Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
...then don't use them.
Idiot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
The government should ban something because some guy on the Internet thinks "our entertainment must come from within, not without."
Liberty in your lifetime
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."
#DeleteChrome
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?
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.
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."
Dilbert RSS feed
"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."
Gently reply
But that article is Jon Katz stupid.
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.
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.