12 ms·

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly f

• mikeash 15y ago
  While this explains why you must stow the devices, it doesn't explain why you have to power them off, why it's often OK to hold a device that's turned off, and why nobody ever tells you to put down a book or magazine during these times.
• obiefernandez 15y ago
  If this is the real reason for the policy then it should be stated officially.
• fishtoaster 15y ago
  Has any airline or other relevant authority ever claimed that this was the reason? It seems like they'd state this if that were the case.
• nickbilton 15y ago
  As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.
  • darkane 15y ago
    Don't you ever get tired of being reasonable and/or logical, Nick?
  • cal5k 15y ago
    Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)
    • alanh 15y ago
      Oh, but going by usernames, he didn’t!
    • _delirium 15y ago
      It was actually submitted by a different HN user, whose profile, oddly enough, identifies him/her as working for Forbes.
      • cal5k 15y ago
        Ouch... I was being tongue-in-cheek, not intentionally a jerk! :-( From the author's submission history he has only ever submitted his own stories to Hacker News.
  • Bud 15y ago
    Hi Nick: Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either. I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer. Also, you're frankly wrong in asserting that electronic devices are not more distracting than a paper book; think of anything involving headphones, for instance.
    • bascule 15y ago
      If headphones are the problem, ban wearing headphones during takeoff and landing. Why the slippery slope towards all electronic devices?
• pathdependent 15y ago
  I don't find this plausible. Is there any evidence to suggest that, during an emergency condition requiring cooperation, people continue to text and make calls? To quote Mitch Hedberg, "If you're flammable and have legs, you're never blocking a fire exit."
  • sneak 15y ago
    During emergency evacuations of aircraft, the number one problem is people attempting to bring their carry-on luggage with them. True story.
• Zigurd 15y ago
  Your response is an example of the natural tendency of some people to find comfort in authority, even when it is shown to be ineffective. Nothing personal. Lots of people react in the same way. Sad nonetheless.
  • Bud 15y ago
    Not really. It is an example of me reading an Ask The Pilot column, on Salon, in which this topic was discussed, and finding myself in agreement with the reasonable points made therein, by an actual pilot. As far as authority goes in general, and the FAA in particular, I think the FAA and Homeland Security are utterly full of it, most of the time. This issue is more evidence of that; I agree with those who point out that there is no reason to power off devices. Just pointing out that there is indeed a valid reason to want folks to put them away. Especially anything involving headphones.
    • plink 15y ago
      Was it the pilot in the article who cited the hyperbolic number 15? It's hard to be simultaneously flippant and convincing.
    • brk 15y ago
      This is a fairly hot topic among most frequent fliers. Did you ever consider that column was more propaganda warfare from the FAA instead of actual data?
      • gnaffle 15y ago
        I'm pretty sure about that, given that the same author has been quite harsh on the FAA about other issues (such as crew rest time). Edit: http://www.salon.com/2008/01/04/askthepilot259/ http://www.salon.com/2008/01/04/askthepilot259/ - hardly what I would call propaganda.
• ramanujan 15y ago
  The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity. Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year. Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen. So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself. [0] http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-passengers-revenue-decline_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-pa... [1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.
  • simcop2387 15y ago
    Delta actually does the seat back (or on the overhead monitors depending on the age of the plane) thing during taxiing to the runway. You can actually go watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY The camera angles and lighting are a bit surreal when watching it after having been up for 96 hours though.
  • DaniFong 15y ago
    In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
    • artursapek 15y ago
• ceejayoz 15y ago
  > If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible. I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. > It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times. None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.
  • BrianLy 15y ago
    > I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome. > None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase. This is a side benefit for flight attendants and other passengers. Having people and carts moving in the cabin at these times, and in the event of a situation on board makes for a much worse situation than would otherwise be the case. The additional blockages of exit rows, and obstacle of tables being down creates additional confusion. In addition having tables down will result in injuries to seated passengers who are slammed into them.
    • beernutz 15y ago
      No, I think it's EXACTLY the point. Events leading up to the "situation" are likely to grab attention no matter WHAT device you are or are not using. Engines falling off planes and such are VERY hard to miss. And devices really don't affect people blocking exit rows, etc.
• jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  If the elimination of risk were really the objective, they'd require passengers to travel in paper gowns with no carry-ons or luggage. But the fact of the matter is that they make the rules they think they can get away with, not the rules that will increase safety. And one way or another, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone's life is going to be in danger from ten people playing game boys immediately prior to an air emergency.
• bascule 15y ago
  Sorry, but this is bullshit. What makes electronic distractions worse than non-electronic ones? Why does the medium of a dead tree versus an e-reader when the activity is the same: reading a book. If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention
• lubujackson 15y ago
  Then why can you read a book, magazine, feed a baby, etc.? Honestly, I feel like everyone keeps backing into these ridiculously vague "well... safety" answers with no justification. The FAA clearly told the reporter HOW the rule came to be, through a hypothetical concern that was not supported by evidence. Just like this one.
• rdtsc 15y ago
  > If everyone has 15 objects out I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• panotpon 15y ago
  They do serve welcome-drinks as soon as passengers got on the plane. Oh, right! Never mind.
• mchanson 15y ago
  How come I can watch tv during this whole time if this is the reason?
• rakkhi 15y ago
  I asked this question a while back on HN and there were some good responses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1731699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1731699
• pcvarmint 15y ago
  "... the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times." You've never flown first class, I take it?
• vetler 15y ago
  I often fly between two cities here in Norway, and the flight time is just 30 minutes (it takes 5 hours by train, btw). One airline insists on serving coffee to everyone, and the since the coffee is blistering hot, some people usually still have a hot cup of coffee in their hands while landing.
• jamesaguilar 15y ago
  Even though you've stated this in a very confident tone and have a lot of upvotes, I don't really see any evidence for your claim. Stowing carry-ons/no drink service during takeoff could as easily be explained by not wanting projectiles flying about the cabin when the plane bounces, the challenge of keeping your feet while the direction of gravity is shifting around you, etc. None of these reasons apply to electronic devices. And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
• InclinedPlane 15y ago
  That may be a good reason to tell passengers to avoid using a laptop, for example. But a kindle? What's the difference between reading a kindle and reading a paper book in terms of "emergency preparedness"? Absolutely nothing. Also, you're just inventing reasons out of thin air. This is not the reason why the FAA has such restrictions. The reason is that it is very difficult to test a plane as being immune to interference from every single possible handheld consumer electronic device, and it would be too complicated to enforce a selective ban.
• nodata 15y ago
  If electrical devices can be used to bring down a plane, why am I not being stopped from bringing them onto the plane? My 500 ml bottle of water is strictly forbidden. Couldn't a terrorist could come equipped with a collection of gameboys and tamagotchis to bring the plane down?
• maurits 15y ago
  Also, these 15 objects will in the event of an emergency become flying objects bouncing around the cabin.
• baby 15y ago
  > it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions I've taken the plane more than a hundred times, I know the instructions and I know no one has ever bothered me when I leave my ipod/phone/nintendo ds turned on. Sometimes the flight attendance asked me to turn it off so I comply, otherwise I don't. Also especially because I like to listen to music when I take off and feel like I'm in a movie.
• tcarnell 15y ago
  Exactly. In addition, keeping passengers calm and relaxed is also a key point of security - roudy/drunk/agressive or even violent passengers can cause a lot of trouble on a flight when there are relatively few, fairly untrained flight attendants on board. Thus, if everybody was chatting away on their phones with annoying ring-tones going off every 2 minutes this would probably start aggravating people, so its just easier to say 'no mobile phones' - and if people have the impression it is a point of safety then they are more likely to obey them.
• bambax 15y ago
  Why is reading authorized, then? Or, worse, sleeping / wearing earbuds? Or doing anything except getting ready for the coming catastrophe?
• vitobcn 15y ago
  You have a good point. However, knowing that electronic devices cannot be used, many fliers (including myself) bring their own alternative such as magazines, books, etc. I have never seen a stewardess calling somebody's attention for reading a book. On the other hand, they'll quickly force you to stop using almost anything that has an on/off switch.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• sc00ter 15y ago
  Okay, so I have to put it away - your argument is logical and compelling. But why do I have to turn it off? (And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))
• darklajid 15y ago
  I think it's disappointing that we react to weird rules by inventing reasons to defend them. You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.
• bunderbunder 15y ago
  Another logical and sensible reason: In the event of an emergency, that laptop or iPad is likely to stop being a productivity tool and start being a projectile. Just like the carry-on bags they also require you to stow.
• lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  This isn't even the least bit correct. I don't know why it is voted up so much.