Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
This seems to focus mainly on takeoff and/or landing yet these are the points that most people don't really care about. Both the takeoff and landing portion constitute of maybe a maximum of 5-10 minutes each. I mean unless you're doing a short hop flight this isn't really going to be much of an issue. I'm flying from the UK to Japan in June and I don't think I'm going to care if for 20 minutes I can't use my iPod. I'll be annoyed if they don't let me use it the other 12+ hours though.
It's a pretty paltry issue, the real problem is when the flight attendants may attempt to stop you using gadgets mid flight. As for takeoff and landing though? Let them have their superstitions, all it's hurting is the whiny and impatient who can't be without headphones for a few minutes. Read a damn book until the plane is in the air.
"...and you guys will let me listen to my iPod after the flight attendants are in their seats and I'm making peace with my god."
Sounds like you find flight a little frightening, like many people I'm sure. Wouldn't flight be a LOT scarier if the industry wasn't operated in the ultra-conservative and highly regulated fashion that it is?
Look, we can split hairs over 15 minutes of gadget restrictions, or we can be glad they let us use them outside of that restriction window. The FAA has MUCH better initiatives to focus on, like modernizing air traffic control.
I think they should go to the companies and give them the dangerous frequency ranges and the companies could use those numbers to make "FAA Approved" devices. If your item has the FAA approved tag then your free to use it. I could imagine that apple, nokia, dell, hp, and all those other companies will soon do it to maxamize sales and cosumer satisfaction.
@PN - gooapplesoft: Could you imagine the workload for the flight attendants to keep checking passenger's devices for approval stickers each time someone pulls it out of their bag or pocket during a flight?
"But every time a flight attendant perpetuates the lie that these harmless gadgets are somehow a threat to safety, it erodes the faith that they should be cultivating with their customers."
This is really the heart of the matter. Treat me like a responsible adult, and I will act like one, and that includes helping you out when you need it (as I have done in the past when assisting a flight attendant with a belligerent drunk). Treat me like a retarded child and I will act like a sheep.
@Canoehead: I'm a flight attendant and you know what the problem with letting you keep your gadget on, as knowledgeable as I am about most gadgets their are too many for me to keep track as to what is a cellphone, what is in airplane mode and what isn't AND its my da#$ job. I hate to say this but I don't make the rules and if an FAA inspector is on my plane(and it happens more often then the public knows) you know who pays the fine, ME and I may loose my job. So please don't tell me to take it easy on you, take it easy on me cause I have to do this. Why not just shut your phone off, your laptop off, don't just close it or put it away cause we aren't all electronic illiterate. If you had secret shoppers at your job that could fine your in the thousands of dollars(look it up) you would enforce the rules too.
To be fair I don't like the rule either but I don't get a say while I'm working.
@Evan Jacob: Um, because the book that I carry is a Kindle, and anyone familiar with NY knows you can be stuck in ground taxi for an hour. With nothing to read. And my problem is not with you, it is with the FAA/FCC, or whoever makes these rules, and the airlines who are too gutless or stupid to try to get the rules changed to something more reasonable.
You might also remember that I am what is called a "paying customer". I am not a cow or sheep on the way to market. It would be nice if the airlines remembered it.
And moreover, you are attempting to enforce a rule you can't enforce anyway - you don't know if I have an entire ham radio station broadcasting from my bag in the overhead bin - instead this is all about the APPEARANCE of compliance, but I guess that is good enough for government work.
@Canoehead: You choose the Kindle I didn't make you bring it you knew the rule before you got on the plane. I live in Ny have most of my life, I fly out of JFK LGA and EWR more in a month then most will in a life time. If you have no problem with me then why say " Treat me like a responsible adult, and I will act like one, and that includes helping you out when you need it (as I have done in the past when assisting a flight attendant with a belligerent drunk). " so I am to treat you differently then I am required to?
Also because you are a paying customer I should forget the rules I once again did not make?
And once again the rule isn't mine and I'm routinely being watched I can not and will not make an exception for you my job and money on the line. I agree the rule should be different but until it is expect me to do my job, and I will expect you to ignore me.
@Evan Jacob: Wow - really is all about you isn't it? I think my last comment made it pretty clear this is not about individual flight attendants, but it is true that you and your colleagues are the visible face of the airline industry. You also appear to have completely internalized their attitude towards customers.
I really don't want to make this personal, which was the point of my last comment, but I know that if my business has rules which continually piss off my clients, then it is part of my job to try to work through the hierarchy to try to get the rules changed, whereas you appear to like the fact that the myriad of aviation rules allows you to be a petty dictator. I wonder if this has anything to do with the serial bankruptcies of the various airlines?
@RainyDayInterns: interesting but wrong... Actually they do that to see if some retarded passenger is going to the bathroom or stretching their legs while the plane is taking off. Also if anyone has an emergency they would see it quickly and could take care of it. Have you ever wondered why your evidence isn't consistent? the flight attendants sitting in the back are always facing the front....
@PN - gooapplesoft: because if the attendants sitting the back were to also face the back...then everyone would think that attendant did something "bad" and was being punished...
@RainyDayInterns: Is that the same myth that the reason the you put the hands over the back of your head and bend down is that if there is a fire that sweeps over the main cabin and you're all charred up you are still able to be recognized by your dental records? (i've heard that)
This is a really long article about something that I would consider a minor annoyance, first world or not. Must be a slow news day. Just turn the gadget off, and pick your fights. Like for something that could possibly considered 'important.'
@k-napped: You probably don't fly too much. I fly a lot. From the time the door closes (when you're supposed to turn you device off) to actually reaching 10,000 feet can be more than 30 minutes based on taxi and stacking time. Typically the time between the landing announcement to power off and wheels down is 20-25 minutes. That's an hour of my time I could be productive, even with my device in Airplane mode.
@EBone: Look at it this way, thats an hour of your time you can spend not being productive and simply sitting on your butt doing nothing. Much like I do every day.
I've always been curious about Part 15 of the FCC - ya know, the stuff embossed on almost every electronic device (or in its manual). I thought my LapDSKindlePodMan / PDA-PMP-VCR-CED-IED (that's implanted electronic devices to you terrorists out there) - can't cause interference?
I had always assumed it was more about being alert during the first and last 20 minutes of the flight. Those are the times when most things could go wrong, technically, and they don't want people tripping over cords and not being able to hear the pilot over their Korn music.
I once knew a pilot (a drunkard at that) who worked for Korea air- he just flew back and forth all day long from SFO to Korea, and he said it's just getting the plane in the air and landing it that takes skill, the rest is all automated.
I can't count the number of times my work celly was on (unintentionally) in my briefcase while stowed overhead, and nothing happened. I've left my personal celly on maybe a dozen times (forgot to turn off) and nothing happened, either. As much as it may sound like "more big government", I think that the FCC and the FAA could spend six months creating common "air-safe transmission thresholds" and require that any portable device that submits for FCC certification meet the air-safe requirement. It's not a great idea, I'll admit, because then who'll check the devices and what will be the ramifications for using unapproved devices? It's only recently that I've noticed most air crews not bugging people about having their noise-canceling headphones on at takeoff & landing, but there are always a few hyper-vigilant nasty grandma attendants that seem to harp on them. I just go with taking my headphones off my ears for takeoff and landing. Seems to satisfy even the vigilant attendants.
As far as the announcements go, I think the FAA would be better served if they simply fired all those attendants who make the announcements into some kind of comic monologue. I can block out the 800th rehash on how my seat belt works just fine (it's noise canceling supplied by my brain!), but these attendants-cum-comedy-geniuses make me want to snap my spork in half -- if they still had sporks, that is.
@milrtime83: Hyperbole much? Crashing is the extreme. If there were some effect on the plane's control systems, I expect the pilot or attendants to take steps to eliminate that effect for everyone's safety. (Maybe announce to the cabin that a signal has been detected and cellphones need to be checked to ensure they are off. How 'bout that?) I have yet to see any device or technology on airplanes to identify cabin signals coming from cellphones. Oh, they've got fabulous restroom smoke detectors to save everyone from secondhand smoke, but nothing to ferret out electronic devices that could -=maybe=- interfere with cockpit devices? Really? It would be appropriate to have them, don't you think, if safety is the priority? The fact is that neither you or I know if any of the phone signals coming from me or my briefcase (unintentionally, I'll repeat) were noticeable to anyone. Personally, I think it's less about safety and more about authority and discipline in the cabin.
@ninjagin: "nothing happened" doesn't mean what you think it means. Your still powered on cell phone cranked up the power to the radio to try and keep a connection, draining the battery faster then normal. It also saw more towers on the ground due to the aerial view, and held a slot on each of them, thus taking slots from people on the ground. The boost in power might have also introduced minor sound interference into improperly shielded wiring in the plane, causing the captain of the plane to have to ask for an instruction to be repeated, thus tying up an air traffic controller longer then necessary and potentially delaying another flight landing or take off.
If phones were a huge danger to flights, then yes, they would be banned outright. However, they can still cause inconveniences to the people who are just trying to do their job and fly you where you need to go.
@drakino: Pedantically, you're correct. A lot of things "happened" to my phone: the connection (if any) it may have had to the ground, the battery usage level, etc. If there's wiring that's improperly shielded, that's a bigger problem than my errant celly. Ever heard of sunspots? They're REALLY hard to shut off before takeoff and landing, I can assure you.
I'll repeat, for the hard-of-reading, all of these occasions of celly-left-on were unintentional. I'm generally pretty good about shutting things off.
Yet, like the previous respondent to my comment, you're just making things up (oh, sorry, I meant to say "engaging in hypothetical explorations") in an attempt to defend people who are "just doing their job flying me where I need to go". I don't think they need defending. I'm paying THEM to know the risks and control them. If they can do neither, then they are NOT doing their jobs and are being paid too much by me. If they want to step up to know the risks and control them, that's a fair value proposition for which the me and the market will bear the additional costs. The market currently bears the cost of knowing and controlling any number of risks, from boxcutters, explosive air jordans, to "things that look like water but may not be". There are even "friendlier" risks that get evaluated -- like animals in the passenger cabin, holding babies on your lap, and the width of an obese person that requires the purchase of a second seat. Don't you think celly/WiFi EMI interference from the cabin bears the same serious assessment of risk if the plane's systems -=could=- be adversely affected?
The airplane cabin is a highly-controlled place where money gets made and lost on every flight, and CBAs get done for the size and shape of the windows, riveting patterns, seat width, cabin materials, seat spacing, food and beverage service, in-flight entertainment and a host of other things. Why not for this ostensibly credible risk as well? Someone did a cost-benefit analysis on celly/WiFi signal detection, I'm guessing, and it was seen as a waste of money. That's my speculation.
These days, I think it could also have to do with terror safety.
This is just conjecture, but the idea of personal electronics used to coordinate with other people on a flight, or even OFF the flight could potentially be a reason to keep the ban going.
@bornonbord: Which is why obsessively guarding against movie-plot threats is not a wise investment of time and resources. (Building a better mousetrap and all that jazz)
I like to listen to my iPod during takeoff, but I generally avoid being bugged by leaving my headphones off during the pre-flight safety demo. If they don't see you've been blocking out their safety instructions they'll probably leave you alone.
In my opinion, I think they perpetuate this myth because it's easier to tell most people that it can cause technical problems, than it is to convince frequent fliers that they have to listen to the same instructions that they've probably heard ad nauseam prior, but the attendants can't possibly pick and choose who should listen to what. Just my little theory.
@Kaiser-Machead: I don't fly that often but I do fly often enough that I can pretty much recite the safety instructions by heart. I've seen some airlines bypass it completely and use a video. I'm always zoned out doing something else when they do the safety demo. Let me use my devices darnit!
@Krdshrk: I understand where you're coming from, but from the flight attendant's point of view, each passenger must be treated as though they're hearing it for the first time.
Virgin America is an example of one of those airlines that bypasses the attendant safety demo with a video on display.
@Kaiser-Machead: I've read my Kindle before takeoff plenty of times, too. Like you, I always pay attention during the safety instructions. Even though I've seen it a bajillion times I'd feel rude if I didn't. It's kind of like smiling and clapping at your kid's boring school play. Maybe that's why I've never been bugged. Of course I wonder if that will change now that more people know what it is. You have to look pretty closely to see what I'm looking at. It's just a leather folio to most people.
Not to be labeled a fanboy or anything but calling the Xbox 360 over the PS3 is really subjective. I have both but I'd recommend the PS3 over the 360 especially since most games these days are multiplatform.
12/08/09
It's a pretty paltry issue, the real problem is when the flight attendants may attempt to stop you using gadgets mid flight. As for takeoff and landing though? Let them have their superstitions, all it's hurting is the whiny and impatient who can't be without headphones for a few minutes. Read a damn book until the plane is in the air.
12/07/09
Sounds like you find flight a little frightening, like many people I'm sure. Wouldn't flight be a LOT scarier if the industry wasn't operated in the ultra-conservative and highly regulated fashion that it is?
Look, we can split hairs over 15 minutes of gadget restrictions, or we can be glad they let us use them outside of that restriction window. The FAA has MUCH better initiatives to focus on, like modernizing air traffic control.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
This is really the heart of the matter. Treat me like a responsible adult, and I will act like one, and that includes helping you out when you need it (as I have done in the past when assisting a flight attendant with a belligerent drunk). Treat me like a retarded child and I will act like a sheep.
12/07/09
12/07/09
To be fair I don't like the rule either but I don't get a say while I'm working.
12/07/09
You might also remember that I am what is called a "paying customer". I am not a cow or sheep on the way to market. It would be nice if the airlines remembered it.
And moreover, you are attempting to enforce a rule you can't enforce anyway - you don't know if I have an entire ham radio station broadcasting from my bag in the overhead bin - instead this is all about the APPEARANCE of compliance, but I guess that is good enough for government work.
12/07/09
Also because you are a paying customer I should forget the rules I once again did not make?
And once again the rule isn't mine and I'm routinely being watched I can not and will not make an exception for you my job and money on the line. I agree the rule should be different but until it is expect me to do my job, and I will expect you to ignore me.
12/07/09
I really don't want to make this personal, which was the point of my last comment, but I know that if my business has rules which continually piss off my clients, then it is part of my job to try to work through the hierarchy to try to get the rules changed, whereas you appear to like the fact that the myriad of aviation rules allows you to be a petty dictator. I wonder if this has anything to do with the serial bankruptcies of the various airlines?
12/07/09
Ever wonder why the flight attendants seats are facing the back of the plane? It is so they would more likely survive the impact.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
So I guess it would be better to face the front :-)
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Ah, well. Here's the direct link: [www.penny-arcade.com]
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
I once knew a pilot (a drunkard at that) who worked for Korea air- he just flew back and forth all day long from SFO to Korea, and he said it's just getting the plane in the air and landing it that takes skill, the rest is all automated.
12/07/09
12/07/09
As far as the announcements go, I think the FAA would be better served if they simply fired all those attendants who make the announcements into some kind of comic monologue. I can block out the 800th rehash on how my seat belt works just fine (it's noise canceling supplied by my brain!), but these attendants-cum-comedy-geniuses make me want to snap my spork in half -- if they still had sporks, that is.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
If phones were a huge danger to flights, then yes, they would be banned outright. However, they can still cause inconveniences to the people who are just trying to do their job and fly you where you need to go.
12/07/09
I'll repeat, for the hard-of-reading, all of these occasions of celly-left-on were unintentional. I'm generally pretty good about shutting things off.
Yet, like the previous respondent to my comment, you're just making things up (oh, sorry, I meant to say "engaging in hypothetical explorations") in an attempt to defend people who are "just doing their job flying me where I need to go". I don't think they need defending. I'm paying THEM to know the risks and control them. If they can do neither, then they are NOT doing their jobs and are being paid too much by me. If they want to step up to know the risks and control them, that's a fair value proposition for which the me and the market will bear the additional costs. The market currently bears the cost of knowing and controlling any number of risks, from boxcutters, explosive air jordans, to "things that look like water but may not be". There are even "friendlier" risks that get evaluated -- like animals in the passenger cabin, holding babies on your lap, and the width of an obese person that requires the purchase of a second seat. Don't you think celly/WiFi EMI interference from the cabin bears the same serious assessment of risk if the plane's systems -=could=- be adversely affected?
The airplane cabin is a highly-controlled place where money gets made and lost on every flight, and CBAs get done for the size and shape of the windows, riveting patterns, seat width, cabin materials, seat spacing, food and beverage service, in-flight entertainment and a host of other things. Why not for this ostensibly credible risk as well? Someone did a cost-benefit analysis on celly/WiFi signal detection, I'm guessing, and it was seen as a waste of money. That's my speculation.
12/07/09
This is just conjecture, but the idea of personal electronics used to coordinate with other people on a flight, or even OFF the flight could potentially be a reason to keep the ban going.
12/07/09
12/07/09
and on...
and on....
12/07/09
[www.schneier.com]
12/07/09
In my opinion, I think they perpetuate this myth because it's easier to tell most people that it can cause technical problems, than it is to convince frequent fliers that they have to listen to the same instructions that they've probably heard ad nauseam prior, but the attendants can't possibly pick and choose who should listen to what. Just my little theory.
12/07/09
12/07/09
Virgin America is an example of one of those airlines that bypasses the attendant safety demo with a video on display.
12/07/09
12/03/09
12/06/09
11/26/09
11/26/09