As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

there was a mythbusters on this. if i recall correctly, though they couldn't find any way to make the plane's instrumentation fail by bombarding it with a myriad of frequencies, even the mythbusters guys (possibly for legal reasons, or because they succumbed to pressure from their network) concluded that because the FAA can't rigorously test every device that comes out, that this is somewhat of a blanket policy to ensure that some new device that nobody has tested will be on during takeoff and cause the plane to crash.

this said, i never power off my devices...just put them in airplane mode if they have them, or to sleep. i fly a lot, both domestically and internationally.

I think maybe they didn't try hard enough LOL.

If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission.

If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path.

The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use GPS etc. But it could cause some distraction and wreak some havoc.

Back in the 90s, there were cheap CD players and whatnot that would generate all kinds of crazy RF.

The FAA said, this is all unapproved electronics, we can't test it, it has to go off during takeoff and landing, unless the pilot OKs it. Of course, the corporate pilot will OK it for his CEO/passenger.

Why not put the passenger cabin in a Faraday cage? Shouldn't be that hard or costly to do, compared.

The fuselage IS a Faraday cage. Only the division between passenger/pilot probably needs attention. A good idea.

But some of the electronics are not in the cockpit.

Mostly because a faraday cage the size of the plane would be quite heavy, I guess

Ha, I intentionally keep my devices on, just because.

When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented.

Did you come across anything like that?

I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law.

If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were possible, couldn't you just put shielding between the passenger cabin and the cockpit? EM radiation is line-of-sight, after all.

It seems like a giant non-issue that exists mostly due to rulemakers' ignorance.

There are three cases that I know of, they were in an NTSB report which is not online sadly. They all involved interference with the ADF [1] and frequencies used in ILS [2]. Basically the local transmitters around airports are relatively low power so as to not interfere and they only need to 'talk' to planes that are landing, the ILS frequencies are in the 108 - 115Mhz range (just above the FM band). For a fairly long time the memory speed on PC based laptops was about 133Mhz and that was synthetically generated by clock chip running at 50 - 60Mhz on the motherboard. Sidebands from these machines, as weak as they were, were closer to the plane's reciever and so the ILS system would be unable to 'lock in' (the ILS receiver uses a phase locked loop to maintain tracking on the signal).

Anywhoo, different airports, different frequencies, and differernt ways they might interfere. Since that time laptops have gotten better (and faster, they are all generally over a gigahertz on their various busses), and radios have gotten better too.

A AT&T friend actually mentioned that AT&T had asked the airlines to ban cellphone use (back in the 900Mhz analog days) because the towers couldn't deal with a cell phone that went by a 500 MPH. However I've never been able to confirm that with any public record so I consider it hearsay at best.

[1] http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/adf.htm

[2] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/osmhome/redbook/4d.pdf Redbook see pages 4-172 thru 4-174

I heard of pilots experimenting with el cheapo CD players - player goes on, needles peg. Player goes off, everything is OK.

The cell phone ban is an FCC ban, not FAA like devices during takeoff and landing - http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes

In the old days of analog cell phones, a single cell phone would talk to all the towers in range and hog bandwidth on every one. On the ground not many towers were in range, once you got to 20,000 feet, there were a lot. If cell phones were on on all the planes over LA, it would be like a DDOS attack.

Possibly still an issue with digital phones, but they can do a lot of smart things, modulate power, drop calls to not overload the network LOL.

> Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law.

Not inside a metal tube, they're not.

This is not to say that I'm a "believer" one way or the other, but you should also think about it in comparison to the signals that the navigation equipment is trying to receive with its omnidirectional antenna. I.e., a strong CB radio 26,000 miles away. It wouldn't take any power at all to interfere with it, if the interfering signal were on the magic frequencies (which are continually changing due to doppler effects).

"which are continually changing due to doppler effects"

Doppler effects will be extremely small, since the greatest speed differential you'll see will be twice the speed of an airplane (when two planes are moving directly towards or away each other), which is not a substantial fraction of the speed of light. There will be some shift, but not nearly enough to bump a device from non-interference to interference. Or did I misunderstand something?

It might be that he is referring to Doppler VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range), although I'm not sure how this effects interference scenarios.

Interference wouldn't alter the doppler effect, though, it would just very slightly change the frequency that would be interfered with.

In any case, I don't think any airliner flying today is relying on VOR.

O

If it were trivially possible for you to interfere with cockpit computers, why wouldn't terrorists be going after that? Seems like a massive, massive oversight if that were the case.

It's not an effective way to bring down a plane. The pilot would just switch to another instrument or frequency. You could land the plane without any radios or navigation. But it would raise some pulses.

In visual conditions it would be a total non-issue - GPS/VOR/IRS guidance to the airport (or radar vectors or pilotage), with a visual landing.

For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, for example).

I'm not an airline pilot but I am pilot. I'm not aware of anything better than ILS for those types of conditions (very low ceilings and visibility). VOR/NDB approaches are non-precision approaches. The GPS I have access to does not permit a precision approach - maybe the airliners have something better.

You think it would be a problem if the ILS was sketchy in Cat 3 auto-land with ceiling/visibility at minimums ?

But the checklist should check that the ILS is alive... and if it's centered horizontally and vertically the pilots should notice.

OTOH a crafty terrorist could wait for a bad weather day, unplug the airport ILS, and set up an alternate one in a nearby building. Still, the tower would probably notice something was amiss and just say 'go around'.

I have heard that the airliners are generally all equipped with GPS units rated for precision approaches. I'd have to look at some approach plates to see how the mins for GPS approaches stack up to the ILS approaches for the same runways (I don't fly anything rated to use GPS for precision approaches).

Don't forget PAR, which generally has mins comperable to, if not lower than, ILS.

I once was talking to a pilot who swore first-hand that he had the plane doing odd things, asked the attendants to go through the cabin looking for people using devices and to shut them off. They closed down one particular laptop and the plane started behaving again.

Whether this is 'friend of a friend' type tale that pilots like to say (and co-opt as their own story) or not is difficult to say.

The same pilot also told me the main reason they don't want you using cellphones on a flight was because the base stations couldn't triangulate properly and identify who was making the call - which is clearly BS. Same pilot also freely admitted to using his own phone during flights.

I guess my point is that the pilots at the same time kind-of believe the official excuses, yet at the same time flout them and make up ridiculous reasons why they are official.

I sat next to an off-duty pilot one time. He said the pilots really would only care during the final part of landing.

He turned on his cell phone and showed that it wouldn't pick up a signal anyway.

From personal experience, texting can work up to about 7,000 feet, but voice didn't.

This was about 10 years ago, so things have likely changed.

Don't you ever get tired of being reasonable and/or logical, Nick?

Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)

It was actually submitted by a different HN user, whose profile, oddly enough, identifies him/her as working for Forbes.

Ouch... I was being tongue-in-cheek, not intentionally a jerk! :-(

From the author's submission history he has only ever submitted his own stories to Hacker News.

Oh, but going by usernames, he didn’t!

Hi Nick:

Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either.

I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer.

Also, you're frankly wrong in asserting that electronic devices are not more distracting than a paper book; think of anything involving headphones, for instance.

If headphones are the problem, ban wearing headphones during takeoff and landing. Why the slippery slope towards all electronic devices?

If people are desperate to hold onto their laptop in an emergency, it's not going to matter if it's on their lap or in the bins above their head: they're going to try to get it.

There are a reasonable set of restrictions for safety (i.e. headphones). There are others that are not. For a point of reference, JetBlue provides satellite radio and TV both in-flight and during landing (as well as sometimes during take-off). They've clearly chosen to prioritize passenger comfort in lieu of relaxed FAA regulations, and aren't concerned about the impact of distractions.

The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity.

Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year.

Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen.

So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself.

[0] http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-pa...

[1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.

I don't understand how planes are seizing productivity when the nearest competitor -- an illegally driven car -- is about 5 times slower. Yes they have quite a bit of overhead during take off, landing, baggage claim, driving to the airport, security screening, etc. But what else can reduce a trip's time from days to hours? The amount of time wasted in that overhead compared to the time gained is minuscule.

The competitor is planes without the TSA, not cars.

By your reasoning, it would be wrong to complain about cars which have a speed limit of 40 miles an hour, since "the nearest competitor" (bikes, horses?) would still be still worse.

Unless you are going a long way, it may well be faster to drive. For me: 1 hour drive to the airport, 1+ hours at the airport for check-in, security, etc, 1 hour at destination to retrieve baggage, get a rental car, and get out of the airport... plus the time of the flight. If I can drive in under 6 hours, I'll seriously consider doing that rather than deal with all the hassle of air travel.

Except that if you drive for 6 hours, you can't talk on the phone and you can't use your laptop. Your point doesn't make sense to me: if you're willing to drive for 6 hours, you're also willing to stop working during all that time, while if you flight you'll always find some time to work, at the terminal or in the plane.

If driving you can talk on the phone for the whole 6 hours. I did something similar at least once.

Also, the driver can't use a laptop, but because of the driving activity itself, the driver is not so easily bored. Boredom is the main reason why I power on my laptop on a plane. Also, the other passengers can easily work on a laptop, watch a movie and so on. If you've got a 3G connection, the passengers can also go online - even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving, plus I'm connected on Skype for the whole ride. The only problem here may be the comfort of your car, as you'll have problems having a laptop in your lap if the car is a small one. I also never get anything done on a plane when trying to work, especially because I don't have Internet connectivity, so I would rather listen to Podcasts or read a book and when driving Audio books are great btw.

So, related to comfort, I always prefer a couple of hours in my 10-year old Audi A6 over a plane ride. If the car ride is longer than some threshold, like the mentioned 6 hours, I do agree that a plane ride is better.

> even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving

Why would you ever do that? If you don't care about your safety, at least make sure you're less likely to kill others, please...

Oh, cut the drama. I use text 2 speech.

I guess that even for short messages rather than interaction, some of this applies: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/cdir489.pdf

Change your name to "bad_driver" already.

It's actually reverse: you can talk on the phone in a car, but not on the plane (at least for reasonable rate).

That's exactly how I view, although I put a pretty heavy negative weight on the hassles of navigating around airports, finding parking, gates, etc. With driving I feel a lot more in control. Driving is also a continuous activity, there's minimal transition times (e.g. With flying you've got find a place to park, find your gate, etc).

In other parts of the world their are trains, which are faster than cars and provide tables and often electricity and wifi, making them a pretty compelling substitute.

There's a lot of empty space in between the West and the East, which is where plane travel is the most compelling, and train travel would still likely not be.

There is a lot more travel North-South in the USA than there is East-West. Just look at the way the US highway system is setup. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1926us.jp...

Note: Number of lanes paints a much stronger picture, but I can't find a good map of that.

Thanks a lot for this, it's a really cool map. Note that this is just the US numbered routes, so it's pre-Interstate.

I'm quite fascinated by the interstate system; I think it's one of the more amazing things this country's managed to accomplish in the last century. I admit that I draw my sample set from just my experience -- I grew up in the SF Bay Area, go to school near Chicago, and spend summers in Seattle, so all my travel is huge E-W distances -- but I think even if you're right, you have a good argument for N-S rail systems and there's still enough E-W travel that air travel is still quite necessary.

I don't think there's many places were a train is a good substitute for a 5+ hr flight.

I live in Washington, DC and Washington, DC -> NYC is a common trip. The train is a much better way to go. From Washington, DC, it's a short metro ride to get to union station. The train takes about 3 hours to NYC but it gets you right into Penn Station. This is much better than having to go to a suburb to get to the airport and landing in another suburb and having to get downtown. I'm a fan of trains. And... rail travel isn't dead time at all. I'm able to work on my laptop and I don't have to worry about the person in front of me putting their chair back full tilt crushing my opened screen.

No but for replacing quick hops trains make a whole lot of sense. Drastically less messing around at each end and train stations are often right in the centre of the city. Add to that the increased comfort a train provides and it is an easy argument to make.

In another, more macabre calculus:

1.6 billion hours per year

= 182648 person years per year

Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers)

= 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen

= equivalent of 4566 deaths

which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.

If 1 billion people take a 20 minute nap every day... that's equal to 38,000 years wasted time every day... which is about 20 lifetimes every HOUR! OMFG nobody should nap!

How about 'the government should not mandate that everyone must nap'... does that sound reasonable?

Except without sleep, we all die. The question before us is this: without TSA, do we all die?

They said nap, not sleep. Dying from a 20 minute nap is pretty unlikely.

That's a ridiculous way to look at it.

The economic term is deadweight loss. Not so ridiculous, as that is product capacity lost to society.

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ridiculous? Stolen time is stolen time, no?

All you do your entire life is what you're confined to doing on an iPad in an airplane? It's not that huge of a loss. You're not dead for half an hour on each flight.

Haha, you make a good point.

Nonetheless, flying could be an amazing experience. But fliers are some of the least happy people because they are treated either like criminas, children, or cattle. If the time isn't quite stolen, it is at least spoiled.

All I can say is to watch Louis CK's rant about how everything is amazing and nobody's happy. I fly several times a year and I honestly enjoy it. People who complain about their flying experience need thicker skin and more problems in their lives.

No, but I sometimes wish I was dead for just that half an hour.

Why? What common units would you convert it to?

How many airports make you spend an hour or two going through security? When flying, I usually spend an hour or two in total at the airport, but that includes check-in, security, waiting for and boarding plane, then de-planing and sometimes waiting for luggage. Not to mention the transport time to and from the airports. Security and safety is a pretty insignificant part of that time, and waiting in line at the airport the price you pay for getting cheap airfares.

You can buy yourself out of this miserable experience by renting a plane. Of course, you might still get a security briefing by the pilot, as part of a checklist that he's already gone through hundreds of times while wasting precious time.

Israel.

No, really. Especially iff

- you are leaving the country (...)

- you are a foreigner (that is: Everything but a citizen)

Everybody around me (including the airport) tells me to arrive ~2.5 (some say 2. Some 3) hours early. The procedure consists of

1. waiting in line forever, waiting for the luggage to be scanned

2. a passport check in that line, asking you questions about where you're from, where you stayed, what you did in Israel and if you happen to carry weapons or presents that might be bombs. If they are inclined to waste some time they are going to ask you for more: Do you know people in Israel? What are their names? Where do _those_ live? What's your connection ... it's something between a 3-4 questions interview and a nice interrogation

3. Your luggage was scanned. Someone is going to tell you to go to that place over there and unpack it. If it's your birthday or Fortuna is with you: Go to step 5.

4. Some guy/girl is ripping apart your luggage. Some are gentler, some really completely mess everything up.

5. The ticket counter! Get your ticket..

6. Wait in line before the security check of you and your carry-on stuff, metal detector, shoe removal station. If you don't have a laptop with you, go to 8

7. Your laptop is suspicious. You have to wake it up from suspend. Close it again. They x-ray it three times. They need to take it to another room, for a special treatment. After 30min they return, the laptop is not suspended anymore. It's off. You are supposed to prove (again) that it's a laptop and not a weapon of mass destruction. Powering it on, booting, logging in is not enough. 'Open a file!'. If you open a picture or a random text file in Notepad, you're good to go.

8. Proceed to the gate, please. You are late for your flight. Remember that for next time and get to the airport earlier, stupid.

Yes, it's that bad. Nothing is invented here, all experienced by yours truely. Not all steps are that bad all the time, but .. I wouldn't bet my ticket on having a lucky day..

Imho this is better then

- Taking off shoes

- Going through scanner-of-the-day

- Can't take any liquids on the plane.

And same procedure applies also to Israelis as well not only to visitors.

Hmm.. Hope you didn't take offense with what I wrote. I see no personal insult anywhere in that text and certainly didn't intend any. That said:

- I had to remove my shoes at the Ben Gurion airport. Granted, only once so far

- Agreed (scanner)

- Braindead liquid rules still apply (maybe softened vs. the US? I cannot judge that)

And while Israelis have to do the same thing: If I travel with a coworker (we usually arrive separately) they pass all tests right away and have a couple of shortcuts (especially concerning passport control, inbound, for example). My experience with tourists, visitors and my own trips says that - well - foreigners start on the 'Might be a terrorist' scale at 3 out of 10, just because.

No offense.

>- Braindead liquid rules still apply (maybe softened vs. the US? I cannot judge that)

I guess that it might apply more then usually when you fly to US. Flies to Europe/within Israel ok. You can buy whatever you want after security check and bring it with you.

Passport control shortcut, you probably mean electronic system. There is one like this in US for US citizens that I can't use :(

And yes, foreigners start with "Might be..." but usually it never goes beyond questions. "Luggage scan pass" Israeli might get only if they (scanners) are too loaded. In case line is short everybody goes through it. And Israelis can move to "might be" quickly in case they give "bad" answer. I once couldn't answer how old I am (I never know) and was questioned for 40minutes.

Two hours total? I wish I could do as well.

When I fly (as infrequently as possible), I have to budget at least 5.5 hours from my front door to boarding the plane. Here's my time budget based on 10 years of flying out of New York City from Newark (and occasionally JFK)

  |-----------+----------------------------|
  | Time (hr) | Activity                   |
  |-----------+----------------------------|
  |       1   | Drive to airport           |
  |       0.5 | Find parking               |
  |       0.5 | Shuttle to Terminal        |
  |-----------+----------------------------|
  |       2   | ** Sub total **            |
  |-----------+----------------------------|
  |       1   | Check luggage              |
  |       1.5 | Security                   |
  |       0.5 | To gate                    |
  |       0.5 | Wait at Gate               |
  |-----------+----------------------------|
  |       3.5 | ** Sub total **            |
  |-----------+----------------------------|
  |       5.5 | ** Total **                |
  |-----------+----------------------------|

Hmm. Strange to get downvoted for this. What about my post made you think it was unworthy or inappropriate to the discussion?

> What about my post made you think it was unworthy or inappropriate to the discussion?

The numbers are high enough that some people (not me) may be downvoting you because they think you're exaggerating.

Maybe I'm lucky not dealing with flying out of new york, but I usually leave about 2hr before boarding. I expect steps to take about:

    to airport: 45min (subway, subway, shuttle)
    check luggage: 15min (usually omitted)
    security: 15min
    to gate: 15min
    wait: 30min

Individual steps can take longer, but they've not taken long enough to make me miss my flight. I just have less waiting at the end.

I agree that security these days is by far overkill, and even agree with many of the deadweight statistics in this thread. But 5.5 hours is highly abnormal. I fly fast, I generally leave my house about an hour before my flight. I'm lucky enough to be a short 10 minute drive from my airport. Security usually takes me around 5-10 minutes at SJC, and 10-15 minutes at SFO. I can fit two weeks of clothing (fresh shirts for every day, two pairs of jeans, fresh underwear and socks for every day, a jacket and a blazer) as well as all my office supplies and toiletries into carryon baggage, so I never check bags. All in all it's usually 45 minutes from my front door til I step on the plane. It's not hard to make flying fast, it just takes dexterity with the security. The TSA themselves recommend showing up 90 minutes to 2 hours before your flight, but it's very doable to show up 30 minutes prior. I fly about once a month for business, and I've yet to miss a flight.

I didn't down vote you, but I fly out of JFK too. For an international flight, I hop in a black car from manhattan 3 hours before the flight. For a domestic, I leave my apartment 2.5 hrs before the flight. Others may have downvoted because they thought you were exaggerating.

We just call a car service since we're close to a couple of airports; while proximity and being dropped at the terminal save time, even if all goes well we're still talking at least two hours.

I guess I've been lucky with airports. What do you do for 1,5 hours in security? Standing in line, or is it the security check that takes so much time?

JFK/EWK and SFO.

That's a great way to look at it. Safety has costs associated with it. So there may be some benefit to all these precautions, but if the probability adjusted benefit doesn't outweigh the costs then it's inadvisable to continue incurring the costs.

Delta actually does the seat back (or on the overhead monitors depending on the age of the plane) thing during taxiing to the runway. You can actually go watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY

The camera angles and lighting are a bit surreal when watching it after having been up for 96 hours though.

There's also the safety issue of the items not being stowed which are then made projectiles when a takeoff is aborted or the runway is overshot on landing. I don't want my Kindle embedded in someone's head because I had it out during landing.

(It's probably really hard to get the blood off the screen)

I would submit that the average wage of fliers is much higher than $10/hour

How many average human lifespans is 1.6 billion hours?

Lets say we use an average of 15 minutes for a person to go to the toilet. This includes getting to and from the toilet etc.

For ease of calculation we say that each person goes to the toilet twice during a workday.

And there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet.

That gives us 0.5 hour per person per day * 7 billion people = 3.5 billion wasted hours.

At a conservative estimate of $10 per hours, that's $35 billion per year. This does not include money wasted on water for flushing and washing hands!

It's clear from this that we have to stop people from going to the toilet during work hours...

</sarcasm>

It's clear that I get benefits from going to the toilet. I'm not so sure about the TSA.

15 minutes to go to the toilet? I think you need to see a doctor.

Not if you bring your toilet computer, aka smartphone.

> If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible.

I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.

> It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.

None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.

> I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.

That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome.

> None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.

This is a side benefit for flight attendants and other passengers. Having people and carts moving in the cabin at these times, and in the event of a situation on board makes for a much worse situation than would otherwise be the case. The additional blockages of exit rows, and obstacle of tables being down creates additional confusion. In addition having tables down will result in injuries to seated passengers who are slammed into them.

> That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome.

Books and magazines present the same problems as a Kindle. So does a sleeping passenger. Safety should be taken as seriously as possible, but the inconsistent application of the rules only implies that no one has put any real thought into it thus far.

On the other hand, I believe Emerson said something pithy about consistently minding your hobgoblins (or something like that). Or, as hackers are more likely to put it: "The 90% solution is usually your best bet."

That said, if you you really do want to have them take away books and magazines and force everyone to stay awake during takeoff and landing, feel free to write a letter to the FAA.

No, I think it's EXACTLY the point. Events leading up to the "situation" are likely to grab attention no matter WHAT device you are or are not using. Engines falling off planes and such are VERY hard to miss.

And devices really don't affect people blocking exit rows, etc.

No, but a device dropped on the floor during an evacuation could mean some steps on it an slips. With a human pileup as a result, when seconds matter to save lives. That said, maybe the should ban magazines and books too then.

Lean back for ten minutes and think deep and meaningful thoughts. :)

Edit: spelling, hardcopy thought added

Don't you think if they haven't banned magazines and books, these rules are not about people being distracted?

> I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.

The audiences at many concerts I've been to lately would speak to the opposite of this.

That's like saying no one notices blood on a slaughterhouse floor so a puddle of blood at a school wouldn't be noticed.

While this explains why you must stow the devices, it doesn't explain why you have to power them off, why it's often OK to hold a device that's turned off, and why nobody ever tells you to put down a book or magazine during these times.

That may be a good reason to tell passengers to avoid using a laptop, for example. But a kindle? What's the difference between reading a kindle and reading a paper book in terms of "emergency preparedness"? Absolutely nothing.

Also, you're just inventing reasons out of thin air. This is not the reason why the FAA has such restrictions. The reason is that it is very difficult to test a plane as being immune to interference from every single possible handheld consumer electronic device, and it would be too complicated to enforce a selective ban.

Your response is an example of the natural tendency of some people to find comfort in authority, even when it is shown to be ineffective. Nothing personal. Lots of people react in the same way. Sad nonetheless.

Not really. It is an example of me reading an Ask The Pilot column, on Salon, in which this topic was discussed, and finding myself in agreement with the reasonable points made therein, by an actual pilot.

As far as authority goes in general, and the FAA in particular, I think the FAA and Homeland Security are utterly full of it, most of the time. This issue is more evidence of that; I agree with those who point out that there is no reason to power off devices. Just pointing out that there is indeed a valid reason to want folks to put them away. Especially anything involving headphones.

This is a fairly hot topic among most frequent fliers. Did you ever consider that column was more propaganda warfare from the FAA instead of actual data?

I'm pretty sure about that, given that the same author has been quite harsh on the FAA about other issues (such as crew rest time). Edit: http://www.salon.com/2008/01/04/askthepilot259/ - hardly what I would call propaganda.

Was it the pilot in the article who cited the hyperbolic number 15? It's hard to be simultaneously flippant and convincing.

I don't find this plausible. Is there any evidence to suggest that, during an emergency condition requiring cooperation, people continue to text and make calls? To quote Mitch Hedberg, "If you're flammable and have legs, you're never blocking a fire exit."

During emergency evacuations of aircraft, the number one problem is people attempting to bring their carry-on luggage with them. True story.

Sorry, but this is bullshit. What makes electronic distractions worse than non-electronic ones? Why does the medium of a dead tree versus an e-reader when the activity is the same: reading a book.

If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention

> If everyone has 15 objects out

I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.

Even though you've stated this in a very confident tone and have a lot of upvotes, I don't really see any evidence for your claim. Stowing carry-ons/no drink service during takeoff could as easily be explained by not wanting projectiles flying about the cabin when the plane bounces, the challenge of keeping your feet while the direction of gravity is shifting around you, etc. None of these reasons apply to electronic devices.

And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.

Then why can you read a book, magazine, feed a baby, etc.? Honestly, I feel like everyone keeps backing into these ridiculously vague "well... safety" answers with no justification. The FAA clearly told the reporter HOW the rule came to be, through a hypothetical concern that was not supported by evidence. Just like this one.

If this is the real reason for the policy then it should be stated officially.

Has any airline or other relevant authority ever claimed that this was the reason? It seems like they'd state this if that were the case.

If electrical devices can be used to bring down a plane, why am I not being stopped from bringing them onto the plane?

My 500 ml bottle of water is strictly forbidden.

Couldn't a terrorist could come equipped with a collection of gameboys and tamagotchis to bring the plane down?

Why is reading authorized, then? Or, worse, sleeping / wearing earbuds? Or doing anything except getting ready for the coming catastrophe?

I asked this question a while back on HN and there were some good responses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1731699

Okay, so I have to put it away - your argument is logical and compelling. But why do I have to turn it off?

(And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))

I often fly between two cities here in Norway, and the flight time is just 30 minutes (it takes 5 hours by train, btw). One airline insists on serving coffee to everyone, and the since the coffee is blistering hot, some people usually still have a hot cup of coffee in their hands while landing.

> it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions

I've taken the plane more than a hundred times, I know the instructions and I know no one has ever bothered me when I leave my ipod/phone/nintendo ds turned on. Sometimes the flight attendance asked me to turn it off so I comply, otherwise I don't. Also especially because I like to listen to music when I take off and feel like I'm in a movie.

If the elimination of risk were really the objective, they'd require passengers to travel in paper gowns with no carry-ons or luggage. But the fact of the matter is that they make the rules they think they can get away with, not the rules that will increase safety. And one way or another, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone's life is going to be in danger from ten people playing game boys immediately prior to an air emergency.

I think it's disappointing that we react to weird rules by inventing reasons to defend them.

You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.

You have a good point. However, knowing that electronic devices cannot be used, many fliers (including myself) bring their own alternative such as magazines, books, etc.

I have never seen a stewardess calling somebody's attention for reading a book. On the other hand, they'll quickly force you to stop using almost anything that has an on/off switch.

"... the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times."

You've never flown first class, I take it?

They do serve welcome-drinks as soon as passengers got on the plane. Oh, right! Never mind.

Another logical and sensible reason:

In the event of an emergency, that laptop or iPad is likely to stop being a productivity tool and start being a projectile. Just like the carry-on bags they also require you to stow.

How come I can watch tv during this whole time if this is the reason?

Exactly.

In addition, keeping passengers calm and relaxed is also a key point of security - roudy/drunk/agressive or even violent passengers can cause a lot of trouble on a flight when there are relatively few, fairly untrained flight attendants on board. Thus, if everybody was chatting away on their phones with annoying ring-tones going off every 2 minutes this would probably start aggravating people, so its just easier to say 'no mobile phones' - and if people have the impression it is a point of safety then they are more likely to obey them.

This isn't even the least bit correct. I don't know why it is voted up so much.

Also, these 15 objects will in the event of an emergency become flying objects bouncing around the cabin.