FAA Advisory Committee Recommends Relaxation of Electronic Device Restrictions on Commercial Aircraft

[BruceEBonus]

Hello? Hello? Yeah. Yup. I'm on the plane. The PLANE! Yeah. No! No! It's rubbish! Easyjet. Yeah! Ciao! The PLANE! No not the train. The PLANE! Ciao! Ciao!

 

[Dorje Sylas]

i think you're being a little [something] if you think people arent already doing this.. the flight crew makes the electronics announcement then walks through the aisle to see if anyone has a phone on then tells them to turn it off..
then-- they go strap themselves into a chair..
you really think nobody is texting/browsing/whatever during that time?

However the number of people being actively distracted is far lower, AND on the plus side I have a legitimate reason to politely ask the dude-bro spilling his extra 50 lbs. of American cheese & bacon blubber into my seat to turn off said device if I see it out.

While I'm fully aware of technical advancements in shielding flight control systems this rule still seems like a reasonable thing to ask. Particularly during take-off and approaches for landing. Bring a paper back book or maybe a pop-up book if one is that ADHD.

 

[Hastings101]

You may be surprised to learn, but they are not actually counting on the passengers hearing an announcement and then quickly acting on a life saving maneuver. There is no "Quick everyone move to starboard" on a plane. If everyone is screaming as the plane is going down, you will take off our headphones. There is no real safety move for the passengers. Rumor is that the assume the crash position is to make sure that your dental records are more likely to be near your body in the wreckage. That's a nice thing, but hardly mission critical. And also there is generally going to be plenty of time to get that message through even the most clueless headset wearer.

Rumor also has it that the crash position saves lives

I'd rather not find out either way

 

[flat five]

However the number of people being actively distracted is far lower, AND on the plus side I have a legitimate reason to politely ask the dude-bro spilling his extra 50 lbs. of American cheese & bacon blubber into my seat to turn off said device if I see it out.

yeah, maybe.. i wish there was a polite way to ask him to get those 50lbs back on his side of the arm rest though!

Bring a paper back book or maybe a pop-up book if one is that ADHD.

adhd + books dont mix

(crossword puzzles in the airline mags usually do the trick though)

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Hah. Good luck trying to enforce that.

...and this will be this issue. Controlling that everyone is following the rules to the letter will take far too many resources. It's much easier just to enforce that everything is switched off in the first place.

 

[flat five]

...and this will be this issue. Controlling that everyone is following the rules to the letter will take far too many resources. It's much easier just to enforce that everything is switched off in the first place.

or, don't make it a rule that phones need to be in airplane mode in order to have a safe flight ? (unless of course, it is proven to be dangerous.. thing is, if it is dangerous, it's already happening every day on most if not all flights so we have a real problem on our hands.. (except planes aren't crashing or getting screwed up by it etc.))

i mean, why make it a rule when it doesn't need to be a rule.. that's pretty much the problem with the current phone/flight rule.. it'd be dumb to make a new rule which still contains a similar bit of misinformation attached to it.

 

[Analog Kid]

People who put an aircraft full of non-consenting passengers at risk because they imagine they're smarter than everyone else and then make a point of bragging about it are sociopathic. Even if the rules change in the future, it doesn't change the fact that such people were told they'd be endangering the aircraft, had no technical basis to decide otherwise, chose to risk the lives of others and now have no sense of remorse.

 

[mrsir2009]

People who put an aircraft full of non-consenting passengers at risk because they imagine they're smarter than everyone else and then make a point of bragging about it are sociopathic. Even if the rules change in the future, it doesn't change the fact that such people were told they'd be endangering the aircraft, had no technical basis to decide otherwise, chose to risk the lives of others and now have no sense of remorse.

Yeah, but they weren't told how or why. Without a good reason it's just an empty statement.

 

[flat five]

People who put an aircraft full of non-consenting passengers at risk because they imagine they're smarter than everyone else and then make a point of bragging about it are sociopathic. Even if the rules change in the future, it doesn't change the fact that such people were told they'd be endangering the aircraft, had no technical basis to decide otherwise, chose to risk the lives of others and now have no sense of remorse.

hmm.. i really don't think that's what being sociopathic is all about.
anyway

look, i can't bring toothpaste on a plane.. i can't bring a bottle of water on a plane.. these are considered dangerous items

i can however bring a phone on a plane.. and i can also use it during most of the flight (and it's not even required to be in airplane mode while using it)

do you really think if a passenger's phone could potentially crash a plane that they'd let you bring one on? in a roundabout way, it's not much difference than saying "sure, feel free to carry explosives on board.. just make sure you don't have the battery hooked up"

i'm sorry that you feel anybody who doesn't blindly accept everything they're told --especially when there's no proof/explanation as well as many very obvious examples/experts saying otherwise-- are sociopaths & have no sense of remorse.. but i guess that's your prerogative so.. so be it

[edit- oh wait.. i can bring water on a plane.. just can't bring it through the security checkpoint]

 

[Cougarcat]

...and this will be this issue. Controlling that everyone is following the rules to the letter will take far too many resources. It's much easier just to enforce that everything is switched off in the first place.

They can't even enforce that rule, though. I would wager most people don't even bother and just put their devices to sleep.

Because there is no evidence, they should just scrap the rule entirely.

look, i can't bring toothpaste on a plane.. i can't bring a bottle of water on a plane.. these are considered dangerous items

Sure you can...you just have to buy them after security. Another reason why Airport security is so illogical--you can make weapons with Duty-free items. But that's another topic.

 

[Analog Kid]

Yeah, but they weren't told how or why. Without a good reason it's just an empty statement.

A) Sure they were-- they were told it could interfere with communication and navigation equipment.

B) As is evidenced by most of the discussion in this thread so far, nobody would understand the whys and hows even if they were explained by James Clerk Maxwell himself during the safety briefing.

C) What about "they told me I could be killing us all but didn't tell me precisely how so I'm justified in my behavior" makes it less sociopathic?

 

[Troneas]

paranoids.



in the late 1990s people still SMOKED onboard planes - ie they lit cigarettes with lighters. not one plane that i've heard of came crashing down due to this practice.

a few devices that produce negligible amounts of radio emissions won't harm anyone.



i am not lobbying here for downloads or internet browsing (though it would be nice) but as others pointed out this will be a "all in or all out" ruling due to practical reasons, so the advisors pretty much closed the door on more relaxation of the use of digital devices.

 

[Krazy Bill]

All wireless will have to be turned off.

When was the last time a flight attendant checked your phone for this? You can tell that even the airline employees think these rules are stupid.

 

[locust76]

Not surprised they are allowing people to use read/browse during all phases of flight or that they don't want people talking on the phone.

I'm a bit surprised they are allowing people to wear headphones during takeoff/landing. Most incidents occur during takeoff/landing and for safety reasons you'd think they would want passengers to be able to hear any announcements.

I think that, if an incident were to occur, the person wearing said headphones might realize something was up and remove them at the very least once they started seeing luggage and flight attendants flying about the cabin.

 

[SvenSvenson]

I never knew how playing Bejeweled or watching a movie on your phone offline ever interfered with cockpit equipment...
Sooo I guess my point is, why the hell were they ever worried about smartphones and tablets in the first place lol

It's very easy to get an electronic device to generate and emit radio waves (electromagnetic interference) - the difficult bit is to get the device to NOT emit interference - that is/was the (potential) problem.

Steve

P.S: I like your 'Think Different' tag in you sig - did you think of that yourself?

 

[junctionscu]

While it's nonsense from the reason why it existed( interfering with the planes equipment), I like it simply because it makes it easier for the flight attendants to prepare the cabin for an emergency. 10,000 ft. may sound like a lot of altitude, but that can go by quickly when trying to get 100's of passengers under control, etc.

Even though the stated reason has always been "interference with flight navigation equipment," I've always thought the true reason for continuing the ban was for impairing our ability to get off the plane in the event of an emergency.

That's why seat backs and tray tables need to be up and they make sure your bags are all the way under the seat in front of you with nothing by your feet. Seconds count in an emergency situation like this. I wouldn't want to be sitting in the window seat next to someone with a laptop in the middle seat plugged in - it could make it harder to get out.

Why not just say - put everything away when we takeoff and land just so that if something does go wrong, it easier to get off the plane of all your stuff is put away. It doesn't have to be off, just put away.

 

[alphaod]

This is good. Hopefully they won't yell at me for using my unplugged headphones on the plane now during take off and landing.

paranoids.

in the late 1990s people still SMOKED onboard planes - ie they lit cigarettes with lighters. not one plane that i've heard of came crashing down due to this practice.

a few devices that produce negligible amounts of radio emissions won't harm anyone.

They stopped this not because it was dangerous to fly with, but rather it affected a lot of passengers. I don't care about people who smoke, but if I'm stuck in a metal tube with a bunch of smokers I don't need it thank you very much!

 

[Since '84]

It should be an all or nothing approach. If you make a rule, it has to be enforceable, and Airplane Mode is not enforceable. Are flight attendants expected to check for the plane icon of everyones device? All or nothing I say.

 

[Cougarcat]

It should be an all or nothing approach. If you make a rule, it has to be enforceable, and Airplane Mode is not enforceable. Are flight attendants expected to check for the plane icon of everyones device? All or nothing I say.

As I said above, it's not enforceable now, because people just put their devices to sleep.

The only "all" approach that makes any sense at all would be to ban electronics entirely. Nothing past security, no more Best Buy kiosks or electronics stores after security.

 

[mrxak]

Hah. Good luck trying to enforce that.

Good luck enforcing the existing rules. Absolutely nothing will change on planes. Most people think airplane mode is acceptable anyway, that is if they even think they should do anything at all. I'm sure most frequent flyers have accidentally left their phones on anyway, at least once or twice.

Planes haven't been falling out of the sky every day, so I'm sure the thousands of travelers already flaunting the rules every day is all the evidence needed that people's devices pose no danger whatsoever. While for the time being I'm glad they're still restricting phone calls, simply because I hate people talking on planes, let's not forget there's already planes with in-flight wifi so it's not like devices transmitting radio signals are that big a deal either. There's also those phones on some planes. This is just a matter of shielding equipment so it only can be affected by signals it's meant to be affected by. They've already been doing it, now they're willing to admit it.

I know people are going to say "why can't people go without their devices" but that's no good reason at all to actually restrict people. Rules should be made solely for safety purposes, not to arbitrarily restrict freedoms because people "should" be able to go without them. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

 

[cqexbesd]

I always thought these restrictions were nonsense, ESPECIALLY the one where I can't have a radio that's receiving FM signals (not even sending!)

Most radio receivers will have a local oscillator that will be radiating energy. How strong and on which frequency will vary. I wouldn't expect a modern receiver to cause much trouble - but the quality of consumer electronics varies wildly so I'm happy to defer to the experts on what is safe - after all I have no idea how to build a plane either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver#Local_oscillator_radiation

 

[Apple Mac Daz]

When was the last time a flight attendant checked your phone for this? You can tell that even the airline employees think these rules are stupid.

Very true I know most times while landing you can here phones receiving sms's which will be welcome to so and so country where ever you are landing.

 

[discuit]

Rumor is that the assume the crash position is to make sure that your dental records are more likely to be near your body in the wreckage.

That is a bunch of crap. The purpose of the crash position is to minimize trauma and damage to the spine from whiplash in event of a crash. Obviously it won't prevent puncture or fire or smoke injuries, but if the crash is otherwise nonviolent enough to be survivable that position will make it more likely that you can walk away from it.

 

[Max(IT)]

I'm not sure how nonsense they are, I can't speak for the air side, but I routinely work in the Air Traffic Control room for an Air Force base here in the UK, and nearby mobile phones will routinely cause the consoles to transmit that static "dun dun dun... dun dun dun... dun dun dun.." noise to the pilots if they're actively transmitting at the time.

I can speak for the air side and I would agree with you: interferences with mobile phone transmitting or just searching for the net are massive.
But I can't see anything wrong in keeping electronic devices in airplane mode also during taxiing , take off, climb, descent and landing.

 

[Max(IT)]

Finally.

It is done. These rules have been hanging by a thread. The first line of enforcement has always been a stewardess who have known they were a load of crap. There are two reasons why the rules were known as a load of crap. First, science. The planes are, quite logically, not designed to be susceptible to publicly available and used radio waves. Second, experience. These rules have never been enforced on private planes and thousands of those fly every day (often with the same stewardess covering those flights). So everyone has known for a long time that there was no real safety issue here.

Once the stewardess stop even trying to enforce this rule, the rule is done. It doesn't matter when some regulatory body makes the final call.

----------



None of the phones in the passenger area are "nearby" the pilot's microphone or speakers.

In a typical medium range commercial aircraft (I'm speaking about an airbus a321 or a Boeing 737) between the cockpit and the passenger first rows are just a matter of meters. If you have a dozen phones searching for the net it could be a nightmare on the pilot's radio, believe me.
It's not a real safety reason (but it could be, if a radio communication is lost or misunderstanding), but it has a direct impact on flight operations.
The airplane mode is a must in my opinion.

----------

True, they are in much closer proximity to the fly by wire wires. I'd rather hear some flutter in the headsets rather than the ailerons.

B

On this I can assure you: wifi and cellphones are not going to interfere with fly by wire.