argue with them about it it - it's their rule, not the airlines'.

And as I said, I don't argue about it on an aircraft. I do however argue about it here as I hate to see the mentality of "the existence of a rule is sufficient justification for it" growing.

In any case, this discussion is largely academic. As I said, in five years we will all be using electronics on planes. Of course, at that time no one will have conducted studies to determine whether doing so is really safe or not. Instead the airlines will be responding to the profit motive.

And if using electronics is really unsafe, the way we will find out about it is through increased crash percentages.

And then you will have a different group of people arguing that using electronics on planes is perfectly safe, after all, the FAA says so, so it must be true.

[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.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I imagine you think you are making a point here? Perhaps, I need to clarify my position some more. ....

Personally, if someone, either cabin crew or my fellow passengers ask me to switch off a reader, I always do, as I don't think the argument is worth it.

....

No, kovidgoyal, your position is clear. It's all those that think that just because THEY don't agree with a rule that it should not apply to them.

My example should be very clear to others. kovidgoyal does not want to be troubled by those that think the rules don't apply to them.

But think of yourself as a cabin attendant. You are told that you MUST ask the passengers to turn off ALL electronic devices. I'm willing to bet that many of them agree with you and I.

They want to keep their job, and they will do it. Why make even a minor problem for them.

And if you do turn "it" off before they get to you, they will probably think nothing more of you than "nice guy".

If they have to ask another passenger to turn "it" off I don't think that "nice guy" will be what they will be thinking.

".... Are you saying (like lots of politicians seem to do these days) that the act of questioning a rule/law is itself wrong?"

Oh I think that many of the laws in the past 40 years are not only wrong, but that some of them are unconstitutional. But the government has the "law" and the guns. THERE WILL BE DONE.