enpremiere

The title of this thread would make a great name for a cheap novel that could be sold at stores in terminals. Already going five pages strong, the thread could easily be expanded to fill a couple hundred large type pages.

flyerCO

This has been shown to not be true. The issue keeping in pant pocket is not the phone itself. Its static electricity.

akl_traveller

So, let me get this straight. The only person on a plane who is allowed to point out someone doing something wrong is a flight attendant (and/or the pilot, I guess).
The rest of us lack the requisite authority and should merely remain bystanders. "Stay in our lane" as the saying goes.
If my seatmate takes out a cleaver and starts hewing at the man in the middle seat, well, I might call the attendant I guess, but if I intervene I will get shocked FTers telling me that I should mind my own business.
But doesn't that create a paradox when an attendant asks for passenger help to subdue an unruly passenger? on the one hand, we have to obey, but on the other, in doing so we are usurping their rightful authority.

I'll say this: if the only people allowed to intervene when wrong is done are those invested with specific authority, like police, then we're going to need a lot more cops.

no2chem

I'm not sure what the point of replying is but;

1. No, anyone can point things out. But people who are not crew should not say they are crew.

2. Your last paragraph suggests you believe that anyone should be able to shoot anyone("intervene"), when someone believes that something "wrong is done". It sounds like you are a lover of stand your ground laws and you believe they should apply to the air too.

3. My last attempt at getting through: the problem is not with saying something, it is specifically that 1) a non-rev cannot behave anyway they please, as rules and regs for NR travel apply 2) an off duty FA should not assert they are a FA to order a passenger around
​​​
oh and 4. No laws were broken and nothing "wrong" was done so really, your whole example is completely pointless as your premise is wrong. But I guess you skipped past everyone else telling you that.... I suppose it's only a matter of time before this thread is closed

gmt4

There's a vast difference between someone committing (or attempting to commit) a violent act on an aircraft and a snarky response about shutting off a phone and you know it. Your attempt at hyperbole falls well short of a constructive counter argument.

mvoight

In this case, the person acted BEFORE there was an announcement telling passengers to put their phones in airplane mode
So, according to he telling by the OP, he was NOT doing anything wrong, so he should not have been told to do anything by the off duty FA

HLCinCOU

It has now been explained to you maybe a dozen times that OP didn't do anything wrong or illegal, and yet you keep repeating your strained argument which relies completely on that incorrect fact. NO ONE here has argued that only police can admonish somebody for breaking the law. Not one person. But OP didn't break the law. As such this non-rev passenger was out of line in trying to assert false authority to force compliance with non-existent rules.

Meanwhile, you're not likely to catch me on the Air New Zealand board lecturing a bunch of Kiwis on how they're breaking their own laws. If you insist on continuing, show some receipts; all our federal laws are searchable online.

Dr. HFH

But from a practical viewpoint, who's ever going to know if this is violated?

jordyn

Someone should really tell the FAA they don't have any rules about portable electronic devices, because they sure seem to think they do:

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/

The tl;df of which is: it's generally safe (but not always) to use PEDs on airplanes. The FAA will work with airlines to roll out procedures to allow them to be safely used.

In the particular case of AA, they seem to have decided that the safe thing is to turn devices onto airplane mode once the door closes, so when flying AA that's the relevant rule for the situation at hand.

By the way, the FAA also addresses the very situation the OP and his off-duty seat mate faced in their FAQs:

For all of you jumping on the off duty FA, it doesn't seem like she really tried to use her authority as an FA to get the OP to comply. She said that she was concerned about her personal safety, which seems like a reasonable thing for a fellow passenger to be concerned about. The tone to the person across the aisle seems a bit more problematic, but politely asking the person next to you to comply with a rule seems not particularly different than asking someone not to cut in line in front of you.

kahdgar

While you are correct, there is such a thing as hazard of electromagnetic radiation to fuel - though, it requires much higher power levels than a cell phone to initiate a spark (think radar). Additionally, the hazard is INDUCED ARC in metal components, like the fuel dispensing device (nozzle or otherwise) or the gas tank seal ring, where there is a small gap in metal parts and enough induced voltage to cause arcing.

Three things must take place for RF based combustion:
1) A flammable fuel-air mixture
2) Arc of sufficient energy to cause ignition
3) A certain minimum gap distance

1) Motor vehicle gas flammability ranges from 1.25% to 7.6% by volume in air. Normal gasoline handling doe not produce these levels except near inlets, vents or spills. Otherwise a mix will be too lean or too rich.

2) Measurements have shown that ~50Volt-Amps or more of arc energy is required to ignite gasoline which is in an explosively flammable configuration. General rule of thumb is over 225MHz and peak power density of the electric field of 5 W/sq-cm at the point of interest are required. Cell phones come nowhere NEAR that power density level, even right at the transmitter.

3) A minimum gap of ~0.5mm is required, which generally means metal-to-metal contact and withdrawal, which would draw an arc.

So to recap
1) Possible in gas fueling
2) Not credible w/ cell phones
3) Possible in gas fueling

Bottom line is that radiated hazards to gasoline fuel from cellphones are not a credible hazard.

deeruck

A PED is not equivalent to a cell phone. The website you link to even refers to the FCC for the cell phone regs.

mvoight

If the person is really concern that much for her safety, maybe she shouldn't fly. After all, what about the 100+ other people that might have had their phones NOT in airplane mode?
If it was really that dangerous, why do they even let you carry them on the plane, and trust you will turn them off and put them into airplane mode when asked?
The OFF DUTY FA violated his privacy by looking at his phone display. That is NOT OK.
Also, regarding the FAQ link you posted... I assume you meant this question's answer "What should I do if the crew says to turn off electronics and the person next to me doesn't do it?"

When the OFF DUTY FA scolded the OP, there had been no prior notification by the crew............
That said, the FAA's response to that question can cause a unnecessary confrontation between passengers.
Passengers should NOT be looking at the phone displays of strangers

jordyn

A cell phone is definitely a PED, subject to the FAA's rules on PEDs.

It is also a mobile phone subject to the FCC's rules on (not) making phone calls in flight, but that doesn't mean that it's not subject to the PED rules as well.

In any case, you don't have to believe me, here's what the FAA has to say about it:

deeruck

You quoted a poster who correctly stated that it is the FCC that is prohibiting cellular service use in flight, and then you referred to the FAA's PED regs. They're different. Why are you trying to confuse the two?

jordyn

Yes, I agree they're different. That is my whole point. The fact that the FCC has rules about cell phones on planes does not contradict the notion that the FAA also has rules that affect the use of cell phones on planes, despite what HLCinCOU asserted.