Noteworthy to the continuing symphony on FT that electronics "dont interfere"

Obviously only as reliable as FAB but I will go with him/her on this one. I will continue to power down my 15 Watt bag phone when requested by the crew...

Yup. Best statement yet. Not every rule is convenient or even transparent. The chance of interference on FCC approved devices is low, but it exists. A lot of people violate rules which they perceive as marginal, but sometimes it's the sum of all incremental factors combined that is the difference between an interesting anectdote and a NTSB report.

On a flight from SFO-EWR not too long ago, watched a flight attendant blatantly using her iPhone on final descent. She wasn't even trying to hide it. Come to think of it, guess I should have taken mine out to see what she would have said. Ah well

Not that it matters, but it was a 6AM flight, the cabin was totally dark and it was a backlit display(guesing Kindle Fire). She was indeed breaking the rules which was all I wanted to point out.

Also, others have mentioned that it's OK the use your phone once wheels down, but they make announcements when landing at LHR that it is prohibited. Wonder what the Brits see as a point of concern that the FAA doesn't?

I think everyone should turn off any electronic device when they are instructed to turn off be it for safety of the flight or the 'self-esteem' of a 'particular' crew member(s). (This is not a jab at you or crew but just a statement of fact. And just to allay equal opportunity concerns, there are many more passengers with 'self-esteem' issues than crew if for no other reason than statistics.)

That being said I always wonder how/why/etc things work. Any consumer commercial portable computer which weighed, as you said, more than 10 lbs was manufactured before 1990 and did not have WiFi, BlueTooth, etc. So if the computer were being used during the flight when computers are allowed to be used during the flight, it wasn't transmitting radio signals aside from noise, if it were a consumer device. If it were not a consumer device I would worry about why someone was flying with such a device, especially if it were post 9/11 and it was doing strange things to the plane.

As to turning something off and seeing something go back to normal, turning it on and watching it go abnormal, I can tell you that in a complex environment, such as an airplane, this is an indication but not proof of cause and effect. I have spent many man hour weeks during my graduate studies playing that game. I would think this was an anomaly particular to that flight or it wasn't a standard old computer.

I wouldn't fly or fly on a plane if I thought someone making/trying to make a cell call or clicking on some other consumer electronic device were going to interfere with the planes safety. You notice I repeat consumer and the allusion is obvious.

If a passenger's lawyer could overrule all the acronyms you know/list then I think the issue is not safety.

My point is these violations are happening hundreds if not thousands of times a day and planes aren't crashing/etc. Of course we don't know about how many 'close calls' were caused by such violations but my guess is that since 'close calls' and/or not 'close calls' have not exponentially increased as the adaption of these device have on planes that it is not significant.

If someone turns on a prohibited electronic device and no one notices, does that mean that they didn't turn it on? I'm sure it's done thousands of times a day, and obviously the effect is generally unnoticed, but that's like saying that since someone texted while driving but didn't hit a pedestrian, then it must be ok to text while driving.

It's illegal. If a case went so far as to be heard by a law judge who asked the defendant if they turned on their cell phone after they were told not to and the answer was yes, that person is guilty. Has nothing to do with whether it caused a problem or not.

I will be happy when the time comes that such things are no longer an issue so that it will eliminate at least a power-tripping from everyone.

FAB

I've seen a marked decline in flight attendants' interest in portable electronic device compliance. I know it's the law, but I can see why the flight attendants just don't want to bother anymore. It's a tough fight. And I see them using their phones all the time, and I'm sure they're not in "airplane mode." Passengers see this, we all know it know makes no sense, so there isn't a rationale other than "The FAA says so," "It's a federal offense," etc.

I posted elsewhere about a woman using a massive, 17-inch laptop during short final on an extremely turbulent flight. That's profoundly stupid. I also got angry with a Pinnacle Airlines CRJ flight attendant who was so busy talking on her phone that she skipped the safety demo and compliance checks. If you're too busy having a personal conversation on your phone to verify that everyone is wearing a seatbelt (15 seconds at most--she could have talked on her phone AND conducted the safety check simultaneously)... you're in the wrong job.

One could argue that iPads are heavier and capable of inflicting more damage in turbulence. But far more people have secreted heavy purses, canes, duty free liquor, and other heavy objects on their laps or at their sides. I sometimes think I'm the only bulkhead passenger in the world to use the overhead bin for all of my luggage (I usually check my bag.)

But it's not worth arguing over a Kindle or noise-canceling headsets. I can't imagine anyone dying from a Kindle or a set of Bose headphones. I'm much more concerned about an unfastened seatbelt, or a concussion from ridiculously heavy bags in overhead bins.

Yes, I'd much prefer that passengers watched the safety video (one rationale for barring noise canceling headsets.) But I have to say that I can recite it word-for-word in English, Spanish, and German. I still don't wear headsets out of respect for the law and the crew, but it's not really doing much for my own safety.

The other night, I watched a Pavlovian reaction in the cabin when the chimes rang after takeoff. Everyone flipped open the Kindles, iPads, and laptops (that had been on their laps, and definitely not switched off.) It's kind of fun to watch that reflex among frequent flyers. It was a relief for me, because all 300 channels of DirectTV seemed to have something unwatchable.

Although the FAA has been asked to conduct new research, I think the regulation will fall apart because nobody will pay attention anymore.

Look around... how many times have you noticed that the person next to you has a reclined seat or elevated headrest during takeoff and landing? How many people don't bother with the shoulder harness in Global First? It seems to happen on every flight. The risk is so hard to figure out... even at 31-inch pitch in economy class, it's hard to fathom that another inch or two would impede your egress from the airplane in an emergency. You could just slam the seat forward.

If the in-flight magazine had more puzzles and fun things in them, with free pens, then maybe more people would be ok turning off their devices and doing the puzzles while taxi-ing. I for one would love something more diverting than the sudoku and crossword...

That's not what I am said or what is happening. People are texting and driving. As the number of people who are texting and driving increases so do the accidents. People are doing illegal things on planes with electronic devices and no visible consequence is resulting as the number of people doing so increases.

What I would say and what happens with texting and driving is as more people do it more accidents result from that unsafe activity, not that if one person texts {turns on their phone} and the car {plane} doesn't crash that it is ok.

I defiantly agree that if it is illegal you shouldn't do it.

Per the OP, she was reading for almost 45 minutes. If it took the FA 45 minutes to read one page on an eReader, then that flight and this airline has problems that are far deeper than potential electronic interference...

Greg