or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FAA rules to change, may allow iPad, e-reader use pre-flight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FAA rules to change, may allow iPad, e-reader use pre-flight

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Users of Apple's iPad and other mobile gadgets soon may not have to stow away their devices during takeoff and landing, as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is set to relax the rules covering the use of such technology.

flying


The FAA will soon relax the rules governing the use of personal electronic devices at low altitudes, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The revised rules may allow users to use iPads and other devices during taxiing, takeoffs, and landings.

Devices like e-readers may see the rules relaxed to the point where they are usable throughout a flight. However, cell phones are expected to remain off limits, as the commission tasked with examining the issue was not cleared to look at the use of phones.

According to airline industry research, roughly a third of airline passengers reported that, at least once, they left a device active throughout a flight.

Airliners that pass rigorous testing would be permitted to allow passengers "expanded gate to gate use" of personal electronic devices, according to the FAA's draft rules. That would mean that passengers would at no time have to deactivate their devices.

The rule change may also result in different safety announcements regarding gadgets before a flight. Planes with limited protection from device interference would be asked to power down their devices until given the all-clear, as is the case in flights now. Those with medium protection would allow certain devices like e-readers to be left on from gate to gate, and those with high protection would have an announcement alerting passengers that the aircraft tolerates emissions from electrical devices for all phases of flight.

The use of devices on planes has spawned action from lawmakers, who castigated FAA officials over their slowness to act. The agency's decision was reportedly delayed due to attempts to develop a single, concise, and ? most importantly ? future-proof set of regulations governing device use.

The FAA's draft rule revisions are still subject to debate both by the group that proposed them and within the FAA. This means they could see significant changes before a final release.
post #2 of 28
Not even once - well okay once - I did get my phone out after landing to discover that I had forgotten to turn it off or enter airplane mode - and the plane did not crash - not even once.
post #3 of 28
How's about just building all new aircraft with every single wire shielded so that our children and grandchildren can look back on our generation and those before and laugh at our utter stupidity?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #4 of 28
If God forbid something happened, the media will blame Apple.

Still, it's a good change. I don't turn off my phone anyway (just use airplane mode).
post #5 of 28

I'll be taking an overseas flight next month and I will have my iPad on all of the time. I am not superstitious.

post #6 of 28
Strange. Every flight attendant friend of mine has always told me the same thing. The reason for stowing these things during take-off and landing was not because of some kind of interference, but because during the most dangerous parts of a flight, if something should happen, they don't want hunks of metal and glass flying around the cabin.
post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Strange. Every flight attendant friend of mine has always told me the same thing. The reason for stowing these things during take-off and landing was not because of some kind of interference, but because during the most dangerous parts of a flight, if something should happen, they don't want hunks of metal and glass flying around the cabin.

Exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

The other problem is that it's distracting. If there's an emergency during takeoff or landing, they need your attention NOW. A few seconds for you to notice that the people around you are panicking might be the difference between life and death.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Strange. Every flight attendant friend of mine has always told me the same thing. The reason for stowing these things during take-off and landing was not because of some kind of interference, but because during the most dangerous parts of a flight, if something should happen, they don't want hunks of metal and glass flying around the cabin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

The other problem is that it's distracting. If there's an emergency during takeoff or landing, they need your attention NOW. A few seconds for you to notice that the people around you are panicking might be the difference between life and death.

 

 

No more of a flying object danger, or a distraction danger, then a book or a lap infant.

 

If they need your attention NOW, then you should not be allowed to read ANYTHING, or even sleep. So that argument gets thrown out the door.

 

If they were worried about the projecticle issues, then they would make everyone stow EVERYTHING, including infants.

post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

The other problem is that it's distracting. If there's an emergency during takeoff or landing, they need your attention NOW. A few seconds for you to notice that the people around you are panicking might be the difference between life and death.

"Get that oxygen mask away from me, can't you see I'm about to beat Angry Birds" lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 28
Not buying the "flying object" reason. I almost always have my turned off iPad sitting on my lap during take-off and have not once been asked to put it away.

As for the proposed "it depends on the aircraft" rule. I predict it to be an utter failure if approved. Why? Can you imagine the arguments air crew will get into with passengers who claim they can have their device on and the crew trying to explain to them not on THIS aircraft. The fact that anyone at the FAA even thinks that's a remotely feasible rule scares me. Passengers can't even follow today's simple "turn everything off" rule. Everything from blatant disregard (hiding their device when a flight attendant goes by) to utter ignorance of what they are being told to do. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone whip out their camera phone (which should have been shut off) seconds after the wheels have left the runway to get a photo out the window of the skyline of whatever city they are leaving.

Such a rule would be impossible to implement in any effective manner.
post #11 of 28

I read another article stating how seat belts on planes don't serve their function - in the event of a plane crash having one on will not increase your chances of survival. There seems to be a lot of superstition going on in the airline industry, one that's still stuck before the IT revolution

post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Strange. Every flight attendant friend of mine has always told me the same thing. The reason for stowing these things during take-off and landing was not because of some kind of interference, but because during the most dangerous parts of a flight, if something should happen, they don't want hunks of metal and glass flying around the cabin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

The other problem is that it's distracting. If there's an emergency during takeoff or landing, they need your attention NOW. A few seconds for you to notice that the people around you are panicking might be the difference between life and death.

 

 

No more of a flying object danger, or a distraction danger, then a book or a lap infant.

 

If they need your attention NOW, then you should not be allowed to read ANYTHING, or even sleep. So that argument gets thrown out the door.

 

If they were worried about the projecticle issues, then they would make everyone stow EVERYTHING, including infants.

Last time I checked books and infants were not made of metal and glass.

 

The real reason they make you stow your electronics is they don't want to have to define which are acceptable and which are not. The reason you have to put everything away, seats and tray tables in their upright position is to allow for quick exit walking space in case of an emergency. If some guy has a big laptop sitting there it could impede exiting quickly. So rather than say electronic devices with screens larger than x must be stowed, because inconsiderate asses are going to protest, or argue that their screen complies when it doesn't, it is simply easier to just prohibit all electronics to avoid the argument from passengers as to whether or not it is fair for some devices and not for others.

 

@WigginThey almost always ask, over the intercom, that you put the electronics away. So by not doing so your are ignoring the rules regardless of whether or not they confront you about it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnd0ps View Post

I read another article stating how seat belts on planes don't serve their function - in the event of a plane crash having one on will not increase your chances of survival. 

They serve multiple functions.

 

On several occasions parts of the fuselage have torn open creating a rapid decompression which could cause someone not strapped in to be sucked out of the plane.

 

There have been many incidents of strong turbulence injuring passengers who were not wearing seat belts.

 

If a plane crash is severe, it probably doesn't matter if you had a seat belt on or not, but many cashes are survivable and the seat belt can restrain passengers from being hurled about the cabin which is undeniably better than having everyone piled on top of one another.

 

Seat belts are functional in airplanes in the same way they are functional in autos, yet some people still disregard all the safety research and believe seat belt requirements are unnecessary. 1rolleyes.gif

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 28
I'm glad someone's putting that committees feet to the fire. Some people say it's no biggie, just turn off ur phone for a minute. I say, why doesn't the government and FAA do what we pay them to do? Is it that hard to fast track an issue that will effect all customers immediately? This is a glimpse inside the glacial pace of their inner workings.
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

I'm glad someone's putting that committees feet to the fire. Some people say it's no biggie, just turn off ur phone for a minute. I say, why doesn't the government and FAA do what we pay them to do? Is it that hard to fast track an issue that will effect all customers immediately? This is a glimpse inside the glacial pace of their inner workings.

Ah but they ARE doing what we pay them to do: Air passenger SAFETY. So they apply the "do no harm" rule until other data is firmly established. Which takes time. The balance is an action such as allowing electronics to be active when it does no harm or prohibiting their use which turns out to have been unnecessary because they are harmelss OR prematurely allowing what turns out to be a harmful device class to operate resulting in crashed aircraft and hundreds of dead and maimed citizens. So they're careful. The early history of commercial aviation has a lot of dead passengers, the current FAA regulatory system has reduced that drastically, I can see why they'd be reluctant to abandon a process that works.

post #16 of 28
I have never, since 2007, turned off my iPhone or iPad at any time during a flight. In fact I like to use maps during descent and landing to watch the little blue dot as we approach. I like to see it pass over the San Francisco Bay. One can't do that in one's car!
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Strange. Every flight attendant friend of mine has always told me the same thing. The reason for stowing these things during take-off and landing was not because of some kind of interference, but because during the most dangerous parts of a flight, if something should happen, they don't want hunks of metal and glass flying around the cabin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

The other problem is that it's distracting. If there's an emergency during takeoff or landing, they need your attention NOW. A few seconds for you to notice that the people around you are panicking might be the difference between life and death.

Some flight attendants and each of you may think that it has nothing to do with interference and is about something else, but the actual FAA regulation says otherwise. It has NOTHING to do with passenger attention or potential flying debris. Making the reasons up is ridiculous, as the FAA regulation is pretty clear. See the regulation http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-21-FAR.shtml

 

Notice clause (5).

post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Some flight attendants and each of you may think that it has nothing to do with interference and is about something else, but the actual FAA regulation says otherwise. It has NOTHING to do with passenger attention or potential flying debris. Making the reasons up is ridiculous, as the FAA regulation is pretty clear. See the regulation http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-21-FAR.shtml

 

Notice clause (5).

 

 

Quote: FAA

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

 

 

This says nothing about take off and landing which is the issue being discussed. Because the devices are permitted once the aircraft has reached cruising altitude they are not being banned for radio interference. I think the issue is more about passenger safety although protecting the navigation and communication systems during take off and landing is more important than it is at cruising altitude on autopilot.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #19 of 28

Really? As pilots are being allowed to use iPads in the cockpit, we are finally allowed to use them in the cabin? The danger finally just went away? Or was there never a danger at all? 

 

If my iPhone can bring down a multimillion dollar aircraft, there is something wrong with the aircraft, not with me using my phone. (not for talking as I still think that should not be allowed but for other obvious reasons) 

post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak View Post

 

 

 

No more of a flying object danger, or a distraction danger, then a book or a lap infant.

 

If they need your attention NOW, then you should not be allowed to read ANYTHING, or even sleep. So that argument gets thrown out the door.

 

If they were worried about the projecticle issues, then they would make everyone stow EVERYTHING, including infants.

 

Furthermore, if we get to a point in flight that they are worried about my projectile, they are worried about the wrong things. My iPhone hitting you in the head is the least of your worries as we plummet to the ground. 

post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Really? As pilots are being allowed to use iPads in the cockpit, we are finally allowed to use them in the cabin? The danger finally just went away? Or was there never a danger at all? 

If my iPhone can bring down a multimillion dollar aircraft, there is something wrong with the aircraft, not with me using my phone. (not for talking as I still think that should not be allowed but for other obvious reasons) 

With hundreds of different mobile electronic devices available (mostly Samsung Galaxy models), it was better to err on the side of caution rather than reaction and wait for studies to be completed. Hopefully the cell phone use ban will stay in place. I don't want to sit near people talking all flight.
post #22 of 28

Also the rule is stupid as it is not enforceable. Once, when they told everyone to turn off their devices, I was asked to remove my headset. Of course I asked why and I was told so they know my device is off. Really? I hope they know the On/Off switch is not whether the headset is in our out of my ears. My phone was still on, and remained so during the entire flight. 

post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


With hundreds of different mobile electronic devices available (mostly Samsung Galaxy models), it was better to err on the side of caution rather than reaction and wait for studies to be completed. Hopefully the cell phone use ban will stay in place. I don't want to sit near people talking all flight.

 

I'm sorry, how long have cell phones been around? iPods, laptops, etc.? There has been enough time to run these test tens of thousands of times over. In the end, if my electronic could bring down a aircraft, there is something wrong with the aircraft. 

 

What if a terrorist (enter NSA search criteria) that did not abide by the laws (shocker) and they all left their electronics on? Simply put, the law was dumb, outdated, and only reconsidered because pilots are being allowed to use iPads. 

 

If the teaching instructor can use her iPad during instructions in a Cessna, then I should be able to in a much more sophisticated aircraft. 

post #24 of 28

To summarize : young people are stupid. This has been true for millenniums.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

This says nothing about take off and landing which is the issue being discussed. Because the devices are permitted once the aircraft has reached cruising altitude they are not being banned for radio interference. I think the issue is more about passenger safety although protecting the navigation and communication systems during take off and landing is more important than it is at cruising altitude on autopilot.

 

Stop trying to be an armchair lawyer. That's the FAA regulation which governs the use of personal electronic devices on aircraft. There's not another one. THAT'S IT. So when you can cite where, in that regulation, it even alludes to anything you're claiming to be the basis of the restriction then you can be taken seriously.

 

Why do people think they can just make stuff up and then be taken seriously? I know it's anonymous, but bullshit from an anonymous person is still bullshit.

post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Stop trying to be an armchair lawyer. That's the FAA regulation which governs the use of personal electronic devices on aircraft. There's not another one. THAT'S IT. So when you can cite where, in that regulation, it even alludes to anything you're claiming to be the basis of the restriction then you can be taken seriously.

 

Why do people think they can just make stuff up and then be taken seriously? I know it's anonymous, but bullshit from an anonymous person is still bullshit.

I'm fine with that. Never let anyone use an electronic device on an aircraft but that is not what  the discussion is about.Take off an landings is what we are talking about so if you are going by the book please reference the appropriate paragraphs concerning those conditions. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


With hundreds of different mobile electronic devices available (mostly Samsung Galaxy models), it was better to err on the side of caution rather than reaction and wait for studies to be completed. Hopefully the cell phone use ban will stay in place. I don't want to sit near people talking all flight.


Waah.

 

A flight is not a social situation, there's nothing wrong with the people around you using phones.

post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post


Waah.

A flight is not a social situation, there's nothing wrong with the people around you using phones.

I meant talking on the cell phone. Of course you probably knew that already.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FAA rules to change, may allow iPad, e-reader use pre-flight