I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to the TSA. Everthing you state has been an edict issued by Homeland Security and the TSA. Remeber though TSA has nothing to do with the FAA. TSA employess are in no way affilated with the FAA and vice versa.

I'm definitely not defending this woman, as she was wrong in flagrantly using these devices when the "rules" say she shouldn't. And yes it is upsetting when you follow the rules and someone else doesn't.

But I think part of the problem is that we "Frequent Flyer's" have trouble believing that these devices actually can cause harm to a planes electronics and that 4 oz of sunscreen is dangerous and 3.3 oz is not. And as such some people tend to feel the rules are wrong and ignore them. Maybe if we felt the "rules" really protected us and those around us, we would take them more seriously.

BTW I do turn off my phone when I'm told, not use my computer until allowed and I haven't smuggled any contraband through security, although I do wish I could figure out how, as one quart baggie is just not enough.

You can use your gadgets until they shut the doors and prep for take off and after landing and doors have opened.

On every flight I've been on in the past I have yet to see anyone follow those rules. Most will turn them off sometime while taxiing out or soon after touch down.

/E

I was just getting to that. Blackberry is a smartphone that can function without having the aerial turned on. Ofcourse it isn't transmitting and receiving at that point but you can still answer e-mails and write notes etc.

/E

Just a couple of thoughts...

Looking at this woman's behavior in its totality, I can't picture her as a social revolutionary. She was a pushy, hyper, obnoxious "B" who deserved nothing less than swift kick in the rear - especially as she tried to crawl over all the other customers to get off the plane.

The electronic device ban is in effect for a few reasons - firstly, the effect of RF on aircraft systems is really unknown. Some tests have shown an effect and some have not. There is concern that some inflight incidents - namely unitiated control surface movements - might have been caused by electronic interference. Maybe, maybe not. It might seem like a pain to be without your device for a few hours, but if your 737 did a barrel roll of a sudden, you might not be so keen on everyone tapping their Blackberry's during the flight if there was a chance the RF was a contributing factor.

In addition, the FCC banned cell phone use from aircraft not for safety reasons, but because the signals being transmitted from 7 miles up were hitting multiple cell towers and causing havoc with the cell switching system - disturbing callers on the ground. I also don't think many of us would appreciate spending 5 hours on a narrow body listening to a handful of people jabbering on their cell phones at full volume. If you were trying to rest on a late evening departure to the west coast, you might not enjoy listing to your seatmate jabbering away at full volume while you're trying to sleep. Absent a cell phone ban, you would have few options to shut them up.

I support the cell phone ban - but only if the reasons behind it are communicated honestly.

Those are the EU rules you seem to be talking about. The US rules on domestic flights certainly do not prohibit these gadgets to be used after landing but well before the doors have opened. The gadgets seem to be also allowed to be used prior to takeoff until the crew gives the instruction to turn them off, even if that means having them on for a bit after the door is closed.

It's really hard to believe that in today's day and age they cannot do adequate testing to determine the affects on these devices on a plane's controls.


I totally agree with a cell phone ban while in the air.

She was calling her husband and car service while we were doing the 20 minute taxi at ORD. She told me she lived in Chicago. Recall this was Superbowl Sunday. At the TSA security point, she told me they have a house in PHX and her husband and pet had to change the travel plan and fly back to Chicago on an earlier flight to catch the game. She stayed behind. (The whole conversation got started when she could not check-in because they split the PNR incorrectly - the pet was still on her PNR and she could not check in at the kiosk.)

The interesting thing is this woman appeared very technologically illiterate. All her work was in paper form (mostly J.P. Morgan analyst reports). There were tons of paper sticking out of her seatback pocket. She did not know how to use the re-dial function on her phone and didn't even have her husband in the speed dial. So, I doubt she knows all these flight-mode and the debate whether cell phones really hurt the plane. Furthermore, all electronic devices must be TURNED OFF below 10,000 feet, not just placed in flight mode.

Also, I was sitting next to her and I did not see her making any changes to go into flight mode on the Blackberry. I doubt the cell phone she turned on while approaching ORD would have been that mode when she turned it on. I didn't even know she had a 2nd phone until she pulled it out and turned it on when we were approaching ORD.

What gets me is we frequent flyers are supposed to be good examples and help improve the system for ourselves. Then you have these people breaking the rules big time and brag about it. (Last year, I was on a PHX-SLC flight, a woman in F pulled out her phone and started making phone calls in-flight. She also had a bed pillow with her and did not appear to be a frequent traveller. That did not annoy me nearly as much as this. I was just amazed in that case.)

It's very hard to standardize testing since there are so many variables that could pop up at some point.

For example, there are literally miles and miles of wiring and cabling throughout the aircraft. Over time, many of the harnesses and shrouds might thin out, crack or even get chewed on by pests - when the wires inside are exposed, they may become more sensitive to stray RF.

Airbus aircraft rely more on computers and electronic signalling for flight controls, so their designs might be more sensitive to potential problems if wiring protection is compromised.

So there is no real hard and fast test to declare all aircraft are safe since the conditions that might potentially cause a problem are variable.

When it comes to others not following 'the rules', I couldn't care less, as long as their actions do not affect me and are unlikely to harm others.

Smuggling liquids past the "security" checkpoint. I already know liquids are not a threat and that Comrade Hawley is a liar about their danger. Therefore, if someone gets away with it, I actually cheer them on, even if I am caught or choose to follow the rules.

Use of electronics on the airplane. I know that someone else's phone/BlackBerry/computer use is not going to affect the plane and cause it to crash. I know this because I have a bit ;) of electronics knowledge in the area of electricity and magnetism, including design work in the lab. I can calculate the power and harmonics of most devices and do not feel threatened by their use. Therefore, I do not care if someone else uses such a device during taxi, takeoff, or landing, even if I choose to follow the rules, which I usually do. Furthermore, I know there are probably on average at least 5 such devices left on during any given flight due to willful or forgetful owners. No planes have fallen out of the sky as a result and no planes are likely to either.

To reiterate, if someone else's actions don't affect me and are unlikely to harm others, I really don't care what they do, even if it's "breaking the rules". If more people in our society shared my views on this matter, we'd have a much better place to live. "Mind Thine Own Business". :)

What a coincidence! I too feel that, if more people shared my views, we'd have a much better place to live. ;) Anyway, your outlook undoubtedly moderates your actions as a moderator.

I must admit to feeling mildly annoyed recently when noticing that a non-rev FA sitting in bulkhead in the same F section we were in left her purse on the seat beside her on takeoff and held it in her lap on landing without a word from the FA.

Do I think a purse presents much of a hazard? No, but FWIW I do like to see people obeying the rules that they enforce.

Cheers,
Fredd

Speaking of phones...

We employ a car service to do airport runs. To save a few bucks, the driver will camp out off-airport and wait for you to land before approaching the terminal. This results in me having to play phone tag to tell him where I am specifically after I leave customs. Some drivers will call me beforehand and leave a voicemail. Other do not. In those cases, I must call the main number and find out who the driver is, and then call him, etc etc. Very frustrating, and non-sensical since they could bill us for parking charges anyway (and perhaps they do). And in bomb-shelter terminals like JFK, you can't even get a signal unless you schlep upstairs and outside to the Departure level.

At any rate, in order to facilitate the process, I switch on my phone after we stop at the gate and see if any messages are waiting. However, the barking nazis controlling the immigration queue jump on top of you if any beeping or other electronic noises eminate from your phone. They threaten everything from confiscating the phone to sending you to Gitmo I don't understand this rule. Is it another TSA-like random power trip or is there more to it?

This is to prevent people from exchanging "valuable" INS/Customs information as they pass through or after passing through each.

"Lane 3 inspector very thorough".

"Go to the right side when you exit, the guy looks like he is ready to go on break."

etc.

Is the frequent flyer getting paid hard cash to be a good example to the flying public? Generally not, so there's no "frequent flyers are supposed to be good examples" mantra.

LOL. :D