5 ms·

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 y

by 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.

by wtn 14y ago

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.