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

[SeatBackForward]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

And as if by some magical foretelling, we get this today:

'Disruptive behaviour' - Macquarie exec ordered off Qantas plane
One of Macquarie Group’s top banking executives in the US was offloaded from a Qantas plane in Los Angeles for alleged disruptive behaviour after refusing to turn off his mobile phone.

The incident on board QF108 resulted in Alan James, a New York-based senior managing director for Macquarie, being offloaded from the plane in LA on May 22 and later stopped from taking a connecting flight to Sydney.

The first incident occurred when a flight attendant told Mr James, who was seated in business class, to turn off his mobile phone while the Qantas aircraft was taxiing at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport.

Link

 

[Flashback]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

And as if by some magical foretelling, we get this today:


Link

It took them 2.5 weeks to report it. Well done.

 

[boylero]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

when you get your device electromagnetically compatible with the aircraft's operational, guidance and communications systems then feel free to EMF the cabin. :O

 

[mannej]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I find it funny the responses on here.

I don't think the majority of people on here can proclaim to be experts on the subject.

One thing that does stick out in my mind is that we do have an example posted on here that a "harmless" kids toy (a furbie or what have you not) was responsible for interference with coughpit systems.
Funny that...

The logic of it must be ok, a phone has never caused a plane to crash (that is debatable), or that they saw the myth busted on myth busters is not the most responsible in the world is it?

 

[medhead]

And I'd respect the rules much more if they provided believable reasons why.

do you use your mobile while driving. "Mr policeman give me a believable reason to not talk on my mobile while driving". How far would that get you? Nowhere.

My cousin didn't believe in wearing a seat belt for years. Did he just need to be given a believable reason to wear a seat belt? Or should he have just obeyed the lawfully requirement to do so?

Again the why is irrelevant. You/we are given a lawfully and reasonable instruction. If the instruction is inconvenient that gives you no basis for ignoring the instruction. "I don't believe it" is not good enough.

Finally I you want to talk about the why, go read the threads linked earlier that discuss exactly that question. Make sure you also read the linked evidence in those other threads.

 

[pat25d]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I find it funny the responses on here.

I don't think the majority of people on here can proclaim to be experts on the subject.

One thing that does stick out in my mind is that we do have an example posted on here that a "harmless" kids toy (a furbie or what have you not) was responsible for interference with coughpit systems.
Funny that...

The logic of it must be ok, a phone has never caused a plane to crash (that is debatable), or that they saw the myth busted on myth busters is not the most responsible in the world is it?

Or maybe that the FAA and American airline's have approved electronic devices to be used by Pilots.

 

[pat25d]

do you use your mobile while driving. "Mr policeman give me a believable reason to not talk on my mobile while driving". How far would that get you? Nowhere.

My cousin didn't believe in wearing a seat belt for years. Did he just need to be given a believable reason to wear a seat belt? Or should he have just obeyed the lawfully requirement to do so?

Again the why is irrelevant. You/we are given a lawfully and reasonable instruction. If the instruction is inconvenient that gives you no basis for ignoring the instruction. "I don't believe it" is not good enough.

Finally I you want to talk about the why, go read the threads linked earlier that discuss exactly that question. Make sure you also read the linked evidence in those other threads.

I'm sure that attitude goes down well in North Korea.

 

[mannej]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Or maybe that the FAA and American airline's have approved electronic devices to be used by Pilots.

I am aware of this. It is still naive to think that all electronic devices are fine because of this. No one would ever have thought that a Furby could do much damage would they?

 

[medhead]

I'm sure that attitude goes down well in North Korea.

Your comment Is completely invalid. If we were talking about an unreasonable instruction that suppressed basic human rights, decency or marginalised people then it would be valid. Trouble is we aren't, which makes your comment a laughable joke.

I'll tell you right now that the scientists who investigate EMF interference have a damn side more on their side than "I don't believe it".


Sent from the Throne

 

[pat25d]

Your comment Is completely invalid. If we were talking about an unreasonable instruction that suppressed basic human rights, decency or marginalised people then it would be valid. Trouble is we aren't, which makes your comment a laughable joke.

I'll tell you right now that the scientists who investigate EMF interference have a damn side more on their side than "I don't believe it".


Sent from the Throne

Well I am thankful that there is a huge risk of causing planes to crash from my phone, will make it much easier to bring down planes if all terrorists have to do is leave their phone on or send an sms.

 

[mannej]

Well I am thankful that there is a huge risk of causing planes to crash from my phone, will make it much easier to bring down planes if all terrorists have to do is leave their phone on or send an sms.

Can you with evidence state that a mobile phone has never caused a plane to crash?

Stop with all the terrorist rubbish.

 

[medhead]

Well I am thankful that there is a huge risk of causing planes to crash from my phone, will make it much easier to bring down planes if all terrorists have to do is leave their phone on or send an sms.

Tell me how much risk there is from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. That'll let me assess your judgement to do with risk.

Of course, from this statement I can tell you don't really have a good understanding of risk management.


Sent from the Throne

 

[777]

I am not trying to even enter into the debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed but only note there is a lot of inconsistency with devices with a standby mode.

For most laptops the process of turning it fully off is to open it (if the lid is simply shut), turn it fully on, select "shut down" from the menu, wait for the device to go through the full process of shutting down and turning off (rather than just sleeping), and then shut the lid again. Then it is undoubtedly OFF. Simply shutting the lid puts it into a sleep state which is much the same as putting your phone or tablet into flight mode and turning the screen off.

Now here's the thing: have you ever tried to do all the above between the "please turn off your devices" announcement and take off? In my actual experience it's not worth the effort. You'Re far more likely than not to get a serve from the cabin crew for playing with your device after the announcement than you are likely to get thanked for following the full instructions.

Im not really backing a particular horse here but anyone who tries to tell you that there is a clear line between what is on and off and what constitutes an electronic device (watches anyone?) is kidding themselves.

 

[markis10]

I am not trying to even enter into the debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed but only note there is a lot of inconsistency with devices with a standby mode.

For most laptops the process of turning it fully off is to open it (if the lid is simply shut), turn it fully on, select "shut down" from the menu, wait for the device to go through the full process of shutting down and turning off (rather than just sleeping), and then shut the lid again. Then it is undoubtedly OFF. Simply shutting the lid puts it into a sleep state which is much the same as putting your phone or tablet into flight mode and turning the screen off.

Now here's the thing: have you ever tried to do all the above between the "please turn off your devices" announcement and take off? In my actual experience it's not worth the effort. You'Re far more likely than not to get a serve from the cabin crew for playing with your device after the announcement than you are likely to get thanked for following the full instructions.

Im not really backing a particular horse here but anyone who tries to tell you that there is a clear line between what is on and off and what constitutes an electronic device (watches anyone?) is kidding themselves.

Actually it's still not off completely, just as i devices are never off because the on off button is actually a logic circuit rather than a physical one. The only way to completely ensure its off is to have a flat battery or one which is removed, in the case of lithium batteries you then have the issue of it being a dangerous goods item! As for the earlier post saying a GPS does not emit a signal, wrong, all receivers emit RF from their oscillator, if it has a receiver it is in fact a RF emitter, in a very minuscule way! Cameras also emit RF, in the form of their flash unit, often in significant amounts.

 

[yohy?!]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

have seen articles before where pilots have quoted that mobile devices impact the altimeter readings (make them drop out or fluctuate), not ideal during a landing!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...12-21/in-flight-electronics-planes/52147604/1 - more examples of interference caused here...

•Pilots descending to land in Baltimore watched their instruments swinging oddly until they broke out of the clouds at 1,800 feet almost a mile off course. They concluded that numerous passengers using their cellphones had caused the error.

•As a flight was climbing out of Charlotte-Douglas airport in North Carolina, there was such a loud buzzing on the pilots' radios that they could barely hear controllers. The captain warned passengers that if they didn't turn off all devices, the plane would have to return to the airport. After "nearly the entire plane" checked their electronics, the noise stopped and the flight continued.

 

[horseman]

Can't believe the debate on this! They are asking simply please put devices into flight mode, then completely shut them down. It's a simple request, what are we school kids or something? I know my laptop is slow to get shut down, so I am sure to have it as shut down as I can get it, before boarding is even called, my phone I can do on the plane but I prefer to turn it off also a half hour before boarding so there's no way I can get stuck on a call whilst boarding is called, I think that little bit of time 'off the air' is healthy also

 

[JohnK]

Im sure you all go to the gate at the time on the board instead of waiting in the lounge a bit longer, because that's the rule!

I thought the rule was to be on the aircraft before the flight is closed and you are off-loaded.

 

[medhead]

I am not trying to even enter into the debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed but only note there is a lot of inconsistency with devices with a standby mode.

For most laptops the process of turning it fully off is to open it (if the lid is simply shut), turn it fully on, select "shut down" from the menu, wait for the device to go through the full process of shutting down and turning off (rather than just sleeping), and then shut the lid again. Then it is undoubtedly OFF. Simply shutting the lid puts it into a sleep state which is much the same as putting your phone or tablet into flight mode and turning the screen off.

Now here's the thing: have you ever tried to do all the above between the "please turn off your devices" announcement and take off? In my actual experience it's not worth the effort. You'Re far more likely than not to get a serve from the cabin crew for playing with your device after the announcement than you are likely to get thanked for following the full instructions.

Im not really backing a particular horse here but anyone who tries to tell you that there is a clear line between what is on and off and what constitutes an electronic device (watches anyone?) is kidding themselves.

Or you can turn your laptop off before you get on the plane.

Clearly your not backing any horse, but apparently I'm kidding myself. fine. I think I'll agree with the sentiment that it's childish to pretend that there is any grey area involved in "turn it off".

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I doubt the plane engineers are the ones setting the electronic devices rule.

They are more likely to be made by someone whose experience in radio communications interference is 2 minutes skimming some Wikipedia articles.

And you know this how ?????

 

[haggiscat]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I often text til taxi, when interference is not an issue, but I never leave the phone on for takeoff.

The late flights out of Sydney can be annoying as they want to get away early and often call 'phones off' even before the front door is closed.

Obviously I don't let people see me as I know it irritates and would cause anxiety, with others not knowing I'm going to switch off.

Would not be offended if I were called for it by an FA, because I know they need to be sure the cabin is appropriately prepped before taking seats. Not everyone can be relied upon to comply.