Do Our Gadgets Really Threaten Planes?
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,628
Do Our Gadgets Really Threaten Planes?
Mod feel free to move if this belongs in the other Safety forum.
Nice to finally see a WSJ piece dismissing the nonsense about in-flight use of electronic devices. Too bad the FAA doesn't care...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read
Nice to finally see a WSJ piece dismissing the nonsense about in-flight use of electronic devices. Too bad the FAA doesn't care...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read
WAS ALEC BALDWIN RIGHT? When the actor tussled with American Airlines personnel last December over his desire to continue playing a game on his phone during takeoff, he was evicted from the flight. Defying airline safety rules is not a good idea, but was Baldwin perhaps correct not to take the danger seriously?
On Aug. 31, the Federal Aviation Administration requested public comment on its longstanding policy of prohibiting the use of personal electronics during takeoffs and landings. The restrictions date back to 1991 and were motivated in part by anecdotal reports from pilots and flight crews that electronic devices affected an airliner's navigation equipment or disrupted communication between the cockpit and the ground. Over the years, however, Boeing has been unable to duplicate these problems, and the FAA can only say that the devices' radio signals "may" interfere with flight operations.
To gather some empirical evidence on this question, we recently conducted an online survey of 492 American adults who have flown in the past year. In this sample, 40% said they did not turn their phones off completely during takeoff and landing on their most recent flight; more than 7% left their phones on, with the Wi-Fi and cellular communications functions active. And 2% pulled a full Baldwin, actively using their phones when they weren't supposed to.
On Aug. 31, the Federal Aviation Administration requested public comment on its longstanding policy of prohibiting the use of personal electronics during takeoffs and landings. The restrictions date back to 1991 and were motivated in part by anecdotal reports from pilots and flight crews that electronic devices affected an airliner's navigation equipment or disrupted communication between the cockpit and the ground. Over the years, however, Boeing has been unable to duplicate these problems, and the FAA can only say that the devices' radio signals "may" interfere with flight operations.
To gather some empirical evidence on this question, we recently conducted an online survey of 492 American adults who have flown in the past year. In this sample, 40% said they did not turn their phones off completely during takeoff and landing on their most recent flight; more than 7% left their phones on, with the Wi-Fi and cellular communications functions active. And 2% pulled a full Baldwin, actively using their phones when they weren't supposed to.
Last edited by essxjay; Sep 11, 2012 at 9:28 pm Reason: trimmed for respect to copyrights
#2
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
This has been discussed in numerous other threads. The author of this article clearly has no knowlege of what aviation certification procedures involve, for either hardware or software (hint: software certification for aviation costs hundreds of millions of dollars).
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Passengers' flights are more threatened by the TSA: "D Y W T F T?".
Passenger cell phones and laptops have probably been left on or used in flight on most all commercial passenger airline planes -- without dangerous incident.
Passenger cell phones and laptops have probably been left on or used in flight on most all commercial passenger airline planes -- without dangerous incident.
#4
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 156
This has been discussed in numerous other threads. The author of this article clearly has no knowlege of what aviation certification procedures involve, for either hardware or software (hint: software certification for aviation costs hundreds of millions of dollars).
#5
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
It's evolved from 6-watt cell phones in the 90's coinciding with unexplained flight deck equipment anomalies to obedience. The simple reason for no electronics now is to get passengers to be less distracted on take off and landing.
#6
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: SYD
Programs: VA WP, NZ G, CI Em, QF G
Posts: 357
I never understood this one, since we've been able to use devices of mass distraction such as 'books' or 'magazines' since passenger flight began - they even give us the magazines (unless the magazine has been certified too boring to be distracting?)
Last edited by quick_dry; Sep 12, 2012 at 7:25 pm
#7
Used to be PWMRamper
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ATL
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 999
It's like saying, "I've crossed the street without looking 100 times and not gotten hit by a car, so it must never happen!"
#10
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: AA, UA, Marriott Gold
Posts: 349
A few pilots over in the United forum have stated it this way*, which I can respect.
While there has been no proof or evidence of a consumer electronic device being inherently dangerous to the operation of flight, I am not a test pilot.
*summary only
While I wholeheartedly agree that there probably is no risk to safety or flight ops, I cannot dispute the desires of pilots to not want to be test cases, let alone on fully loaded passenger aircraft.
While there has been no proof or evidence of a consumer electronic device being inherently dangerous to the operation of flight, I am not a test pilot.
*summary only
While I wholeheartedly agree that there probably is no risk to safety or flight ops, I cannot dispute the desires of pilots to not want to be test cases, let alone on fully loaded passenger aircraft.
#11
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Retired in Houston, TX
Programs: Platinum-CO-DL-Priority Club WN A-list Diomond-Hilton-BW Gold-Choice Hertz Presidents Club
Posts: 305
None of this matters. If a person can't get his nose out of his phone or Ipad for fifteen or twenty minutes during take-off and landing, he has deeper problems.
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,628
And it is also a real issue for young children who often have trouble sitting still for long periods absent entertainment (spare the lecture on how we all survived without these things). Remember they can't put down the tray tables to use coloring books while waiting in line on the runway.
The rule is stupid and has no basis in science (as verified by this story). If safety is the issue then the rule should be narrowly tailored to address those concerns instead of inconveniencing passengers with a dishonest pretense.
#13
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP/2MM, HH Gold, MR Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite
Posts: 5,995
Despite your moniker, it appears you have no understanding of how business is conducted and the necessity for urgent communication. And IMO it is not so much the ban on telephone calls (which might interfere with someone's ability to pay attention to safety announcements and instructions) but rather cutting off access to email and text.
#14
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
We're losing sight of the issue, folks.
What purpose does the ban on electronics during takeoff and landing serve? From over here in the cheap seats, I see mainly two arguments put forth:
To point (1): as others have pointed out, all the ban does is substitute one form of distraction for another. I can still bury my nose in a book or in my Sudoku puzzle (that was helpfully provided for me BY THE AIRLINE ON MY BOARDING PASS) and be just as distracted as if I was playing Angry Birds.
To point (2): the FAA has taken the historic stance that any technology not explicitly proven safe is potentially dangerous and therefore forbidden from use at critical moments. Most electronic devices are thereby excluded --- not because they're dangerous, but because they haven't been proven to be safe. The original article (and others like it) are calling for a re-examination of this policy; anecdotal evidence of everyone who forgets to turn off their cellphone in flight, plus advances in aircraft technology, might make the ban unnecessary.
Side arguments like "gee, are you so addicted to your CrackBerry that you can't turn it off for 10 minutes?" are beside the point. Bans that serve no useful purpose aren't worth keeping. They unnecessarily deprive passengers of work or entertainment options, and the enforcement of the rule by flight crews distracts them from other duties.
Otherwise, I suppose we could go back to the post-Underwear-Bomber rules that said that passengers had to sit up straight in their chairs for the last hour of the flight doing absolutely nothing. Just one step towards making "Con Air" a commercial reality.
What purpose does the ban on electronics during takeoff and landing serve? From over here in the cheap seats, I see mainly two arguments put forth:
- Fewer distractions for passengers during critical flight phases, in case of emergencies.
- Reducing the possibility of interference with the aircraft's control systems.
To point (1): as others have pointed out, all the ban does is substitute one form of distraction for another. I can still bury my nose in a book or in my Sudoku puzzle (that was helpfully provided for me BY THE AIRLINE ON MY BOARDING PASS) and be just as distracted as if I was playing Angry Birds.
To point (2): the FAA has taken the historic stance that any technology not explicitly proven safe is potentially dangerous and therefore forbidden from use at critical moments. Most electronic devices are thereby excluded --- not because they're dangerous, but because they haven't been proven to be safe. The original article (and others like it) are calling for a re-examination of this policy; anecdotal evidence of everyone who forgets to turn off their cellphone in flight, plus advances in aircraft technology, might make the ban unnecessary.
Side arguments like "gee, are you so addicted to your CrackBerry that you can't turn it off for 10 minutes?" are beside the point. Bans that serve no useful purpose aren't worth keeping. They unnecessarily deprive passengers of work or entertainment options, and the enforcement of the rule by flight crews distracts them from other duties.
Otherwise, I suppose we could go back to the post-Underwear-Bomber rules that said that passengers had to sit up straight in their chairs for the last hour of the flight doing absolutely nothing. Just one step towards making "Con Air" a commercial reality.
#15
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Programs: DL Gold Medallion
Posts: 48
A few pilots over in the United forum have stated it this way*, which I can respect.
While there has been no proof or evidence of a consumer electronic device being inherently dangerous to the operation of flight, I am not a test pilot.
*summary only
While I wholeheartedly agree that there probably is no risk to safety or flight ops, I cannot dispute the desires of pilots to not want to be test cases, let alone on fully loaded passenger aircraft.
While there has been no proof or evidence of a consumer electronic device being inherently dangerous to the operation of flight, I am not a test pilot.
*summary only
While I wholeheartedly agree that there probably is no risk to safety or flight ops, I cannot dispute the desires of pilots to not want to be test cases, let alone on fully loaded passenger aircraft.