Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
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
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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