Electronics Use on U.S. Flights on the Rise

[CommanderFrank]

A study from DePaul University confirms what we all knew to begin with: the use of electronic devices by air travelers is growing rapidly and it is past time to make new rules governing the use of electronic devices on aircraft. The study supports the decision to remove restrictions on use of the devices on takeoff and landings and adds that the actions should be taken sooner than later.

"The evidence presented in this report suggests that the FAA's 'go slow' approach to assessing the ban comes at a high cost to the traveling public. As more travelers seek to 'power up,' the FAA must be more deliberate in deciding whether to lift the ban."

 

[Jagger100]

I'm going to classify this under the principle that eventually it will just take one moron to ruin it for the rest.

 

[Kritter]

I still don't see what the problem is. I fly a bit and I really don't want to get hit in the face with your ipad when it gets knocked out of your hands from take off turbulence. The angry birds will be there after the ~10 minutes are up, stop whining.

 

[percydaman]

I still don't see what the problem is. I fly a bit and I really don't want to get hit in the face with your ipad when it gets knocked out of your hands from take off turbulence. The angry birds will be there after the ~10 minutes are up, stop whining.

I'll admit that I can handle take-off and touchdown without my electronics device, it's not that big a deal. But if there was never a really legitimate reason to have those turned off, then why are we still required? You're kind of missing the entire point.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

I still don't see what the problem is. I fly a bit and I really don't want to get hit in the face with your ipad when it gets knocked out of your hands from take off turbulence. The angry birds will be there after the ~10 minutes are up, stop whining.

If you can't hold on to your device though that, then you have a seriously bad case of butter fingers and don't need to be operating a device of such difficulty to hold. Even the hardest takeoffs and landings shouldn't present a challenge to anyone over the age of say..3.

 

[Gorankar]

LOL, People complaining about being without their electronic devices for 10 minutes. Oh, and triple LOL the "high cost" to the traveling public.

Then again, LOL at banning them without much good reason.

 

[percydaman]

LOL, People complaining about being without their electronic devices for 10 minutes. Oh, and triple LOL the "high cost" to the traveling public.

Then again, LOL at banning them without much good reason.

Somebody please take away this person's LOL badge.

 

[Gorankar]

Smile, it's a great day. Besides, I would rather laugh at peoples amusing wailing over meaningless crap, rather than cry for humanity as I realize they are actually serious.

 

[sfsuphysics]

A study from DePaul University confirms what we all knew to begin with: the use of electronic devices by air travelers is growing rapidly

Is this why tuition rates are so fecking high? Because they couldn't just look at the general public on the ground and realize that if their using electronic devices every waking moment of the day that might translate to air travel too?

 

[dandirk]

I would also like to know the reason for the rule.

Yes its not that big of a deal but does grate on you... Where I can't read a book because it is on an electronic device, yet if I would of brought a bigger analog version I could then read for those 10 min.

I can see the point if wireless/cellular signals messed stuff up and adds additional risk to the take-off/landing portion of the flight. People are idiots and while some would properly disable these functions, many would not and thus a global no-electronics ban. This I can understand...

If it's just something other then the safety of the whole flight... just stupid.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

LOL, People complaining about being without their electronic devices for 10 minutes. Oh, and triple LOL the "high cost" to the traveling public.

Then again, LOL at banning them without much good reason.

+1 to all of what Groknar said! The entire thing is ultra dumb and totally not worth any kind of drama.

Yeah, I'd love to read an ebook or something on a plane, but it's just not that big of a deal to sit there for a few hours and be bored too. I'm not at all seeing how this is a cost for travelers. That very much deserves a or two.

 

[Chunder]

Somebody please take away this person's LOL badge.

ROFL!

Back to the subject... Electronic devices should've never been banned on flights. There's no sound science that says they interfere with the planes systems. And even IF there was a problem, it'd be the engineers fault that designed such a weak and easily disrupted system in the first place..

 

[GotNoRice]

It's been blatantly obvious since the beginning of time that handheld electronics, including cellphones, present no threat to the aircraft, even during takeoff and landing.

I would like to see the ban lifted. If there are other reasons why these devices are banned (I've heard theories about it causing problems with cell towers, etc) then I feel that there should at least be honesty and transparency in the reasons behind the bans rather than lying to everyone about it having something to do with aircraft safety.

 

[Modder]

I had my iPad and iPhone on during takeoff and landing 4 times last week. Guess what. Plane didnt crash.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

ROFL!

Back to the subject... Electronic devices should've never been banned on flights. There's no sound science that says they interfere with the planes systems. And even IF there was a problem, it'd be the engineers fault that designed such a weak and easily disrupted system in the first place..

Really? Because planes designed in the 1980's needed to worry about interference from inside the cabin? That's extra weight that decreased fuel efficiency.

I have actually seen the video where the tail moves from someone receiving a call on an older plane, and in the last 3 years I've had a pilot come over the intercom and say, someone is using an electronic device, and it's interfering, please shut it off. (They swapped my plane to a much older plane.)

Now, they shield it from both sides, and say screw the efficiency. I also fly way too much.

 

[SCSI-Terminator]

You guys are missing the point. Its not that the electronic device screws up the aircraft's electronics. Its that you are so distracted by it that you woln't respond quickly when the aircraft crew says "brace for impact", woln't be able to hold on to it so it will go flying into someone else's head from the for mentioned hard impact, and have all that junk and clutter in yours and everyone elses way when you are trying to exit the plane that is now on fire and filling quickly with smoke because you didn't have your device properly stowed.

You can live in the real world for the 10 minutes it takes to takeoff and land. Quit being so selfish.

 

[rainman]

I'll admit that I can handle take-off and touchdown without my electronics device, it's not that big a deal. But if there was never a really legitimate reason to have those turned off, then why are we still required? You're kind of missing the entire point.

The power off / stowed requirement is solely for evacuation purposes. Not very likely, but they want your attention and focus for the critical phases of flight: takeoff, approach, and landing.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

LOL, People complaining about being without their electronic devices for 10 minutes. Oh, and triple LOL the "high cost" to the traveling public.

Then again, LOL at banning them without much good reason.

You clearly don't fly often. As someone who does, I prefer to put in my earphones and tune out the mindless chatter of the "safety" presentation that I have heard so many times I could quote it from memory.

 

[rainman]

Really? Because planes designed in the 1980's needed to worry about interference from inside the cabin? That's extra weight that decreased fuel efficiency.

I have actually seen the video where the tail moves from someone receiving a call on an older plane, and in the last 3 years I've had a pilot come over the intercom and say, someone is using an electronic device, and it's interfering, please shut it off. (They swapped my plane to a much older plane.)

Now, they shield it from both sides, and say screw the efficiency. I also fly way too much.

I currently fly a DC-10. It was designed in 1967 and first flown in 1970. The avionics on board are between 14 to 32 years old. No interference. Same with the A310 I flew for several years, and it was designed in 1977. I have yet to hear of a legit case of interference in my many years of flying large airplanes.

 

[Spidey329]

I currently fly a DC-10. It was designed in 1967 and first flown in 1970. The avionics on board are between 14 to 32 years old. No interference. Same with the A310 I flew for several years, and it was designed in 1977. I have yet to hear of a legit case of interference in my many years of flying large airplanes.

That makes sense to me, since these planes use hydraulics (often dual/redundant system) to manipulate the control surfaces. Even the fly-by-wire ones use just that, wire. I fail to see how a wireless signal can interfere with those as the one person stated. The most is maybe interfering with a guage.

They aren't fly by wifi.

 

[percydaman]

You guys are missing the point. Its not that the electronic device screws up the aircraft's electronics. Its that you are so distracted by it that you woln't respond quickly when the aircraft crew says "brace for impact", woln't be able to hold on to it so it will go flying into someone else's head from the for mentioned hard impact, and have all that junk and clutter in yours and everyone elses way when you are trying to exit the plane that is now on fire and filling quickly with smoke because you didn't have your device properly stowed.

You can live in the real world for the 10 minutes it takes to takeoff and land. Quit being so selfish.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in quite awhile. Even when I DO turn off my electronics devices, I don't stow them, because they don't require it. I hold it in my hand. And nothing is gonna distract me from somebody yelling over the intercom, to 'brace for impact' if the plane is going down. I could be getting a blowjob, from the head stewardess, and believe me, if the plane is going down, I'm gonna know it.

 

[kbrickley]

You guys are missing the point. Its not that the electronic device screws up the aircraft's electronics. Its that you are so distracted by it that you woln't respond quickly when the aircraft crew says "brace for impact", woln't be able to hold on to it so it will go flying into someone else's head from the for mentioned hard impact, and have all that junk and clutter in yours and everyone elses way when you are trying to exit the plane that is now on fire and filling quickly with smoke because you didn't have your device properly stowed.

You can live in the real world for the 10 minutes it takes to takeoff and land. Quit being so selfish.

I tend to this line of thinking also, if the flight attendants or pilot make an emergency announcement you don't need your ear buds in so you might miss it ... also, if you are trying to stow your iPad or Kindle during an evacuation I am going to slap it out of your hand and then slap you

 

[kbrickley]

This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in quite awhile. Even when I DO turn off my electronics devices, I don't stow them, because they don't require it. I hold it in my hand. And nothing is gonna distract me from somebody yelling over the intercom, to 'brace for impact' if the plane is going down. I could be getting a blowjob, from the head stewardess, and believe me, if the plane is going down, I'm gonna know it.

Yep ... and what if you are in a window or Beavis and Butthead are between you and the exit and THEY are stupid enough to be a problem ... rules do have to be built around the common denominator and not the [H] crowd who I would hope are well above the average

 

[Ranma_Sao]

I currently fly a DC-10. It was designed in 1967 and first flown in 1970. The avionics on board are between 14 to 32 years old. No interference. Same with the A310 I flew for several years, and it was designed in 1977. I have yet to hear of a legit case of interference in my many years of flying large airplanes.

Don't know what to tell you, my dad's a Safety Engineer for Boeing, and at Bring your kids to work day, he showed me the video. This was probably 20 years ago now.

 

[percydaman]

Yep ... and what if you are in a window or Beavis and Butthead are between you and the exit and THEY are stupid enough to be a problem ... rules do have to be built around the common denominator and not the [H] crowd who I would hope are well above the average

If Beavis and Butthead are in between me and the exit, and the plane is going down, whether I have my electronics turned on or not, has like zero significance. I don't give a shit who is where, or whatever, the plane is going down, the chance of us living is slim to none, and slim just walked out the fucking door.

 

[percydaman]

The people complaining, that it's only a few minutes, shut up and turn off your gadgets, are right, it's not a big deal, but they are also completely missing the point. The point is, that electronic gadgets don't cause issues with airplanes at take-off and landing. The airlines have known this for a long time, and have just chosen to stick with the rule, for no real good reason. Face it, if gadgets actually caused problems, they wouldn't be asking passengers to turn them off, on their honor, they wouldn't be able to afford to. They would have to take much more drastic measures, for the safety of the airplane. But anybody with half a brain has understood, that not everybody turns them off, and yet not a single plane crash has been attributed to them.

So let's dispense with the comments about how it's not a big deal to turn off your iphones etc etc. It has zero bearing on anything.

 

[kbrickley]

The people complaining, that it's only a few minutes, shut up and turn off your gadgets, are right, it's not a big deal, but they are also completely missing the point. The point is, that electronic gadgets don't cause issues with airplanes at take-off and landing. The airlines have known this for a long time, and have just chosen to stick with the rule, for no real good reason. Face it, if gadgets actually caused problems, they wouldn't be asking passengers to turn them off, on their honor, they wouldn't be able to afford to. They would have to take much more drastic measures, for the safety of the airplane. But anybody with half a brain has understood, that not everybody turns them off, and yet not a single plane crash has been attributed to them.

So let's dispense with the comments about how it's not a big deal to turn off your iphones etc etc. It has zero bearing on anything.

I agree we shouldn't ban them for "interference" but I would have no problem if the FAA banned them for "safety" reasons because they expect you to be undistracted during the 10 minutes of take off or landing ... they could treat it the same as the smoking ban (a convenience to other customers)

 

[Cheetoz]

I agree we shouldn't ban them for "interference" but I would have no problem if the FAA banned them for "safety" reasons because they expect you to be undistracted during the 10 minutes of take off or landing ... they could treat it the same as the smoking ban (a convenience to other customers)

It should be banned during the entire flight as you never know when an emergency can arise.

 

[kbrickley]

It should be banned during the entire flight as you never know when an emergency can arise.

Except more than half of the airline incidents in 2001-2010 occurred during the initial takeoff and the final approach/landing (accounting for half the fatalities) http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/...-takeoff-or-landing-more-dangerous/53876884/1 ... given how safe on average flying is it wouldn't be reasonable to limit electronics throughout the flight but if we take the technology question out of the calculation and make the electronics ban during takeoff and landing a cultural consideration it doesn't seem unreasonable

 

[Tudz]

That makes sense to me, since these planes use hydraulics (often dual/redundant system) to manipulate the control surfaces. Even the fly-by-wire ones use just that, wire. I fail to see how a wireless signal can interfere with those as the one person stated. The most is maybe interfering with a guage.

They aren't fly by wifi.

Mobile phones can mess with the signals in unshielded wired systems. Have you never heard the noise that sometimes comes through wired speakers 3 seconds before your mobile phone rings?

I doubt there could be any issues with mobile devices on modern aircraft, however no engineer in their right mind would sign off on saying "yes" to electronic devices based off anecdotal evidence rather than rigourous scientific testing. If you were the engineer who signed off on that and the next day 100 people on a plane all used mobile devices and it managed to bugger something, you'd be going jail.

The "I used my iphone on a plane yesterday and it didn't crash therefore it's safe" is not a scientific test no more than "I drove 150mph yesterday and didn't crash, therefore it's safe". A scientific test would be "every passenger on a loaded plane received and made calls during take off on a plethora of different devices in every nook and cranny of the plane and on every plane that is currently flying commercially... it was then tested several times with measuring equipment checking avionics isn't being effected".

 

[bloodypulp]

iPads can be FAA certified for use in cockpit, so interference is not the issue.

The electronics ban during takeoff/landing is so that the passengers pay attention to the safety briefing and instructions of the flight safety crew. For liability reasons, the airlines have to make reasonable attempt to inform the passengers of proper safety/emergency procedures.

 

[Tudz]

iPads can be FAA certified for use in cockpit, so interference is not the issue.

You can't actually say that. If iPads can be certified for use in a cockpit, it means that a handful of iPads in the cockpit are known to be safe, it doesn't mean that a hundred tablets and phones simultaneously sending messages and taking calls scattered throughout the plane has been proven to be safe.

There's a difference between allowing the cabin crew to use a tablet that has been tested (probably in it's flight mode as well) and just giving a blanket statement that any and all devices can be used by any and all passengers.

The only way I can see the ban being lifted is if they prove in a manner that is rigorous that a plethora of devices when used by a mass of passengers does not interfere with anything.

It's not a case of "there's no proof they're dangerous", it's a case of "you must prove they aren't dangerous within a worthwhile degree of accuracy".

The electronics ban during takeoff/landing is so that the passengers pay attention to the safety briefing and instructions of the flight safety crew. For liability reasons, the airlines have to make reasonable attempt to inform the passengers of proper safety/emergency procedures.

This is another possible reason for the ban, another one may just be because they don't want a hundred unstowed phones and tablets becoming 200mph projectiles if something goes wrong during take off or landing (hence why they ask you to place bags in the overhead compartment or under the seat in front of you). However if that's the reasoning for not allowing electronics, it's a silly way about going about it as I often sit with things in my lap during take off and landing and have never been queried about it by the flight crew.

 

[mrpc9886]

You guys are missing the point. Its not that the electronic device screws up the aircraft's electronics. Its that you are so distracted by it that you woln't respond quickly when the aircraft crew says "brace for impact", woln't be able to hold on to it so it will go flying into someone else's head from the for mentioned hard impact, and have all that junk and clutter in yours and everyone elses way when you are trying to exit the plane that is now on fire and filling quickly with smoke because you didn't have your device properly stowed.

You can live in the real world for the 10 minutes it takes to takeoff and land. Quit being so selfish.

QFT.

 

[mrpc9886]

I tend to this line of thinking also, if the flight attendants or pilot make an emergency announcement you don't need your ear buds in so you might miss it ... also, if you are trying to stow your iPad or Kindle during an evacuation I am going to slap it out of your hand and then slap you

Hell no! You just push them down, grab their arms and ride them like a sled down the evac slide. Frickin braindead morons deserve no better.

 

[/dev/null]

I still don't see what the problem is. I fly a bit and I really don't want to get hit in the face with your ipad when it gets knocked out of your hands from take off turbulence. The angry birds will be there after the ~10 minutes are up, stop whining.

What about hardcover books & lap babies?

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Except more than half of the airline incidents in 2001-2010 occurred during the initial takeoff and the final approach/landing (accounting for half the fatalities) http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/...-takeoff-or-landing-more-dangerous/53876884/1 ... given how safe on average flying is it wouldn't be reasonable to limit electronics throughout the flight but if we take the technology question out of the calculation and make the electronics ban during takeoff and landing a cultural consideration it doesn't seem unreasonable

That actually makes it seem even more pathetic and unreasonable. Some of us have jobs and time spent on a plane is time that can be spent working. Also when you bear in mind that from the time they make you turn them off to the time you hit 10k feet, can be a Great deal more than 10 minutes. I have spent more than a few days Taxiing (taxying) around the runway for hours due to various delays where we weren't allowed to have our electronics on. It all boils down to the individual flight crew and since they can't enforce it evenly it shouldn't exist in the first place. This asinine implication that just because you are using an electronic device during that time that you are incapable of paying attention and stupid, is extremely insulting to those of us who fly frequently for a living. Not everyone is incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. Just because a few stupid teenagers and soccer moms are incapable, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

 

[kbrickley]

That actually makes it seem even more pathetic and unreasonable. Some of us have jobs and time spent on a plane is time that can be spent working. Also when you bear in mind that from the time they make you turn them off to the time you hit 10k feet, can be a Great deal more than 10 minutes. I have spent more than a few days Taxiing (taxying) around the runway for hours due to various delays where we weren't allowed to have our electronics on. It all boils down to the individual flight crew and since they can't enforce it evenly it shouldn't exist in the first place. This asinine implication that just because you are using an electronic device during that time that you are incapable of paying attention and stupid, is extremely insulting to those of us who fly frequently for a living. Not everyone is incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. Just because a few stupid teenagers and soccer moms are incapable, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Or we make it a privilege of higher priced seats (like business or first class) ... I would have no problem limiting the access for people in coach or economy and letting the business class or first class customers have unfettered access ... pay more money get more benefits ... pay less then get less leg room, more crowded seats, fighting with the other passengers for armrest space, and fettered electronics access

 

[cj3waker]

Or we make it a privilege of higher priced seats (like business or first class) ... I would have no problem limiting the access for people in coach or economy and letting the business class or first class customers have unfettered access ... pay more money get more benefits ... pay less then get less leg room, more crowded seats, fighting with the other passengers for armrest space, and fettered electronics access

Yeah let's allow another government agency that oversees private industry to create an official regulation that rewards pompous assholes like yourself

 

[kbrickley]

Yeah let's allow another government agency that oversees private industry to create an official regulation that rewards pompous assholes like yourself

Or leave government out of the equation completely ... Allow the airlines to choose whether they wish to offer it ... And I fly coach with the rest of the huddled masses, I just don't mind giving the people who pay higher fees better services

 

[sfsuphysics]

It should be banned during the entire flight as you never know when an emergency can arise.

Except it's during that initial 10 minutes that they give you the whole spiel about what to do in an emergency and you're expected to pay attention. Akin to going on any cruise ship, the first thing you do is have an evacuation drill and you MUST do it, no hiding away somewhere on the ship because they will find you and make you do it.