Southwest Rapid Rewards - Fully powering down ipad before takeoff?

Flew SWA today and as always, used my ipad up until the announcement to turn electronics off. And, as always, I turned it "off" by hitting the button on the top, which blacks out the screen, then went to close the case. A flight attendant stopped me and said I had not properly turned it off. She made me holddown the button on top until the red slider bar comes up asking if you want to power it off, and then turn it off that way. I was really surprised by this because I never do a full powerdown -- not at home, not on planes, not ever. Have others run into this requirement? Could it possibly matter?

lol... i do the same thing you do (just hit the top button) but I do put it in airplane mode. I've never been hassled but I am good at pretending to do a complete shutdown where FAs are near by.

Don't think many people do, pilots included. Wierd that all these planes are still taking off and landing safely! How can that be?

Having it fully powered down, not even in airplane mode, is officially what's mandated. But I don't see it often enforced or practiced.

What they say, is (paraphrased) 'any device with an on-off button, the device must be in the off position' -> iOS devices have an on/off button (the one the OP describes) and to me, airplane mode+pushing that turns the device 'off'.

There is no physical 'on/off' button for the whole device - that would be a software feature. :)

Having it fully powered down, not even in airplane mode, is officially what's mandated. But I don't see it often enforced or practiced.Maybe it's just me but it seems the FAs on my recent flights have been really adamant on the whole "totally off, NOT airplane mode!" issue.

Just touching the power button only turns the screen off, the Ipad is still fully running in the background. This is not off nor even standby its only the screen thats turned off to save power.

By holding the powerr button down till you get the red turn off swipe turns it off fully.

Maybe it's just me but it seems the FAs on my recent flights have been really adamant on the whole "totally off, NOT airplane mode!" issue.

Someone probably got dinged by a FAA cabin inspector recently. Much like the laptop hullabaloo a few years ago.

I did have a FA once tell me the iPad couldn't be in the seat pocket and I couldn't hold it during takeoff. It was fine on the open seat next to me though.

The reason for completing powering down is so that the battery is no longer "live". Putting it to sleep or airplane mode doesn't shut off the device. Taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts of flying and if there were a crash, those live batteries will contribute to an already tragic situation.

The reason for completing powering down is so that the battery is no longer "live". Putting it to sleep or airplane mode doesn't shut off the device. Taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts of flying and if there were a crash, those live batteries will contribute to an already tragic situation.

Ha haaa haaaaa! Oh wait -- you're serious?

Yes no physical dis connect is made with power off or standby. The only way is to take the battery out which can not easily do with an ipad

Don't think many people do, pilots included. Wierd that all these planes are still taking off and landing safely! How can that be?
For several reasons:

1. The effect can be cumulative. So one person by themselves leaving a device on that should be off may not matter, but many people on the plane may matter.

2. Taking off and safely landing doesn't mean there werent' issues (that good pilots managed to work around). You may be causing issues that are unreported and cause some problems, even if they don't escalate to an obvious-to-passengers problem with take-off or landing.

3. A properly functioning device may not be an issue. But a malfunctioning device can put out a lot of RF interfeernece that a properly functioning device wouldn't, but the only sympton may be the greater RF intereference, and I bet you aren't checking for that symptom on your devices regularly, are you???

(I havne't done checking for airplane-specific RF frequencies, but I know some devices are way worse at interfering with FM and AM radio and even cellphone transimissions than other devices, and sometimes it's due to design but other times it's due a defect or malfunction.)


So just because most of the time it doesn't cause a problem big enough for you to be aware, doesn't mean that it never ever ever could cause a problem that's not trivial for the pilots.

And how do you know it didn't even cause problems for you? Interference to airplane equipment during takeoff or landing might manifest (as far as you are told) only in a delay in one or the other!!! (Because it takes time for the pilots to use an alternate procedure to work around the malfunction.)

Don't think many people do, pilots included. Wierd that all these planes are still taking off and landing safely! How can that be?

+1 I never power down anything but then again I don't like following rules that make no sense. :cool:

For several reasons:

1. The effect can be cumulative. So one person by themselves leaving a device on that should be off may not matter, but many people on the plane may matter.

2. Taking off and safely landing doesn't mean there werent' issues (that good pilots managed to work around). You may be causing issues that are unreported and cause some problems, even if they don't escalate to an obvious-to-passengers problem with take-off or landing.

3. A properly functioning device may not be an issue. But a malfunctioning device can put out a lot of RF interfeernece that a properly functioning device wouldn't, but the only sympton may be the greater RF intereference, and I bet you aren't checking for that symptom on your devices regularly, are you???

None of this has ever been scientifically proven and has been extensively debated elsewhere (I think the security subforum). IMO it is a complete crock, but then again I don't believe in man-made global warming, so I am a bit of a neanderthal. :)

+1 I never power down anything but then again I don't like following rules that make no sense. :cool:

So nice to know that YOU are so much more important that the others on the plane and that you are the sole arbiter when it comes to the "sensible" rules in life.......very UN-:COOL:

Text while driving much?????????

Wish they had a smiley for TOAD.............

The reason for completing powering down is so that the battery is no longer "live". Putting it to sleep or airplane mode doesn't shut off the device. Taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts of flying and if there were a crash, those live batteries will contribute to an already tragic situation.

You don't really believe this nonsense, do you?

You can avoid these issues by wearing a homemade tin foil hat Faraday cage. :p Realistically, even if every single person on the plane had multiple malfunctioning devices, it wouldn't cause enough interference to affect operations. I'm guessing that the real worry is disguised devices with the intent of jamming communications/sensors.

I generally comply with all FA announcements. I always power my phone off, primarily out of respect for the cabin crew and other passengers. That said, I've never completely powered off my Macbook Air when flying. Ever. It's always in "sleep" more, comfortably tucked away in my backpack, until I (sometimes) pull it out in-flight. I'd not given it much thought before.

I've been on flights where I've heard a phone ringing from the overhead compartment during take off.

If electronic devices such as these actually caused significant issues, planes would be falling out of the sky.

Maybe an increased directive due to the guy who was formally warned by the FAA for filming the recent bird strike on DL 1063 with his iPad. His footage was aired on CNN.

"Bird-strike video lands passenger a warning (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-29/travel/sc-trav-0529-strip-jet-rules-20120529_1_faa-portable-electronic-devices-bird-strike)"

BTW, you've got an extra http// near the beginning of your link that's causing it to fail.

The last paragraph of the linked article sums up the situation nicely:
One problem the FAA faces in updating its portable electronic devices policies is that testing is the responsibility of each airline. And in the current fiscal climate, it's hard to imagine any airline voluntarily burning fuel to fly an empty plane filled with powered-on iPods, Androids, Kindles, etc. to prove portable electronic devices are harmless.

Some "FAA approval" back reading for those interested:

Cabin changes and FAA approval in a post by SWABrian
Drink menu and FAA approval from the blog (http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/bottoms)

None of this has ever been scientifically proven and has been extensively debated elsewhere (I think the security subforum). IMO it is a complete crock, but then again I don't believe in man-made global warming, so I am a bit of a neanderthal. :)
Well, I don't know about currently-used devices, but back in the era of analog phones, there were proven cases of phones that went haywire and started transmitting either off-frequency or at a way greater than intended power level (I forget which).

I also know from person experience of radios which have malfuctioned in their IF stages and start spewing out all sorts of RF interference that they normally wouldn't. But these were expereinces far from any airplane, and I never tested what range the problem interference had (I was getting it from the next room, but the next room may have been the equivalent of just a few rows, and thus if not carried to the forward lavatory not as close as even the first bulkhead seat row on a 737. (But that doesn't mean the interference didn't go further, I just didn't test to see how far it went. I just noticed it where I was, and figured out what it was coming from and where it was.) This, btw, is the reason that seemingly receiving-only equipment like radios are among the prohibited items on planes; because all radios "re-transmit" the received signals within the radio in an IF section, and while when properly working that doesn't cause problems, it can most definitely malfunction and then spew forth in a "bad" frequency band for airplane communication. (But again, while I'm sure about freqency band, I'm not sure about range.)

If electronic devices such as these actually caused significant issues, planes would be falling out of the sky.
No, if they caused issues signficant enough to fall out of the sky, there would be electronic screening for these devices as you board and they be collected from you.

But that doesn't mean some (small subset) of them can't cause problems of some less drastic sort (most of which you, as an ordinary passenger, wouldn't even see, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant).

The issue is that even though only a very small subset of devices might even be capable of causing problems, it's too difficiult to precisely explain to people which subset that is, and thus everything in the superset is banned from use (during takeoff/landing). It's a lot easier to explain "anything with a battery" (obviously not including wristwatches!) than do go down a thirty-page list of obscure devices. (Not that they have a precise list of what can cause interference anyway. All they have is anecdotes from which it's subjective to extrapolate.)

From a modern equipment perspective: The thing I'd fear is not the person using an iPad, but once no-name Chinese knockoffs of pads become more widespread, some of those will be poorly built, and much more prone to give off interference in some situations than a real iPad. But how many consumers who buy such kockoffs, which typically are sold with nice Western names that sound like established companies, know they have such a knockoff even?

(Luckily for Southwest fliers, Southwest's international expansion will be slow, and so it will be airplanes from Asian carriers which fall out of the sky before Southwest does, since those knockoffs will sell there a lot more than here, if any plane does fall out of the sky because of them.)

And, btw, how do you know that no plane anywhere in the world has fallen out of the sky because of electronic interference from something a passenger used in flight? Perhaps no plane in the US has, but I'm not so certain about some other parts of the world. Not all countries have something like the NTSB carefully investigating every airplane crash...

I am not surprised. On a flight from ABQ to LAX, the front flight attendant spent most of the time grumbling about the email on her iPad. I have no idea what she was up to, but the service was great (I had that good first aisle seat on the DEF side!) and she kept offering us drink refills and more snacks. Nice flight, but the whole iPad thing was unnerving.

And, btw, how do you know that no plane anywhere in the world has fallen out of the sky because of electronic interference from something a passenger used in flight? Perhaps no plane in the US has, but I'm not so certain about some other parts of the world. Not all countries have something like the NTSB carefully investigating every airplane crash...

Seriously?! You're kidding, right?

So nice to know that YOU are so much more important that the others on the plane and that you are the sole arbiter when it comes to the "sensible" rules in life.......very UN-:COOL:

Text while driving much?????????

Wish they had a smiley for TOAD.............

So flying for the first time in over a year.... turning off cell phones and PDAs is one of the many reasons (stupid rules)... thought I would look on FT for some updates.... found your post and now I know why I dont like to fly... post like this... you should get a job working at an airport.

I fly private quite a bit... we have all taken suicide trips and left our phones on to see if we crash... I am still here. Some countries do not make you turn the phones off... but they do stop working once you are high enough in the sky.... I am still here.

Yes we need to follow the rules.... but post like this just prove.... too many not so nice people fly..... Guess nothing has changed since my last post ages ago....

So flying for the first time in over a year.... turning off cell phones and PDAs is one of the many reasons (stupid rules)... thought I would look on FT for some updates.... found your post and now I know why I dont like to fly... post like this... you should get a job working at an airport.

I fly private quite a bit... we have all taken suicide trips and left our phones on to see if we crash... I am still here. Some countries do not make you turn the phones off... but they do stop working once you are high enough in the sky.... I am still here.

Yes we need to follow the rules.... but post like this just prove.... too many not so nice people fly..... Guess nothing has changed since my last post ages ago....

Awwww. I guess I'll just have to turn in my Companion Pass.

You can choose to risk yourself on any private "suicide" flight you like--provided that you're over the desert and if you're wrong, you don't hurt anyone else.

The minute you try to decide anything FOR ME, then I'm in the equation and I have a say.

I've always said that smokers are welcome to smoke--provided that they don't foul MY air or expect me to pay for their health issues that result from smoking.
Dopers can get as high as they like--provide that they don't do something that might impact me, like driving while high. Same goes for boozers.

You're absolutely right............if you don't want to follow the rules set in place by the rule makers because you've deemed them stupid (the rules OR the makers)---then DON'T FLY, PLAY, WHATEVER.

You don't want to fly with me because I'm "mean". I don't want to fly with you because you want me to participate in your risk taking behavior without my consent.

We're even.

You don't want to fly with me because I'm "mean". I don't want to fly with you because you want me to participate in your risk taking behavior without my consent.

We're even.

I never said I want to risk your life and would fly with my phone on. I politely called you a troll for picking on the person that did nothing against you other than complain about policy.

Are you sure you are not a TSA brainiac or FA that runs around giving people a hard time. Man, I am not thrilled about dealing with going to the airport.... oh how the world has changed in the last 20 years.... flying used to be such fun, posting on FT used be such a close knit helpful group..... oh the days....

The minute you try to decide anything FOR ME, then I'm in the equation and I have a say.

Wow, you must be a very stressed/disappointed/angry PAX because I don't think I've ever seen anyone fully power off an iPad, and there's usually at least one other besides mine in my row on each flight. I guess you really don't have a say then, do you?

Seriously?! You're kidding, right?
No, I'm not kidding, but if you think so, you probably didn't read my post carefully, or else don't understand engineering analysis or crash investigations.

Most crashes turn out to have a multitue of contributing factors. You only need to listen to press conferences at the conclusion of such investigations or read something of similar scope (more than a one-paragraph writeup) to know that.

But I bet you don't follow every crash everywhere to know (a) whether it was investigated as fully as the ones in the US, and (b) whether RF interference was ruled out completely as one contributing factor.

If you read carefully, I didn't claim that planes had fallen out the sky because of RF interference from consumer devices. I claimed that it wasin't impossible for such interference to have been a factor somewhere in the world. Can you provie it's impossible? Have you done that thorough a review of all the crash analyses of all the crashes worldwide since consumer electronics capable of going onto planes have come into existence? I bet not (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

Furthermore, a lot of RF interference is sporadic, and may not always be easy to pin down or prove much later. But that doesn't mean it didn't occur.

What I do know for certain is that I work in an industry which creates consumer appliances which in turn have malfuctioned due to RF interference from other malfuctioning electronic devices near them. (When the malfunction elecronic device was replaced with a properly-functioning device of the exact same model and version, the problem went away. And btw in this case the excess RF interference was the only symptom of malfunction!) So I know one electronic device that malfunctions causing others to fail is a real-world fact. But my actual experience is limited to on-the-gorund appliances, and most of what's in the cockpit should be built to higher standards. But is it always?

The reason for completing powering down is so that the battery is no longer "live". Putting it to sleep or airplane mode doesn't shut off the device. Taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts of flying and if there were a crash, those live batteries will contribute to an already tragic situation.

No, crashing is the most dangerous part. :D

No, crashing is the most dangerous part. :D

Did we just go from an Apple to a Windows thread?

No, I'm kidding, but if you think so, you probably didn't read my post carefully, or else don't understand engineering analysis or crash investigations.

Most crashes turn out to have a multitue of contributing factors. You only need to listen to press conferences at the conclusion of such investigations or read something of similar scope (more than a one-paragraph writeup) to know that.

But I bet you don't follow every crash everywhere to know (a) whether it was investigated as fully as the ones in the US, and (b) whether RF interference was ruled out completely as one contributing factor.

If you read carefully, I didn't claim that planes had fallen out the sky because of RF interference from consumer devices. I claimed that it wasin't impossible for such interference to have been a factor somewhere in the world. Can you provie it's impossible? Have you done that thorough a review of all the crash analyses of all the crashes worldwide since consumer electronics capable of going onto planes have come into existence? I bet not (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

Furthermore, a lot of RF interference is sporadic, and may not always be easy to pin down or prove much later. But that doesn't mean it didn't occur.

What I do know for certain is that I work in an industry which creates consumer appliances which in turn have malfuctioned due to RF interference from other malfuctioning electronic devices near them. (When the malfunction elecronic device was replaced with a properly-functioning device of the exact same model and version, the problem went away. And btw in this case the excess RF interference was the only symptom of malfunction!) So I know one electronic device that malfunctions causing others to fail is a real-world fact. But my actual experience is limited to on-the-gorund appliances, and most of what's in the cockpit should be built to higher standards. But is it always?

It's gremlins. Gremlins have contributed to planes falling out of the sky. You can't prove otherwise.

It's gremlins. Gremlins have contributed to planes falling out of the sky. You can't prove otherwise.

Is that a derogatory term for a Muslim (extremest)? :)

No, I'm kidding, but if you think so, you probably didn't read my post carefully, or else don't understand engineering analysis or crash investigations.

Most crashes turn out to have a multitue of contributing factors. You only need to listen to press conferences at the conclusion of such investigations or read something of similar scope (more than a one-paragraph writeup) to know that.

But I bet you don't follow every crash everywhere to know (a) whether it was investigated as fully as the ones in the US, and (b) whether RF interference was ruled out completely as one contributing factor.

If you read carefully, I didn't claim that planes had fallen out the sky because of RF interference from consumer devices. I claimed that it wasin't impossible for such interference to have been a factor somewhere in the world. Can you provie it's impossible? Have you done that thorough a review of all the crash analyses of all the crashes worldwide since consumer electronics capable of going onto planes have come into existence? I bet not (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

Furthermore, a lot of RF interference is sporadic, and may not always be easy to pin down or prove much later. But that doesn't mean it didn't occur.

What I do know for certain is that I work in an industry which creates consumer appliances which in turn have malfuctioned due to RF interference from other malfuctioning electronic devices near them. (When the malfunction elecronic device was replaced with a properly-functioning device of the exact same model and version, the problem went away. And btw in this case the excess RF interference was the only symptom of malfunction!) So I know one electronic device that malfunctions causing others to fail is a real-world fact. But my actual experience is limited to on-the-gorund appliances, and most of what's in the cockpit should be built to higher standards. But is it always?

Sorry, things don't really work that way. It's not up to all the other posters to prove that every single flight everywhere was not the result of RF issues - it IS your responsibility to find ONE example to support your position, which I have not yet seen. Otherwise you're making an argument on the basis of nothing.

It's gremlins. Gremlins have contributed to planes falling out of the sky. You can't prove otherwise.

+1. I'd have to agree with this reasoning. Certainly makes more sense than a lot of the other goofy posts in this thread.

Sorry, things don't really work that way. It's not up to all the other posters to prove that every single flight everywhere was not the result of RF issues - it IS your responsibility to find ONE example to support your position, which I have not yet seen. Otherwise you're making an argument on the basis of nothing.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

So not being able to find one example is not the same thing as there being no example.

I have no idea how to even look for an example from the airline industry. (I don't work in the airline industry nor any industry that supplies it.) And I already gave you an example of RF interference causing failures in devices in other industries. That should be enough to show that it's not out of the question. And that's all I'm arguing, that it's not out of the question, not that it necessarily has happened, just that it could have happened or could happen in the future. But how could anyone find an example of something that could happen in the future? :confused:

Anyhow, my main claim is not that it's bringing down planes, but causing less serious (but still significant) operational problems sometimes. As a flyer, do you feel it's ok for the plane to have any amount of operational problems as long as it stays in the air? I think there's more to be concerned with just "falling out of the air".

In fact, half of the reason for the rules about shutting things down for takeoff and landing might have to do with airport operations while the plane is taxiing. Aren't there actually more incidents on the airport tarmac than planes falling out of the sky? Are none of those incidents caused by communication problems? I seem to recall hearing that one or more, however many years ago I can't remember, were, but I never heard specifics as to whether it was interference from onboard or interference from offboard or something other than interference.

My opinion: It's conceivable that corroded wiring or junctions could rectify RF from a transmitter located very close to the corrosion site, converting radio to small DC voltages. It's conceivable that the small DC voltages could cause instrument readings to change. There may be other possible mechanisms. Considering the safety record of airlines, the chances of any effect on a given flight are less than 1 in 1 billion, but probably not zero on an older aircraft.

The chance that all the personal electronics have been turned off on a fully loaded flight? Probably less than 1 in 1000.

To the opinionated posters on this thread: Differing opinions are fine. Tendentious and rude posts are not. Keep it calm and you will be more persuasive and more likely to get a polite response.

in all seriousness... they asked you to fully power it off, you got busted for not fully powering it off. the reasons why are unimportant. you got caught.

in all seriousness... they asked you to fully power it off, you got busted for not fully powering it off. the reasons why are unimportant. you got caught.

^. Correct, there is a rule in place, you knowingly ignored it and were caught. No different than getting a speeding ticket, excessive speed can contribute to or cause accidents, but not in every (or most) case(s) of speeding, but it is the law none-the-less.

The OP didn't "knowingly ignore" anything; if you read the post, they mention that they turned their iPad off in the way they always do, and that they were surprised to discover that this wasn't sufficient this particular time, and ask why it matters.

The OP didn't "knowingly ignore" anything; if you read the post, they mention that they turned their iPad off in the way they always do, and that they were surprised to discover that this wasn't sufficient this particular time, and ask why it matters.

From the Apple iPad User Guide in the (supplied with the iPad):

Turn iPad off - Hold down the Sleep/Wake button for a few seconds until the red slider appears, then drag the onscreen slider.

If a user fails to properly familiarize themselves with the proper operation of their equipment, they have definitely fallen into the "knowingly ignore" realm.

I was really surprised by this because I never do a full powerdown

Of course the OP 'knowingly ignored' the instructions given by the FA.

From the Apple iPad User Guide in the (supplied with the iPad):

Turn iPad off - Hold down the Sleep/Wake button for a few seconds until the red slider appears, then drag the onscreen slider.

If a user fails to properly familiarize themselves with the proper operation of their equipment, they have definitely fallen into the "knowingly ignore" realm.

I have my ipad box right here, and there is no user-guide, just a little quick-start guide which doesn't contain that instruction. For a year or so after I first got my ipad (1) I also didn't know about this functionality until I went hunting on the apple site about how to solve a problem.

I think your post is a tad bit harsh and over the top.

Maybe it's just me but it seems the FAs on my recent flights have been really adamant on the whole "totally off, NOT airplane mode!" issue.

Good. If the rule is there, it should be enforced. If the rule is pointless (as is more likely) let's get rid of it.

Neil

Good. If the rule is there, it should be enforced. If the rule is pointless (as is more likely) let's get rid of it.

Neil

Slight sidetrack here. On my Windows 7 computer, which of the options fully complies with shutdown: Shutdown (yes, I would assume), Hibernate or Sleep?

I have mine set to Hibernate when I close it up.

Slight sidetrack here. On my Windows 7 computer, which of the options fully complies with shutdown: Shutdown (yes, I would assume), Hibernate or Sleep?

I have mine set to Hibernate when I close it up.

Hibernate and Shutdown should both comply. But this highlights the confusing evolution of options for digital gadget "on" and "off" states, and helps explain why many flyers simply don't know how to do exactly what the FAA requires (for whatever debatable reasons).

A friend of mine is a captain on one of the DL regional subsidiaries and he said with most modern devices its not an interference issue. The real reason is that the FAA doesn't want these items out during takeoff and landing is the risk of them becoming projectiles in the event of an aborted take-off or similal problem on the ground requiring a sudden stop.

Then why insist it's off, just insist it's away.

The comment about batteries is nonsense, by the way. A damaged lithium battery is a nasty thing regardless of whether it's connected to a powered on device or not. And most laptops are only soft-off anyway - there's no relay or physical switch as such.

Neil

A friend of mine is a captain on one of the DL regional subsidiaries and he said with most modern devices its not an interference issue. The real reason is that the FAA doesn't want these items out during takeoff and landing is the risk of them becoming projectiles in the event of an aborted take-off or similal problem on the ground requiring a sudden stop.

Makes a lot more sense than some of the other ferkokteh reasons spewed forth here. Gremlins excepted.

Slight sidetrack here. On my Windows 7 computer, which of the options fully complies with shutdown: Shutdown (yes, I would assume), Hibernate or Sleep?

I have mine set to Hibernate when I close it up.
Both Shutdown and Hibernate remove absolutely all power (so much so that you can remove the battery and you won't lose anything). The only difference is that Shutdown shuts Windows down before powering down the computer, while Hibernate saves the current state of Windows to the hard disk (or equivalent in laptops that are all solid state) and then shuts down. (On start up, Windows has to start from scratch after a Shutdown, but only has to reload from the HD/whatever and resume after a Hibernate.)

Sleep is different. It saves the whole state of the machine (including Windows as well as everything you have open) into user memory (aka RAM), which needs power (but just a trickle) to stay awake. If you Sleep and you remove the battery, you can't resume.

So it's totally obvious that both Shutdown and Hibernate comply. You'd think that with Sleep being so common (it's been on Windows laptops since even further back than Windows XP, but I'm not sure just how far back), the FAA would have clarified that somewhere by now, but I don't know if they have or not. (I tend to read the TSA website sometimes, but not the FAA website!)

I never thought about it when I used to Sleep, but then my laptop (which has many years on it now) started crashing sometimes after Sleeping, so for that reason I switched to Hibernate a year or two ago.

I just put my iPhone and iPad in airplane mode.

I have my ipad box right here, and there is no user-guide, just a little quick-start guide which doesn't contain that instruction. For a year or so after I first got my ipad (1) I also didn't know about this functionality until I went hunting on the apple site about how to solve a problem.

I think your post is a tad bit harsh and over the top.

Not sure why Apple denied you your user's manual, but we received on with our this last Christmas. I respect your right to have an opinion about the harshness and over-the-topness of my post, but do not agree in the slightest.

Not sure why Apple denied you your user's manual, but we received on with our this last Christmas. I respect your right to have an opinion about the harshness and over-the-topness of my post, but do not agree in the slightest.

Well, the manual may have been an upgrade with the newer ipads. I also have an ipad 1st gen and don't think I ever had a manual. I learned about full powerdown only when I had a crash, and always regarded it as an extreme system reset option, not the everyday way of turning the ipad off. So I thought I was properly turning it off with the button on the top. When the FA told me to do the powerdown, I was surprised, but complied immediately. I never disregarded anything. Also, I always put the ipad in airplane mode when I get on a plane and I don't have a version with any phone capabilities, so it never occurred to me that more than the simple switch off (screen shutoff) would be required. I always assumed the main reason for the rule was to get everyone to shut off their music so they could hear instructions in an emergency and not be distracted by gadgets in hand. The projectile theory sounds even more plausible to me. Though I would never underestimate the role of gremlins.

Ha haaa haaaaa! Oh wait -- you're serious?

This may be a preview of the "new and improved" justification for powering down. Or maybe the OP is thinking of fuel cells?

This may be a preview of the "new and improved" justification for powering down. Or maybe the OP is thinking of fuel cells?
:confused:

Navigation and communication disruptions are the reasons why electronics should be OFF.

The problems seem to be worst with GSM phones, and if they are left fully ON. Most electronics in a hibernate or sleep mode are not likely to interfere, but to get that one interfering device to be OFF, everyone needs to be treated the same, and everyone needs to feel that they should comply. So all devices are included. Going after devices in Sleep Mode may be a bit extreme and unusual, but the FAA has rules, and airlines and FAs are held to enforcing those rules.


Nav and Com problems are reasons why planes would crash or collide.

These problems have been reported, but most of the time the problem does not lead to a crash. However, the idea is to eliminate these problems that could lead to a crash. I believe there has been one investigation where electronic interference was listed as a possible contributor to a crash (private craft). Both commercial and private pilots have reported Nav and Com interference from personal electronics.

There's a lot of info out there. One just needs to search.

Cheers.

.

I'm an airline pilot.

Have I ever seen or heard interference from passenger electronics? Yes, frequently.

Have I ever thought that interference was going to make my aircraft crash? No, not even close. All the interference I have witnessed is audible.

Can it be annoying? Yes, definitely. I don't really appreciate unnecessary beeps and buzzes piped right into my ears.

Can it be a safety issue, even if it's not one that will cause a crash? Unlikely, but yes. One time the passenger in 1A was texting while we were being vectored for the approach in busy airspace. Every text caused a loud buzz in our ears that overrode the radios. After the second missed radio call we had to have a FA go back and look for people trying to conceal a cell phone. The gentleman with the Blackberry was found and went quite pale when the FA explained his texting was blocking out ATC transmissions. Would we have crashed? No, because I can fly and land even with a total radio failure. Does that mean the passenger should have continued texting?

(Btw, there are reports of the interference showing up in the navigation instruments on some aircraft. I've never seen any nav needle jump when I hear the interference buzz, but the aircraft I fly are newer than the ones in the reports. So just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not possible.)

I'm an airline pilot.

Have I ever seen or heard interference from passenger electronics? Yes, frequently.

Have I ever thought that interference was going to make my aircraft crash? No, not even close. All the interference I have witnessed is audible.

Can it be annoying? Yes, definitely. I don't really appreciate unnecessary beeps and buzzes piped right into my ears.

Can it be a safety issue, even if it's not one that will cause a crash? Unlikely, but yes. One time the passenger in 1A was texting while we were being vectored for the approach in busy airspace. Every text caused a loud buzz in our ears that overrode the radios. After the second missed radio call we had to have a FA go back and look for people trying to conceal a cell phone. The gentleman with the Blackberry was found and went quite pale when the FA explained his texting was blocking out ATC transmissions. Would we have crashed? No, because I can fly and land even with a total radio failure. Does that mean the passenger should have continued texting?

(Btw, there are reports of the interference showing up in the navigation instruments on some aircraft. I've never seen any nav needle jump when I hear the interference buzz, but the aircraft I fly are newer than the ones in the reports. So just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not possible.)

Well, kick my butt.

As someone that is already busy week after week chasing down feedback and interference in a PA system for which I have responsibility, I should have thought of this.

This makes absolutely perfect sense. Why have we not seen this explanation before?

We have. Well, I have seen this mentioned quite a bit. Heck, for as long as I've had a cell phone and used wifi I've been more mindful. I can hear a slight static/white noise on my computer speakers when data is transmitting over wifi and my cell phone sounds a bit like paper rustling when it's on 3G broadcasting at full power (only 1 bar) and of course there is the well known popping sound when it's on 2G/EDGE.

Also, to expand on I'mOffOne's comment of having interference block out what he was hearing on the radio: keep in mind that the final possible that thing could have prevented the Tenerife disaster was a radio broadcast from the Pan Am captain announcing that his aircraft was still on the runway - an announcement that the KLM captain did not hear as it was blocked out because the tower controller happened to also be broadcasting at the exact moment. So... could a cell phone call a plane crash? Yes, although it's definitely an extreme long shot.

I am bookmarking the post by I'mOffOne so that I can quote when the many, many FT'ers claim again and again that cell phones don't create any interference.

There is a huge difference between texting (or talking) and leaving your phone or iPad turned on or off in the wrong way. Texting while flying is wrong... leaving your phone turned on or turned off in the wrong manor.... oh well.

The flyer texting while flying should have been arrested upon landing.

my post didn't add anything to the discussion.

I find this entire discussion a little bit silly to be honest.

Seriously, if this was a major issue, all Al Queda would need to do is pass security normally with 5-6 people and text/call madly from their cell phones.

Lots of people who are private pilots or flown privately know they can use their phones in the air with no issues.

A number of airlines, likewise, allow customers to text from their phones on specific flights (BA is one of them)

Nothing happens.

The pilot in question, with all due respect, has no way to correlate the actions of a passenger who he cannot see or cannot observe causing issues for him in the cockpit. People text/use their phones all the time on planes; I never have, but witness it often. As I mentioned previously, we have not a single incident reported in which a passenger using an electronic device in this "modern" age of cell phones causing an issue with the plane.

Yep, I agree, one of the reasons i rarely post on FT... used to be a great resource, now a place for people to see themselves posts....

There was one valid point.... cell phones as projectiles during take offs and landing....

There was one valid point.... cell phones as projectiles during take offs and landing....

Some airlines don't enforce that, though. On many occasions I've seen turned-off iPads and phones just left on a spare middle seat on EZY.

Neil

So nice to know that YOU are so much more important that the others on the plane and that you are the sole arbiter when it comes to the "sensible" rules in life.......very UN-:COOL:

Text while driving much?????????

Wish they had a smiley for TOAD.............

I think there is consensus in thread. I will let you be the judge of what almost EVERYONE ELSE thinks.

To answer your DIRECT attack on me... I DO NOT text while driving. I also use a ear phone and mike when I talk on the phone in the car. I do not like talking on the phone while in the car and unless it is urgent I do not even answer the phone (I have two phones, one is the emergency number just so I do not even have to answer the phone most of the time in the car). Texting while driving is beyond dangerous. Unforntately the technology is not here to stop the practice of Texting and driving (the technology out there can not differentiate from the driver and pax.)

Hopefully someone will close this thread as I believe the topic has been answered and if someone reads the full thread they can make up their own mind.