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
Really?
As a very frequent flyer, I find it extremely frustrating to be prevented from reading my book, magazines, crosswords, or even catching up with messages, simply because my habit of using an electronic device to access these is in advance of the FAA's ability to adapt. Watching the pilots with their iPads, and being told to turn mine off entirely (no, the Airplane Mode will NOT do!!!) really underlines how very stupid these transparently idiotic and inappropriate rules really are. Hats off to this lady politician from the US. We need more like her!
As a very frequent flyer, I find it extremely frustrating to be prevented from reading my book, magazines, crosswords, or even catching up with messages, simply because my habit of using an electronic device to access these is in advance of the FAA's ability to adapt. Watching the pilots with their iPads, and being told to turn mine off entirely (no, the Airplane Mode will NOT do!!!) really underlines how very stupid these transparently idiotic and inappropriate rules really are. Hats off to this lady politician from the US. We need more like her!
I read books on my devices. Hate having to put it away during takeoff, especially if it's in "airplane" mode and NOT trying to connect to anything.
I like listening to music when I fly. I LOVE listening to music whilst stuck on the tarmac. Currently, if your flight is delayed on the ground, you could be there hours and not be legal to listen to you iPod. That needs to change.
All "common sense" pandering should tell you is that we have an armchair engineer sitting in the senate. Her degree is in political science. My issue is with politicians who try to dismiss regulations on the basis of common sense when they should review its original purpose and its current effect. Turning off your phone is at most an inconvenience. If the senate is going to review dated legislation, perhaps they should start with something that currently imposes unnecessary costs rather than just inconvenience.
Blabbering on cellphones
I don't really care that much, and newer had any problems with devices on all the flights I've taken thru the years. When that is said I will have serious issues with 100+ people talking away on cellphones for a whole flight. So that is something I hope they stay away from legalizing as long as I live, or at least until you can use thought to speech over the cellphone, whichever comes first.
I don't really care that much, and newer had any problems with devices on all the flights I've taken thru the years. When that is said I will have serious issues with 100+ people talking away on cellphones for a whole flight. So that is something I hope they stay away from legalizing as long as I live, or at least until you can use thought to speech over the cellphone, whichever comes first.
Yes, she has her undergrad in political science, and her JD degree from the university of Missouri.
McCaskill is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over communications and aviation policy.
This would mean that she is actually doing part of her job!
The law should be changed to read that devices cause distractions for their users, and potentially could be used as projectiles, versus the unproven potential electronic interference to navigation equipment. What happens if I am asleep during the safety briefing?
If in fact use of PED actually does cause interference and could result in catastrophic errors, then this will be the next terrorist attack, and YES we should prevent this, as I am sure those who wish to harm us have thought of this?
I have worn a headset with communicating with ATC. Not only that, but I have friends that work at ZLA (Los Angeles Center), Las Vegas, SoCal and NorCal TRACONs, and LAX Tower. I've listened in directly to their comms both in the tower and in the left seat of the Skyhawk and Skylane (C172 and C182) I'm training in. I've had my phone go off while I'm talking to them, and have heard absolutely NOTHING of what you mention.
The Skylane has GPS and a glass panel, none of which were affected while using my Phone as the GPS as well as taking a call on it. The Skyhawk was a 35 year old model without any updated avionics in it (all still hydraulic), and it wasn't affected either.
Even if I didn't have personal experience with flying, I'd still call bollocks to what you are stating.
BL.
Do you really expect anyone to take your comment seriously?! The amount of RF being emitted by a cell phone in airplane mode is so minuscule compared to the amount of RF blasting all over the skies anyway that any plane so at risk should never be allowed to fly, not to mention there would be no altitude at which it would be safe to operate any electronic device.
You're just digging your heals in because you're too proud to admit you are wrong.
There is NO HARM in pasangers using a PED approved for use in flight in airplane mode during all phases of flight. I will continue to do so as I feel like - good luck stopping me. That's all the Senator is saying.
Yes, she has her undergrad in political science, and her JD degree from the university of Missouri.
McCaskill is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over communications and aviation policy.
This would mean that she is actually doing part of her job!
I couldn't resist calling her an armchair engineer. The only thing that actually annoyed me here was the ultimatum tone, although that could just be the article.
I had considered the safety briefing. It's not like people talk on their phones anymore. That would make it easy to tell who isn't paying attention. I hadn't thought of the projectile part, although they typically ask that all possessions be secured for takeoff and landing.
If it's an issue of interference manifesting itself as noise, it could be an issue of the cumulative devices carried by everyone on the plane. I'm not sure it's a precisely linear gain in interference, but any given equipment has some level of fault tolerance. If it was as simple as a single cell phone bringing down a plane, they wouldn't be allowed as carry on possessions.
Dont sound like you have been handcuffed, slammed to the floor and had a boot put in your throat by a US Marshall lately or faced child abuse felony charges.
One cell phone conversation may not take down radio communications on a plane but what about 100 cell phone conversations. Have you ever put your cell phone next to your radio in your car?
Senators don't really have to bother with the TSA, so I guess she doesn't know how normal people has it.
I'm not so worried about electronic jamming from devices - the static discharges from the plane's fuselage alone should dwarf any emissions from phones, never mind the EM noise the avionics on the plane emit. What I do worry about is flying debris during an emergency - phones are probably OK, but tablets and laptops might not. I wonder if the FAA has looked into this.
Just wondering - perhaps this prohibition on PED's is related to the desire of airlines to avoid litigation. I can imagine it now 'Hi honey, we're nearly there, we're just landin.... *CRASH*.........'. dozens of 'passenger black boxes' are inevitably going to cause higher payouts after a crash.
Just wondering - perhaps this prohibition on PED's is related to the desire of airlines to avoid litigation. I can imagine it now 'Hi honey, we're nearly there, we're just landin.... *CRASH*.........'. dozens of 'passenger black boxes' are inevitably going to cause higher payouts after a crash.
Last edited:
Look at that photo of her. She's practically demonic. Think she cares if some ex-con molesters fondle your basket? She'd rather waste time on this trivia than uphold the rights and responsibilities of a civil society and rule of law.
And again, why is it so important to you? You take the troll prize Onigami, you know that?
Pass rules that make sense, I follow them. Pass rules that are anachronistic and have no basis in reality anymore and I won't pay attention to them. Period.
FYI I don't bring books - I read too often so I use an iPad or an eReader that has more material than I could physically carry. I *want* to read, and that is all the reason you or anyone else will ever need. I can read when and where I choose without having to justify it to you or to other some control freak like you. Does that make it clear enough for you, cupcake?
If someone want their electronic fix, they can have it Onigami. What perplexes me is why concepts as simple as this continue to vex and rattle people like you that love being a lemming and wanting everyone to conform. You sound a lot like my Collie trying to corral other dogs at the park. You're too cute...
Bluntly put, you and the others in this thread who say "I'll do what I want" are as ignorant as the Senator.
I was in Electronic Warfare. I've participated in TEMPEST actions both offensive and defensive. As an electronic designer, I've also been through FCC certifications... and boy is there a lot of interference possible.
An airplane hull is a Faraday cage. Outside signals are blocked from coming in, which is why airplanes have external antennas, it's why a GPS or radio doesn't work unless you're close to a window, and it's why your comment about RF blasting all over the skies outside the airplane is meaningless.
What matters is RF echoing around INSIDE the hull. That's what has to be designed and tested for. It's why the few planes with onboard WiFi have a tiny limit on power output, to try to hold down the interference. However, as Boeing accidentally (and luckily) found out, some devices don't follow the power rules and can overwhelm the pilot's instruments, which naturally were never designed for internal interference like that. (see Faraday cage above)
--
Moreover, all you seem to think about is yourself. "How could my little device cause any harm?" Did it ever occur to you that if a hundred others are doing the same thing, the effects are greatly magnified?
If someone is seated just right, their cell signal will go through the floor to the electronic cabling, and can cause interference to nav signals, voice comms or other aircraft control systems.
There are airline pilot reports that someone turning on a cell phone has probably caused false TCAS commands. Do you know what that is? It's a virtually mandatory command to the pilots to climb or dive to avoid collisions. Very dangerous while landing or taking off. There are also reports that autopilots have disengaged near landing, probably for the same reason. Not to mention the complaints about GSM buzz interfering with ATC communications. We've been lucky so far that pilots have gotten around these unnecessary distractions.
The upshot is, until the pilot cabin is fully shielded, and until all the controls on the plane use fiber optics which are not susceptible to RF, common sense is to err on the side of safety.
--
Again, the FAA is not a safety organization like the NTSB. The FAA promotes flying, and in the past have done things like ignore the NTSB's calls for cargo hold fire supression systems, mostly because of carrier complaints about cost. Never mind those who died horribly in fiery crashes... because they're rare.
Last edited:
Really? Take off and landing isn't any less droll than the rest of the flight. Why should I have to stop working and listening to music during those parts of the flight?
You're looking at this the wrong way... Am I lost without my devices for the 15 minutes each that those processes take? No. But it is lost productivity... 30 minutes in which I'm aimlessly flipping through a SkyMall instead of doing something productive.
But even if I was just playing games, there's still no reason to prohibit it. You're strapped into a seat and can't move around, what else are you supposed to do on a plane?
Last edited: