Please turn off all electronic devices...

[Passacaglia]

So I flew out to Washington, DC this weekend. On the flight there, the guy next to me was listening to his iPod, and when they made the announcement to turn off electronic devices, he made no move to turn it off. In fact, he proceeded to pull out his Nintendo DS and start playing that. Finally, one of the flight attendants came by and specifically told him to turn off his devices. He then closes his DS (does that turn it off, or just put it in sleep mode?), then takes off his iPod headphones *without turning it off* and stuffs the iPod in his bag. If he's not even listening to it, why leave it on!?!?

I know the statistics say that it's safer to fly than it is to drive, but there's something about the loss of control that makes me a little weird about flying. I still fly at an opportunity (which is more than I can say for other people in my family), so it doesn't affect my life TOO much. But one of the few things you can control is that. I don't know how important it is to turn off electronics, but if they tell you to do it, you might as well. It's no wonder we're unwilling to put up with security restrictions -- we're not even willing to put away our electronics and pick up a book or magazine for 15-30 minutes.

[RPI-Fan]

Last time I was on a plane some guy who was really obnoxious watched a fucking DVD on his laptop while the plane was taking off and landing.

[lordscarlet]

Did he pause the ipod first? If so it will turn off after a few minutes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FYI........the risk of problems related to electronic devices in the general cabin is very small. I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't follow the rules, but I wouldn't worry about it too much if one idiot fails to follow the rules.

I spoke to a pilot once who accidentally left on his cell phone in the cockpit. It caused some minor routing problems (a few degrees off the path) until he noticed it a half hour into the flight. As soon as he noticed, he turned it off and the auto-pilot corrected the path selected.

[dawgfan]

I'm not an expert in the field, and I really have no idea to what extent use of electronic devices during takeoffs and landings really effects the systems on the airplane, radar, and radio communication.

That said, I'm having a hard time seeing what motivation airlines would have in asking passengers to turn them off during these times if it isn't a safety issue.

Besides which, I also find it incredibly rude and self-centered of people like that to blatantly ignore the rules - why they can't go the ten minutes at the start and end of the flight without these devices is beyond me, and why they think they are so special that the rules don't apply to them is a huge pet-peeve of mine.

[MikeVic]

I believe I saw a Myth Busters with this once... I forget the outcome, but I think it was something like... certain older electronic devices can cause some problems, so they recommended just turning everything off anyway. Can someone verify that?

[MizzouRah]

Last time I flew, one lady refused to turn her cell phone off and was even talking on it when the flight attendant told her she either turns it off, or she can get off the plane. We all looked at her like, "turn the fucking thing off already!".

[Pyser]

from what i recall, you are told to turn that stuff off not because it does interfere with the instruments, but because there is a very small chance it COULD. its more of a worst case scenario precaution than a big problem.

oddly, ive flown on a private jet, and you can have everything on as much as you want. including cell phones. the dvd player was on before we even started taxiing, let alone taking off.

[RPI-Fan]

I believe I saw a Myth Busters with this once... I forget the outcome, but I think it was something like... certain older electronic devices can cause some problems, so they recommended just turning everything off anyway. Can someone verify that?

The only problems occurred when the avionics had improper shielding (which, on a jet airliner, should theoretically never happen). But since inspections etc. don't always catch that stuff, there could be a problem of interference at some point.

Also, the cell phones off requirement while flying isn't really as much about interference with avionics (see above) as it is with putting an extreme strain on cell tower resources.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I believe I saw a Myth Busters with this once... I forget the outcome, but I think it was something like... certain older electronic devices can cause some problems, so they recommended just turning everything off anyway. Can someone verify that?

Dunno if this is the one you saw but ...
http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/03/20/mythbusters-cell-phones-on-planes/

[Young Drachma]

I said no in the poll, but I actually do adhere to it. Don't see a reason not to, even if I think it's silly.

[sterlingice]

A couple of things:

1) Here's the mythbusters summary related to cell phones and airplanes:
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

2) Yes, the guy is a dick- a self centered ass who fits into the 1/15 principle where 1 minute of his time is worth more than 15 minutes of yours.

3) The only way an iPod or DS is going to cause a plane to is if one of two conditions are met. The first is that the pilot and co-pilot are playing/listening to said objects instead of flying the plane. The second is that the DS could possibly interfere if it was in the wireless mode but I'm not sure what frequency the DS transmits at vs what the cockpit is using.
3) Considering how planes are designed, unless something is actually transmitting a signal, there is no way it could interfere. Small, portable electronics just don't give off enough of an EM field to affect airplane instruments.

SI

[molson]

Why is it that even though there's almost zero safety risk from electronic devices, I get so damn pissed off when people don't obey the rules? Am I like that grumpy old guy in my old neighborhood that would yell at all us kids if a ball or frisbee ended up in his yard?

[Emiliano]

Yeah, during takeoff and landing, I usually did. I've never really wondered why they ask you to do it, but I always did it.

[Ryan S]

Several airlines are now introducing phone usage on their flights (and they get a cut from the profits)

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/30/ryanair-qantas-finally-adding-in-flight-calling/

If it is a success for these companies, I would expect all the other airlines to follow within a few years.

[sterlingice]

Several airlines are now introducing phone usage on their flights (and they get a cut from the profits)

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/30/ryanair-qantas-finally-adding-in-flight-calling/

If it is a success for these companies, I would expect all the other airlines to follow within a few years.

Much like we had in the 80s with phones built into the back of seats and charges that were around $3 per minute?

I hope so because I sure as hell don't want everyone on the small, confined plane shouting at cell phone level the entire flight :mad:

SI

[st.cronin]

I really hate flying. I would rather spend 20 hours in my car than 5 hours in airports and a plane.

[StarBuck]

What I would like to see is enough people calling out these people who have no consideration for the safety of others, even if there is a slim chance. I suppose if enough of the assaholics on board were using the devices, it could cause a problem? My ex was a private pilot and he said something about the intruments on landing and take off.

Kind of like the cell phones in the theatre people. They totally ignore the request to switch them off.

[lordscarlet]

I would imagine saying "all electronics" is far simpler than having to examine every device to ensure they do not transmit a possibly interfering signal.

[Mustang]

Whether or not using electronic devices may or may not cause problems with the plane, bottom line is they just ask you to stop using them on takeoff and landing.

Don't want to obey the rules, then take a train, bike, car or walk asshole. The me-first self importance of our society is disgraceful at times even in small cases like this.

[SnowMan]

I fly for a living, I've made so many cell phone calls, text messages, and whatever else to crash a small country. I've never even seen a needle wiggle.

I can't speak for every type of airplane and every type of configuration, which is why they made the rule. Better safe than in a nosedive trying to jerk off before you hit the mountain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I would like to see is enough people calling out these people who have no consideration for the safety of others, even if there is a slim chance.

I've actually seen that, on a commuter airline a few years ago.

Basically Mr. Idiot was told by me (and eventually five other passengers) that either his cell phone & his laptop were going in the overhead compartment alone, or they was going in there with him sans batteries. It was entirely up to him but either way they were going bye-bye until the flight crew said otherwise.

This was after 4 requests from a flight attendant produced no results & was leaving us waiting to take off until the toys were put away. Don't fuck with grouchy passengers at midnight who are already several hours behind schedule.

[TroyF]

I said yes, but there should be a third answer: "Yeah, I do, because it's simpler than fighting and it's not really that big of a deal"

Really, I can't use my cell phone for a flight and my electronics for twenty minutes? I'm going to go nuts over that? Are you kidding me? Shut off the F'n phone, put the Ipod up and read a damned magazine. This isn't some incredibly inconveniant thing they are asking you to do.

As for driving vs. flying, I'll take the flight anyday of the week. I get there quicker, I don't have to deal with slippery roads or drunk drivers and with gas prices as high as they are, it's just as cheap for me to fly as drive. The small amount of issues I've had in airports doesn't begine to outweigh the advantages for me.

[st.cronin]

As for driving vs. flying, I'll take the flight anyday of the week. I get there quicker, I don't have to deal with slippery roads or drunk drivers and with gas prices as high as they are, it's just as cheap for me to fly as drive. The small amount of issues I've had in airports doesn't begine to outweigh the advantages for me.

If flying were free, and as convenient as it is now, I would still rather drive. And I don't like driving.

[RendeR]

I would imagine saying "all electronics" is far simpler than having to examine every device to ensure they do not transmit a possibly interfering signal.


This is exactly what "mythbusters" decided. Their cell phone research foudn that certain cell phones did in fact interfere with the avionics/communications between the aircraft and the navigational beacons/towers during take off, landing, and even mid flight depending on the nearness to said beacons.

To try and narrow down the exact issue and deal with it would cost billions that None of the aircraft manufacturers nor the airlines have to spend. Its far simpler, and easier to simply shut all electronic toys off and deal with being bored for 20 minutes until they tell you you can turn them back on again.

people that don't simply do so should be tossed off the plane somewhere over the salt flats. Prefereably from about 60k feet.

[Daimyo]

I make sure to turn off my cell phone, laptop, and anything that would possible put out a wireless signal, but I usually leave my iPod on with no attempt to conceal it. If the FA asks me to turn it off I apologize and comply right away. There is no way its going to cause a problem, but its not worth being a dick over.

[Anthony]

i do what i want on the plane. when they start charging reasonable prices for tickets, then i'll listen. for what we had to pay to go to LAX (from NYC) and they still have the balls to charge me for food and played the same movie going home as they did going there - sorry, deal with me listening to my mp3 player at a non-loud manner. i don't stand up and flaunt the fact that i'm listening to my mp3 player and defying the rules, i just don't buy into the hogwash that my small device could in any way affect the performance of the flight. if there was a small chance these devices could interfere - do you think they'd even be allowed on the plane? we can't even get through a security checkpoint without taking our shoes off cuz some retarded asshole put bombs in his shoes - you think they're gonna take a tiny chance letting devices screw up the flight or the safety of the passengers?

what's next? they tell you not to look outside the windows cuz the boogie man on the wings might see you and try to come in? morons.

[dawgfan]

Why does it not surprise me that HA is one of the assholes that puts himself above the rules.

Hey HA, if you don't want to follow the rules of air travel, then don't buy a ticket - otherwise be prepared to have a flight attendant kick you off the flight if you don't obey. Cost is a non-issue here - you know the rules before you buy a ticket. If you don't like it, drive, take a train or hire a private jet if you've got the scratch for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's fine HA, just so long as you understand that if you try it on a flight I'm on & I see you doing it, I'll either strangle you to death with your headphone cord or shove said mp3 player up your ass sideways.

[RendeR]

i do what i want on the plane. when they start charging reasonable prices for tickets, then i'll listen. for what we had to pay to go to LAX (from NYC) and they still have the balls to charge me for food and played the same movie going home as they did going there - sorry, deal with me listening to my mp3 player at a non-loud manner. i don't stand up and flaunt the fact that i'm listening to my mp3 player and defying the rules, i just don't buy into the hogwash that my small device could in any way affect the performance of the flight. if there was a small chance these devices could interfere - do you think they'd even be allowed on the plane? we can't even get through a security checkpoint without taking our shoes off cuz some retarded asshole put bombs in his shoes - you think they're gonna take a tiny chance letting devices screw up the flight or the safety of the passengers?

what's next? they tell you not to look outside the windows cuz the boogie man on the wings might see you and try to come in? morons.

See, the problem I see here is that you think you're paying to be entertained and hand-jobbed while you fly. I believe that you're paying to get your fat ass from point A to points B, C, and D.

Anything beyond simple transportation you should be thanking your sweet aunt tipper's ass for.

But then again I try not to be an arrogant self inflated asshat. YMMV

[Anthony]

um, no. i'm not saying i would refuse to put away my device. just saying it doesn't pose the risk that is insinuated. that's all. and for the money i pay i will disregard that stupid request. both i've flown 4 times in august, and all 4 times i've had an isle seat and had my headphones on from before takeoff. i don't make it surprise. none of those 4 times was i asked to put my mp3 player away.

and i don't want to drive to LA from NYC. for you to say "if you don't like it, drive" is a waste of a post. yes, cuz i really would opt to drive cross country just cuz i don't want to not listen to my mp3 player on takeoff/landing. unfortunately there's a monopoly on travel - no quicker way to travel cross country. when there are alternate/less expensive options i'll select them.

[Anthony]

That's fine HA, just so long as you understand that if you try it on a flight I'm on & I see you doing it, I'll either strangle you to death with your headphone cord or shove said mp3 player up your ass sideways.

i don't think you would. from the safety of your keyboard it's a pleasant fiction to think. unless you're bigger than i am you'd most likely do what everyone else does and just sit in your chair being pissed at yourself for always doing what you're told while someone who has balls enjoys his music as the plane take off. :)

[SteveMax58]

I said Yes, but only because it's the rules & the last thing I want to do is argue or delay my flight by making a protest of some sort. I hate airports & flying enough...no reason to prolong it.

But I will say this...I am not an avionics engineer or industry expert by any means...but I do work in an industry which uses RF & I have had to calculate many estimated receive & noise levels for things like FSO & EIRP levels for microwave communications systems. To generate an adequate interfering signal level (not talking receive level) requires either a non-focused, highly robust signal source...or a lesser, but extremely focused, signal source. It is concievable that you could create the "perfect storm" scenario with some sort of small handheld device, in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc...but I honestly cannot imagine how perfectly unlikely that scenario could possibly be. But...who knows.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i don't think you would. from the safety of your keyboard it's a pleasant fiction to think. unless you're bigger than i am you'd most likely do what everyone else does and just sit in your chair being pissed at yourself for always doing what you're told while someone who has balls enjoys his music as the plane take off. :)

That's the thing HA: I've already been in that situation & know exactly what I'd do. And the fact that stupidity such as yours in this case irritates me to no end in general adds the bonus of getting to enjoy doing it. You'd fold like a cheap tent & we both know it.

[Anthony]

That's the thing HA: I've already been in that situation & know exactly what I'd do. And the fact that stupidity such as yours in this case irritates me to no end in general adds the bonus of getting to enjoy doing it. You'd fold like a cheap tent & we both know it.

again, i don't need to puff out my chest on a message board. that's folly. but odds are you're more the type to cry to the stewardess about the guy who is listening to music during takeoff than you are to tap the guy on his shoulder and look him in the eye and request he take the headphones off. for either of us to pretend otherwise is a waste. :)

[heybrad]

Nothing better than a good old "my dick is bigger than yours" internet argument!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll gladly give the FA's a chance to do their job, but failing that it's just like I told you, I've already been there & done that. And I rather enjoyed myself, so that pretty much seals the chance of my doing it again since I'm already grumpy because I don't enjoy all the hassles of flying. It'd be a fun diversion for few seconds it took you to comply. I know, it's a short bit of fun, but hey there's not much else pleasurable about the flying experience so ya gotta take what little you can get.

[SnowMan]

Remember the takeoff and landing thing is less about signal interference and more about emergency preparation. If you've got headphones on and you have an oopsie on landing, odds are your ipod will go flying, turning into a nice missile at 100 knots, and perhaps taking those earphones and shoving em into your ears so far people could hear Sinatra coming out your ass.

A 40mph crash in your car is violent, imagine a 100mph+ crash and you can see why things need to be secured, and your attention should probably be on things more important than your need to hear another song you've already heard 500 times.

[MJ4H]

This thread has potential.

[Raiders Army]

I'm more concerned with someone getting on a plane being sick and catching it from them. That being said, I hate those who can't follow some simple rules that don't affect their comfort on a macro level.

[Karlifornia]

I suppose if enough of the assaholics

Assaholics: rap group or porn site?

[StarBuck]

Assaholics: rap group or porn site?
Hell Atlantic obviously. The assaholism is strong with this one.

[sterlingice]

what's next? they tell you not to look outside the windows cuz the boogie man on the wings might see you and try to come in? morons.

I really wanted a picture of Shatner from that Twilight Zone episode but I just couldn't find one I liked...

SI

[StarBuck]

Hell Atlantic refuses to look out the window at the boogie man like the rest of the morons until the airlines start charging reasonable prices for tickets
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/PubTThou01.jpg/250px-PubTThou01.jpg
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/PubTThou01.jpg/250px-PubTThou01.jpg)

[AZSpeechCoach]

Remember the takeoff and landing thing is less about signal interference and more about emergency preparation. If you've got headphones on and you have an oopsie on landing, odds are your ipod will go flying, turning into a nice missile at 100 knots, and perhaps taking those earphones and shoving em into your ears so far people could hear Sinatra coming out your ass.

This is what I always figured. Since take-off and landing are the two times when you are most likely to crash, it is probably better that you can listen to emergency instructions rather than your music. But, since some people believe that they are better than everyone else, we will all be at risk for their asshattery (or douchery as Lily would say).

[law90026]

I obey the rules on flights. However, I have accidentally left my handphone on throughout a flight on at least 2 occasions and both times we didn't die >.>

I agree that it's more of an over-the-top precautionary thing but I generally obey the rules rather than take the risk that one day my handphone/mp3player/<whatever> could cause a problem.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I obey the rules, but I do side with HA that I don't believe for a second having any kind of regular electronic device would crash a plane. If it did, they wouldn't allow you on the plane with one because some jackass (perhaps like HA?) would turn it on even when told not to.

My bet is it only potentially interferes with avionics in a very minor way in which it is simply more convenient to turn them off rather than deal with the "inconvenience" of potential interference.

[Karlifornia]

Complaining about the price of airline tickets is about as useful as complaining about the price of food at a football game.

[Pumpy Tudors]

...odds are your ipod will go flying, turning into a nice missile at 100 knots, and perhaps taking those earphones and shoving em into your ears so far people could hear Sinatra coming out your ass.
Let's hear more about this.

[Raiders Army]

A few weeks ago when we flew to PA, I read in the in-flight magazine that GPS devices were allowed during the flight (Continental). I took my Garmin C340 out and tried it. It couldn't get a signal. Too bad since I wanted to see how fast we were going and where we were.

[Pumpy Tudors]

A few weeks ago when we flew to PA, I read in the in-flight magazine that GPS devices were allowed during the flight (Continental). I took my Garmin C340 out and tried it. It couldn't get a signal. Too bad since I wanted to see how fast we were going and where we were.
Wow, that's very cool. I've only flown on maybe 8 flights in my lifetime, but a couple of them were on Continental. Next time I fly with them, I might bring along my Garmin eTrex Legend (yeah, yeah, I know it's a cheapie) to see if it works. Using a GPS receiver in the air would be awesome.

[flere-imsaho]

I voted yes, but I don't really believe the devices could seriously cause problems on the flight. However, you're in a metal tube that's trying to get to the point (or return from the point) of hurtling itself sustainably through the air. Better safe than sorry and all that.

Kind of like the cell phones in the theatre people. They totally ignore the request to switch them off.

The wife & I went to see the Bourne Ultimatum recently, an "R" movie with some pretty graphic violence. Elsewhere in the theater were a couple of women who had brought 3 preteen girls and an infant to the movie. And the preteen girls had cellphones that went off a couple of times. Ugh.

i don't think you would. from the safety of your keyboard it's a pleasant fiction to think. unless you're bigger than i am you'd most likely do what everyone else does and just sit in your chair being pissed at yourself for always doing what you're told while someone who has balls enjoys his music as the plane take off. :)

Uh-huh. All I can say is this - if you try this on a commuter flight with a bunch of business travelers and your actions (i.e. if you give the FA some crap) look like they're going to lead to a delay, things are going to go badly for you. I've seen it happen and yes, I've taken part.

[Icy]

I think that besides cell phones, it's pretty stupid to shut off mp3 players etc. A cell phone could have some effect but an mp3?

Anyway i respect it and always turn my devices off but i think it's a drastic meassure.

[Desnudo]

It's probably an outdated rule, but really, who cares except Johnny Important who just sold 500 units of software.

[Karlifornia]

I
Uh-huh. All I can say is this - if you try this on a commuter flight with a bunch of business travelers and your actions (i.e. if you give the FA some crap) look like they're going to lead to a delay, things are going to go badly for you. I've seen it happen and yes, I've taken part.

http://steve.yi.members.winisp.net/documents/hulk.jpg
SYSTEMS ANALYST SMASH!

[watravaler]

Brought a walkman(tape player) on a plane five years ago and forgot to turn it off. I could hear the pilot talking to the air-traffic control tower through my ear-phones before I turned it off.

[RendeR]

It's probably an outdated rule, but really, who cares except Johnny Important who just sold 500 units of software.


Again, its not an outdated rule, its simply a safety standard. Cell phone signalls coming to and from a phone CAn and DO effect a planes avionics, mythbusters proved this. They also showed that for the most part it is only phones that transmit within certain specific frequencies.

The problem being, cell phone manufacturers aren't being limited in their frequency choice, those dangerous areas are still being allowed to be used. Any electronic device sends off an EM signal, generally only those powerful enough to wireless communication (Phones, computers, and some video game players) are in danger of transmitting in the dangerous frequencies.

The rule is in place because of the sheer number fo different manufacturers of such items. They simply can't test them all and limit the use of specific items due to the sheer mass volume of people and items getting on the planes.

They don't care much if you bring them on board BECAUSE they tell you to turn them off. If you don't comply, it seems to me, that you're just being a dumb fuck and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

I expect as much from HA, he's an asshole. Its a given. I'm also pretty certain that barring him being a 2 liter jug of bourbon drunk that he'd back down damn near instantly. People don't fight authority blatantly without KNOWING they're in the right. he might THINK he is, but he also knows the rule exists and would settle in pretty quickly.

No matter how much he blusters and BS's on this board. Basic human nature is avoidance of conflict. maybe HA is just a throback to one of our extinct relatives though. Who knows.

[StarBuck]

ITA Render. Unless a person is knowledgable in avionics and knows for certain, turn the fracking thing off for 10 minutes.

[SnowMan]

I think that besides cell phones, it's pretty stupid to shut off mp3 players etc. A cell phone could have some effect but an mp3?

Anyway i respect it and always turn my devices off but i think it's a drastic meassure.

Interference isn't an issue with mp3 players, etc, which is why you can use them above 10,000 feet. The point is having your attention if something happens during takeoff or landing.

[Ironhead]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a230/Aaenuel/Shatner_Headnod.gif

[RendeR]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a230/Aaenuel/Shatner_Headnod.gif


PRICELESS

[cthomer5000]

BRILLIANT!

[TroyF]

If flying were free, and as convenient as it is now, I would still rather drive. And I don't like driving.

No problems for me. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more people like you so I could get exit row seats every flight. :)

[ThunderingHERD]

I know the statistics say that it's safer to fly than it is to drive

Bogus statistics. It's safer <i>per mile</i> (and maybe per hour, though I recall hearing otherwise), but it's certainly not safer per trip. When you calculate it by mile (or hour) the most dangerous portions of the trip, takeoff and landing, are diluted due to the relative length of flights vs. car trips.

[lordscarlet]

Bogus statistics. It's safer <i>per mile</i> (and maybe per hour, though I recall hearing otherwise), but it's certainly not safer per trip. When you calculate it by mile (or hour) the most dangerous portions of the trip, takeoff and landing, are diluted due to the relative length of flights vs. car trips.

Uh. What? So should we only count time in a car traveled in intersections, as they are more dangerous?

[ThunderingHERD]

Uh. What? So should we only count time in a car traveled in intersections, as they are more dangerous?

No, the point is that the average flight is much longer than the average drive If the plane manages to take off and land ok then the statistics are exoribitantly padded. Of course, that's just one argument against this "fact." If you were doing a realistic risk appraisal you would also have to consider the auto fatalities that resulted from the driver's own negligence (e.g. drunk driving, speeding) and many other factors (time of day jumps to mind but there are many others).

[ThunderingHERD]

Ok, I was trying to find statistics based on hours, but I ran into this instead. These folks (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18584;jsessionid=aaaeI64wZUcz2T%20''Of%20Minds%20and%20Molecules:) to a great job explicating all of the points I was going to make, so I'll just leave it at that. Some choice quotes (I particulary liked the one in bold :) ):

"However, while the article's conclusions are acceptable in the broad sense, they are highly skewed by the common definition of safety in terms of passenger-miles per fatality. This is reasonable from the point of view of those involved in the economics and operations of flying machines. However, as a human (and pilot) with a finite life span, I should point out that the numbers on gravestones represent time, not miles traveled. On an odometer basis, my perambulations around the hearthrug by rocking chair are infinitely more dangerous than an astronaut's wildest rides through space. "

"The pertinent question for a human should be: "Is it safer to spend an hour in a car or in a commercial aircraft?" Since the distance traveled per hour in a commercial jet is approximately 10 times that in a car, the relative merits of air travel compared to car travel diminish dramatically on a time basis, to the point where the safety per hour for trips of around 300 kilometers is probably equal for both forms of transport."

"I do think the article overstates the admittedly large differences in risk between flying and driving. For trips of distances for which there is a reasonable choice in mode of transport, the flying is likely to be on small aircraft operated by commuter airlines. These aircraft, and airlines, have higher fatality risks than large jets flown by major airlines. Commuter airline casualties were excluded from the fly-versus-drive comparison."

"Travelers want to know how safe airline travel is relative to driving responsibly. To answer this question, Sivak and Flannagan would have to purge their input data of accidents caused by well-known and easily avoidable risky behavior. "

"Secondly, it seems to me that it is more relevant to compare fatalities per trip, rather than fatalities per kilometer. The authors make such a comparison based on the conventional assumption of a linear dependence of driving-risk on distance. What are the data supporting this assumption, and how were they analyzed?"

[lordscarlet]

Show me some statistics that say if I fly 10 times I'm more likely to die than if I drive 10 times, and maybe we'll talk.

[flere-imsaho]

No problems for me. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more people like you so I could get exit row seats every flight. :)

If you have elite status (and I assume you do), you should only be fighting the other elites for the exit rows, of course. ;)

[Fighter of Foo]

I've always been a person who thinks that retarded rules are just that, retarded, and I usually have no inclination to act retarded just because someone says so.

Remember the takeoff and landing thing is less about signal interference and more about emergency preparation.


Now THIS I understand. Why did it take until post 38 for someone to bring this up? The reason I'm rehashin an old thread is because of this column (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/09/07/askthepilot244/print.html):

"You must also understand that should an evacuation be necessary, you will not be taking your carry-on luggage with you. Doing so could put yourself and others in considerable danger. Video and photos from Okinawa show several fleeing passengers laden with carry-ons. One of the pictures I saw shows a woman, already burdened with two shoulder bags, reaching for a third piece of luggage that she had apparently dropped on the tarmac.

What with the nature of carry-ons these days -- expensive computers, phones and PDAs packed with valuable data -- the temptation to reach for your stuff would be strong. What's the difference, you think, in taking an extra second or two to pull out your laptop? Well, hundreds of people each taking an extra second adds up to a lot of seconds, and if there's a fire encroaching quickly toward thousands of gallons of highly volatile jet fuel, every one of those seconds counts. And although you may be one of the first ones out, you've slowed the channel of escape for those behind you.


This is the reason, by the way, for the litany of prohibitions during taxi, takeoff and landing: Tray tables need to be up, window shades open, laptops and iPods put away. It's not about electronic interference, it's about the need for a speedy egress and situational awareness should anything happen."


Now my question is why I've rarely read or heard anyone make this cogent, simple argument?

[Anthony]

Again, its not an outdated rule, its simply a safety standard. Cell phone signalls coming to and from a phone CAn and DO effect a planes avionics, mythbusters proved this. They also showed that for the most part it is only phones that transmit within certain specific frequencies.

The problem being, cell phone manufacturers aren't being limited in their frequency choice, those dangerous areas are still being allowed to be used. Any electronic device sends off an EM signal, generally only those powerful enough to wireless communication (Phones, computers, and some video game players) are in danger of transmitting in the dangerous frequencies.

The rule is in place because of the sheer number fo different manufacturers of such items. They simply can't test them all and limit the use of specific items due to the sheer mass volume of people and items getting on the planes.

They don't care much if you bring them on board BECAUSE they tell you to turn them off. If you don't comply, it seems to me, that you're just being a dumb fuck and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

I expect as much from HA, he's an asshole. Its a given. I'm also pretty certain that barring him being a 2 liter jug of bourbon drunk that he'd back down damn near instantly. People don't fight authority blatantly without KNOWING they're in the right. he might THINK he is, but he also knows the rule exists and would settle in pretty quickly.

No matter how much he blusters and BS's on this board. Basic human nature is avoidance of conflict. maybe HA is just a throback to one of our extinct relatives though. Who knows.

i didn't say i wouldn't turn it off, you offspring from a moron's womb, i said i leave it on and no one bothers me. you think i'm gonna make a big stink about an mp3 player? i'm not render enough (ie, dumb enough) to make a scene on a plane.

why do you think we need to take our shoes off at the security line? cuz there's a small chance someone can sneak a bomb on the plane. rather than deal with that small chance the airlines eliminate the possibility altogether. now, using that analogy, and try to keep up here, if the airlines are aware of something that has even a small chance to cause disruption or worse, do you think they'd allow it to be brought on the plane or would they just make sure it can't happen, period? if mp3 players really were able to cause as much disruption as they say it could they would collect everyone's devices pre-takeoff and hand them out at a safer time during the flight. use common sense. i understand that's a tall order for many of you here.