http://tidbits.com/ Despite recent developments, tech-toting travelers still have a number of rules to follow when they’re airborne. But do these restrictions make any sense, given that there have never been any reported accidents attributed to portable electronics on planes? Commercial pilot Steve McCabe says no. en-us Copyright 2012 TidBITS Publishing Inc. Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 EST Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 EST editors@tidbits.com (TidBITS Editors) editors@tidbits.com (TidBITS Editors) http://tidbits.com/images/tb_logo_152x55.png http://tidbits.com/ 55 152 TidBITS badge http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16408 Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:02:05 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16408
http://www.news.com.au/travel/holiday-ideas/airnz-in-flight-hobbit-instruction-movie-the-best-ever/story-e6frfqdi-1226507962907]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16242 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:13:56 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16242 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16158 Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:36:26 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16158
While I pooh pooh the technical issues as the reason for the ban, I'm in agreement with those who say the rules are there to control the behavior of people. Probably not a bad idea for a few minutes of relatively uninterrupted attention at the beginning and end of the flight, especially so that the aircrew can tell those who don't pay attention to raise their seat-back, properly stow bags, and to stay seated until the plane has stopped moving.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16150 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:59:23 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16150 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16149 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:52:26 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16149
4 + 5: too subjective! I won't comment.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16148 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:32:05 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16148
One flight attendant pointed out to me that if everyone's phone was on during a takeoff/landing emergency than half the cabin would be filming or tweeting the situation in the middle of the crisis instead of listening to instructions. By requiring devices be turned off it at least decreases the number of distracted passengers.

Either way, if this is the reason, I think most people are smart enough to understand it and don't need to be faked out by the "electronic interference" threat.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16146 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:52:04 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16146
BTW, just last week on a flight between HBA and MEL we hit turbulence, the seatbelt sign came on, and the purser asked that all PEDs were switched off and remain off until the seatbelt light was switched off.

What I am still struggling with is that we are talking the first and last 10-15 minutes of a flight. It's 20-30 minutes overall where people are bring asked to switch off their phones. I am struggling to think of a use case where it is essential that someone in transit on a plane HAS to have their phone/PED on all of the time.

So I come back to my original point 5 -- who cares? Or, to expand slightly, can anyone provide a use case where this request really impinges on personal freedoms that much?]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16144 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:15:03 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16144
I have no idea what wing control could make a plane "bump;" I know this is a layman's account and I shouldn't be too precious about perfectly accurate terminology, but it takes a *lot* to make a 747 do *anything* (those things are huge). I do find it odd, then, that the flight crew would be willing to conduct an in-flight experiment to cause an uncommanded excursion large enough to be that noticeable.

Even if your recollection, reporting and interpretation of this event are perfectly accurate, it's still one, single, isolated event, with no clearly defined cause. Was the camera at fault — would the same thing happen on all 747s? Was the plane at fault — did it need new shielding on its wiring?

We need a *much* more systematic review of the issue, rather than relying on anecdote, even a quite interesting one like this.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16141 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:25:31 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16141
I would love to see an update on the IEEE study that would determine how many devices are actually in use on planes - and how the number of incidents has changed - these days, since I would surmise that many more devices are used when they shouldn't be over the last 5-10 years.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16140 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:08:01 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16140
Cheers,
Paul]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16139 Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:06:49 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16139
1. No, my point was about not being able to hear announcements due to audio stream not cutting out. Yes, others have raised the point of distraction, but not me, hence I disagree that books count in terms of addressing my point.

3. I came across the following article: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275 . The key point I took out of this is: the FAA want to test and certify every combination of hardware with every type of plane. This raises in itself two further points:

a. Is it reasonable to expect people to be able to accurately consult a lookup table matching their hardware and type of plane should such a certification exist?
b. Is the FAA being overzealous in terms of reducing risk?

For me, on point a. I would not trust members of the general public to accurately read a lookup table with 100% accuracy over say 180-odd seats in a typical 737 configuration.

Point b? That's too subjective :-)

Still keen on your thoughts on my points 4 and 5.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16136 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:14:28 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16136
What has changed between 1989 and now? Both in the planes and in the devices we carry?]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16134 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:23:41 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16134 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16133 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:46 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16133
3. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed : The study is quite good, but the conclusions at the end are unfounded, and, after 9 years (the data were collected in 2003) haven't been borne out.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16131 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:14:03 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16131 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16129 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:02:01 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16129
And as for who cares, I think those people who would prefer that our lives be regulated by science care, anyone who has been stuck on a runway for an hour or more without anything to distract from the unpleasant environment cares, and anyone who is desperately trying to distract themselves from throwing up during a bumpy descent cares.

The simple fact of the matter is that flying is at best a neutral experience. It's never a good experience, and it doesn't take much (delays, cancellations, nausea-inducing turbulence, cramped and smelly bathrooms, tight quarters, screaming babies, inedible food, annoying fellow passengers, lost luggage) to turn it into a very bad experience.

For better or worse, our personal electronic devices have become our preferred solutions to times when we are otherwise restricted from acting as we would like. They're distractions from boredom and pacifiers for the anger that often wells up when we're in a bad situation that's completely out of our control.

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with books and magazines for the same purpose, but since so many people have transferred that reading to an iPhone, iPad, or Kindle, it's not at all surprising that we wouldn't want to return to the real-world versions for no good reason.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16126 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:26:49 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16126 I cannot imagine a flight, be it a short or a long one, with dozens of people talking together on their phones.
I already experience that during many stand-by on tarmac or during the taxiing before the take-off. I can't stand it. Period.
Entering a plane (a rather quite small, narrow, cramped and confined space) I find it perfectly normal that my behaviour there should be adapted, restricted and controlled accordingly.
And the ban on the use of phones during flights suits me totally.
Moving from technical grounds to behavioral ones, I am ready to accept any reason airlines (or FAA) would present to enforce that rule: "Dear and beloved passengers, please switch-off your phones!"]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16125 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:50:07 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16125 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16123 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:55:02 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16123
1. People are not required to remove headphones attached to the aircraft's system precisely because it cuts out for any announcement from the cabin crew. Given that I've said it twice and you've said it once, I think we are in agreement on this :-)

I made no comments about objects in laps, so unclear why you raised it here.

2. That's a far more useful response that banging on about them lying. I now understand your position, but disagree with how you choose to represent it.
[Edit: Updated due to me misreading Glenn's response and having a bit of a brainfade]

3. Out of interest, could you point to the 2006 study please?

Still keen on your thoughts on my points 4 and 5.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16120 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:30:26 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16120
2. No one likes to be treated like a mental incompetent. The government agencies already push credulity with security theatre; why let them get away with this?

3. There's a reason for that. The industry and regulators allowed a very detailed studied to be conducted in 2003 (published in 2006), and have avoided studying it since in order to perpetuate nonsense. It's unclear why.
]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16119 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:30:18 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16119
1. My understanding of the restriction is to do with ensuring that if an emergency announcement comes over the PA, people are not plugged into sound systems independent of the aircraft ones (which cut out when announcements come in). This seems like an eminently reasonable thing to request of passengers.

2. I struggle to understand the level of outrage (evidenced by use of the term "lying" for example) shown here. Admittedly here in Oz we have ridiculous security theatre as well, but the attacks on the FCC/FAA seem very personal.

3. No one on either side of the argument has cited any properly reviewed studies into any of the claims. Yawn.

4. We live in a highly ritualistic society. Why is this ritual causing so much grief?

5. In the scheme of things, who cares? I'd love to see the energy on display here going into say the local soup kitchen to help the homeless.
]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16114 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:05:42 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16114 Why not turn your stuff off in flight as a time for yourself with no tech, to let your brain rest and meditate? Then, no worries at all! Paper books work fine too.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_15992 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:03:39 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_15992 all devices need to be turned off

Then--as multiple people have repeatedly said--WHY DON'T THEY ACTUALLY MAKE SURE WE DO THAT?]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16108 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:03:23 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16108 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16112 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:01:14 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16112 http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16110 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:59:34 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16110 For commercial with built in wi-fi, I guess, the FAA will, one day, remove that restriction on at least those flights.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16103 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:28:36 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16103 The FAA should be up-front about this, but they can hardly tell hundreds of people per flight they’re untrustworthy idiots. There’s no way to explain the need to pay attention in case of a crash without freaking out the many who are uneasy about flying. And you can’t just ban devices without an explanation. It’s a tricky problem in risk communication, with no easy solution.
]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16099 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:02:29 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16099
If the FAA believes it's unsafe to allow the use of electronics because it's distracting or they could become projectiles, they could just say that and be honest about it.

When you are being lied to, it's easier to disregard any portion of truth. The FAA could instruct airlines to restrict the use of electronic devices with a message that says, "The FAA requires all electronic devices be powered down or in standby mode and placed in a carry-on bag or, for smaller devices, in your pocket. This is to prevent distraction during takeoff and landing, and reduce the chance if turbulence of a device harming yourself, crew, or other passengers."

Instead, it's a smokescreen of unproven science. Also, why not ban books and magazines at takeoff and landing?

(And are you surprised by passengers' attitudes? There has never been a less pleasant time to fly, and passengers respond with passive-aggressive and just aggressive-aggressive behavior toward the gate agents and flight crew, the only parts of the airline that they interact with.)]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16097 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:34:14 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16097
This hasn't been studied in a rigorous or extensive way with cooperation of airlines, airline makers, and governments since an IEEE report from 2006 that is based on 2003 research.

If it's provable, it should be evident now on many flights, every day.]]> http://db.tidbits.com/article/13256?rss#comments_16096 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:56:22 EST http://tidbits.com/article/13256#comments_16096
Entitled customer attitudes come into play for a "some electronics are more equal than others" scenario; and flightcrew bandwidth is critical at take-off and landing. I'm pretty sure it's about the people and not the electronics, and far more efficient to instruct passengers to disengage from electronic devices globally, during the higher risk minutes of take-off and landing.
]]>