Slashdot Mirror
Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies
Nick Bilton, Lead Technology writer for The New York Times Bits Blog, called the FAA to complain about its gadget policies on flights and got an unexpected reply. Laura J. Brown, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs, said that it might be time to change some of those policies and promised they'd take a “fresh look” at the use of personal electronics on planes. From the article: "Yes, you read that correctly. The F.A.A., which in the past has essentially said, 'No, because I said so,' is going to explore testing e-readers, tablets and certain other gadgets on planes. The last time this testing was done was 2006, long before iPads and most e-readers existed. (The bad, or good, news: The F.A.A. doesn’t yet want to include the 150 million smartphones in this revision.)"
Obviously, electronic devices can't bring down a plane. Millions of fliers every week "forget" to turn off their devices, and nary a plane goes down. Can common sense finally prevail? Arbitrary rules reduce respect for the necessary ones. For example: No headphones during take-off? Makes perfect sense - take-off is one of the most sensitive times of the flight. If someone needs to yell directions, you need to hear them. Reading a book on your Kindle? Not so much.
Having said that, of course, if my plane is going down, I'd probably take off my headphones. YMMV.
Cemil.
That would make complete sense if you believed that 1) no one has ever had a cell phone on during takeoff and landing and b) someone who had nefarious intentions would abide by the rule.
...is the use of devices like Bluetooth mice and other short-range radio devices that don't communicate to a distance more than a few feet. I want to be able to use Bluetooth headphones and Bluetooth mice on a plane where getting tangled up with wires is a very unappealing prospect.
I'm not too worried about cell phones acting as such, as we'll be too high and going too fast to make that do any good (plus I don't want a plane full of chatterboxes), and I'm not terribly worried about wifi, as either the airline will provide a means for it or else they won't. The only time that for me, wifi might be useful is if I'm travelling with a group that's split up and we want to share text communication or else want to collaborate on documents. Then something ad-hoc might actually make sense.
That's about it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You can ban pretty much anything in the name of safety.
While I agree with what you're saying, and think it may be a good idea it doesn't seem to be the point of the rule -
I'm perfectly allowed to read a hardcover book during these times.
Word.
It doesn't even really matter if the device is capable of creating interference. The fact is, when the aircraft suddenly jumps and the lights flicker out and the oxygen masks drop from the overhead compartments, everyone and their flight attendants are going to be glaring down with dirty looks at the guy with the little glowing electronic device, thinking "what the FUCK did you DO?!" and they're not going to care one bit what the answer is. Not even the NTSB report that comes out months later is going to vindicate him or ease that guilt one bit.
Yeah, I used to be that guy. :-P
You have to wonder about the planes when they claim they are vulnerable to em interference from a device who's em radiation is less than that of your watch, the microwave in the onplane galley, the lightning bolts that go off even on clear days, or the radio station 150 miles away.
(Not all devices have this kind of shielding, but some do. Anything with wifi turned on definitely do NOT.)
This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity? It seems like such an obvious solution, like adding security doors to the cockpit after 9/11.
what about people reading the 2" thick hardcover book at those times?
If it is about "not prepared to deal with an emergency", then all activities during those times should not be allowed, this includes reading newspapers, and looking out the window.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
.. and whose job is it to maintain the list of which of the hundreds of thousands of consumer electronic devices comply and which failed? And do you expect the flight attendants to be able to tell the difference between every one? How do you implement this? Maybe a nice little (easily forged) sticker for the back of the device?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity? It seems like such an obvious solution, like adding security doors to the cockpit after 9/11.
To be fair, much as it should be the airline's job to ensure the aircraft can't be affected, replacing the cockpit door is a heck of a lot easier than replacing aircraft avionics or rewiring them to prevent interference. Even before you consider the cost of the new hardware, that could require taking the aircraft out of service for weeks at a cost of six figures or more of lost revenue per week.
Newer aircraft should be more robust, but the older ones will be around for decades yet.
This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity?
You have to realize that most aircraft in service have been in service for decades. For example, Boeing 737s first came out in 1968. MD-88s/90s came out in 79/95. Except for the MD-90, these planes were designed and produced when a "personal electronic device" was a radio set that would fit on a table, maybe an 8-track or cassette player. It wasn't really expected that they'd run into much interference from passenger devices. It is very hard and expensive to retrofit aircraft already in service as well as to adjust production lines. A lot of people don't realize that the plane they're flying in very possibly was designed and built before they were born.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
People trot this tired line out again and again with NO BACKING. If that is the case why isn't the order then "Everything must be put away for takeoff, no electronics, books, or anything else may be in your hands." They don't mind if you have a book out, I've done it many a time. Guess what? A book, particularly a hard cover one, will do more damage than a phone, yet only electronics are banned. That is not the reason for the ban. Sorry, try again (or just go look at the FAA's actual policies, they aren't a secret).
No, it's just interference. "Potential for projectiles" is an example of the kinds of additional excuses that those in favor of rules for rules sake start to tack on when their original reason starts to wear thin.
Wait, do you really think a 737 that was built in the last 10 years has avionics from 1968? Or that the old planes have never had GPS retrofitted into the cockpit?
And, I have seen cockpits of those MD-88s and all of them are glass - they were obviously retrofitted with new avionics - Delta Airlines, fyi.
If they just used that as there reasoning- that they require everyone to pay attention, then they would have more credibility. However, they give the bogus excuse that it's for interference, that they lose all credibility. They confiscate my toothpaste and nail trimmers in the name of safety, and I'm supposed to believe that my ereader will bring down the plane and they let it slide?
I'm sorry you have such trouble understanding basic physics.
His argument is not that objects flying about the cabin aren't hazardous, it's that small electronic devices are no more dangerous than books. I don't know about Australia, but on airlines in the USA, I've never been asked to put away a book or magazine for takeoff, while flight attendants regularly warn people that all electronic devices (Kindles, iPods, phones, etc) *must* be put away for takeoff.
Why do I have to put away my 8 ounce Kindle during takeoff when the guy next to me gets to read his thick 24 ounce hardcover book? Granted, if the book hits you in the right way (open pages against your body), it might hurt less than a phone hitting on you on edge, but surely airlines aren't relying on geometry of a book strike lessening the blow?
If your airlines make you put away all handheld objects, then they are much more consistent than our airlines.