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

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."

Comments

Gahh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Gahh

[mug funky]

how much sleep do you get in that half hour? do you manage to see the safety demonstration?

at least you'll be relaxed if there's an emergency landing.

Re:Gahh

[AK Marc]

Who are you quoting in your reply? Planes can land on water, so long as there are no waves (like a large river) and the plane is being piloted by a water landing instructor. And that turns out relatively successful, even when people open the wrong doors, letting the plane flood.

Re:Gahh

[ackthpt]

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.

I SAID I CAN'T HEAR YOU! THE PLANE IS TAKING OFF RIGHT NOW! PLEASE SAY IT AGAIN LOUDER!

Yeah, almost as bad as the fuckwits in restaurants and theaters.

Re:Gahh

[JWSmythe]

    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.

   

Re:Gahh

[crafty.munchkin]

how much sleep do you get in that half hour? do you manage to see the safety demonstration?

at least you'll be relaxed if there's an emergency landing.

Usually I get 25 minutes sleep in that half hour. I've seen the safety presentation for every type of aircraft that I fly in currently. If there is an emergency, I hope they don't wake me up for it.

Sleeping is by far the best way to fly.

Re:Gahh

[JWSmythe]

Sleeping is by far the best way to fly.

I'm of the humble opinion that every airline should offer Xanax to passengers as they board. I have a high tolerance for an awful lot of things, but Xanax puts me right to sleep.. I can be oblivious to the world from the time they push back from the gate, to the time the plane lands. It's really nice to wake up all relaxed and refreshed when I get to where I'm going. :)

But (before anyone says it) the plane landing is enough to wake me up. That's a normal landing. If there were an incident, the adrenaline jolt would make me wide awake instantly. I hate it when there's bad turbulence. I wake up, see that we're not there yet, and go back to sleep.

As I understand it, I am the perfect passenger for the flight crew.

If I start multiple flights a week, I'll have to get doc to prescribe me some more Xanax. :) Crying babies? Annoying people in my row? No problem.

Re:Gahh

[Anonymus]

If you're on the plane, chances are it's safe to fly.

Re:Gahh

[gl4ss]

you're supposed to stow them away when taking off and landing anyways - the issue is actually just about if you have to turn them off..........

Re:Gahh

[TheDarkMaster]

I hope you are not the pilot :-)

Re:Gahh

[ultranova]

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?

Re:Gahh

[dave420]

Hubris.

Re:Gahh

[DrgnDancer]

Not only is it possible it was rather famously done in the last few years by a pilot with essentially no engine power. There were pictures and video on all the major networks and most new websites; this one included IIRC (or at least links to pictures and video). Not only is GP replying to nonexistent quotes in his parent, he's quite wrong. Captain Sully proved that a skilled and lucky pilot can ditch even the largest planes in water and have them and their passengers survive the incident.

Re:Gahh

[CSMoran]

"should offer Xanax to passengers" != "should force passengers to take Xanax".

Don't Want to Use Your Gadgets...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then don't use them.

Idiot.

Attention

[shmlco]

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....

Re:Attention

[RadioTV]

Not exactly:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/travel/autopilot-airlines/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Re:Attention

[marcosdumay]

as a passenger ... in the event of emergency, I don't think my exact point of focus is going to matter to the outcome of the incident

You may have no idea, but your point of focus can determine if you get out of the situation dead or alive. Some people can even change the outcome for others, those are not everybody, but aren't rare either.

Re:Attention

[Drishmung]

Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway. Automation is so extensive that the air craft is basically a drone flight and the pilot is just an emergency override.[...]

No, not even close. See the "Ask the Pilot" piece, or go read a bit more about it. Patrick covers this particular myth with remarkable frequency, since It Will Not Die!

Passengers using electronics is unlikely in the extreme to ever impact flight safety.

Absolutely agree. Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.

Re:Attention

[ryanov]

Most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, and most survivable ones involve runway overruns. They are not exactly slowly unfolding events.

Re:Attention

[mccrew]

Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway.

Old joke.

In the future the cockpit will have a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

Re:Attention

[crankyspice]

Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.

Toby Ziegler: We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 Transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745667/quotes?qt=qt0508645

Re:Attention

[Korin43]

Treat this gadget rule as a test. If someone is utterly unable to avoid using their toys for a few minutes and will break the rules, then they can not be trusted on a plane without sufficient supervision.

So, someone who can't take their eyes off their book is fine, but someone who can't take their eyes off their ebook should be kicked off the flight?

Re:Attention

[marcosdumay]

In the really rare chance of an emergeny, there is a huge chance you'll be able to help yourself, and a small (but not small enough to be rare) chance you'll be able to help others.

I'm not defending the ban. I have no idea if it is important, and keeping people atent is not justification for it. I'm just replying to your claim that attention is useless.

Re:Attention

[tlhIngan]

Absolutely agree. Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.

No, the plane won't stop flying. But you may find yourself annoying back at your departure airport because of someone's cellphone.

All reports of interference are anecdotal - there are simply too many variables (device model, age, production run, seat, navigation in use, etc) to properly and conclusively determine interference. There are known reports of certain Samsung cellphones causing GPS to lose lock, or PDAs causing nav instruments to deviate significantly. Of course, nothing scientific and conclusive.

It's more critical when things like GPS go down because increasingly airlines are using RNP approaches (required navigation performance - you need 3 GPSes, 3 autopilots, all of them in lock and synchonicity before RNP can be accomplished), because it gets you on the ground faster, and saves them fuel as it's a more direct flight (no having to fly over mountains when RNP can guide you through quite narrow canyons - it specifies the minimum performance standards of navigation equipment which lets you do much trickier approaches) and better chances of making it in as RNP approaches often have much reduced minimums. Of course, if a cellphone on board desyncs a GPS prior to RNP, it means the approach is aborted and the pilot has to go "the long way" or more often, not at all (if it's short haul, it can mean returning back to departure airport, or diverting to alternate and either waiting for a mechanic to fix (and try again), or another airplane).

No, a cellhone won't take down the airplane, nor your ipad. At worst, it'll be major inconveniences to everyone involved, though if you manage to screw up the RNP approach GPSes without being detected, it's possible to fly into a mountain or something.

IEEE had an article 6 years back where they tried to probe some of these claims. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed

FYI - the FCC envelope for general consumer electronics is FAR more lenient than that for avionics.

person sitting next to the user

[bcrowell]

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.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[nemui-chan]

On any flight I go on, I have noise cancelling headphones. You can get a nice pair for ~$40 or so.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[mjwx]

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.

This man speaks the truth.

This sadly is something I've actually heard from a man using his mobile on the plane.
"Guess where I'm calling you from."
"GUESS WHERE I"M CALLING YOU FROM"
/brief pause
"I'm on a plane"
"I'M ON A PLANE"
"I'M ON A PLANE"

At this point two of the flight attendants arrive to tell the man to turn off his phone and he asks if they could turn the engines down so he can talk to his friend. They confiscated his phone and he spent the next 20 minutes complaining about it until one of the other passengers said he'd "knock his teeth out if he didn't shut up".

I'd like to add to this the arm swinging. Most people already have enough trouble trying to sit still and not elbow the person next to them. Add a tablet to this and all of a sudden there's arms flailing everywhere, elbows hitting you from nasal to naval and the best this person offers you is a meek "I'm sorry" before going back to having a fit.

Personally, I love flying. It's the other passengers I cant stand.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[TubeSteak]

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.

Polite confrontation usually works.
And for the people who aren't polite, you get a librarian/baliff/usher/etc to tell them they're annoying others and STFU or go outside.
I've been thanked by others more than once after a movie, because I spoke up and told someone to STFU or stop texting.

If we want a polite society, we have to ask for it ourselves... and try not to get stabbed in the process
/get off my lawn

Re:person sitting next to the user

[jon3k]

The best noise cancelling under $100, period, end of discussion: http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/mc5.html

http://www.amazon.com/Etymotic-Research-Isolating-In-Ear-Earphones/dp/B003S3RFIQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332724721&sr=8-2

Re:person sitting next to the user

[JoeMerchant]

There is something to be said for not being transfixed by an electronic gizmo.

Freedom: the ability to choose and execute your choice without restraint.

So, FAA makes you not-free to use your gadget, but arguably is helping you make the occasional choice to put it down.

I knew several physicians who refused to ever carry a cellphone as late as 1999... why? Freedom.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[0123456]

Indeed. Capitalism's the worst religion of all, telling me I can't safely use nearly all the stuff around me because it "belongs" to other people - even when I'm harming no-one.

The odd part is that people who don't believe in private property shout the loudest when people come round and take all their stuff.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[forand]

If you had RTFA you would have noted that the ban on cell phones is not being revisited. That is cell phones will continue to be banned during flight.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[CapOblivious2010]

Did you READ TFA? He's not talking about lifting the ban on talking on the phone - he's talking about lifting the ban on having gizmos powered on during the takeoff and landing. If you can tolerate someone next to you reading a kindle or playing angry birds for 10 hours, you can tolerate it for another 30 minutes.

His real point is that he's too weak to turn his gizmos off when he wants some down time, so he wants to make sure no one else can use theirs either.

Actually, I wonder - if that's the only time he can get away from his gizmos, does he book pointless flights back and forth across the country, with as many stops as possible, just to get some quiet time?

Re:person sitting next to the user

[vapspwi]

Noise cancelling headphones (and I have a pretty good pair) actually making flying WORSE, IMHO. They cancel out the engine noise and allow you to hear every inane conversation, screaming kid, and tubercular passenger coughing up a lung with crystal clarity. That's the OPPOSITE of what I need on a flight.

I'm a fairly frequent flier, and I think everybody's life would be improved by a bit more enforced "shut up and read a book" time and a bit less Facebook time. Also, whose brilliant idea was it to allow cell phone use during taxi to the gate after landing, so every flight ends with a dozen iterations of the "NO, WE JUST LANDED! WE'RE NOT EVEN TO THE GATE YET!" conversation?

Re:person sitting next to the user

[mjwx]

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.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[epp_b]

It's my understanding that noise-cancelling headphones are only useful against predictable, continuous noises (jet turbines, yes, loud blithering idiot, not so much).

Noise-isolation headphones (in or over ear) are what you should be looking at. As you hear practically nothing of outside noise, they carry the added bonus of never requiring you to blast your eardrums in order to hear what you're playing.

I have a $25 pair of Klipsch isolation earbuds that work excellently in this manner. They're perfectly comfortable (and I've always hated in-ear 'phones) and you can always spend upwards from that price-point to get the sound quality you want.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[jon3k]

Yeah sorry the MC5 are actually noise-isolating not noise-cancelling. The Klipsch were my second option, the MC5s were a recommendation from a friend.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[interkin3tic]

And then everyone looks at you crazy when you parody the rude person by holding your phone up to your ear and shouting "LALALA! I'm an incosiderate asshole who talks on his phone in public! Fuck waiting until I won't annoy everyone else, I gotta talk about boring buisiness stuff now! LALALALA!"

Re:person sitting next to the user

[Tom]

You fly to Paris only to fly back to London, all in order to save a buck?

Is the tax your first-born child or is your time really worth so little?

Re:person sitting next to the user

[Hatta]

The most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport.

That used to be the case. These days, the most dangerous part of any flight is when you are assaulted by the TSA.

Re:person sitting next to the user

[Grishnakh]

The parent is in Australia, and apparently likes to fly either to other places in Australia, or to Singapore. They don't have molesters in the airports there as far as I know, that's a purely American innovation.

Uhhhh

[SaroDarksbane]

His argument is that we need to keep a worthless federal regulation on the books (and remember, you can be charged with a felony for not complying) because it . . . preserves the "spiritualness" of the takeoff and landing period.

That's not an argument, that's just bullshit.

Re:Uhhhh

[X0563511]

Careful, at this rate you'll have enough points we'll have to suspend your internet license.

Government as Jesus

[Scareduck]

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?

Re:Government as Jesus

[Wovel]

It is a sad day for Ars and /.

Re:Government as Jesus

[demonlapin]

Ars has been less and less worthwhile since the sale to Conde Nast. The forums are still pretty good, though.

Re:Government as Jesus

[Eightbitgnosis]

Welcome to the power of surface value

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[tmosley]

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.

Screw off.

[mpoulton]

May I be the first to say, "SCREW OFF!" The entire argument is that the federal government should enforce a nationwide ban on the use of electronic devices during takeoff and landing, backed by criminal penalties for violation, simply because this author believes it's good for everyone to take a little break from their gadgets every now and then? Even if there's absolutely no safety issue? Jesus. Thankfully that basis for such a regulation clearly doesn't pass constitutional muster, even under the current interpretation of the 10th Amendment. People who think government should work like this are what's wrong with this country.

Re:Screw off.

[Trepidity]

Has anyone in history ever been criminally prosecuted for using an electronic device during takeoff or landing?

Re:Screw off.

[mpoulton]

A quick Googling of "arrested for not turning cell phone off on plane" shows MANY results. First: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/air-passenger-arrested-fo_0_n_950326.html

Article summary

[J'raxis]

The government should ban something because some guy on the Internet thinks "our entertainment must come from within, not without."

Re:Article summary

[Daetrin]

This guy has insufficient imagination. When they tell me to turn off my electronic devices i pull out my book and start reading. (If i wasn't already busy doing that in the first place.) You know... a book? No, not an ebook, one of those old things made out of paper that you don't need to turn on and off.

Of course i'll usually take a break and look out the window when it's actually time to take off, but there's usually a long period of taxiing before the takeoff and then a long period between when we pass the cloud layer and can't see anything anymore and when they say it's okay to turn devices back on.

If people want to pay attention to reality they'll pay attention to reality. If they wan't to zone out they'll find a way, whether that be by electronics or something else.

If it really were only a few moments...

[herrnova]

I don't buy the safety in case something goes wrong bit any more than I buy the interference bit that has been the usual answer to why you cant have your laptop on during these times.

They won't let you have your laptop, or tablet, or mp3 player, or ebook reader, some say because they want you to be able to pay attention incase something goes wrong. Load of crap if you ask me. If that were the case, how come I can sit down, buckle up, put in ear plugs, and fall asleep, all before we've left the gate, and no one says anything? Or why can I pull out a 2 pound hard back book the size of a shoebox (I exaggerate, but not by far), and no one says anything? If its really for safety reasons in case something goes wrong (the pilot fails in his job of keeping the plain from hitting the ground), that hard back edition of Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter/Sword of Truth will do a lot more damage flying around the cockpit than my 6 ounce kindle.

I've always liked looking out the window on takeoff and landing, so I've never had a problem having my various tech turned off during this time, but the "it's only 15 minutes each way" argument irritates me. There have been numerous times that the plane I was on had to wait somewhere between leaving the gate and actually taking off, or between landing and reaching the gate, once for over an hour, but they still demand we keep all electronic devices off. 15 minutes I can handle, but being forced to stay seated for over an hour without at least having my kindle to read is all sorts of annoying.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the government's role to enforce a "dry day", if you want to drink you should be allowed to purchase it, and if you care about your health enough to have a day away from the drink, then you should have the self-control to do just that. This only really affects alcoholics.

Safety

[TranquilVoid]

It always struck me as odd that you can't take in a 100mL bottle of water but they allow devices that can supposedly interfere with the plane, ensuring they are turned off only with an honour system.

If there was the remotest chance their $millions worth of plane and PR could be brought down by your phone no one would be allowed them.

The article, though, is pretty light - suggesting aviation authorities should maintain the ban to give for the 'spiritual' reason of giving us a break from technology.

Re:Safety

[jd]

Given that there aren't any liquid explosives capable of downing a plane, chances (remote or otherwise) aren't important factors in what goes on in these decisions,

If the law stays on the books

[93 Escort Wagon]

I can foresee the author's arguments moving into new areas. A new Wii splash screen, for example.

"Why not take a break? IT'S THE LAW."

Neither new nor interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Neither new nor interesting

[hawguy]

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.

Plus the pre-departure drinks that flight attendants serve in first class. If absolute concentration during takeoff and landing is required, perhaps they should stop serving alcohol before departure and stop serving 4 hours before landing.

Re:Neither new nor interesting

[kaiser423]

Exactly. If they're really serious about this, they should really implement a "Keep Your Shoes On" policy. The chances of survival in an airplane crash where you have to egress around debris/burning material is near nil.

Even better would be a "No Open Toed Shoes" policy.

Or the policy makers should realize that these events are rare enough that they're always going to catch people off guard regardless of what policies you institute.

Re:Neither new nor interesting

[billcopc]

Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?

Because the stupid people that rule the world have finally taken over our beloved site.

Re:Neither new nor interesting

[Liquid Len]

Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?

Yeah, yesterday, I was just asking myself "Why is this RUBBISH on Ars Technica" ?

As a pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I forbid the use of electronic devices on my aircraft from door close to door open - that is my right as pilot in command and the person responsible for the lives of everyone on my aircraft.

My employer fully supports this and gives me extra magazines, newspapers, and a bunch of flight-length short stories that people can borrow to read - although the reason they support it so well is because alcohol sales on my flights are 5x the average for my company.

Re:As a pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you ban devices "for safety" but permit your passengers to drink alcohol?

In an emergency, someone who has been reading their Kindle will be more alert and responsive than someone on their fourth whisky.

Please state you airline below so that I can avoid it:

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[Osgeld]

Tennessee has this, its dumb in 2 ways

1) wine is only sold in liquor stores, and they are closed on sunday, so you cant buy wine on sunday, but you can buy 2 cases of beer at walmart
2) you cant buy liquor or wine from a liquor store on sunday, but restaurants and bars are allowed to

His argument is overreaching

[icebraining]

I hope the author realizes his argument applies to mostly anything one wants:

"I think people should be banned from talking all Tuesdays for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about having a day to listen to your own thoughts"

"I think everyone should forced to wear burkas for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about being free from sexual attraction in daily life"

"I think Peter Bright should be banned from writing articles for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about preventing people from reading his dumb apologies of abusive government bans."

Re:His argument is overreaching

[ArsonSmith]

Any ban from the government that isn't backed up with solid reasoning is an "abusive government ban" How about the government just bans books you don't like. Is that ok to start the burn pile then?

Re:His argument is overreaching

[icebraining]

It has nothing to do with the importance. It has to do with being arbitrary. Arbitrary bans are always abusive.

I would have no problem turning my iPad (if I had one) off if I was asked to, or if the airline required it. But I do have a problem being forced to by governmental mandate for no good reason. And I'm far from a libertarian.

Ommmmmmm

[retroworks]

"Ladies and gentlemen, the pilot requests that all passengers put their trays forward, put their seat back in their forward position, turn off all electronic devices, and chant the spiritual mantra of the Ars Technica Church of spirituality for the next fifteen minutes prior to landing."

Entitlement!!!11!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second.

I am ENTITLED to use my gadgets on any plane I am on.

Don't you see I am ENTITLED???

What is wrong with you??????

Re:Entitlement!!!11!

[SigmoidCurve]

You should be free to use your gadgets on a plane. You are not entitled to be provided a gadget by the airline for your use on a plane. There is a difference.

You should be free to swing your fist. You are not entitled to swing your fist in the immediate proximity of my nose. There is a difference.

There are valid reasons that certain freedoms should be restricted in certain circumstances. The entitlement culture to which Parent refers has turned people who should be responsible adults into obstinate children crying that their favorite toy has been taken away. Have a modicum of decency and respect for others around you: turn the effing phone off and sit still for 5 minutes. And quit yer crying.

EM radiation

[ebonum]

Modern planes are designed to take lightening strikes. Their electrical systems are designed to be shielded and highly resistant to interference.

If a 2 watt cell phone signal causes problems in a relatively new plane, I would argue there is a significant problem in the plane's electrical systems. Either the electrical systems are damaged or there is a design flaw.

Re:Waiting for the Crash

[Wovel]

I have flown 2+ times a week for the past 15 years or so. I usually stop what aim doing too. Never really thought about why. However, I woul love to continue reading my kindle during the 45 minute taxis to takeoff.

I don't say this often..

[Enry]

But that article is Jon Katz stupid.

Enforced tranquility?

[tpstigers]

So we need a government agency to enforce peacefulness upon us? Seriously?

Can't I just go for a hike when I want some peace?

Re:Enforced tranquility?

[ryanov]

Not while the seatbelt sign is illuminated.

Re:Waiting for the Crash

[MachDelta]

Personally i've always been enthralled by the goings-on of take-off and landing. I'm a bit of a gearhead though, so things like the whine of a turbocharger spooling up, a rotary engine with a lopey idle, the pop of an open exhaust, etc have always held my attention. To that end, a jet powered aircraft is an extreme version of a lot of these things. The feeling of n-thousand pounds of thrust pushing you back in the seat, the howl of a turbine climbing through several octaves that never seems like it will stop ascending, whining hydraulics and various mechanical sounds of things opening or closing... all of that stuff makes me secretly giddy.

I'll never forget being ~10 years old and landing at Vancouver - I was sitting at a window right behind the wing and it was the first time in my life i'd ever seen thrust reversal. The back of the turbine housing splitting and then rejoining like that nearly had me convinced that the airplane was actually a transformer. The only thing better than seeing it was hearing and feeling the engines at full throttle as they (and the brakes) struggled mightily against the plane's momentum. It's one of those surreal awe-struck moments forever lodged in my mind.

I've enjoyed that visceral, mechanical part of flying ever since. I've always had to resist the urge to shout - over screaming turbines, little old ladies praying, and children crying - "THIS IS F*%KING AWESOME!!!" during takeoff/landing.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[pla]

Even more bizarre, even before then you *could* within a certain distance of the border -- because they didn't want MA to lose out on liquor sales to NH and RI.

And for those who don't realize this - No part of MA takes more than an hour to get to either RI or NH. So pretty much a moot point in either case.

On top of that, if you live close enough to NH, they have far lower liquor taxes, so pretty much all of New England saves up to do our bulk liquor shopping there whenever we plan to pass through.

No shit

[Sycraft-fu]

If distraction is the issue, fine, but then I'd better see legislation dealing with that. If the rule was "You may not have anything in your hands or on your lap during takeoff and landing. You must face forward and direct all attention towards the flight deck in case the attendants or captain has something you need to know." If we want to go that route of extreme stupidity in the name safety, ok, but you can't somehow argue that it is for no distractions and then still say books are ok.

What's more, if we go that route you'd better do all that in cars first. Far more people die in car accidents than plane crashes and their attention is extremely relevant since they are the operator. So no food, no music, no talking on the phone, eyes on the road, mirrors, or instruments at all time, etc.

Of course we don't have those rules and that is because the no electronics on flights is not one of personal safety, it is one of plane safety. The FAA is worried stray signals could fuck up the plane. Ok maybe that was reasonable in the 70s and 80s, it is fucking stupid now. Test the things, if anything CAN interfere fix it and fix it now, as planes should not be so fragile as to be harmed by stray RFI/EMI and then allow devices on the damn planes at all times.

As to his "spiritual" argument? That tells you all you need to know right there. The guy is an unmitigated selfish jackass. Seriously if you seek spirituality in a plane takeoff, you need to examine your fucking life.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[bryan1945]

Pennsylvania is a lot like this. All liquor stores are state owned, so of course the prices are way higher than NJ or Delaware. During the holidays, the state troopers stake out the borders looking for people that cross over the border just to buy booze and bust them on the way back. You'd think the Quakers were still in charge here.

Re:Waiting for the Crash

[X0563511]

Fly enough (even better if you have sim time) and you get to know the feelings and sounds of things. I don't panic when flaps go down, because I know what the hydraulic pumps are doing :)

Though the first time I saw a thrust reverser deploy I almost shit myself!

The phone ban is legit.

[T-Bucket]

I will confirm the fact that phone use during taxi, takeoff, or landing IS potentially harmful to the airplane. Ever leave your phone near your computer speakers and get a text message? That DITDITDITDAAAAAAATTTDITDIT noise it makes is sometimes audible over the communications radios. One phone is annoying. Fifty phones may overwhelm the ATC transmitter. (Keep in mind that the antennas on most airliners are on the top and bottom back where the passengers are, NOT in the cockpit).

As for ipads and kindles? No problem whatsoever.

(And yes, I am an airline pilot. I have experiences this stuff personally.)

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts

[Pentium100]

The government in my country decided to ban the sale of alcohol on September 1st (start of school year), in an effort to reduce the number of drunk schoolkids (you must be 18 to buy alcohol, but not all sellers follow this law). The result is more drunk people on September 1st.

How this works - when you could buy alcohol any time, no real planning was needed, if you lived near a store that works 24h you can just go and buy some if you run out. Of course some people were lazy and since they didn't buy a lot of alcohol at first, they just drank less. Now, on August 31st, everyone, who plans to party on September 1st, stocks up, buying more than they think they need, so that they don't run out. Of course, now that the alcohol is on the table, they drink it all, the end result being more alcohol consumed. The stores don't complain about this law because they see increased demand for alcohol for the whole week prior to the "dry day".

Also, the sale of alcohol is banned from 22:00 till morning (I do not know the exact hour in the morning), so everyone plans and stocks up already.

Two Things

[Greyfox]

One: If even as powerful a transmitter as a cellphone (Which is what I expect would cause the most interference of any electronic device) can bring a plane down, perhaps we should rethink the fragility of the designs of our aircraft before some terrorist asshole realizes how easy they are to take down.

And

Two: If you can't sit quietly and do nothing for 30 minutes during a takeoff or landing, perhaps you should turn all your shit off and reflect on your sad little life and just where you went wrong with it.

Re:Two Things

[KeithIrwin]

Of course, that's assuming that takeoff and landing are 30 minutes. Sometimes I've been on a plane which had to wait out on the tarmack for as long as an hour (and there have been other cases which were quite a bit longer which I didn't personally experience). How do I deal with all that time? Well, if my seatmate doesn't feel like conversing, I usually read a book. I don't think that wanting to read a book when there's nothing else to do means that I have a sad little life, but maybe you think that makes me some sort of information freak or something. Except that books are big and bulky, so I've switched to a happy little ebook reader which is like half the size of a paperback and holds several hundred books. Except that I can't use my ebook reader because it's a gadget, even though, being an e-ink display, its emissions of any sort are really pretty minimal. People don't have to turn off their hearing aids, and those are probably about the same level of emissions. So, perhaps, if they reevaluate things, then I'll be able to read my ebook while waiting patiently and quietly for take-off. Is that really so terrible?

Interferance

[Botia]

Being a doubter I had always questioned the ban on electronics. This was until one time we couldn't land due to interference. The landing systems were inoperable. We were unable to land until the stewardess found the person whose device was causing the interference. After the flight I did some research and found that faulty grounding in the plane can result in devices causing interference with the electronics. In our case it wiped out the landing navigation. I doubt this is the case with all planes but I can speak of at least one.

They should exempt ebook readers

[Marrow]

And ebook reader is such a low-power device, it should be exempted from the ban. Just make them disable wireless on it if necessary.
And I thought the linked article and its rationale were pretty much worthless.