Airline Industry Remains Divided Over Personal Electronics Usage During Takeoff and Landing

[zhenya]

I have never heard the crew announcing that all but first class passengers should turn off their devices. The first class might be listening to the music provided by the crew. Regardless, you do not want to make the situation worse than it already is.

Uh, they don't make a special announcement. It's just that in business and first class the flight attendants tend to have a much more hands-off demeanor. But what would I know with hundreds of thousands of miles flown up front?

The effect of these devices also don't multiply; the effect of one device is the same as that of 50.

 

[pacalis]

I've put my life at risk, an endangered countless of others, repeatedly testing the theory that there is no relationship between an electronic device being turned on and the successful operation of a an aircraft.

The results are in. And you're welcome!

 

[caesarp]

I think it's passengers who should relax

they will survive with no electronics until the plane is up

At busy airports it can sometimes be close to an hour or more from taxiing and waiting for takeoff until the plane reaches 10,000 feet.

If I have an iPad with a Kindle App with 50 books on it, why should I not be allowed to read my reading material during that time. I'm supposed to buy a physical book instead?

And frankly, unless the flight attendant is closely paying attention, I never turn it off anyway. I have it in airplane mode and continue reading. So far I've lived. I'll continue to take my chances (and yes, the chances of my fellow passengers). If pilots use ipads in the cockpit, I think its safe. Don't be a scaredy pants.

 

[DogHouseDub]

Most intriguing to me? I am strip searched and microwaved, my shampoo and coffee thrown out for being over 3 oz, and my shoes x-rayed - yet my cellphone that could bring the whole plane down if I turn it on? They trust me to turn that off. Seriously? If this is a threat to the flying public why would you be allowed to have them on a plane at all? Wouldn't terrorists be jumping on board with a carry-on full of powered up cell phones?

It's either a threat or it's not - if it really is, you can't leave control of the on-off switch with the passenger. If it's not, then let's stop the shenanigans...

 

[avanpelt]

I fly out of Newark every week, and it takes a lot longer than 15 mins from when they shut the door to when the aircraft is at 10,000 feet. I can see an hour or more very easily.

Ahhh, Newark. The only airport where I've been on a plane that was 47th in line for takeoff. Not exaggerating. Yeah, 15 minutes from the gate to 10,000 feet hasn't happened to me a single time flying out of Newark.

 

[macsrcool1234]

These things are only prohibited in certain situations, it's not the end of the world if you can't use your device while the plane is taking off/landing.

I don't see why people make such a big fuss over being temporarily unable to use their devices...you have the rest of the flight to use them.

 

[Sinfire]

I see a lot of talk about iPhones and iPads, but what about other devices that do not transmit or receive like noise canceling headsets.

Most of these rules were created20-30 years ago before most of these electronic devices existed. Back then electronic devices had a greater chance of causing issues on a plane.

Like others have posted, if these devices really did cause an issue, then they should be banned from airplanes completely. Only allow people to bring then in their checked luggage.

 

[caesarp]

Why is this a big deal? Don't use your stupid devices during takeoff. You're not that important. Idiots.

My reading material is electronic (via Kindle app on iPad). I'm entitled to read it that way and not have to buy a physical book.

 

[fivedots]

Unrelated, but I actually saw a sign at Subway last night when ordering dinner that said, "Please refrain from using your mobile phone while ordering."

I for one think we need a good kick in the etiquette teeth.

 

[caesarp]

Maybe the pilots are holding the plane wrong.

My opinion is that all personal distraction devices should be put away during take off and landing. Most airline emergencies occur either when the plane is taking off or when it is landing. In the event of an emergency I don't need your device smacking me in the head after flying across the cabin or you fumbling with it when we're trying to get to the emergency exit door. Put it away!

A hard cover book weighs more than a kindle or ipad. So your reasoning is foolish.

 

[notjustjay]

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.

Exactly. As are the folks arguing "well why don't terrorists just turn on iPhones and crash the plane".

It's not a simple correlation that "turning on your iPhone will cause the plane to crash".

It's about mitigating risk.

Is there a risk that, certain electronic devices, whether by poor design or due to some kind of accidental damage, can be emitting RF or EM noise?

Is there a risk that some aircraft, whether by poor design or to damage or old age, have instruments that are susceptible to malfunction when exposed to this RF or EM noise?

Is there a risk that, in certain conditions, the pilot would have a greater chance of an accident if he couldn't depend on those instruments during a take-off or landing?

Put it all together: is there a risk that a flight could be endangered because someone is using a "bad" electronic device?

The probability of this happening seems to be extremely low, but it is not 0. We know there is a small percentage of folks who disobey the rules and still run their devices anyway. If there is a ruling that anybody can run their devices, then that part of the risk equation doubles, triples, or even more. It could still be an extremely slim chance of accident, but is it still slim enough to be inconsequential? That's what needs to be decided.

 

[ryedarrow]

The problem is there is no way to enforce the rule. How many people have phones/tablets in their pockets or bags that are on? So the rule banning them during landing and take off is stupid, either don't let them on board or let people use them.

A better solution is if someone wants to use their tablet or phone let the flight attendants ask everyone to put it in airplane mode. They could even walk up and down the aisle having passengers show that their device is in airplane mode.

An even better solution would be to have software companies work with the airline industry to have devices automatically detect your device is in an airplane and it puts it in airplane mode for you. Problem solved.

This. I always leave my phone on. I've only taken down 2 planes with it so far (miraculously I survived both) but I'm shooting for 4-5.

 

[NoNothing]

You're an engineer, not a scientist. So stop to act like you actually know something.

Trust me, I know far far more on this topic than you ever will. I do this topic for a living and understand both the science and engineering about it.

 

[MegamanX]

Interesting how there is no evidence whatsoever that cell phones cause any sort of interference.

Anecdotal evidence from a flight attendant doesn't trump the science for me... nor the common sense that on every flight there are multiple phones and iPads and such that are never turned off. If there were any issues with this, it would have surfaced a long time ago.

umm there is evidence of it. Hell I have to point no farther than the GSM buzz.

It is not the device itself but the power from its cell and wifi antennas. Those are the bigger issue and jack asses not turning them off.

I have sat at a gate when before and had the pilot come on the intercom and say "Will the jackass who has not turned off their cell turn it off. This plane will not move until then" This was after he had made the request 3 times that he went on to the insulting point.
I watch a guy pull out his phone, turn it off and then we rolled out. This was on a southwest plane.

 

[caesarp]

Unrelated, but I actually saw a sign at Subway last night when ordering dinner that said, "Please refrain from using your mobile phone while ordering."

I for one think we need a good kick in the etiquette teeth.

Different issue. No one cares about making phone calls during take-off. The issue is reading an electronic book, newspaper or other such material. Or perhaps playing a game against the computer to pass the time.

 

[bsolar]

As a pilot with a degree in electrical engineering, I shall sit back and enjoy the proclamations of "There's no way an electronic device could interfere with navigation systems onboard an aircraft" made by people who have no clue what they are talking about....

If there is a way for a passenger to jeopardize a flight's safety simply by leaving a phone on then maybe the navigation systems onboard are not designed to be resilient enough.

 

[zhenya]

These things are only prohibited in certain situations, it's not the end of the world if you can't use your device while the plane is taking off/landing.

I don't see why people make such a big fuss over being temporarily unable to use their devices...you have the rest of the flight to use them.

I don't carry paper reading material anymore. Why should I be forced to either buy a magazine I don't really want, or forced to read Sky Mall or do nothing when my flight is waiting to take off? If the rules were reasonable, then no problem. And yes, often I talk to my fellow passengers and meet great people; often they clearly have no interest, and in any case, people should have the option.

 

[caesarp]

Exactly. As are the folks arguing "well why don't terrorists just turn on iPhones and crash the plane".

It's not a simple correlation that "turning on your iPhone will cause the plane to crash".

It's about mitigating risk.

Is there a risk that, certain electronic devices, whether by poor design or due to some kind of accidental damage, can be emitting RF or EM noise?

Is there a risk that some aircraft, whether by poor design or to damage or old age, have instruments that are susceptible to malfunction when exposed to this RF or EM noise?

Is there a risk that, in certain conditions, the pilot would have a greater chance of an accident if he couldn't depend on those instruments during a take-off or landing?

Put it all together: is there a risk that a flight could be endangered because someone is using a "bad" electronic device?

The probability of this happening seems to be extremely low, but it is not 0. We know there is a small percentage of folks who disobey the rules and still run their devices anyway. If there is a ruling that anybody can run their devices, then that part of the risk equation doubles, triples, or even more. It could still be an extremely slim chance of accident, but is it still slim enough to be inconsequential? That's what needs to be decided.

If you are that worried about risk, shouldn't you strap a lightning rod to your head at all times (in the low probability of a lightning strike)?

Why get in a car -- 40,000 people die per year in car crashes.

Your scaredy cat notion is not relevant to the issue here.

 

[ptb42]

Well said.

As a pilot with a degree in electrical engineering, I shall sit back and enjoy the proclamations of "There's no way an electronic device could interfere with navigation systems onboard an aircraft" made by people who have no clue what they are talking about....

My degree is in computer engineering, but I have both amateur radio and pilot licenses. And, I concur. If you don't think your phone or laptop can interfere with avionics, you aren't qualified to make an assessment. There are some laws of physics that you can't change.

The possibility is rare, which makes it difficult to measure. But, it is a real possibility. And while pilots are trained to recognize avionics problems and switch to a backup, a failure at an inopportune moment can contribute to a cascade of problems that leads to an incident.

 

[lilo777]

Uh, they don't make a special announcement. It's just that in business and first class the flight attendants tend to have a much more hands-off demeanor. But what would I know with hundreds of thousands of miles flown up front?

The effect of these devices also don't multiply; the effect of one device is the same as that of 50.

The problem is that the more devices people turn on the higher is the likelihood that one of them can screw avionics. And I would not go as far as saying that the effect from multiple devices is not different than effect from one device. With all the protocols/packets stuff the more packets are "in the air" the harder it is to verify that we are safe.

 

[NoNothing]

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?

No accidents but 1,000's to 10,000's of incidents. Two different things. On one system, we still had cell-phones on the fish-bone as the most probable cause when the investigation was post-pined waiting for more data.

This is the problem with people that know nothing about probability and statistics and safety imagining they do.

 

[Supermule]

When going on vacation, leave your smartphone at home.

When going on vacation, leave your smartphone at home.

 

[MegamanX]

If there is a way for a passenger to jeopardize a flight's safety simply by leaving a phone on then maybe the navigation systems onboard are not designed to be resilient enough.

considering many plans are 20+ years old and still flying means that they were designed before things like cell phones would be considered.

 

[macsrcool1234]

My reading material is electronic (via Kindle app on iPad). I'm entitled to read it that way and not have to buy a physical book.

No, you're not. People's sense of entitlement is whats wrong with our society these days.

I don't carry paper reading material anymore. Why should I be forced to either buy a magazine I don't really want, or forced to read Sky Mall or do nothing when my flight is waiting to take off? If the rules were reasonable, then no problem. And yes, often I talk to my fellow passengers and meet great people; often they clearly have no interest, and in any case, people should have the option.

The real question is, why can't you wait for takeoff? Is that your life that dependent on electronic gadgets that you cannot handle yourself in a situation otherwise? If so, you have more important problems than not being able to use your device...

 

[notjustjay]

If you are that worried about risk, shouldn't you strap a lightning rod to your head at all times (in the low probability of a lightning strike)?

Why get in a car -- 40,000 people die per year in car crashes.

Your scaredy cat notion is not relevant to the issue here.

My "scaredy cat notion" is exactly the issue here, and you have just helped me prove my point.

You are right, there is some probability that I could be hit by lightning as I walk down the street. It is a very close to 0 probability, but it is not 0 (unless I stay indoors and underground all my life).

Let's assume that wearing a lightning rod on my head will decrease that risk of lightning strike. So why don't I do it? Because I don't feel that the first risk was high enough to warrant that kind of action.

This is exactly what the FCC/FAA need to decide: is that first risk (of a rogue device causing a chain reaction of instrument malfunction/bad weather/pilot error) leading to a plane crash high enough to warrant the action of banning all electronic devices? Or is the risk so incredibly low that it isn't worth worrying about, and electronic devices should be allowed?

Nobody asked, but my (uninformed) opinion is, no, the risk is so incredibly low that it would be like asking people to wear lightning rods: there's no point. But that's not for me to decide, and if I'm wrong, all it would take would be one incident and everyone would be up in arms again.