Proposed bill would allow iPad use from takeoff to landing

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 81
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    The most recent flight I took domestically was on SouthWest and they still gave us peanuts.

    Unfortunately they were packing peanuts.
  • Reply 62 of 81
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Perhaps that explains the gas.

  • Reply 63 of 81
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    frxntier wrote: »
    Do you even know what you're saying? What would be the difference between a malfunction during takeoff and one during flight? You do realise that devices can be used on airlines during flight? And you do realise that plane isnt suddenly switched off during flight to allow people to use electronic devices? We already allow electronic devices on flights! Why are people talking as if it would be a disaster if we allowed this, when we already do. The only issue is extending the period over which devices can be used. At least 80% of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article and just want to spew out ridiculous garbage which they think contributes to the conversation in a meaningful way.

    galore2112 wrote: »
    Maybe the FAA should make a rule that every commercial aircraft must be hardy enough to tolerate consumer electronics. An aircraft shouldn't be so fickle that it may cause problems if someone accidentally leaves their iPad on during take-off or landing.

    IMO, the original rule is a CYA example probably originating from when GSM chirps annoyed some pilots with their crappy intercom to the tower. 

    Read my earlier post. There are plenty of reasons for requiring them to be put away that have nothing to do with electronic signals.
  • Reply 64 of 81
    Really? Is it so absolutely imperative that we maintain our "connected" lives that we can't turn off a damned device (regardless of whether its a tablet or a music device) for the time it takes for an aircraft to get to altitude? I think Sen. McCaskill should work harder on fixing the budget than trying to develop legislation for convenience.
  • Reply 65 of 81
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by focher View Post


    This view is so wrong-headed. I'm hardly anti-government regulation, but what you suggest is a default position that places the burden on those being regulated on justifying why the behavior shouldn't be regulated. It's the exact opposite. There has been not a single study - scientific or otherwise - justifying the FAA's rules. Rules which are not even applied consistently by airlines (hence the "airplane mode isn't enough, you need to turn the device fully off" from some airlines).


     


    The standard of government regulation isn't "burden on the activity or person". It's necessity of the regulation. When there are regulations which simply violate common sense, like this one, then it just reinforces the anti-regulation attitude many Americans have.


     


    Personally, this is exactly the kind of issue I like to see Senators take up as democratically elected representatives.



    I disagree, even though I personally feel that there's no danger (since many passengers never actually shut down their devices anyway - they just place them out of sight).    I don't want politicians making decisions on what's safe or on what's science even when regulators don't do their job properly.    The result of that is politicians who deny global warming and even those who deny evolution.    Even if the FAA is totally wrong on this issue, what's the harm?   That people are inconvenienced for a few minutes?    So they won't play some stupid game while the plane is landing.    Even if they rule that electronic devices do not affect a plane's navigation readings or controls, they're still not going to let you keep them un-stowed during take-off and landing.   At times, I've even been told to put a trade paperback away.    


     


    My bet is that McCaskill got "yelled at" on a flight while she was on her phone when the plane was ready to take off.     I think that everyone in Congress should be working on economic, budgetary, environmental, educational, gun control (or not), health insurance or issues concerning the wars we're still engaged in instead of this silly trivia.   


     


    If you want to do something that really affects travelers, I'd go after the stupidity of "security theatre" in airports as well as the ridiculousness of airlines getting away with quoting a fare without all of the extra charges that can raise a fare by as much as 30%.   

  • Reply 66 of 81
    kjohnstkjohnst Posts: 2member


    Actually, it is standard policy to test all aviation devices against one another...it's called "Source/Victim" testing.  And yes, it's a very laborious process.  That's in part why certification of any device is very time consuming and expensive.


     


    No matter your personal opinion, airworthiness will not be based on "I think it's ok because nothing as happened before".  Either prove a device will not degrade avionics systems, or live with the ban.


     


    A more useful discussion would be how to certify devices, not should they be certified.

  • Reply 67 of 81
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by focher View Post


    Yeah, those are great stories. Irrelevant, but great. Perhaps it's important to understand the subject matter here. It's not about allowing the use of radios on the plane ... under any conditions. It's about using standard electronic devices - most of which don't even have radios - during takeoff and landing.



     


    Comments like that just prove why non-engineers shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions.


     


    Any device with an oscillator is a transmitter.  That includes an iPad, an MP3 player, a handheld game, or any other device with a CPU.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by galore2112 View Post


    Maybe the FAA should make a rule that every commercial aircraft must be hardy enough to tolerate consumer electronics. An aircraft shouldn't be so fickle that it may cause problems if someone accidentally leaves their iPad on during take-off or landing.



     


    Perhaps one day everything will be done by fiberoptics, and the crew cabin will be hardened.  That day is not yet here.


     


    As for the FAA, it's more about keeping airlines flying than about passenger safety.  Think of all the years that the NTSB recommended fire suppression systems, and yet the FAA failed to make them a requirement because of the extra cost to the airlines. 


     



    IMO, the original rule is a CYA example probably originating from when GSM chirps annoyed some pilots with their crappy intercom to the tower. 



     


    It's about being just "annoyed".   When a pilot can't hear instructions, people can and do die in collisions.


     


    Non-pilots have become so accustomed to thinking of flying as like being on a safe bus, that they simply do not realize how a single mistake can lead to a disaster... and how often this can happen.


     


    However, right now, I'm more worried about people leaving lithium cells in their baggage.  There are reports of baggage like that catching fire while on the way to the plane.  It's likely just a matter of time before an airliner is brought down by such an accident.

  • Reply 68 of 81


    Dude, surfers should not be prohibited by law from surfing, when there is no danger from the practice thereof.  My airline can say "please don't surf and pay attention," we gots no problem with that; it can be ignored.  It undermines the rule of law to have bogus Sh ... Stuff like "oh, there's electromagnetic radiation that will cause the plane to crash" and everyone knows it ain't true.  So ... [consider that you have been told ...]  

  • Reply 69 of 81


    IN my formative years I was told I had to wear socks on the plane for safety reasons.  Dude.  SRSLY.  Get over it.  I did.

  • Reply 70 of 81
    So I can't read my e-reader during take off or bring a bottle of shampoo, but I'm allowed to carry a pocket knife in my pocket?
  • Reply 71 of 81
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    n/m

  • Reply 72 of 81
    Until you pass a friggin budget & solve our Nation's debt crisis I couldn't give a flying fart about whiners having to turn off their phones for 10 mins during crucial flight times. If this is really so big a deal to you that you think legislative action should be taken you belong in a rehab center cause you have an addiction.
  • Reply 73 of 81
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    apres587 wrote: »
    So I can't read my e-reader during take off or bring a bottle of shampoo, but I'm allowed to carry a pocket knife in my pocket?

    To be fair, pocket knives are less of a problem now that the cockpit doors are reinforced.
  • Reply 74 of 81
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    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.



    All your post proves (again) is that you're a self-absorbed ass. If the FAA is wrong, what does it cost? A few minutes of electronic silence. You being wrong could possibly mean a crashed plane. With the stakes so high, I'd rather err on the side of caution, especially when the alternative is so harmless.

  • Reply 75 of 81
    jragosta wrote: »
    To be fair, pocket knives are less of a problem now that the cockpit doors are reinforced.
    Not to the stuages.
  • Reply 76 of 81

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    To be fair, pocket knives are less of a problem now that the cockpit doors are reinforced.




    The pilot has to come out sometime, unless there's a port-a-potty in the cockpit.  If the cockpit door is never opened during flight, then guns should be allowed too.

  • Reply 77 of 81
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Apres587 View Post

    The pilot has to come out sometime, unless there's a port-a-potty in the cockpit.  If the cockpit door is never opened during flight, then guns should be allowed too.


     


    Yes, let's allow the potential wonton slaughter of hundreds as long as the pilot's safe.

  • Reply 78 of 81
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Yes, let's allow the potential wonton slaughter of hundreds as long as the pilot's safe.



     


    If every male passenger has a pocket knife, I don't think even multiple hijackers are going to get a chance to slaughter "hundreds".  


     


    More like hundreds will slaughter them.

  • Reply 79 of 81
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

    If every male passenger has a pocket knife, I don't think even multiple hijackers are going to get a chance to slaughter "hundreds".  


     


    More like hundreds will slaughter them.



     


    Pocket knives are known to do well against metal projectiles moving at the speed of sound.

  • Reply 80 of 81
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Pocket knives are known to do well against metal projectiles moving at the speed of sound.



     


    Oops, sorry.  I didn't catch that you were responding to someone suggesting that guns should be allowed.


     


     


Sign In or Register to comment.