Although the rule is dumb, taking it out on the flight attendants is even dumber. Flight attendants shouldn't be expected to know which devices transmit and which don't or how a kindle works. There are stiff penalties that the flight attendant must pay personally (can be up to $10,000) for not following FARs. If it's dumb let the FAA know - it's their rule not the flight attendants.
The most infuriating device I own when it comes to this is my Kindle, I'll pull it out and start reading on the ground, I usually tuck it away under my arms on my lap when the attendants walk by to do their checks.
I've honestly debated explaining in detail how e-ink technology works to flight attendants because they can't grasp the idea that just because something is showing a picture doesn't mean it's consuming power.
To top it off... I don't think you can even power the damn thing off, screen saver mode, yes, wireless off, you bet, but when you flip the switch and a picture pops up to replace the words on the page the flight attendants stand there waiting for it to go blank.
Although it is annoying to have to turn off devices, the goal many airline attendants say is "to avoid distractions during the most dangerous part of the flight."
I get their logic, especially when listening to music, but when simply reading books on ereaders while the person next to you is using a book, is kinda illogical.
I always thought of it as risk vs reward.
The risk is that the plane will crash and everyone will die.
The reward is that I get to read my email 10 minutes sooner.
I'll wait until the plane lands to let my wife and kids know that I'm at my destination. I'm generally against arbitrary rules, but this is one of the few cases where I'll obey the dumb rule.
So in our ever-digital world, we forget that these nice digital technologies have analog underpinnings. Cellular radio signals these days are digital, but that digital signal is on top of an analog signal.
iPads and other non-cellular devices have CPUs and CPUs have clocks, which an analog guy would properly identify as a Radio which is transmitting. Non-cellular devices also increasingly have Wi-fi, which is a digital technology on top of an analog radio signal. So an iPad, for example, has at least two radios.
So an all-metal airplane with on the order of a hundred folks, each with 2*n transmitting radios contains measurable radio frequency signal.
So what frequency is this radiation?
Well, in a non-linear environment (another analog deal), the result is the sum and difference of all the signals, pairwise. So can an analog-enlignened person honestly say that this mash of radio-frequency energy does not expose the cockpit avionics to possible spurious signal?
If you don't think that is a potential problem, I would rather drive you in my car than fly with you.
Now regarding cellular phones, it is the FCC that issues this regulation, not the FAA. Why would they be interested in that? Well, since cellular telephone communication is line of sight, do the math on how many more cells you and your concealed cellphone are trying to capture at 1000 feet or higher? Could be an entire city's worth.
Stewardesses are not generally tested for their knowledge of RF propagation or RF interference, so focusing your anger on them is not productive.
And yes, the iPhone or droid is a marvelous piece of technology, but owning one does not make you immune to the facts of the analog world.
Funny thing is these people don't realize that flying on a plane is a privilege not a right. They could be kicked off the plane for less than that, it's the company's plane after all, not theirs.
I never turned any device off (except for laptop) and planes never crashed. And they never will. Just have to notice when a flight attendant is coming around, put it down for 30 seconds and get back to reading/listening/whatever.
Will I be blacklisted by the FAA by writing this?
(on a sidenote, that article is way off-topic for HN...)
flagged as it's off topic, misleading (mobiles do affect navigational equipment (ILS) and screens, particularly when far away from cell towers, see
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=...
), ill informed (a plane during descent or takeoff can get into emergency quite quickly and FAs need passengers to pay attention, which is more of a reason to switch it off than the interference) and duplicate (see
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3406167
) blabber
Phones definitely have zero influence on the plane, I think it's more motivated by the same reasons as a movie theater, to discourage use of electronics in general and prevent a bunch of people confined in a small space to get on each other's nerves, especially when babies and people with phobia of flights could be more unnerved by a ringtone during landing than missing a line of dialog in a movie.
Assuming that's true - there's evidence the other way, of course - the question is why devices are permitted on board at all. If there's even a possibility that an active device can interfere with navigation and/or operation, the policy should presumably that they not be permitted on planes at all.
Because apart from those actively disobeying as in the OP, there are countless more who forget to turn their devices off.
