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.
Flight Attendants Union Challenges FAA Decision Allowing Passengers to Use Electronics in All Phases of Flight
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who said anything about audio? I'm reading a book on my kindle or iPad. And my iPad air is way lighter than Harry potter and other such tomes in hard back. And I think a sharp corner of a hard back book cover is way more dangerous than the gorgeous rounded corners on my iPad.
In 1981, after reviewing a series of accidents, the FAA determined that an aircraft below 10,000 feet is in a critical phase of flight and imposed the sterile cockpit rule. When the cockpit is sterile, no member of the aircrew, including flight attendants, are allowed to engage in any activity that could, “distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties.”
The takeoff speed of the latest 747 is 160-180 miles per hour (257-290 km/h). What do you suppose would happen if the plane suddenly came to a halt, or twisted off of the runway? Just like the groceries in the back seat of your car come crashing into the back of the front seats, everything is thrown forward.
If the tray table in front of you was open, you would smash into it, posssibly bisecting your chest. That laptop or tablet you are holding would go flying forward, or if it was in the seat pocket in front of you, your knees might go into it, shattering the glass screen and embedding it into your flesh. And if you do need to quickly evacuate, it’s much easier if you don’t need to worry about where you’re going to stow your gear before you can get your butt out of the exit to safety.
What about wearing noise-cancelling headphones? In a sudden deceleration they also could become a projectile, hurling over the seat in front of you. Not to mention that if you have them on you wouldn’t be able to hear the brace or evacuation instructions endangering you and your fellow passengers. If your seat was reclined, it could some slamming forward, ejecting you or it could block the person behind you from getting out of their seat.
Yup, the original rules were based on solid science. The new rules are based on passengers whining about not being entertained for 10 minutes.
The takeoff speed of the latest 747 is 160-180 miles per hour (257-290 km/h). What do you suppose would happen if the plane suddenly came to a halt, or twisted off of the runway? Just like the groceries in the back seat of your car come crashing into the back of the front seats, everything is thrown forward.
If the tray table in front of you was open, you would smash into it, posssibly bisecting your chest. That laptop or tablet you are holding would go flying forward, or if it was in the seat pocket in front of you, your knees might go into it, shattering the glass screen and embedding it into your flesh. And if you do need to quickly evacuate, it’s much easier if you don’t need to worry about where you’re going to stow your gear before you can get your butt out of the exit to safety.
What about wearing noise-cancelling headphones? In a sudden deceleration they also could become a projectile, hurling over the seat in front of you. Not to mention that if you have them on you wouldn’t be able to hear the brace or evacuation instructions endangering you and your fellow passengers. If your seat was reclined, it could some slamming forward, ejecting you or it could block the person behind you from getting out of their seat.
Yup, the original rules were based on solid science. The new rules are based on passengers whining about not being entertained for 10 minutes.
Stewardess
we can all just go back to calling them "Stewardesses" out of spite. though personally i don't see a difference in what you call them but they probably do..
we can all just go back to calling them "Stewardesses" out of spite. though personally i don't see a difference in what you call them but they probably do..
Entitlement to expect to use something you own on a flight that you paid for?
----------
ptb42, I would like to buy this rock of yours
True, but if they were actually concerned about situational awareness, they should be pursuing a requirement to keep window shades up during takeoff and landing. I am still amazed at the number of people who are comfortable not knowing anything about what's happening outside the aircarft during takeoff and landing.
Did we blow a tire? Did an engine fall off? Are we still on the runway or in the water or engulfed in flames or upside down or what?
I don't know. Your window shades are closed and we can't see outside!
In the uk the Thomson Dreamliner has electronically dimmable windows, these 'un-dim' for take off and landing automatically.
http://www.thomson.co.uk/editorial/features/787-dreamliner.html
If the FAA has decided to remove their device use prohibition then I tend to accept there is little to no risk.
That in turn leaves the decision to allow the use to the airlines. If flight attendants feel its a safety issue for some other reason than what the FAA has studied, then they and the crew should take it up with their airline.
That in turn leaves the decision to allow the use to the airlines. If flight attendants feel its a safety issue for some other reason than what the FAA has studied, then they and the crew should take it up with their airline.
There you go making assumptions I care.
----------
Can you provide proof of said interference happenings in major commercial airlines that have caused complete radio failure?
Of course, reading a book or on an electronic device is similarly distracting but allowing the use of electronic devices but disallowing the use of headphones is even harder to enforce. Thus you cannot have one (reading on electronic devices) without the other and arguing that reading on electronic devices is not more distracting than reading from paper is not really relevant in the discussion of whether to allow the use of electronic devices.
Take something soft and of limited strength, eg, plastic film wrapping, and let your iPad mini and a paperback fall on it from the same height and see which is more likely to tear through it. What matters here is not a sharp-ish edge with limited depth and force behind it (you can cut yourself with a single sheet of paper but the limited mass ensures that the cut won't be too deep and maybe more importantly that the sheet of paper won't come crashing on you with high speed), but the kinetic energy and momentum behind something flying through the air freely.
Actually, it'd be a great incentive for lower fares while reducing the amount of people being crammed next to a sweaty, plump passenger for a 6 hour flight.
Just because you paid to sit in that seat doesn't mean you are entitled to do whatever you want, like, eg, smoking or talking on the phone.
What horrific first world problems. I can't even believe I'm reading a sincere post about this.
Many hard cover books have much more mass than my ipad air. This is all a game by the flight attendants association to assert power. The issues behind it aren't real. They just want to be at the table when decisions are made and are afraid of precedent for the future. Flight Attendants actually applaud the new rules, since they don't have to walk down the aisles and tell people to put away kindles and tablets.
People are already permitted to wear **noise-canceling** headphones. And what does this have to do with the issue anyway? If you want a rule against headphones (reasonable enough), fight THAT battle.
Been flying for 25 years, hey? Good for you. I doubt you are a trained medical/first aid/emergency responder? Nerves of steel? Trained endless hours to respond exactly as you need to in a catastrophic situation? All your opinion indicates is that you've memorized 5 points and you can recite them. That's just SO reassuring when lives are on the line.
Banning lap seated infants would do far more for safety than any small electronic devices ban.
Further, if you come to a fast enough stop that your headphones have that much speed relevant to the seated passengers, you have much, much bigger issues to worry about.
If you hit a tray table with enough speed to bisect your chest, the impact was enough to rip your seat restraint, and again, you've got bigger issues to worry about if you've got that much velocity relative to the aircraft. Similar to slamming your knees into an iPad.
The actual reasoning for the tray table secured and seats upright is to enable quicker egress from both your row and the row behind you.
Next, having flight attendants worrying about having to yell at me for using my iPad below FL10 is definitely going to distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties.
There is no way that you can effectively argue hard cover books should be allowed, but iPads not.
It's always amazing when people project their own cynicism onto others. Everything that you disagree with must come out of lower motives.
Its not disagreement. Its common sense. Everyone knows the old rules for using devices were unworkable and did nothing. Most people just put the device in the seat pocket and not in airplane mode until 10,000 feet (if they even did that). So the whole routine was a farce and actually took away from the authority of the flight attendants, because rules that are routinely ignored simply subvert the authority of those meant to enforce it.
So when the FAA, finally, gets around to changing it and everyone is happy (including many flight attendants), the association now files this bizarre lawsuit. Obviously the motivation can't actually be safety (I assume pilots and the FAA care about safety too and many other groups not in the lawsuit). So clearly, there is more going on here. Probably a cash infusion to settle or an agreement to include the association in any future rule discussion (or both). You really think the FAA is going to back-track on the rule now -- the genie is out of the bottle.
Since flight attendants no longer have to police mobile devices, many were happy with the change. So what do YOU attribute the motive of the lawsuit to be?
----------
Umm. That has nothing to do with this issue. No one is asking to have phone conversations in the sky.
Did I write that interference has caused a complete radio failure? What I did write was that pilots are trained to deal with complete radio failure, regardless of the cause. I had to recite the procedures to the examiner when I took my instrument checkride.
NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has multiple reports of interference from passenger electronic devices:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
Some of them are suspected, some were confirmed. They vary from interference with the pilot audio system (like what you hear when your GSM phone is too close to a conference phone) to blocking aircraft communication or navigation frequencies. A lot of people don't realize that even though they are sitting in the middle of the plane, they may be sitting right over a communication antenna on the belly of the aircraft.
There have been some reports of WiFi devices causing certain "glass panel" aircraft displays to go blank -- it was cited earlier in this thread. However, that was considered a defect in the display, and they were all replaced.
Because you are directly influencing the health or well being of others around you. How does sitting in your seat listening to music impact anyone but you? And the answer isn't "well if the plane goes down," or "if there is an emergency..." your examples were directly impacting others. 'What if' scenarios do not.
I don't know... They seem to spend more time making sure everyone is seated/stuff is out of rows/seats are up/seatbelt signs are adhered to/serving stuff than actually policing devices.
Love listening to music at takeoff!
I am so much happier with the new rules!
10 years ago I was stuck on the tarmac at DFW at 6am due to weather and they wouldn't allow us to listen to music devices because the aircraft door was shut.
I then got to listen to a 19 yo girl across the aisle from me turn directly towards me as she talked to someone behind me. She loudly discussed all aspects of her life from her college classes, her cell phone plan, her latest babysitting and what her upcoming plans were. She was literally driving me crazy with her drivel, especially at that time of day.
I finally lost it and asked if she could please talk quieter. She immediately escalated and said she could do whatever she wanted. I asked if she could move to the empty row 2 rows further back to talk to her friend. She said no way. Finally I just said "Sometimes you have to shut the F up." We finally took off, I cranked my iPod and started to fall asleep even though her friend started to kick the back of my seat.
About 30 min into the flight I was shaken awake by a flight attendant who said "Maam, did you use a profanity to this woman on this flight?" and I said yes, but that I hadn't spoken to her since. The flight attendant said I should let them handle things like this. The girl and her friend got moved to the front of the plane. I literally started wondering if I had broken some kind of obscure law by saying the F word on an airplane.
Music in my ears lets me ignore ignorant people like this or people loudly talking on their cell phones before actually taking off or after landing. I LOVE the new rules and hope they never go away and I hope cell phone calls are never allowed during flights! Air rage is more common than an emergency and I think I have the smarts to pull the earphones off when something is happening.
I am so much happier with the new rules!
10 years ago I was stuck on the tarmac at DFW at 6am due to weather and they wouldn't allow us to listen to music devices because the aircraft door was shut.
I then got to listen to a 19 yo girl across the aisle from me turn directly towards me as she talked to someone behind me. She loudly discussed all aspects of her life from her college classes, her cell phone plan, her latest babysitting and what her upcoming plans were. She was literally driving me crazy with her drivel, especially at that time of day.
I finally lost it and asked if she could please talk quieter. She immediately escalated and said she could do whatever she wanted. I asked if she could move to the empty row 2 rows further back to talk to her friend. She said no way. Finally I just said "Sometimes you have to shut the F up." We finally took off, I cranked my iPod and started to fall asleep even though her friend started to kick the back of my seat.
About 30 min into the flight I was shaken awake by a flight attendant who said "Maam, did you use a profanity to this woman on this flight?" and I said yes, but that I hadn't spoken to her since. The flight attendant said I should let them handle things like this. The girl and her friend got moved to the front of the plane. I literally started wondering if I had broken some kind of obscure law by saying the F word on an airplane.
Music in my ears lets me ignore ignorant people like this or people loudly talking on their cell phones before actually taking off or after landing. I LOVE the new rules and hope they never go away and I hope cell phone calls are never allowed during flights! Air rage is more common than an emergency and I think I have the smarts to pull the earphones off when something is happening.