Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Personal electronic devices at takeoff and landing

Personal electronic devices at takeoff and landing

Old Oct 27, 07, 12:06 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: Virgin, United, Qantas
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by JakiChan View Post
I remeber once being woken up by the bump of the plane landing. I was in first. My seat was reclined. My earphones were in and my iPod was playing. They let me sleep through landing and didn't even make my sure my seatback was up the upright and locked position! But oddly enough the plane didn't crash.

I am asleep with my ipod playing for the majority of the flights I am on. If the FA asks, I am happy to remove it, but they don't bother waking me. My seatbelt is done up though!
straygaijin is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 1:09 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Programs: AA ExPlat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 21
Yes I'd tap them on the shoulder, and if it was a bad weather approach I'd be calling a FA directly. ILS receivers are very very sensitive. No? They've all been intereference-hardened? Have a look at this:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
(PDF - full of jargon - boring to many people)
mrdodgy is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 2:36 am
  #33  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,321
"waiting is the hardest part..."

Evidence? Please?
Spiff is online now  
Old Oct 27, 07, 5:22 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by mrdodgy View Post
Have a look at this
Yeah, I did. And that seems to be the biggest bunch of bull I've ever seen. They could just as well have said "INTERFERENCE CAUSED BY INVISIBLE MONKEY SCREAMING AT PILOT". That document has nowhere near what I'd call proof.
JakiChan is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 10:02 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,387
Originally Posted by mrdodgy View Post
Have a look at this:
NASA. The same agency that buried a safety study because it might hurt profits.

This report (as noted by NASA) is not statistically valid. It is also based on self-reports by aircraft and cabin crew.

And, most people don't realize that the ASRS reports are a "get out of jail free" card for pilots/other FAA licensees. In other words, if you self-report under ASRS - unless the violation was outright willful - the FAA will waive any possible certificate/license actions against you. Thus, there is an incentive to file these reports and blame something other than crew action.

ASRS is a tool, and nothing more, that can identify potential issues for further study. It, by no means. provides a definitive result.

"Out of an abundance of caution we should think of the children"
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 8:47 pm
  #36  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: AAdvantage, SkyMiles, USAir, Singapore, BA
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
Airliners have holes blown in their aluminum skin while the electronics survive.
Airliners have also blown up or become uncontrollable for unknown reasons. What's your point?
CessnaJock is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 9:48 pm
  #37  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by CessnaJock View Post
Airliners have also blown up or become uncontrollable for unknown reasons. What's your point?
I guess my point is you are going to have to come up with cold, hard studies to support your speculation. Of course, those don't exist.

Funny anecdote: my IFR instructor really didn't like flying in actual. It really made her nervous, yet it was her job and she did it over and over again. She was an excellent pilot, and a good instructor, yet I had to wonder if she had made the best career decision. @:-)
birdstrike is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 10:14 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Programs: AA ExPlat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by JakiChan View Post
Yeah, I did. And that seems to be the biggest bunch of bull I've ever seen. They could just as well have said "INTERFERENCE CAUSED BY INVISIBLE MONKEY SCREAMING AT PILOT". That document has nowhere near what I'd call proof.
How many phantom TCAS alerts were reported when a pax was using cellphone in the back? As well recent (not 10 year ago) ILS diversions? No, that's my safety.

(Yes I'm an IFR private pilot, I know exactly what and what not an ASRS report is)
mrdodgy is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 10:38 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by mrdodgy View Post
How many phantom TCAS alerts were reported when a pax was using cellphone in the back? As well recent (not 10 year ago) ILS diversions? No, that's my safety.
That is the wrong question. The correct question is "How many phantom TCAS alerts were caused by cellphone use in-flight?".

Consider the logic, then ask if you would rather Lycoming used my logic, or yours, when building the engine you fly behind.

One pilot to another: Your thinking, my friend, is an early link in an accident chain.

Last edited by birdstrike; Oct 27, 07 at 11:10 pm
birdstrike is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 10:44 am
  #40  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: AAdvantage, SkyMiles, USAir, Singapore, BA
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
I guess my point is you are going to have to come up with cold, hard studies to support your speculation. Of course, those don't exist.
I don't know whether these meet your criteria of "coldness" and "hardness," but google crash lightning factor and read a few dozen reports. See if you can discern a pattern emerging.

Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
Funny anecdote: my IFR instructor really didn't like flying in actual. It really made her nervous, yet it was her job and she did it over and over again. She was an excellent pilot, and a good instructor, yet I had to wonder if she had made the best career decision. @:-)
I fail to appreciate the humor. I have never met a CFII who lacked a healthy respect for the hazards of flying blind. My guess would be that only the very cavalier or adrenaline junkie would take it lightly. The same personality type might misconstrue their prudence as nervousness.
CessnaJock is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: