whitearrow

The difference being, that if I'm using my Kindle, I'm told I must put it away. The guy sitting next to me with a 4 pound hardcover, which is a far more dangerous projectile than my Kindle, isn't told anything. Maybe the FA's will kindly ask for everyone to put away their books during the safety briefing, but I've never been on a flight where that was mandated and checked.

If projectiles are a danger, then all projectiles are a danger, not just the electronic ones.

WillCAD

Don't the pre-flight announcements say, "Please secure all loose items and turn off all electronic devices", or words to that effect?

I agree with you - the hardcover is as dangerous as a laptop or a Kindle.

planemechanic

Or a lap child, maybe we should ban them as well, since they can't be "stowed for take off and landing".

WillCAD

That has always been my position. The very concept of lap children is outrageously dangerous.

whitearrow

I've never heard the loose items part, nor have I ever seen anyone be told to put away a book, binder, or anything similarly non-electronic.

QuietLion

I'm not sure I see your logic. Not flying at all would be impossible for my business, while being offline is simply undesirable. We went through this in another thread...of course 15 minutes extra downtime isn't the end of the world, but it's undesirable and I don't want to do it for no reason. Onboard WiFi has made flying much more productive for me. I have virtually no work to do that doesn't involve my computer, so time management doesn't enter into it. I realize most people aren't in this position, but it's somewhat presumptuous of you to imply that I'm being overly self-important just because I am clear about my priorities.

QL

ralfp

Except that not allowing lap children would be far more dangerous. Safety cannot be considered in bits and pieces; a failure to look at the big picture can lead to deadly "safety" improvements (in this case banning lap children would make more parents drive, which is far more dangerous).

For example:
Perhaps the ban leads to more people read hardcover books during takeoff and landing (vs. using lighter devices like iPods), thus presenting a greater risk from projectiles. Perhaps the ban makes more people leave their seats after takeoff and before landing (to retrieve and store their electronic devices), thus increasing the risk of injuries to unbelted passengers from turbulence, bags falling from overhead bins, etc.

These may or may not be true, but they are the kind of side-effects that can result from failing to consider the big picture.

WillCAD

Perhaps, but airlines are not social engineers whose policies and procedures are designed to make the entire world a safer place for children; they are air transportation providers whose purpose is to provide the safest carriage from point A to point B while maximizing ROI for their investors. How many children may be killed in car crashes has no bearing on airline policies, and no airline will, or should, make a value jugement that it's perfectly okay to endanger the health and safety of pax in the air to offset a POSSIBLE, hypothetical danger on the ground.

ralfp

I might agree, except, AFAIK it's not the airlines that are making that decision (for domestic US travel), it's the FAA. I'm glad the FAA* thinks that decisions resulting in fewer dead children are better than decisions resulting more dead children (but fewer killed in aircraft).

The dangers posed by road travel are more POSSIBLE and no more hypothetical than the dangers facing lap children.

*: Unlike the TSA, but that's for another forum.

pacer142

No, but any legislation on health and safety *absolutely should* consider the whole system.

The TSA is a good example. If the TSA cause sufficient people to drive rather than fly by way of overzealous security, that security might actually reduce overall safety of transportation.

Neil

KIXman

Interestingly, Japan finally realized that cell phones and other electronic equipment have no effect on the airplane equipment while the plane is parked.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update...101250413.html
Rough translation below:
In a survey commissioned by an independent administrative agency by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, it was confirmed that [use of cell phones and email] are not detrimental to the plane equipment while the airplane is parked. Because of this, usage of cell phones will be allowed while passengers are boarding until the plane doors are closed, as well as after the plane doors open after landing. However, when the plane doors are closed, in the same way as it is now, cell phones should be turned off and transmitting functions of computers should not be used.

pacer142

They are allowed in those situations in the UK now and have been for ages, certainly on easyJet. I've even been on a flight where they were allowed once the aircraft had left the runway to taxi to the terminal - might have been KLM, but I'm not sure.

easyJet normally say you then have to turn it off when you disembark to when you enter the terminal, but this is completely unenforced.

Neil

golfdude42501

Indeed, in flight terms, this is called "situational awareness". Leaving the window shades open, no devices turned on and having watched the safety video or presentation is to prepare each passenger for emergency situations that can occur during take-offs or landings.

QuietLion

I just can't fathom the mentality that can say with a straight face that listening to the safety announcement for the nth time will have any effect whatsoever on anyone's safety.

QL

alanh

From 1967-1991 (24 years!), there were no 737 crashes related to PCU rudder valves. Therefore, it's impossible for it to happen, correct?

Of course, UA 585 happened in 1991 and US 427 in 1994, and it turns out that there was a latent defect that under certain rare conditions, cause a rudder hardover that would make the aircraft impossible to keep in the air.

So, should it have been fixed, or is that simply too rare a circumstance to do anything about?