He is just another sad case of someone who firmly believes that if the world doesn't conform to his whims, then it's the world's fault.
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.
Airline Industry Remains Divided Over Personal Electronics Usage During Takeoff and Landing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He is just another sad case of someone who firmly believes that if the world doesn't conform to his whims, then it's the world's fault.
You are simply IGNORANT and uninformed. Oh, and WRONG. If you are going to be a little "wikipedia-search-boy", then maybe broaden your search parameter.
Flight 858, a flight brought down on 29 November 1987, by liquid explosives concealed as liquor bottles by North Koreans who boarded the plane in Iraq.
Philippine Airlines Flight 434 1994 al-Queda test run for Operation Bojinka, in which a passenger was killed and 747 controls seriously damaged by a liquid explosive packed into contact lens solution bottles containing nitroglycerin. Bomb was assembled from parts in hand luggage by Ramzi Yousef, who also built and detonated the WTC 1993 bomb.
And the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was legit and very real. But it was only the most current plan that caused the restrictions to be enacted. But even if you are too ignorant to believe the 2006 thwarted plot was real, the previous occurrences and loss of life make you equally uninformed and WRONG.
But going through everyone's bags is going to be tedious and take a lot of time. It may come to that, but I hope not. Also on another conversation on another site, someone suggested using a dampening field, but that's like curing a headache with a lobotomy...
You probably shouldn't have taken that bait. The rules exist so that they can be enforced when needed, not because they can or must be enforced 100% of the time. They give the captain the authority to do what he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of flight. We can only hope that our friend the "conscientious objector" some day ends up in an airport terminal that wasn't supposed to be his final destination.
Low current AC will have a negligible effect on the DC sensing navigation devices on aircraft. Heck, our business relies on creating fairly high current AC fields on a wire in close proximity to extremely sensitive magnetometers and be able to navigate with a level of precision much higher than is necessary for air travel. This is truly a non-issue.
It is not a 'very bad concept' when you have the data to back you up. You cannot eliminate every risk, and no other system in an airliner is held to this standard.
Again, at what point does the risk become 'small enough?' At this point, we have more accidents from fires in the in flight entertainment systems (if what you say is true) than we do from consumer electronics. Why haven't those systems been banned?
We are not proposing allowing new products that don't conform to current standards. In that case some testing would be in order. In the case of existing electronic devices, the data is very clear that they cause no significant threat. Why is nothing else on the aircraft held to this rigorous standard that it must be proven completely unable to fail under any possible circumstance?
At high altitudes, above 10,000 ft, I believe it is certainly a non-issue. The "negligible" effect at low altitudes on extremely high precision approaches is what is in question, where a single degree of error is critical. In most aspects of navigation, a degree of error (.27% of the compass rose) would mean nothing. That would not be the case in the low altitude environment. It simply warrants thorough investigation. It would be such a shame if an aircraft were lost due to such an error being a contributing factor. To be clear, that is all it would be. I know that no amount of Personal Electronic Devices on board will cause an airplane to roll over and crash, or spontaneously explode. There are back ups to failed or erroneous instrument displays. But we always like to break the first "link" in the "chain of events" that can contribute to a mishap in aviation. And ensuring there is zero degradation of navigational accuracy, caused by personal electronics, is a step worth exploring patiently.
Just how it appeared and how it hit me. Wasn't being sarcastic. If pressed I'd probably have to agree with it.
Michael
A million passengers fly a day, lets say 300,000 have a cell phone.
This has been going on for decades, and is rapidly escalating.
The number of incidents is statistically nothing.
On the flip side, I have not heard of any serious testing or attempt to recreate reported incidents. It sounds like our FAA and FCC is not doing its job.
I am a pilot myself and I rely on GPS, 2 or 3 kinds of Radio navigation, and a magnetic compass (not electronic compass) besides simply looking out the window. Redundancy of aids reduce chance of problems.
This has been going on for decades, and is rapidly escalating.
The number of incidents is statistically nothing.
On the flip side, I have not heard of any serious testing or attempt to recreate reported incidents. It sounds like our FAA and FCC is not doing its job.
I am a pilot myself and I rely on GPS, 2 or 3 kinds of Radio navigation, and a magnetic compass (not electronic compass) besides simply looking out the window. Redundancy of aids reduce chance of problems.
To be clear, I am talking of putting many amps of current on a wire and magnetometers calibrated to better than +\- 0.1 degrees. Yet I'm supposed to be worried that an e-reader back in the passenger cabin might effect the navigation systems by a degree or more??
True. I sat next to a young (probably libertarian. Most are it seems) who was spouting that type of ********. I finally pointed out to him that it didn't matter what he said, or what he believed. If a flight attendant spotted him using his phone, or I reported him (being a pilot), he would not get to his destination, and would likely spend a fair amount of time in a small room either answering questions, or wondering when he was going to get out. All because the world revolves around him, and his needs... I told him that it really didn't matter what the hell he thought. That in the grown up world, there are rules and he wasn't in charge of determining what rules were 'good rules' and what rules were 'bad rules'. He ****, and actually turned his iPhone off. I nearly laughed... I'll bet he didn't get enough of that at home.
The article primarily refers to cell phone use for placing or taking calls, which this thread is not about.
But even a half degree of error, if not caught, can lead a plane to be thousands of mils of course over time.
And there are backups for SOME of the devices in the cockpit. Some, not all. Putting pilots in a situation of trying to decide which is the erroneous device, and getting them to just spontaneously recover in the proper way is sometimes asking a lot. Remember the Air France crash off South America? Would you believe that it was caused by a plugged tube that caused the pilots to freak out? Yep, it happens... I'd just as soon avoid that if I could, mmm-kay... I kinda like living and can live without my iPhone being on all the time... That's why I shut my iPhone off and use my iPod Touch, in airplane mode. Same apps, same music, longer battery life, no hassles...
That's not the issue. The issue is that the rules are routinely and regularly not followed. As such, where is the safety issue and why keep the rule?
You miss the point entirely. Since the rule cannot be and is not actually realistically enforced in practice at ANY stage in flight, the risk that you speak of (take off and landing/10000 feet) is never eliminated in actual practice.
Therefore, if your argument is its such a terrible risk at certain times of flight, the only way to practically avoid that risk is to ban such devices entirely. Anything else is just "safety theater", since it accomplishes nothing for a flight attendant to simply making an announcement as to what they hope people will do. While many people may listen, many people don't on purpose or accidentally (since they may just lock the screen).
In other words, if the danger is that terrible, then the devices should in fact be banned entirely, because it is likely that any commercial flight of any passenger size no doubt has many such devices on at ALL stages of flight.
So either it is a real danger or it isn't. If it is a real danger, the enforcement should be 100%. If its not a real danger, lets stop the nonsense.
----------
No, its called thinking for yourself and not just falling in line with the sheep who run scared anytime someone yells safety.
----------
How is it bait? It is common knowledge that that if rules are enforced arbitrarily it diminshes all of the rules. So by having real rules that really mean something and are not arbitrarily or infrequently enforced, all safety rules are likely to be followed more strictly by the flying public.
And no one (other than you) has claimed that the device rule is there simply to give the captain authority when needed.
----------
Phones are not the issue here. It is reading electronically via a kindle or kindle app on an ipad or such similar device. And yes, any intelligent person can decide what rules are good or bad. You do it every day -- I guarantee you have gone over the speed limit when driving (at least once if not many times).
----------
If you are using your ipod touch in airplane mode below 10,000 feet you have violated the rules. The rule as announced by flight attendants is that anything with a power button must be powered OFF.
Again, this thread is not about using cell phones for placing or taking calls. Its about being able to read a book electronically or something similar.
----------
Okay then, you always went to bed the exact time your parents said. Always came home the exact time your parents said?
Never talked back to your parents? never got in a fight with your siblings? Many rules are broken by all every day.
No it does not, look again. Looking at the article title & contents it predominately talks about personal electronic devices and only makes reference to cell phone usage only once.
Most personal electronics have standards that have to comply to FCC regulations, but do not necessarily comply with FAA regulation standards on board an aircraft.
The point is that while the number of active devices is clearly greater than zero with the rules in place, removing the rules would likely increase the number of devices to a level where we have no empirical evidence.
-- HJKL
Is it really that big of an inconvenience to have to stow your iToys for a short period of time? The world will continue to turn even if you don't post yet another meaningless Twitter message about your boring life.
It's a very specific mindset at work. You don't have to obey any rules that you don't understand. So it stand to reason that if you cultivate willful ignorance, you will not have to obey any rules at all.
Per the articles you rule followers are throwing around, increasing the number of devices does not exponentionally increase the risk. In other words, 2 devices does make 2 times the risk, 3 devices on not 3 times the risk, etc.
----------
For the millionth time, it is not about social media, communicating with others or talking on the phone. It is simply about reading an electronic version of a book on a kindle or via the kindle app on an ipad, or such other similar device.
Planes will continue to fly (and have) with such devices on.
----------
So do you always follow the speed limit? Or do you not understand the speed limit?
I've watched more episodes of air crash investigation than I'd care to admit to and not one crash has been attributed to this issue. Yet. However, there was one crash relating to wiring that caught fire in a newly installed in flight entertainment system. That was scary.
this.
as an aside, my active iphone AND active ipad presented no issues to the fully electronic G1000 MFDs in the general aviation plane I was flying. That's a distance of less than two feet.