And that, of course, is the dumbest reason ever because if it takes 9 ounces of a certain fluid to be explosive, then the terrorists will put it in 3 3oz bottles and combine them on the plane. Terrorists know how to do basic math. The liquid thing is security theater.
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
And that, of course, is the dumbest reason ever because if it takes 9 ounces of a certain fluid to be explosive, then the terrorists will put it in 3 3oz bottles and combine them on the plane. Terrorists know how to do basic math. The liquid thing is security theater.
Actually it has not been researched to death. It has been talked about to death by armchair engineers and politicians. The cost of doing the research is exceedingly expensive but you would know that if you knew what you were talking about.
Exactly. If there is even one tiny shred of a possibility of causing interference or deliberate interference by unsavory types then, yeah shut up, stow your gear and enjoy the ride until we reach altitude.
Exactly why there are sterile cockpit rules in place for the pilots. But I, as a passenger, can't do anything except sit there. So why not let me read a book or listen to music? Me being attentive isn't going to help the pilots land the plane.
What more can research carried out by a few people over a small sample size tell us that the data already amassed can't? There are tens of millions of flights every year. Over the last 20 years, that adds up to hundreds of millions of commercial flights with personal electronics on board with no accidents. What more do you want?
I agree with you to some extent, but there's one key difference with an airplane that makes it different from a car or a ship. Cars (and portions of cars) stop working in operation all the time. You limp over to the shoulder (if you can), get towed away, and get the car fixed. Usually there's a lot of honking behind you, but most automobile failures can be categorized as an inconvenience. Ships stop working in operation all the time. You wait for a few weeks while living in your own filth, get towed back to port, and leave crappy reviews for the company running the cruse. It sucks, but it's workable.
When an airplane stops working in operation it tends to FALL. It needs to continue functioning to maintain a safe state. There is no getting towed home from midair. Because of the potential effect of an aircraft failure on takeoff or landing incidents are tracked to a much greater degree than car or ship issues. Imagine the impact of a problem where 1/10000 people using an iPhone in a Honda Civic saw their tachometer jump 1500 RPM. The FAA would probably ground every plane of the same model.
Or even better - just design planes so that a piece of consumer electronics can't bring it down.
Well...please provide solid evidence that you know that it does cause interference. Just because you have a degree in EE and have a pilot's license...it doesn't mean you are an expert in EMI and shielding for avionic equipment.
I also have a degree in EE and do have a clue of what I am talking about and my experience is that many people turn their screens off their devices, but do not actually turn them off. So far, I don't have any evidence that this has any impact on the avionic equipment.
Also, I would point out that while that has been my experience, it does not make me an expert and does not provide any hard data for either side of the argument.
I didn't think I had to say it but of course if there is scientific evidence to suggest that it isn't a problem than the rule should go.
Especially 'evidence' that would have facts backing it up if it really happened since all incidents must legally be reported and any plane inspected to make sure it is fit to fly. There might have been improperly exposed wiring near row 9 due to someone forgetting to put some kind of shield back in place while doing some kind of maintenance that was the real issue, not the iPhone itself. At the very least we would know the airline, flight, date etc.
And given this debate is like 5 years old why are we just hearing this now.
It's not the flying that causes me anxiety. It's the idiots on the plane with me.
----------
The last two sentences of your post are the ones that are really relevant. Until such time as there is proof that electronics don't pose a risk the rule should stay, and actually be enforced more stringently. Period.
If they're going to claim that phones or other devices cause interference, they should at least be specific about whether they were in airplane mode or not. I can see the point of turning off cel and wifi, but when they insist on turning off devices like old ipods that have no wireless communication, that's just stupid.
PS: I ussually tend to forget to turn my iPhone and never crashed, just ended-up in Australia while going to Canada
Looking for The Island cause a dream told you that you have to go back
for the time it takes during takeoff and landing its not a huge deal to me to turn off a phone. however i am not a businessman who is in the air a lot, whenever i take a plane its for vacation so im not too concerned with my phone anyways.
Again, we have the proof. At some point you have to accept that raw statistics of this volume provide far more meaningful data than any 'research' consisting of a small data set ever possibly can. And the statistics tell the whole story. Now if you want to add a radically different sort of device to the mix, then perhaps we need some research to find out what sort of limitations should be initially recommended. But in the case of consumer electronics conforming to existing standards; the verdict is in, and there is no arguing the outcome.
Your entire premise is complete BS. Nobody is claiming that airplanes "fall out of the sky" from RF interference. A perfect example of reductio ad absurdum reasoning.
I do like the idea of having the device know when it's in airplane mode. Surely that's doable.
I think some might argue that exposure to those things in a crowded environment could greatly impact one's mental health.
This is what I have always understood to be the real issue with PED's being used during these phases of flight. Taxi time is when the safety announcements are being made so everyone needs to be quiet & attentive, and take-off/landing are statistically the most dangerous phases of a plane's flight so you want folks to be ready in the event of a problem.
I would prefer they change the rules to reflect this attitude as opposed to the current "your stuff might possibly but very unlikely interfere with our stuff" stance. I think people as a whole would have a better time complying with the former.
It's really simple. If FAA/airlines allow people to use their electronics there is no way to control what exactly they are using. The crew is not in position to go ahead and verify what type of electronics people use and most people do not know or care what they use either. Pilots using iPads (or whatever) is totally different because airlines can control what exactly the pilots use. Do you really want to fly on a plane where anybody can use any electronics they want? It would be like saying "At least I would die with music".