FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles & Tablets On Takeoff & Landing

from the about-time dept

Mon, Mar 19th 2012 3:33am — Mike Masnick

It's been pretty clear for quite some time that there's no real safety reason why electronics are barred during takeoff and landing on airplanes. Furthermore, there's no legitimate technological reason for not allowing mobile phones on planes either -- that one's more just about keeping other passengers from going into a rage at having to hear others' half-conversations. However, it seems that more and more people are getting annoyed that they can't use their snazzy new ebooks or tablet computers (not just iPads, mind you) on airplane take-off and landings. Nick Bilton, over at the NY Times, asked the FAA what was up with that, and they admitted that they're taking "a fresh look" at those devices and whether or not they should be allowed to be used at those times. Of course, as he notes, this might just lead to a bunch of bureaucratic red tape -- including every possible device having to go through significant testing:

Abby Lunardini, vice president of corporate communications at Virgin America, explained that the current guidelines require that an airline must test each version of a single device before it can be approved by the F.A.A. For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane.

It would have to do the same for every version of the Kindle. It would have to do it for every different model of plane in its fleet. And American, JetBlue, United, Air Wisconsin, etc., would have to do the same thing. (No wonder the F.A.A. is keeping smartphones off the table since there are easily several hundred different models on the market.)

Ms. Lunardini added that Virgin America would like to perform these tests, but the current guidelines make it “prohibitively expensive, especially for an airline with a relatively small fleet that is always in the air on commercial flights like ours.”

But, hopefully, a better, more efficient process can be found, and people will actually be able to use these devices on airplanes that aren't just over 10,000 feet...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ebooks, electronics, faa, flights, in-flight electronics, landing, tablets, takeoff

65 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

peter, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:05am

Mobile phones
"Furthermore, there's no legitimate technological reason for not allowing mobile phones on planes either"

Much as I agree with the general thrust of your argument (i.e. no particular EMC/safety reason to ban general electronic devices such as tablets), there is a very good technological reason for not allowing the use of mobile phones on planes.

Bacically its to do with the handoff of a mobile phone from one cell to another and if you are in a plane, the cellphone can see multiple cells and the multiple conitinuous handovers it causes sends the cell network into a tizzy. There is also the problem of reducing the chanel reuse, which is at the heart of a cell networks's ability to handle millions of cellphones.

At least one airline is getting the message that a straight ban on all devices is silly. We were allowed to use any devices during flight, even mobile phones as long as they were switched to aircraft mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- @peter #1, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:23am
  
  Re: Mobile phones
  So the FAA regulates mobile phone networks now? Because the signals go through the same air the aviation industry relies on?
  
  If the cell networks go into a tizzy because something is flying by at 500 mph, then there is probably a technological fix that can be instituted to look for that circumstance and minimize its effect. But cell networks' tizzy-fits have yet to bring down a single airplane, and most likely never will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - peter, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:41am
    
    Re: Re: Mobile phones
    "tizzy-fits have yet to bring down a single airplane"
    
    Ahem
    
    "no particular EMC/safety reason to ban.....good technological reason"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mobile phones
      "no particular EMC/safety reason to ban.....good technological reason"
      
      That could be a reason for cell network operators to prevent the use of mobile phones in planes, or possibly the FCC, but not a good reason for the FAA to do so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:50am
  
  Re: Mobile phones
  Bacically its to do with the handoff of a mobile phone from one cell to another and if you are in a plane, the cellphone can see multiple cells and the multiple conitinuous handovers it causes sends the cell network into a tizzy. There is also the problem of reducing the chanel reuse, which is at the heart of a cell networks's ability to handle millions of cellphones.
  
  This is a problem that was "solved" ages ago with pico cells. We already see it on tons of airplanes with internet access. No reason it wouldn't work for mobile phones too.
  
  That was the old excuse, but it's no excuse any more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:31am
    
    Re: Re: Mobile phones
    Still the annoying factor persists. My case in point is, I am very OCD and so other minor personality issues. I was seated next to a guy who had his cellphone on while we were waiting to take off (after the turn off cellphone sign lit up) which normally wouldn't bother me however, not only was I listening to one half of a heated argument but the gentleman next to me was very, vocal and animate with hand and arm gestures equally flailing randomly. I actually thought he might be having a seizure of some sort. I feel that sort of thing would be a good reason to ban them, tight quarters and people who can't sit still is not a good combination.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PlagueSD (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re: Mobile phones
    Actually, they ban mobile phones so they can charge you an arm and a leg to use the in-flight phone system. Although, I don't see them much anymore. I think only Delta and American Airlines still have them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Mobile phones
  Bacically its to do with the handoff of a mobile phone from one cell to another and if you are in a plane, the cellphone can see multiple cells and the multiple conitinuous handovers it causes sends the cell network into a tizzy. There is also the problem of reducing the chanel reuse, which is at the heart of a cell networks's ability to handle millions of cellphones.
  
  You ever try getting a signal from a cell tower at 36,000 feet up? If you do end up connecting to a tower, you're moving so fast that by the time you do end up getting a signal, you're out of range. (Last flight I was on, my phone's GPS had me at around 37,000 ft up and traveling around 300mph.) Yes, GPS still works because you're using satellites.
  
  The only thing leaving your cell phone on in an airplane does is drain the battery while it tries to find a cell tower.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: Mobile phones
  To the extent that this is a problem (and it's not), that should be the FCC's department, not the FAA's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:16am

Are they going to rekindle the fire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:45am

Faraday invented some cages that could help, and people today have discovered fiber optics is a wonderful thing since it doesn't transmit interfering electro-magnetic signals.

But they could get scared about those Blimpduinos (a.k.a. UAVs) controlled by iPads and iPhones, someone could control one to deliver or drop a bomb on the plane :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  i dont think those were out when this ban started
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:48am

"hopefully, a better, more efficient process can be found"

paper backs and magazines?

Old school airline courtesy accommodations included recent periodicals onboard. The flight attendants would even ask passengers if they would like something to read. This was before everyone was treated like cattle.

Now days they have ads in every seatback, dont you feel special? Even your dentist has better reading material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:58am
  
  Re:
  "This was before everyone was treated like cattle."
  
  have you considered that the demand is for pricing like cattle? Why do you think airlines are charging for every checked bag now? They are trying their hardest to meet your price point demands, and if that means cutting everything except toilet paper in the loo, then they will do it.
  
  You want to pay a cattle price, so you get cattle service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:29am
    
    Cattle price?
    Lost in your pseudo-analysis is the manner in which airlines meet the price point demands: charging fee upon fee for extras or slight increases in comfort are how they make ridiculous profits for a select few.
    
    Pilots and crew do not make incredible dollars. Flight line sure doesn't. ATC, nope. Gate staff, nope. Yet, subsidy dollars keep flowing their way. Where's the money going?
    
    It sure isn't going into a positive flight experience. Seats are cramped, service is diminished, and we're saddled with security theater that forces flyers to buy overpriced water at Hudson News. There's a racket going on for sure, but it's not driven by customer demand for poor treatment.
    
    -C
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    "You want to pay a cattle price, so you get cattle service."
    
    Where did I ask for the a cattle price - I am not finding it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you saying that when you fly, you don't check price? You just book an airline because of X or Y and don't look at the price? You won't switch airlines to save money on your trip?
      
      Damn, you are the perfect customer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Depending on the destination/length of the flight absolutely...
        
        I know from personal experience that DFW to Bangalore is a completely different experience on BA or Lufthansa vs. AA or Delta (to be fair Delta was to/from Madrid, but the point still holds)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Are you saying that when you fly, you don't check price? "
        
        TIL: Competition in the marketplace == treat your customers like cattle.
        
        You see? I learn something new everyday - isn't life wonderful?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm asking for the cattle price! I fly regularly for personal and professional reasons, and as far as I'm concerned the plane can be a greyhound bus with wings that has to take off by using a ramp if it keeps the cost low and the safety is mostly there (who wants to live forever?).
      
      I'll just put my chin to my sternum, put my headphones in, and sleep for the 6-7 hour flight.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1263905/Ryanair-toilet-charges-phased-in.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mobile Broadband Blogger, 21 Mar 2012 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  I totally agree with you. Reading magazines, newspapers and paperbacks can ease the boredom during flight. If only flight attendants were accommodating enough to check on the passengers' needs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:49am

What I don't get is this: The amount of time on a flight that you cannot use these devices is from 0 to 10,000 feet going up and 10,000 to 0 coming down. It's a very small percentage of the total flight time, even for very short haul flights. It would seem that the public's grand need is just getting a little greedy.

I don't know if the devices would ever effect a plane. I don't want to find out when I am in one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anonymous, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:21am
  
  Re:
  It is not a matter of public greed, but of a rule that has become unnecessary but yet remains in place. There is no benefit to the existence of this rule to anyone, and as such it stands to reason that the rule should be phased out.
  
  Given a small hassle v. nothing and the small hassle is the more important one.
  
  Further, the fact of the matter is that the tests wouldn't be carried out if there was reason to believe that it would be disruptive to the plane itself.
  
  I'm reasonably certain the initial bans came from a fear that communications technology could potentially interfere with crucial communications from the control tower. Such a test can easily be carried out in a parallel, and there shouldn't be any need to test every iteration of a device.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:44am
  
  Re:
  Seems you are simply an airlines apologist, care to explain?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  "I don't know if the devices would ever effect a plane. I don't want to find out when I am in one."
  
  Any damage your cell phone could cause is puny compared to a thunderstorm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, and that is why generally planes don't take off or land in thunderstorms.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, takeoff and landing are the only times when lightning is of concern in an airplane. Certainly NASA is crazy for wasting any time and/or resources with their silly investigations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    Any damage your cell phone could cause is puny compared to a thunderstorm.
    
    I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but planes get hit by lightning all the time and it's no problem. High winds from a thunderstorm could be quite dangerous of course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Miko, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  "I don't know if the devices would ever effect a plane. I don't want to find out when I am in one."
  
  By contrast, I do know whether these devices would effect a plane (to whit, they wouldn't) and I absolutely want to find out when I'm in one (by actually using the device). Why should the fact that you don't understand basic science be a reason to inconvenience the rest of us?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  "I don't know if the devices would ever effect a plane. I don't want to find out when I am in one."
  
  I don't know if an airplane can fly across the ocean without crashing into my house and I don't want to find out when I'm in my house. Lets ban airplanes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darin (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:26am

RE:
Why can't they just load up a plane with the top 100 electronic devices (laptops, tablets, mp3 player and cell phones). I don't think they need to find out if just one device is a problem, if they get a whole plane full of devices and don't have a problem, that would be good enough for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: RE:
  nah wouldnt work, not expensive enough
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: RE:
  The Mythbusters already did an episode where they put a high powered transmitter in the cockpit of an airplane and blasted it full blast. The result? It had no effect on any of the readings or electronics or anything whatsoever.
  
  As the episode notes, airplanes are specifically hard wired to easily withstand high powered electromagnetic interferences without being affected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
spikey, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:50am

Arbitrary Government Power
The problem here isn't about cell phone transmissions or not. Its about an Appointed (not elected) body of bureaucrats determining what the citizenry can do or not do.

Their "fresh look" is more likely a first look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: Arbitrary Government Power
  Exactly. The airlines should be deciding the policy on their planes. They have much more of a vested interest to keep the plane safe than the FAA, but they also have an interest in keeping it safe using methods that are customer-friendly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re: Arbitrary Government Power
    Right on, I've never heard of a company putting profit over passenger safety. I mean think of all the PR they'd have to spin if an untested engine causes a plane crash. Just don't worry about the insurance they pay on the plane. That would barely cover the cost to have it shipped to the recycling yard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arbitrary Government Power
      Yes, it is so profitable to make people turn on their electronic devices. I hear the microtubes from these intersmart-phonethings suck the money right out of the fuel tanks!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
big al, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:53am

ipads in cockpits
seems to me that there is a vast number of tablets in use every day in mil and general aviation... 7 million by the just spent by the airforce... general aviation uses them for everything from checklists to navigation. nope greed is the answer.if you can charge it .. keep it regulated and make em pay and pay and....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:53am

They're not airplanes, they're aeroplanes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:59am

The TSA causes way too much of a pain in the ass to fly. As luck would also have it, the exorbitant high air fare rates completely justify - actually MAKE ME LOOK GOOD at work saving $$ - when I choose to get rental cars instead of flying.

Plus, my wife can spend the entire drive on the kindle if she so chooses. I would, of course, be busy driving anyway.

Why this is even something the FAA is wasting time on boggles my mind... no wonder this country is falling into the toilet - look at how the tax dollars are being spent.

With the incompetence of the TSA and FAA - iPads and Kindle are the least of our worries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wes, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:59am

Can I save the airlines some cash? I've never turned off my iphone, kindle, or galaxy nexus on the hundreds of take offs and landings I've participated in. Test passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Todd, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  You and others...
  
  Many others 'turn off' their Kindle, but all they are actually doing is locking the screen. It is still able to sync your content via 3G if it can get a signal
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:02am

Good News Everyone!
The testing is already done because half of the passengers turn there device back on once the flight attendants sit down for take off/landing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:26am

Serenity now!
Here's what I don't get. Here's the article though that's not the one I remember reading last year:
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/airlines-replace-pilots-flight-bags-with-greener-ipads-3 2304
It talks about FAA having already approved the iPad for use by pilots during take-off and landings and possibly using them for aviation maps rather than having pilots haul tons of maps around.
So wouldn't that prove that iPads do not interfere with flight controls? Or am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pickle Monger (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: Serenity now!
  Aha! Here's the article I read a YEAR ago: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/02/faa-ipad/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:32am

Apparently pilots can use them
Via the linked article, I note in passing that pilots are allowed to use iPads during takeoff and landing, just not passengers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:36am

The relevant technical discussion can be found on slashdot.

Its a bit more knowledgable than the fear based rhetoric I see going on here by some AC.

To be sure, there is some rational discussion taking place here, but as my first line indicates, the discusson is a bit more technical at slashdot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theangryintern (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:44am

Here's a question: Do the pilots have to turn their iPads off during take off and landing? I remember seeing an article a while back where I think it was United Airlines was putting all their flight manuals onto iPads for the pilots to use so they didn't have to lug around heavy books anymore. If they can use them *IN* the cockpit, there's no reason the passengers can't use them in the cabin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- theangryintern (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  doh! Now I see Pickle Monger's post up above mine. Should have skimmed all the comments a bit better. I guess it was American Airlines and Alaska that have their pilots using iPads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:12am

Seriously curb your addiction and read a book or magazine for 15 minutes... jeez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  You mean fifteen hours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:18am

I don't get it...
So basically the FAA is saying that someone can carry an electronic device on an airplane that can cause a plane to crash?

Any electronic device disguised as a consumer electronic can make it through carry-on luggage screening. And for the most part we are relying on herd compliance to know if those devices are turned off. Hell I've accidentally forgotten to turn my phone off and only discovered the fact after I land and my battery is drained.

I can understand the FAA wanting people to listen to the safety announcement, but after that, what's the point?

I am far more worried about someone intentionally trying to bring a plane down using a purpose built device than any UL/CE certified consumer electronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:54am

Hey! What if we crowdsourced testing this! I can personally attest that the ipod nano, ipod clip, cowon d2+ (with and without SD card), sandisk clip, droid incredible, etc... can all be operated for the duration of your flight without causing interference/fiery death. Or at least if they did each time I flew the pilot didn't complain.

If everyone just submitted a list of devices they've used when they said they were off (yeah, really, my music player's off, I just don't feel like taking the earbuds out, sure) I bet we could have the majority of phones/music players cleared in a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:10am

But if I can use my cell phone on the airplane, airliners can't charge me to call out!!! Our bought FAA can't allow that, now, can they?

(and before you say that such cell phone interference could cause a problem, Mythbusters did an extensive show on that busting that Myth).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  A friend's dad works at Boeing and tested all this stuff. On really old planes (DC3), the shielding is really bad and many electronics cause issues.
  
  But on all modern planes built in the last 40 years, there are no issues.
  
  The one issue that does exist is the cell phone issue. I have heard from several friends in the cell phone industry that cells going from tower to tower at 500+ miles per hour would really cause issues if there were hundreds of them doing it at once. Still, they would probably solve it for the extra revenue.
  
  But personally, I am all for an all-but-phones rule right now. It should be fine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The one issue that does exist is the cell phone issue. I have heard from several friends in the cell phone industry that cells going from tower to tower at 500+ miles per hour would really cause issues if there were hundreds of them doing it at once.
    
    Issues for what, the cell network or the plane? If the former and not the latter, the FAA should not be involved.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:18am

Call the bluff and enjoy the Clash of the Titans
If there electronic devices and mobile phones could actually cause a crash if used during take of and landing, then they should be considered a terrorist threat. If terrorist as willing to sneak a bomb on plane in the diaper of an infant, then surely they have devised a plan to call home on a mobile phone during take off while playing their iPods.

Protect the children from terrorists on planes. We need to let the TSA confiscate these deadly devices at the direction of the FAA and then watch how quickly the whole issue gets SOPA'd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:27am

Crashing
They are just doing an all electronics off rule.

While it is true that mostly all devices are harmless imagine if one person tampered with their device in their basement and it now spews out signals that would crash the plane.

An all off rule avoids that situation. Then if a really bad device caused a plane malfunction in the air then the pilot have plenty of time to scream out "all devices off" while the fly is falling out of the sky.

Now I am not saying it is not extremely extremely unlikely for this to happen but why even take that risk instead of waiting a few minutes?

The only exception I would like to permit would be cameras that have no transmitter built in. I have before enjoyed recording the take off or landing on video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:53pm

Books
I was recently scolded by a stewardess to 'stow' my iPad away for takeoff because I wasn't allowed to hold it on my lap, even though it was off. She said it was a safety issue, as it could become a flying missile if there was some kind of turbulent emergency.

I calmly pointed to the guy sitting next to me, who was reading his dead-tree hardcover book, at least twice the size and weight of my iPad, and which was an even greater missile danger. Yet he was allowed to keep his book unstowed.

She pursed her lips as she realized the logical absurdity involved, but nevertheless made me stow the iPad, saying, "I don't make the rules, I only enforce them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:47pm
  
  Re: Books
  All passengers should be handcuffed and shock collared, you know, just in case.
  
  It would be even better if they were sedated, strapped to a backboard and stacked like bricks, that way the airlines could get more passengers per flight thus maximizing their profits. Oh yeah - and they could get rid of all those whiny flight attendants too.
  
  To the white board ... we will need a catchy slogan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Lyon, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:15pm

Just lump em all together
Put one of each device on one plane and see if there are any problems.
If there aren't then those devices are fine, if there IS a problem, then hunt down the offending device(s).
The problem caused will tell you how to detect which device is causing problems.

The argument that it is exorbitantly expensive is an excuse to maintain the status quo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard, 20 Mar 2012 @ 7:10am

From what one understands, some of the regulations in the US have to do with the FCC, not the FAA, regarding the issue of a phone trying to communicate with multiple cell towers on the ground. Mike mentioned that this would not be an issue if there was an onboard picocell (if one is correct, this means that phones onboard would try to communicate with the picocell.) Of course, there may be issues of cost, especially if it is important for the picocell system to always be functional in order to avoid disruption of traditional cell towers.

On a slightly different topic: is there any truth to the statement that (in the US at least) that persons who are piloting or riding in a hot-air balloon are legally disallowed from using cell phones? (In such a case, it would seem that interference with avionics would essentially be a non-issue, though there might be an issue with a phone contacting multiple cell towers on the ground. Even so, a hot-air balloon would not drift through the air anywhere near as fast as a jetliner. Also from what one understands, it can be convenient for persons riding in hot-air balloons to use two-way radios to communicate with ground crews.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:02pm

Classic Penny Arcade strip
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 23 Mar 2012 @ 6:12pm

It doesn't even matter!
Next time you take a flight to wherever, take the 30 seconds to enable bluetooth and maybe even WI-FI. Can you count how many people just don't give a f**k and leave bluetooth, wi-fi, data, and everything else on? And that's probably only your cabin.

What I did in the last plane I went to (true story, happened on Air Canada) is mess around with this guy in the row in front of me. I noticed he was using a Bluetooth mouse, so I looked at the computer he was using. It was a Macbook Pro.

On my own Macbook, I connected to him via Bluetooth repeatedly, and also found out his name. When he finally turned off his Bluetooth, I looked at his seat number and created a Wi-Fi network named "Thank Seat 11C".

After around 3 hours, I found out that I still had the network open. How? Apparently the flight attendant was checking up and got pissed. He was requested to shutdown his computer!

Long story short, noone gives a FUCK about the wireless networking rules in aircrafts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]