Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maybe the FAA Gadget Ban On Liftoff and Landing Isn't So Bad

Posted by timothy on from the you-have-your-opinion-I-have-mine dept.

First time accepted submitter oyenamit writes "Ars Technica reported a while back that FAA is going to reconsider the ban on use of electronic gadgets during take-off and landing. If this ban is revoked, you will be free to use your gizmos for an additional 30 minutes or so. Peter Bright has an interesting take on why lifting of the ban may not be such a good idea."

10 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Gahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.

    1. Re:Gahh by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          Nice quote, considering you're quoting something that wasn't said.

          And I guess either you're young, or have been living under a rock. Jan 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549.

          There are circumstances where it's good not to have your laptop, tablet, phone, etc, all occupying your space. Consider August 2, 2005, Air France Flight 358.

            In both of these circumstances, it was advantageous for the passengers to be able to disembark the aircraft expeditiously and unencumbered by extra items.

          Planes only crash land, when they are near land or water. That is the minutes surrounding takeoff and landing. During the rough of landings, objects in your hands can become objects flying around the cabin.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Gahh by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.

      ...So it's selfish to use a computer on a plane, but not selfish to complain that 200 people are not forced to sit silently because you can't be bothered to sleep at night?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Don't Want to Use Your Gadgets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...then don't use them.

    Idiot.

  3. Attention by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."

    And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...

    You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  4. person sitting next to the user by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA makes it sound as if keeping the ban is simply a nice way to preserve some "spiritual" time for yourself when you aren't tempted to use gadgets. That's not nearly as important as the effect on the person sitting next to the gadget user. Flying on airplanes has already become a really miserable experience these days. If I had to sit next to someone yakking nonstop on their cell phone for a 10-hour flight, I would go absolutely nuts. Even in places like the public library or the waiting room for jury duty, there are cell phone blabberers who simply cannot be convinced that their conversation is anappropriate and bothersome to others.

    --
    Find free books.
    1. Re:person sitting next to the user by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally sitting in a aluminium death tube

      The most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport. Which is why I always congratulate myself for getting to the check in counter in piece. Seriously, over 300 people in my state alone (Western Australia) die on our roads. About 10 Australians die on aircraft per year around the world.

      Either that or get a private cabin on a train and enjoy the dining car at your leisure.

      Where's the road from Australia to Singapore?

      There is no such thing as a short drive from where I live and I've done more then enough of those two day trips up north for one lifetime, besides there's nothing up there but bogans, heat, flies and dust.

      Start after normal breakfast, leave after 9:00am (completely miss peak traffic) drive till around 1:00pm, you'll be hungry pick a nice spot to enjoy a meal and an hour break, drive till around 5:00pm

      7.5 hours of driving at 120 KPH (10 KM's over the speed limit here in West Oz and you're unlikely to sustain 120 KM/h for that entire 7.5 hours) is 900 KM, good work, you have 2 to 3 more days of this before you reach the nearest capital city, Adelaide. Meanwhile I've flown 5,000 KM's to another country, passed through customs and am now enjoying my holiday at my destination.

      Spending 3 days getting to my destination wastes 5 good days of holiday time, talk about the worst way to spend my time off.

      Driving eight hours or screwing around for four hours (taxi to airport, wasting time in airport, insanely boring uncomfortable flight, wasting time in airport, taxi to where ever you are going), I prefer driving.

      In reality all you've done is limit the places you can go. No crossing oceans, you cant go further then 800 KM's. What's the point of even taking a holiday if you're not going to see anything new or exciting. Might as well stay home.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Government as Jesus by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one.

    Okay, I've read enough. He doesn't really have a good argument for this.

    How did this lame article get promoted?

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

  6. Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is incredibly arbitrary.

    I don't like allowing others to have arbitrary power over me. Fuck that. Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.

  7. Neither new nor interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."

    And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...

    You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....

    I've heard this argument repeatedly and it is out of hand absurd. What of all the people who can't understand the language, are hard of hearing, too young etc.? Want to ban them from flying. As with all books/magazines/newspapers. Not to mention any medication which may make the occupants sleepy.

    Perhaps we should require everyone to become a qualified airline pilot just in case!? And arrest them if they've had any alcohol - after all they may need to take over the plane. Next step: ban flying altogether.

    Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?