Please turn off all personal electronic devices

[Abstract]

That's messed up. If you were shooting with a film camera, would she still have the right to tell you to turn it off? She probably does.

So the potential threat to all lives on any flight should be forfeit because someone wants to watch DVDs or call someone just to loudly tell them they're on the plane?

Agreed. There's a word for people who's convenience and personal gear is so much more important than everyone elses safety that it must be left ON, even after being told to do otherwise, and that word is Selfish. I don't care if the chances of something going wrong because of your mobile phone is 1 in 1,000,000, turn the thing off when instructed, even if you're 15 minutes away from actually taking off or landing the plane. The time in between is just a safety buffer......they sometimes ask you twice to turn off all your gear.

 

[cycocelica]

The moment cellphone use is allowed in-flight, hell will freeze over and all airlines will apply for chapter 11 (again).

 

[matticus008]

But I figured someone here might know the answer. On my recent trip to LGA we were on an A319. When they shut down the engines for a ground stop, there was a sound like a sawing noise from the belly of the aircraft. What was that noise? Thanks.

That's the plane's hydraulics system. The A320 family makes that distinctive noise. It's completely normal. While not the same physically, it's fundamentally similar to the "ticking" or pinging noise of some heftier car engines after they've been turned off in that it's an odd, but normal and safe sound.

-----

On the topic, the people who have commented about the safety have the bulk of the situation. There's a lot spoken on a plane that is more or less a blatant lie, but it's for good cause. Seat belts, for example, are designed to keep you in your seat in the event that a sudden drop in altitude makes your head collide with the ceiling and to keep you in your seat so that it can protect you in a crash. The reason you can't recline or have your table down is because in a crash, those seats (which cost as much as small cars, by the way) are designed to keep you alive. They don't want you distracted by a movie or music or solitaire if they're giving instructions, and they don't want the obstructions in the cabin. Obviously, they're not going to tell you the reasoning behind all of this, because it causes unnecessary anxiety.

The general courtesy and avionics interference arguments are also valid, but planes and electronics are more sensibly designed these days. The problem is that flight attendants can't be trained to identify safe products and potentially harmful products, so people should just be willing to sit quietly for 15 minutes just to make the whole process smoother and safer.

 

[AoWolf]

On a small plane at least you can tell when someone is talking on a cellphone as the radio starts to get fuzzy. They say the problem with big planes is that the radio antenna are often above the passenger cabin. My flight instructor and Ex 747 captain said that he indeed could tell when the passengers left there electronics on.

 

[millar876]

if an ipod can interfeer with pasanger aircraft at critical stages, then why dose it not seem to affect fighter aircraft. i know several fast jet (read fighter jet capable of supersonic velocity) pilots that have ipods connected in to the aircrafts intercom system from engine startup to shotdown after sorties. and thats not just training sorties, but operational ones aswell, infact one even claims that on shuffle mode his ipod decided to play Black eyed pees - bombs over bagdad when indeed he had just entered bagbad airspace

 

[wingsky]

I think matticus had the answer there. Flight Attendants don't know if a personal electronic device can cause interference to flight instruments or not. Even if they did know what an iPod is and that it doesn't do any harm. What if someone else's MP3 player caused problems?

- "Can you turn off your music player please?"
- "Please can you... oh it's an iPod never mind sir"

You're gonna cause some arguments with the passengers there Imagine being asked to turn something off and another person is allowed their's on?

 

[Sdashiki]

I think matticus had the answer there. Flight Attendants don't know if a personal electronic device can cause interference to flight instruments or not. Even if they did know what an iPod is and that it doesn't do any harm. What if someone else's MP3 player caused problems?

- "Can you turn off your music player please?"
- "Please can you... oh it's an iPod never mind sir"

You're gonna cause some arguments with the passengers there Imagine being asked to turn something off and another person is allowed their's on?

they ask me to turn mine off, and I never do, I just say its off and turn the screen over so they cant see it.

I know my iPod has NO influence on ANYTHING but the music in my ears, gimme a break an iPod causing RF interference? Explain how?

And a cellphone call at 40,000 ft? Impossible when cell phones an only reach 2-3 miles.

 

[IJ Reilly]

they ask me to turn mine off, and I never do, I just say its off and turn the screen over so they cant see it.

I know my iPod has NO influence on ANYTHING but the music in my ears, gimme a break an iPod causing RF interference? Explain how?

And a cellphone call at 40,000 ft? Impossible when cell phones an only reach 2-3 miles.

40,000 feet? What airline to you fly on? And cell phones have a much longer range than 2-3 miles. They are effectively line-of-site.

In fact, you don't know what influence your iPod has on anything. Please listen to the flight attendants -- they are trying to do their job.

 

[zv470]

Hopefully terrorists don't figure out... that they could crash a plane with their personal electronic devices?

Imagine them all turning on their vibrators!!!

 

[displaced]

they ask me to turn mine off, and I never do, I just say its off and turn the screen over so they cant see it.

I know my iPod has NO influence on ANYTHING but the music in my ears, gimme a break an iPod causing RF interference? Explain how?

And a cellphone call at 40,000 ft? Impossible when cell phones an only reach 2-3 miles.

I do not have a degree in Aerospace Engineering.
I do not have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and
I do not have a degree in Radio-Frequency Electrical Engineering

As intelligent as I may think I am with my Computer Science and Politics degree, and no matter what reasonable and more-educated-than-some guesses I may believe I could make...

I know my bounds. If I cannot hand-on-heart say that I know for an unquestionable fact PED's have no effect upon the plane I'll make sure every single such device I have about my person is well and truly off when asked.

Even if there's only a one-in-a-million chance of a PED being responsible for an accident, I'm not going to chance it. I want myself and every other person on that plane to be as safe as humanly possible.

 

[skoker]

40,000 feet? What airline to you fly on?

Southwest almost always takes their B737-700(the NG series, usually with the winglets) to FL390 or FL400 on transcons.

And if you don;t understand what I just said, you have no right being in this thread

 

[nbs2]

I have a question about the astronomical odds of a PED having an effect on electronics. At what point are we crossing from acceptable risk to paranoia?

Don't most of these comments cross the threshold to paranoid? What is the risk that radios pose to drivers and other people on the road? What is the accident rate as a result of operating cell phones while driving? And the rash of murders (now more assaults) related to robbery of the latest Air Jordans, iPods, or whatever else. Do we ban those as unacceptable risks?

Yes, I understand those bring risk to few, while aircraft pose risks to many. But, if the risk is low enough, isn't the totality roughly the same?

 

[matticus008]

I have a question about the astronomical odds of a PED having an effect on electronics. At what point are we crossing from acceptable risk to paranoia?

Well, the odds of a plane crashing are astronomically small to begin with. With a one-in-a-million chance of the plane coming down and a one-in-a-million chance of a PED causing serious trouble, I'd say preventing their use is an easy step to reduce odds of problems. The reliability of technology can never be perfect, so reducing the odds with simple fixes is a reasonable step to take, especially when the consequence of that step is sitting quietly for 10 minutes twice during a flight--hardly a sacrifice.

What is the risk that radios pose to drivers and other people on the road? What is the accident rate as a result of operating cell phones while driving? And the rash of murders (now more assaults) related to robbery of the latest Air Jordans, iPods, or whatever else. Do we ban those as unacceptable risks?

An interesting point, but people have an innate paranoia about flying--one that they don't have about driving or walking down the street even though the facts are clear that either of those are more dangerous. I don't hesitate before stepping onto a plane, and I still wouldn't even if the odds of me dying were 1000 times greater, but lots of people are afraid of it...possibly because it's inherently unnatural for a person to be airborne. In any case, that paranoia is an obstacle to overcome unique to the airline industry and the people who set the safety requirements.

Maybe it also has to do with a fully loaded 300-passenger plane going down being a much bigger deal than a single person killed in a car crash. Taking steps to make that unlikely is in the best interests of the industry and the public. One commercial plane crash with any number of fatalities is something that affects people more than the dozens of car crashes covered by local news every year...even if the one plane crash happened hundreds of miles away to complete strangers. One plane crashing can also devastate an airline, while a hundred car crashes of the same model still won't affect sales. People are irrational, what can I say?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Southwest almost always takes their B737-700(the NG series, usually with the winglets) to FL390 or FL400 on transcons.

And if you don;t understand what I just said, you have no right being in this thread

I'm a pilot, and even if wasn't, I have every right to be in on this thread. Most commercial traffic doesn't go above FL350. Some of the aircraft aren't even capable of it, fully loaded.

 

[matticus008]

I'm a pilot, and even if wasn't, I have every right to be in on this thread. Most commercial traffic doesn't go above FL350. Some of the aircraft aren't even capable of it, fully loaded.

The maximum flight ceiling of even the new next-generation 737s is "just" FL410. It is pretty unlikely that an airline like Southwest would fly within 2-3000 feet of that limit on a regular basis.

 

[FragTek]

The choice between 20 mins without music/film and possible risk of painful firey death is not a difficult one.

I'm with this guy!!

 

[aquajet]

they ask me to turn mine off, and I never do, I just say its off and turn the screen over so they cant see it.

I know my iPod has NO influence on ANYTHING but the music in my ears, gimme a break an iPod causing RF interference? Explain how?

And a cellphone call at 40,000 ft? Impossible when cell phones an only reach 2-3 miles.

You have no clue what you're talking about. RFI is a byproduct of any complex electrical circuit, iPods included. And unless you're an avionics expert, you have no clue how this RFI can affect an aircraft's on-board systems. For your own safety and those around you, I suggest you sit down, shut up, and listen to your flight attendants' instructions.

 

[aquajet]

Southwest almost always takes their B737-700(the NG series, usually with the winglets) to FL390 or FL400 on transcons.

Somehow I doubt this. A loaded 737 would be way above economical cruise altitude at FL390. Why would Southwest want to burn the extra fuel?

 

[xPismo]

Pardon me, macrumors readers, for I ranted. Sorry, was a bad night.

nm.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The maximum flight ceiling of even the new next-generation 737s is "just" FL410. It is pretty unlikely that an airline like Southwest would fly within 2-3000 feet of that limit on a regular basis.

Flying at higher altitudes is generally more efficient but it takes a lot of time and energy to get there. Rate of climb drops off dramatically as the air thins. I own an airplane with a rated service ceiling of 14,500 feet. Suffice to say, I've never been close. By the time you get to 10,000 feet the climb rate is about 100 FPM, and you've got to pull the nose up so high to get even that much climb that you're flying near stall speed. It's definitely un-fun. The point being, flying near the edge of the performance envelope, even if it's possible, isn't a real good idea.

 

[matticus008]

Why do so many believe their own opinion trumps all other voices on the subject. From the way you posted your comment, it seems you have made this decision with zero previous knowledge/resarch/interest in the subject.

Not to mention the fact that interfering with a flight attendant is a federal offense punishable by up to 20 years and civil penalties in the US (or more if the interference is violent or results in a diverted flight). This includes verbal and physical attacks and disobeying direct instructions. I've been on three separate flights over the years where people were escorted from the plane by the police, one for using wireless headphones after being told repeatedly they were prohibited.

If nothing else, it seems like fines and possible jail time would ensure compliance, wouldn't it? Somehow, it's not working anymore...somewhere along the line, people decided that rules and laws aren't good enough whenever it becomes inconvenient for them.

 

[aquajet]

Not to mention the fact that interfering with a flight attendant is a federal offense punishable by up to 20 years and civil penalties in the US (or more if the interference is violent or results in a diverted flight). This includes verbal and physical attacks and disobeying direct instructions. I've been on three separate flights over the years where people were escorted from the plane by the police, one for using wireless headphones after being told repeatedly they were prohibited.

Right. And the penalties are harsh for good reason: you don't **** around while traveling 500+ mph, seven miles above the earth in a thin metal tube.

 

[floriflee]

Essentially what it boils down to is the question "what is SO important that you can't turn off your electronic devices for 15-30 mins?" as well as the question "what makes you so special that you're above the law?"

The nerve of people...

 

[iGary]

I'm a pilot, and even if wasn't, I have every right to be in on this thread. Most commercial traffic doesn't go above FL350. Some of the aircraft aren't even capable of it, fully loaded.

The service ceiling for the -300 and up 737's built after 1993 is 41,000 feet.

My last flight to Jacksonville topped out at 39,000, but I've been on at 40,000 for turbulence.

 

[Sdashiki]

You have no clue what you're talking about. RFI is a byproduct of any complex electrical circuit, iPods included. And unless you're an avionics expert, you have no clue how this RFI can affect an aircraft's on-board systems. For your own safety and those around you, I suggest you sit down, shut up, and listen to your flight attendants' instructions.

wow, well from what I know, RFI "strength" can basically be compared to the power behind the device.

the power output of portable electronics is very minute.

call me crazy for thinking 2 AAAs is gonna bring down a plane...

ps: if you have your music on so loud you cant hear flight attendants instructions, then you probably need to turn it down.