I read it but got a different message. I read it as a threat to strong arm the agency if they don't promulgate the rules that she thinks should be created.
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
I read it but got a different message. I read it as a threat to strong arm the agency if they don't promulgate the rules that she thinks should be created.
Why can't I read during that time? I should not have to put my book down just because you think it would be good for me to read the skymall catalog instead.
----------
Then we are doomed. If there is any chance of this happening then the entire commercial aviation fleet should be grounded. If it can happen on accident, it can happen on purpose.
----------
So you are ok with banning books, newspapers, children, talking, etc. during this time?
----------
Your really reaching. You have no idea what someone is going to value. What about the guy who drops his antique pen when the pilot jams on the brakes?
Next... Your going to be pissed off that you can't use your device in a hospital.
You don't do it during takeoff, you don't do it during landing... These are not completely unreasonable requests you inpatient bastards.
Your off your phone for a very, very short period of time in your life.
You don't do it during takeoff, you don't do it during landing... These are not completely unreasonable requests you inpatient bastards.
Your off your phone for a very, very short period of time in your life.
Its because aviation is so safe that people forget what risks are involved. Its because airlines train their crews for everything INCLUDING the possibility of things so remote. For years once a pilot graduated from smaller airplanes up to the major airlines they did not receive training regarding stalls and recovery in those bigger jets...its was assumed they knew what they were doing at that point. It took an Air France Airbus crashing, and another small commuter airplane crashing in the northeast to get the NTSB and FAA to mandate that the major airlines teach stall recovery techniques to their crews again. Remind them of the proper technique. The possibility that a pilot would box themselves so far into the flight envelope that the airplane stalls is extremely remote. But don't you feel better that your crew was trained for that possibility?
Also...what if that one, single life was your's these rules just saved. Pretty sweet deal then. But if its just some other guy, who cares?
I guess I'm puzzled by your argument: You're saying that we don't have strict laws that save lives in one segment of transportation so we might as well just go ahead and relax laws in another segment? Traffic deaths are a huge concern and should be dealt with! It's such a big and daunting problem but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle it. It seems like maybe 'ol Claire should take some of her spare time to fight that problem instead of worrying about why she can't read her ebook while her pilots navigate the extremely restricted airspace of DC.
Next... Your going to be pissed off that you can't use your device in a hospital.
You don't do it during takeoff, you don't do it during landing... These are not completely unreasonable requests you inpatient bastards.
Your off your phone for a very, very short period of time in your life.
I just spent 48 hours sitting in a hospital. At no point was I asked to turn off my kindle or iPad. In fact, they have wifi everywhere. Hospitals have made there way into the 21st century.
Yes, I read that but how serious can she be about such a major concern to continue to push for legislation? We all know that people are easily distracted by mobile devices. Why else would states pass laws prohibiting device use while driving a vehicle? Federal government is all about individual safety for air travel and something as simple as allowing electronic devices could have major impact to that safety. You can't force people to stop glaring at their devices, which in fact distracts a person from their surroundings.
As an electronics and pilot type myself, I always wonder why so many people think that rules should not apply to themselves. Especially when the topic is waaay outside their knowledge.
Not long ago, Boeing was doing testing on a WiFi installation. Turned out that on one of their airliner models, if enough passengers turned on WiFi, the pilot's LCD instrument panels would just go blank. Not enough shielding, because they were never designed for such a situation. Easily fixed, but it points out that each aircraft model needs individual (and rigorous) testing.
Want to get really worried? Read some of the anonymous NASA safety reports that pilots file on this topic. Here's a PDF of some.
Everything from Navigation radios screwing up, to autopilots kicking off or diving the plane at the last second, to radio interference - imagine the sound of dozens of GSM phone buzz. There also seem to be a lot of false TCAS collision alert messages, causing the pilots to take evasive action for no reason. I remember one report where that happened during the landing phase and almost caused a crash... all because some idiot passenger thought she could sneak in a phone call.
There's also so many reports of batteries and power outlets catching fire. (It's just a matter of time before someone's iPod stashed in the luggage compartment brings a plane down. Falling out of the sky on fire is one of the worst ways to die that I can think of. At that point, expect a much stronger ban to appear.)
At the least, interference can cause unnecessary distractions for the pilots. Only the most self-centered people think that's okay.
Folks, it's just not worth the risk yet. As more and more modern airliners come online, I think the chances of interference will lessen a bit.
Not long ago, Boeing was doing testing on a WiFi installation. Turned out that on one of their airliner models, if enough passengers turned on WiFi, the pilot's LCD instrument panels would just go blank. Not enough shielding, because they were never designed for such a situation. Easily fixed, but it points out that each aircraft model needs individual (and rigorous) testing.
Want to get really worried? Read some of the anonymous NASA safety reports that pilots file on this topic. Here's a PDF of some.
Everything from Navigation radios screwing up, to autopilots kicking off or diving the plane at the last second, to radio interference - imagine the sound of dozens of GSM phone buzz. There also seem to be a lot of false TCAS collision alert messages, causing the pilots to take evasive action for no reason. I remember one report where that happened during the landing phase and almost caused a crash... all because some idiot passenger thought she could sneak in a phone call.
There's also so many reports of batteries and power outlets catching fire. (It's just a matter of time before someone's iPod stashed in the luggage compartment brings a plane down. Falling out of the sky on fire is one of the worst ways to die that I can think of. At that point, expect a much stronger ban to appear.)
At the least, interference can cause unnecessary distractions for the pilots. Only the most self-centered people think that's okay.
Folks, it's just not worth the risk yet. As more and more modern airliners come online, I think the chances of interference will lessen a bit.
Last edited:
Do you use a headset when communicating with ATC? Ever hear interference in the headset when your cell phone is blasting in your pocket on full power? While you may not need to always be in contact with ATC, there is a good chance you might benefit from un-interfered radio communication...DURING TAKEOFF AND LANDING.
B
The difference is stalls are a natural part of flight pilots should be able to deal with. If there is any chance that an electronic device can bring down a commercial aircraft, the planes need to be grounded. A passenger can't sit in his seat and stall the plane.
People who are for this misguided regulation are mind boggling.
----------
Then planes should be tested for this vulnerability and repaired. It is a safety problem that preventing passengers from using electronics during take-off and landing won't fix.
Your really reaching. You have no idea what someone is going to value. What about the guy who drops his antique pen when the pilot jams on the brakes?[/QUOTE]
I really don't feel as if I am reaching. This knowledge comes from experience.
So if I'm in the ER and the doc. commands me to do something...I'm probably just gonna go ahead and do it. He's the boss and I didn't go to med school. He also is the experienced one. It might not make sense that he just asked me to go get a glue gun but he probably has a really good reason. He might even know something I do not know.
So in the same instance the pilots and flight attendants are the boss and the tube you're sitting in is there operating room. If they issue you a command, it might be time critical. Whether its a bleeding artery or a descending aircraft, peoples lives hang in a critical balance.
There are alot of things we all *think* we know better about than the person at the work station. Sure, I *might* know more about flipping a burger than the kid at McDonalds...I *might* know a thing or two about teeth but I'm probably not going to lecture the dentist about how hes cleaning my teeth.
If the Senator from MO had gone and met with the chief of the FAA and asked him about considering the things she spoke of I would have been a-okay with that. But instead she put her uninformed knowledge out to an uninformed public because she knew she can get her way when enough uninformed people screaming loud enough. This is how politics work. This is not how flying works.
I really don't feel as if I am reaching. This knowledge comes from experience.
So if I'm in the ER and the doc. commands me to do something...I'm probably just gonna go ahead and do it. He's the boss and I didn't go to med school. He also is the experienced one. It might not make sense that he just asked me to go get a glue gun but he probably has a really good reason. He might even know something I do not know.
So in the same instance the pilots and flight attendants are the boss and the tube you're sitting in is there operating room. If they issue you a command, it might be time critical. Whether its a bleeding artery or a descending aircraft, peoples lives hang in a critical balance.
There are alot of things we all *think* we know better about than the person at the work station. Sure, I *might* know more about flipping a burger than the kid at McDonalds...I *might* know a thing or two about teeth but I'm probably not going to lecture the dentist about how hes cleaning my teeth.
If the Senator from MO had gone and met with the chief of the FAA and asked him about considering the things she spoke of I would have been a-okay with that. But instead she put her uninformed knowledge out to an uninformed public because she knew she can get her way when enough uninformed people screaming loud enough. This is how politics work. This is not how flying works.
Because I Iike to take videos of takeoff and landing when I ride on a plane. It's my hobby.
Since iPhone cameras have gotten so good, I don't bother with carrying a camera anymore - I just put the iPhone in airplane mode, wait for the flight attendants to take their own seats, and take my videos.
Not that it's any of your business.
You don't just as easily retrofit a 56 million dollar jet like you'd add subwoofers to your car. It takes years of testing. For instance the iPad was tested in all phases of flight on all of the airplanes my company flies. Only then was it found reliable enough. Boeing is not going to go out and buy every version of jellybean or pizza slice or whatever and test every single one of those on every single one of their airplanes...it does not make business sense no matter how much you want it. Also and airplane that's on the ground is not making money...so its just as unlikely an airline is going to stop an airplane and put it in a hanger and retrofit it every time a new device comes out that is suspected of interference.
You want to pay for that testing with even higher ticket prices?
That's true, and part of the problem is that the FAA is in bed with the airlines. They'd rather risk an occasional problem than scare passengers away.
Folks, one primary reason why the rules are in place is to prevent pilot distractions. The last thing your pilot needs to be doing, ESPECIALLY DURING TAKEOFF AND LANDING, is trying to figure out why his instruments or autopilot is acting wonky. Or worse, getting a false TCAS command to dive into the ground.
Non-pilots have no clue how dangerous the takeoff and landing phases can be if there are distractions or mistakes.
The reason why electronics are allowed above 10,000 feet is because the extra altitude gives the pilots more time to figure things out and/or to recover.
That's why cell phones have airplane mode.
If a cell phone powered on but in airplane mode (all transmitters off) can bring down an airplane, then that airplane should never have been certified by the FAA and or said device should be prohibited from use in all phases of flight, not just below 10,000'. It's that blatant absence of common sense by the FAA that the Senator is getting at.
First congress is against PEDs, now they're for them?!!?!?
I've never understood the argument that an electronic device is a safety risk during takeoff. Assuming the wireless radios are off, how is reading something on a Kindle or iPad any different than reading a newspaper or book as many often do from a safety standpoint?
Kindles etc hurt more when they wack you in the head, especially compared to a newspaper.
I'm fine with the rule given that many accidents occur doing takeoff and landing and that's a time when it is probably best that passengers don't have distractions. My issue is that they don't frame it that way but give this possibly bogus radio wave excuse.
----------
I have issues with that as well. I feel like its not safe. All kids should be in their own seat. Give a discount like they do when they make fat people buy two seats.
----------
She probably had some flight attendant threaten her with the Air Marshall because she was trying to play Angry Birds on her iPad Mini during takeoff and now she's pissed
For my last post (somebody's gotta iron these shirts before bed) I'd like to do a quick cost-benefit analysis.
Benefit of relaxing a law for the minor aggravation of turning electronic devices off an average of 20 to 30 minutes during a routine flight.
Cost = A itsy bitsy chance that one day in the future some interference will happen during a critical phase of flight or may hinder an evacuation. Also, billions of dollars spent retrofitting/certifying aircraft.
According to the free market and business your case just lost. Yes it is absolutely positively easier to enforce a rule than it is to not make money.
Also, what came first the airplane or the iPhone? Answer: The airplane.
So when an airline that makes 1% profit (typical of most airlines on average no I don't have a chart or a source I just know from working in the industry...) has to make a decision on whether to have you turn off your $200 phone or to park an airplane for a week in order to protect it (adds weight which costs hundreds of gallons of fuel burned over the life of an airplane) against said $200 phone I'm betting that every time you'll be the one turning off your phone.
Even if a device is in airplane mode, it's still a transmitter because of the oscillators for the CPU, display, power, etc.
It's impossible to test every type of device in every position and every combination on every type of airplane.
The blatant lack of common sense is on the part of the Senator and anyone else who thinks they know better, even without any electronics knowledge.
For example, people who think the phone isn't still transmitting anything in airplane mode!
Really? You turn on Air Plane mode? You realize that you are violating the regulations then? The rules you are defending say that you are supposed to turn the device OFF... in fact often the flight attendants now say "It is not enough to put it in airplane mode".
The argument the Senator is making is precisely that you should be able to use the device in airplane mode.
----------
But 80+ books flying around the cabin, each weighing more than an iPad is OK?
Sigh....
You do not have to turn off devices (as in hold the power-button for a few seconds and then have to reboot) during take-off and landing. The device needs to basically in its OFF state (as in not being used) with transmitters off. EMI transmission on a device in that state is almost 0.
This senator needs to stay in politics and get out of safety engineering.
----------
I would be for making sure she was defeated for getting involved in things way above her technical knowledge.
As for politics, it doesn't matter if it was a Republican or Democrat. The idea is just bad. If a Republican proposed the same legislation, I wouldn't be surprised and it would be just as dumb.
The whole cell phone disrupting signals of the aircraft is a bunch of bull. The cell towers beneath the plane are sending out much stronger signals into the air. The air is filled with radio signals. These are the same people that probably think radio frequency causes cancer when its actually on the opposite side of the light spectrum from the things that do.
