It's not about the electronic interference, but about loose objects (often made of aluminum and quite rigid) flying around the cabin...
That's just patently false. The FAA regulation is specifically in regards to causing interference with onboard systems. It has nothing to do with concern about loose objects. Can't we just agree that if you don't know something, you aren't entitled to just make it up?
Nor has there been a single study, scientific or otherwise, justifying the FAA's rule that two pilots must fly commercial passenger airliners. In fact, there have been several cases recently (JetBlue crazy pilot, etc) where it has been proven that a single pilot can safely fly the airplane.
Nor has there been a single study, scientific or otherwise, justifying the FAA's rule that C4 explosives without the detonators be banned from my carry-on. There hasn't been a single case where C4 has exploded onboard an airliner without a detonator being present.
This rule making by so-called "aviation experts" without having any justification what-so-ever is really getting out of hand. Senators probably spend a lot more time flying than these FAA rulemaking bodies, so they're probably better informed than these FAA flunkies.
/SARCASM OFF.
Now it makes sense to me. If you want to argue in support of one regulation which has no evidence to support it, you cite a few more examples. That way you've proven that silly rules make total sense as long as there are also other silly rules.
Of course, the C4 example is a little different and is more akin to transporting a firearm in the cabin. But that's neither here nor there.
By the way, you don't need to add your sarcasm tag. Your comments are funny enough as they are.
I'm going to point something out to you, and I hope you'll remember it for future arguments on this topic. No one...NO ONE...is suggesting to change the FAA rules regarding radios being enabled during flight. Granted, you're hardly unique in trying to confuse the issue by throwing up (anecdotal) evidence of radio interference issues but what you have to begin to comprehend is that it has nothing to do with this specific issue.
Having the radios enabled on cell phones, AM/FM radios, wireless devices (which actually are allowed with in-flight wireless Internet), remote control cars, and anything else with a radio has nothing to do with a general ban on the use of electronic items during takoff and landing. The "no radios" rule would remain in effect. Why should it? Because there ARE actual studies suggesting potential interference.
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
In reading about the FAA budget cutbacks, does it not make sense that this huge issue would have taken a backseat. Personally, the 12 minutes it takes you to get to altitude is not really that much of a nick in my life. Is this really that huge of a issue to be offline for a short period of time?
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
The bombers are just disregarding rules they think are BS :P
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
It's great that you have a holier than thou attitude and feel the need to disregard rules that you disagree with. Perhaps I should start murdering folks I don't care for because I don't like the rules that say I can't.
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
Yeah, we should all start to dis-reguard rules we don't agree with.
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
I still haven't heard someone explain to me why this apparent risk (which is totally made up) somehow disappears once the plane reaches 10k feet.
Why not be totally safe and not get on the damn airplane? Or wrap yourself in bubble wrap, wear a gas mask, and do a rain dance before you get on the plane? Just in case. Why not? Is it such an inconvenience to do those things? Why would you risk your safety by not doing a rain dance? Maybe YOU want to play with fire (another potential activity to satisfy the spirits) but why would you risk the other lives?
Does anyone know what type of certification aircraft instruments go through? There's a reason an aircraft-grade GPS installed in a commercial airline plane costs tens of thousands of dollars!
That an ipad (or even 50) can interfere with their redundant, redundant, redundant navigation systems is a preposterous idea! Even if they could, by a freak accident interfere, there are backup ways to pilot. How do you think airplanes flew before GPS?
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
I still haven't heard someone explain to me why this apparent risk (which is totally made up) somehow disappears once the plane reaches 10k feet.
Why not be totally safe and not get on the damn airplane? Or wrap yourself in bubble wrap, wear a gas mask, and do a rain dance before you get on the plane? Just in case. Why not? Is it such an inconvenience to do those things? Why would you risk your safety by not doing a rain dance? Maybe YOU want to play with fire (another potential activity to satisfy the spirits) but why would you risk the other lives?
The argument is that the aircraft is more vulnerable to navigational and control errors during the takeoff and landing phases than during level flight. Plus the quite separate risk of PEDs becoming projectiles in the cabin in the event of emergency or unanticipated maneuvers/excursions.
It's great that you have a holier than thou attitude and feel the need to disregard rules that you disagree with. Perhaps I should start murdering folks I don't care for because I don't like the rules that say I can't.
Everybody lives by their own set of rules, and I believe that anybody claiming the opposite would be full of crap. Even the politicians, the President and the supposed leaders of this country select which laws they follow and which ones they will totally disregard. I live by my own rules, and I decide what I will follow or not. I follow most rules and laws, though I do break a few here and there, as I have deemed certain specific rules and laws to be a waste of my time and an insult to free people.
If you wish to equate murdering people to using an iPad, then I guess that's your choice. It'll be on the Five O'Clock news! Breaking News! The suspected criminal and fugitive known as Apple ][ was reportedly seen playing Angry Birds during takeoff on United flight 927. Any tips or information leading to the arrest and conviction of Apple ][ will be eligible for a $10,000 reward. Be warned, this criminal is thought to be armed with a black 32 GB iPad and is known for being able to play a mean game of Tetris.
Does anyone know what type of certification aircraft instruments go through? There's a reason an aircraft-grade GPS installed in a commercial airline plane costs tens of thousands of dollars!
That an ipad (or even 50) can interfere with their redundant, redundant, redundant navigation systems is a preposterous idea! Even if they could, by a freak accident interfere, there are backup ways to pilot. How do you think airplanes flew before GPS?
Just because an instrument has been certified for aviation use doesn't mean that it is immune to interference from sources that were not considered when the certification process was established. Especially when dealing with the very low signal strengths from the GPS system.
I think the unanswered question is just how freak such incidents would be if there were widespread use of PEDs. However, since many are allowed during level flight when the same navigational instruments are operating, one would expect that interference effects (other than from cell phones) would by now be well documented.
Common sense really should be the factor here. The most dangerous parts of flight are landing and take off. While electronic devices are "light" what happens when they leave the hands of the owner during turbulence while landing and smacks someone in the eye or mouth. Who then gets to be sued - the airline, the owner, the FAA? Yes, electronic interference is mostly bunk, but the potential for injury is higher in an already over litigious society.
A Missouri senator, impatient with slow progress by the Federal Aviation Administration, has taken it upon herself to address the use of electronic devices like Apple's iPad on airplanes, and she's putting together a bill that would allow passengers to use their devices from takeoff through to landing.
<em>Politico</em> <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/bill-would-allow-ipad-use-from-takeoff-to-landing-88594.html">reported</a> on Thursday that Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) had expressed concern over FAA Administrator Michael Huerta's "lack of direct engagement" on the issue of electronics use during takeoff and landing. Currently, airline passengers are required to power down portable electronics devices from the closing of cabin doors until ten minutes after takeoff. Likewise, passengers must turn off their devices prior to the plane's landing and are not supposed to restart them until so advised by the flight crew.
"I am concerned," McCaskill wrote, "that relying on the ARC to drive change on this issue creates the potential for the process to drag on indefinitely. Many stakeholders have entrenched positions on this issue and have long resisted commonsense changes to the [portable electronic devices] rules... I was disappointed by the lack of commitment to the matter in your response.
Simply put, electronic devices that are currently allowed above 10,000 feet should be allowed for use during all phases of flight. It is preposterous to think that an e-reader in a passenger's hands during takeoff is anymore a threat to other passengers or crew members than a hardback book."
McCaskill's letter was in response to a <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/07/2013-02-12-huerta_response_on_peds.html">previous reply</a> from Huerta, dated February 12, 2013. In it, Huerta stated that the FAA was "still reviewing and evaluating the more detailed comments for the ARC," and asserted a six-month timeline before the ARC would present its recommendations to the FAA.
Speaking with <em>Politico</em>, McCaskill again expressed her disappointment with Huerta's response, saying that the next step for her would be "calling in the stakeholders ourselves and beginning to try to pull together the right legislation."
McCaskill says it's too early to tell what form any bill to address the impasse would take. The Missouri senator says she will continue to work with the FAA to resolve the impasse, but she reiterated that she wants more engagement from Huerta.
What do you know the Government is slow in finding answers to seemingly easy questions. It is ironic that a government official is fed up with the "bull" she gets from another government agency.
[" url="/t/156375/proposed-bill-would-allow-ipad-use-from-takeoff-to-landing/30#post_2290501"]Everybody lives by their own set of rules, and I believe that anybody claiming the opposite would be full of crap. Even the politicians, the President and the supposed leaders of this country select which laws they follow and which ones they will totally disregard. I live by my own rules, and I decide what I will follow or not. I follow most rules and laws, though I do break a few here and there, as I have deemed certain specific rules and laws to be a waste of my time and an insult to free people.
If you wish to equate murdering people to using an iPad, then I guess that's your choice. It'll be on the Five O'Clock news! Breaking News! The suspected criminal and fugitive known as Apple ][ was reportedly seen playing Angry Birds during takeoff on United flight 927. Any tips or information leading to the arrest and conviction of Apple ][ will be eligible for a $10,000 reward. Be warned, this criminal is thought to be armed with a black 32 GB iPad and is known for being able to play a mean game of Tetris.
I often agree with much if what you say. But you're being ridiculous here. Because IF anything were to happen, it is because you took everyone's life in your hands, nit just your own.
I highly doubt you're so important that you can't turn off a device for 10 minutes.
Finally, not to get political, but we have far bigger problems in the US than using a device on take offs and landings. Get real.
But here's something to consider. Perhaps these rules are considering the fact that there are (no surprise) a lot of really nasty people in the world that would love to take down a few more of our jetliners. Using a heavily modified device (or more likely merely using a laptop case as a shell) that contains a high-powered transmitter with some on-screen controls to look like a game or something innocuous, could this be trouble? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me, and I doubt the $8/hour x-ray "techs" would be able to tell the difference, as long as a laptop could boot. That said, I think if someone had such a device it could be 90% effective at altitude, not just takeoff/landing, but again, this is speculation.
This argument is garbage. You expect your evildoer to follow the rules to turn off his cell phone? Flight attendants can't even make passengers turn off an iPod, much less a "malicious device" that could even be left inside carry-on luggage, unseen. Let's make a law against terrorism. That'll really help!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
+1
It's not about the electronic interference, but about loose objects (often made of aluminum and quite rigid) flying around the cabin...
That's just patently false. The FAA regulation is specifically in regards to causing interference with onboard systems. It has nothing to do with concern about loose objects. Can't we just agree that if you don't know something, you aren't entitled to just make it up?
Originally Posted by cnocbui
In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player
Abject nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by entification
Nor has there been a single study, scientific or otherwise, justifying the FAA's rule that two pilots must fly commercial passenger airliners. In fact, there have been several cases recently (JetBlue crazy pilot, etc) where it has been proven that a single pilot can safely fly the airplane.
Nor has there been a single study, scientific or otherwise, justifying the FAA's rule that C4 explosives without the detonators be banned from my carry-on. There hasn't been a single case where C4 has exploded onboard an airliner without a detonator being present.
This rule making by so-called "aviation experts" without having any justification what-so-ever is really getting out of hand. Senators probably spend a lot more time flying than these FAA rulemaking bodies, so they're probably better informed than these FAA flunkies.
/SARCASM OFF.
Now it makes sense to me. If you want to argue in support of one regulation which has no evidence to support it, you cite a few more examples. That way you've proven that silly rules make total sense as long as there are also other silly rules.
Of course, the C4 example is a little different and is more akin to transporting a firearm in the cabin. But that's neither here nor there.
By the way, you don't need to add your sarcasm tag. Your comments are funny enough as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Ooo, let me see, would I put my life in the hands of the mythbusters or qualified members of the IEEE. Gee, that's a tough one.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed/0
I'm going to point something out to you, and I hope you'll remember it for future arguments on this topic. No one...NO ONE...is suggesting to change the FAA rules regarding radios being enabled during flight. Granted, you're hardly unique in trying to confuse the issue by throwing up (anecdotal) evidence of radio interference issues but what you have to begin to comprehend is that it has nothing to do with this specific issue.
Having the radios enabled on cell phones, AM/FM radios, wireless devices (which actually are allowed with in-flight wireless Internet), remote control cars, and anything else with a radio has nothing to do with a general ban on the use of electronic items during takoff and landing. The "no radios" rule would remain in effect. Why should it? Because there ARE actual studies suggesting potential interference.
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
In reading about the FAA budget cutbacks, does it not make sense that this huge issue would have taken a backseat. Personally, the 12 minutes it takes you to get to altitude is not really that much of a nick in my life. Is this really that huge of a issue to be offline for a short period of time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
The bombers are just disregarding rules they think are BS :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Of course, the C4 example is a little different and is more akin to transporting a firearm in the cabin. But that's neither here nor there.
C4 would also be a significant fire hazard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
It's great that you have a holier than thou attitude and feel the need to disregard rules that you disagree with. Perhaps I should start murdering folks I don't care for because I don't like the rules that say I can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I always keep my devices on, and I totally disregard this BS rule as I refuse to abide by it. Not a single plane has crashed yet on any flight that I've been on, though one did have to make an emergency landing, but that was before iPads even existed.
There are far greater safety issues that are totally disregarded, and they should fix those instead of telling me to turn off my iPad. The incompetent screeners can't even stop people with bombs from getting through security. Worry about that instead, and don't tell me what to do with my iPad, because I will simply ignore it.
Yeah, we should all start to dis-reguard rules we don't agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveStuff
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
I still haven't heard someone explain to me why this apparent risk (which is totally made up) somehow disappears once the plane reaches 10k feet.
Why not be totally safe and not get on the damn airplane? Or wrap yourself in bubble wrap, wear a gas mask, and do a rain dance before you get on the plane? Just in case. Why not? Is it such an inconvenience to do those things? Why would you risk your safety by not doing a rain dance? Maybe YOU want to play with fire (another potential activity to satisfy the spirits) but why would you risk the other lives?
Does anyone know what type of certification aircraft instruments go through? There's a reason an aircraft-grade GPS installed in a commercial airline plane costs tens of thousands of dollars!
That an ipad (or even 50) can interfere with their redundant, redundant, redundant navigation systems is a preposterous idea! Even if they could, by a freak accident interfere, there are backup ways to pilot. How do you think airplanes flew before GPS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveStuff
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
I still haven't heard someone explain to me why this apparent risk (which is totally made up) somehow disappears once the plane reaches 10k feet.
Why not be totally safe and not get on the damn airplane? Or wrap yourself in bubble wrap, wear a gas mask, and do a rain dance before you get on the plane? Just in case. Why not? Is it such an inconvenience to do those things? Why would you risk your safety by not doing a rain dance? Maybe YOU want to play with fire (another potential activity to satisfy the spirits) but why would you risk the other lives?
The argument is that the aircraft is more vulnerable to navigational and control errors during the takeoff and landing phases than during level flight. Plus the quite separate risk of PEDs becoming projectiles in the cabin in the event of emergency or unanticipated maneuvers/excursions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger
It's great that you have a holier than thou attitude and feel the need to disregard rules that you disagree with. Perhaps I should start murdering folks I don't care for because I don't like the rules that say I can't.
Everybody lives by their own set of rules, and I believe that anybody claiming the opposite would be full of crap. Even the politicians, the President and the supposed leaders of this country select which laws they follow and which ones they will totally disregard. I live by my own rules, and I decide what I will follow or not. I follow most rules and laws, though I do break a few here and there, as I have deemed certain specific rules and laws to be a waste of my time and an insult to free people.
If you wish to equate murdering people to using an iPad, then I guess that's your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic
Does anyone know what type of certification aircraft instruments go through? There's a reason an aircraft-grade GPS installed in a commercial airline plane costs tens of thousands of dollars!
That an ipad (or even 50) can interfere with their redundant, redundant, redundant navigation systems is a preposterous idea! Even if they could, by a freak accident interfere, there are backup ways to pilot. How do you think airplanes flew before GPS?
Just because an instrument has been certified for aviation use doesn't mean that it is immune to interference from sources that were not considered when the certification process was established. Especially when dealing with the very low signal strengths from the GPS system.
I think the unanswered question is just how freak such incidents would be if there were widespread use of PEDs. However, since many are allowed during level flight when the same navigational instruments are operating, one would expect that interference effects (other than from cell phones) would by now be well documented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nacymex
Common sense really should be the factor here. The most dangerous parts of flight are landing and take off. While electronic devices are "light" what happens when they leave the hands of the owner during turbulence while landing and smacks someone in the eye or mouth. Who then gets to be sued - the airline, the owner, the FAA? Yes, electronic interference is mostly bunk, but the potential for injury is higher in an already over litigious society.
My hard cover book mocks your weak arguments.
I often agree with much if what you say. But you're being ridiculous here. Because IF anything were to happen, it is because you took everyone's life in your hands, nit just your own.
I highly doubt you're so important that you can't turn off a device for 10 minutes.
Finally, not to get political, but we have far bigger problems in the US than using a device on take offs and landings. Get real.
/end political comments.
Typed on phone, sorry if there are errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
But here's something to consider. Perhaps these rules are considering the fact that there are (no surprise) a lot of really nasty people in the world that would love to take down a few more of our jetliners. Using a heavily modified device (or more likely merely using a laptop case as a shell) that contains a high-powered transmitter with some on-screen controls to look like a game or something innocuous, could this be trouble? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me, and I doubt the $8/hour x-ray "techs" would be able to tell the difference, as long as a laptop could boot. That said, I think if someone had such a device it could be 90% effective at altitude, not just takeoff/landing, but again, this is speculation.This argument is garbage. You expect your evildoer to follow the rules to turn off his cell phone? Flight attendants can't even make passengers turn off an iPod, much less a "malicious device" that could even be left inside carry-on luggage, unseen. Let's make a law against terrorism. That'll really help!