There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it:
By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible.
This isn't controversial, complex or even hard to figure out. It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
Disappointing that the Times did not bother to learn this or to write a more informative story.
As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.
The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity.
Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year.
Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen.
So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself.
[1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.
> If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible.
I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.
> It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.
While this explains why you must stow the devices, it doesn't explain why you have to power them off, why it's often OK to hold a device that's turned off, and why nobody ever tells you to put down a book or magazine during these times.
That may be a good reason to tell passengers to avoid using a laptop, for example. But a kindle? What's the difference between reading a kindle and reading a paper book in terms of "emergency preparedness"? Absolutely nothing.
Also, you're just inventing reasons out of thin air. This is not the reason why the FAA has such restrictions. The reason is that it is very difficult to test a plane as being immune to interference from every single possible handheld consumer electronic device, and it would be too complicated to enforce a selective ban.
Your response is an example of the natural tendency of some people to find comfort in authority, even when it is shown to be ineffective. Nothing personal. Lots of people react in the same way. Sad nonetheless.
I don't find this plausible. Is there any evidence to suggest that, during an emergency condition requiring cooperation, people continue to text and make calls? To quote Mitch Hedberg, "If you're flammable and have legs, you're never blocking a fire exit."
Sorry, but this is bullshit. What makes electronic distractions worse than non-electronic ones? Why does the medium of a dead tree versus an e-reader when the activity is the same: reading a book.
If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention
I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.
Even though you've stated this in a very confident tone and have a lot of upvotes, I don't really see any evidence for your claim. Stowing carry-ons/no drink service during takeoff could as easily be explained by not wanting projectiles flying about the cabin when the plane bounces, the challenge of keeping your feet while the direction of gravity is shifting around you, etc. None of these reasons apply to electronic devices.
And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
Then why can you read a book, magazine, feed a baby, etc.? Honestly, I feel like everyone keeps backing into these ridiculously vague "well... safety" answers with no justification. The FAA clearly told the reporter HOW the rule came to be, through a hypothetical concern that was not supported by evidence. Just like this one.
Okay, so I have to put it away - your argument is logical and compelling. But why do I have to turn it off?
(And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))
I often fly between two cities here in Norway, and the flight time is just 30 minutes (it takes 5 hours by train, btw). One airline insists on serving coffee to everyone, and the since the coffee is blistering hot, some people usually still have a hot cup of coffee in their hands while landing.
> it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions
I've taken the plane more than a hundred times, I know the instructions and I know no one has ever bothered me when I leave my ipod/phone/nintendo ds turned on. Sometimes the flight attendance asked me to turn it off so I comply, otherwise I don't. Also especially because I like to listen to music when I take off and feel like I'm in a movie.
If the elimination of risk were really the objective, they'd require passengers to travel in paper gowns with no carry-ons or luggage. But the fact of the matter is that they make the rules they think they can get away with, not the rules that will increase safety. And one way or another, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone's life is going to be in danger from ten people playing game boys immediately prior to an air emergency.
I think it's disappointing that we react to weird rules by inventing reasons to defend them.
You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.
You have a good point. However, knowing that electronic devices cannot be used, many fliers (including myself) bring their own alternative such as magazines, books, etc.
I have never seen a stewardess calling somebody's attention for reading a book. On the other hand, they'll quickly force you to stop using almost anything that has an on/off switch.
MythBusters covered this awhile back, and busted the myth: "The final explanation is that, even though the airplanes appear to be well-shielded against cellphone interference, there are so many different electronics in a cockpit, as well as so many different cellphones constantly coming out, the FAA doesn't want to do the necessary testing."[1]
This sums it up pretty well:
"The regulatory agencies and aviation industry take the position that any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable."
There's some technical channel sharing problems where phones have access to more towers than designed on land. The FCC can't predict what would happen if phones were allowed to stay on in regards to cell roaming. They also don't know the effects on the avionics.
It looks like they're developing 'picocells' to have an on-board tower, but there are struggles with the different cellular bands. Though, there are some European carriers that have been successful with just letting people keep their phones on.
That said - I think if your device doesn't have a radio on it, it should be allowed to stay on. Which probably won't fly given the 'if it's avoidable' rationale.
The last time I flew, most of the people around me didn't know the difference between "airplane mode", "standby", and "off". I'd bet that at least 80% of the phones on that flight were full on despite the efforts of the crew and the device's owners.
Everyone turning off everything successfully before takeoff is pure fiction.
Cell phone transmissions are much less frequent when the phone is idle than when it is in active use. Even if people just stop talking on the phones, it's better than nothing.
Reminds me of a Southwest flight attendent on a recent flight: "The definition of 'turn off all electronic devices' is to 'turn off any device that is electronic'.
Easily the most annoying part of flying for me, particularly when doing a quick flight from SFO to LAX is the insistence that I turn off my Kindle while we are lining up for the runway.
* People reading newspapers, and books - both of which are larger, heavier, and just as distracting, and in the case of newspapers, a greater obstacle - are not told to put away their reading material - so the argument that "people need to pay attention on takeoff/landing" is not consistent.
* RF engineers haven't been able to prove that a kindle in airplane mode has a negligible likelihood of impacting the flight systems of an airplane. Really?
One solution, albeit a slightly annoying one, is to have a distinctively colored LED or indicator that is visible from the walkway of the airplane to a stewardess, but not annoying to the reader, which indicates whether a device has been placed in airplane mode.
The new motto then would be "Everyone please place their FAA certified equipment into airplane safety mode. All other electronics, iPads, kindles, laptops, gameboys, iPhones, iPods, must now be put away"
People, being people, would likely start putting the fake LEDs on their electronics to simulate the FAA approved one, unfortunately, not sure what to do about that.
I recall years ago sitting in the LAX UA red carpet club listening to a portable cd player (yup, long ago). My music cut out, and thru my cd player, that didn't even have a radio as I recall, I was listening to the pilot pulling into the gate outside the window communicating with the ground crews over his headset.
Now, as I understand it, that lovely FCC stamp on the back of our electronics means the device must accept any interference received since it's a consumer product... but I'd also hate for my pilots to unexpectedly get my co-passenger's latest dubstep mix opposed to the air traffic controller during takeoff.
For the record: I'm the guy that intentionally leaves his phone on, in airplane mode, idling. I think this is good enough.
EMC is black magic and airplane safety is another and thus nobody is willing to say that using random RF devices onboard of plane is safe - for one reason it's almost impossible to test. By the way owner's manual for my new car contains paragraph that explicitly disallows usage of any RF transmitter inside the car that does not have external antenna (and I would assume that most car manufacturers include similar paragraph in their manuals and also that everybody ignores them).
Cellular networks and cell phones are not designed for relative speeds and RF propagation modes of high flying commercial aircraft. Most access methods of digital wireless networks depend on precise timing where propagation delays are significant and thus need to compensate for relative movement of phone and base station and there are pretty low limits of how fast movement can be compensated (it's almost practical to drive car faster than speed limit of GSM1800). Also higher levels of cellular protocol stacks are not exactly prepared for situation when phone sees large number of accessible cells with quite strong signal and this set changes very quickly.
There is zero risk to a regulator in maintaining a pointless yet harmless regulation. There is nonzero risk to a regulator in revoking a regulation that may be blamed in the future by a crash investigator.
Even if the risk is absolutely 0.0001% -- fear and CYA wins. Our system of regulation and collective transfer of responsibility to regulators ensures that like a federal subsidy, nonsensical regulations are forever.
Here's what I don't understand, and admittedly I have very little knowledge of the industry.
There seems to be some sort of approval process for electronics to be vetted during takeoff and landing. Several in-chair entertainment systems seem to have this rating/designation and are allowed during takeoff/landing.
So, is there no dollar amount that could be paid to properly test a particular product? Let's say the Kindle or iPod. It may be millions of dollars, but wouldn't there be a huge word-of-mouth and marketing upside if you could get approved for such a thing?
Let's presume for a moment that some sort of interference which could be generated by a box the size of a laptop might have a non-trivial risk to passenger safety. Now, think as a terrorist might. How about sending your minions onto planes with devices which look like standard consumer electronics devices but are capable of generating high levels of interference? Around the holidays in the US, someone checking or carrying on what appears to be an A/V receiver in a box would not raise suspicion -- just a gift for a relative. Now, inside that "receiver" is a battery and a transmitter (I'm not an electrical engineering sort of guy, so substitute the appropriate components) which emits what signals the terrorists hope will interfere with onboard avionics. Via a remote switch, the terrorist turns on the device during take-off and landing. If the plane crashes, is forced to make multiple attempts at a landing, etc., then the terrorists know they're onto something. They will refine their techniques until they can make plans fall out of the sky. If not, they try other experiments -- different frequencies, etc. Could such experiments even be carried out through transmitters on vans which could be temporarily parked on highways near airports? What if the terrorists could purchase airplane components with which to conduct their own testing and refine their "weapons"? Surely such an avenue of attack, if feasible, would be less effort than training your minions to fly an airplane, even if learning to land was not required? That no known terrorist attacks via this vector have been reported suggests it implausible. A problem with most terrorism "experiments" is that, if the experiment fails, the experimenter ends up imprisoned and thus incapable of further experimentation. Given the obvious recruiting issues the likely outcomes of either imprisonment or death present, terrorists ought to take like ducks to water toward techniques which allow repeated experimentation and refinement. That no incidents have been reported due to avionics malfunction suggests the near impossibility of actual passenger risk. QED?
I think part of it is that the flight staff want you to pay attention during takeoff and landing. Having your headphones on/in means you're not listening to them.
Another part is that the flight staff wants fewer things potentially flying around the cabin if there's trouble. of course, they don't usually ask you to put away books...
Cell phone companies want you to turn off your phones because they mess with the ground towers. Flying past towers rapidly puts load on the cell network to transfer your phone's connection between towers rapidly. Your phone can also see more towers than usual, causing it to possibly flap between them in unexpected ways.
The bit about it being unsafe due to messing with the plane's avionics is total bunk, though. I never turn off electronics on flights, except to save battery.
For me it's great. The last thing I want is to hear someone's boisterous 4 hour conversation with an excited family member while I'm sandwiched between said conversationalist and some 300-pound whale who keeps leaning on me as (s)he repeatedly drifts in and out of consciousness.
Everyone's phone plays movies now anyway. Isn't that good enough? Do we really have to be plugged in every second of the day? Americans are too spoiled. OMG I can't jabber on my phone while flying? waa waaa ='[
What are the consequences for simply refusing to obey a crew member's instruction to power down your Kindle? Sort of like willfully ignoring the distinction between the first-class and economy security lines---something I wish more people would do.
> What are the consequences for simply refusing to obey a crew member's instruction to power down your Kindle?
There's two Federal laws at play: one that requires crewmembers to tell you to power off the device (FAR 121.306), and one that requires you to comply with an lawful instruction given by a crewmember (49 USC Sec. 46504) (Since getting you to turn off the device is a crewmember duty spelled out by the FAA, your refusal to comply falls under "lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties". Intimidation seems to be broadly interpreted in courts as meaning anything other than cooperation. It doesn't matter if you refuse politely).
Thus the potential consequences are: you can be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
If you are getting ready for take-off, the plane returns to the gate and you are escorted off the flight and charged with compromising airline safety and ignoring a steward's order. This happened to a guy two rows in front of me on an American Airlines flight a couple of years ago. He twice refused to turn off his mobile phone as we were taxiing towards the runway.
I was on a flight a few months ago where we stopped on the runway for a few minutes and the flight attendants told us we couldn't take off because "too many" devices were still powered on.
There were 769.6 Million passengers carried in 2009 in the USA (domestic and international). If each loses 30 mins of productive time on a plane because they can't use e-books or devices below 10,000 ft, that's 384,800,000 hours per year lost. Not everyone is working or learning something on a plane, but it puts things into perspective.
[+] [-] Bud|14 years ago|reply
By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible.
This isn't controversial, complex or even hard to figure out. It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
Disappointing that the Times did not bother to learn this or to write a more informative story.
[+] [-] nickbilton|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramanujan|14 years ago|reply
Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year.
Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen.
So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself.
[0] http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-pa...
[1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|14 years ago|reply
I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.
> It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.
[+] [-] mikeash|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
Also, you're just inventing reasons out of thin air. This is not the reason why the FAA has such restrictions. The reason is that it is very difficult to test a plane as being immune to interference from every single possible handheld consumer electronic device, and it would be too complicated to enforce a selective ban.
[+] [-] Zigurd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pathdependent|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bascule|14 years ago|reply
If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention
[+] [-] rdtsc|14 years ago|reply
I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|14 years ago|reply
And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
[+] [-] lubujackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obiefernandez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fishtoaster|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|14 years ago|reply
My 500 ml bottle of water is strictly forbidden.
Couldn't a terrorist could come equipped with a collection of gameboys and tamagotchis to bring the plane down?
[+] [-] bambax|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rakkhi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sc00ter|14 years ago|reply
(And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))
[+] [-] vetler|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|14 years ago|reply
I've taken the plane more than a hundred times, I know the instructions and I know no one has ever bothered me when I leave my ipod/phone/nintendo ds turned on. Sometimes the flight attendance asked me to turn it off so I comply, otherwise I don't. Also especially because I like to listen to music when I take off and feel like I'm in a movie.
[+] [-] jeffreymcmanus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darklajid|14 years ago|reply
You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.
[+] [-] vitobcn|14 years ago|reply
I have never seen a stewardess calling somebody's attention for reading a book. On the other hand, they'll quickly force you to stop using almost anything that has an on/off switch.
[+] [-] pcvarmint|14 years ago|reply
You've never flown first class, I take it?
[+] [-] panotpon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gchucky|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_...
[+] [-] trout|14 years ago|reply
This sums it up pretty well: "The regulatory agencies and aviation industry take the position that any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable."
There's some technical channel sharing problems where phones have access to more towers than designed on land. The FCC can't predict what would happen if phones were allowed to stay on in regards to cell roaming. They also don't know the effects on the avionics.
It looks like they're developing 'picocells' to have an on-board tower, but there are struggles with the different cellular bands. Though, there are some European carriers that have been successful with just letting people keep their phones on.
That said - I think if your device doesn't have a radio on it, it should be allowed to stay on. Which probably won't fly given the 'if it's avoidable' rationale.
[+] [-] noonespecial|14 years ago|reply
Everyone turning off everything successfully before takeoff is pure fiction.
[+] [-] bdonlan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] look_lookatme|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|14 years ago|reply
* People reading newspapers, and books - both of which are larger, heavier, and just as distracting, and in the case of newspapers, a greater obstacle - are not told to put away their reading material - so the argument that "people need to pay attention on takeoff/landing" is not consistent.
* RF engineers haven't been able to prove that a kindle in airplane mode has a negligible likelihood of impacting the flight systems of an airplane. Really?
One solution, albeit a slightly annoying one, is to have a distinctively colored LED or indicator that is visible from the walkway of the airplane to a stewardess, but not annoying to the reader, which indicates whether a device has been placed in airplane mode.
The new motto then would be "Everyone please place their FAA certified equipment into airplane safety mode. All other electronics, iPads, kindles, laptops, gameboys, iPhones, iPods, must now be put away"
People, being people, would likely start putting the fake LEDs on their electronics to simulate the FAA approved one, unfortunately, not sure what to do about that.
[+] [-] brk|14 years ago|reply
Unless you're paying the ripoff $10 fee for in-flight Wifi, then the dangers are magically avoided.
[+] [-] mhb|14 years ago|reply
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-ai...
[+] [-] knightgj|14 years ago|reply
Now, as I understand it, that lovely FCC stamp on the back of our electronics means the device must accept any interference received since it's a consumer product... but I'd also hate for my pilots to unexpectedly get my co-passenger's latest dubstep mix opposed to the air traffic controller during takeoff.
For the record: I'm the guy that intentionally leaves his phone on, in airplane mode, idling. I think this is good enough.
[+] [-] dfox|14 years ago|reply
EMC is black magic and airplane safety is another and thus nobody is willing to say that using random RF devices onboard of plane is safe - for one reason it's almost impossible to test. By the way owner's manual for my new car contains paragraph that explicitly disallows usage of any RF transmitter inside the car that does not have external antenna (and I would assume that most car manufacturers include similar paragraph in their manuals and also that everybody ignores them).
Cellular networks and cell phones are not designed for relative speeds and RF propagation modes of high flying commercial aircraft. Most access methods of digital wireless networks depend on precise timing where propagation delays are significant and thus need to compensate for relative movement of phone and base station and there are pretty low limits of how fast movement can be compensated (it's almost practical to drive car faster than speed limit of GSM1800). Also higher levels of cellular protocol stacks are not exactly prepared for situation when phone sees large number of accessible cells with quite strong signal and this set changes very quickly.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swdunlop|14 years ago|reply
Even if the risk is absolutely 0.0001% -- fear and CYA wins. Our system of regulation and collective transfer of responsibility to regulators ensures that like a federal subsidy, nonsensical regulations are forever.
[+] [-] arn|14 years ago|reply
There seems to be some sort of approval process for electronics to be vetted during takeoff and landing. Several in-chair entertainment systems seem to have this rating/designation and are allowed during takeoff/landing.
So, is there no dollar amount that could be paid to properly test a particular product? Let's say the Kindle or iPod. It may be millions of dollars, but wouldn't there be a huge word-of-mouth and marketing upside if you could get approved for such a thing?
[+] [-] ShabbyDoo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1010011010|14 years ago|reply
Another part is that the flight staff wants fewer things potentially flying around the cabin if there's trouble. of course, they don't usually ask you to put away books...
Cell phone companies want you to turn off your phones because they mess with the ground towers. Flying past towers rapidly puts load on the cell network to transfer your phone's connection between towers rapidly. Your phone can also see more towers than usual, causing it to possibly flap between them in unexpected ways.
The bit about it being unsafe due to messing with the plane's avionics is total bunk, though. I never turn off electronics on flights, except to save battery.
[+] [-] orthecreedence|14 years ago|reply
Everyone's phone plays movies now anyway. Isn't that good enough? Do we really have to be plugged in every second of the day? Americans are too spoiled. OMG I can't jabber on my phone while flying? waa waaa ='[
[+] [-] estevez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msbarnett|14 years ago|reply
There's two Federal laws at play: one that requires crewmembers to tell you to power off the device (FAR 121.306), and one that requires you to comply with an lawful instruction given by a crewmember (49 USC Sec. 46504) (Since getting you to turn off the device is a crewmember duty spelled out by the FAA, your refusal to comply falls under "lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties". Intimidation seems to be broadly interpreted in courts as meaning anything other than cooperation. It doesn't matter if you refuse politely).
Thus the potential consequences are: you can be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Disclaimer: IANAL
[+] [-] tobtoh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|14 years ago|reply
They also told us they had to "reboot Windows".
I'm pretty sure they were full of shit.
[+] [-] raldi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dev_jim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeteo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|14 years ago|reply
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015...