I remember an article I've read around 1983 when this regulation was first introduced. Some plane taking off suffered from instrument interferences at take off, and trouble ceased when they asked some guy to turn off his "Game & Watch". Though they tried hard to reproduce the problem, they couldn't, but the rule nonetheless applies "just in case".
Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
191–200 of 301 posts
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#192There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…
I often fly between two cities here in Norway, and the flight time is just 30 minutes (it takes 5 hours by train, btw). One airline insists on serving coffee to everyone, and the since the coffee is blistering hot, some people usually still have a hot cup of coffee in their hands while landing.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#193It's also only in the USA that airlines are so insistent about the lack of electronics. On Asian domestic airlines, you get the same speech to turn them off, but then the flight attendants will just ignore you while you listen to your MP3 player during take-off. Asian domestic airlines don't fall out of the sky that much more often than American ones.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity. Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year. Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, rang…
I don't understand how planes are seizing productivity when the nearest competitor -- an illegally driven car -- is about 5 times slower. Yes they have quite a bit of overhead during take off, landing, baggage claim, driving to the airport, security screening, etc. But what else can reduce a trip's time from days to hours? The amount of time wasted in that overhead compared to the time gained is minuscule.
In other parts of the world their are trains, which are faster than cars and provide tables and often electricity and wifi, making them a pretty compelling substitute.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were pos…
> Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. Not inside a metal tube, they're not. This is not to say that I'm a "believer" one way or the other, but you should also think about it in comparison to the signals that the navigation equipment is trying to receive with its omnidirectional antenna. I.e., a strong CB radio 26,000 miles away. It wouldn't take any power at all to interfere with it, if the int…
O
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#196There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…
Even though you've stated this in a very confident tone and have a lot of upvotes, I don't really see any evidence for your claim. Stowing carry-ons/no drink service during takeoff could as easily be explained by not wanting projectiles flying about the cabin when the plane bounces, the challenge of keeping your feet while the direction of gravity is shifting around you, etc. None of these reasons apply to electronic devices.
And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.
there was a mythbusters on this. if i recall correctly, though they couldn't find any way to make the plane's instrumentation fail by bombarding it with a myriad of frequencies, even the mythbusters guys (possibly for legal reasons, or because they succumbed to pressure from their network) concluded that because the FAA can't rigorously test every device that comes out, that this is somewhat of a blanket policy to en…
Ha, I intentionally keep my devices on, just because.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#198The wikipedia article is more interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft This sums it up pretty well: "The regulatory agencies and aviation industry take the position that any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable." There's some technical channel sharing problems where phones have access to more towers than designed on land. The FCC can't predict what would happen if phones were a…
Well then we are we flying at all? I could just say, "kids it is safer to not go on vacation this year so we are going to stay at home in these nice padded rooms I built."
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#1991. When so much is at stake to err on the side of caution seems reasonable. 2. I have not been in a plane for a while - so can't quite visualize what it looks like - but in the event of an emergency abort on take off, or a landing that goes wrong - having all loose items stored is a head start in ensuring ones iPad does not become an iGuillotine. Just a thought.
This is why I always look warily at the cups of hot coffee, salads, hamburgers and foods with plastic knives, glass bottles, physical books, newspapers everywhere, babies with their toys and more when I fly 2+ times a month, right? On top of the food and drinks being served to people flying anything but economy class.
I'll take my chances with an iPad in somebody's hands flying into my face over a cup of scalding hot coffee splashing everywhere any day.
It's one thing to tell people to put things away or to watch out for safety's sake during important times like landing/takeoff and turbulent areas (and really, that should only extend to things like clearing the aisles and trays and armrests), and it's another to justify a questionable demand like "turn off your cell phone" in the name of "safety".
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#200If shutting down the devices where so critical the crew would have portable scanners.