Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:40 am

You know the ones.
  • No mobile phones.
  • No transmitting or receiving devices of any kind.
  • No electronics on for takeoff or landing.


I went ballistic at my friend yesterday for using his mobile after landing while we were still taxiing despite clear instructions not to use them until the aircraft doors are open. I seriously doubt it was a big deal, but seeing pax just disregard clear instructions because they don't feel like following them makes we want to go at them with a flame thrower. It was also the third time that flight he nakedly transgressed rules he knew existed, the first two were attempting to use his iPod on take-off and landing. And no, it was not ignorance, he was willfully and knowingly saying FU to the rules. He thinks the rules are stupid and inconvenient which is why he does it.

I have no intention to excuse his douchiness, but still, is he anywhere in the ballpark of saying the rules are a bit over zealous?

I for one would love to be able to use my airband receiver on board. I hate that I can't because wireless receving devices aren't allowed. I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17051
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:48 am

The rules are indeed over zealous. Then again, wouldn't you rather have it that way?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:33 pm

I suspect the main reasons for the rules appearing overzealous are:

a) It's known that some devices can sometimes interfere with aircraft systems and comms,
b) The crew can't know how safe every device is versus aircraft systems,
c) A faulty device might have a significant effect on aircraft systems or comms, even if the fault isn't obvious,
d) One or two active devices might not often be a big deal but how does one decide who is and who isn't allowed?
 
Fabo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:30 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:10 pm

Plus there are other reasons why one would not want such equipment used. Imagine loose camera flying around cabin on rejected takeoff.
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:16 pm

Quoting Fabo (Reply 3):
Plus there are other reasons why one would not want such equipment used. Imagine loose camera flying around cabin on rejected takeoff.

True but a hardback book could do a lot of damage and MP3 players, for example, are likely to be in much the same place whether they're being used or not.
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:01 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 4):
True but a hardback book could do a lot of damage and MP3 players, for example, are likely to be in much the same place whether they're being used or not.

And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:59 pm

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
You know the ones.

* No mobile phones.
* No transmitting or receiving devices of any kind.
* No electronics on for takeoff or landing.

This has been discussed ad-nauseam.

The rules are there for a reason. Be it due to interference, objects being thrown about, etc etc.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

It wont work anyways. You will barely be able to hear your own plane's transmissions. You certainly won't hear ATC. Being enclosed in a metal tube isn't good for receiving transmissions unless you have an external antenna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
 
KingFriday013
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:56 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:29 pm

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I went ballistic at my friend yesterday for using his mobile after landing while we were still taxiing despite clear instructions not to use them until the aircraft doors are open.

I've never heard this one before... whenever I fly I'm always told you can turn on your phone once the wheels hit the ground.

-J.
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
 
FighterPilot
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:27 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:38 pm

The Rules in Canada:

Compliance with Instructions

602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

Portable Electronic Devices

602.08 (1) No operator of an aircraft shall permit the use of a portable electronic device on board an aircraft, where the device may impair the functioning of the aircraft's systems or equipment.

(2) No person shall use a portable electronic device on board an aircraft except with the permission of the operator of the aircraft.

So in Canada it is the law. It's not just some rule the airlines enforce like amount of baggage one is allowed to bring.

Cal   
*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:44 pm

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
It wont work anyways. You will barely be able to hear your own plane's transmissions. You certainly won't hear ATC. Being enclosed in a metal tube isn't good for receiving transmissions unless you have an external antenna.

So what about mobile phone signals?

Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 8):
So in Canada it is the law. It's not just some rule the airlines enforce like amount of baggage one is allowed to bring.

I'm sure it is a legal issue here too, at least from the point of view that it is law to obey the lawful instructions of the captain.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9738
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:29 pm

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I have no intention to excuse his douchiness, but still, is he anywhere in the ballpark of saying the rules are a bit over zealous?

I for one would love to be able to use my airband receiver on board. I hate that I can't because wireless receving devices aren't allowed. I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

The rules are basically in place as it is the operators responsibility to ensure that all transmitters onboard will not interfere with onboard equipment, it would physically take too long to any airline to test all equipment that passengers carry that could potentially interfere with aircraft systems.

While they stats maybe something like 9999/10000 devices will not, the airline does not know if the device has malfunctioned in some way and could radiate transmission that could interfere with aircraft systems (e.g. if you dropped you cell phone and damaged the antenna).

I have heard before of cases where cell phones locking onto a ground station during approach, and even some cases where this has interfered with GPS/ILS reception.

The rules are there for a purpose, it is not very well explained and most cabin crew would not be aware of the real rational.

However any direction crew do give, with in writing, verbally, or by the safety briefing is legally enforceable as a last resort, most people just need a gentle reminder.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
However any direction crew do give, with in writing, verbally, or by the safety briefing is legally enforceable as a last resort, most people just need a gentle reminder.

Well quite.

I recognise that what he was doing was unlikely to cause any problem, it just really aggrevates me when people think they can just disregard the rules because they know better. It's incredibly arrogant and he tried it on 3(!) times that flight.

I once was flying an aircraft with a GNS430 that started going screwy on the comm until I discreetly turned off my mobile. Haven't noticed anything else any other time I was flying.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:16 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
So what about mobile phone signals?

If you're talking about making a call up at the flight levels, you'll have a hard time getting a reliable signal, if any, for the same reason (Faraday cage effect). It's hard enough in a C172 at only 10000ft and with much bigger windows/less metal to cover up the signal.

As for interference, it still is a threat, more so because cell phones are made to transmit signals rather than just receive, like a scanner. Transmitter or not, any electronic device has the potential to create interference. I've already had several interference problems during my relatively short time as a pilot, all cell phone related.
 
bri2k1
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:13 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:29 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
So what about mobile phone signals?

Maybe you're asking why they work on the ground inside of an apparent Faraday cage. It has been discussed elsewhere, but in brief, mobile phones can operate at incredible levels of signal fade. Airports are heavy consumers of mobile phone bandwidth and usually have dedicated small cells of coverage for this purpose to relieve capacity on the rest of the network, so the signals are being generated close to the aircraft. Mobile phone signals are aimed at users on the ground, too, so the higher you fly, the less likely you are to receive usable coverage. A text message might make it through at a higher altitude with some delay since it can be delivered in pieces, but a conversation is unlikely.
Position and hold
 
bri2k1
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:13 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:34 pm

By the way, this kind of behavior irks me, too. I once saw a loser listening to a personal CD player during descent and landing. He was going out of his way to hide the player and make it appear as though his headphones were connected to the IFE. I thought about pressing the call button and reporting an apparent safety violation to the FA, but I watched him change discs in the player and saw he was listening to some cheesy get-rich-quick scheme, and decided to just let him. I wasn't particularly worried about the electronic interference or the propensity of the CD player to become a missile, I just wanted him alert and responsive if an evacuation was to become necessary.

What really bothers me though is people who obstruct exits or otherwise make it difficult to safely evacuate the plane if it were to become necessary. I saw an injured person with a leg brace sit in an exit row once (because of the extra room), but he was obviously incapable of assisting with an exit and would have just been blocking it. This was on an ERJ with only one seat on that side, so this could have been a serious problem in the event of an evacuation. The FA noticed it and asked him to move, but he refused. He was very nearly escorted off the plane by his fellow passengers, until he finally decided to move on his own.
Position and hold
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:47 pm

For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone. The same thing can happen on a plane. Also, takeoff and landing is when an emergency is most likely to happen therefore you don't want people with noise canceling headsets on in case the flight attendants have to start shouting commands.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:08 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone.

Happens with CDMA as well, though not nearly as bad or often. My PC's speakers are very sensitive to that.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17051
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:33 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Sure. But this doesn't mean everyone uses the strap.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:31 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
While they stats maybe something like 9999/10000 devices will not, the airline does not know if the device has malfunctioned in some way and could radiate transmission that could interfere with aircraft systems (e.g. if you dropped you cell phone and damaged the antenna

This is really the crux of the matter. EVERY other device on the aircraft has been tested and certified to be there. Devices pax bring on board have not been. The whole basis of air safety world wide is if it's not specifically allowed (ie tested & certified) it's prohibited.

I would hate to see this changed!

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
xero9
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:12 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:54 am

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone. The same thing can happen on a plane.

True, but in all fairness, move your phone away from the speaker and see at what distance it stops causing interference. I'm not saying a phone can't interfere with aircraft systems, though I will say I highly doubt they ever will, I just think that unless there is some critical line running within a foot or so of your phone through the side of the plane and you have a window seat, there should be no issue.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4548
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:33 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:03 am

Quoting xero9 (Reply 19):
though I will say I highly doubt they ever will,

You couldn't be more wrong. I've had several first hand experiences of avionics failures due to receiving calls or texts while flying. The G1000 avionics suite seems particularly sensitive. I've already had a couple of AHRS failures which happened oh-so coincidentally exactly when I received a text or a call. I've had pax set it off too. And while yes 99% of the flights where I forget to turn the thing off nothing happens, but there will always be that 1% chance.

Just because you're farther away from the cockpit doesn't mean interference won't happen.
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:09 am

Well things are sounding pretty clear. Transmitting devices obviously cause crap. Non transmitting devices can also generate excessive noise if the electronics have a fault, even one not readily perceptible.

That's would be a better explanation than the line of bull I gave him about the aggregate magnetic field of working iPods causing deviation in the magnetic compass.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 21):
The G1000 avionics suite seems particularly sensitive.

Oh really? I've been flying the 172S for about a dozen or so hours now while not turning off my phone and I haven't noticed a problem. I'll be sure to do it just in case anyway in the future and inform any passengers I have on board to do the same and if I catch them with it on, I'll throw it overboard.

Quoting cpd (Reply 20):
Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.

You mean my head, once the camera decapitates me and turns it into a projectile? Now that would be funny. Bludgeoned by a severed head.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17051
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:24 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 22):
I've been flying the 172S for about a dozen or so hours now while not turning off my phone and I haven't noticed a problem.

Not exactly fly-by-wire now is it. Even if all the electrics and electronics were knocked out including the spark plugs, you could still glide to a landing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:14 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 20):
Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.

But the point is that the use of portable electronic devices and the danger of potential projectiles are separate issues. You can comply with the rules about not operating portable electronic devices during take-off and landing while still having your Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens around your neck as long as it's switched off. If the cabin crew are concerned about any object, electronic or not, that might pose a danger by becoming a projectile, I'm sure they'd ask for it to be stowed rather than switched off.
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:28 am

Most airlines allow you to talk on your cell phone as soon as you're clear of the active runway.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:06 am

Sigh, here we go again for the zillionth time. ANY electronic device transmits signals. The aircraft fuselage is a Faraday Cage within which signals bounce around. Every time these signals bounce, they shift frequency and there is no way to protect avionics and control systems from this assault.

Yes, there have been numerous occasions of electronic devices used by passengers interfering with aircraft communication, navigation and autopilot functions.

Yes, pilots use cells in flight because they know when potential interference is not critical.

Yes, you can be one of the first to die with a cell rammed through your skull because you thought this was a stupid rule.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17051
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:07 pm

Quoting jhooper (Reply 25):
Most airlines allow you to talk on your cell phone as soon as you're clear of the active runway.

In the US. Many other countries have different regs.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):
Yes, you can be one of the first to die with a cell rammed through your skull because you thought this was a stupid rule.

              
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:53 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 22):
Oh really? I've been flying the 172S for about a dozen or so hours now while not turning off my phone and I haven't noticed a problem. I'll be sure to do it just in case anyway in the future and inform any passengers I have on board to do the same and if I catch them with it on, I'll throw it overboard.

I got just under 200hrs in the G1000. Of those 200, around 5hrs of those resulted in some sort of interference issue. Yes, a rare occurrence, easily fixed by turning of the offending device and recycling the master switch, but still enough to be potentially dangerous. I wasn't the only instructor/student at my school that experienced those glitches with the G1000, it was very well known. There was in fact a guy that had a certain model of phone that always made havoc of the older Bendix GPSs we had in our six-pack planes. The GPS would go bezerk and throw all sorts of flags and RAIM failure notifications. As soon as he turned it off, it went back to normal. Quite interesting.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 23):
Not exactly fly-by-wire now is it. Even if all the electrics and electronics were knocked out including the spark plugs, you could still glide to a landing

True. The only times I had failures were fortunately in CAVU WX conditions. Yet the several times I got complete AHRS failures due to interference I could have been very well screwed if I had been shooting a GPS approach down to minimums. That's not a good time to loose situational awareness and having to suddenly revert to backup instruments in an airport with no radar.

It should be noted that cell phone frequencies are (depending on the system of course) relatively close to the GPS operating frequency spectrum, which is between 1 to 1.7GHz IIRC

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):
Yes, you can be one of the first to die with a cell rammed through your skull because you thought this was a stupid rule.

Thereby turning yourself into an excellent example of a Darwin Award 

[Edited 2010-03-10 11:55:59]
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:44 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
So what about mobile phone signals?

Somewhat a function of wave length as well. Cell phones operate in the microwave band. (less than a foot tall) An aircraft window provides plenty of space for signal transition.

Airband signals are about 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall. You might luck out and get a resonant fraction of a wave 1 out of a Gazillions times.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:43 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 22):
if I catch them with it on, I'll throw it overboard.

This can be done in a 172 in flight through the pilot's window. I used to throw cigarette butts out of this window so my dad wouldn't know that I was smoking. Hold the window latch firmly with your left hand and crack the window slightly. Throw the phone out, with your right hand, over an unpopulated area.

If the passenger gives you any trouble about this, I also used to fly for our college parachuting club and I can tell you how to get the passenger out the door.
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:21 am

Quoting David L (Reply 4):
MP3 players, for example, are likely to be in much the same place whether they're being used or not.

Technically the announcements do usually if not always say please turn off and properly stow. So they actually should not be in the same place unless the place is an approved stowage location.

Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

All the better to knock you out with. I'm sure the passengers around you will appreciate that it is your teeth knocked out by the device and not yours though.

Quoting KingFriday013 (Reply 7):
I've never heard this one before... whenever I fly I'm always told you can turn on your phone once the wheels hit the ground.

Depends on the country, airline and even the aircraft which is why it is important to listen to announcements every time you fly.

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
I'm sure it is a legal issue here too, at least from the point of view that it is law to obey the lawful instructions of the captain.

And the flight attendant instructions. People seem to think that just because we serve drinks too that they can ignore our instructions.

Quoting jhooper (Reply 25):
Most airlines allow you to talk on your cell phone as soon as you're clear of the active runway.

Many do but not all.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 30):
This can be done in a 172 in flight through the pilot's window. I used to throw cigarette butts out of this window so my dad wouldn't know that I was smoking. Hold the window latch firmly with your left hand and crack the window slightly. Throw the phone out, with your right hand, over an unpopulated area.

I could swear that when I got my private that there is an FAA rule about throwing stuff out windows. Are you one of those jerks who tosses them out the window when you drive too. We just love all the brush fires dirtbags like that start. It's so awesome to have to pay higher taxes so our EMS personnel can respond when some inconsiderate jerk tosses his or her but out the window because they are lazy.
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:58 am

Quoting iairallie (Reply 31):
And the flight attendant instructions. People seem to think that just because we serve drinks too that they can ignore our instructions.

  "Federal law requires passenger compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crew member instructions." Failing to follow the instructions of an F/A can result in 20 years in federal prison and/or a $250,000 fine. I can't seem to find and law close to that severe in regards to interfering with or assaulting a waitress.  
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:57 am

Quoting iairallie (Reply 31):
I could swear that when I got my private that there is an FAA rule about throwing stuff out windows.

A little short on a sense of humor today? I always put the ciggies out, first, and this was about 50 years ago.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:53 am

Some Rules may not make sense...But if its present,then as a Good citizen one needs to Adhere to them.
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting iairallie (Reply 31):
Technically the announcements do usually if not always say please turn off and properly stow.

Would you count an MP3 player in someone's pocket as being improperly stowed?
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:47 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 35):
Would you count an MP3 player in someone's pocket as being improperly stowed?

well is it going to break free of your pocket and fly around the cabin in a crash? Probably not so a pocket should be plenty fine.
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:03 pm

Quoting iairallie (Reply 31):
I could swear that when I got my private that there is an FAA rule about throwing stuff out windows.

You are right. But all it says is that you can throw out whatever you want from an airplane as long as you don't hurt anything or anybody.


Quote:
§ 91.15 Dropping objects.

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.
Quoting iairallie (Reply 31):
Are you one of those jerks who tosses them out the window when you drive too. We just love all the brush fires dirtbags like that start. It's so awesome to have to pay higher taxes so our EMS personnel can respond when some inconsiderate jerk tosses his or her but out the window because they are lazy
Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 33):
A little short on a sense of humor today?

No, that's her usual self unfortunately.   
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:51 pm

Quoting iairallie (Reply 36):
Probably not so a pocket should be plenty fine.

So my point stands, then.   
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:29 am

Quoting David L (Reply 38):

So my point stands, then.

No because your point was that they would tell you to stow the devices too if there was a projectile concern. The announcements do tell you to stow the items.
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
spudsmac
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:36 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:55 am

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

Well aren't you all high and mighty.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:15 am

Quoting iairallie (Reply 39):
The announcements do tell you to stow the items.

As you said earlier... some announcements. Many of us fly more regularly with airlines other than yours and on many of those other airlines the two issues are addressed separately.
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:54 pm

[quote=David L,reply=41]Many of us fly more regularly with airlines other than yours and on many of those other airlines the two issues are addressed separately.

I doubt very much that you fly on my airline period or that you fly on other carriers more than I do. I work for a charter company so I log more miles as a revenue passenger on carriers all over the globe than I do as working crew on my own. I won't say it is universal because there is always that one exception like craplackistan air where they do everything their own way but if you listen next time on any carrier and the crew are following the announcements by the book they will say turn off and stow.
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:05 pm

If cell phones or electronic devices could really bring down planes (or even seriously threaten their safe navigation) then terrorist could accomplish their goals simply by agreeing to have 20 people turn on (or 1 person turn on 20 phones) their cell phones at the same time. Why worry about smuggling on bombs in underwear or liquid reactive chemicals onto a flight if a cellphone, laptop or iPod could do the same job and 99% of the people boarding the plane carry one.

Now, in the post-9/11 world that we live in do you really think that anyone considers that a threat? Of course not.

YES, absolutely you must comply with crew member instructions. But the fact that a crew member gives an instruction doesn't necessarily mean that those instructions are any more correct than when the FA announces that "the captain has advised me that we've now begun our final approach to XXXX airport" while you're at 10,000 and on downwind.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:17 pm

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 43):
If cell phones or electronic devices could really bring down planes (or even seriously threaten their safe navigation) then terrorist could accomplish their goals simply by agreeing to have 20 people turn on (or 1 person turn on 20 phones) their cell phones at the same time.

No. There's too big a gap between the statistical likelihood you need to make an effective weapon and the statistical likelihood of something bad happening such that the regulators care.

Anything worse than 1e-9 per flight hour will get the regulators attention (although not necessarily their action) but, in practical terms, that means the terrorists would have to fly a *billion* hours to have a reasonable chance of taking down the airplane.

There's also the issue that there's no known way to prove that use of cell phones will comply with the FAR's regarding interference and intended function so there's no way for an airline to certify that it's OK in flight, regardless of the probabilities.

Tom.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:26 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):
No. There's too big a gap between the statistical likelihood you need to make an effective weapon and the statistical likelihood of something bad happening such that the regulators care.

Anything worse than 1e-9 per flight hour will get the regulators attention (although not necessarily their action) but, in practical terms, that means the terrorists would have to fly a *billion* hours to have a reasonable chance of taking down the airplane.

Sorry but those numbers don't jive with actual statistics. In Part 121 Operations Fatalities are 4.03 per MILLION flight hours.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

If electronic interference is 1,000 times LESS likely to cause an accident than everything else that goes into these statistics, then the FAA regulating their use while still allowing commuter pilots is absurd. That proves my point - the use of electronic equipment is EXTREMELY unlike to affect the safe operation of a flight. In fact, if your 1 in BILLION figure is correct, you could take 1 flight every 2 hours for the next 1.338 MILLION years operating electronic equipment and statistically not expect to be in a fatal accident.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:41 am

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 45):
Sorry but those numbers don't jive with actual statistics.

Of course they don't...the numbers come from the regulations, not accident statistics. The FAA (and almost everybody else) requires that the probability of a catastrophic event due to systems failures be extremely improbable, which they define as a probability of 1e-9 per flight hour. That fact that the actual accident rate is higher than that is why they keep tightening safety rules and issuing AD's, and also reflects that the event requirements deal primarily with the airplane system, not human error.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 45):
If electronic interference is 1,000 times LESS likely to cause an accident than everything else that goes into these statistics, then the FAA regulating their use while still allowing commuter pilots is absurd.

I didn't say it's 1000 times less likely, just that the threshold where the FAA would care is far far lower than a terrorist would care. The original argument was that, if electronic interference was really a threat, terrorists would use it. My point is that "threat" is defined *very* differently by the regulators and by terrorists. Even a rate of 1e-6, which is about the overall accident rate based on your figures, is far far far too low to be an effective weapon yet would be of extreme interest to regulators.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 45):
That proves my point - the use of electronic equipment is EXTREMELY unlike to affect the safe operation of a flight.

Actually, 4e-6 would fall in the range of "remote" by the regulators definitions, which is far too frequent for them to allow. Far from proving your point, it's proving mine...the regulators care about events that are far far far more unlikely than anything that would ever make an effective weapon.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 45):
In fact, if your 1 in BILLION figure is correct, you could take 1 flight every 2 hours for the next 1.338 MILLION years operating electronic equipment and statistically not expect to be in a fatal accident.

That would be correct *if* you could show that the risk of electronic interference leading to a catastrophic event is less than 1e-9. But you can't show that, which is one of the reasons the FAA has the regulations they do.

Tom.
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:40 am

The thing that has caused much greater interest is that instrumentation can be disrupted, even if in a nuisance way, rather than a threatening way. That makes it is a serious issue of courtesy. Using a mobile phone onboard when you know it could introduce nuisance readings in the cockpit is the electronic equivalent of going to the cockpit, standing beside the pilot, waving a hankerchief in his face going "Wooo woooo woooo!"
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:26 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 46):
Of course they don't...the numbers come from the regulations, not accident statistics.

But if the FAA is regulating to prevent accidents, then it should be regulating risks that are 1,000 times more likely to cause an accident than electronic device usage. The fact that it is not, proves my point that the risks of their use is inconsequential in the safe operation of aircrafts.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 46):
That would be correct *if* you could show that the risk of electronic interference leading to a catastrophic event is less than 1e-9. But you can't show that, which is one of the reasons the FAA has the regulations they do.

I can't prove that there's not a man in a snowman's outfit orbiting Pluto either. I'm not even sure that there's less than a 1 in a billion chance that he's there. But if someone is going to say that it's there, the burden on them is to establish it. Here the FAA has said portable electronics can interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft and yet the statistical likelihood of that statement being correct is 1 in a Billion.

Now, terrorist prevention isn't the FAA's responsibility. It's TSA. TSA imposed liquid limitations on aircraft. It uses a much lower threshold than 1 in a Billion in creating its safety threshold. If it considered electronic device usage a real threat it would ban them.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?

Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:19 pm

Quoting iairallie (Reply 42):
I doubt very much that you fly on my airline period or that you fly on other carriers more than I do

   I never suggested otherwise. All I said was that many other carriers have announcements that vary from what you suggest is almost universal. The few airlines I do fly are not exactly small so the number of passengers exposed to those "non-standard" announcements is not insignificant.

Quoting iairallie (Reply 42):
they will say turn off and stow

And you're still missing the point. Electronic devices cannot be used because of potential interference with aircraft systems. The idea that PEDs must not be used because they must be stowed and they must be stowed because they must not be used doesn't really address the topic.

Come to think of it, this started out with me saying that an MP3 player, for example, might be in the same location whether it is being used or not. You disagreed then agreed then disagreed again. No wonder I lost track of which direction we were headed.  

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests