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
Yeah... On my way from LAX to LGA I used LTE in the sky's and survived fine... No one knew. For the inflight wifi it is just a smartphone plugged into a power source with a funky hotspot.
How on earth? The signal up there wouldn't be good enough to provide functioning LTE.
And no, no the inflight WiFi is not just a smartphone! It's a CDMA-based system, yes, but one designed for air-based coverage (large, upward facing cells).
Two points:
First, here's the original claim I responded to:
My response was:
The screens are not communication gear. Don't try moving someone else's goal posts.
Second, those screens (which the FAA is requiring to be replaced) were only affected by a *high-power* wi-fi test device *in the cockpit*. Testing with the same device in the passenger cabin did not cause problems.
True. *CARGO* aircraft, loaded with tons of lipo batteries have crashed due to faulty cells. Now, tell me what that has to do with the post to which I responded? Here, I'll help you out by *re-quoting* it.
To which, I responded:
Unless you're going to claim that "some 5 yo" can "drop" a pallet full of lipo batteries, sending it sliding down the isle, all you've done is move goal posts *again*.
If, by your definition, headphones interfere with the safety briefing, then so do:
a) books
b) talking
c) sleeping
These are all things which are allowed (and have been for *decades*).
Of course, someone not paying attention to the briefing isn't *actually* interfering with the briefing. The briefing still happens, and anyone who wants to pay attention to it can. (Generally at least 2-3 times as they move through the aircraft so that everyone has a clear view of the demonstration.)
I fly for business mainly, but even more so when I fly for travel I like to relax by reading my Nook or possibly my iPad. I don't want to sit doing nothing for no reason because of some stupid rule, that's not relaxing to me, its frustrating.
----------
Um...no it isn't. That's the point of this silly lawsuit...
OMG I guess these folks like to waste money on law suits they will never win.
Here are your union dues hard at work! Talk about frivolous lawsuits!
Here are your union dues hard at work! Talk about frivolous lawsuits!
You're either (1) someone who doesn't travel much, or (2) an idiot. But in any event, your inability to understand how "hard" it is for somebody to stow away their gadgets is moot. You're not the spokesperson for all passengers, or frequent flyers.
I travel lots for work. Pre-iPhone/iPad/Kindle, I spent those 15 minutes reading the paper, a novel, or working. There is no benefit whatsoever to listen to the same spiel again and again 1,000,000 times. I'm not a sheep, and I'd rather spend my time (valuable or not valuable as it is) however I see fit.
In addition, it is rarely "15 minutes." Between boarding, closing the door, and taxi-ing, most of the time you can be looking at 30 mins to 1 hour or beyond. Flying from NY to Chicago two days ago, we were taxiing, seated, just driving around the airport for 75 minutes before take-off. That would have been unbearable without something to read or play.
Beyond that, this lawsuit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Flight attendants are just striving for continued relevance, and to maintain the scintilla of "power" that they love to use to lord over passengers.
Unfortunately some safety regulations deal with perception and even deception of what is safe and what is not. Different people will have different reasons for following or not following regulations. Why not produce some hard facts proving the danger of using iPhone and similar devices during take off? Probably because there are none. The govenrment admission that using iPhone during take off and landing is acceptable serves as further proof. I suspect there are different reasons behind this law suite but passenger safety is not one of them. As for people talking about how hard is it to follow rules for 15 minutes or people spend too much time on their phones - valid arguments but have nothing to do with validity (sanity) of safety regulations. Has anyone seen a study on onboard sales and if they gone up or down since people started using handheld devices to spend their time rather than reading skymall magazine? Something tells me the only thing (proven) that iPhones and such have damaged so far are airlines profits.
This is a discussion about electronic devices and whether or not they can be turned on, or used in an airplane mode. Anything can be a projectile and it goes more with your sterile cabin rule. So if, indeed, there is enough evidence to enforce a sterile cabin rule than it should be enforced. For most what if scenarios - a general announcement suggesting that you do and don't do certain things is enough to cover liability, no need to enforce anything.
Not if you take into account the airline's cut of the wifi service that people now purchase on-board more than ever.
Ok so not using devices during take - off landing is the best of both worlds, still forces you to read the magazine but does not stop you from purchasing wifi once u up in the air
I never claimed I was. It seriously is not difficult to stow away your gadgets during take off and landing. If you are stuck on the runways for an hour then that is obviously a very different situation. The airplane is on the ground. It's hardly moving. That's very different to using your gadgets when the flight actually starts and the plane begins its take off.
Charter your own plane then you can spend your time however you like. You are not a guest on the airplane. You are a passenger, subject to the rules and regulations of the both the law and the airline. If the lawsuit is successful or the airline tells you to put your stuff away until the plane ascends to a certain altitude then it looks like you're going to have to do it, no matter how pointless you think it is.
They are relevant and will continue to be relevant. Flight attendants are one of the few groups of people on board that are trained to deal with emergency and/or unusual situations. They are not simply waiters and waitresses to serve you food and drink. They have important safety responsibilities.
It's sad you think that they filed the lawsuit just to maintain "power" over passengers. Just read what you are writing. You think they actually filed a lawsuit to make their jobs more difficult. Laughable.
I am not an expert on risk, but even if you use wikipedia you will read that any human endeavor carries some risk. if you want to move away from human perception of risk which is different from person to person you need to understand the probability of something bad happening, otherwise everything is potentially dangerous. Most likely there is not enough risk in using electronic devices during landing/take off. If their is no record of an iPhone injuring someone out of 1,000,000 flights where iPhone was used - than there is very little risk.
Most of the arguments hear describe the modes of occurrences, hazards, perils but do not quantify risk. Without actually quantifying risk the rest is useless.
It might sound paranoid but safety/rules/regulations are not always their to protect you from high risk, sometimes its just another way of gaining more control over people. And for corporations, governments or even individuals control is good. Without being a rebel its still a good idea to sometimes question that control and whether it is justified or not.
Liability is a whole different aspect of rules and regulations and in US liability is a major factor for any business. The cost of liability, the likelihood of a law suit and the lack of caps on the damages or any common sense makes for a very interesting set of rules and regulations coming out every day.
Most of the arguments hear describe the modes of occurrences, hazards, perils but do not quantify risk. Without actually quantifying risk the rest is useless.
It might sound paranoid but safety/rules/regulations are not always their to protect you from high risk, sometimes its just another way of gaining more control over people. And for corporations, governments or even individuals control is good. Without being a rebel its still a good idea to sometimes question that control and whether it is justified or not.
Liability is a whole different aspect of rules and regulations and in US liability is a major factor for any business. The cost of liability, the likelihood of a law suit and the lack of caps on the damages or any common sense makes for a very interesting set of rules and regulations coming out every day.
Well this whole topic is about whether to allow the use of devices during a 20 minute period or not, how important can it be? If someone wants an argument, it's always going to be a first world problem. Like most arguments on Apple forums such as this one, by the way.
Completely agree! Maybe that is why you leave in a first world to start with, because people question decisions, rules, regulations etc and more often than not try to improve things around them?
I fly often, but it seems like a minor inconvenience to ban the use of electronic devices during the roughly 10 minute safety briefing, or at least, ban the use of headphones or ear buds during the safety briefing.
In no event, should mobile phone/device conversations be allowed during a flight! For many folks, flying can be a cramped or at least, a less than comfortable experience, so we already have a situation where many passengers are not in the best of moods. Next consider that most people talk louder into a mobile phone versus speaking to someone next to them. Now combine that with the background noise of an aircraft and someone talking on a mobile device will be talking very loud. Nobody wants to sit next to that during a flight!
In no event, should mobile phone/device conversations be allowed during a flight! For many folks, flying can be a cramped or at least, a less than comfortable experience, so we already have a situation where many passengers are not in the best of moods. Next consider that most people talk louder into a mobile phone versus speaking to someone next to them. Now combine that with the background noise of an aircraft and someone talking on a mobile device will be talking very loud. Nobody wants to sit next to that during a flight!
Other than your personal perception, do you have any evidence to support the ban?
A few things. First, the rule has changed already. With good reason. Having an iPhone/Kindle/iPad/whatever poses no threat to anyone - nothing more so than other things that were and remain widely available (hardcover book, for example? glass bottle of cologne? I can go on). Why exactly should we have to stow gadgets during takeoff if there is no threat to anyone? Pilots use iPads in the cockpit all flight long instead of flight books (I know, my brother-in-law is a commercial pilot).
Doesn't work like that, champ - I don't need to charter a plane when, in fact, the rules change. I am not a guest on an airplane - I'm a customer and a passenger, and guess what: the rules and regulations HAVE CHANGED to permit me to use my gadgets. What rule am I breaking here? It's a minority of morons who are trying to revert back to the previous, nonsensical and arbitrary system.
I have the utmost respect for flight attendants because of the amount of crap they put up with and deal with. But, I have no respect for someone who thinks they are entitled to exercise their power arbitrarily because they're wearing a uniform with an airline logo on it. I've witnessed someone be threatened to get thrown off a plane (before takeoff) because they were playing Words With Friends. Give me a break. It just feeds into the security theater BS that allows people to be insane jerks.
Right, that may be an exaggeration, but I don't see a "Flight Attendants Union" filing this for any noble reason. It's about power and relevance. The FAA did extensive studies to confirm there was no threat to the safety of the planes. They're arguing that these are distractions (there are 100000 others), or that they are dangerous projectiles (they just as dangerous when they're off as well). Those arguments are spurious.
Bonus fact: I looked up the lawyer who brought suit. She is a poorly-credentialed, totally inexperienced nobody, working for some bottom-of-the-barrel law firm that doesn't even have a webpage. It makes me think this is just some sort of publicity stunt for the union and the "law firm." I would bet you that there is some other issue here - perhaps negotiations with the union - that we do not see.
----------
How many times do I need to hear the same, pointless safety briefing? It's not that much of an inconvenience, but I mean we were allowed to listen to music, read SkyMall, talk to our neighbor, WHATEVER we wanted during the safety briefing in the past - are you now proposing that we lose even that simple right, and have to sit there like children listening to the same stuff we have heard 1,000,000 times?
Enough is enough - passengers should not be treated like morons or children. Half the information in the safety briefing is useless (like being told about flotation devices when my flight is over land, only), and in the event of a real survivable emergency, there is virtually no information in that briefing that would not immediately be apparent (location of the exits, use of breathing aids, etc).
And that's what it comes down to. If an airline has a particular rule in place and you don't like it you can choose not to use that airline. Just as it comes down to many services/products/companies in life.
I don't really understand your logic unless you support banning reading books prior to 10K too. In the past people also tooled around with their PDAs, portable game devices, etc. Smartphones, tablets, eReaders are just modern versions.
The FAA never banned reading books at anytime in-flight because books, not because books cannot become dangerous projectiles -- just like the ice bucket on the FA's cart, but because they do not interfere w/ the plane's electronics. The FAA, after testing and studies, found that small electronics have no material effect on a plane's electronics either. In fact, many airlines even use iPads for flight books instead of the old fashioned paper ones now. 100% safe in that regard.
The whole "passengers aren't listening to us because of electronic devices" is a ruse and farce. Passengers either listen or don't because of what their own brain is telling them to do. Even if devices were banned you can't force someone to pay attention or retain information.
This attitude is exactly what got us into the U.S. Ebola mess. Health care workers who thought they could ignore directives and guidelines because they know better.
- Nurse got on a plane after caring for terminal Ebola patient. "I'm good!"
- Medical doctor/reporter decides she knows better, goes out for sandwiches under quarantine
- Patient transported to another hospital. Live TV images showing bunch of hazmat-suited people going up charter plane ramp, followed closely by ground crew with NO protection.
Everybody thinks they know better. It doesn't apply to me.
So your point is that we should adhere to rules that once existed in the past, currently do not and are being lobbied to be possibly changed in the future? You win!
As for using iPads in the cockpit, it should be noted that this is only allowed after EACH aircraft type's cockpit is tested for interference with the tablets in question... taking up to a year to finish.
Those who were involved in the cockpit testing have said that sometimes there was instrument interference and RF shielded tablet mounts had to be fabricated to prevent it.
And that's just from a very tightly controlled and small environment, with a known type and number of devices.