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

[JessicaTam]

Do I have a quiet word to the person and remind him of the rules or do I tell the FA or do I ignore it altogether
This is the dilemma I faced.

Just a friendly reminder as to what this thread is all about. The science is not the argument, that's for somewhere else. It's whether you say something or not.

Would I say something? I probably would.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Actually you are not quite free to ignore their instructions, as you have a legal obligation to do any request which is made of you by crew whilst on their aircraft. Choosing to ignore said instructions (regardless of how meaningless you feel it is) can easily result in not only removal from aircraft, but also a little talk with the boys in blue and potentially a dressing down by a judge coupled with some other form of punishment.

As epsc points out - a statement of this kind is not entirely correct. And I'm not sure why some posters (not just you ) continue to assert the proposition that a passenger must obey all crew member instructions?

this is simply not the case, and no court would uphold such an argument.

The requirement to obey crew member instructions relates to the safety of the aircraft only.

There are examples where disobeying a crew member instruction would have no legal consequence simply because they are not lawful. These might include:

• a male passenger asked to move because they were sitting next to an unaccompanied minor
• a passenger of muslim appearance being asked to leave an aircraft because other passengers feel unsafe
• a passenger asked to leave an aircraft because they appear intoxicated, but are actually stroke recovery patients
• passengers lifting window shades after the crew have asked for them to be lowered to allow others to sleep
• a black passenger being asked to move because they were offending a white passenger (think apartheid)
• a passenger using a mobile phone on the ground, at the gate, and after the announcement of a significant delay, but no counter instruction has been issued to the earlier 'we are about to depart please turn off all electronic devices'

Domestic law, international law governing international carriage and the conditions of carriage have no relevance where an instruction in itself is not lawful.

I have no objection to people stating that passengers are required to obey lawful instructions, and if they don't they should be thrown off the plane/banned ffrom flying for ever/met by the police/ forced to pay compensation for their acts. But blanket statements are simply not correct.

Simply because you choose to board an aircraft does not mean that you park you rights at the door! It would be a sad day if everyone was forced to accept that argument!

As for the original question - how to deal with passengers who do not comply with lawful crew instructions... well I make an assessment based on my personal safety. The only time I will personally say something is if the passenger ignoring the instruction is directly affecting my safety - such as if they are reclining their seat and blocking my access to the aisle. Or if they were asleep at an exit during take-off or landing.

 

[medhead]

Plenty of them out there. Some already linked in this discussion. I don't care enough about internet arguments (especially with White Knights) to keep a bibliography, but I've read enough to convince me.

However, as I've already said numerous times. If the risk were anything more than infinitesimal, you'd never be able to bring them on board, nor would any pilot take off so long as he thought there could be an unsecured device in his aircraft. Consequently, if the pilots are willing to get into a plane that could easily have hundreds of active PEDs in it, then so am I, and so should you.

Nothing has been linked that I've seen that supports you're view. But more importantly the is plenty of stuff in the internet that is complete bollocks. Israel did 911 for example.

This is what's called a non-sequitur. You might as well be arguing someone could be a serial killer because they downloaded a song off the internet.

In your opinion.


Sent from the Throne

 

[dajop]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Aviation operates on a safety profile that is based on past learning's, whether there is even a slight risk action is often taken to eliminate that risk, erring on the conservative side. While modern aircraft a built with interference from transmitters/mobiles and PEDs in general in mind, the Australian public is flying in aircraft that are up to 30 years old in design when most equipment we use today was not invented, and as such the shielding from such interference is non existent, which is why you have aircraft with WiFI on board flying around while others ban the use of PEDs at all times (Alliance FK100).

Interference from PEDs has been a factor in incidents in the past, and this is Boeings take on the matter:

Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices

PEDS cause interference to some planes, and you are required to follow the airlines rules in this respect and any direction given by crew. Would you like to be on a plane that has its speed break deployed due to interference from a PED, thats one of the more critical errors reported in this study by NASA early this century:

markis10, good to see some scientific references enter what has become a rather emotional (but somewhat tedious) to and fro on the issue

My question is - are there any studies that say anything around standby mode on laptops etc? I've said it before, but I do believe the vast majority of people will attempt to comply with rules (at least in Australia). Some don't - statistically that's going to happen. But the standby issue is a sleeper (pardon the pun), because I would bet (based on observation) a good proportion of pax who have been using computers in flight have had their laptop in standby before use, and put it back into standby after use. I have no idea whether people put hand held device in stand by or off (too small to see), but based on the speed at which people bring up and closed down their laptops, I am sure many are in standby/sleep mode.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Aviation operates on a safety profile that is based on past learning's, whether there is even a slight risk action is often taken to eliminate that risk, erring on the conservative side.

I would say this is true 'some' of the time, rather than 'often'.

plenty of so called aviation safety (or non-safety) comes down to cost and commercial factors.

aircraft manufacturers and airlines like safe planes because if they crash too often, people won't fly them. and that's bad for busiess.

there are many examples where safety could clearly be improved, but it isn't for commercial factors. this includes rear facing seats (airlines will tell you they don't do this because passengers wouldn't like it, but the real reason is the strengthening of the seat frame required to absorb the full impact of a body backwards adds an unacceptable cost to weight benefit).

other airlines have been allowed to remove overwing exits on 747s and replace with seats, or domestic 757s flying in the USA where seats protrude out into what many other airlines would clearly consider emergency exit space.

statistical research suggests passengers sitting more than 7 rows from the closest exit have slim chances of survival in a crash with smoke and fire. yet Boeing and airbus stretch popular models so plenty of seats are more than seven rows away.

if, as you say, airlines erred on the side of caution, then logically, if mobiles posed a real risk, all such devices would be required to be checked in the hold (and verified by checkin staff that they were turned off). so either the risk is negligible, or the cost of losing passengers if any airline imposed such a ban is just not worth considering vis-a-vis safety.

when pitot tubes were suspected of contributing to the crash over the south Atlantic, did all airlines ground their fleets while they replaced them with better models? that would have been the cautious thing to do. but no, they kept flying, just like the a380s keep flying and wing checks will be done at how ever many miles they are scheduled to be done at. cautious would be to ground the plane.

I would also like to see more modern data from the last couple of years with regard to mobile devices. they have changed. we have had reports of a pilot texting while landing, and we know some airlines are considering iPads in the flight deck.

if these items are so dangerous, why are pilots/airlines considering using them?

I'm very happy to be mindful of safety. but never over zealous regarding things which have a probability of happening somewhere close to zero.

 

[horseman]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I've been on a couple of flights, can't remember the aircraft type, that have had they're departure delayed because a ped on board was causing too much interference up front, I think each time it was just a phone or something

 

[don01]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Hmm telephones and such on planes
It is interesting that important people aren't bound by rules
The bank exec that had to be escorted of the flight - does Mac Bank have employees minding our money that don't obey rules if they don't like them? over to MacBank for that one.
Responsible persons on company trips hiding the phone or pretending they are off. To get an extra email or sms in? is your business that close to the edge or your work so poorly planned?
Does the sales rep hide the real costs or facts from his boss or customer if it suits him.
The young buck having a cool time knowing every one is getting seriously annoyed is this the face you'll hire at the interview ?

BUT surely the piece de resistance has to be I'll sue you for whinging he he ho ho

Come on people it is not allowed, it should be off whether that is standby mode, airplane mode, code blue or cherry pie switch > it's off

As part of the flying community you only need to say "can I help you with that" or press the button with the pretty lady on it some would say we are obligated to do so, but do it with a concerned caring look - save the lynching for later

Phone owner: take the chance to read a book, write up the meeting notes, sleep, or devise the new corporate strategy. If your minions aren't reliable for 2 or 8 hours you got a problem (and a couple of quiet hours to fiqure out the corrective action)

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

One can probably expect a bit of emotion in a thread which has as it's starting point the question of individual policing of behaviour! What I suspect many of us want to know, and which none of the rule enforcers have addressed, is the question posed several times by recent posters: if devices are such a threat, why are they permitted on board? I am confident that this debate would be over the moment that question was directly, and definitively, answered. Not many of us actually want to die in a fiery crash.

 

[drsmithy]

Nothing has been linked that I've seen that supports you're view.

I guess you missed this post then.

But more importantly the is plenty of stuff in the internet that is complete bollocks. Israel did 911 for example.

This is another non-sequitur.

In your opinion.

No, in actual fact. You are saying that because someone doesn't follow instruction X, they implicitly will not follow instruction Y, regardless of how different X and Y are. By the same logic, someone who commits offense A (copyright infringement) must therefore be equally happy to commit offense B (murder).

 

[ajw373]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

What is the point of turning it off, as opposed to putting it in flight mode?

Because rightly or wrongly it is Australian law to have all electronic devices off during take off and landing. In the air they can be used, however not something with a radio transmitter. Flight mode turns off the radio transmitter. As someone else mentioned they are put into flight mode before turning off to ensure when you turn on the transmitter doesn't start up.

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I don't think that's right, ajw373 - I have looked and have not found anything which says that it is illegal. It would be in the civil aviation regulations if it existed, but if anyone else can shed light on it I'd be interested. My understanding is that there is a regulation which requires pax to obey lawful directions of the crew, which is why there has to be a direction on each flight to turn them off.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I don't think that's right, ajw373 - I have looked and have not found anything which says that it is illegal. It would be in the civil aviation regulations if it existed, but if anyone else can shed light on it I'd be interested. My understanding is that there is a regulation which requires pax to obey lawful directions of the crew, which is why there has to be a direction on each flight to turn them off.

CASR 91.055 requires the operator and the pilot in command to prohibit or limit the operation of a PED on board an aircraft if there is reason to believe the PED may adversely affect the safety of the aircraft. CASR’s 91.050, 91.055 and 91.1010 provides the pilot in command with the necessary authority to control the use of potentially hazardous PEDs on board his/her aircraft, and obliges persons on board to comply with legitimate safety instructions. I dont believe these are law just yet.

 

[ajw373]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I don't think that's right, ajw373 - I have looked and have not found anything which says that it is illegal. It would be in the civil aviation regulations if it existed, but if anyone else can shed light on it I'd be interested. My understanding is that there is a regulation which requires pax to obey lawful directions of the crew, which is why there has to be a direction on each flight to turn them off.

I hear what your saying, but think you are splitting hairs in my terminology. Bottom line is there is a regulation/law what ever that says they must be off.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I hear what your saying, but think you are splitting hairs in my terminology. Bottom line is there is a regulation/law what ever that says they must be off.

As per the CASA explanatory note: If a crew member approaches a passenger
operating a PED suspected of causing interference the importance of the matter to the
safety of the flight should be explained. The person’s help in collecting interference data
might be requested. In extreme cases the pilot in command may authorise a crew member
to direct the person to surrender the device or suffer its seizure for the duration of the
flight. The regulations mentioned in paragraph 5.1 above provide the pilot in command
with the necessary powers, including prosecution of a person who refuses to obey a lawful
command.

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I agree, I am being nit-picking (my excuse - I'm a lawyer), but I wanted to find out the status of the widespread belief that it was ILLEGAL to use a PED in a flight, as opposed to simply a breach of the contract (arguably) that the airline has with a passenger. I noted (thanks markis10) what was said about the CASR (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations), but when I checked them the regs markis10 referred to did not seem to be there in the current version that is available online. The Advisory Circular markis10 referred to that I was able to find online seems to be in draft form only, and is dated Sept 2001. I called CASA, and they will get back to me after looking into it overnight.

I appreciate this may not be of interest to many, it's just that I like to know what my rights and responsibilities are. I'm not for a moment suggesting that anyone disobey the requirement to power off devices, but I personally would like to know if it is in fact a legal requirement, as distinct from an airline requirement. Sorry for being a pedant!

 

[harvyk]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I appreciate this may not be of interest to many, it's just that I like to know what my rights and responsibilities are. I'm not for a moment suggesting that anyone disobey the requirement to power off devices, but I personally would like to know if it is in fact a legal requirement, as distinct from an airline requirement. Sorry for being a pedant!

Just out of interest, if it was simply an airline requirement, would that actually change anything? I was under the impression that as far as us pax are concerned, when on an aircraft, what the cabin crew says = word of god... (Just for you MEL_Traveller - Of course your able to ignore any illegal request) and ignoring instructions from cabin crew can carry consequences with it as if you had broken the law.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I appreciate this may not be of interest to many, it's just that I like to know what my rights and responsibilities are. I'm not for a moment suggesting that anyone disobey the requirement to power off devices, but I personally would like to know if it is in fact a legal requirement, as distinct from an airline requirement. Sorry for being a pedant!

Put simply, you need to do what the pilot requires:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 309

Powers of pilot in command (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is necessary and reasonable, may:
(a) take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and
(b) detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these regulations in or in relation to the aircraft.
(2) A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit, an offence against the Act or these regulations may be arrested without warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested by a constable.


There is also the CRIMES (AVIATION) ACT 1991, sections 5 & 6, which arise from the Tokyo convention:

[h=3]CRIMES (AVIATION) ACT 1991 - SECT 22[/h] Endangering safety of aircraft--general (1) A person who, while on board a Division 3 aircraft, does an act, reckless as to whether the act will endanger the safety of the aircraft, is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (1), absolute liability applies to the physical element of circumstance of the offence, that the aircraft is a Division 3 aircraft.
Note: For absolute liability , see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code .






The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or
property therein; or
(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or
(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent
authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.

2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.


Of note is what is in article 1 in terms of scope:

1. This Convention shall apply in respect of:
(a) offences against penal law;
(b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or
do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property
therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.


The topic has come up before, basically a PIC has pretty absolute power to do what they wish and you must obey, not to different to a "constable" in the eyes of the law!

http://www.australianfrequentflyer..../the-seatbelt-light-there-reason-23439-9.html

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Yes, a fair point - and it has been covered in another thread recently, by MEL_Traveller. Bottom line - a crew direction MAY carry the full weight of the criminal law, but it depends on the circumstances. Most of us would agree that if we've been asked to do something by the crew we should obey, and as mentioned I don't suggest otherwise - I just like to know whether the jerk next to me is simply being a jerk, or is committing a criminal act. If it's law - must be obeyed. If it's the airline rule - different story. For me, at least, it would influence how I might approach the situation if my neighbour was flagrantly disobeying, as I'm not one to act as policeman unless I see a really good reason why I should.

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

And yes, markis10, I was aware of those general provisions - I just want to know if there is something specific in any reg which says that it is illegal to use a PED regardless of whether or not you get a direction to do so. If for some weird reason they didn't make the request - would it still be illegal to use a mobile? Anyway, hopefully the very helpful fellow in CASA I spoke to today will let me know, and I'll post accordingly.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

And some wonder why a segment of the flight crew population prefer to work operations where there is no self loading cargo