7 ms·

Good. If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board. Shutting down cell radios makes sense; as I understand it, a bunch o

by cheald 13y ago

Good. If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board. Shutting down cell radios makes sense; as I understand it, a bunch of cellphones moving at a couple hundred miles per hour can do some nasty things to cell towers, but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle. I usually just turn the backlight off.

mattzito 13y ago
I find that having a nondescript black case for my kindle makes it look enough like a book or journal that flight attendants have plausible deniability to claim that it didn't look like an electronic device. Call it the e-book equivalent to brown bagging a beer on the street.
- ShabbyDoo 13y ago
  I fly twice a week and have found that the actual rule enforced by flight attendants seems to be, "Don't force me to see it."
WalterSear 13y ago
You solution is to fly business or first class. IME, they just 'suggest' that you turn things off there.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Alec Baldwin disagrees.
  - retroafroman 13y ago
    Was it ever known if that was a marketing stunt for Zynga/Words with Friends? The articles I read about the incident pointed out the app specifically, which lead to some speculation.
    - CurtMonash 13y ago
      Words with Friends kind of presupposes cellular connectivity, albeit not with a lot of traffic.
      - glenra 13y ago
        I believe Baldwin's plane was either still at the gate or parked on the runway at the time. He still could have turned it off prior to actual takeoff.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  It really, really, depends on the FAs and flight. Sometimes I'll openly have my tablet running, watching a movie or whatever, other times I've had an FA insist I actually power off a Kindle (hold down the switch).
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    Certainly. However, in cattle car, it's the rubber hose, and no warning.
IvyMike 13y ago
I think almost every plane in the US these days has a bunch of phones with their radios fully active. People simply ignore the instructions. I'd love to see the raw signal and position data from cell towers near the airport.
cmsimike 13y ago
> but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle I agree BUT you've got to remember that there are a ton of different devices in the world. You can't expect every flight attendant to know what the difference (visually) is between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is, let alone how to set every device to their equivalent "airplane mode." Of all the rules I disagree with, this is the one that I understand the most. > If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board. My understanding (from a pilot friend of mine) that it is really about radio interference with the pilots' radios. Recall the older Edge (for ATT, whatever else for other providers) devices being put up near speakers and that sound made[0]. The rules are still there mainly to protect the pilots' ears from that noise and possibly dropping communication, though I don't know how possible that is. Yes, that isn't common place anymore now that radio frequencies have moved on but how is a flight attendant going to know the difference between an Edge device that causes interference and some 4G device that doesn't? [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw
- wpietri 13y ago
  Yeah, I feel the same way. If the FCC thinks it's fine, great. Otherwise, I can read a magazine for a few minutes. The case that I suspect worries them isn't the well-manufactured, brand-new device on a shiny new plane. It's the older, banged-to-hell, third-rate Chinese knockoff against the oldest avionics in service. The question they have to answer isn't, "Should it be fine?" but "Can we prove it will never cause a glitch at the worst possible moment on the most problematic flight of the 10,000,000 we have each year?" I'm astounded at the arrogance of random people who are sure they know the answer to that based on zero data and a strong sense of entitlement.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Agreed. And there's been a few cases of (presumably poorly shielded) laptops in the 90s causing interference, to the point where the pilot would see the effect appearing/disappearing when the passenger turned on/off the laptop. The ban came about as a proactive measure because of these reports.
snom380 13y ago
This argument is false. It's a matter of reducing the possibility of interference, not eliminating it (which you can't do). Lithium batteries can and have caused in flight fires, would you start claiming that they physically can't, just because we are still allowed to bring them onboard?
- wfunction 13y ago
  Lithium batteries are the perfect example. We still bring them on board despite their dangers. Also see http://xkcd.com/651/ http://xkcd.com/651/
omegant 13y ago
As a commercial pilot I must say that cell phones and other electronics, have an influence in navigation and comunications. It has evolved over time though, the past generation airliners (like B737-200 and MD80) that didn't have GPS or laser inertial navigation, used a magnetic sensor(it detects the earth magnetic fields and gives the data to the navigation instruments) that was easily disturbed by the first generation of cellphones. It could change your heading indication up to 40 degrees. The worst cases where due to the pilot's mobile. Also cd players and the first portable nintendos used to have a mesurable effect on those planes. Modern airliners are better isolated and shielded, also modern electronics transmit with less watts and are better designed. It has become a smaller problem defenitely. For example the problem with comunications is not a big one, it can be a bit annoying (like when you hear your car radio and the cell phone starts receiving a call), but I haven't hear of any mayor comunication failure or trouble caused by that. The only problem remaining is that the most sensible fase of flight is a low visibility approach with the autopilot engaged. In this mode the airplane is using highly accurate radio signals from the ground station, and radio altimeter readings to guide itself till landing. The frecuencies are very different, but when you have 100 people trying to con ect their cellphones to call home and say that they are landing (while at 200 knots). The phones have to try very hard to connect to the ground antennas. This is not a problem if everything is working properly. But if a cable or a computer is in bad conditions(remember that avionics suffer from physical stress that is not usual to ground equipment: humity, vibration, shocks), that may cause bad signals that may triger a system failure (this is the best case as this way you may go around and try again safely), or just modify signals enough to degrade de autopilot behaviour but not trigger an alarm. Although rare, this has happened and it's been the reason the prohibition has been kept all this time. I suppose that the stadistical and technical study of this faults have led to understanding that this cases are more unusual than they used to be. Also it's a fact that even if you ask people to shut down their electronics, there is always a part of the passengers that simply don't know how to do it (older people), have theirs at the checked luggage, forgot it on with the laptop(the rest of us), or simply ignore the crew and hide the phone. So effectively enforcing the prohibition was impossible. I still recommend to set everything in flight mode at least for take off and landing, as we the pilots usually do (please don't tell anyone!), that way you'll also save battery.
- 13y ago
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Yeah, it's a little annoying, but it really drives you absolutely insane? You really can't just turn it off for a few minutes without whining, "but, it's a kinnnnndle"? I don't think flight attendants should be required to identify and evaluate each device and its capabilities. They are trying to keep planes flying safely and on-time. Probably like most, I sensed (but didn't know for certain) that the rule might be overkill, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable and I assumed that someone must have seen some degree of at least theoretical risk, then traded that off against passengers reading a magazine or actually talking to a neighbor for a few minutes. And, in any case, I certainly don't pin it on the flight attendants. Something about that attitude of being irate or angry about it just comes off as entitled and bratty. Like, "how dare you pry me away from my precious device for a few minutes in the name of public safety". Makes me think, "Wow. Get over yourself."
- lukifer 13y ago
  To give cheald the benefit of the doubt, the rage may be more due to absurdity and illogic rather than entitlement. It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles. That's pretty funny. But, no. It wouldn't.

by cheald 13y ago

mattzito 13y ago

I find that having a nondescript black case for my kindle makes it look enough like a book or journal that flight attendants have plausible deniability to claim that it didn't look like an electronic device. Call it the e-book equivalent to brown bagging a beer on the street.

ShabbyDoo 13y ago
I fly twice a week and have found that the actual rule enforced by flight attendants seems to be, "Don't force me to see it."

WalterSear 13y ago

You solution is to fly business or first class. IME, they just 'suggest' that you turn things off there.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Alec Baldwin disagrees.
- retroafroman 13y ago
  Was it ever known if that was a marketing stunt for Zynga/Words with Friends? The articles I read about the incident pointed out the app specifically, which lead to some speculation.
  - CurtMonash 13y ago
    Words with Friends kind of presupposes cellular connectivity, albeit not with a lot of traffic.
    - glenra 13y ago
      I believe Baldwin's plane was either still at the gate or parked on the runway at the time. He still could have turned it off prior to actual takeoff.
MichaelGG 13y ago
It really, really, depends on the FAs and flight. Sometimes I'll openly have my tablet running, watching a movie or whatever, other times I've had an FA insist I actually power off a Kindle (hold down the switch).
- WalterSear 13y ago
  Certainly. However, in cattle car, it's the rubber hose, and no warning.

IvyMike 13y ago

I think almost every plane in the US these days has a bunch of phones with their radios fully active. People simply ignore the instructions. I'd love to see the raw signal and position data from cell towers near the airport.

cmsimike 13y ago

> but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle I agree BUT you've got to remember that there are a ton of different devices in the world. You can't expect every flight attendant to know what the difference (visually) is between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is, let alone how to set every device to their equivalent "airplane mode." Of all the rules I disagree with, this is the one that I understand the most. > If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board. My understanding (from a pilot friend of mine) that it is really about radio interference with the pilots' radios. Recall the older Edge (for ATT, whatever else for other providers) devices being put up near speakers and that sound made[0]. The rules are still there mainly to protect the pilots' ears from that noise and possibly dropping communication, though I don't know how possible that is. Yes, that isn't common place anymore now that radio frequencies have moved on but how is a flight attendant going to know the difference between an Edge device that causes interference and some 4G device that doesn't? [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw

wpietri 13y ago
Yeah, I feel the same way. If the FCC thinks it's fine, great. Otherwise, I can read a magazine for a few minutes. The case that I suspect worries them isn't the well-manufactured, brand-new device on a shiny new plane. It's the older, banged-to-hell, third-rate Chinese knockoff against the oldest avionics in service. The question they have to answer isn't, "Should it be fine?" but "Can we prove it will never cause a glitch at the worst possible moment on the most problematic flight of the 10,000,000 we have each year?" I'm astounded at the arrogance of random people who are sure they know the answer to that based on zero data and a strong sense of entitlement.
- snom380 13y ago
  Agreed. And there's been a few cases of (presumably poorly shielded) laptops in the 90s causing interference, to the point where the pilot would see the effect appearing/disappearing when the passenger turned on/off the laptop. The ban came about as a proactive measure because of these reports.

snom380 13y ago

This argument is false. It's a matter of reducing the possibility of interference, not eliminating it (which you can't do). Lithium batteries can and have caused in flight fires, would you start claiming that they physically can't, just because we are still allowed to bring them onboard?

wfunction 13y ago
Lithium batteries are the perfect example. We still bring them on board despite their dangers. Also see http://xkcd.com/651/ http://xkcd.com/651/

omegant 13y ago

As a commercial pilot I must say that cell phones and other electronics, have an influence in navigation and comunications. It has evolved over time though, the past generation airliners (like B737-200 and MD80) that didn't have GPS or laser inertial navigation, used a magnetic sensor(it detects the earth magnetic fields and gives the data to the navigation instruments) that was easily disturbed by the first generation of cellphones. It could change your heading indication up to 40 degrees. The worst cases where due to the pilot's mobile. Also cd players and the first portable nintendos used to have a mesurable effect on those planes. Modern airliners are better isolated and shielded, also modern electronics transmit with less watts and are better designed. It has become a smaller problem defenitely. For example the problem with comunications is not a big one, it can be a bit annoying (like when you hear your car radio and the cell phone starts receiving a call), but I haven't hear of any mayor comunication failure or trouble caused by that. The only problem remaining is that the most sensible fase of flight is a low visibility approach with the autopilot engaged. In this mode the airplane is using highly accurate radio signals from the ground station, and radio altimeter readings to guide itself till landing. The frecuencies are very different, but when you have 100 people trying to con ect their cellphones to call home and say that they are landing (while at 200 knots). The phones have to try very hard to connect to the ground antennas. This is not a problem if everything is working properly. But if a cable or a computer is in bad conditions(remember that avionics suffer from physical stress that is not usual to ground equipment: humity, vibration, shocks), that may cause bad signals that may triger a system failure (this is the best case as this way you may go around and try again safely), or just modify signals enough to degrade de autopilot behaviour but not trigger an alarm. Although rare, this has happened and it's been the reason the prohibition has been kept all this time. I suppose that the stadistical and technical study of this faults have led to understanding that this cases are more unusual than they used to be. Also it's a fact that even if you ask people to shut down their electronics, there is always a part of the passengers that simply don't know how to do it (older people), have theirs at the checked luggage, forgot it on with the laptop(the rest of us), or simply ignore the crew and hide the phone. So effectively enforcing the prohibition was impossible. I still recommend to set everything in flight mode at least for take off and landing, as we the pilots usually do (please don't tell anyone!), that way you'll also save battery.

13y ago

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Yeah, it's a little annoying, but it really drives you absolutely insane? You really can't just turn it off for a few minutes without whining, "but, it's a kinnnnndle"? I don't think flight attendants should be required to identify and evaluate each device and its capabilities. They are trying to keep planes flying safely and on-time. Probably like most, I sensed (but didn't know for certain) that the rule might be overkill, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable and I assumed that someone must have seen some degree of at least theoretical risk, then traded that off against passengers reading a magazine or actually talking to a neighbor for a few minutes. And, in any case, I certainly don't pin it on the flight attendants. Something about that attitude of being irate or angry about it just comes off as entitled and bratty. Like, "how dare you pry me away from my precious device for a few minutes in the name of public safety". Makes me think, "Wow. Get over yourself."

lukifer 13y ago
To give cheald the benefit of the doubt, the rage may be more due to absurdity and illogic rather than entitlement. It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles. That's pretty funny. But, no. It wouldn't.