Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senator Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps people don't want to procrastinate..You must not fly much, for those of us that do, that 30min wasted on either end of a flight sucks. Not because I procrastinated, but because it is wasted time for no reason.
And most of us that fly on a regular basis do plan our time accordingly...and the extra time would be good to have, because of my proper planning and organization. Not because you have an arrogant unsubstantiated opinion. You want to sit for an hour and do nothing productive, that is your business, others want to get some work done...which is why this unnecessary rule should go.
Still think phones should remain off though, out of courtesy in a confined space.
Fat chance!
If the Senate acts on this trivia as swiftly as it acts on more substantive issues, we'll all be shocked.
Do the nation's business, e.g., pass a budget, resolve the fiscal cliff matter, before even mentioning such dreck as personal electronics on planes.
I'm thinkin' that Spider Solitare isn't exactly business related...in most instances, so I'm not sure how much time is wasted on planes.
If the Senate acts on this trivia as swiftly as it acts on more substantive issues, we'll all be shocked.
Do the nation's business, e.g., pass a budget, resolve the fiscal cliff matter, before even mentioning such dreck as personal electronics on planes.
I'm thinkin' that Spider Solitare isn't exactly business related...in most instances, so I'm not sure how much time is wasted on planes.
Thank you for responding. Saved me the trouble. Honestly, I'd be far more worried if our elected officials weren't working on issues at every level. Think how quickly our country would collapse if the government worked only on one issue at a time, especially if that one issue was an issue which seemed so hard to reach a consensus on, like the budget.
Anyway, enough on politics... (at least from me)
On topic, I find the comments from people who have been arguing that this issue shouldn't be addressed because of some seeming dependence on our devices absolutely absurd. As another person has pointed out, it would be equally arbitrary to prohibit reading books, magazines or newspapers. The reality is that for many people these devices have replaced books, magazines and newspapers, as well as many other things. While I certainly don't see it so much these days, I can remember seeing plenty of business travelers with various forms of paperwork that they would work on during the flight, including during takeoff and landing. Now, should they be told that they should budget their time better so that they don't need to be working during those times?
In short, for most activities that don't involve an Internet connection, there is a paper analog which is allowed. So, if the activity isn't what's being prohibited, and if there is no technological issue for blocking the use of the devices, then what would the justification be for blocking the activity on the device?
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
Interesting to note here is that everyone is assuming that 'electronic devices' must only mean cell phones, any electronic named after or sponsored by a fruit, or some sort of tablet. And to those thinking that it interferes with the aircraft's electronics, you really do not know what you're talking about.
I agree with the pilots that have popped up in this forum, as they know and have a lot more experience in the field than others here. I like to put myself in that boat, though I haven't completed the checkride to get my ticket. But I can say that they do not interfere whatsoever, otherwise this regulation would have affected not only Part 121 operations (commercial aircraft), but also Part 135 and Part 91 operations, which this does NOT cover. So that already puts the FAA's regs under scrutiny.
The good thing to note for those who are student pilots or wanting to hear how Part 121 ops run while in the air, this also affects radio scanners as well. They do not transmit on any sort of frequency, so there would be no interference with any avionics in the flight deck. In fact, if worse came to worse, it would be an Phone or a tablet with 3G/4G/LTE that would cause more of an issue than a scanner would. So this would be a bonus for those who are into ATC comms (read: LiveATC feeds).
I love how the fear and paranoia of 9/11 still plays part into this..
Glad to know that Sen. McCaskill has the testicular fortitude (that the men in the Senate apparently don't) to take this issue on.
BL.
All safety of flight issues are essentially governed by worst-case-scenario thinking. While this might seem completely harebrained to folks who are not involved in aviation, those who are get the point from exposure to this logic in every aspect of aviation, not just from the FAA. At least this has been the trend of the last 30 years or so, even in general aviation. It's a very conservatively-minded business in every respect. Is the reason why not obvious? So I am not enthralled with the idea of a politician grandstanding a flight safety issue. The bureaucrats at the FAA might move at a glacial pace, but this is not without reason, and I don't know why anyone would believe that the political process is a better way to make these sorts of rules. I mean, consider how they are doing with other issues.
Good luck with your training and your check ride. Mine was kind of terrifying but you walk about six inches taller when the examiner signs your log book.
There is a reason they don't want it on during takeoff and landing. Electronics on the plane can malfunction (very small chance but we're talking about the lives of everyone on the plane) due to interference from electronic devices. Once the plane achieve the right altitude, after takeoff, the have several miles of space between the plane and the ground to deal with possible malfunctions, so the risk is minimized. That's why they want electronics off during takeoffs and landings only. It's reasonable. Total time is less than 30 minutes.
I'm usually vehemently against allowing my words to feed any trolls online but this one finally got me to take a moment to register this forum...posted this on my Facebook and thought I'd copy it in here too. For reference I work for a major airline.
Alright. Gotta give my opinion on something else. I keep reading about Senators "Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act". I'm cool with people trying to make laws and rules to make things safe and stuff...but this is a pet peeve of mine. The reason you're supposed to put your electronic devices away during taxi/takeoff/landing is not because we're concerned about your game of Words-With-Friends...its because if there is an emergency you NEED TO PAY ATTENTION to the instructions being given to you in order TO SAVE YOUR ****ING LIFE. I realize this puts a bit of a downer on your plans to put your Bose noise canceling headsets on to listen to Jay-Z while you play Angry Birds but if there ever were a 6 minute timeframe where you should put your phone away and look up it would be barreling down a runway during takeoff. Dear Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): You are an asshat. Maybe consider speaking to the professionals that do the job before blabing your loud mouth about **** you know nothing about.
Alright. Gotta give my opinion on something else. I keep reading about Senators "Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act". I'm cool with people trying to make laws and rules to make things safe and stuff...but this is a pet peeve of mine. The reason you're supposed to put your electronic devices away during taxi/takeoff/landing is not because we're concerned about your game of Words-With-Friends...its because if there is an emergency you NEED TO PAY ATTENTION to the instructions being given to you in order TO SAVE YOUR ****ING LIFE. I realize this puts a bit of a downer on your plans to put your Bose noise canceling headsets on to listen to Jay-Z while you play Angry Birds but if there ever were a 6 minute timeframe where you should put your phone away and look up it would be barreling down a runway during takeoff. Dear Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): You are an asshat. Maybe consider speaking to the professionals that do the job before blabing your loud mouth about **** you know nothing about.
Way to be professional buddy
Now tell me, aside from paying attention to the instructions that I know I have personally been through hundreds of times, why not allow folks to use their e-readers afterwards?
Right now, waiting for takeoff and then waiting for the sufficient altitude is prohibited. Also why not allow for use when they are on decent for landing, and the subsequent taxi'ing?
No headphones during take off? I am fine with that.
But reading a book on an iPad does not distract me anymore than reading a real book. There is no difference.
That is what most serious FF's are really complaining about. FAA claims iPads and eReaders cannot be used due to interference, but the reality is that they use them now in the cockpit.
There is no legitimate reason to not allow people to read on tablets during take off and landing.
You work for a major airline? I wonder how they would feel about the way you present yourself--and them, by extension--online.
You raise a quasi-legitimate point though, through your rambling barely-coherent post and amidst all the excess profanity. Like Squeak825 said, if you don't want people to use headphones or other distracting devices during takeoff and landing, that's fine. You should acknowledge that that is the reason, though, rather than fighting to keep an outdated regulation that also prohibits people from doing things that are no more distracting than common unrestricted activities. An e-reader is no more distracting than a real book or newspaper, nor is a laptop, depending on what it is is being used for.
It isn't your business how much time people spend on their electronic devices. What kind of ******* supports an anachronistic law or regulation that restricts other people's behavior for an illegitimate reason, just because they happen to think that said behavior is bad? What would you even stand to gain from people not being able to use their gadgets during a plane's takeoff or landing? Are you that obsessed with feeling superior to those you perceive as being addicted to technology? That you would bring up the issue in situations where it has absolutely no significance?
Last edited:
Are most people here new to flying or something? They have a reason for wanting you to turn off your electronic devices. You may disagree with it and think it BS, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a reason. And their reason, safety, sure as hell is better than some of your reasons, just so you can enjoy your electronics.
Only Partially True
I am an electrical engineer. I work for Boeing. There is NO WAY that a battery powered DC device is a danger to ANY systems on the aircraft at any time. Wifi of course is a different matter. But here is what IS the problem. Takeoff and landing are typically the highest risk part of any flight. During these two phases of flight people need to be alert in case something goes wrong.
If you are on the window seat and there is an emergency but you are blocked from getting out because somebody is immersed in a LCD, it puts BOTH of you in danger.
I am an electrical engineer. I work for Boeing. There is NO WAY that a battery powered DC device is a danger to ANY systems on the aircraft at any time. Wifi of course is a different matter. But here is what IS the problem. Takeoff and landing are typically the highest risk part of any flight. During these two phases of flight people need to be alert in case something goes wrong.
If you are on the window seat and there is an emergency but you are blocked from getting out because somebody is immersed in a LCD, it puts BOTH of you in danger.
Hmm, interesting. About a year ago I was asked on two separate flights to turn off my kindle (which had wifi and 3G turned off).
The Senator "appears" to be an expert A)computers B) Hand held electronic devices with vast experience in explosives, electronic manipulation of fields & The Force!
SMH.....
SMH.....
Regardless, I don't get why it is so hard for people to shut their **** off for 10 whopping minutes. I love it because that is the moment I fall asleep for a bit.
So...the ones in use in the cockpit have cellular/wifi running?
No, they don't...they are simply there as the best way to access thousands of maps and data.
Her argument about them being used in the cockpit as a reason to allow passengers to use the in the man cabin is ridiculous. They also use radios to talk to the ground...we should be able to do that in the main cabin as well.
HERE is the Issue
Takeoff and landing are typically the highest risk part of any flight. During these two phases of flight people need to be alert in case something goes wrong.
But the airlines do want to tell you that
Takeoff and landing are typically the highest risk part of any flight. During these two phases of flight people need to be alert in case something goes wrong.
But the airlines do want to tell you that
Comments such as that are why we still need a down-vote button.
I'm trying so hard to understand how anyone could be against this. "NO HOW DARE THEY ALLOW ME TO USE MY DEVICES!"
Duke,
Apologize for not taking the time to better clean up my post for this particular forum. Reference my first point about giving my words up publicly to trolls. I guess I feel as if some Senator (or you) or anyone else walked up to someone who spent years in school, tens of thousands on that school, sacrificed life, love, etc. for their career...lets say...like a neural surgeon...you have every right to freak out when when said someone speaks publicly and wrongly about the reality of the importance of how a job is done and done correctly and safely. It hits home when you know there are 300 people behind you that have their life in your hands. Those people count on me following the rules whether I know every single minute detail as to why they are there.
The argument that you've heard the instructions before does not apply. I've heard takeoff and landing clearance THOUSANDS of times...but not one single time can I afford to be complacent about it. Every airplane you're ever on is different which is why you should listen. One scary thing about plane crashes is almost invariably investigators find dead bodies with broken thumbs. Broken thumbs why? Because they were trying to operate the seatbelt like it had a button and not a lifting latch. They burned to death trying to simply operate a seat belt. That's reality and yes it does happen. I wonder how many times those people had heard the safety briefing?
To clarify the rules: Basically when you're below 10,000 feet electronics are off. So you can use your devices on climb or on decent, just not under 10k. From experience, the time most people want to use those devices is between the time of closing the door to takeoff...some taxi outs are long or there is traffic. The answer to this not easy because it would be nice to have that extra few minutes of phone time...but I seem to remember a year or so ago where the biggest passenger airplane in service (Air France) ran down a regional jet (Delta) at JFK right after the RJ had pushed back from the gate. It hit with some pretty impressive force. So accidents even happen during the times when we would like to use those devices most.
Additionally, what if you're the guy sitting at the exit row when an emergency happens? What if you're too busy on your iPad to open that door and allow others to escape? Its easy to think that WE are capable of using electronics while we shouldn't, or WE can txt and drive...but those other guys...sheesh...they just can't handle it like I can.
It's not a big deal - turn your phone off, listen, wait a few minutes and *then* enjoy your tunes.