Fasten Your Seat Belts But Keep Reading

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Finally some common sense. What a stupid rule. How much interference can a Kindle in airplane mode actually cause? Less than the static electricity from rubbing your pants legs together, that's how much.

I usually just keep reading my kindle during takeoffs and landings, and if I perceive a flight attendant approaching just act like I'm only holding it. I can attest that doing so has caused exactly zero of the planes I've been on to go down in a ball of fire.

But how many that do use a Kindle do not put it in airplane mode? My 650 is safe as it doesn't have WiFi or 3G. But the Kindle less so as it can have both WiFi and maybe 3G on. Just because you are supposed to turn any electronic device with airplane mode into airplane mode doesn't mean that everybody does so.

I have forgotten to put my phone in airplane mode in the past.

[BeccaPrice]

I keep my kindle PW in airplane mode because I don't want Amazon pushing updates to it and breaking the jailbreak. I may update it next week when I'll have access to the jailbreak files to reinstall things... or I may not.

[ucfgrad93]

I keep mine in airplane mode to save the battery. The only time I turn it on is to download books.

[caleb72]

If a plane can be so sensitive to the emissions of a transmitting device (in a phone or ereader for example), wouldn't it be a fairly easy matter for the attendants to carry receivers to alert them to people with devices not in a non-transmitting mode?

We're all talking about these transmitters being more powerful than we understand, but doesn't that make it much simpler to detect and with detection rectify?

I'm very happy to put my Kindle in non-transmitting mode at the drop of a hat if it makes flying safer - in fact I do at all times I'm using it during a flight. So I'm not fighting for my right to transmit at all. But if the problem is about whether you're transmitting or not rather than some other notion, wouldn't there be a reasonably simple way to detect that - especially in flight when the device is maximising the power of the transmitter?

I'm not really a techy in this particular area, so I'm just looking at it from a logical perspective. Is it that hard to detect transmissions that could be powerful enough to interfere with crucial controls?

[ProfCrash]

The board seriously needs a dead horse area where topics that have been beaten to death can be moved.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

The board seriously needs a dead horse area where topics that have been beaten to death can be moved.

This thread ws only started a week ago - with new info that the FAA was moving forward in an area of interest to many, especially here at MR.

Not sure how that is except for maybe some of the side discussions??

[ProfCrash]

The original was new news. How many posts before people were discussing how siily the rules were, whether there was cuse for concern or not, and the like?

[Apache]

I find many of the news posts become nothing more than platforms for some to express their opinions over and over and over and...........................................
Apache

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I'm not really a techy in this particular area, so I'm just looking at it from a logical perspective. Is it that hard to detect transmissions that could be powerful enough to interfere with crucial controls?

I sensed some real knowledge/experience posting in this thread towards the beginning so I'm hoping someone could satisfy my curiosity on this one.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I sensed some real knowledge/experience posting in this thread towards the beginning so I'm hoping someone could satisfy my curiosity on this one.

Yes. It should be posible to detect that. But, then finding where is the cuplprit and asking however own it shut it down...

Hence the "shut down everything" rule.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by caleb72

If a plane can be so sensitive to the emissions of a transmitting device (in a phone or ereader for example), wouldn't it be a fairly easy matter for the attendants to carry receivers to alert them to people with devices not in a non-transmitting mode?

I'm sure that flight attendents have better things to do. A simple "turn off electronics for take-off and landing" makes a lot more sense. Is it really the end of the world if you can't read for 15 minutes?

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

It's about time...

As a pilot, my company issued me an ipad so we could have our electronic publications (approach plates, departure procedures, and enroute charts) available ALL the time...kind of hard to takeoff/land the airplane when you have to turn off your device below 10,000 ft! And that i already approved by the FAA!

So, yes, it is silly to say that electronics can't be used.

However, I can attest through personal experience (when someone forgot to turn off their cell phone...not me honest ) that cell phones DO interfere with some of the aircraft systems. Most noticeably the radios start cutting out and you get weird beeping sounds on the frequency. I haven't seen the heading bug start spinning or the aircraft start a descent uncontrolled because of it, but you never know exactly what the effects are.

One or two cell-phones/ 3G/4G devices not turned off...probabaly not a big deal....100 of them, could cause issues. So how does the flight attendant make sure everyone has their devices tuned to "airplane mode"?? Especially when it's obvious that some people *cough*usuallee*cough* don't bother following the rules that are there...because they don't think they should have to.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Finally a voice of reason in this never ending debate which resurrects itself every 6 months. Having radio communication interrupted even slightly where a controllers call could be misinterpreted is a BAD thing. The critical time for radio communication with the tower is take off and landing. Put a functioning blackberry near a speaker phone and you'll get a sense of the problem. Whether its ereaders with 3g or cell phones they should be off. I for one don't like the new rule for consideration. I get tired of these threads hearing people with no regard for the rules that 'don't apply to me and these rules are silly' who have no earthly idea of radiated emmissions and a circuit's potential radiated suceptibility. They are real phenomenon that avionics engineers go to great lengths in design and test to minimize. I am an aerospace engineer, I know. I personally would rather they be just turned off as I don't trust the majority of folks to put the thing in airplane mode.

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I sensed some real knowledge/experience posting in this thread towards the beginning so I'm hoping someone could satisfy my curiosity on this one.

Yes, I believe it would be hard for the attendant to do that. The interference not only depends on the radiated emmisions of the phone/reader, but also on the radiated suceptibility of the device or circuit being interupted. They can couple in weird ways that's not always intuitive, hence the rigorous design, test and certification required.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure that flight attendents have better things to do. A simple "turn off electronics for take-off and landing" makes a lot more sense. Is it really the end of the world if you can't read for 15 minutes?

What you've written makes no sense. They're wasting their time either way.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

Yes, I believe it would be hard for the attendant to do that. The interference not only depends on the radiated emmisions of the phone/reader, but also on the radiated suceptibility of the device or circuit being interupted. They can couple in weird ways that's not always intuitive, hence the rigorous design, test and certification required.

Thanks - I wasn't sure how reliable something like that would be. Obviously this thing is a big customer issue or they wouldn't even be bothered to investigate so thoroughly and potentially make changes to their regulations.

It looks like they are really only concerned with the radio transmitter aspect so it would have been ideal if there was a way to easily detect it. I thought there must have been a reason why such a device wasn't already announced.