I always shut my stuff off because in the highly unlikely event the plane does go down during take off or landing I don't want my last thought to be, "OMG I caused it!"
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.
FAA Still Looking at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry....That so called air marshal was an impersonator. They do not identify themselves unless crap hits the fan.
You didn't even bother to read the linked article about the 1977 Tennerfife disaster, did you? The disaster was caused by miscommunication between two planes and the tower. It had nothing to do with the passengers, or any gadgets they were carrying.
----------
No, it's quite definitely an FAA rule.
Last edited:
Being airline crew myself, I deal with this on a daily basis. Here is my take:
It is true that no actual incident can be categorically blamed on pax PED interference, but there have been numerous incidents where navigation/glide slope instruments have had strange errors at critical phases of flight (i.e. landing) where it was noticed a passenger was on the phone at the time, and it stopped as soon as the phone was turned off. Because of this, it can't be stated without any doubt that the electro magnetic radiation that is put out by most PED (even in flight mode) does not interfere with systems that are used to safely land the plane. There is doubt, and in the airline game, you err on the side of caution. You don't wait till hundreds of people die and then say 'Yeah we thought that might have happened'. The entire industry is based around making flying as safe as possible.
Until then, it is a rule that you must turn your devices off completely for critical flight phases. I get it that everyone is so addicted to their devices that they just can't bear to do the right thing and turn it off just for a while. I'm an addict too. That's why I would love a result where we can all use them, but until that day, just do the right and safe thing. Sure, you'll feel like the minority.
I can't speak for all airlines/countries but I do know that I would not hesitate returning to the gate to throw off a passenger who refuses to turn off their phone for take off, not only because it's potentially dangerous, but because it's an offence to not comply with a flight attendant's safety instructions, no matter what that request is. That passenger would be prosecuted and possibly fined and/or jailed. Sounds harsh, but it's the same rule for all safety instructions.
Is all that worth it just so you can leave your device on for that 20 mins or so?
It is true that no actual incident can be categorically blamed on pax PED interference, but there have been numerous incidents where navigation/glide slope instruments have had strange errors at critical phases of flight (i.e. landing) where it was noticed a passenger was on the phone at the time, and it stopped as soon as the phone was turned off. Because of this, it can't be stated without any doubt that the electro magnetic radiation that is put out by most PED (even in flight mode) does not interfere with systems that are used to safely land the plane. There is doubt, and in the airline game, you err on the side of caution. You don't wait till hundreds of people die and then say 'Yeah we thought that might have happened'. The entire industry is based around making flying as safe as possible.
Until then, it is a rule that you must turn your devices off completely for critical flight phases. I get it that everyone is so addicted to their devices that they just can't bear to do the right thing and turn it off just for a while. I'm an addict too. That's why I would love a result where we can all use them, but until that day, just do the right and safe thing. Sure, you'll feel like the minority.
I can't speak for all airlines/countries but I do know that I would not hesitate returning to the gate to throw off a passenger who refuses to turn off their phone for take off, not only because it's potentially dangerous, but because it's an offence to not comply with a flight attendant's safety instructions, no matter what that request is. That passenger would be prosecuted and possibly fined and/or jailed. Sounds harsh, but it's the same rule for all safety instructions.
Is all that worth it just so you can leave your device on for that 20 mins or so?
Again, despite hundreds of thousands of flights, with a probably millions of different electronic gadgets of all flavors fully active during takeoff, and landing, there have been exactly ZERO confirmed cases of such gadgets having any effect on flight systems.
The only thing missing from this as far as testing goes is a control group (with no consumer electronics in use during the flight), and good documentation about what devices have been on and when. I have it on good authority that many flight attendants and pilots leave their phones on during take off and landing. (On a flight to Vegas last year, I watched a flight attendant *answer* her cell phone during descent, with nary a glance from the other FA sitting right next to her.)
And there have, been many more incidents where instruments have exhibited strange errors during those same critical phases of flight, and *no* device of any sort existed that the incident could be pinned on. When an apparent correlation *has* been noted, the device in question is commonly borrowed and tested in the same plane alongside other similar devices obtained for just that purpose. There have been *no* documented cases where the effect could be replicated during testing.
The human mind is *really* good at 'recognizing' random or coincidental events as being related and building patterns out of them. It's the same sort of effect that allows us to see faces in trees, clouds, ink spots, and stucco. It's a useful trait when time is limited, and reactions are needed *now* rather than later, but it can actively hinder an actual investigation into cause and effect.
The actual rules and regulations are a tidbit?
I refer you to my first post in this thread. It's on page 3, I believe.
So it has come to this. We can't fly without using those devices. Personally, I don't think that's the only way we can enjoy a flight.
So let's just continue to be ignorant and add to a problem by letting tablets and phones with glass that can chip and shard and injury more people. That's the answer.
People need to accept the rules as they are there for a reason and air travel is the safest form of travel because of them. This mentality of "I know it all" really is the down fall of the world.
Agreed. Being an aircraft owner although expensive, one can certainly appreciate the efforts the FAA takes to ensure everyone's safety.
you do realize not all plane accidents result death right?
and do us all a favor and dont sit in the exit row.
----------
ignorance is astounding in this thread.
No the tidbit refers to this article's contribution to the entire discussion, namely that there are rumors the rules and regulations will be relaxed soon.
Now regarding your first post in this thread, you point out there may be good reasons why the FAA moves so slowly, namely it's best for them to err on the side of caution, for the sake of our safety.
Well that is a fine principle in general, but I'd like to trust the evidence itself. What are the scientific controlled experiments indicating the potential dangers of PEDs in large commercial aircrafts? Please provide concrete evidence if you have any. So far as I can tell, the only thing mimicking as such evidence is the 2006 RTCA report that claimed "there is insufficient information to support a wholesale change in policies that restrict use of PEDs". I can't access that report because it costs 250$, something I'm unwilling to pay to explore this issue.
But the wording already strikes me as backwards. There shouldn't be evidence brought forward to support a change in policies, rather there should be evidence brought forward to demonstrate that the policies are still worth upholding. It's been 7 years since that 2006 report, I think its time the public is given concrete evidence demonstrating PEDs are still problematic and a safety concern. Especially for devices like iPads and Kindle readers that were introduced into the market well after that report was conducted. Where is the evidence that they are potential dangers?
And from the link you provide, I think its quite amusing to suggest a CD player (or nowadays an iPod) might pose an interference problem with the Aircraft's instruments, especially considering those instruments are shielded.
----------
From the evidence I've been presented with, the real reason why PEDs are banned is because it would be too expensive to conduct the experiments necessary to be certain the devices don't actually interfere with the aircraft instruments.
If my mother told me not to go outside when I was a child because it's dangerous, I would have told her that her safety concerns are misguided. What I'd like is for the FAA to be upfront with us. If they have evidence showing there are genuine safety concerns, present them. If they don't, then they should just say they simply do not know if there are risks and a proper study would need to be conducted, which they are willing to do if the public funds it.
And if the real reason is because they want people to hear their announcements at the beginning of the flight, then just say that. Though of course, then I'd argue we should just have to demonstrate once we know the rules/regulations, prior to boarding a flight so that we don't need to be pestered by those announcements. So if I flight regularly with SouthWest, I just have to prove once to SouthWest I'm aware of their policies which they can quiz me once on prior to my first ticket purchase.
Last edited:
My airplane my rules, all passenger devices off...From take off up to 10K AGL and below 10k during decent to land, especially if I'm shooting a busy ILS approach.
Often times I'll fly an Angel flight or a Veterans Airlift and have yet to receive ant complaints with my rule. Sit back and enjoy the flight and read a book or the skymall magazine.
Often times I'll fly an Angel flight or a Veterans Airlift and have yet to receive ant complaints with my rule. Sit back and enjoy the flight and read a book or the skymall magazine.
I don't see a problem here... How will this actually *help" safety, when they bought this in in the first place ?
Besides, all devices (well most) have "Air-plane" mode, thats their for a reason, not just to look nice...
Any other devices transmit/receive, unless you turn the devices off...
Sounds. pretty straight forward to me.
Besides, all devices (well most) have "Air-plane" mode, thats their for a reason, not just to look nice...
Any other devices transmit/receive, unless you turn the devices off...
Sounds. pretty straight forward to me.
It always staggers me how most people seem to think that when they're told to do something so as to avoid putting perhaps 300 people's lives at risk, it's ok to ignore that direction because they once saw an episode on Mythbusters and therefore know better. Sorry guys, but it's not your decision to make, irrespective of how valid the restrictions may be.
The irony is that so many people on here who've made the decision that it's their personal choice to make have also illustrated that they don't even understand why some of the requirements (particularly during landing and take-off) are even there in the first place. It's not just about electronic interference.
The irony is that so many people on here who've made the decision that it's their personal choice to make have also illustrated that they don't even understand why some of the requirements (particularly during landing and take-off) are even there in the first place. It's not just about electronic interference.
I don't think you can have a bunch of smoke?...you could have a bunch of bananas, (though its unlikely you would see them coming from an airplane engine) or a cloud of smoke.
Also please remember not to use your mobile phone at a filling station or it will blow up.
The fact of the matter is that if a cell phone could take down a passenger jet, Al Qaeda would've figured this out a long time ago and sent terrorists onto planes armed with iPhones kept on during takeoff until the TSA banned all personal electronic devices from being carried on.
It's a stupid rule. That said, I'll continue to comply until the rule is changed.
It's a stupid rule. That said, I'll continue to comply until the rule is changed.
i'm sorry but i think you're taking that post of mine and reading in a context of which i wasn't speaking.
the discussion i was in had to do with "you can't use devices because you need to listen to crew instructions in the case of an emergency"
i responded with a sensationalized / worst_case_scenario situation in which i would have absolutely no desire to listen to crew instructions because that would be a situation where there are no instructions to be given.. none that matter.
but to lighten the tone and take death out of the conversation.. how about you explain to me why me texting or using a crossword app etc somehow removes me from being able to listen to any pertinent info the flight crew may have to offer?
people are arguing in this thread that the flight crew needs your attention in case of emergency -and- saying or implying that somehow me sending a text will cause me to miss said info or be clueless to the emergency situation.
while that sounds fine and dandy online, i can't help but try to imagine an actual case of someone sitting on an airplane in an emergency and being completely oblivious to the situation because they were reading (reading something on their phone.. apparently, reading a book at said time is a-ok and will not affect the situation)
You miss the point completely in your haste to accuse your fellow passengers of ignorance.
It is clear as can be that electronic devices don't have an effect on safety; we have 20 years of 100,000 flights per day of data to draw from. I guarantee you that approximately half of those who fly don't turn off their devices; probably more.
If the rule is about forcing people to stay alert; SAY SO and make the rules consistent for both paper and electronic material and don't allow sleeping or earplugs during this period either.
The rules are arbitrary and inconsistent; that's where the complaint is rooted. It is EXACTLY our responsibility in life to not to meekly accept regulations or laws that are not based in reason. Pity those who live their lives otherwise.
My thoughts as someone with an increasingly out of date B.Eng in Communications Engineering (2004):
1) Fully agree if this was a real issue for flight safety, they'd be banned as planes would be falling out of the sky all the time.
2) What it's actually an issue for is the *cell networks*. Cell networks work based on the fact that you are only in line of sight for at most a few towers at any given time. At a low altitude you're all of a sudden lighting up all kinds of towers, creating excess interference for everyone else in those cells. You're also causing a lot of work in terms of rapid handovers from cell to cell, as you're moving much faster than a car or even a train.
3) #2 is not a problem if people actually turn their devices to airplane mode. The problem is people don't (as many in this thread have noted), and it's really hard to individually police people. So it's easier for them to tell people just to put them away, and hope they've actually turned them off to save battery while they're not allowed to use it. Again, lots of people ignore this.
The right way to solve #2 is the airlines that are installing microcells in aircraft that your phone can connect to. Given the short distances involved your phone should negotiate a connection on which it will broadcast at a much lower power, which should not interfere with land-based tower-mobile comms. However, this is expensive, particularly as it will presumably actually have to connect to a satellite or something or it will piss people off.
So I think this is all about protecting quality of service for citizens on the ground. Which isn't so much wrong as it is awkward, hence all the hush-hush business while they try to come up with a reasonable sounding excuse. If they told people the truth, most people would just decide that it wasn't affecting them, and that they don't give a toss about the people on the ground.
My four cents.
1) Fully agree if this was a real issue for flight safety, they'd be banned as planes would be falling out of the sky all the time.
2) What it's actually an issue for is the *cell networks*. Cell networks work based on the fact that you are only in line of sight for at most a few towers at any given time. At a low altitude you're all of a sudden lighting up all kinds of towers, creating excess interference for everyone else in those cells. You're also causing a lot of work in terms of rapid handovers from cell to cell, as you're moving much faster than a car or even a train.
3) #2 is not a problem if people actually turn their devices to airplane mode. The problem is people don't (as many in this thread have noted), and it's really hard to individually police people. So it's easier for them to tell people just to put them away, and hope they've actually turned them off to save battery while they're not allowed to use it. Again, lots of people ignore this.
The right way to solve #2 is the airlines that are installing microcells in aircraft that your phone can connect to. Given the short distances involved your phone should negotiate a connection on which it will broadcast at a much lower power, which should not interfere with land-based tower-mobile comms. However, this is expensive, particularly as it will presumably actually have to connect to a satellite or something or it will piss people off.
So I think this is all about protecting quality of service for citizens on the ground. Which isn't so much wrong as it is awkward, hence all the hush-hush business while they try to come up with a reasonable sounding excuse. If they told people the truth, most people would just decide that it wasn't affecting them, and that they don't give a toss about the people on the ground.
My four cents.
The largest single misunderstanding is this. The FAA's mandate is not getting you there happy, but safely.
You want them to prove a negative. Instead of proving that certain devices can be used safely under some circumstances, which is the operative methodology, your argument would have them allowing everything, all the time, pending some "proof" that they are dangerous. That simply will never happen, so give it up. (See my answer above and elsewhere in this thread.)
The concept that the actual rules and regulations are a mere "tidbit" in the discussion of the rules and regulation would be amusing, if it wasn't so completely repulsive. The rules and regulations are being debated by people who don't even know what they actually are, and worse yet, even care what they actually say. This is a formula for enlightened debate?
Have you been following the Boeing 787 saga by any chance? This is a case where the industry (specifically, Boeing) pushed the FAA into accepting the flight safety of a new system (specifically, LiON batteries) that had never before been used this way in passenger aircraft. The result was very nearly a disaster or two. So this is why I support the general process of rule-making, slow though it may be. It is also why I am suspicious of industry pressure on the FAA to change their rules to be more favorable to them. It should go without saying that the consumer electronics industry is not responsible for air traffic safety. Nor do they give a fig about it. Like it or not, that's the FAA's job.
This is another example of reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is claiming that cell phones could "take down" a passenger jet. Your example is meaningless in proving your point, because it is a reduction to the absurd. At least you aren't a scofflaw, like so many other commenters in this thread, who think that any rule that don't like or understand should be ignored. I will give you that much at least.
I've met Olga's sister. Stood over me till she saw "Slide to power off" actually done.Turn your devices off!
Just last week, "Olga" the flight attendant (who incidentally won a silver medal in the 1984 shot put event) berated my ass for reading an iPhone during takeoff. One does not piss off Olga from United Air.
Michael
But I'm not saying passively accept it. I agree the evidence and inconsistency needs sorting so challenge the rule by all means. But challenging a rule isn't the same as disregarding it.