

Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules or Face Legislation - ParkerK
http://mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1757

======
thinkling
McCaskill's argument that allowing iPads into the cockpit means they should be
allowed in the cabin seems weak to me, for two reasons.

First, if there are instrument malfunctions in the cockpit, the crew can turn
off their own wireless devices to see if they were interfering. It's much
harder to get 300 people to shut off their devices in a hurry, especially when
some have tucked their devices in the seatback pocket and gone to sleep.

Second, it seems entire plausible to my (non-electrical-engineer) mind that
300 devices of a large variety of makes are more likely to cause interference
than just one or two, both for the combined signal and the chance that one
will be badly designed.

I used to be indignant about the PED rule as well. After reading a number of
online discussions on it, I'm not convinced that it's obvious that they should
be allowed.

~~~
gRaider2001
We live in a world were people are not willing to turn off their cell phones
for 10 minutes. Very sad

------
bane
It really is remarkable that the legislative option could even be considered
as faster than just modifying the rule.

------
wtn
I don't have a problem with the rules as they are. The point of putting away
devices for takeoff and landing is that they can go flying into people's faces
if you hit a bad bump or the airplane has problems… which is most likely to
happen at the start or end of the flight.

If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I
would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security.

~~~
daeken
> If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I
> would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security.

Battling the TSA is political suicide right now, by and large. Might as well
make some positive change with the power you have, rather than fighting a
battle you know you can't win. That's not to say that there won't be a time
for the TSA to go away or dramatically change form, but I don't think that's
now.

~~~
temphn
I disagree. The TSA is extremely unpopular and an attack on it could get a lot
of positive press.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yes. Given all the frustration with air travel these days, going after the
TSA/FAA is definitely low hanging fruit for a politician. They don't have many
friends.

------
batgaijin
I guess I'll be that guy... what happens when it's a malicious device?

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_bo...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/hacking_the_boe.html)

~~~
daeken
Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent
someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily
have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in
the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack.

Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I
fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device
in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight,
from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've
only once actually had to take out my headphones.

~~~
batgaijin
No, I do not believe the rules we have today make any sense for preventing
that.

~~~
Dylan16807
So when you said you were 'that guy', you didn't mean someone bringing in a
counterargument to a popular position, you meant you were someone bringing in
unrelated data and going "Huh? What about this? Huh?".

~~~
batgaijin
I'm saying that the rules are either going to become more liberal or severely
conservative. I'm simply pointing out the conservative, somewhat nonsensical
one.

I think the rules do not make sense considering my point, as they were never
intended for that.

And by 'that guy' I mean devil's advocate for a possible future idiotic fear-
mongering policy.

------
mahmud
The Senator sure wants her iPad on the plane. But what is her position on
indefinite detention of Americans, and even their assassination, without the
faintest legal fig leaf?

~~~
Kerrick
The Senator wants to stop a federal agency staffed by non-elected individuals
from regulating customers of private businesses while on private business
property. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

~~~
andyjohnson0
In this case the "private business property" comprises huge, heavy, metal
objects carrying large amounts of highly inflammable fuel that are flying
through the sky at high speed over the heads and homes of millions of people.

Regulating this activity seems like a step in the right direction to me.

------
wildranter
Whatever is done I hope they never allow people talking on the phone inside
airliners. We don't need more annoying people taking long conversations by
phone in public enclosed spaces as they were in their living rooms. It's
either that or I'll buy a gun!

~~~
mahmud
Airlines will start offering "quiet" flights at 40% premium, allowing only
business class passengers to talk on the phone (or you can upgrade yourself to
Communicator level for $20 more and use your phone in economy)

In Australia you can pay Qantas $ to "offset" your carbon footprint. Carbon
tax is _already_ law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes ;-)

~~~
toomuchtodo
"Carbon tax is already law, you're just paying to help them with their taxes."

Like the landing fees, 9/11 "security fees" per flight leg, etc?

I'm helping them pay for everything already, including their (small) profit =)

~~~
mahmud
It's Capitalism, if the business is not profitable they should get out of it.
No one told them to run on thin margin. Not my responsibility to subsidize bad
business decisions.

