If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing (was: CyberFlying???)
Fly Guy writes:
The embargo on electronic devices during take-off and landing is bull****. We all know that prohibition is there to remove a possible source of interference or lack-of-attention between the crew and passengers in cases of emergency (which are more relavent during taxi/takeoff/landing than during other phases of the flight). No, it's not there for that reason. At one time, there was a real concern that electronic gadgets could interfere with aircraft avionics, and for a brief period in the distant pass, that was a possibility, although it's not a problem today. The prohibition against recieving devices (radio's and hand-held TV's - remember those?) is really to keep the passengers in the dark about external world events during the flight. There is no regulation that prohibits receiving devices specifically. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing (was: CyberFlying???)
Fly Guy writes:
I say screw it. Screw the reg's when they conflict with my constitutional rights. The FAA regulation in question does not conflict with any Constitutional right. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:26:59 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
mag3 writes: Suicidal? Really? What's suicidal about putting on a jacket (about 5 seconds of activity), compared to the 30-50 seconds or so I'd be waiting until it's my turn to get into the aisle? It's suicidal because others may trample you if they see that you are preventing them from surviving by your dawdling. As stated above, "waiting until it's my turn to get into the aisle." I always sit in window seats. I'd be the last out of my row/section and thus likely to trample others instead of them trampling me (at least the people in my block). I can pull my jacket from the space between my seat and the fuselage and have it on long before my block empties. Most likely, I'd have it on well before the evactuate order is given. And why can't I already have it on in anticipation of the evacuation order? You can. And I would. No suicide here that I can see. ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:22:11 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
mag3 writes: I'm not saying anyone did, but given what I've read recently in people being thrown off of flights for far less severe infractions, and what with newfound "IED awareness," it would seem something both crew and pax. would take a lot more seriously. You don't need to hold an IED up and point it out the window in order to detonate it. In fact, making it obvious in that way would not be a good idea. Which was my point. Operating any electronic device during taxi/take off, when prohibited by regulations (as silly as they may be), should still seem "obviously" wrong, by pax., if not crew. Holding a camera/camcorder in that position (facing out a window) should seem even more blatantly "obvious." But, apparently, it no longer is...perhaps it never was. OK, fair enough. Shoot all the video you want. And then post it on You Tube! I'll gladly suck it up. Should I ever fly again, and the regs stay as is, I'll most likely keep my camcorder stowed (see below). But I am a little disappointed, both from a security standpoint, and also, one of "fairness." As silly as the regulation may be (and I agree it is), it's still a reg, and must be obeyed by all. The FAA itself has encouraged airlines to ignore this regulation in many circumstances. "Many" isn't good enough. It needs to be "all." And if enforcement is still left up to the airline's/crew's discretion, AFAIC, it's too risky. I won't do it. The last thing I want is to be a "Film @ 11" waiting to happen. General Safety, for one... Not that cameras/camcorders would be a huge deal, but other devices and gear (ie. laptops etc.), should not be allowed below 10,00ft, in order to maintain emergency egress for all and the paths clear (at a time when the probability for an emergency egress is greatest). A hand-held video camera isn't going to stop evacuation; even a laptop will be quickly trampled upon. Or tripped over by someone. Not a good thing. I wouldn't be real happy if someone is futzing around with their laptop (or other devices) and blocking my exit when the "evacuate" order is given. Then you push them out of the way. What? You call me "suicidal" for seemingly allowing myself to be "trampled" upon, and yet here you suggest I trample others? ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:19:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
mag3 writes: Besides, many of these videos include pushback and engine starting, when the FAs are *not* strapped in and are still checking the aisles. Perhaps the FAs have been told not to bother, or have reached that conclusion themselves. If so, then I'm even more disappointed in our airlines than before. Either the reg should be enforced strictly/uniformly, or it should be taken off the books. I vote option 2. ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
"Many" isn't good enough. It needs to be "all." The regulation needs to be changed, but there's no sign of that happening any time soon. And if enforcement is still left up to the airline's/crew's discretion, AFAIC, it's too risky. I agree. The FAA covers itself by issuing an AC, which is not legally binding. Why it encourages ignoring the regulation instead of just changing the regulation is a mystery to me. What? You call me "suicidal" for seemingly allowing myself to be "trampled" upon, and yet here you suggest I trample others? Moving someone out of the way is not trampling. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
If so, then I'm even more disappointed in our airlines than before. Either the reg should be enforced strictly/uniformly, or it should be taken off the books. I vote option 2. Agreed. I don't understand why this has not been done. Airlines bend all sorts of rules. If the FAA doesn't make it painful for them to do so, they will do it more and more. For example, airlines often board drunken passengers and allow people to drink until they are drunk, even though both of these are illegal. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing
Hi!
Fly Guy wrote: During the year or two after 9/11, I remember that a lot of people were getting screwed over by airport security because they were forcing people to turn on their electronic **** to prove that they worked and were not bombs. In 1997/1998 I flew multiple times between MUC and TXL (both Germany) and was forced to switch on the notebook. So that was long before 9/11. Gunter in Orlando, Fl |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing
On 22/10/11 14:50, Fly Guy wrote:
mag3 wrote: I think even the TSA knows that it's impossible to ban all electronics in this "electronic age." At minimum, Fob keys for your car, For a while in the UK a few years ago they were banning pretty much ALL carry-ons. People were getting screwed because they couldn't even take their car keys on the plane with them. That happened for about a week. A pal had his phone, laptop and an assortment of stuff thieved from his carry-on at Heathrow. But there was nothing stopping people putting their car keys in their pocket. -- William Black Free men have open minds If you want loyalty, buy a dog... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing
On 22 Oct 2011 in rec.travel.air, Gunter Herrmann wrote:
In 1997/1998 I flew multiple times between MUC and TXL (both Germany) and was forced to switch on the notebook. So that was long before 9/11. If memory serves, that started after Lockerbie, for which the bomber(s) used a bomb disguised as a portable cassette recorder. That incident occured in December 1988. -- Joe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|