|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: FAA Finally Lifts Epically Dumb Ban on Mobile Device Use on Planes
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-02-2013 10:13 PM
Link
FAA Finally Lifts Epically Dumb Ban on Mobile Device Use on Planes
quote:
Our long national nightmare is over. The Federal Aviation Administration has finally seen the error of its ways and will permit airlines to allow passengers to use electronic devices during takeoff and landing. Because, no, playing Dots isn’t going to bring down Boeing’s latest high-tech airliner.
The ban on mobile devices has been in effect since the early 1990s, when cellphones began to crop up, and the FAA and airlines summarily freaked the hell out for no good reason. Despite no direct evidence that the use of mobile phones or other electronic devices would interfere with the plane’s systems, the ban continued — even after the FAA hired an outside safety agency to find if anything could go wrong. They didn’t. But the FAA and airlines decided to continue the policy. Until today.
The FAA’s announcement requires airlines to prove that electronic devices are safe to use on their planes from gate to gate, and the agency expects all carriers to get the thumbs-up from the Feds by the end of the year.
E-book devices, handheld gaming systems, tablets, and phones will be allowed during takeoff and landing, although the FAA recommends that you still switch to airplane mode because you’re not going to get a signal 30,000 feet in the air — the only hit you’ll take is a dead battery when you land. However, larger devices like laptops will have to be stowed away because of their potential to become silicon-filled projectiles if there’s an emergency — which was the real reason many airlines preferred the ban to be in effect.
Its about time somebody woke up. I've always said (even before confirming with pilot friends of mine) that if a cell phone can cause the plane to crash, there is NO WAY they wouldn't give everyone the shakedown and confiscate all cell phones before boarding the plane.
I get the argument that the airlines want people paying attention, but they have taken that silly argument way too far.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-05-2013 08:30 PM
Is it true you can't get a cell signal at 30,000 feet?
I'm hoping they keep the no-cell-phone-calls ban in place, though. The thought of sitting next to some idiot yammering away throughout a 4-hour flight is enough to make me consider driving.
quote: Brad Miller
I get the argument that the airlines want people paying attention
I can kind of see this. The most likely time for a "problem" is the takeoff and landing times. Think about the Sullenberger incident (where he landed the plane in the Hudson). Without the ban on devices, some knothead would have probably been zoning out on headphones, not realize there was a problem, gotten hurt, and sued the airline. Unlikely but you know how things go.
The whole "safety briefing" thing is a joke though, as are the exit row procedures. Half the time, you can't HEAR the flight attendant who is racing through the script at warp speed. And, if the plane crashed, do they really think the exit-row people are going to have the presence of mind to do all those duties on the little card? First of all they probably didn't bother to read the card. Second, once the plane is down, if possible, they're most likely to be out the door and long gone before anybody else recovers from the impact.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-07-2013 10:42 AM
Even if they do, it probably won't offer much relief (unless you employ someone with an AK-47 to take out the people ignoring the quiet coach notice, which wouldn't exactly be quiet!): my experience of quiet carriages both in Britain and the US is that they are quite simply ignored. On the Metrolink between San Bernardino and LA, the convention seems to be that using your phone is OK in the quiet coach except for spoken conversations, including the various noises smartphones make when an SMS, email, Facebook message etc. arrives (but that's a small price to pay to avoid the 10 freeway through the Inland Empire in the rush hour).
Again, on planes, so many people ignore the 'no electronic devices during takeoff and landing' rule that I don't think you'd stand a snowball's chance in a microwave of enforcing a 'no phone use in rows 45-55' type rule, especially in a paid-for allocated seating scenario in which a passenger is made to pay extra to ensure that they get a seat in a row where phone use is allowed (I once overheard a conversation between a passenger and a train guard in England, in which the passenger was complaining that she asked for a seat reservation not in the quiet coach, but ended up in there anyway). The people who want to use their phones outnumber those who want to sit in peace by an order of magnitude, and the airlines won't want to lose their business.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-07-2013 06:02 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Everything they do is aimed toward chasing money, and following the ever-more-silly government regulations. Not making customers happy. This whole electronic devices thing is just a "can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em" move
I'd guess that the airlines have been losing a lot of short-haul and a significant amount of medium-haul business to road (and in Europe, high-speed rail) over the last decade, and have been trying to get the electronic device restrictions relaxed because, along with the TSA, extra charges for checked bags, coffee, an aisle seat etc., this is yet another reason why an increasing number of people are actually doing what Scott is threatening to do, namely avoid air travel.
Olivia and I drove on a trip from Loma Linda to Phoenix last month (340 miles or so). Door to door, the trip took around 4h45m: We might have shaved half an hour off that by flying, but it would have been a lot more expensive (especially as two people were travelling and once ground transportation to and from the airports is factored in) and a lot more stressful.
Frankly, I can't see myself ever flying again for a trip of less than 500 miles or so, and certainly not unless the price of tickets goes back down to what budget airlines were charging for short-haul flights in the early '00s. Obviously for long-haul I don't have any choice (I suppose it would be theoretically possible to visit my relatives in England by a road or rail trip to the east coast followed by a boat, but it would take at least 2 weeks in each direction and cost an arm and a leg, I'd guess), but as long as they don't build phone masts in the middle of the North Atlantic, I'll be safe for at least some of the flight!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic