No. The older man is saying, "so you take the F train to West 4th and change for the E? Why can't I stay on the F?"
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 Taking a 'Fresh Look' at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. The older man is saying, "so you take the F train to West 4th and change for the E? Why can't I stay on the F?"
And yet there was still panic and confusion in the back of the plane where it flooded the fastest. Enough to cause post-traumatic stress.
Two points:
1. That adds weight. It's the same as when someone asks why they can't make the plane out of the same stuff they make the indestructible "black box" out of (because if they did, it would be far too heavy to fly).
2. They can't reasonably retrofit planes currently in service.
That said, they should have already shielded the avionics adequately before declaring the vehicle to be airworthy in the first place. Either they did, and the FAA regulation is pointless stupidity, or they did not, and the FAA regulation makes up for a woefully shoddy airworthiness certification program.
----------
Are you suggesting that the mere presence of portable electronic devices would have somehow exacerbated this?
I always watched the stewards - the stewardesses weren't interesting....
That is, when I looked up from my book.
If aviation electronics could not handle emissions from electronic devices, then planes would be dropping out of the sky as they passed over cities. However, I am not sure that devices should be turned on during takeoff and landing - they make good missiles and can spark....
Simple example: I cannot read a book on my Kindle, but the lady next to me can read a paperback. Is my kindle more distracting than a book? I don't think so.
It must be an issue with electronic interference (or remote detonation, as someone else said).
Do you think that surviving the crash of a jet airliner isn't a life-changing event?
And, do you have statistics that only the back of the cabin passenger suffered PTSD, and that the people closer to the front just got on the next flight to their destinations without a worry or care?
I don't understand why they have to test the devices one at a time. Why don't they turn them ALL on and if there's no problem with them all on, there certainly wouldn't be a problem with just one of them on. You only have to identify the problematic device when there's a problem.
And for the future, why don't they establish some standards, similar to the FCC radiation limitation requirements so that the manufacturers can have a third party certify the device so that the FAA doesn't have to. Although there's a problem there as well because if only some devices are certified, there will be big fights on the plane when some people are told to turn their devices off and others are told (depending upon the model) that they can keep their devices on.
The whole thing is bogus anyway because when I fly, while I do see people put their devices away for takeoff and landing, I would say at least half don't actually shut them off, especially if the device isn't a phone (but still might have 3G and/or WiFi).
But even if they approve these devices, they're still probably not going to permit them during take off and landing because they don't want anything flying around the cabin in case of emergency.
And for the future, why don't they establish some standards, similar to the FCC radiation limitation requirements so that the manufacturers can have a third party certify the device so that the FAA doesn't have to. Although there's a problem there as well because if only some devices are certified, there will be big fights on the plane when some people are told to turn their devices off and others are told (depending upon the model) that they can keep their devices on.
The whole thing is bogus anyway because when I fly, while I do see people put their devices away for takeoff and landing, I would say at least half don't actually shut them off, especially if the device isn't a phone (but still might have 3G and/or WiFi).
But even if they approve these devices, they're still probably not going to permit them during take off and landing because they don't want anything flying around the cabin in case of emergency.
Take off and landing. I must say this is a critical issue NOT. News Flash, I can wait.
God, who cares?
God, who cares?
The flight attendant can't tell whether you are just reading a book, or doing something else on your Kindle, or maybe even whether it's just a Kindle rather than something else capable of even more interference and distraction.
That's in addition to the near irrelevant fact that Kindle's contain and turn on 2.4 GHz radios at random times. Books don't.
This is a posed shot. They're likely talking about how they can now sneek shots of the attendants, or the contortions the photographer is forcing them into.
----------
Good Grief! Get a life!
And also because an airplane full of hundreds of powered-on mobile phones produce more RF than the few that don't get powered down or placed in airplane mode.
I don't think anyone is seriously concerned about mobile devices "taking down" an airliner. The concern is with spurious RF interfering with flight instruments and communications equipment. Many of the newer airliners are also completely "fly by wire" systems, meaning that control surfaces are not connected to the cockpit by cables or hydraulics. I don't think you'd want to tolerate even a small chance that RF could interfere with the proper operations of these systems, even if it doesn't "take down" the airplane.
I just hope they error on the side of NOT downing a passenger plane full of people, just to satisfy the crying of selfish, adult ADD children who can't sit quietly for 10 min without their ithingy in their face.
1: You don't see it very often anymore
2: If you're smart enough to care to read a book like that, you're probably smart enough to put it away during takeoff and landing
You'd be surprised how many people don't know what airplane mode is and that their device even has that feature. For simplicity it's easier for flight attendants to tell people to turn off their devices since everyone knows what that means.
You realize, of course, that many airframes in use were certified airworthy well before smartphones and iDevices ever existed.
A valiant idea, but the problems include:
1) Compliance by one test device does not guarantee the rest later on.
2) Compliance with rules meant to prevent interference with nearby TVs and radios does not mean it's safe to be near an airplane's electronics.
Did any of you read the report that was cited? I quote:
Not pointed at you, but:
Why do so many people without any knowledge of radios or flying, try so hard to find an excuse to use their devices during the few minutes of critical flight phases?
I think that it's because they don't understand that there really ARE critical moments in a flight.
From wandering into airspace where you might hit terrain or other planes, to IFR landings that require the utmost precision, the last thing anybody should want to do, is mess with sensitive aircraft electronics.
A very pertinent story. Everyone here should remember how annoying GSM buzz is. Now think about being a pilot trying to hear ATC calls, with one or a dozen phones in the cabin going to max power trying to reach a cell.
Actually, they have been in at least one case. Remember a few months ago I reported on a recent Boeing 737 factory upgrade to add WiFi, and they discovered that the pilot and co-pilot display panels could go blank if more than a certain number of passenger devices ramped up their WiFi output. Ooops! Those displays had to be replaced with ones with more shielding than expected.
It seems to me that I read almost this exact same story a while back:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/alaska-airlines-faa-ipad/
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/alaska-airlines-faa-ipad/
I wasn't suggesting there was.
I was just pointing out the official reason for no devices is not to increase passenger attention.
arn
Seriously, I never turn off my mp3 player when we are taking off or landing. And even if they ask, I find if you make the motions and don't fight them, they won't realize you left it on
. Course that's a little mp3 player with a screen that doesn't stay on unless you are messing with it so it's not so obvious it's on.----------
Not just annoying, when taking off, or worse landing, and having to listen to the tower tell you something (which could be something like "hey, watch that plane on your six or "divert course, we have an emergency landing") getting that GSM buzz could be a very *bad* thing.
And yes, cellphones do interfere with the radios (my roommate is a private pilot and we have forgotten to turn off our cellphones and you do get reminded by random buzz when the cellphone decides to try to find a tower. It's not usually a huge deal, just annoying. But think of that happening on an airliner that is going into a very busy airport where the traffic controllers don't have time to give you much attention).
And yea, I also just said I don't turn off my mp3 player when taking off or landing but honestly, that doesn't have problems with interference with the radios.
What's the difference between enforcing airplane mode on an iPad and an iPhone? What's the difference between an iPhone transmitting 3G data and an iPad transmitting 3G/4G data?
I address that in my post but because people would scream bloody murder about they do not care about other safety and their right to be able to read said book.
This is one of the big reasons why the airlines have been very lazy and not really pushing for the devices to be freed up below 10k feet because they know it is a safety issue and at least with the RF "excuse"
Problem is the RF reasoning is weakening. It might be time to move over to the real reason but the fear is people will then scream let me use my laptop for X reason.
It's great that they're considering this, and coming at it from a rational point of view, but there are two things that bug me about this:
1. I'd really like to be able to use my smartphone IN AIRPLANE MODE. That is what it is designed for. I don't want to talk on it, I don't want to text with it, but I don't have an iPad or other tablet. I just want to read books on it, or maybe play a few games. This would keep me from disturbing other passengers with phone calls, but allow me to use my device and save paper by not having to use magazines and books.
2. The other thing that bugs me is that the FAA is saying they have to test each device individually on a plane? Have they not heard of the numerous methods available for testing electronic emissions? All they have to do is determine the level of acceptable interference, then test the devices for the amount of interference. That's like cutting a little bit off a piece of wood, holding it where it needs to go, cutting a little more, trying it again, cutting a little more. All of that instead of just measuring the gap, measuring the wood, and making a cut.
1. I'd really like to be able to use my smartphone IN AIRPLANE MODE. That is what it is designed for. I don't want to talk on it, I don't want to text with it, but I don't have an iPad or other tablet. I just want to read books on it, or maybe play a few games. This would keep me from disturbing other passengers with phone calls, but allow me to use my device and save paper by not having to use magazines and books.
2. The other thing that bugs me is that the FAA is saying they have to test each device individually on a plane? Have they not heard of the numerous methods available for testing electronic emissions? All they have to do is determine the level of acceptable interference, then test the devices for the amount of interference. That's like cutting a little bit off a piece of wood, holding it where it needs to go, cutting a little more, trying it again, cutting a little more. All of that instead of just measuring the gap, measuring the wood, and making a cut.
Just going to point out that what happens in the lab and the real world can and are often times very different. Lab is all theory. In the plane would be more real world testing and many more varribles that can not be simulated in a lab.
They have to pass the lab part before they go real world. Plus they need to see how it reacts on each plane model they certify it on.