|
AA policy or FAA policy that no electronics can be plugged in during take off?
that was a new one on me
I had my phone which was off, but plugged in to the new 738 power port FA came by and said, that must be unplugged I said its off just charging and the green power button light is on - meaning the power port- she said, its policy that nothing can be plugged in during take off and landing she made me physically unplug which of course I did but I am just curious if that is AA or FAA policy? |
if I need to evacuate a plane from an aborted takeoff, I'd rather not trip and get tangled in your power cords.
|
FAA rules state personal electronic devices must be powered off during certain flight phases.
Phone chargers are personal electronic devices. Ergo... |
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15471087)
FAA rules state personal electronic devices must be powered off during certain flight phases.
Phone chargers are personal electronic devices. Ergo... |
Here's the actual law:
§ 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. Good thing they exempted pacemakers. Otherwise, "Sir! I need you to turn that off...sir? sir?" Feel free to charge your shaver during taxi, takeoff and landing though. |
Knee jerk reaction to new technology
This has been going on for decades. From the early days of PC's and even before, airlines weren't sure of the effect devices will have with onboard systems. Their answer was to ban their use altogether. Once you board an aircraft, you are pretty much at the crews mercy or risk being de-boarded and all the consequences there of.
Although I do carry a laptop and sometimes even make use of WiFi on board, I still like to get a few hours unplugged from the world and just relax. What I really dreading is when they allow cell calls in flight. It's bad enough in restaurants and movie theaters, but just imagine at 30K feet! As to being AA or FAA policy, it is FAA regulations that you must follow FA instructions, so does it really make a difference? And you know if you ask the FA they will say it's FAA rules. |
Originally Posted by FXEpilot77
(Post 15471212)
Here's the actual law:
It gives a fair amount of leeway to the airline (part 119 certificate holder is the airline) Good thing they exempted pacemakers. Otherwise, "Sir! I need you to turn that off...sir? sir?" Feel free to charge your shaver during taxi, takeoff and landing though. |
Originally Posted by mvoight
(Post 15471806)
I often here the FA tell people, "If it has an on/off switch, it must be turned off". So, on a future trip, I plan to take a Roku... and I will invite the FA to find the on/off switch
|
Originally Posted by uElliots
(Post 15470900)
that was a new one on me
I had my phone which was off, but plugged in to the new 738 power port FA came by and said, that must be unplugged I said its off just charging and the green power button light is on - meaning the power port- she said, its policy that nothing can be plugged in during take off and landing she made me physically unplug which of course I did but I am just curious if that is AA or FAA policy? |
Being where my job regularly addresses the FARs, I'd like to chime in here on a couple items:
1) FXEpilot77 states airlines are certified under Part 119. AA is an Air Operator certified under Part 121. All the majors are certified under this Part. Other airlines you might have a rare occasion to fly could be certified under any number of Parts. The other most common one is 135. Foreign Air Operators certified to operate in the U.S are under Part 129. Part 119 applies to all certified Air Operators and might be considered "general" rules that apply to all Ar Operators. Part 121 provides Air Operators authority to perform certain type of operations that travelers typically associate with a large airline. Too much detail to go into here. 2) FXEpilot77 accurately notes the applicable section of Part 121, which indicates the reason FAs ask you to shut off and unplug all electronics. 3) RogerD408 correctly states the requirement to comply with all FA instruction. See 121.580: Prohibition on interference with crewmembers, I'm having trouble finding the requirement to comply with FAs and will post later. |
Originally Posted by WillTravel4Food
(Post 15472200)
]1) FXEpilot77 states airlines are certified under Part 119.
|
Those of you who have seen a Kindle I'm sure are aware that when its off there is still a random image displayed on the screen (Kindle uses no electricity to display image, only to change an image). Right when they first were coming out saw an FA insisting a customer turn it off 'ALL THE WAY'. The electronics ban just drives me nuts.
It is against policy to turn on a wireless device in flight if the wireless function cannot be turned off, unless of course, they are selling wifi :rolleyes: in which case by all means power that thing up. I don't know how much of it is FAA vs. AA but passengers see how much of a farce it is and its just frustrating. |
Originally Posted by cynicAAl
(Post 15471076)
if I need to evacuate a plane from an aborted takeoff, I'd rather not trip and get tangled in your power cords.
|
Originally Posted by sica4
(Post 15475099)
Those of you who have seen a Kindle I'm sure are aware that when its off there is still a random image displayed on the screen (Kindle uses no electricity to display image, only to change an image).
Cheers. |
Originally Posted by uElliots
(Post 15470900)
I had my phone which was off, but plugged in to the new 738 power port
FA came by and said, that must be unplugged she said, its policy that nothing can be plugged in during take off and landing she made me physically unplug which of course I did but I am just curious if that is AA or FAA policy? Customers may only plug devices into powerports during flight Per FARs 91.21 and 121.306, all F/As must ensure that approved electronic devices are used only at authorized times.
If the Captain reports suspected interference in the cabin, (which has happened on several of my flights recently) Captain will make, or ask the FA1/Purser, a P.A. requesting passengers to turn off all electronic devices. *F/As must verify cellular transmitting capabilities are off, e.g. see switch in "off" position. If F/A cannot verify that cellular transmitting capabilities are off, F/A must instruct customer to turn off and stow the device. per Departure/Taxi 1.5, Safety Compliance Checks: FAR121.306 restricts electronic devices for taxi, takeoff, and landing
Prior to landing, F/As must perform a Safety Compliance Check including all elements listed above before they take their jumpseat for landing. Please remember, even though a device is in "Airplane mode" and not transmitting, it still needs to be off and stowed for taxi, take-off and landing (not in your palm 'hidden' away from the F/A when they walk past:p). Sitting there reading e-mails, texting, or reading a book/magazine on an electronic reader is not off. With the FAA out and about doing audits, it's better for everyone (you and FAs) to just put the darn thing away for 20-30 minutes until it's ok to turn it on and continue after take-off, or after landing. |
Originally Posted by brp
(Post 15475153)
Let's be clear that this is not true. The power required to maintain the static image is likely very low, but power is expended. Definitely not enough to affect anything on the aircraft, to be sure, but it is non-zero :.
From E Ink themselves: Electronic ink is ideally suited for EPDs as it is a reflective technology which requires no front or backlight, is viewable under a wide range of lighting conditions, including direct sunlight, and requires no power to maintain an image. |
Originally Posted by mvoight
(Post 15471806)
I often here the FA tell people, "If it has an on/off switch, it must be turned off". So, on a future trip, I plan to take a Roku... and I will invite the FA to find the on/off switch
|
Originally Posted by sica4
(Post 15475099)
It is against policy to turn on a wireless device in flight if the wireless function cannot be turned off, unless of course, they are selling wifi :rolleyes: in which case by all means power that thing up. I don't know how much of it is FAA vs. AA but passengers see how much of a farce it is and its just frustrating.
Originally Posted by jordyn
(Post 15476545)
This isn't correct. Power is only used to refresh the screen. No power is drawn to maintain the e-ink in place.
From E Ink themselves: (emphasis added) Per the description of electrophoretic displays, you need a constant electric field to maintain the TiO2 particles in the proper position. There are going to be losses and some power must be dissipated to keep the field constant. I assume this is going to be very low, but still non-zero. Could this be what brp is referring to? The e-ink page probably rounds down the power to zero. This is all academic because our nervous systems probably gives off more radiation than a static e-ink display, and we can't power that one off. |
Originally Posted by skylady
(Post 15477996)
That's really not necessary.
I am not really going to bring a Roku on the plane. After all you use them instead of using a PC to get to the internet. With a laptop with me, I have no need for Roku on a plane. What I can't figure out is why a lot of FA"s don't seem to notice bright PC lights flashing on some PCs while taxiing, when the plane is rather dark.. Uh... if the light is flashing, something is on... |
I agree that it can be difficult to notice a flashing light in the OH bin, or under the seat in front of the customer;)
|
Maybe these electronic impulses are disruptive to the aircraft's ampullae of Lorenzini? Or is it only the 787 that wil have these? ;)
|
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 15478467)
Maybe these electronic impulses are disruptive to the aircraft's ampullae of Lorenzini? Or is it only the 787 that wil have these? ;)
|
Since all the pre-flight checks were posted.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers. I love the random rules that FA's come up with. |
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section. So this could put the compliance burden on the airline and not the offending pax. So the best the pilot could do would be to refuse to perform the flight or remove the pax. (See Josh Duhamel)
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight? |
Originally Posted by FlyMeToTheLooneyBin
(Post 15478077)
This is all academic because our nervous systems probably gives off more radiation than a static e-ink display, and we can't power that one off. And, yes, that minuscule power dissipation was what I was referring to. Academic, to be sure. Cheers. |
Originally Posted by WillTravel4Food
(Post 15479081)
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section.
§ 121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff. (i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments. In any case, the FAA doesn't have the ability to hold someone criminally responsible for a violation of the FARs in the first place. Violations of the FARs go before an administrative law judge, which is not the same as a real trial. I suspect they can try to throw this at you, which would be criminal, but I think it would a stretch for an electronic device: Interference With Flight Crew Members or Flight Attendants—49 U.S.C. 46504 One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant. See United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 941, 507 U.S. 998 (1993); United States v. Meeker, supra, 527 F.2d at 14. While attempted aircraft piracy and interference with flight crew can both be charged in the same indictment, if convicted on both charges, the defendant should be sentenced only under the attempted aircraft piracy conviction because, absent highly unusual circumstances, the interference with flight crew charge is the lesser included offense. See United States v. Compton, supra, 5 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Calloway, 116 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 324 (1997); United States v. Figueroa, 666 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982). |
The regulations require that all passenger carry-on items be stowed for taxi, takeoff, and landing. If you have a charger out then it, and probably the item that is being charged, is not stowed.
Originally Posted by deac83
(Post 15478915)
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets.
|
Originally Posted by FlyMeToTheLooneyBin
(Post 15478077)
Electronic paper on Wikipedia
Per the description of electrophoretic displays, you need a constant electric field to maintain the TiO2 particles in the proper position. There are going to be losses and some power must be dissipated to keep the field constant. I assume this is going to be very low, but still non-zero. Could this be what brp is referring to? It is capable of holding text and images indefinitely without drawing electricity, while allowing the image to be changed later. |
I've always wondered: Can I have my FAA approved portable transceiver (being a pilot) on during taxi, takeoff, and landing? What about an FAA approved GPS?
|
Originally Posted by jordyn
(Post 15484051)
I don't read anything in that article that indicates that a charge is necessary to hold the TiO2 in place; simply that it moves when electricity is applied. It's possible that the image would eventually degrade without power, but everything I've seen is that electricity is only actually used to modify the page.
Here's a more technical paper on electrophoretic displays. The micro-capsules will have leakage (check out section 3.1.2) that although small, will consume power. It's four orders of magnitude smaller than switching pixel states, but it is something engineers consider when designing. It's still tiny, but leakage is an issue in many memory systems, such as DRAM and SRAM. It wastes power; in the worst case, you lose data. Now you did say you buy that the image may degrade. Well, in that case, yeah, I suppose you could have no power consumption if you just said to heck with everything and let the image do what it wants. I was supposing that if the image was held static like in a device's screensaver mode. But I'm no EPD expert, so don't take my word for any of this. I just read it 5 minutes ago. :) |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15483168)
The regulations require that all passenger carry-on items be stowed for taxi, takeoff, and landing. If you have a charger out then it, and probably the item that is being charged, is not stowed.
That is true. Some months ago the FAA issued guidance clarifying the carry-on rules which emphasized that passenger carry-on items are not considered stowed when placed in the seat-back pocket. If this is the intent of the guidance, then it's misguided. Probably that last thing you want to have happen in an emergency situation is for all the papers and water bottles people are holding (the FA said we had to hold them) flying through the air. If they made us put them in our actual carry on item or in the oh bin, it would make sense. |
Originally Posted by Platinum4life
(Post 15484465)
I've always wondered: Can I have my FAA approved portable transceiver (being a pilot) on during taxi, takeoff, and landing? What about an FAA approved GPS?
|
Originally Posted by deac83
(Post 15484937)
...Probably that last thing you want to have happen in an emergency situation is for all the papers and water bottles people are holding (the FA said we had to hold them) flying through the air...
Seems to me if this is the case then everything should be stowed overhead, electronics and all. |
This topic comes up once every six weeks. Everyone beats the snot out of it. Here is the thing, if told to shut something off or stow something, DO IT!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane! Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand! Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand! |
Originally Posted by FXEpilot77
(Post 15481233)
You make an interesting point that I never bothered to research until now. Note the italicized and bold section of the safety briefing (emphasis mine):
§ 121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff. (i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments. |
Originally Posted by Bishope2
(Post 15486475)
This topic comes up once every six weeks. Everyone beats the snot out of it. Here is the thing, if told to shut something off or stow something, DO IT!
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules. If you sit there and disagree with the FA or even the pilot, your flight, MY FLIGHT, will be late because they will have you thrown off of the plane! Put it this way. You are a non smoker and don't want anyone smoking in your car because of the study's of second hand smoke indicate it may cause cancer. You give me a ride and I lite up a cig. You say put it out because of the second hand smoke issue. I say to you "I opened a window so the smoke shouldn't bother you" What part of "it's not your car" don't I understand! Same thing here. The FAA or the airline said no electronic devices because it may cause interference with the aircrafts electronics. What part of "it's not your airplane or your rules" don't you understand! |
Originally Posted by FXEpilot77
(Post 15471212)
Here's the actual law:
It gives a fair amount of leeway to the airline (part 119 certificate holder is the airline) Good thing they exempted pacemakers. Otherwise, "Sir! I need you to turn that off...sir? sir?" Feel free to charge your shaver during taxi, takeoff and landing though. Yea, I know it's not going to fly, yet, c'mon... it's funny. |
Originally Posted by Bishope2
(Post 15486475)
You are not the boss, you don't know the rules...
We take great delight here in making sure we do know the rules, the wrinkles associated with the rules, the exceptions where they exist and preferably the color of ink the original rule was written in :) What we don't take kindly to is the random invention of 'rules' that do not actually exist and citing FAA/TSA etc. to back up the invented rules when questioned about them. Few of us here would push a point to the stage where a flight was delayed or anyone was at risk of being de-planed, but full knowledge of the rules does help us decide what to do about incidents before during and after the occurrence. |
Originally Posted by deac83
(Post 15478915)
Since all the pre-flight checks were posted.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers. I love the random rules that FA's come up with. Check out my Blog regarding seatback items. At some airlines, they have their own policies that aren't totally black/white to their FAs. Prohibit the stowage of carry-on baggage and other items in the lavatories and seat back pockets (the only items allowed in seat back pockets should be magazines and passenger information cards)... The intent of the carry-on baggage regulation, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, § 121.58, is to prevent carry-on items from slowing an emergency evacuation and to prevent injury to passengers by ensuring items are properly restrained. Seat pockets have been designed to restrain approximately 3 pounds of weight and not the weight of additional carry-on items. Seat pockets are not listed in the regulation as an approved stowage location for carry-on baggage. If a seat pocket fails to restrain its contents, the contents of the seat pocket may impede emergency evacuation or may strike and injure a passenger. If small, lightweight items, such as eyeglasses or a cell phone, can be placed in the seat pocket without exceeding the total designed weight limitation of the seat pocket or so that the seat pocket does not block anyone from evacuating the row of seats, it may be safe to do so. |
Originally Posted by WillTravel4Food
(Post 15479081)
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section. So this could put the compliance burden on the airline and not the offending pax. So the best the pilot could do would be to refuse to perform the flight or remove the pax. (See Josh Duhamel)
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight? FAs must ensure the aircraft is ready for taxi-out, take-off, landing, and that all pax are following the FARs which were mentioned earlier. When a pax fails to turn off a device, or restow carry-on baggage when informed to do so, then they are interfering with a FAs duties. When a pax fails to comply with the instructions, a pax can been issued a fine for failing to comply with crewmember instructions. as FXEpilot77 points out, Interference With Flight Crew Members or Flight Attendants—49 U.S.C. 46504 One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. Fortunately, there was an FAA inspector onboard who was seated in C, witnessing the ordeal. When the pax failed to comply with the crewmember instructions by the 4th request, the FAA inspector intervened and gave the couple a ticket for "Failing to comply with Crewmember instructions, and Interfering with a Crewmembers duties. I often wish there were more FAA inspectors onboard that would give tickets to those who fail to comply, or blow off the FAs, but then we wouldn't have enough seats for regular paying pax who do comply:p |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.