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

[Tinmania]

I'm OK with this as long as people text, play games, or listen to their headphones. I'm not Ok with this if people are talking loudly on their phone.

I know because it is so much better when both parties are there talking loudly. Is that better because you can hear both sides?

I have been at restaurants with people talking amongst themselves very loudly and then one of them notices a guy/gal on a cellphone and it's like "oh my god, can you believe them??" I'm like you are talking louder than they are but it's OK because you aren't on a phone?




Michael

 

[giantfan1224]

No ego-trip here. Simply stating facts as facts. Either a client obeys my rules of flight or the client won't be traveling on my aircraft. They can complain all they desire as it matters not one jot. Safety will always come first.

Even if your rules go against standard protocol? I have never once, in all my flights, seen the crew ask someone reading a book to put it away for takeoff/landing. I often will hold my powered-off cell phone in my hand, if I plan to use it as soon as we get above 10,000 ft, and never have I been told to stow it. I know it's not an FAA rule and by the looks of it, not a commercial airliner rule either. At least not any airline I've ever flown.

How about an infant-in-arms?

 

[Tinmania]

As opposed to talking loudly to another person on the plane?

Or a screaming baby, the incessant whine of the jet engines, the crackling of announcements... but let's get all crazy about someone on a cellphone.



Michael

 

[caesarp]

The rules should stay in place, but not for the reason the FAA has been giving for years. As another poster mentioned, having everything off facilitates the crew's safety briefing. I see it nearly every week I travel (2-3 month), people simply don't pay attention to the briefings. Most accidents these days are survivable and if you don't know what to do in the event of emergency you are are risking my life as well. God forbid someone impinge upon your ability to post a status update that frankly no one cares about anyway.

The main issue is simply READING an e-book (not using the web, posting or talking on a cell). READING.

 

[galrito]

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

You don't have to know the reason, you just have to comply and shut up.
You may pay for the ticket but the captain is the ultimate authority inside an aircraft and you have to do what he/she commands or you're violating the FAA, ICAO, IATA, and pretty much every civil aviation authority's rules.

 

[caesarp]

Here, in 2013, those people are called Flight Attendants.

Or flying waitresses.

----------

Drunk driving and armed robbery comes to mind. People still do it, but the laws are still on the books, that has not went away.




Excuses, excuses...not a good reason to put everyones life in risk.




Not while I'm piloting the plane.

Your analogy to drunk driving and armed robbery does not make any sense. Those laws ARE enforced and very strictly.

No one enforces, nor can enforce the rule about powering down all devices. And the fact that it is not routinely followed and planes are not falling out of the sky more than they do otherwise, only supports those who say the ban is absurd.

 

[Dr McKay]

So MacRumors sued one of its members for using one of MacRumors' photos as an avatar on MacRumors.com? Or someone outside of MR was suing MacRumors because one of the MR's members used a stock photo without permission?

Someone outside MacRumors saw that a member was using a photo that belonged to them, he'd gotten it from Google Images I believe and he was threatened with legal action.

 

[galrito]

Would you risk your familiy, or your child's life, just to use your iPad a few minutes more?

I think, until everything on an airliner is shielded and all signals sent by fiber optics, that this is a mistake.

Excellent post.

----------

Not on a commercial flight you wouldn't, 'BadBoy'.

He may win the battle at that moment, but he's risking a much bigger threat to his career in the long run if he makes it standard practice to harass his customers.

Ahahah, you clearly don't know anything about aviation's rules.
I'm sorry to say this to you, but you're not that important inside an aircraft. If you are breaking the rules, even the airline don't want you inside their plane, much less the captain.

 

[BadBoyPro]

Even if your rules go against standard protocol? I have never once, in all my flights, seen the crew ask someone reading a book to put it away for takeoff/landing. I often will hold my powered-off cell phone in my hand, if I plan to use it as soon as we get above 10,000 ft, and never have I been told to stow it. I know it's not an FAA rule and by the looks of it, not a commercial airliner rule either. At least not any airline I've ever flown.

How about an infant-in-arms?

My rules do not go against standard protocol, that as captain if I deem a client, object, or situation potentially unsafe or a danger to the other passengers, aircraft, or stewards I will simply not start the engines.

As you well know an infant under 14 days old would be refused travel while one over would be provided with a lap-strap safety belt by one of my stewards for both takeoff and landing.

What I can never grasp is why potential clients like yourself suffer from this acute sense of self-entitlement to go against clear rules and the safety of others? Not that it worries me as you simply wouldn't be allowed on my flight.

 

[zhenya]

Ahahah, you clearly don't know anything about aviation's rules.
I'm sorry to say this to you, but you're not that important inside an aircraft. If you are breaking the rules, even the airline don't want you inside their plane, much less the captain.

Reading a book is not against the rules on any commercial aircraft I've flown on.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Or flying waitresses. No one enforces, nor can enforce the rule about powering down all devices. And the fact that it is not routinely followed and planes are not falling out of the sky more than they do otherwise, only supports those who say the ban is absurd.

Not so. People have been ejected from planes for not putting away, powering down cellphones ect.

Sure you can have that few people who don't listen and try to hide it from the flight attendants.

This claim *again* despite the FAA releasing several statements over the years that there haven't been any confirmed incidents of consumer electronics interfering with airplane systems.

There is a database where dozens, perhaps hundreds of reports where pilots & flight attendants told of problems of cell phones & electronic devices effecting the avionics. From GPS to auto pilot.

Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), a database to which aircrews and others can submit anonymous reports on safety problems they observe.

In one instance a plane being 30 degrees off course because of a DVD player. A problem that was replicated several times by turning it on and off and each time the plane would show a course change.

 

[caesarp]

Not so. People have been ejected from planes for not putting away, powering down cellphones ect.

Sure you can have that few people who don't listen and try to hide it from the flight attendants. .

You are mistaking obvious defiant use (such as having the device out and actively using it despite being told not to, which is what gets people kicked off planes), with the fact that most people simply put the device away or down, but do not completely POWER IT OFF.

Those people are neither few nor actively hiding. It is simply what is done on a mass basis, everyday.

As such, the rule, as it exists today, is unenforceable and only causes disrespect for other rules.

As far as your database, it looks like the FAA is changing the rule regardless. So you will now have to live with it or not fly.

 

[zhenya]

There is a database where dozens, perhaps hundreds of reports where pilots & flight attendants told of problems of cell phones & electronic devices effecting the avionics. From GPS to auto pilot.

In one instance a plane being 30 degrees off course because of a DVD player. A problem that was replicated several times by turning it on and off and each time the plane would show a course change.

A database of correlation, not causation.

If a DVD player was causing a 30 degree heading change, that plane has SERIOUS issues and should not be flown.

 

[galrito]

Reading a book is not against the rules on any commercial aircraft I've flown on.

Having the book not stowed while taking off and landing, as BadBoy mentioned, it is.
Not complying with the captain, the same.

 

[giantfan1224]

My rules do not go against standard protocol, that as captain if I deem a client, object, or situation potentially unsafe or a danger to the other passengers, aircraft, or stewards I will simply not start the engines.

As you well know an infant under 14 days old would be refused travel while one over would be provided with a lap-strap safety belt by one of my stewards for both takeoff and landing.

What I can never grasp is why potential clients like yourself suffer from this acute sense of self-entitlement to go against clear rules and the safety of others? Not that it worries me as you simply wouldn't be allowed on my flight.

By what I've written, what makes you think I go against, or want to go against "clear rules and the safety of others"? I don't understand the self-entitlement that pilots seem to have to be so condescending in whatever they do. I know, I deal with them on a regular basis outside the cockpit. They can be insufferable.

 

[zhenya]

Having the book not stowed while taking off and landing, as BadBoy mentioned, it is.
Not complying with the captain, the same.

I have been on thousands of commercial flights, and I have NEVER seen anyone asked to put away their book.

 

[caesarp]

My rules do not go against standard protocol, that as captain if I deem a client, object, or situation potentially unsafe or a danger to the other passengers, aircraft, or stewards I will simply not start the engines.

As you well know an infant under 14 days old would be refused travel while one over would be provided with a lap-strap safety belt by one of my stewards for both takeoff and landing.

What I can never grasp is why potential clients like yourself suffer from this acute sense of self-entitlement to go against clear rules and the safety of others? Not that it worries me as you simply wouldn't be allowed on my flight.

Too bad the pilots on all my commercial flights had no clue that my ipad was never completely powered off EVER. The same could be said for dozens of other devices used by others on the flights I have taken. So there is nothing that you can do about it. Which shows the absurdity of the rule. No flight attendant is checking each device manually (particularly ones that are stowed in a seat pocket or elsewhere). So if the rule exists, not because my eyes are looking at the device, but because the fear of the device being powered on could do something to the plane, the rule does nothing and means nothing. Therefore, eyes on the device during take off/landing should not matter. As the devices are pretty much on anyway.

This is the reality. Not your fantasy of a completely sterile cabin.

 

[Tinmania]

If the captain of a commercial flight orders the flight attendants to require you to stow your book, you must stow it. Federal law requires you to follow the instructions by a flight crew. If you don't comply, you can be removed from the plane.

You can file a complaint with the airline, and they may discipline him. But for that flight, he is PIC, or pilot-in-command. It's his decision.

Think you missed the point. If a commercial pilot was as much of a nuisance as that kook his only "passengers" would be the boxes designated either 2nd day or next day.

And if a corporate pilot, pulling that crap on a CEO would merely bring the reality of just how much it "ain't your plane" to the forefront.



Michael

 

[linuxcooldude]

As such, the rule, as it exists today, is unenforceable and only causes disrespect for other rules.

Nonsense, people disregard rules & laws every day. Does not mean they can be disregarded.

As far as your database, it looks like the FAA is changing the rule regardless. So you will now have to live with it or not fly.

Some rules will still apply, like flight mode still has to be used.

You can bet if a pilot has problems with the avionic and tell passengers to turn off electronic devices, you better comply rules or no rules. And the FAA will back them up even if it goes against the new policy. Safety of the plane & passengers always come first.

A database of correlation, not causation.

If a DVD player was causing a 30 degree heading change, that plane has SERIOUS issues and should not be flown.

The serious issue is the DVD player. That should be turned off if it is effecting avionics. I'm sure the plane was checked out after it landed. Another reason why we have rules on electronic devices on planes to begin with.

 

[giantfan1224]

I have been on thousands of commercial flights, and I have NEVER seen anyone asked to put away their book.

Ditto. If it's an actual FAA rule, it's not very well communicated on most airlines (at least on the ones I've flown) and it certainly isn't enforced.

----------

Nonsense, people disregard rules & laws every day. Does not mean they can be disregarded.

You're missing the point. If it's so necessary to have this rule, then why not enforce it better? I mean, by golly, it could bring down an airliner!!

But since this rule is not enforced to the degree that ALL devices on a plane are inspected before takeoff and the fact that thousands of flights per day are performing just fine with many devices not turned off (and the fact that any real threat to avionics is difficult, if not impossible to reproduce in a testing environment) then it's a stupid rule and it should be reconsidered.

 

[Analog Kid]

People who think that those in authority should be blindly listened to.

i'm sorry that you feel anybody who doesn't blindly accept everything they're told

There's a pretty severe inversion error in these arguments-- I'm knowingly accepting while you're blindly rejecting.

Ignorance, even in the grand service of throwing off the yoke of the nanny state, remains ignorance.


You'll notice most of those in this thread who seem to understand the technology are open to the idea that the rules could change-- myself included. It's not that everything is suddenly ok because the rules changed, it's that the rules change because of increased (though incomplete) confidence that things are ok. I suspect that, if these rules are adopted, they'll require additional testing to aircraft, perhaps require modifications to some aircraft and exclude others, still require intentional radiators be disabled except in certain carefully studied bands and then couch it in terms such as "we can make this change without affecting the overall safety of the flying public" in part because the added testing protects the aircraft from the idiots who've been ignoring the request to turn off their electronics all along.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It can be quite educational to go back to the source article to see what MR reworded or left out. For one, this:

The ban has been in place to prevent electronic devices such as cell phones from interfering with cockpit equipment, but modern planes are designed to prevent electronic interference.

Was altered from:

Takeoffs and landings are the most critical phases of flight. But newer aircraft are better equipped to prevent electronic interference, and critics long have complained that the safety concerns behind the regulations are groundless.

And this:

Not everyone agrees. There have been many reports from pilots over the years of electronic interference that appeared to have been caused by passenger use of devices. Technical panels that have looked into the issue in the past concluded evidence that the devices were safe wasn't sufficient to merit lifting restrictions.

Was left out entirely.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Too bad the pilots on all my commercial flights had no clue that my ipad was never completely powered off EVER. The same could be said for dozens of other devices used by others on the flights I have taken. So there is nothing that you can do about it. Which shows the absurdity of the rule

Yeah, they secretly don't know I've had it on the entire time, so I should not have to follow their stupid rule...thats the statement thats really absurd.

It can be quite educational to go back to the source article to see what MR reworded or left out. For one, this:

Was altered to:

And this:

Was left out entirely.

Good catch!

 

[Jimmy James]

I never knew how playing Bejeweled or watching a movie on your phone offline ever interfered with cockpit equipment in the first place. And it's not like you really get signal up in the air like that anyway, so talking on the phone is pretty much out of the question. And most planes have WiFi built into them now anyhow...

Sooo I guess my point is, why the hell were they ever worried about smartphones and tablets in the first place lol

Because an iphone has multiple radios that transmits on numerous frequencies. You don't have to make a call to transmit.

 

[tongxinshe]

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.

Why people are ALWAYS so eager to make their own NOISEs about a topic before actually reading and understanding the topic first?!!!!!! "Airplane Mode"! No signal transmission whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!!!