7 ms·

Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules or Face Legislation

50 points by ParkerK 14y ago

bane 14y ago
It really is remarkable that the legislative option could even be considered as faster than just modifying the rule.
wtn 14y ago
I don't have a problem with the rules as they are. The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems… which is most likely to happen at the start or end of the flight. If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security.
- cjreyes 14y ago
  I guess the point people are trying to make is that an e-reader weighs the same or less than a book but books don't have to be put away during takeoff or landing. But I do agree, airport security hassles are more annoying these days than being told to turn off your cell phone for 15 minutes.
  - nekojima 14y ago
    I was on a plane that had to make a very sudden emergency landing. There was no time for items to be anything but tucked into the back of the seat or beside you, before we had to duck our heads down. The main injuries sustained were from people who hadn't done up their seat belts or from shock/panic. There were a few newspapers and magazines floating around, the odd book and small camera too. So if there is another emergency and potentially free-floating items are flying through the air within the cabin, I'm far happier being hit in the head by a paperback novel, than I am an e-reader. Let alone a mobile or laptop.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Did that emergency occur during the short window after takeoff and before landing when electronic devices are not allowed?
    - slavak 14y ago
      What about a hardcover version of LoTR? The point is that this explanation is a retconing of the original reason for this rule, which has nothing to do with free-floating items in the cabin.
- daeken 14y ago
  > If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Battling the TSA is political suicide right now, by and large. Might as well make some positive change with the power you have, rather than fighting a battle you know you can't win. That's not to say that there won't be a time for the TSA to go away or dramatically change form, but I don't think that's now.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    This is the problem with bad legislation. Once it's passed it can take 2 decades, which is quite a lot of a person's life, to change. We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy, either through better use of data, to know exactly how the policy is doing in just a few short years, or through a much more fluid feedback system from the population - or both. Politicians are also heavily influenced by money in politics right now, and I'm not even talking about lobbying, which I think is legalized bribery and that's a huge other problem. I'm talking about corporations being able to ramp up media campaigns against them, and make them look bad in the public's eye because of a position they've taken, that the corporations do not like. This is why many politicians are afraid to even go against certain policies, unless they are pretty sure many others feel the same way, and they have a chance of winning. Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits, and they wouldn't have to worry about their "career in politics" as much, and would care much more about what impact they can have in the short time they are in Congress.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy You say this like someone who doesn't know that everything they value the government doing, or not doing, can be cast as 'bad policy' by someone who owns a think tank. > a much more fluid feedback system from the population I think California's Proposition system is illustrative here. And, therefore, California's current budgetary crisis. > Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits Then the power would shift out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of unelected party bosses, because the elected officials wouldn't be able to develop the real-world experience needed to navigate the halls of power on their own.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems… which is most likely to happen at the start or end of the flight. Then we'd better ban books too, since if a heavy book goes flying, it can cause some nasty damage.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Not to mention unbuckled babies.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    See, I'd rather be hit in the face with a heavy, hardback book (say, the complete Lord of the Rings) than the edge of an iPad, let alone a laptop. But maybe that's just me.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      I'd rather be hit in the face with neither. But maybe that's just me.
- necubi 14y ago
  No, they are banned because of concerns about interference with avionics. Unfortunately for the FAA, this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be more or less impossible, leading to this sort of ridiculous post hoc rationalization. Any sort of rule that singles out electronic devices ("anything with an on-off switch," as the steward will tell you) is inherently going to be ridiculous. The attention argument, or the flying debris argument, apply equally well to any number of allowed things (if anything, electronics tend to be lighter than the books they replace). Ultimately, this was a rule that was made a long time ago, that has long since lost relevance. It should be abolished.
  - simonh 14y ago
    But what about the jobs of honest hard working Americans employed to enforce these rules? If we get rid of this pointless rule, what about all the other time wasting, petty, mindless rules and the workers employed to enforce them? Many of these workers have families and children, and no hope of any other gainful employment in these hard economic times. Who's going to stand up for them? Or something.
    - bwilliams18 14y ago
      They still need to serve me drinks and peanuts...and sell me food and alcohol.
    - bickfordb 14y ago
      Yeah, it does seem like this rule and a soda machine would pretty much remove the need of economy class flight attendants.
      - toomuchtodo 14y ago
        I always thought just letting flyers pick out their cold beverage at the gate before takeoff would replace flight attendants (domestic; international still serves food).
      - objclxt 14y ago
        There are plenty of rules that require enforcement that are not petty or stupid: requiring seat belts during take off, landing, and turbulence, or enforcing no smoking policies. I am reminded of the discussion here a while back about Airbnb and hotel regulation: some of New York's regulations governing hotels are stupid and petty...but others come out of a genuine desire for safety (like adequate fire escapes and sprinklers). Same with the FAA: some rules are outdated, and silly: planes should be able to cope with personal electronic devices...but others are to ensure previous disasters don't happen again. I'm sure some airlines would happily have fewer cabin crew if the FAA would let them: yes, they can sell in-flight items, but that probably doesn't break even on the cost of employing them.
- michaelfeathers 14y ago
  > The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems That is definitely not the reason for the rule. It's a post-rationalization and a poor one. If that were the reason, books wouldn't be allowed out. Speaking of post-rationalizations, one I heard from a flight attendant recently is: "it's not that they aren't safe, just just need your full attention during takeoff and landing."
- konstruktor 14y ago
  > If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Wouldn't this useless regulation be a nice conversation starter in the right direction? It will establish a (moral) precedent that it's for politicians OK do get rid of rules that are "for safety" but actually aren't.
mahmud 14y ago
The Senator sure wants her iPad on the plane. But what is her position on indefinite detention of Americans, and even their assassination, without the faintest legal fig leaf?
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  It astounds me that a non sequitur like this is at the top.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    It's pretty good rabble-rousing though.
    - weego 14y ago
      It's like no matter where I go on the internet, a little bit of Slashdot is always there to welcome me.
- Kerrick 14y ago
  The Senator wants to stop a federal agency staffed by non-elected individuals from regulating customers of private businesses while on private business property. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
  - konstruktor 14y ago
    That private business property is flying in public airspace over other entities' private and public property. The federal agency is staffed according to regulations put into legislation by elected individuals.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    In this case the "private business property" comprises huge, heavy, metal objects carrying large amounts of highly inflammable fuel that are flying through the sky at high speed over the heads and homes of millions of people. Regulating this activity seems like a step in the right direction to me.
batgaijin 14y ago
I guess I'll be that guy... what happens when it's a malicious device? http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_boe.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_bo...
- daeken 14y ago
  Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack. Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight, from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've only once actually had to take out my headphones.
  - batgaijin 14y ago
    No, I do not believe the rules we have today make any sense for preventing that.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      So when you said you were 'that guy', you didn't mean someone bringing in a counterargument to a popular position, you meant you were someone bringing in unrelated data and going "Huh? What about this? Huh?".
      - batgaijin 14y ago
        I'm saying that the rules are either going to become more liberal or severely conservative. I'm simply pointing out the conservative, somewhat nonsensical one. I think the rules do not make sense considering my point, as they were never intended for that. And by 'that guy' I mean devil's advocate for a possible future idiotic fear-mongering policy.
  - 14y ago
wildranter 14y ago
Whatever is done I hope they never allow people talking on the phone inside airliners. We don't need more annoying people taking long conversations by phone in public enclosed spaces as they were in their living rooms. It's either that or I'll buy a gun!
- mahmud 14y ago
  Airlines will start offering "quiet" flights at 40% premium, allowing only business class passengers to talk on the phone (or you can upgrade yourself to Communicator level for $20 more and use your phone in economy) In Australia you can pay Qantas $ to "offset" your carbon footprint. Carbon tax is already law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes ;-)
  - toomuchtodo 14y ago
    "Carbon tax is already law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes." Like the landing fees, 9/11 "security fees" per flight leg, etc? I'm helping them pay for everything already, including their (small) profit =)
    - mahmud 14y ago
      It's Capitalism, if the business is not profitable they should get out of it. No one told them to run on thin margin. Not my responsibility to subsidize bad business decisions.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
thinkling 14y ago
McCaskill's argument that allowing iPads into the cockpit means they should be allowed in the cabin seems weak to me, for two reasons. First, if there are instrument malfunctions in the cockpit, the crew can turn off their own wireless devices to see if they were interfering. It's much harder to get 300 people to shut off their devices in a hurry, especially when some have tucked their devices in the seatback pocket and gone to sleep. Second, it seems entire plausible to my (non-electrical-engineer) mind that 300 devices of a large variety of makes are more likely to cause interference than just one or two, both for the combined signal and the chance that one will be badly designed. I used to be indignant about the PED rule as well. After reading a number of online discussions on it, I'm not convinced that it's obvious that they should be allowed.
- konstruktor 14y ago
  Also, you can test/certify specific devices for cockpit use on specific planes.
- gRaider2001 14y ago
  We live in a world were people are not willing to turn off their cell phones for 10 minutes. Very sad

50 points by ParkerK 14y ago

bane 14y ago

It really is remarkable that the legislative option could even be considered as faster than just modifying the rule.

wtn 14y ago

I don't have a problem with the rules as they are. The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems… which is most likely to happen at the start or end of the flight. If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security.

cjreyes 14y ago
I guess the point people are trying to make is that an e-reader weighs the same or less than a book but books don't have to be put away during takeoff or landing. But I do agree, airport security hassles are more annoying these days than being told to turn off your cell phone for 15 minutes.
- nekojima 14y ago
  I was on a plane that had to make a very sudden emergency landing. There was no time for items to be anything but tucked into the back of the seat or beside you, before we had to duck our heads down. The main injuries sustained were from people who hadn't done up their seat belts or from shock/panic. There were a few newspapers and magazines floating around, the odd book and small camera too. So if there is another emergency and potentially free-floating items are flying through the air within the cabin, I'm far happier being hit in the head by a paperback novel, than I am an e-reader. Let alone a mobile or laptop.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Did that emergency occur during the short window after takeoff and before landing when electronic devices are not allowed?
  - slavak 14y ago
    What about a hardcover version of LoTR? The point is that this explanation is a retconing of the original reason for this rule, which has nothing to do with free-floating items in the cabin.
daeken 14y ago
> If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Battling the TSA is political suicide right now, by and large. Might as well make some positive change with the power you have, rather than fighting a battle you know you can't win. That's not to say that there won't be a time for the TSA to go away or dramatically change form, but I don't think that's now.
- mtgx 14y ago
  This is the problem with bad legislation. Once it's passed it can take 2 decades, which is quite a lot of a person's life, to change. We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy, either through better use of data, to know exactly how the policy is doing in just a few short years, or through a much more fluid feedback system from the population - or both. Politicians are also heavily influenced by money in politics right now, and I'm not even talking about lobbying, which I think is legalized bribery and that's a huge other problem. I'm talking about corporations being able to ramp up media campaigns against them, and make them look bad in the public's eye because of a position they've taken, that the corporations do not like. This is why many politicians are afraid to even go against certain policies, unless they are pretty sure many others feel the same way, and they have a chance of winning. Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits, and they wouldn't have to worry about their "career in politics" as much, and would care much more about what impact they can have in the short time they are in Congress.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy You say this like someone who doesn't know that everything they value the government doing, or not doing, can be cast as 'bad policy' by someone who owns a think tank. > a much more fluid feedback system from the population I think California's Proposition system is illustrative here. And, therefore, California's current budgetary crisis. > Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits Then the power would shift out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of unelected party bosses, because the elected officials wouldn't be able to develop the real-world experience needed to navigate the halls of power on their own.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems… which is most likely to happen at the start or end of the flight. Then we'd better ban books too, since if a heavy book goes flying, it can cause some nasty damage.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Not to mention unbuckled babies.
- objclxt 14y ago
  See, I'd rather be hit in the face with a heavy, hardback book (say, the complete Lord of the Rings) than the edge of an iPad, let alone a laptop. But maybe that's just me.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    I'd rather be hit in the face with neither. But maybe that's just me.
necubi 14y ago
No, they are banned because of concerns about interference with avionics. Unfortunately for the FAA, this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be more or less impossible, leading to this sort of ridiculous post hoc rationalization. Any sort of rule that singles out electronic devices ("anything with an on-off switch," as the steward will tell you) is inherently going to be ridiculous. The attention argument, or the flying debris argument, apply equally well to any number of allowed things (if anything, electronics tend to be lighter than the books they replace). Ultimately, this was a rule that was made a long time ago, that has long since lost relevance. It should be abolished.
- simonh 14y ago
  But what about the jobs of honest hard working Americans employed to enforce these rules? If we get rid of this pointless rule, what about all the other time wasting, petty, mindless rules and the workers employed to enforce them? Many of these workers have families and children, and no hope of any other gainful employment in these hard economic times. Who's going to stand up for them? Or something.
  - bwilliams18 14y ago
    They still need to serve me drinks and peanuts...and sell me food and alcohol.
  - bickfordb 14y ago
    Yeah, it does seem like this rule and a soda machine would pretty much remove the need of economy class flight attendants.
    - toomuchtodo 14y ago
      I always thought just letting flyers pick out their cold beverage at the gate before takeoff would replace flight attendants (domestic; international still serves food).
    - objclxt 14y ago
      There are plenty of rules that require enforcement that are not petty or stupid: requiring seat belts during take off, landing, and turbulence, or enforcing no smoking policies. I am reminded of the discussion here a while back about Airbnb and hotel regulation: some of New York's regulations governing hotels are stupid and petty...but others come out of a genuine desire for safety (like adequate fire escapes and sprinklers). Same with the FAA: some rules are outdated, and silly: planes should be able to cope with personal electronic devices...but others are to ensure previous disasters don't happen again. I'm sure some airlines would happily have fewer cabin crew if the FAA would let them: yes, they can sell in-flight items, but that probably doesn't break even on the cost of employing them.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
> The point of putting away devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems That is definitely not the reason for the rule. It's a post-rationalization and a poor one. If that were the reason, books wouldn't be allowed out. Speaking of post-rationalizations, one I heard from a flight attendant recently is: "it's not that they aren't safe, just just need your full attention during takeoff and landing."
konstruktor 14y ago
> If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Wouldn't this useless regulation be a nice conversation starter in the right direction? It will establish a (moral) precedent that it's for politicians OK do get rid of rules that are "for safety" but actually aren't.

mahmud 14y ago

The Senator sure wants her iPad on the plane. But what is her position on indefinite detention of Americans, and even their assassination, without the faintest legal fig leaf?

mmanfrin 14y ago
It astounds me that a non sequitur like this is at the top.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  It's pretty good rabble-rousing though.
  - weego 14y ago
    It's like no matter where I go on the internet, a little bit of Slashdot is always there to welcome me.
Kerrick 14y ago
The Senator wants to stop a federal agency staffed by non-elected individuals from regulating customers of private businesses while on private business property. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
- konstruktor 14y ago
  That private business property is flying in public airspace over other entities' private and public property. The federal agency is staffed according to regulations put into legislation by elected individuals.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  In this case the "private business property" comprises huge, heavy, metal objects carrying large amounts of highly inflammable fuel that are flying through the sky at high speed over the heads and homes of millions of people. Regulating this activity seems like a step in the right direction to me.

batgaijin 14y ago

I guess I'll be that guy... what happens when it's a malicious device? http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_boe.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_bo...

daeken 14y ago
Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack. Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight, from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've only once actually had to take out my headphones.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  No, I do not believe the rules we have today make any sense for preventing that.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    So when you said you were 'that guy', you didn't mean someone bringing in a counterargument to a popular position, you meant you were someone bringing in unrelated data and going "Huh? What about this? Huh?".
    - batgaijin 14y ago
      I'm saying that the rules are either going to become more liberal or severely conservative. I'm simply pointing out the conservative, somewhat nonsensical one. I think the rules do not make sense considering my point, as they were never intended for that. And by 'that guy' I mean devil's advocate for a possible future idiotic fear-mongering policy.
- 14y ago

wildranter 14y ago

Whatever is done I hope they never allow people talking on the phone inside airliners. We don't need more annoying people taking long conversations by phone in public enclosed spaces as they were in their living rooms. It's either that or I'll buy a gun!

mahmud 14y ago
Airlines will start offering "quiet" flights at 40% premium, allowing only business class passengers to talk on the phone (or you can upgrade yourself to Communicator level for $20 more and use your phone in economy) In Australia you can pay Qantas $ to "offset" your carbon footprint. Carbon tax is already law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes ;-)
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  "Carbon tax is already law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes." Like the landing fees, 9/11 "security fees" per flight leg, etc? I'm helping them pay for everything already, including their (small) profit =)
  - mahmud 14y ago
    It's Capitalism, if the business is not profitable they should get out of it. No one told them to run on thin margin. Not my responsibility to subsidize bad business decisions.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

thinkling 14y ago

McCaskill's argument that allowing iPads into the cockpit means they should be allowed in the cabin seems weak to me, for two reasons. First, if there are instrument malfunctions in the cockpit, the crew can turn off their own wireless devices to see if they were interfering. It's much harder to get 300 people to shut off their devices in a hurry, especially when some have tucked their devices in the seatback pocket and gone to sleep. Second, it seems entire plausible to my (non-electrical-engineer) mind that 300 devices of a large variety of makes are more likely to cause interference than just one or two, both for the combined signal and the chance that one will be badly designed. I used to be indignant about the PED rule as well. After reading a number of online discussions on it, I'm not convinced that it's obvious that they should be allowed.

konstruktor 14y ago
Also, you can test/certify specific devices for cockpit use on specific planes.
gRaider2001 14y ago
We live in a world were people are not willing to turn off their cell phones for 10 minutes. Very sad