Slashdot Mirror


FAA Pushed To Review Ban On Electronics

First time accepted submitter sfm writes "Ever tangle with a grumpy flight attendant over turning off your Kindle Fire before takeoff? This may change if the FAA reviews their policy for these devices. The FAA is under extreme pressure to either change the rules or give a good reason to keep them in place. From the article: 'According to people who work with an industry working group that the Federal Aviation Administration set up last year to study the use of portable electronics on planes, the agency hopes to announce by the end of this year that it will relax the rules for reading devices during takeoff and landing. The change would not include cellphones.'"

11 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. The cellphone ban is overreaching, too by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Every flight I've been on recently has had an announcement of

    you must turn OFF your cell phone until we reach cruising altitude, airplane mode is not ok

    Which is rather stupid. Most people who know how to put their phones in airplane mode have seen the safety instructions enough times that they could give them for the staff, why not let them keep their cell phones on provided they aren't engaged in communication with them?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  2. Re:Not the technology by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Real and dangerous?

    Do you know how rare those situations really are?

    Even if a situation comes up, most of the time, it is going to be along the lines of "Wait for the plane to crash & die or land safely". Someone strapped in a seat can do almost nothing to help.

    If anything, I'd rather the passengers be oblivious to their potential doom with their earphones in rather than screaming bloody murder while the pilot attempts an emergency procedure.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  3. Re:Not the technology by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions which (very rarely) you might need to think about right soon and seriously. Just... put down the gadget for a moment, and join the real and dangerous world of the paid staff.

    I fly a fair bit. Not enough that I have enough frequent flier miles with any one airline to go anyplace good, but enough that I can tell you the aircraft I am flying on as soon as I step through the door (without looking at my ticket or the safety pamphlet in in the seatback). I've seen safety presentations from a number of different airlines on each plane that I have flown on over a number of years. I can tell you that if a Delta flight attendant accidentally stepped on to a United flight and gave the safety briefing nobody would know the difference (other than the slightly different uniforms).

    In fact, I've been on the planes enough that I could give the safety talk myself (and I can tell you for several airlines which planes have automated talks that the attendants pantomime to and on which ones the attendants have to describe it verbally).

    And I'm quite sure there are plenty of other passengers like me. We are the same ones who get through security with minimal fuss because we're prepared from that from experience as well. We know which planes our carryons will fit in the overhead bin in, and which ones we need to gate check it for. We have smartphones and we know what airplane mode is. We know how to make sure that our phones are really, truly, disconnected; why can't we check out calendars while the attendant is giving the same safety talk we've seen dozens - if not hundreds - of times? I'm not asking permission to play rugby in the aisle while they're talking, or even to use the bathroom during that sacred minute-and-a-half. I won't be distracting other passengers because I also know how to do such things silently and discretely.

    The restrictions seem to be in place just to amuse the airline companies as this point. They certainly don't amuse me...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Witchcraft and Supersition by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  5. Re:Avionics by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These rules are stupid and were based on the fear of the unknown instead of actual studies and evidence.

    I have my concerns about cellphones... Not because they'll crash the plane; but because listening to 60 people babble loudly and relentlessly will make me wish that the would...

    Anything silent, no problem; but if air travel features the TSA, little kids kicking the back of your seat, and cellphone chatter, it isn't going to be pretty.

  6. Re:Not the technology by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having experienced a runway overshoot, the issue is that things tend to go flying around the cabin in a really nasty way, I don't want my teeth knocked out by the tablet that was previously sitting in the lap of the kid three rows in front of me. I don't want you to sit in the aisle seat in confusion because you missed the cabin crew's instructions while listening to your iPod at full volume. Stow your crap and clear your ears during the most dangerous part of the flight and make sure you know how many rows away the emergency exits are.

  7. Re:Not the technology by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having experienced a runway overshoot, the issue is that things tend to go flying around the cabin in a really nasty way, I don't want my teeth knocked out by the tablet that was previously sitting in the lap of the kid three rows in front of me.

    But you'd presumably be quite happy to have them knocked out by a hardcover book?

    Either make the rules apply to anything that could go flying around a cabin, or stop making me turn off my Kindle so I have to read a book that weighs five times as much instead.

  8. Re:Avionics by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you ever tried to use your cellphone on a plane? Out of curiosity, I did. (Spoiler: the plane did not explode, I did not die.) Reception was lost soon after we got very high in the air. I think I tried it again in mid-flight, but still no signal. This was one phone, not a comprehensive test, but I'd guess that the plane is moving too fast and is too high for most cell phones to get and maintain much of a connection. Plus, the dull roar of the engines in most planes drowns out most conversational tones, the reason children wailing is annoying is because you can hear them over the engines.

    Where I'd like to see the FAA ban cell phones is once you have landed, while you're waiting to deplane. "OH HAI! WE JUST LANDED! ARE YOU OUTSIDE? I SAID ARE YOU OUTSIDE? NO, WE JUST LANDED! WAITING TO GET OFF. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YEAH, WHY DO THEY SERVE YOU SUCH SMALL BAGS OF PEANUTS? SO ARE YOU GOING TO PICK ME UP? NO, I SAID I JUST LANDED! AT THE AIRPORT! ARE YOU GOING TO PICK ME UP? I NEED TO GET MY BAGS! OKAY!"

    Fucking text it morons. If not for politeness to the rest of us in earshot who are already impatient to get out of the plane, for efficiency. You can't hear them and they can't hear you, reading is much faster. Well, maybe not for idiots who can't wait until they get off the plane to announce multiple times that they've just landed and need to get their bags and can you pick them up...

  9. Re:Avionics by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there was any real concern, they would be a lot more vigilant about enforcing the rules. Since anyone can put an active Kindle or cell phone into their bag and the airline doesn't send people around with wands to triangulate the signal, I assume the "danger" is effectively nil.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  10. Re:Not the technology by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it isn't magic, but situations that require passenger intervention are about as common as magic.

    Odds of dying in a flight are around 5 million to 1. Odds of a lightening strike killing you while walking outside are around 280,000 to 1.

    So, if we care about safety, we should require a warning message about lightening safety before we leave the house each day.

    Flying is incomprehensibly safe, yet we treat it like it is some risky activity. The time spent on safety lessons before each flight are an absolute waste of time, and should be looked at just as hatefully as a mandatory lightening safety lesson each morning.

    However, to bring this back on track, the main point of TFA has little to do with the few wasted minutes of safety. It has to do with around 30-60 minutes spent waiting on the tarmac, climbing to 10,000 feet (where the electrons suddenly are safe!), and the descending below 10,000 feet, circling the airport, etc. This is the part where people are really fed up with the stupidity of the FAA rules.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  11. Re:Avionics by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If that's the fear, then all consumer electronics should be banned from flying, just like guns.

    There is no need to ban them when they can be just turned off. And sadly, there are too many consumer electronic devices in use to simply ban them, so the best compromise is to turn them off.

    I've seen at least one device interfere. All this "proof" that they don't is just junk science. "We tested 1000 new consumer devices and none of them caused interference, so we've proved that such devices do not cause interference." Right. In comes device number 1001.

    The random malfunction of consumer electronics potentially interacting with the comm/nav systems on a commercial jetliner has to be 5-10 orders of magnitude more rare than someone building a portable high-power RF white noise source and leaving it on during takeoff.

    Citation required. Pulling numbers out of your ... I'd say. I've seen interference. I've yet to see someone carrying a deliberate jammer, but since the current rules would make that a federal crime, I don't think we need another rule to deal with that. It's the inadvertent radiators (like a broken electronic device) that need to be dealt with, and since the wrong time to test each device is as one boards the aircraft, simply turning them off is the easiest solution.

    What the hell is the problem anyway? For fifteen minutes at the beginning and end of a flight you can't use your iWhatever or eWhatsis. Big deal. Life is too short to get bent out of shape because of something so trivial.

    The morning news was making a big deal of the fact that pilots can use iPads in the cockpit. This proves how safe they all are, they said. That's not true. It proves that those previously tested iPads aren't likely to cause interference, but more importantly, that if they do they are in the hands of the pilot/copilot who know they are being used and who can immediately turn them off if necessary. "Hey Bob, I saw you turn your iPad on and NAV2 went wonky. Try turning it off..."

    Now imagine an iPad in the hands of passenger 32B during a critical phase of flight who turns it on and causes interference. The pilots don't know he just did that or where he is, so they first have to detect the interference and then try to work around it without being able to just turn the interfering device off. Yes, they can use the PA to ask people to turn things off (I've heard this before) but what if this jerk thinks "it's an iPad just like the one the pilot is using, it can't possibly be the cause, so I'll keep using it?"

    The news guy also had this part exactly backwards: he asked whether you'd rather have an issue below 10,000 feet where the pilots are directly involved in flying the plane or above that where you're going 600 mph. His answer: below 10,000 feet. BZZZTTT.

    Below 10,000', the sterile cockpit rules kick in for a very good reason. It is the time when everyone needs to concentrate on what he is doing -- like flying the plane or looking out the window to look for terrain or traffic. Below 10,000' is where the big iron mixes with the smaller stuff and there is more traffic to worry about. Below 10,000' is where the GROUND is, and where you will find almost all final approach courses and landing zones. Mistakes above 10,000' and in level flight give more time for correction than those at 1,000' while descending to land. Having an ILS or GPS failure while flying an approach is a much more serious issue than one that happens in the flight levels.