Please keep this on topic. The issue of the electronics rules has been EXTENSIVELY discussed in this forum recently. The OP asked if it is appropriate to say/do anything when a fellow pax disobeys the rules.

BTW, some of these responses have been pretty insightful. I wouldn't have thought about the delays caused to the flight by involving the pilot. Just goes to show that there is a wealth of collective intelligence here. ^

Unless Delta wants to pay me flight attendant hourly wage rates for sitting on their planes (new hire rate is fine with me), I am not going to help enforce these silly rules.

Wasn't intended to bash you- just replied to the last post when i submitted. I think the whole thing is a little silly, as obviously the tactic the airlines and FAA have chosed to take here is to scare the public in to compliance.

Absolutely correct.

I stand corrected.

I think my point was well received, even if i used the word Antenna instead of Radio.

Being a purist myself:

Everything be that an electronic device, a SkyMiles Medallion passenger or a champagne bottle emits EM radiation, just for being at a temperature above absolute zero. It is called "black body radiation". Even if the object is at absolute zero, it still emits a little bit. It is called "uncertainty principle".

The reason they don't ban everything from a plane is that the radiation power that can interfere with the aircraft avionics is totally negligible, unless we are talking about some radio communication device, when its transmitter is on.

That said, there is no risk of a cellphone causing a crash. Instead, it could upset the pilots by interfering with their radio and navigation instrument. Hence the FAA regulation.

"Excuse me, ma'am. That computer is a potential missile hazard during take-off and landing. Would you mind stowing it, please?"

. . . .

< rapid, repeated pressing of flight attendant call button >

Folks, just because this incident occurred on a DL flight does not make it a DL topic. This type of thread is becoming more common on this board and the moderators request that they be posted elsewhere. IMHO this thread belongs either on the TS/S or TravelBuzz boards. I am opting for the TS/S board.

Rssrsvp - Moderator

I have always had this terrible vision of a dozen terrorists (insert favorite profile here) who easily get past security with only legal electronic devices.

During the ascent at 5,000 feet, the evil doers placed strategically throughout the aircraft, suddenly whip out their Gameboys, turn on cell phones and use other unapproved electronic devices listed in the back of the in flight magazine. With demonic grins they take over or jam all of the avionics equipment on the aircraft which was installed there by the lowest bidder.

The pilots realizing they have lost all control of the aircraft, send out a Mayday!

You can guess the end. In response, the Department of Homeland Security bans any in flight magazines from passing through the security check points. Investigators appointed by Congress, question in thier final report why the airlines would publish the brand names of the electronic equipment that could cause an airliner to fall from the sky.

Little noticed in all the fuss is the prosecutor in Orange County, CA who charged a passenger with attempting the smuggling of an in flight magazine onto an aircraft.

Nah. This could never happen...... Enjoy your Blackberry!

We have turned into a country of babies or worry-warts. Better do it for safety, gotta be safe, cann't take a chance.

FOOHEY!!

As a recent poster stated, he is SURE there are at least 10 of these dangerous devices inthe ON and transmit position of every flight. I agree. I know more than one flight where by wife and I both forgot. Others forget. Others not care. Why are planes not falling out of the sky?


Silly, silly people.

I attended a conference one time and one of the seminars was a wireless seminar by a noted expert. Invariably, the question was asked what would happen if a cell phone was left on during a plane. He smiled and said he asked that same question to Boeing engineers once. The reply? "Do you honestly think we'd design a plane that could be brought down by a cell phone?"

Were that so, I think Al Qaeda would have been all over it and we wouldn't be able to take our phones with us.

So I guess we should all just do what we please, ignore the FAs and sit in blissful ignorance because the WORST thing that could EVER happen is we'd miss our connection to Des Moines. ;-)

I wouldn't argue with you on that one.

If she was holding it closed in her lap, that might be one thing, just like a large book.

If she had it open and was typing on it, that laptop does become a fine projectile very easily during takeoff, landing, and extreme turbulence.

A cell phone, blackberry or other similar electronic device is not going to radiate, either actively or passively (see jimrpa's post above) enough energy in the far field (about >1m radius from the phone) to interfere with any of the airplane's electronics or navigation systems.

If people don't like the rules they are required to live with, why subject themselves to those rules? Drive...take the bus...charter your own jet....

Seems to me that all the people that know a lot more information than the FAA regarding electronic devices may help us all out by helping to change the regulations as they stand. Get 'em changed and you can Blackberry all you want, play Yahtzee, listen to your iPod, talk on your cell phone--all during taxi, take-off, inflight, and landing.

Until then, why do people think they are exempt from the regulations (that, believe it or not, the flight attendants don't make up themselves)...it really is a pain in the neck to remind someone several times to do as s/he has been instructed...worse than dealing with three year old children.

It also puts people around them in an uncomfortable situation...as is evidenced by this topic and the plethora of posts.

One of the things that you can almost always count on when talking to strangers is that they don't know who you are or what degree of authority you have. You can play that to your benefit. You should have simply turned to her, looked at her straight in the eye and said "Those need to be off, now! Do you want to fly today?" Most people, when faced with a request direct, and uncertainty, will comply.