FAA May Let You Use Electronic Devices During Airplane Takeoff and Landing Soon 166
colinneagle writes "Members of an FAA advisory panel are reportedly meeting this week to make changes to the ban on the use of electronic devices on an airplane during takeoff and landing. The new regulations will allow the use of electronic devices to access content stored on the devices, including e-books, music, podcasts, and video. Sending emails, connecting to Wi-Fi, and making phone calls will still be prohibited. The announcement is expected to be made later this month, and the rules put into effect next year, according to the report."
Burden of enforcement (Score:2, Insightful)
So you are going to make the flight attendants know if someone is reading an ebook and not sending an email? Seems ridiculous, they have a lot to do on take off and landing already.
Re:Burden of enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems ridiculous, they have a lot to do on take off and landing already.
During take-off and landing they are usually strapped in their seats.
But seriously, they're their to save your ass, not to kiss it.
Airplane Mode (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally!
A use for the "airplane mode", except "I want to play and not be disturbed".
Test Team (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Burden of enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
...and this is why I miss the good old days of flying - when they WERE there to kiss it.
Re:Test Team (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in late 90's/early 00's I was working for Qualcomm on a system that used eight GlobalStar UTs in parallel to offer a mix of phone and data service. In the experimental jet we had wifi routers connected into this system, and the jet's diagnostic bus was wired into it too, also a GPS receiver going full time as well (part of the UTs actually). We had several laptops, webcams, and phone calls going all the time - on the ground, in the air, during take off and landing - not one single problem, ever.
The ban on electronics, with the claim that it interferes with the plane's electronics, has always been bullshit. If that were true the ban would be for the entire duration of the flight, and it would be pretty scarey if flight electronics were so delicate that anyone with a cell phone turned on could screw it up. It's about controlling people, nothing more.
Re:Private Aircraft? It's Their Rules. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy the ticket and board the plane, you agree to play by their rules. They have the property rights and have sold you limited rights to your seats with stipulations.
It's not their rules. It's the FAA rules. The FAA is part of the US government. Hence the F.
Re:Burden of enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
YES I DO. Because we had 1st class treatment all over the plane and we did not have cheapskates trying to stuff TWO carry ons that are too fat for the overhead in there or asking, "can you put this under your seat" No I cant take up my foot space because you are too damn cheap to check your fricking bag.
Re:Test Team (Score:5, Insightful)
The ban on electronics, with the claim that it interferes with the plane's electronics, has always been bullshit.
The old analog phones put a strong, continuous, signal in a narrow band. This was both an interference problem for communications and navigation equipment (due to effects like front-end quieting and intermodulation, even though the plane's gear wasn't operating on the same frequency) and a signal corruption problem for any electronic device with a metallic structure in its wiring that picked up enough signal to drive the electronics out of proper operating conditions.
Digital cellphone signals, whether CDMA or OFDM based (as well as the OFDM based WiFi) are spread-spectrum. The energy is spread out over a broad band and looks like background radio noise to equipment that isn't designed to collect and concentrate it. This is much less of a problem. Any electronics that would be interfered with it (if the phone wasn't within inches of it) would also be interfered with by so much other stuff that it wouldn't be suitable for aircraft at all.
Now that the Analog cellphone network is shut down (and most analog-capable cellphones are retired), and most modern portable computer gear is also designed with spread-spectrum clocks internally (to avoid generating narrowband radio interference due to all those gates switching simultaneously and periodically), these devices are much less of a source of problematic radio interference.
Meanwhile, the avionics has gone through a couple more generations of engineering, with avoiding dangerous failures from passenger electronics interference as a design criterion.
So now is a much safer time to let the passengers play with their toys than even a few years ago.
If that were true the ban would be for the entire duration of the flight, and it would be pretty scarey if flight electronics were so delicate that anyone with a cell phone turned on could screw it up.
"You can do anything you want [when flying] a plane, as long as you don't do it near the ground." This is doubly true for operating a not-designed-for-air-flight radio transmitter in the plane:
- When flying "up there" you have a lot of room to manouver and a lot of time to correct errors or switch modes if something goes wrong with a system. When taking off or landing you have only seconds to react, and have to be accurate with a couple inches vertically, feet right-left, and tens of yards fore-aft to land ON, rather than under, beside, or off-the-end-of the runway (and avoid all the other planes, buildings, trees, antennas, etc.)
- When taking off and landing you're using a LOT of additional electrical, and radio, systems.
Re: Burden of enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
I really suggest you read this article, about the actions of Asiana cabin crew during a crash and how many lives were saved by their training and dedication.
http://confessionsofatrolleydolly.com/2013/07/13/angels-of-the-sky-asiana-airlines-flight-214/ [confession...ydolly.com]
The most important function of cabin crew, and the main focus of their training, is safety. And that's a lot more complicated than demonstrating a life vest and pointing to emergency exits. You seem to have absolutely no idea how important that is.