Turning Electronic Devices Off On Take Off And Landing. Why?

[how241]

Better safe then sorry. Who am I to agrue.

[draftvader]

The OP put himself at danger of being offloaded or worse by ignoring the flight crew ??

I don't think so, I fly a lot and I know the rules. She shouldn't have asked me to turn it off while most of the passengers weren't even on a plane. If she would have tried that she could have quite possibly ended up loosing her job as I would have taken that matter to a court if I was unloaded.

I doubt they would lose their job. The airlines will back their staff to the hilt over ANY perceived disobedience from a passenger in this day and age of elevated security risk. You'll find them backed by the law courts too for this reason.

However, please feel free to give it a go. Whilst you're forming your "case" the rest of the plane will still be going to your destination without you. Win or lose in court you still will have to make alternative arrangements in the meantime at your expense (if the airport authorities will even let you board another plane that day).

[NewlyMintedThai]

The instructions of flight crew always supercede anything else, and it is their right to offload anyone who argues with them. You would have lost that case big time.

[StreetCowboy]

Better safe then sorry. Who am I to agrue.

Even if you're Mr EMC, if its that important, you'd have made the call / played the game / listened to the music before you got on the plane.

SC

[Thongkorn]

Its because its called fly by wire, there are no actual wiring, they are done by radio controls, all the flaps and elevators are radio controlled. Take a look at YOU tube , one of the first planes with fly by wire crashed in Germany into a wood, because they did not work correctly, the pilot throttled up but they worked the opposite causing the plane to crash killing everybody on board.

Its not because of fire risk from the fuel, it takes some heat to start aviation fuel you can literally put matches out in a bucket full of AVTER.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Thongkorn

[vtjforyou]

Because we have to apply stupid rules decided by retard 20 years ago at least...

[sirineou]

This topic has this quote

Somewhere between 2500 feet and 2000 feet, the captain's mobile phone started beeping with incoming text messages, and the captain twice did not respond to the co-pilot's requests.

The co-pilot l the captain cannot turn off his phone why should we?

ooked over and saw the captain "preoccupied with his mobile phone", investigators said

If the captain can not turn off his phone why should we?

Because there are hundreds of us, and only two of them

Because if there is an emergency situation, it is easier for him to shut his/hers cell phone, than it is to request that all the passengers turned off their electronic devises because we are about to crash,.

99.99% of the time, it is safe to operate your electronic devises on a plane, it is the .009% of the time that could give you a problem.

Edited April 20, 2012 by sirineou

[charliealex]

Everything were start with the American, Agency like FCC, FAA and now Homeland Security (security check-in). They're making the rules base on 1 or more incidents and the rest of the world just follow. Most of which does not make sense scientifically or practical, but .....

In America, if you’re argue with flight attendants, you will be boot out of the airplane and probably end up in jail for interfered with flight crews. And it is a felony crime.

“The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).”

[Shurup]

Everything were start with the American, Agency like FCC, FAA and now Homeland Security (security check-in). They're making the rules base on 1 or more incidents and the rest of the world just follow. Most of which does not make sense scientifically or practical, but .....

In America, if you’re argue with flight attendants, you will be boot out of the airplane and probably end up in jail for interfered with flight crews. And it is a felony crime.

“The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).”

Glad I'm not in US. I flew through US a few times a ling time ago and a few times with US airline (not to or from US), that was enough of their BS for me so never again. They work on an assumption that everyone is a criminal unless proven otherwise. They can shove their rules and regulations up their arse and humuliate their own citizen. There are plenty or airlines and routes that have nothing to do with US and I'm glad to take them.

[Shurup]

The OP put himself at danger of being offloaded or worse by ignoring the flight crew ??

I don't think so, I fly a lot and I know the rules. She shouldn't have asked me to turn it off while most of the passengers weren't even on a plane. If she would have tried that she could have quite possibly ended up loosing her job as I would have taken that matter to a court if I was unloaded.

I doubt they would lose their job. The airlines will back their staff to the hilt over ANY perceived disobedience from a passenger in this day and age of elevated security risk. You'll find them backed by the law courts too for this reason.

However, please feel free to give it a go. Whilst you're forming your "case" the rest of the plane will still be going to your destination without you. Win or lose in court you still will have to make alternative arrangements in the meantime at your expense (if the airport authorities will even let you board another plane that day).

A lot of what I see on a plane is not done by rules but by whatever the flight attendent mood/attitude is. There is no rule I'm sure to come on a plane with everything off in advance. I should have asked her to show me that in writing. There should be a manual of some sort listing all the rules. ***Thinking about it, I would stop at Air Canada office next time I travel and ask if I can get a copy of it or at least clarify this particular situation.

[baboon]

Is a Kindle or Nook classed as an electronic device in this case?

I would think so, wouldn't electronic mean a device using electric power to function, to power it's semiconductors?

See, this is part of the problem.  Rather than have to field a hundred questions every flight about "does this count" or "can I use this", not to mention people who just don't ask, a blanket ban on all devices is both much simpler and much safer.

Fair point. Can`t argue with that.

[baboon]

Is a Kindle or Nook classed as an electronic device in this case?

I would think so, wouldn't electronic mean a device using electric power to function, to power it's semiconductors?

See, this is part of the problem.  Rather than have to field a hundred questions every flight about "does this count" or "can I use this", not to mention people who just don't ask, a blanket ban on all devices is both much simpler and much safer.

Fair point. Can`t argue with that.

[TommoPhysicist]

I turn every electronic device I have to fully ON.

Then leave it in my bag. No crashes yet!

[StreetCowboy]

I turn every electronic device I have to fully ON.

Then leave it in my bag. No crashes yet!

Tell us how long it takes till the first crash. If its more than a million flights, then I'll accept your point.

I remember how much my handphone used to interfere with my land line (not noticed, for a long time, but then i rarely use a land line), and bearing in mind that some aircraft flying are really quite old, I don't see any point in being thrawn and deliberately contrary.

I'll not bore you with my story on aeroplane safety statistics, but it ends "After all, what are the chances of there being two bombs on the plane?"

SC

[NewlyMintedThai]

The OP put himself at danger of being offloaded or worse by ignoring the flight crew ??

I don't think so, I fly a lot and I know the rules. She shouldn't have asked me to turn it off while most of the passengers weren't even on a plane. If she would have tried that she could have quite possibly ended up loosing her job as I would have taken that matter to a court if I was unloaded.

I doubt they would lose their job. The airlines will back their staff to the hilt over ANY perceived disobedience from a passenger in this day and age of elevated security risk. You'll find them backed by the law courts too for this reason.

However, please feel free to give it a go. Whilst you're forming your "case" the rest of the plane will still be going to your destination without you. Win or lose in court you still will have to make alternative arrangements in the meantime at your expense (if the airport authorities will even let you board another plane that day).

A lot of what I see on a plane is not done by rules but by whatever the flight attendent mood/attitude is. There is no rule I'm sure to come on a plane with everything off in advance. I should have asked her to show me that in writing. There should be a manual of some sort listing all the rules. ***Thinking about it, I would stop at Air Canada office next time I travel and ask if I can get a copy of it or at least clarify this particular situation.

I'd love to be on a flight with you. It would make a great YouTube video: "man gets his ass reamed by a stewardess on an airplane".

[bonobo]

I share the OP's frustrations, but as this is not Thai-related:

//CLOSED//