pushback

Personally, I think the cell phone ban is bogus--mostly because of the inverse square law I already posted. That said, as a pilot myself, a pilot has the right to be a control freak. Whether it be Bermuda shorts of all devices off--it’s his/her call. Obviously, a pilot who says no Bermuda shorts will not have a very long career, but during that short career there will be no Bermuda shorts on the plane.

Because of the inverse square law--if you were on my plane (assuming I flew for the majors--which I do not), and I were to ban cellphones and other devices at all it would likely be in the F cabin due to the proximity to my instruments--how's that for being voted Mr. Unpopular?

It comes down to what the PIC perceives is safe or unsafe. S/he makes the rules. As stupid as I personally feel the cellphone ban is, if you don't like what the PIC says, take a train.

daggett24

my post framed with Baaa should not have been taken as seriously as you did. My apologies for not being better at comedy.

Elena

My sentiments to a tee.

I generally turn my electronics off and if I don't I put them on silent mode and keep them in a discreet place until phone/wireless signals are gone for good at which point I turn them off completely.

I personally hate it when people take it upon themselves to act as "police"; if a flight attendant asked me to turn a device off/stow away a tray table, etc I would certainly obey but I would never oblige the preachings of an interfering self-righteous passenger (unless they were directly inconvenienced by my action such as leaving a carry-on under their seat).

I'm not sure I understand this, if the pocket stretches out the pocket will get bigger in which case there would be plenty of room for safety cards. Do they mean not to stretch the pocket to the point of breaking it (since the safety card and anything else would fall through)? Most seat pockets seem fairly durable to me, now and then I even see people resting their feet inside them.

ClipperClub

The flight attendants are basically agents for the FAA paid by the airline....

All we have to do is have the aircraft met on arrival or send the information to the FAA. You would be horrified by how swift the FAA can act. They have the power to fine as well as set court dates that can result in imprisonment. I have known many flight attendants taken off schedule for these types of court dates.

Our reports are taken very seriously by the FAA

opus17

I'm an engineer, and I've had a lot of experience with EMC testing of medical devices.

I turn everything off (computers, phones, music players) per the standard requests. I make sure my wireless laptop networking is disabled before I board the plane.

Why?
1). It is the rule.
2). Risk-hazard analysis and mitigation. In cases with very low risk (electronic devices on a plan), but very high consequences (plane crash), it is wise to follow the mitigation plan (turn them off). Even when the risk is very tiny, the mitigation is very easy, so why not?

I'm not worried that my Blackberry will crash the plane, but maybe 300 Blackberries on might cause problems.

RickR

I was going to add a simlar comment, but opus17 did a better job and it should be the final word.

Re: #2, 99.99% of the time devices work as designed - but there is always the potential for most any electronic device to emit unwanted and unplanned radiation. Have you ever noticed funny noise from cell phone, car radio, computer? Not all is due to this, of course. However, I know with so much very cheapy made stuff out there now quality may not always be what it should, not to mention quality equipment that is damaged somehow.

Speaking of cheap stuff - you may have heard about counterfeit airplane parts. Think of a device that does not have the needed shielding, isolation or filtering to save money. Then recall that most disasters are not due to one thing but the conflation of several that would be survivable separately. Flying is so safe because these confluences don't happen often, but ...

Take the opportunity to unplug for a few minutes - at least until everyone agrees there is 100% no chance of danger.

winkydink

If you put your cell phone near the headset cord on a telephone, you will most likely get interference too. I know I always do.

pushback

Well of course it does. That's becuase you are holding them right next to each other. As you double the distance between then the amount of energy transferred reduces by a factor of 4. That's why having a cellphone back in 17B is not an issue to an instrument on the flight deck. Didn't anyone read my post on inverse square law? Oy. Why do I bother.

Horizons

I suppose that's true, since I can always turn off the LCD screen of my Canon Powershot and there's no other chance for interference. The FA's don't insist everyone with a digital watch turn it off -- and I imagine some folks are even wearing those watches that update the time regularly via radio signals.

Last month I was in Union Station (Amtrak) in Washington, DC, and paused to take a photo of a really nice poster advertising the California Zephyr or Empire Builder or some such line. No sooner had I snapped the digital photo -- which was of nothing but the poster; not even an inch of wall on either side of it -- than I got hauled aside by 2 policemen who informed me in clear terms that I was on private property and had no right to photograph anything in the building, period. They also ranted something about national security, too. I apologized and dutifully deleted the shot while they watched.

I suppose that is the issue in some airports or aircraft as well, leading to a ban on camera and camcorder use. But why enforce it only when the doors close? Weird.

zrudeboyz

I was on a recent flight (US from PHL-LAX) where the FAs didn't get a verbal agreement from all exit row occupants, they never even stopped to talk to us. I thought that was rather outrageous (without an exclamation point).

rrgg

Your seat may or may not be next to wiring throughout the plane. The potential for interference does not require you to be standing on the flight deck.

iCorpRoadie

Blueberries and Nextels work on frequenicies that are not the same as the cell frequencies. They create havoc for me in my line of work. I can see where those would or could possibly create some horrible interference as they do with me at work. Thus I don't own one nor never will till they change that.

pushback

Which nav instrument are you speaking of that has wiring back by row 17?

Meerkat

Perhaps my bermuda shorts analogy wasn't clear enough for some. There are quite clearly two entirely separate issues here. Firstly, does an airline/captain have the right to tell you what to do regarding electronic devices onboard an aircraft, and secondly, do such devices pose a possible hazard to the safety of the aircraft.

The answer to the second point is "unlikely".
The answer to the first however is a simple "yes".

For those that want the right to use their devices onboard, campaign to the FAA and other agencies for said right. Bear in mind though that even if cleared by the the authorities, it is still the prerogative of airlines to ban any devices if they so wish.

Breaking the rules just because you disagree with them however is wrong; you wouldn't (I hope) do it in everyday life, so what gives you the authority to do it in the air?

Soju

I had the same question as you did regarding the significance of mentioning his wife's weight. However for me a woman at 130 lbs. would be categorized as the XXL variety and perhaps quite intimidating. Though maybe that's because I live in Asia where 130 lbs. would be considered huge. My wife for instance is about 85 lbs.