The FAA has sent an official letter to an author, as he had is IPad on during takeoff. He was able to capture the video of the recent DL birdstrike out of JFK.

He was interviewed this morning on CNN

http://us.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/...012/05/02/intvw-ipad-in-flight.cnn

Say what you will about the FAA and the electronics rule; but at the same time, he did not follow the instructions of a flight crew.

Just points out the stupidity of the rule. One only has to go to youtube and see that the rule is ignored, but more importantly, no danger is created.

Does everyone who posts a video get a letter?

That said, the rule is the rule and it is not up to the passenger to decide what rules to follow.

There are hundreds (if not thousands) of takeoff/landing videos on YouTube, Flightlevel350 and JetVideos, taken from inside the aircraft.

And count all the photos on this website by hundreds of photographers, which were taken with a digital camera during takeoff and landing.

This is just ridiculous, and laughable.

That "Official" LETTER could be a precursor to an actual Penalty. And FAA fines START at $10,000 and could include Jail Time.
You might think the rule is Stupid But if you've got $10K to throw around?? Don't stop.. And when the FAA places him on a NO FLY list then it'll cost him 5X as much to get OFF of it.. He could have reported the story without the cell phone since none of you KNOWS the frequency ISN'T going to effect the Navigation... The FAA has already gone from 50Hz nav and comm Freq spacing down to 8 Hz over the last 29 years. and the wireless companies are still crying for More Bandwidth . Somebody has to follow the rules whether you like them or NOT!!
Especially if you DON'T know whether you're infringing into a safety area. You Don't, and He Didn't. The Feds should have "Socked it to Him"..

They were probably annoyed at his reporting style or something

I suspect the FAA took a dimmer view of this because his name was all over the video on YouTube, and he appeared to be using it as some sort of promotional device for himself.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3): That "Official" LETTER could be a precursor to an actual Penalty.

No, that's going to be the end of it as far as he's concerned (unless it happens again, in which case they'll be harsher on him).

-Mir

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): Does everyone who posts a video get a letter?

If everyone had their Cell phone or 4G iPad on, it could be a problem. The issue is the aircraft must be certified to be safe or it must be disallowed. It isn't an issue of one or 10% or some small number. But all (with wifi, bluetooth, 4G, texting, video, etc.) But as you noted:

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): That said, the rule is the rule and it is not up to the passenger to decide what rules to follow.

That is the rule. I do not like turning off my book (Kindle), but I do. It has wifi and I'm not sure what a hundred plus wifi+cell phones+other electronics could do on a freak chance.

The rule is to prove less than a 10^-7 chance of a serious impact. If the electronic makers want to pay to certify with each aircraft type, they are welcome to.

Seriously, the penalty is a letter that is valid for two years and then disappears (unless the author keeps the letter). This isn't a big deal.

Lightsaber

Also consider that if there is a rejected take-off or similar emergency, those I-pads, Kindles what have you can go flying and really hurt someone. I sure as hell don't want someone with face stuck in a kindle sitting behind me.

You might ask then why not ban books, especially hard covers. Good question!!!
probably because they were grandfathered in and with a book, even a hardcover, if it goes flying the likelihood is that the covers and pages will spread out, thus slowing down the momentum.

Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): more importantly, no danger is created.

Quoting FlyBlue777 (Reply 2): This is just ridiculous, and laughable.

Because you are more qualified than the certification authorities to make this judgement? Please elaborate on these qualifications.

I have been in the cockpit when electronic devices interfered with displays, instruments, and automation. Have you?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6): The issue is the aircraft must be certified to be safe or it must be disallowed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6): The rule is to prove less than a 10^-7 chance of a serious impact. If the electronic makers want to pay to certify with each aircraft type, they are welcome to.

That really is the bottom line: their operation is disallowed during flight close to the terrain (and in certain cases altogether) because the manufacturers of the electronics are absolutely uninterested in playing certification costs, costs that would be incurred every time there was a change to the design.

Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?

They are approved for use by flight deck crews under certain circumstances outlined in the ops specs of the air carrier.

Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?

From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA. That is one reason why the airline issues the ipads to the flight crews and the pilots just don't go out and buy their own. Additionally each airline had to demonstrate to the FAA that the ipads caused no interference when used, and the test was done on each model the airline operates.

They are laughable in the sense that they are deemed OK to bring on board but 101ml of liquid is not.

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 11): From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA. That is one reason why the airline issues the ipads to the flight crews and the pilots just don't go out and buy their own. Additionally each airline had to demonstrate to the FAA that the ipads caused no interference when used, and the test was done on each model the airline operates.

I'm calling BS on that one... There are multiple reasons why it makes sense for the airlines to buy then distribute than having the pilots bring there own.

* They cant expect their pilots go out and pay ~$500-$750 for something they will be required to use for said airline.
* Discounted in bulk orders (assuming apple final gave a discount)
* Tailored programs can be installed with the iOS as a package
* Its a lot easier to mass upload all the related programs as the ipads are coming off the production line than to have every dick and Jane bring their personal ipads in and add all the software one by one.

I use my ipad on all of my flights with foreflight, yet I bought it off the shelf at target. The fact that I can fly any plane I want under part 91 and use an ipad for the sole means of all my navigational charts and planning and in doing so be completely legal yet the same exact ipad I'm using in my seat outside of the cockpit could cause interference is complete and utter BS...

Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?

Yes, any ipad can be used one way or another as a cockpit tool. Under part 91 (General flights) they are certified to be used as the sole replacement of ALL paper charts and planning. They also have a GPS component to them for use as reference only (not to be used as sole navigation) which will transpose an aircraft onto any sectional chart, Low/High enroute chart and all approach plates.

For any commercial operation, an individual company must submit to the FAA a request to use them and then will be certified to do so. I'm not sure what the FAA's definition of an Electronic flight bag is, but at the minimum, it allows the operation to go paperless for at least all of the charts.

The process, in short, is submitting your plans on how you intend to use them, how you will train your crews on them and the applicable changes in the SOPS. Foreflight can be used for Part 135 ops I believe (not 100% sure on this though), however I'm assuming due to the nature of part 121 flying, there is a separate program the majors use. I think one of the requirement for the commercial operators is that there must be two ipads on and in the cockpit while flying for redundancy.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13): I'm calling BS on that one... There are multiple reasons why it makes sense for the airlines to buy then distribute than having the pilots bring there own.

The biggest being that there are only certain applications that can be loaded onto the iPad (the FAA doesn't want pilots playing Angry Birds inflight). So whatever iPad is used as an EFB isn't going to be much good outside the cockpit, and thus it wouldn't make sense for the pilots to buy their own (they'd have to buy two - one for personal use and one for the plane).

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 14): The biggest being that there are only certain applications that can be loaded onto the iPad

That's done using this:

http://help.apple.com/iosdeployment-ipcu/

And it can be done with any iOS devices. Launch the program, and create a new configuration profile. Using the "Restrictions" tab, set whatever restrictions are appropriate (eg, disallow iTunes Store, installing apps, etc). Then either email the profile, or assign it to a connected iPad.

We've done it ourselves numerous times for various purposes.

[Edited 2012-05-02 18:35:35]

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): Because you are more qualified than the certification authorities to make this judgement? Please elaborate on these qualifications.

And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule? Did they see any aircraft go down due to electronic devices?

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): I have been in the cockpit when electronic devices interfered with displays, instruments, and automation. Have you?

They must have interfered with the displays, but are you sure those interferences were due to electronic devices in the back of the plane? Also can you please elaborate how a digital camera interferes with displays and automation in the cockpit?

Is It really that hard to follow a rule for a half hour until you can get your precious electronic device back?

I've been up front when our avionics were interfered with, and yes, it was a PED causing the interference. Until the FAA sees fit to change this rule, why risk anything? It's just a few minutes. Drop the electronic device, enjoy the view. It'll be good for you.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): Did they see any aircraft go down due to electronic devices?

An aircraft going down is not the standard the FAA uses, and thankfully so.

-Mir

Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?

Apple absolutely refuses to consider certifying the iPad, iPhone or any other device for flight. As do all the other equipment manufacturers.

Today a tiny percentage of the completed devices are tested to see if the actually meet the FCC standards for emissions.

To be certified for flight, every single device will have to be tested. This would of course increase the cost of devices significantly - and more importantly make the device manufacturer liable if it was proven to cause an aircraft crash.

But more importantly from the manufacturer viewpoint - any aviation certified device would automatically make them a defendant in the scatter shoot lawsuits that come after a crash. Even if the device had nothing to do with the crash - the company would still be sued and spend millions of dollars on defense.

The devices used in the cockpit are to be only loaded with certain programs and to not be WiFi, GPS/, or 3/4G enabled except under very specific conditions while in the aircraft.
.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule?

Certification of electronic devices is an FCC responsibility/ authority - not an FAA one.

The FAA requires additional testing of FCC certified devices to ensure they are individually tested to ensure that every single one passes the FCC emissions tests.

Again - back to the basic point - the manufacturers are not willing to certify their devices.

Frankly, it is a good idea because the number of out of spec devices is very small, but still significant enough to be a manufacturing problem if they have to up their QA to 99.5% or higher compliance testing.

How good do you thing the manufacturing QA is? Have your every had a problem with such a device, or personally known someone with a problem device?

I have - several.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18): An aircraft going down is not the standard the FAA uses, and thankfully so.

Agreed, so how did they come up with the rule?
And of late, most of the security rules have been in reaction to an incident; after something has happened.

Half the passengers keep phones,i-readers, notebooks turned on all the time. I'm sorry if it interfered with the espresso machine in the cockpit. FAA needs to work on a lot more important things that sending a letter to an author. Next.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 20): so how did they come up with the rule?

There are two sources of the rule that I'm aware of.

One is long standing back to the early 70s that I remember - probably before - that passengers not have objects in their hands that can fly around an injure others if something happens during takeoff and landing. Also that passengers not have things around that could impede their need to evacuate the aircraft and get free of their seats.

For takeoff and landing - we are not supposed to have anything out. Yes, I know this rule is ignored for many items such as book or magazines. But it is still a rule.

The other is many documented cases of interference of aircraft instruments by electronic devices. Most of these are minor, but still they have been able to trace several to individual specific devices. The case documented by the company I used to work for in a private jet was determined by the FCC and RIM to be a QA issue at the plant which manufactured the Blackberry.

The general rule in aviation is "Unless the device is proven SAFE, it is not allowed."

The popular consensus is the opposite. As you note - many FAA rules are written in blood. This is a proactive approach which doesn't inconvenience anyone except a-holes who feel they are above the law.

But lest anyone feel I'm picking on them specifically, I'm not.

My basic point is that the QA in the manufacture process is not up to aviation standards. It is not the majority of in-spec devices that cause problems. It only takes one out of spec device to cause a problem.

[Edited 2012-05-02 19:50:19]

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule? Did they see any aircraft go down due to electronic devices?

Stop commenting on issues on which you have no expertise while you are ahead. Using faulty logic in your sarcastic response doesn't help your argument.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13): Under part 91 (General flights) they are certified to be used as the sole replacement of ALL paper charts and planning. They also have a GPS component to them for use as reference only (not to be used as sole navigation) which will transpose an aircraft onto any sectional chart, Low/High enroute chart and all approach plates.

That's factually incorrect. How can a device be certified to replace charts that are never legally required to begin with. That's why one can use an iPad/whatever device to have charts for a Part 91 operation.

I'd suggest you check your facts next time.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting csavel (Reply 7): Also consider that if there is a rejected take-off or similar emergency, those I-pads, Kindles what have you can go flying and really hurt someone. I sure as hell don't want someone with face stuck in a kindle sitting behind me. You might ask then why not ban books, especially hard covers. Good question!!! probably because they were grandfathered in and with a book, even a hardcover, if it goes flying the likelihood is that the covers and pages will spread out, thus slowing down the momentum.

Which goes to show how flipping stupid the rule is. My wife's Kindle weight 5.98 ounces. I am reading the new Robert Caro book on LBJ, and it weighs (according to the Amazon website) 44.8 ounces. Even if you take your assumption about slowing down momentum, let's say that cuts the weight in half, and it's 22 ounces or just about a pound and a quarter. A standard 1.5L water bottle, which the FAA says doesn't have to be stowed, weighs about 51 ounces. What if that goes flying? You know what else the FAA says doesn't have to be stowed or secured? A CHILD under the age of two that can be held on your lap. What if that goes flying?

If you want to make the nebulous argument about electronic interference then that's one thing. The argument that has no merit is the "flying projectile" argument.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 17): I've been up front when our avionics were interfered with, and yes, it was a PED causing the interference. Until the FAA sees fit to change this rule, why risk anything? It's just a few minutes. Drop the electronic device, enjoy the view. It'll be good for you.

Come on down off your high horse and tell that to these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkvlt55G0k

And these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfepKB1qbEk&feature=related

And these guys (where he says he used his Android phone): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lAsALc6-mA

And these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AafNo3z5bUQ

And these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf1fVdw6NCk&feature=related

And the thousands of other cockpit videos taken by airline pilots under 10000 feet that are on YouTube, FL350, etc. further underscoring just how seriously the pros take this rule, not because they aren't professionals but because they see the utter stupidity in it.

Disregarding all the merits of the rule, I think the FAA is right in issuing the letter. I think that even the FAA knows a good amount of people disregard the rule and have ipads, phones etc on when they are not supposed to. However, they also know that it is nigh on impossible to penalise everyone who flaunts it. In this case, it was clearly his stupidity which caused the FAA to issue the letter. If you are going to break the rules, at least do it discretely. If you start waving your arms in the air when you are breaking the rules, you should expect to be punished. By slapping his name onto the video, he pretty much incriminated himself and because he is a known figure, the FAA obviously smelt blood.

Quoting kcljj (Reply 26): Disregarding all the merits of the rule, I think the FAA is right in issuing the letter. I think that even the FAA knows a good amount of people disregard the rule and have ipads, phones etc on when they are not supposed to. However, they also know that it is nigh on impossible to penalise everyone who flaunts it. In this case, it was clearly his stupidity which caused the FAA to issue the letter. If you are going to break the rules, at least do it discretely. If you start waving your arms in the air when you are breaking the rules, you should expect to be punished. By slapping his name onto the video, he pretty much incriminated himself and because he is a known figure, the FAA obviously smelt blood.

Good post which cuts clearly to the heart of the matter.

The FAA has taken this decisive action as the conclusions drawn from the video are clear and indisputable: iPads attract large birds.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28): The FAA has taken this decisive action as the conclusions drawn from the video are clear and indisputable: iPads attract large birds.

Seriously, there's an app for that.

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): One only has to go to youtube and see that the rule is ignored, but more importantly, no danger is created.

I would like to see you prove the comment of "no danger", there is additional risk, however very minor. For example there has been a case where an iPhone started to combust in a phase of flight where the device was supposed to turned off in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-29/iphone-catches-fire/3701250

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13): I use my ipad on all of my flights with foreflight, yet I bought it off the shelf at target. The fact that I can fly any plane I want under part 91 and use an ipad for the sole means of all my navigational charts and planning and in doing so be completely legal yet the same exact ipad I'm using in my seat outside of the cockpit could cause interference is complete and utter BS...

The FAA has not given a blanket approval for foreflight or any efb solution, they are inividualy approved for each operator. Are you sure your specific FAA part 91 approval requires no backup ?

Quoting zeke (Reply 30): Are you sure your specific FAA part 91 approval requires no backup ?

Again, no approval required, as there is no regulatory requirement for charts to begin with.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 31): Again, no approval required, as there is no regulatory requirement for charts to begin with.

from http://www.foreflight.com/approved/

Quote: The FAA does not approve or endorse any particular product. Rather, they set forth guidelines that operators follow and use to seek approval with their local FSDOs and PIs. Every operation is different - different aircraft, different training requirements, etc. - and thus each operator has to seek approval independently. The FAA's guidance is holistic - the EFB hardware and software selected is just one part of the overall process of adopting and getting authorization to utilize and EFB.

Quoting zeke (Reply 32): from http://www.foreflight.com/approved/

Yes, for 121/135 carriers. For a true part 91 operation (other than subpart K), charts are never required, and as such, there would never be a way to get them approved.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): They must have interfered with the displays, but are you sure those interferences were due to electronic devices in the back of the plane? Also can you please elaborate how a digital camera interferes with displays and automation in the cockpit?

It is not up to anyone to prove it came from a certain device. It is up to whoever want to bring on a device to show it will not interfere.

Everything electronic generate radio signals. Most are extremely small but a lot of "innocent" devices are nothing such.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 24): How can a device be certified to replace charts that are never legally required to begin with. That's why one can use an iPad/whatever device to have charts for a Part 91 operation.

Careful with the blanket statement - charts are legally required if you're operating a large or turbine-powered multi-engine airplane. See 91.503(a)(3) and (4).

Quoting zeke (Reply 32): from http://www.foreflight.com/approved/

That applies to for-hire operators, so Part 121, 125, 135, etc. The FAA has talked about requiring specific approval for Part 91 operators where the charts would be legally required (so not your weekend warrior in his 172), but nothing has come of that yet. I hope it stays that way.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Careful with the blanket statement - charts are legally required if you're operating a large or turbine-powered multi-engine airplane. See 91.503(a)(3) and (4).

I forgot about those parts in the 500's. Regardless, John Q Public in his all weather interceptor C172 has no legal obligation to have any sort of charts onboard.

-DiamondFlyer

What I'd like to see is the FAA's response to a passenger who records the video of an incident on takeoff or landing, and the video turns out to be crucial in determining what went wrong. Personally, I know it's wrong, against the rules, verbotten, etc., but there is a time when it could be very useful.

And so he should have got a letter! I am a flight attendant and i am sick and tired of telling people to turn their devices off, especially when refuelling the aircraft, i have resorted to writing safety reports with passengers boarding cards attatched to them, sending them to the company and having them banned on flights! A rule is a rule, and when the proper proof, and nopt just mythbusters say so, that it doesnt blow up an aircraft or interfer with instruments! that is the day i will stop being a vigilant flight attendant! but until then, this passenger has broken a rule, failure to comply with a flight attendants instruction. He should be punished.
I wouldnt walk into anyones work place and tell them how to do their jobs, so why do people come into mine and constantly tell me how to do my job or constantly not comply with a simple instruction, im sure people can survive 5-10minutes with out their beloved iPad/iPhone/Blackberry!!! Pathetic! He atm would be the laughing stock of the airline industy! and GOOD ON YOU DELTA!!!!!

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 38):

Well said JQ! I have commented on other threads showing videos of takeoff or landing. I specifically ask why they have an electronic device on. I am almost always ignored. Sometimes I get a snarky reply.

Not following the rules because one 'knows better' or thinks the rules are 'laughable' is the height of arrogance. Your point about people telling you how to do your job is spot on. Good on you for flagging those who don't do as instructed.

It is really quite simple.

Until the FAA says it's OK, it's not OK. Until the Fligut Atendant says its OK, it's not OK. It is not up to the passenger, no matter how smart or self important, to decide that it's OK.

Fly safe!

Quoting zeke (Reply 30): I would like to see you prove the comment of "no danger", there is additional risk, however very minor. For example there has been a case where an iPhone started to combust in a phase of flight where the device was supposed to turned off in Australia.

Did it combust because it was on at a time when it shouldn't have been? The inference here is that it was "worse" because it should've been switched off.

Wouldn't it have been potentially less dangerous at for example FL380 way out over the Pacific because it was "allowed" to be on?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 17): Is It really that hard to follow a rule for a half hour until you can get your precious electronic device back? I've been up front when our avionics were interfered with, and yes, it was a PED causing the interference. Until the FAA sees fit to change this rule, why risk anything? It's just a few minutes. Drop the electronic device, enjoy the view. It'll be good for you.

It's for that reason, and my experiences with unreliable iOS devices that all use of these kinds of devices during the landing or takeoff of a plane should be prevented. And that includes sending those electronic flight bag solutions using iPads to the bin.

Paper based charts, however cumbersome and outdated they may be, cannot do random restarts, do not have kernel panics and don't freeze up on black or white screens of death, where you must physically open the device and disconnect the battery to shut it down (or wait for the battery to go flat).

Just follow the rules people.. How hard is that??

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3): You might think the rule is Stupid But if you've got $10K to throw around?? Don't stop.. And when the FAA places him on a NO FLY list then it'll cost him 5X as much to get OFF of it..

He probably made a lot more money from the video and his appearance on TV.
Imagine how much money the guys who filmed the LOT belly landing from the inside, must have received. Their videos were all over the media outlets.

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 11): From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA.

There's no such thing. What is likely happening is that companies such as your airline can taylor the iPad iOS to their needs (i.e. setup restrictions).

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43): Quoting 737tanker (Reply 11): From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA. There's no such thing.

There absolutely is. It's not actually built separately (as in a separate production line) but there are FAA-certified iPads. Non-FAA certified iPads are not certified by similarity just because they're iPads.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43): What is likely happening is that companies such as your airline can taylor the iPad iOS to their needs (i.e. setup restrictions).

That is also a possibility but completely separate from certification.

Tom.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19): The devices used in the cockpit are to be only loaded with certain programs and to not be WiFi, GPS/, or 3/4G enabled except under very specific conditions while in the aircraft.

Why would being GPS enabled be a problem? I didn't think any of these devices even used local oscillators any more that could potentiallly emit rf on that band.

The problem I see with people following the rule (myself included) is that time and time again there is no evidence to have an electronic device turned off during takeoff/landing. If it interferes with the aircraft's communication, it will do so whether on the ground or in the air. If it's about security (like it might be turned into a flying projectile), I would agree, though the chances of that iPad turning into a flying projectile are minimal unless you're in a steep dive or severe turbulence. If it's because the plane could crash and would distract me...the least of my worries will be the iPad.

I follow the rule, but have my reservations against it, and since I don't fly that often, if I have a camera (or other recording device) on hand, I will waste no time in recording a takeoff/landing.

Does anyone remember 9/11 ?

How did the folks in the 4th airplane learned about their fate? Cell Phones!

The FAA had to do it. If they didn't cite this guy after all the TV airplay of his unauthorized video, their rule would have no credibility. On the other hand, the video has some investigation value to the NTSB and FAA while they piece together what happened.

...in the end, for now the rule is the rule so either follow it or don't fly. Having said that...............


It truly makes NO sense to me having people keep off devices below 10k ft. Is there some magic barrier? No. If something goes wrong with the A/C at 11k ft it's going to be just as bad as it going bad at 3k ft.

I also question the issues with wifi signals for one glaring reason. On wifi equipped planes I can turn my wifi on per the airline and if I pay my $7.95 surf away, and being on the ground or low in the sky has no bearing at all on the signal, if it's on it's on.

...and the projectile issue really doesn't hold water with me either. If the A/C is bouncing/diving/rolling bad enough for my "gadget" to turn into a missle there are much bigger problems going on then getting bumped with and iPad.

I do think the rules need to adjust with the times and that's something that generally doesn't happen nearly as quickly as it should (and that applies to more than the airline industry).


..also I suppose it you really want to take pictures at takeoff/landing then use a film SLR. No on/off switch, no electronics.

again though going back to my original statement, for now the rules are the rules. If you can't accept it then don't fly. As much as some of the rules involving air travel piss me off (from the pinheads at the TSA to the arguments above) I still follow them.