Well, I'm a bit skeptical!
I'm guessing she's more concerned about publicly appearing tough on the FAA than actually doing anything to them. It's just what senators and most elected politicians seem to do!
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.
U.S. Senator Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I'm a bit skeptical!
I'm guessing she's more concerned about publicly appearing tough on the FAA than actually doing anything to them. It's just what senators and most elected politicians seem to do!
Reminds me of Bart Simpson...
... When Bart turns off his Game Boy, then the plane takes a nose dive
... When Bart turns off his Game Boy, then the plane takes a nose dive
I will be laughing when TSA decides to reach up your butt and see what's up there when they catch you bringing anything that looks like that into an airport.
Why do you insist on using your device to make all these nonsensical posts? Is it really that important that you do it now? Shouldn't strangers be allowed to make up ridiculous reasons why you can't use your devices at certain times and force you to abide by their unreasonable rules?
There's a legitimate argument in that. I just find that people who find such petty things a big issue in their mind troublesome to begin with. They always complain about such stupid things, and it boggles my mind that, of all the things that people should rightfully complain about, they expend their energy on some basic, trivial matter that is at best a nuisance to people. And to take this to a political level, when we got plenty of other problems, just seems a complete waste of time and resources.
In your aircraft under Part 91, you're free to do as you wish. In commercial aviation, you're subject to Part 121. In particular, 121.306.
§ 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
Under Part 121, your friendly captain / FO (PIC/SIC) does not have that authority. And, frankly, as a passenger, neither do you.
Airplane mode should be enough. But we should be able to continue using them during takeoff/landing.
There are all sorts of really dumb "safety" precautions when it comes to flying. The idea that wearing headphones will not allow you to hear emergency instructions should something bad happen on take-off or landing is one of those DUMB rules. Are you really kidding me that should something really bad happen that necessitates instructions being given over the intercom or screamed as the plane is...fill in the blank - depressurized, on fire, heading for a crash landing. What exactly is the person listening to music supposed to do? And if they're listening to music or watching a movie at the point where the plane is crashing, then I'd say let them live their last minutes doing what they please.
It's not much different than giving water landing instructions when the plane's route takes you over the desert.
I agree that having passengers on their phones is not something to be tolerated, given cramped quarters more than anything, but most of the other issues given for non PED use is silly at best.
It's not much different than giving water landing instructions when the plane's route takes you over the desert.
I agree that having passengers on their phones is not something to be tolerated, given cramped quarters more than anything, but most of the other issues given for non PED use is silly at best.
Interesting to note here is that everyone is assuming that 'electronic devices' must only mean cell phones, any electronic named after or sponsored by a fruit, or some sort of tablet. And to those thinking that it interferes with the aircraft's electronics, you really do not know what you're talking about.
I agree with the pilots that have popped up in this forum, as they know and have a lot more experience in the field than others here. I like to put myself in that boat, though I haven't completed the checkride to get my ticket. But I can say that they do not interfere whatsoever, otherwise this regulation would have affected not only Part 121 operations (commercial aircraft), but also Part 135 and Part 91 operations, which this does NOT cover. So that already puts the FAA's regs under scrutiny.
The good thing to note for those who are student pilots or wanting to hear how Part 121 ops run while in the air, this also affects radio scanners as well. They do not transmit on any sort of frequency, so there would be no interference with any avionics in the flight deck. In fact, if worse came to worse, it would be an Phone or a tablet with 3G/4G/LTE that would cause more of an issue than a scanner would. So this would be a bonus for those who are into ATC comms (read: LiveATC feeds).
I love how the fear and paranoia of 9/11 still plays part into this..
Glad to know that Sen. McCaskill has the testicular fortitude (that the men in the Senate apparently don't) to take this issue on.
BL.
I agree with the pilots that have popped up in this forum, as they know and have a lot more experience in the field than others here. I like to put myself in that boat, though I haven't completed the checkride to get my ticket. But I can say that they do not interfere whatsoever, otherwise this regulation would have affected not only Part 121 operations (commercial aircraft), but also Part 135 and Part 91 operations, which this does NOT cover. So that already puts the FAA's regs under scrutiny.
The good thing to note for those who are student pilots or wanting to hear how Part 121 ops run while in the air, this also affects radio scanners as well. They do not transmit on any sort of frequency, so there would be no interference with any avionics in the flight deck. In fact, if worse came to worse, it would be an Phone or a tablet with 3G/4G/LTE that would cause more of an issue than a scanner would. So this would be a bonus for those who are into ATC comms (read: LiveATC feeds).
I love how the fear and paranoia of 9/11 still plays part into this..
Glad to know that Sen. McCaskill has the testicular fortitude (that the men in the Senate apparently don't) to take this issue on.
BL.
That's kind of what happened in the Tenerife air disaster. Radio interference due to two planes transmitting at the same time lead one pilot to misunderstand his instructions and attempt to take off when another airplane was crossing the runway.
Pilots are now required to repeat back their instructions as a means of acknowledging they understood them correctly as a result of the accident but radio interference can still be a problem.
Really?!?!
REALLY?!?! We are fighting about this?
Our Constitutional rights are being violated every time we pass through a TSA checkpoint and we are arguing over turning off an electronic device for 10 minutes during takeoff and landing?
As a country we have our priorities really screwed up.
REALLY?!?! We are fighting about this?
Our Constitutional rights are being violated every time we pass through a TSA checkpoint and we are arguing over turning off an electronic device for 10 minutes during takeoff and landing?
As a country we have our priorities really screwed up.
Yeah, 2 devices may not make a big difference, but 500 devices all running at high power, trying to get a cell signal, is not a good idea.
New airplanes are fly by wire. I prefer not to mess with that.
It is a MINOR inconvenience to be on the safe side at a critical stage of flight. If you can't have your device off for 15 minutes, without throwing a fit, you have a real problem.
Leave the FAA alone Senator. Go find some good press somewhere else.
B
New airplanes are fly by wire. I prefer not to mess with that.
It is a MINOR inconvenience to be on the safe side at a critical stage of flight. If you can't have your device off for 15 minutes, without throwing a fit, you have a real problem.
Leave the FAA alone Senator. Go find some good press somewhere else.
B
Tenerife was the fault of a heterodyne, caused by two pilots transmitting on the same frequency, not any communications being received on a frequency. Also it should be noted that WiFi comms are on a completely different part of the spectrum than aviation frequencies. In fact, Civil Aviation's highest freq doesn't even come close to the lowest WiFi or cellular phone frequency.
bernuli said:
Which you don't know what you are talking about here, as again, FBW and the avionics have nothign to do with the WiFi going on inside a flight nor the radio reception between pilots and ATC. Completely different frequencies.
Talk about FUD.
BL.
So, when I get on a plane to go fix a computer system in another city (as my job sometimes requires) and 20 minutes before boarding I get a call that reveals more information about the problem, and as a result I think to myself "gee.. i wonder if I can work on diagramming what the network should be doing while I'm on this plane so that when I arrive, I can show it to the network guy on site and work with him more efficiently" it's my fault for not knowing that detail until just prior to flight?
not everything in this world can be planned for and predicted.
If someone wants to take advantage of 30 minutes of sitting on their bum to be more productive, AND DOING SO TRULY PUTS NOBODY AT ANY GREATER RISK, then why can't we? (again, provided that the FAA or other appropriate entity shows that there is no additional risk to others' safety).
I mean, what's the point of "airplane mode" on electronics devices that pass the FCC inspections designed to ensure these products do not cause interference with other products?
What is wrong with you? I'm not judging you, but you make it a point to judge others. Where did I say I need that time for my work? I said that extra time would be appreciated. I would rather have 30 extra minutes with my kids than working at home. I plan my time just fine and getting 30 extra minutes of work on a plane would make life better.
This is evidence that there is no threat in leaving devices on. I'm sure this is not the only person that blows off this rule. If it were a real issue, they would be confiscating personal devices at the gate.
Although, what does this senator know about wireless interference??
Well, define "turn off" - most devices are doing a hundred things in the background while the display is turned off.
In all honesty, you have a better chance of seeing soap being used in the men's restroom than your iPad bringing down a flight.
BL.
I must have been dreaming then when I did it myself...or when there was a thread on this very site about it when FaceTime was first introduced.
Believe me...it's the next thing that stupid people will fight over.
"I'm a blah blah blah important attorney and have to work on the plane."
I personally don't see an issue with not using my device or have headphones on during the safety instructions (that I have heard 1,000+ times), but letting people start to talk on their phones or FaceTime over the wifi system will cause an uproar....and I travel for business all the time.
Plane time is sleepy time for me...
I just took a class flying a 737 with a pilot who's been flying for 30 plus years. He says devices have no effect whatever. It is only a precaution in case something does happen. Why risk it? He also says it gets people off their phones during takeoff and landing which is annoying to others and it's the most dangerous time during a flight. Once at altitude, you can't get a signal. So for the most part it's about keeping people off their phones and not taking any unnecessary risks.
Also, if they were a real danger they would be in the same category as a gun and not even allowed past the TSAs.
Also, if they were a real danger they would be in the same category as a gun and not even allowed past the TSAs.