PED's on/off during various flight stages - Why?

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

"Every australian airline?" I hope it is now fixed to be consistent, but three years ago on QF was I told off (quite sternly like I was committing a life endangering act) for using phone whilst people were still boarding? Same airline, same plane type, but domestic flight is acceptable to have the phone on until doors closed, yet international it was not?

my last four internationals with QF (only one departure from AU though) allowed mobies on until boarding completed/door closed.

 

[medhead]

Not very, but when you have multiple devices it is extremely annoying and time consuming. That, however, is beside the point. It doesn't matter how hard the task is, it matters whether there is a purpose to it. I find the attitude of following all instructions from authority without question annoying. There has to be a reason for something to exist, or for something to happen. If there is no reason, then why, must I ask, should it exist? And further, why should I do it? Indeed the argument of appealing to authority is extremely troubling to me.

If there has been an accident where there was a link to mobile phone interference (in flight mode), I would be glad if you can direct me to where I can find the report so I can read it and make conclusions for myself. If it is true, then I am happy to turn off my devices in the future.

I'm sorry but a plane is not a place to have people questioning authority. As I already said you do that and you become a potential threat to my life in an emergency. That is the reality. Authority has a place and an aircraft is one of those places.
...

 

[medhead]

...

I'll stay away from the handheld device debate - it is very easy to turn these devices off and turn them back on again. For laptops - very easy to turn off. But it's not the turning off that is the problem, it's the 15-20 minutes to turn the laptop back on again (thank you Mr Gates et al). By observation I am guessing most people only put their laptops in standby (particularly those operating on Windows).

15 to 20 minutes? You need to seek professional help, that is one sick laptop. Get an apple.


Sent from the Throne

 

[oz_mark]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Safety implication from making a call while a plane is on the ground and passengers are still boarding via a jetbridge? Like whatever. If it's permitted by every european airline, every australian airline, and every USA airline and All Nippon, then poor poor JAL for having such screwed avionics. And I'm 100 per cent comfortable with making sure I text discretely during boarding if I travel JAL.

Not far from me, there is a stretch of road that has a 70km/h speed limit. Every morning, at 8am, it apparently becomes extremely dangerous to drive on that road at 70km/h, and the speed limit suddenly reduces to 40km/h.

Do I really believe that it suddenly becomes dangerous at 8am? No, I don't. Do I believe there is any need for that sudden reduction at 8a.m. on the piece of road? No I don't. But you know what, I obey the speed limit, as silly as it is!

 

[dajop]

I'15 to 20 minutes? You need to seek professional help, that is one sick laptop. Get an apple.

Would if I could. Tell our IT department who have stretched replacement from 3 years to 3.5 maybe 4 years, and even then with one selected from a pool of used laptops. Performance not inconsistent with my colleagues. Myopic accountant driven madness that does not account for lost time.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Not far from me, there is a stretch of road that has a 70km/h speed limit. Every morning, at 8am, it apparently becomes extremely dangerous to drive on that road at 70km/h, and the speed limit suddenly reduces to 40km/h.

Do I really believe that it suddenly becomes dangerous at 8am? No, I don't. Do I believe there is any need for that sudden reduction at 8a.m. on the piece of road? No I don't. But you know what, I obey the speed limit, as silly as it is!

slight difference in that the speed limit is the law.

on board, I am required to comply with lawful requests of the crew.

a request to turn off my phone during boarding for possibly - as was pointed out above - cultural reasons* (rather than the law) is not something I consider a lawful request by cabin crew, so I have no fear of any criminal prosecution on that ground.

as I said, I complied out of respect for the crew, but not on any grounds of safety, or fear that I was endangering the aircraft. and I now make sure that if I need to text on jal that I do so out of view.

once preparations are underway for departure (final checks etc or ground personel being asked to leave, or doors being closed) then phone is turned off.

* cultural reasons can sometimes be lawful, for example a woman being asked to wear a head covering in an Islamic country, but in those cases culture is part of the written law. not the case using a phone in a public place in Japan.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

on board, I am required to comply with lawful requests of the crew.

a request to turn off my phone during boarding......is not something I consider a lawful request by cabin crew, so I have no fear of any criminal prosecution on that ground.

What you "consider lawful" is entirely irrelevant. The arrogance!! You don't have a say in the matter. Follow the directions of the crew or get off the aircraft!!!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

What you "consider lawful" is entirely irrelevant. The arrogance!! You don't have a say in the matter. Follow the directions of the crew or get off the aircraft!!!

Sorry to disagree - but sometimes airlines can get things wrong. If for example I was allocated a seat next to an unaccompanied minor and was told I have to move for the 'protection and safety' of the child (as happened to a BA passenger one time) I do not consider that to be a lawful request and I would kick up hell (based on the principal of the request ('males and children are dangerous') and the associated embarrassment it generates from said implication).

If I was then asked to leave the aircraft I would not be concerned that I was going to be charged in a criminal manner for failing to obey a crew member instruction.

Passengers on Southwest have reported being asked to remove headphones but have challenged that request because company policy had changed (but the crew weren't aware of the change).

Asking the basis of a request (that is not obviously based in safety) is not always arrogance. If a request is based on safety then it should be complied with absolutely. But phones off the second you step on board because it's considered impolite is another matter.

 

[simongr]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

If your calls are that important and time dependent how do you afford to spend 90 minutes on the aircraft completely out of contact?

 

[serfty]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

slight difference in that the speed limit is the law.

on board, I am required to comply with lawful requests of the crew.

...

It's fully up to you, but you can be deboarded if you don't follow crew instructions.

e.g. From Qantas: Conditions of Carriage

10.1 Refusal of Carriage

Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur: ...

because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security

...

You agree to these CoC when buying a ticket for a Qantas flight. Good luck convincing a court that such instruction does not relate to "safety or security" if you subsequently pursue redress.

Here's DJ's version: Conditions of Carriage | Virgin Australia

Both CoC's have specific clauses in relation to "electronic devices" and you agree to allow the following when purchasing a ticket:

"If you fail to comply with our requests, we may retain the device until the end of the flight." or "If you do not comply with these directions, the flight crew may take your electronic device from you, and keep it until the end of the flight;".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

If your calls are that important and time dependent how do you afford to spend 90 minutes on the aircraft completely out of contact?

As I said, I like to get the flying time information from the captain and then text my arrival time. This is necessary where there can be significant padding on a particular route (for example NRT-PVG is padded by almost an hour). So a quick SMS is all that is required. Once done no need for anything else.

It's fully up to you, but you can be deboarded if you don't follow crew instructions.

e.g. From Qantas: Conditions of Carriage

You agree to these CoC when buying a ticket for a Qantas flight. Good luck convincing a court that such instruction does not relate to "safety or security" if you subsequently pursue redress.

Here's DJ's version: Conditions of Carriage | Virgin Australia

Both CoC's have specific clauses in relation to "electronic devices" and you agree to allow the following when purchasing a ticket:

"If you fail to comply with our requests, we may retain the device until the end of the flight." or "If you do not comply with these directions, the flight crew may take your electronic device from you, and keep it until the end of the flight;".

My example was a specific one to JAL where they want you to turn off the phone for what may be cultural reasons rather than anything related to safety and security (based on the raft of other airlines permitting phone use until later in the departure sequence, and indeed on NH which offers a direct comparison to JL)

Qantas allows use of the phone until doors closed (or just before) so it is not an issue.

There is a difference between actions which could give rise to criminal action (failure to obey crew instructions for a safety related issue) and those which are a breach of contract (such as CoC violation).

 

[serfty]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

...
There is a difference between actions which could give rise to criminal action (failure to obey crew instructions for a safety related issue) and those which are a breach of contract (such as CoC violation).

Yes there is a difference, but it is not relevant to this topic.

Different airlines have different rules - Qantas generally permit the use of 'digital' cameras at any time; there are other airlines that don't. So I take photos during takeoff and landing on Qantas, but not on the latter carriers.

It's simple - just comply with instruction and don't try to justify non-compliance.

 

[JessicaTam]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

...
There is a difference between actions which could give rise to criminal action (failure to obey crew instructions for a safety related issue) and those which are a breach of contract (such as CoC violation).

Take the bus/train/boat and leave the planes for those of us who respect the FAs and their instructions.

 

[ashleyn]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

This is probably OT and the debate could rage for ever. What we are seeing is a change in general attitudes and standards. How many of you remember flying when smoking was allowed ? At that time I doubt if mobiles were even invented. But now a large proportion of the population cannot cope with being disconnected, social media is massive. So whether you like it or not, just like when almost everyone smoked, it can't be ignored and airlines need to be innovative with their technological solutions, cater for those who want to be connected whilst not upsetting those who do not.

Probably just opened another can of worms ....

 

[horseman]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Just put phone alarms in the lavatorys

 

[medhead]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Had a meeting on Friday and we were all discussing a particular situation were it is valid to question authority and not blindly follow. This involves a situation of putting some "stuff"* into the sewer. This situation has been going on for years and years and years. Turns out the authority is requesting to know the risk from the "stuff"* that is put into the sewer if a worker drank 2 litres of the sewerage!!!! Ignoring that the stuff is almost of trivial concentration due to being diluted into a couple of million litres of water. If a person drank 2 litres out of sewer they are going to have vastly bigger problems to worry about. Disease etc. (apparently if a worker was to fall into the stream in the sewer they might drink 2 litres of water. I think if you fell into water and drank 2 litres you would drown)

So there is a situation where I question authority. It helps that I am very much an expert in the field. Unlike just about anyone on AFF when it comes to electronic interference with aircraft systems. IMO if you are not an expert about a risk then you are like the authority that is questioning the release of "stuff"* into the sewer: taking a position on the basis of assumptions that are misinformed at best.



* Sorry I can't be more specific, but the stuff is like a chemical that is added in addition to the normal human excrement that goes into a toilet.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I understand there is no direct link between emitted RF and interference with onboard systems, but my preference is not to be onboard the first instance! So I'm hoping not to open a debate about whether they should or should not be allowed on. I'm interested in whether fellow AFFers feel the same as me, and if so, if you have any approaches to dealing with offenders without receiving a hostile response?

As I've never seen any evidence that phones, etc, present any problems to aircraft systems, I just let them do whatever it is they're doing.

With that said, I have to agree with the comments about "what does off really mean" being stupid. "Off" is pretty clear, and "hold", "standby", "sleep", or anything else except "off" is not the same. I'm quite sure lots of people with iPhones and the like don't know how to turn their devices off, or don't understand the difference between "off" and "hold". However, if you know enough to question whether there's a difference, you know enough to understand the difference.

With *that* said, the arguments from the other side about people leaving their phones on being personal safety risks, or phones and ipads being projectile risks because they're turned on, are equally dumb.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Like a previous AFFer said - I don't want to be the one to find out that it is a safety risk.

The mere ease with which you are allowed to bring them onboard tells you everything you need to know about the possible "safety risk".

 

[harvyk]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Some food for thought,

In 2006, I did my first flight in 8 years. In those 8 years mobile phones and other PED’s went from something relatively rare* (esp. for a high school student) to something pretty common. Furthermore I was hardly what you’d call a frequent flyer, with only 12 flights under my belt in my entire life, most of them in the early to mid 90’s. So you can easily say I was a novice.

Now I knew about flight mode, but I remember sitting there on that flight, very unsure as to when my phone was and was not allowed to be on. I also remember that flight and during the drinks service I had my phone sitting on the tray table and I was listening to music on it. I believe back then it was pretty rare to have a phone which could also hold an enough MP3’s for it to be a useful music device. Now the FA was serving drinks, and when he got to my row he asked me if that was a phone. A wave of panic went through me because I thought I was allowed to have phones in flight mode at that time, but I was now not 100% sure. As it turned out the FA was just curious as it was the first time he’d seen a phone with music controls at the side where it could really be used as a music player. But I remember how unsure I was as to when phones where and where not allowed to be used.

Now here is the kicker, I was dressed in a suit and tie, and I looked like every other person on that plane. You’d have never guessed it was my first time flying in nearly a decade. So before you get all judgemental on a person because they have not turned off their mobile phone the second the announcement comes over the PA. Remember that the person may not be as an experienced flyer as we are here, and may not necessarily know what the full deal with PED’s really is, and may not have heard the PA, because they are not always audible over the sound of the engines and other exciting \ nerve-racking things which an infrequent flyer may also be hearing \ experiencing.

* - For the record, I am only aware of one or two students in my year who had a mobile phone, and I believe only a couple of the teachers had them as well, so yes they were rare for school students back then.

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Folks, isn't the issue: is it really a problem? If it is a serious problem, please, airlines, tell us so on this forum - and explain why, because being correctly informed leads to communication that actually WORKS. I have my doubts, but - if there is evidence, please, airlines just TELL us. As can be seen by virtue of the many posts on this forum, people actually do want to do the right thing.

Have you failed to indicate a turn on a deserted country road? Duhh. Next question: was that illegal? Answer: DID IT MATTER? Of course laws should be obeyed, but let's (i) understand the context, and (ii) keep it in context.