I am very sure I read a report sometime in 2000 or 2001 on the results of a joint NTSB and Transport Canada study on potential electromagnetic interference of aircraft communications and navigations signals by onboard consumer electronics.

I can't find any reference to it on the internet, however the report stays in my mind because of the way in which some of the conclusions were stated.

Again, this may be my faulty memory, but essentially the report concluded that 8 things would have to be true simultaneously for interference to occur. The thing that really stuck with me is that one of those 8 things was that the transmitting device would have to be within 12 to 24 inches of an external receiving antenna (which are generally located on the underbelly of the aircraft).

So, while it is "technically" possible, it is "practically" very unlikely to impossible.

In my mind the real case for turning off all devices, even iPods or CD players is that in both the departure and arrival phases of flight, the cabin crew needs to know they can quickly have each passenter's undivided attention should an emergency arise.

As for cell phones, I can certainly see the FCC and other communications oversight agencies requiring cell phones to be off at all times. It must create a lot of unnecessary overhead to have mobile phones transiting rapidly across cells. Anecdotely, I know that if I leave my cell phone on in a coat pocket (it has happened) that by the time I arrive at my destination, the battery is exhausted from the repeated attempts at signal acquisition. That tells us that the sending and receiving signals were strong enough for the phone to attempt to repeatedly acquire a network.

I would be grateful is somebody could find that NTSB report, even if to tell me I was wrong.

Hello,
I just came across your write up after being totally peeved off by airline stewardesses telling me to switch off my walkman. I am an electrical engineer and know a thing or two about radio interference. Whilst I appreciate the fact that anything switched on might malfunction and start sending out transient radio interference, I know that all data and signal cables on an aircraft are shielded. The quality of the shielding in the cable used in aircraft is tested at thousands of volts and I can assure you that nothing running at 6V from a battery that has such limited capability can ever do anything to draw attention in an electrical sense. A walkman / Ipod or any media player that is not running wireless headphones ( ie not transmitting) is not emitting any radiation worth writing about.

So come on and stop insulting our intelligence...it has nothing to do with interference....has it ever occured to anybody that most of us carry battery operated wrist watches ...we are not made to take them off and switch them off are we?

My opinion is that aircraft companies need your full attention to listen to what they have to sell on board during the flight...which I do not accept. I should have the right to go to my happy place and not have to put up with crying babies and pompous stewardesses. They need to squeeze some extra revenue from sales of refreshments/ alcohol/ perfumes ...and they cannot do this if you are in your own little world of music...can they!!

I too am an Electrical Engineer. I feel that Mr. Zammit has overlooked that the very well shielded cables sometimes terminate at antennas. And yes, one iPod puts out an extremely small amount of RF. But on a flight carrying 135 passengers, perhaps 30 or so iPods, PDAs, etc. might be running. I know that I have, more than once, forgotten to turn off my cellphone during a flight. The phone was in my carry-on, which I never opened. But there was my little cell, dutifully seaching for a tower. My point? There probably is no risk. But why take ANY chance? Is the lives of 135 people worth being able to listen to music for the 10 minutes from takeoff to altitude? Bring some ear plugs if you can't stand the noise. I'd much rather know that some new flyer hears the exit instructions instead of being the person who panics during a crash and blocks my exit from the airplane. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Well said from both. While there is the risk of signal problems its very strange that no one can find any proof of radio interference causing the flight equipment to malfunction. But in the end, who would risk such a thing? i know if i had 0.0000001% more chance of crashing if i used my ipod while taking off... haha its not worth it. Dont use it.!

Cellphones are not a passive device, They actively ping or transmit a signal with their ESN and signal strenght and location can be defined relative to distance and location from a cell tower. What about the scenario of a portable shoulder fired missile that is programmed to seek and lock onto a cellular source like a slowing ascending jet that is taking off.

How that translates to an ipod I do not know.

It's bogus to require us to turn off an ipod on an aircraft. No way will I ever believe there's enough RF to affect the nav or comm systems. As much chance as my watch, hearing aids, or pacemaker can affect things. Get government out of this interference.

This whole thing is about misplaced government regulation. I understand the need to turn off cell phones and laptops with wireless capabilities, but I disagree with the need to shut down an I Pod, walkman, CD player, or DVD player. These are such small items that maybe half of travelers carry with them. My thought is that it is just an attempt of the airlines, FAA, and TSA to remain in control at all times. I am sure that security checkpoints pick up a fair amount of items that we can all agree do not belong on a plane (guns, knives, etc.), but a bottle of cologne or water? From the moment you walk into an airport until you walk out at your destination, the government wants to have total control over everything that occurs. Since I was born, I have had to place my seat and tray table in an upright and locked position, leave my carry on bag under the seat in front of me, turn off my electronics, and take my belt off when walking through an X-ray machine. My ID is checked at least twice, and my checked-in bag has been searched many times over the years. I don't understand how my I Pod, which the government has been vigilant about for many years, superceded the lack of vigilance that led to the events of 9/11. In the past 7 years, excessive delays, regulations, and prices have made flying an unbearable chore. It is no wonder why the airline industry is in the tank.

While I have been annoyed at the imperious "turn off all electronic equipment" command, I think there are 2 aspects to this. First, I'm sure there is an aspect of safety involved. How many times have you missed something someone was saying because you were enjoying music? Secondly, in previous days, there was a more specific direction about turning off specified devices, which did NOT include tape players (one of the most benign.) I remember this because I used a tape player long after it was unfashionable. However, the service folk are very much on the "untrained" end of the scale when it comes to being able to distinguish "permitted" from "non-permitted" equipment and - to support them and prevent smart alecks from lying about what they were actually using - we have ended up with "shut off ALL electronic equipment. I appreciate the safety factor.

I carry a Plam PDA and it is impossible to turn it off. Even when the screen is off the system is still working and the only way I could truly turn it off would be to dismantle it and remove the battery. This would cause all the data to be lost and possibly the EPROM.
So my Plam is always on...

The only proper thing to do is not to start a debate with the cabin crew over such as smallish issue.

I, for one, are very pleased that they are there and follow procedures

If anyone feel there is need for change, don't bring it up with the cabin crew as they cannot overrule it there and then. Contact the airline or regulating agency.

It's real simple... if you can PROVE that it NEVER poses ANY risk, then we can leave them on.

I thought I would point out to some that I am 'one of those pompous stewardesses' and I do instruct for anything with an on/off switch to be turned off for several reasons:

1. I am told to do so not only by the airline but also the FAA. I'm sorry but I am not going to get in trouble with them over an ignorant customer in part because I don't have the kind of money that they like to fine flight attendants.
2. As previously stated it is for the safety of customers, some who are frequent fliers and A LOT WHO ARE NOT, to know how to evacuate the aircraft
3. I had a friend tell me that an IPod actually interfered with her pilot's communication with ATC, apparently he was taking off to 'Janies Got a Gun' rather than directions and coordinates.

Number three is the reason I was brought to this web site, because I am looking for some validation to what she told me. I am not looking for the he said/she said junk, or the I believe crap leave the emotions out of it and state the facts.

Also everyone's opinions are appreciated, at least the unbiased ones, but to say the least Göran Kahlström gave the best advice. Everyone thinks that we are there to serve drinks and snacks, but I will point out one fact that ninety-nine percent of our training to become FAA certified is security and safety procedures. From a personal standpoint I can only recall approximately three maybe four hours of customer service training, the rest involved managing high risk situations.

BTW if you have the balls to argue with a flight attendant over something as small as a PED, just know upon arrival to your gate you could be escorted off the aircraft in handcuffs... I don't mean in a naughty way either. Pick and choose your battles. ;o}

What does it matter? You are a guest on their aircraft. Go by the rules or travel by land or sea. Your choice.

While I can appreciate the need to be alert and attentive to the instructions of the flight attendants, and to be able to follow instructions given in emergency situations, the rationale for turning off small battery powered devices while in flight due to interfering with the navigation/communication equipment seems simply absurd.

With the above example by "Amber", I find it highly unlikely that it was a PDA that was broadcasting "Janies Got a Gun" into the comm system. Much more likely it was a terrestrial source like a commercial broadcaster. AM radio in particular is notorious for its ability to get picked up by anything resembling an antenna and can be heard with most audio equipment... even if it isn't explicitly a radio tuner. With AM broadcasters pumping 10's of thousands of watts of power (some well over 100k watts) it isn't that hard to suggest that even shielded cables can at least pick up some of this energy. Throwing the right switch or plugging in a new piece of equipment might just be enough to "tune" the equipment to a local broadcast source.

I bring this up only to illustrate that even a coincidental example of somebody turning on and then subsequently shutting off a piece of consumer electronics doesn't necessarily mean that the real source of the interference has been properly identified. I gave but one counter example here and there are a great many others I could use.

No doubt that having some means of being able to communicate efficiently and quickly to passengers during phases of the flight that can be critical (aka take-off and landing) is important. This is a rational explanation, but don't go making up theories that competent electrical and broadcast engineers know simply is not the case.

Blaming lawyers and hyper paranoid aeronautical engineers (both paid to be paranoid for good reasons) is equally valid, but at the same time it does seem to be going a bit over the top here.

really, go by the rules other wise you are breaking the law

As a very frequent flyer for many years I have never done more then put the 2 cell phones I have on silent but on. There is NONE 0 no chance at all that these devices interfere in any way shape or form with the current electronics in the cockpit. In fact pilots are yapping away on their phones and laptops. Many years ago it was thought that maybe and well maybe just maybe a big bird will hit your plane too. So lets shoot all the birds ya know just in case wouldnt want to get sued.

can't...resist...

After a number of trips with flight attendants like Amber (if she indeed counts herself among the "pompous" ones, I would hope not) I have to say that if perhaps they devoted 5% of their training to customer service (is 1% really only three or four hours?) then they would know that if they asked us nicely to turn off PEDs then 1) we would because we all like to do things when asked nicely and 2) they wouldn't have to explain themselves endlessly or get people cuffed upon disembarkation. Amber, we don't have to pick and choose our battles, we have to eliminate the situations that cause them. Your customers are NOT your adversaries, they are an important part of your revenue stream. Low stress=happy trip!

When reading some of these comments, I wonder if they fight all the fights they see and can look up?

What is the big issue? All electronics off during take off and landing and flight safe mode during cruise.How many minutes are we talking about in lost work time, 6-8 minutes!

Or might it be the issue that NOBODY should tell you what to do. Especially someone you think is inferior? Perhaps you're a male ch p and can't take orders from a female? For christ sake, grow up!

I do hope they leave their chip off the shoulder when they go about their regular business!

Always remember, we are "only human", humans are known to make mistakes and if a wire is not properly shielded by a technician or by the manufacturer, there will be an area to allow the weak signal that the navigational systems is using to be changed by an electronic device. I know because I used to chase open shields and when I find them, I fix it and the problem goes away. So if the flight attendant ask you to turn off your electronic device, stop whining and turn it off. It is always better to be save than sorry. This is not a model airplane or go-go car. Lets get real!

So if you can't use video cameras, why do a whole bunch of people on YouTube have videos of plane takeoffs from in the cabin? -ETS

I fly regularly and I usually listen to my Ipod to relax. I usually don't turn it off when the announcement comes on. Only once in many flights was I asked to turn it off. It seems that most flight attendants consider this an important enough issue to point out. They probably all know that a little Ipod won't interfere with the cockpit.

I hear the debate, but am not convinced even with numerous such devices that the requirement is legitimate. And now we introduce the Kindle. An electronic reader with nothing in our ears to distract us from the routine and poorly scripted emergency procedures lecture. Very slowly, our freedoms are being eroded in support of being overly cautious for events that may or (most likely) may not occur. I guess all those phones that are on during plane crashes are inappropriate and and survivors should be prosecuted for breaking the "Advisory Circular". That would be the real tragedy.

How serious can they be about turning off all electrical devises? Imagine, just announcing it over the pa.

Or, "Ha Ha, I told them to turn it off"

They tell you to buckle up, chairs and tray tables in upright position. Then they come around and visually check every passenger and chair for compliance.

Do the ever come around and say "Do you have a cellphone, pda, laptop, movie player? If you do let's see it! Let's see if you turned it off. I don't believe you, open your carry-on luggage/back pack......

They just announce it - no follow up inspections - can they be all that serious about "turning off"?

Not only today but on almost every flight I have been on; an attendant has reminded one or two people to turn off their cell phones, computers and iPods. I think most people can attest to this. So Peter L yes, they do remind people.

Understand this - if there were any REAL danger with these devices - does ANYONE think the government and their airline cronies would permit us to bring them on the planes in the first place? Think people, think!

About 100,000 miles flown this far this year. Flown since back when they smoked in planes.

Funny to see Göran Kahlström's comments - a compliant Swede - of course you don't mind pointless and overbearing regulations - you live in Sweden! Without that mindset, you would have slashed your wrists a long time ago.

"Amber" is painfully obviously part of the problem - another arrogant prison guard in airline uniform. Go work for the DMV.

"Bobby T" "Tom Griffin" and others are PAINFULLY clueless about physics and engineering - shielding means shielding, duh! If an airplane can fly right next to a 50kW radio station tower, do the math - is an iPod dangerous?

"Lorna Craig" - Reading Skills 101 - Peter L talks about whether the airlines physically verify that all the evil devices are actually off - which they don't.

"Smartone" is the dumb one - these are FAA advisories - not laws - they do NOT have to be followed by the airlines. The airlines are feeble-minded sacks of you-know-what and (I guess for fear of bureaucratic retaliation elsewhere) they mindlessly treat all advisories like law.

One more time - understand this - if there were any REAL danger with these devices - does ANYONE think the government and their airline cronies would permit us to bring them on the planes in the first place? Think people, think!

Personally I think this whole portable electronic device thing is a bunch of BS!! I have a Uncle that fly's planes and he agrees. If the risk of a plane crashing during takeoff/landing is so probable and the risk of all passengers is at risk...Why are all these devices even allowed on board???? all the flight attendant says it please turn off. Does he/she check??? no!! Do they go through your baggage to make sure you didn't forget??? NO!! All cockpit equipment is "Shielded" And any harmonics (duplicates of frequencys) arent in the equation with avionics. Its all lawyers trying to eliminate any possibility of the airline getting sued.

This argument is retarded. Even if electronic devices don't interfere with anything, the fact of the matter is that you are told to do so. You bought a plane ticket and boarded a plane, therefore you should follow their rules. If you don't and get away with it, then fine for you. If you don't and get in trouble for it, it's your own fault. By boarding their plane you are under their jurisdiction. Nobody is forcing you to board that plane, if you have that much of a problem with it then don't fly. It's a matter of minutes that you can't use you devices, god dang. If you're going to cry about being unable to use your devices for a couple of minutes then your just a little b****. I mean seriously. Nobody is forcing you to lose those small bits of freedom; you voluntarily got on that plane.

Regarding the argument that it is only a few minutes of being unable to use your device, I like to use my camera and take hyperstereos from the plane, and landing is the best time to do this. I have recorded great hyperstereos of NY City when cameras were allowed. Not being able to take pictures during landing is a problem for me, especially when this restriction is totally unecessary.

i just think it is a stupid rule. We have new and inproved electronics. I was on a delta flight to london this past march and i had my iphone on but it was on airplane mode. When the iPhone is on airplane mode or any other phone it is not comunicating and they still made me put it up for the rest of the flight. I wated for her to leave and i took it out. This is a dumb rule!

You are told to turn them off because if we were to have an emergency during take-off that would require us to evacuate the airplane, we need to know that you can hear us in our evacuation commands. If we were to start an evacuation, we don't do so over the PA system, we yell out commands making them harder to hear. While you may hear the announcements, you may not hear us yelling out directions on what you need to do. If we are yelling for you to put your head down and you have your music playing in your ears you most likely wouldn't hear. Also, people tend to tune out the world around them when they have their iPod on. The take-off and landings are where most problems arise, so during these times, we need help from the passengers to be aware of what's going on around them. We need you to be able to hear an unfamiliar noise that happened during take-off. I could go on and on with different scenarios, but it gets repetitive after awhile. The things we do, we do to keep you, and your loved ones as safe as possible.

It can't make that much difference. I have an iPhone and im gonna be bloody pissed off if a crew member asks me to turn it off. If it's that much of a threat why let us take it on in the 1st place?

I am yet another one of those 'pompous' crew that tell you turn off Personal Electronic Devices for take-off and landing. In Europe, its the LAW. If you are asleep, I'll also wake you up to watch my safety demonstration. And if you're talking loudly during my safety demonstration, I will halt the PA and ask you to keep it down. When I use my staff travel to fly as a passenger, my company requires that I put down all magazines/books etc and pay full attention to the safety demo that I know off by heart. Why? Because it sets a good example to the passengers travelling around me. There is a reason for EVERYTHING we do...and most of our rules and regs come from investigations into fatal air-crashes. Don't let your lap-top/ipod/mobile phone be THE ONE that brings in the rule "No Personal Electronic Devices permitted in the cabin of an aircraft."

I once fell asleep at the start of my flight after being awake for 48 hours. That was my fourth flight in 4 days and I was exhausted.
The worst part about the flight was being awoken by a flight attendant to pay attention to the safety instructions.
I usually like to spend me time sleeping on flights because of time zone changes and its a relaxing way to catch up on one's sleep.
I've buckled a seat belt before. I've heard the flight attendants speech so many times, I could recite it by heart as well.
Nothing is more irritating that anyone taking their job so seriously that they have to wake people up to pay attention to the safety speech. Get a grip. Some of us have already followed all the rules, and one of them is not *you can not nap during a flight* EDITORS' REPLY: Your comment raises the question: How would a flight attendant know which passengers had already heard the safety speech, and knew it in its entirety?

I fly 2-3 times a month, and NEVER turn off my iPod. Even when the flt attendant tells me to, I just nod my head and keep it on.

The day inane conversation is banned is the day I will turn off my iPod. Until then, I will continue to block out the morons around me 100% of the time.

To all the "if there is ANY risk do not do it" people: Every system on the plane has a failure rate that is deemed acceptable. It's never zero. Reasonable reductions are good, but you cannot say we have to reduce everything to zero risk.

To the "a few minutes of inconvenience" folks, remember it's from doors-closed to some altitude (seems to vary). With delays... could be hours. My average time is still like 40 minutes, and it's all in line sucking some MD80s exhaust; at least in the air I can look at clouds and fields.

And, I am increasingly annoyed with this (or disregarding it) because as some have mentioned, EVERYTHING now has a battery. Cameras, books, etc. FAA needs to get a handle on this today; if there is a real risk, they need to start working with FCC or something to certify devices differently or decide it's only those with radios, or some other high risk (e.g. laptops, as they often have radios also, and are not clearly shut off) devices by category.

"Their plane, their rules"

This argument is ridiculous. I am a customer and I have paid money for their service, and if I believe the service is sub-par for any reason, I have the right say something about it. The fact that the flight crew receive nearly ZERO customer service training is of no surprise to me (flown over 160k miles last year), and while I believe passengers should follow crew member instructions in order to maintain safety and orderly boarding/de-boarding, and should be charged if they intentionally obstruct the crew in an emergency. I do NOT agree and will fight any law that grants anyone the power to arbitrarily limit my constitutional rights. While this assertion may seem completely out of proportion regarding the topic, one should consider the impact of vague charges such as 'interfering with a crew member'. Technically you could be charged with this federal offense if you refused any request of a crew member. The police, who must regularly deal with zealous officers, do not even have this authority and they are arguably better trained.

Apparently All Terrorists Are Idiots:

Why deal with all the hassles of working with explosive material and trying to sneak it through security in your tighty whiteys when you can casually board a plane and bring it down armed with nothing more than an iPhone?

"we need to know that you can hear us in our evacuation commands. If we were to start an evacuation, we don't do so over the PA system, we yell out commands making them harder to hear."

So does the airline REALLY believe that passengers are so incredibly stupid that they would not remove their headphones during an EVACUATION? Even if I were so engrossed in my 'own little world' as to not notice the other passengers getting out then what do you do about people that have fallen asleep? Worse still, what about people who have fallen asleep with ear-plugs? I can hear the flight attendant now; "It is against our policy to use electronic devices, sleep, read, or do anything that may distract you while the main cabin door is closed. This includes playing with string and looking at shiny things"

If they were so concerned about the passenger's ability to follow instructions during an emergency, then how do we reconcile the logic behind selling alcohol. We have zero evidence confirming injuries or fatalities on a plane due to the use of personal electronics. However most airline accidents are reported as being caused by "pilot error."

I am left to wonder if the recent increase in frustrated or 'irate passenger' incidents has anything to do with the poor customer service training of the crew along with this unnecessary authority . Consider the recent headline where a Doctor and his pregnant wife were escorted off a plane and charged with this offense for repeatedly requesting water when they were grounded for over 2 hours. The airline states that the passenger was so irate that he was upsetting the other passengers, and that their child even kicked one of the crew in the groin. They make no mention of why they refused water to his wife, instead focusing only on why they removed him from the flight. When you read statements like "if you have the balls to argue with a flight attendant over something as small as a PED, just know upon arrival to your gate you could be escorted off the aircraft in handcuffs... " from an alleged flight attendant, it is easy to see a situation where a husband (not to mention a medical doctor) might get upset if his pregnant wife is refused something as simple as water (and I am sure this was for their safety).

Code of Federal Regulations


Sec. 91.21

Sec. 91.21

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A--General

Sec. 91.21

Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

FARs are mandatory. FAR 91.21 ON PEDs IS Mandatory
The Advisory Circular AC91-21-1B is to provide the operator with guidance information on how to be in compliance with the FAR

I turn off whatever device I have with me out of respect for the flight crew. It's such a small sacrifice to make, I can't understand why anyone complains about it.

I'm a flight attendant. Here's why you need to turn of iPods and other electronics. An airline evacuation isn't going to happen in the air. It happens on the ground, and/or begins near the ground. If you are on the ground in a plane, or below 10,000 feet, you need to have your ears uncovered/open and be able to hear commands to evacuate.

I have about 4-5 electronic devices still on every time I fly. On a typical flight of business people on a Monday morning, there are probably 50-100 electronic devices still on but hidden from the flight attendant. I'm also an electrical engineer and a pilot (recreational). The idea that a cell phone could interfere with a GPS or any other navigational equipment is ridiculous in my opinion.

I've made calls from my Cessna at 3,500 feet, anything higher seems to not work.

Turning off a Kindle or Ipod is silly also. They are now having Wi-Fi on some flights so it obviously can't be a danger.

There's a lot of good points brought up here. I just got off a plane today and finally vowed to research why this rule exists. After reading the comments I have to say it makes more sense that they want people "alert" during takeoff/landing as clearly interference isn't an issue as many people leave their devices on, radio signals from the ground are all over the plane, Wi-Fi in planes, etc.

However, here's one thing no one's mentioned yet. What about the fact that you can't turn an iPod off??? Any model before an iPod touch cannot be turned off. The only things you can do to it is put it to 'sleep' or restart it. When it sleeps it instantly comes back on and therefore only really shuts off the screen, meaning the processor and other components are still active. iPods have always been built to be always on as a design decision to make them more user friendly. Therefore ANY (non-iPod touch) iPod is ALWAYS on during the entire flight unless it runs out of battery, regardless of whether or not it is playing music.

That's why I have such a hard time believing they cause interference. And if it's really an attention issue, how come no one tells me to put away the book or magazine I'm reading? It just doesn't add up.

It is clear that the main justification is to have passengers alert for briefings and in case of emergencies. This rule is overbroad. The requirement should instead be that audio devices be turned off. An mp3 player, gaming device, or laptop should not need to be completely powered off, just paused during the briefing with your headphones removed for the duration of takeoff/landing so that you can immediately respond to emergency instructions.

I'm also a scientist/engineer by education, and I can tell you that any concerns over interference are ludicrous.

What nobody mentions is the use of several thousand ipods and cell phones in a busy terminal just feet from departing and arriving aircraft. Apparently those devices do not cause interference to an aircrafts electronics and avionics or airport terminals would be phone free. So, the argument about limiting electronic devices on aircraft comes down to it not being a danger to the aircraft but one of the flight crew attempting to maintain control and attention of the passengers during the two most critical periods of a flight.

At a certain level it wouldn't necessarily matter if you have your cellphone on, as it wont reach a tower at 20,000 ft in the sky, i understand why it needs to be shut off on the ground though, even though, i'm pretty sure i talk on a cellphone a lot, and even when i am at like a sports event, i don't lose my call, signal or anything? if disruption occurs in the airplane to the flight tower, then new equipment needs to be purchased. Second, having your ipods, etc. put away for take off and landing for the reason of "in case of evacuation" is bogus, flying is a more commercial normal in our society, and crashes rarely happen, and even if i had bose noise cancelling headphones on... i'm sure i am smart enough to understand danger and when there isnt... plus look at buses, you dont have to buckle up or put your electronics away when you get on? the safety features just need to be laxed, they may have made sense 20 years ago, but this a new century. flying is less dangerous.... the whole airline industry is in complete disaster right now, especially after 9/11, it is ridiculous. next were not going to be allowed to bring liquid onto trains and buses and go through a security check on anything public

As an engineer with both a BE and ME degrees who works in the aerospace industry and a recreational pilot, I can also attest to the fact that signal interference from PEDs is complete crap. If the wiring and systems on an aircraft were not shielded enough to prevent any issue from a handheld device then not only would they not pass inspection, but would be easily taken out of commission by the walkie talkies used by grounds-crew, or the thousands of cellphones, ipods, and laptops, used not 500 feet away by people waiting in the terminal.

To all the butthurt flight attendants in this thread and everywhere, don't insult my intelligence by telling me that my mp3 player will interfere with the GPS, radio, or other avionics. You are simply annoyed because you have been on your feet all day and been dealing with irate drunken passengers. If you think drunken passengers are bad, try insulting an engineer. We are some of the nicest people, but do not make the mistake of insulting our intellect. Some of us may have even worked on the very Airbus A320, or the Boeing 747 , 767, 777, (and in some instances the 787 dreamliner too) that we happen to be sitting on. You might have your FARs or ACs, but people like me were the ones who had to design the devices that keep the plane in the air based on those documents and regulations.

Point of the matter, which has been made several times before – if they were really that dangerous, the FAA and the government would not let us take them on the plane in the first place. I can personally attest to the fact that I have made phone calls and sent SMS messages while under 10k from a twin turboprop, while on the comms with ATC and flying in IFR conditions, without a single issue. On top of all of that, I had my ipod plugged into my auxiliary port so that I could listen to some tunes while I was flying.

As a followup to my previous comment - (2000 character limit):

All of this in mind however, if a flight attendant smiles and politely asks me to remove my headphones to listen to the safety demonstration that we all have heard a thousand times, and doesn’t give me an attitude, then I would gladly take the plugs out of my ears for the 5 minutes that it takes.

tl;dr – The whole “safety” issue is non-existent at best. Don’t insult our intelligence by making these bogus claims. Ask nicely, be courteous, and pretend that you like your job and most people who aren’t complete jerks will comply without an issue. Remember – you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar ;)

Well it's a little inconvenient but if I was personally responsible for the decision, and had to answer for everyone's lives on the plane, I would do the same. There have been incidences where interference from passenger electronics was suspected, although it has been very difficult to recreate. So why take a chance given the consequences of failures?
ALSO, it would be very difficult to enforce a limited policy, i.e. no PC's or cell phones but ipods and digital video cameras are OK. Continental's policy seems to be "anything with an on/off switch", according to the FA that I flew with yesterday.

This question has troubbled me for a long time now and has led me to this page.
I have found that if electronic equipment can really compromise safety on board, there would have been more control to make people really switch off their Ipods/Phones/Laptops in the first place and not just mentioning it on the speaker and casually have a member of staff checking the rows.
If a well documented survey concludes that electronic actually DO compromise safety, I will not board another airplane before serious controlsystems are implemented.
Untill then, in my mind, there is no way an Ipod can compromise safety even the slightest. The simple nature of the safety procedures as of now speaks for itself.

If i am wrong, there is something seriously wrong with airline safety procedures.

If there really was a danger from cell phones, why don't they confiscate cell phones to make sure they remained turned off? They do it to items of real danger such as matches, firecrackers, flammable aerosols etc.

I've been interested in the topic for some time. And my interest turned to action when I realized that smartphones take at least a minute to power back on. So I found this article and read through many of the comments. One thing that struck out to me is that many people are annoyed because there is no reasoning behind the call to turn off your devices (fear, ie because it may reduce risk of accident by 000000%, is not reasoning - it's oppression). The logical explanation for the announcement to turn off devices during takeoff appears to be because some engineer a long time ago concluded without much evidence that a PED could interfere. Some lawyer grabbed a hold of that conclusion and sued. Lawyers for the airlines and the FAA took preventive measures and instituted the policy.

The question if an airline were bold enough to dump the history and cut the announcement, would that make you choose that airline over another?

Choosing buses and trains over airplanes is not really a viable alternative (at least in the States). That's why this article is so emotionally charged - flying is the only option for travel sometimes.

Really people ~ upset about having to shut these things off for 10-20 minutes?

GET A LIFE... if you don't like the rules - DON"T FLY.

That is like going to McDonalds and complaining about the way they cook burgers evertime you go there.. JUST DON"T GO.

enjoy your drive, sail, walk with your IPODS.

Did cell phones interfere with the plane over PA on 9/11. As many have said no one's phone is checked in their purse or carry on. I have never shut off my phone. And it's never dead as some here say from trying to find towers. From the east coast to Hawaii and that's a longgggggggggggg trip. As for projetiles what about pens, books, the airlines inflight mag, etc.
I work in the medical field. A hemodialysis clinic and the patients use their cell phones all the time. They were told they couldn't use them because it interfered with the hemodialysis machine. But let's look at this. We use a computer with a WiFi connection to chart information. They patients have WiFi TV and use their phones all the time. They've been using them since cells first came out. The patients know the management is lying. They've proven it time and again. So now management has put out a memo, as they are prone to do, stating "new research" shows that cell phones don't interfere with the dialysis machines. I wonder how much they paid those researchers? I think a good lawsuit could be justified by all the patients who've been using their cell phones for years for not being properly compensated. Don't be fooled people.

what about magazines or books?

i recently was on a flight, and when it came time to take off, i was "just reading" on my iphone. the flight attendant told me to shut it off. i told her it was in "airplane mode" and she just got very stern & said that all electronic devices must be turned off.

i complied & didn't cause a scene, but it left me wondering a big "why". so i hit google up later & found this article & comments.

i agree, it's stupid. but for the whole "safety" argument, then why don't they tell the people to put away all magazines, newspapers, & books too?

there just seems to be no logic around this "rule" - and i don't like being made to do something that isn't logical, just on principle.

so... how do we change these stupid rules?
it should be my right to choose whether or not to listen to safety instructions, or (can of worms) wear my seatbelt/helmet. when it doesn't affect anybody else but me, it should be my right to choose - stupid or not - i should have that freedom.

-2¢

having pondered this question on just about every flight ive ever been on i have come to the conclusion that its easier to enforce a blanket ban on all electronics than to try and seperate i pods from iphones ect. And its just to get you to pay attention while the plane is in one of these high risk manovers. They just want you off the plane when it goes on fire or hits something. And being a nervous wreck on a plane would love anything that takes my mind off whats going on around me!

The requirement to turn off "all electronic devices" is bogus. It's far more about controlling people, and making sure we do as we're told, than safety. IPods do not emit RF waves that would interfere with flight equipment. Neither do most other electronic devices. Anyone ever turn off their battery powered watch? How about a hearing aid? A pacemaker? Ever notice that airlines have never required passengers to turn off a pacemaker for takeoff or landing? Surely a pacemaker has more battery power ... i.e., more RF wave emitting power .. than an iPod. Guess what, my watch is radio controlled to sync with official government time. No off switch though. And surely a hearing aid, which pics up sound waves, likely emits as much RF waves as an iPod. But no passengers are required to turn off hearing aids. Yet the fact that these electronic items can remain on is proof positive that you iPod poses no threat of interference whatsoever.

It's time that all rational people ban together and urge the FAA to get rid of such stupid rules that do nothing to contribute to our safety,

I honestly feel if ipods or EVEN cell phones honestly could cause a problem with anything there the FAA would instate a fine for anyone caught doing it during take off and landings. Seriously, think about it. It's just a precaution and yes, it allows them to have everyones attention. There is a $200 fine for not smoking so if cell phones, pages, ipods, etc. REALLY were a risk there would be a fine. However, I can respect precaution, but just getting real.

Any "scientific" claims of interference from PED's in this discussion are bogus. Go read Rick's post though, only reason to listen to any of these "regulations" is to avoid conflict with flight attendants. I don't want them bothering me. If they are nice, just suck it up for 3 min. Bottom line:

Just wait to put your seat back or headphones in or whatever until the attendants have to be seated for take off. Then they can't bother you.

As for seat belts, if you don't think that your belt is gonna help when you are flying 30k ft in the air at 550 mph in an aluminum shell less than .25in thick, just lay it over you lap, and dont buckle it. what they don't know won't hurt them.

I found the discussion here very interesting, especially as I have exerienced a person NOT turning off their mobile phones (and even trying to have a phone conversation once during the take off) the last three times I took a plane (all flights were 3,5 hour flights or less). And those were just persons that sat next to me (I wonder sometimes how many more I just didn't see :))
Are really all these people who are sooo much against turning off the phone during the plane, so very in need to be reached at all times...? I mean like 10-15 years ago we survived without mobile phones at all times. A phone call/ SMS postponed by a couple of hours shouldn't really change the world, right? An exception might be a doctor, but even they sometimes sleep/ are not reachable...
Turning off phones is not only courtesy towards flight attendands but also towards all the other passengers (especially the ones not willing to take any additional 0.0000% risks while flighing). So also the next time I take a plane and will see somebody secretly playing around with the mobile phone, I will interfer to make sure the phone is switched off :).

I tend to agree that the airlines wants the passenger's undivided attention at take off and landing in order to prevent confusion. It makes perfect sense what a previous blogger stated about the cell towers. If your cell phone is constantly searching for a signal while flying over hundreds of cell towers, I am sure AT&T and Verizon are paying for the expense of your cell phone's attempt to find a signal. It makes perfect sense that AT&T who is regulated by the FCC would approach the FAA to prevent any undue expense or possibly penalties and fines AT&T might be subjected to by the government regulators. Anytime something doesn't make sense, if you will find the money source, it will simplify the answer. Because you can think what you want, but in the world we live in, it is all about the money.

One thing that everyone seems to forget when they get all wrapped up in this debate: Remember the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania? When the guy on the plane that led the attack on the terrorists called his wife to tell her what was going on, didn't he use his cell phone? Think about it.

I think there's enough obvious evidence and examples here, that unless someone's having a conversation over an amped up portable HAM radio, there shouldn't be any interference.

So to address the topic of "paying attention" - there's basically 2 types of people on the plane...those who have flown before, and know the emergency procedures, and those who haven't. Those who haven't, are probably going to pay attention to the briefing one or 2 times, or until they know it. We all want to know what to do in an emergency. So as far as having the "attention of the passengers" - it's really not that important during the pre-flight. Granted, I 'pay attention' always as a courtesy, even though my mind is wandering.
As for any kind of in-flight emergencies....who's going to keep jamming to their ipod, or playing solitaire on their laptop, or finishing the movie they're watching when the freaking plane is shaking?! Or crashing?!?! Or if the O2 masks come down?!?! People may not be paying attention to the flight crew at that point, but I promise you, it's not because of the beatles, or transformers part 2.

I dont like being told what to do either...but we have hundreds of laws and they tell us what to do....dont speed dont drink and drive etc...what pisses me off is people that INSIST on talking on their damn phones after they were told to shut it off....SHUT THE DAMN THING OFF! If this frikken plane crashes and I am not killed I am going to kick your ass just on principle!

Most accidents happen during take off and landing. If you are plugged in, you can't hear the crew. Is it that big a deal to turn off your music for five minutes?

For those of you are using the "just follow the rules argument" - get over it. People KNOW the rules, they are simply wondering why and making the case that the rules no longer fit the reality of current technology. From what I can find on this topic, the regulations haven't been reviewed since 2000. TEN years ago. Really, my Nook in airplane mode sends no signal, receives no signal and searches for no signal. Having to turn it off for take off and landing is just habit on the part of the airlines. The technological advances in the last 10 years are phenomenal, the regulations & testing needed to be reviewed.

i have never flown a commercial airliner however i have been PIC (pilot in control) of small planes and helicopters and i make phone calls from the air...my bose headset connects to my iphone via bluetooth for calls and/or music. I have on more than one occasion switched from a call and clicked over to respond to a radio communication. i would like to think that if a small aircraft can handle this simple action with out a malfunction, that large commercial aircraft computer systems are at least a little more secure.

For those of you who say turn it off for five minutes, I fly several times each month and it's never just five minutes. Tonight I was on a two hour flight. We were told that we were beginning our descent and to shut off all electronic equipment 40 minutes before we touched down on the runway.

This means for more than half the time on the plane I couldn't use my kindle (including time sitting on the runway prior to takeoff). If I believed this was an important part of keeping the plane in the sky then I would be behind it 100%. But I don't believe it has anything to do with keeping the plane flying.

As a regularly paying customer I would like for their to be a different policy. And if there was an airline that had a more rational policy than I would find that a very attractive incentive to fly with them. I can't even believe I'm taking this time to comment on this but the truth is I have to fly a lot for work and it has a big impact on the experience. And like some of you I also am not a fan of rules that don't make sense.

I am a flight attendant and I get tired of telling people over and over again....to please comply and turn it off. It's what we are told to do as part of our duty. If an FAA official was on, or a company in-flight supervisor conducting a flight check, and we didn't tell you (if yours was on and we noticed).....well there would be a lot of paper work, time, and possibly a grand fine from the FAA...TO ME YOUR FLIGHT ATTENDANT! I love my job....don't wanna lose it, nor do I wanna sling 2 grand over to the FAA cause I didn't nag you, like I have everyone else. So what ever.....don't turn it off, hide it, nod.......cause I really don't care, you are gonna do what you are gonna do. BUT DON'T make a scene, or start up an argument to me about it....WRITE THE FAA if you want to change get it changed. Airlines fly under their regulation. If ya sling out profanity or get super crazy I personally won't deal, and I don't have to so I will notify the captain and a decision will be made to have you pulled off. AGAIN, this would require more paperwork......I became a flight attendant for a reason NO PAPERWORK! So let's just not go there and all get to where we want to go PEACEFULLY please :) and thank you!

When the airlines require parents to give Benadryl to their yowling kids, and stop them from kicking my seat 100,000 times from Boston to Baltimore, I'll turn off my cell phone. How can you pay attention with all that racket?

I dont understand why people cant just obey instructions and do their duty?

The Flight Attendants (FAs) are doing their job. Every traveler has paid money upfront so that the pilot does the duty properly, the Flight Attendants do their duty properly etc etc. When thats the case, why is is that some people get a little too egoistic and start venting on the FAs? FAs are doing whats stipulated as per their job requirements. If they do not follow those instructions, they are screwed. Same logic applies to the smart electrical engineers and non engineers who blame the Airline or the flight attendant for enforcing a rule made by FAA.

FAs have done (and still do) enough good work when the flight is going down. If anyone has a problem with the instructions given by the FAs, they should talk to someone who survived a plane crash, and ask them if they'd have preferred FAs with lesser safety training and more of Customer Service training.

We all are cheapskates. I buy the cheapest ticket possible, most often it being economy, unless I get upgrades or my work takes care of the tickets. no matter what, I keep my ego within limits and never act as if I am the king in that plane.

Anyone who wants more than what they get should probably fly chartered flights or skip flying altogether and stick to trains, buses and cars.

Or if anyone wants a solution, go fight the FAA with some hard stats based on proper research. Just blabbering about ur EE degrees wont stop FAA from mandating FAs to instruct such in instructions.

I am an Electrical Engineer (with a Masters Degree, if thats gonna help my bragging rights) and I myself find it almost impossible to accept the reasoning that these devices could mess with the EM sheilding in the plane. Also, I have flown more than any of the per year miles I have seen people claiming here on this discussion. But more than anything, I know what I am, I know what I pay, and I know how to not be a prick.

this excuse is total BS. if it were that easy to block communications we'd have a hell of a lot more troubles in air travel. Get real and give some substance, not this drool.

Cmac

BS!! Passengers may use the overpriced phone service provided. This service also must emit radio waves. Oh, that is different? If so, airlines could modify equipment to accept passenger's phones. Airlines are willing to do anything and say anything to gouge the consumer.

I don't believe the claim that it can harm the plane's electronics at all. If it really could and there was a danger that the plane could crash because of it do you really think they would leave it up to YOU to turn it off?

I understand. Nobody likes rules that don't make sense. But have you really thought about the fact that you already abide by rules everyday that are simply cosmectic (ex. dress up instead of wearing just boxer shorts/T-shirt to work)and have no security reason behind them. As Cindy pointed out, do what you want. Just dom't make an issue of it with the flight crew, because they are just doing their jobs. Like you, if they don't follow the rules mandated by their employer, then they will be fined (or out of a job).
If you are upset by the rules, then go about getting them changed. Do something proactive instead of griping at the people that have no control over them. They are too busy dealing with the drunks (people who dealt with theit flying phobias by drinking instaed of listening to their iPods or reading their kindles).
BTW, I love flying. I don't fly enough that I have lost the wonder of flying above the clouds. I do know the 'in case of emergency' almost by heart though. I bring a real paper book so it doesn't need to be turned off. (Yes, they still make them. Even sell them at the airport.) I have never been asked to stop reading for the announcement. I have seen people next to me with electronics on and didn't worry about it at all. What would make my flight misserable, would be to have someone that knows the rules to try to argue with the ONE person that has no say in changing those rules. Follow the rules or don't follow them. But don't try to make the person who's job requires them to enforce said rules change them just for you. After all, they are just doing their job.
Why not see what it would take to change the rules, then do it. I've heard that nothing is impossible if enough people put their combines minds to it.

The various rules and policies regarding Personal Electronic Devices use inflight is simply the result of "risk management" by the FAA.

Several properly operating, normal consumer personal electronic devices transmiting signals inflight such as cell phones will not cause interference problems.

This has been determined to be an acceptable risk.

It's been tested by the FAA and EASA and it happens on a large number of flights where people leave their cell phones, blue tooth and wifi on inadvertently every day.

It's a measured risk

What is an unaccepatable risk to the FAA, Boeing and Airbus etc is to allow "all transmitters" in all quantities in the cabin. Even though there are standards for the mfr of cell phones there's no assurance that everyone's phone (radio) will only operate within a specific frequency or power range.

If a specific model or type of device (transmitter) could be tested and controlled you would see the airlines lobby for and ultimately receive approval for use inflight. However administering such a program would be a nightmare.

Flight Attendents: If you see someone "accidentally" and "discretely" leave a cell phone or ipod on, it's safe and not worth "freaking out" about it. Pretend you didn't see it and move on. There's most likely 12 other ones left on too, the pilot has one on and so does flight attendant in the back. You won't get a violation for what you "don't know" and you'll be less likely to get an ulcer. Use common sense.

If someone is talking loud and is rude, go ahead and engage, he's probably pissing off his seatmate too!

Well, I haven't seen anyone comment on this. I am an amateur photographer, and I love taking shots from a window seat, and the best ones are during ascent and descent. I have always rather surreptiously shot from my seat, and either no one ever notices or they don't think its important enough to comment on. (And it hasn't caused any malfunctions or crashes.) I do agree with the person who said a big reason for these rules is lawyers. We are a super litigious society, and the stance of lawyers is to avoid all possible risk.

A more simple understanding of this conundrum. The FCC states under (Code of Federal Regulations) 47 CFR 22.925 "...all cellular telephones carried aboard the aircraft must be turned off before the aircraft leaves the ground...". Because of this, FAA FAR 91.21 directs the air crews to announce the turning off of portable electronics devices and their use limited to cruise altitudes. They have every right to ask you at any time to turn off everything electronic for the exception of few devices like pace makers and such. No explanation required. The cabin Safety Attendants and Air Crew are instructed to follow these rules. Now for those still wishing to use their cell phones in secret know this...when you receive a signal from the ground network you "light up" more than one cell $$$'s. The potential for a very large mobile phone bill is there. Let alone know that you are violating your "radio license contract" with your service provider. As for the phone systems on aircraft, they are not telephones they are radio systems which have undergone extensive testing and evaluation for safe use onboard the aircraft. Behave, be good to your aircrews they are there for your safety.

Maybe we are looking at the wrong things. I can totally accept the fact that I have to turn my phone off on an airplane, because who wants the run the risk of crashing? But with other devices which are only banned during take-off and landing, it might be because of the need for being able to get the attention of the passengers quickly if something goes wrong with the plane. It's regulations that an aircraft has to be able to evacuate ALL passengers and crew within 90 seconds. That can't be achieved when you've got some rebellious person who is blocking the exit for everyone because he is too busy listening to some music on his I-pod.

My opinion, if you don't want to follow the rules on an airplane... Don't bother to travel on one!

Cameras don't count...there are thousands of on board pictures and videos of takeoffs and landings.

I listen to my iPod (discreetly) during every take off and landing and none the planes I've been on have crashed.

I take the risk and turn on my cell phone recently, to find out what happen to my phone all I found was no signal at all and no GPS working while during the flight, but my music worked perfectly. I asked my self the same question why do we have to turn the cell phone off in any take off or landing. all is in that is not working, but I guess that the people on flight 93 on Sep11 they were flying too low and couldnt make phone calls, and I guess that the shield of the plane won't let your cell phone signal go through.

I travel a great deal and my only solace to deal with the stress and tedium of travel is listening to music. What I find interesting is that I have almost never been asked to remove my headphones when seated in first class. The rule about electronics is inconsistent and B. S. It's total overkill at the passenger's expense.

Also, the rule is completely unenforceable. How many cell phones are left on by accident, or just because the person doesn't want to be bothered? These phones are sending out a signal and when closer to the ground, receiving data, and yet no incidents of these devices causing problems? How many people are texting minutes before landing? Lots.

I think that they need to upgrade those airplanes, therefore people especially the children can have their electronic (hand-held videogames) to play with, and to keep them quiet.

I remember once before 2000, I went on the plane and I had my hand-held GameBoyColor with me and no one said a word to me about putting it away.


If I was to travel on a plane it would be only to go to either islands or a different country, besides that I'd rather drive across America and Canada and Alaska despite the price of gas going to and from

Ok, is it even possible to measure (with equipment present in an airplane) from let's say 5 meters whether an iPod is on or off? EDITORS' REPLY: Not sure whether that detectability bears on an iPod's ability to compromise an aircraft's functioning.

At the moment, the rule is that you must turn off and stow all portable electronic devices for take-off and landing. Period!

For your reference, with certain exceptions, Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 91, § 91.21, part 121, § 121.306, part 125 § 125.204, and part 135, § 135.144 prohibit the use of PEDs (Personal Electronic Devices) brought on board the aircraft by any person.

As a side note, the CFR’s also state that you must follow all crew member instructions. If you listen to the pre-flight safety briefing given by the flight attendant before each flight, you will be informed of this regulation too. So regardless of your view on the use of electronic equipment for this short 20 minutes of your flight (10 up and 10 down), if you do not follow crew member instructions you can add another CFR violation to the list.

As a commercial pilot and a frequent flier traveling over 150k miles a year as a passenger, I am appalled that some of you feel so above the law that you are willing to risk you life and deny me the right to the safest aircraft configuration possible for the most dangerous phases of aircraft operation, take-off and landing.

There are a lot of valid points made on both sides of this argument. I have dealt with the FAA for over 35 years and can say from experience, that if there is regulation in place, it was instituted for the safety of passengers and crew. So until the regulation changes turn off your PED’s when instructed to do so.

Ultimately, you will decide to abide by the regulations or not, but remember there are consequences for not following the rules. It could be a simple as a reprimand from the flight attendant or as catastrophic as killing yourself and everyone else onboard.

I don't think its a signal problem, more of an attention problem. Takeoff or landing is the more critical phase of a flight. Critical meaning something can happen needing quick response. Having a problem at takeoff or landing, where people have to get out quick, would be harder if people had laptops in their laps or attentions turned to other things. I used to be against the electronic device policy until I thought about it from this angle. I still could be wrong...

Firstly, thanks to Joe for raising this issue, and it's very interesting to see the responses. For what it's worth - I think regardless, of whether electronic devices cause any interference, during take-off an landing it pays to be very very aware of what is going on in the unlikely event that some kind of issue arises. Evacuating an aircraft when these situation do occur has to be very, very fast for everyone to get out. Flight attendants have a hard enough job getting everyone to leave the personal belongings and take off heels etc before they go down the slide.So I think at the very minimum, as a courtesy to your fellow passengers and the crews chances of getting out of a 'situation' unharmed, everyone should switch off personal entertainment devices without question and pay close attention to the safety procedures - regardless of how many times they have heard the briefings. That includes frequent travellers not talking in any way that would prevent fellow passengers who arent familiar with that particular aircraft, or for whom English may not be their first language, having a good chance of knowing where to go and what to do. It's not just a courtesy though. In an emergency , very few (untrained) people will think rationally when confronted with the order to evacuate - particularly when confonted with unexpected changes in surrounding (flames, injured people, no light, smoke, broken seats etc etc), and the reason for drumming this into everyone is to give EVERYONE the maximum chance of survival. That includes the flight attendants who have to make sure everyone is off the aircraft, including those who were too busy entertaining themselves when the safety briefing was made to know what to do.
So please people, have a little respect for others, and yourselves.....you could help save someones life one day, not just your own...

With or without proven and predictable effects to safety and operation of aircraft and aircraft component, the bottom line to this in the safety standpoint. Every argument here is valid and important to consider. But it should not be forgotten that safety always has human factor as its weakest link, people will forget and will intentionally ignore. I think that engineering, designing and testing components in the aircraft to be reliable to be protected from any electrical interference should be the goal. Regulations for passengers can never guarantee the success of safety procedures even with the strictest rules. In fact this is just a point for bad people to exploit. If aircrafts are vulnerable to malfunctions because of interference, some people might now be finding ways to intentionally exploit or attack this vulnerability. It is not the wisest act to tell people not to do what they love to do. It is rather best to keep testing the integrity of our aircrafts and ensuring that none of them are ever going to be affected by any of these devices. I bet that more than 50% of the flights have PED's or PCD's on the whole time during flights nowadays when 100% of the passengers own at least one or two of these things.

Anyone who says electrical devices decidedly cause interference on airplanes is a delusional SOB. It has never happened despite copious testing in any controlled environment including at Boeing, where the openly admitted they were trying to get the tests to prove they would. If any engineer posting herein or anywhere uses this kind of logic at work... well, then I am surprised they are employed. Of course, Mr Strauss at Carnegie Mellon is a notable exception, although it is common knowledge he is paid by the FAA to say as much (moreover, some of his arguments are insanely irresponsible). When you have one paid expert on your 'side,' I think you need to reevaluate your logic.

And this is regarding turning off cell phones; ebooks and iPods are right out! This is one of the most absurbist, anti-science, points of view that make me wonder about the solvency of the USA... flat earth, Creationism and all. And the people who say "Just follow the rules!" miss the point entirely, and frankly, are just those busybody annoying types.

I am an air traffic controller. Yes, it does effect communications between ATC and the pilot. We hear it quite often. So, here's a question for you: Do you want to put your life in jeapordy just because someone doesn't want to turn off their cell phone for a few minutes?

People, this is quite simple. It is against the law to go against the directions of the crew. I'm a pilot, I've heard the annoying "tick tick tick tick tick" of a cell phone trying to talk to the tower over the comm system MANY times.

RE: Shielded Cables
The shielding is very very good... It also breaks, wears down, and can be improperly connected at the terminator. This renders it quite useless.

RE: Emergency Instructions
Yes we want you to pay attention to the instructions! Does this really need explaining?

RE: Legal Issues
YES IT IS ILLEGAL to operate an electronic device in flight. Reference 14 CFR 91.21 Portable Electronic Devices.

RE: Impossible to Interfere
We can't prove it will, you can't prove it won't. So, in the mean time we've decided that we'd really rather not have a plane crash because 14C can't wait 10 minutes for his tunes. We'll continue playing it safe, thanks.

JUST TURN THEM OFF

Let's just say that I don't want to be on the first plane to go down as a result of ipods or phones. People seem to think that the airlines are out to get them, but if they tell us to do something there is a reason for it. Is it so hard to turn these dam things of for 10 minutes. I have a laptop, iphone, and psp yet i still am able to let go for 10 minutes.

No consumer device can interfere with commercial avionics or communication equipment. Many flight attendants intuitively know this, yet must obey the rules and enforce the policy to protect their job -- just like a bartender at TGI Friday's being forced to card Grandma. So it's not their fault. But there is a real safety reason to stow all loose objects during takeoff and landing.

I consulted a senior-level pilot who has 18,000+ flight hours, most of them as PIC in 747's for Evergreen. He said regardless of what FAA/FAR say in their rule books, the real reason behind asking passengers to turn off and stow electronic devices is to reduce the number of projectiles in the cabin. In the event of a crash, small objects flying through the air at 200+ MPH would be potentially deadly.

To the average passenger who knows not much about physics, the radio interference story is believable and most likely to elicit the desired behavior without causing undue anxiety -- stowing small objects.

First,
I agree with one of the above posters: If the FAA thought it were a true danger, they wouldn't allow our cell phones through the security checkpoint. Simple.

Second,
And according to the "big" story this week, over a 7 year period, they had 75 incidents that may or may NOT have been linked to electronic interference originating from inside the plane. By my math, in the same period, there were over 70 million flights.

Hmmm... let's see... one in a MILLION (literally) that something explained serious enough to report happened. No crash. Nothing even close. Just enough to file a report. No evidence that it was caused by anyone in the plane.

Compare that with the other unnecessary things you "risk your life" doing every day (go ahead... look them up... I'll wait)

You airline folks keep doing what you do and nagging us to death with talk of ridiculously over-inflated fears (unless putting up with "tick tick tick tick" is more than an annoyance). Some of the rest of us will just do what we have been doing all these years and pretend to listen.

P.S. I would wager you pilots and attendants have at some time (maybe each day) broken the speed limit, increasing your chance of death by car accident to 3600:1 / year, despite it being AGAINST THE LAW.

Everybody here has a point, but people who have the IPhone or IPod 4G, can't they just put it on airplane mode? I mean, problem solved, no arguements. All I've heard is that they have to be off at takeoff and landing.

I think its a lie because when i flew across the atlantic, a guy was recording the amazing scene from the window. The flight attendant didn't bother to ask the person to stop. How can someone record and I can't. By the way, it was obvious that he was recording and he had the huge camcorder(digital).

Let’s face it, no one is going to win this argument, so let’s deal with the facts.

There appear to be a few valid arguments on both sides. The two most compelling are that the flight attendants need the ability to quickly get everyone’s attention during the two most critical phases of flight,takeoff and landing AND that no tests conducted to date have proved or disproved that PEDs can or will interfere with the aircraft electronic equipment.

At this time, the regulations are on the side of the airlines and the regulations REQUIRE that any PED with an Off feature must be turned off for the takeoff and landing phases of flight.

With regard to PEDs, the flight attendants responsibility is to communicate to the passengers the requirement to turn off the PED. It is YOUR choice to knowingly violate the regulations and crew member instructions, but keep in mind, there can be serious consequences for the path you choose.

The best path for those who feel the current regulations are “Stupid” or “Ridiculous” to quote a couple of you, is to write your representatives in congress and ask for the regulations to be reviewed and changed. This will certainly be more effective in achieving your goal than arguing with the flight attendant or calling them names in forums like this.

The path I will take is to obey the regulations, because I am a law abiding member of our society, as I hope we all will be.

Oh, my qualifications? I’m a commercial pilot.
Hope to see you on a flight I'm on soon.

By the way, the Captain has ultimate authority during the flight.

I just started traveling for work, so I am flying at least 10 times a month. I think everyone has valid arguements, but really people, can we not turn our phones and iPods off for 15 minutes? Remember, there was a time when none of this technology existed, and it was not that long ago. So for everyone on board the plane, just turn it off!

There are also different regulations for different countries. You have to remember that the FAA does not govern the whole world. China has regulations, Europe has regulations and even Canada has different regulations and it is right beside the good ol USA.

Flying corporately we use our cell phones all the time when we are descending and within range of cell towers. Even our pilots use their phones to order taxis or whatever ground support we need at whatever airport we are landing at. As well, our pilots are now using tablets for their maps and approach charts. The paper is there for a backup, but they won't do without the electronic charts. (And no, these are regular consumer grade tablets, not some officially approved avionics device).

Flying commercial, I do notice that there is a difference in rules being enforced between economy and first or business class. On my last 10 flights in first, people were texting and using their ipods right up to the point of turning onto the active runway. Nothing was said by the flight attendants. On my flight home yesterday, a deadheading pilot was sitting across the aisle from me. He was texting on his blackberry right up to when he lost his signal and that was about 15K feet.

I agree that perhaps the likelihood of interference is not practically able to happen. However, I am willing to follow the regulations and turn off my electronic devices. In my mind, it's 10 minutes of time, and it's always better to be safe than sorry.

I fly fairly frequently, but will ALWAYS watch the safety demo (you never know what's changed) and always switched off my mobile etc. However, I recently purchased a Kindle and had not realised (until I was ask too) that I had to switch it off during take off and landing. The wireless was switched off, there are no earphones, I was literally just reading. Of course I switched it off. And sat slightly bored while my friend carried on reading her book. These regs really need to be looked at!

Questions:
1. Are earbuds or other aids for hearing protection ILLEGAL to use during takeoff and landing?
2. If so, is there a law in any country which support this claim by an FA?
3. Is there any known airline policy which supports this claim, and if so what's its name / identification?

I was flying with Air Berlin from ... Berlin last week and an FA woke me up before takeoff, asking me to turn off my iPod. I did so, showed her the device was off, but she still stood there repeating that I had to turn it off and me responding "it's off, see!" 4 times, until finally she made a gesture which I took to mean "remove the ear buds" followed by a statement "it's the LAW". Naturally I took off the buds as well, as soon as her universal sign language communicated what she really meant, and then she was content and moved on.

So it seems to have been buds which annoyed her, not the ipod.. or it might have been both.
Naturally I'm now wondering if there is some kind new regulation or policy I can read up on and talk to the airline about, since if there is such a law prohibiting hearing protective gear, the implications are for me profound.

I wear ear buds (used to be plugs, but in-ear buds are just as effecive at dampening noise and dangerous volume levels) because the PA volume is way too loud and has already damaged my hearing three years ago (discovered by an audiologist) and I don't want to succumb to additional bodily harm caused by the airline PA systems.

Granted, it's most probable that PEDs will not affect aircraft electronics in the least bit and the rule is superfluous, but why is everyone picking on the flight attendants? The have the unfortunate duty to enforce rules and regulations. If they don't that can mean their job since after all, that is what they're hired for and required by law to do. This is just like it's not the customer service rep's fault when a bank decides to increase your annual fee and it's not the sales person's fault that the stitching on your brand new jacket came apart one day after the return policy says you can't return it. There's no point in fighting with them during because they can't change the rules. As other people pointed out, save your aggression and write your congress members, FAA and FCC admins, and/or the airline executives.

As for the people saying they should just ask nicely. How many times are they supposed to ask. Most people get on the plane knowing they're supposed to be off. The safety instructions which you're responsible for reading say you're supposed to turn them off. An announcement is made that you're supposed to turn them off. Now and days, the "no smoking" lights are even replaced by "no PED" lights. Is the flight attendant supposed to ask each of a couple hundred passengers individually to please turn off the device they had already been asked to turn off several times? Again, it's not their idea. They are doing what they have to to be able to keep their jobs so that they can buy food and pay their bills just like everyone else. Direct your anger at the proper channels.

It is the same reason you have to put your seat backs forward for takeoff & landing,which is just to make sure the people behind you have room to get out expeditiously in the case of an emergency evacuation.

It is the only way to make sure FAA emergency evacuation time requirements that the aircraft had to meet for airworthiness safety certification can be met if things go bad. It is only for your safety to increase your chance of survival if bad things happen during these critical phases of flight.

So please fasten your seat belts so you don't get thrown into and hurt other passengers or crew, relax, & we'll do our job to get you there safely.

I find it hard to comply with when it comes to my iPod touch. I willingly turn off my cell phone because I can understand that reasoning. But my iTouch I find difficult because it has an airplane mode, and I would like to (and have in the past) take videos of taking off/landing so my folks at home can "experience" it. I did this successfully the last few flights but I do feel bad because it is the rules to not use it. No one seemed to notice.

I however would not use it to listen to music while taking off or landing. No way. And even if I was, I wouldn't have it so loud I couldn't hear instructions. That is just plain rude to the crew and passengers. I don't know, I just struggle with this one a lot. I am a moral person so doing that goes against my moral justice...but yet I wish for my family to be able to experience what I'm going through, to be able to see what I saw, that kind of thing.

What about cameras that take video as opposed to an iTouch/phone that can take video? I don't have an iPhone, just an iTouch with phone capabilities. But I may be able to hook up with a camera that can take video if that would be considered ok.

I don't want to endanger any of my fellow passengers or myself and definitely not the flight crew but I don't see how my iTouch with no cell capabilities would interfere.

I feel if that's the rules then abide by them why be so selfish and think you are so superior.How long is it before you get to listen to your Ipod or Kindle or any electronic device they all on aircraft.You have to what wait 5-10 minutes before you can listen to music? What song did you miss? Geesh some people should not have children you can't abey A A A A rule that's very selfish.

For some people, this may be a small issue. For me, though, it is a big deal. It isn't just that I'm terrified to fly and find the music keeps away the panic attack (which is true). I also have severe vertigo that makes flying torture. Music is the only thing that makes it slightly bearable. Those first few minutes of the flight where I can't put on my IPOD are absolutely horrible. I wish there was at least some exception that could be made for people like me with legitimate health reasons for wanting the music.

I refuse to accept that my iPod should be switched off. Today I suffered two flights with what can only be described as a horrific level of noise being created by (up to) 7 screaming babies. Firstly, they shouldn't have been allowed on the flight at that age. Secondly, if an adult made that level of noise they would be removed from the plane (if still on the ground) or banned from future flights. Thirdly, having a condition called misophonia (a condition that is also very common among anyone with any level of Aspergers or Autism, and that's a high percentage of the population) the threat to passenger safety from me having to sit and endure 40 minutes (20 on take off and 20 on landing) of those children screaming is far higher than the threat to their safety from me having my iPod on.

If the genuine reason is so that we can hear any announcements they make for our safety then I couldn't hear those anyway because of the babies' crying, and deaf people aren't prohibited from flying (I know because I used to be deaf and I still flew!)

It is BS, and it is utterly despicable to force people to sit through levels of noise that can exceed 100dB (a baby's scream can go over this level) in a tiny metal cabin that amplifies the sound. If we lived in a world where parents were any cop it wouldn't be an issue, but we live in a world where parents are selfish idiots who put their desire to go abroad over the human rights of more than 100 other passengers to not be subjected to hearing-damaging levels of noise.

If we aren't allowed iPods on then airlines have to ban children under the age of 4 (save for exceptional circumstances where the parents provide some form of evidence that the child needs to be on that flight). Also, a one child per adult rule is seriously needed!

I too, am of the opinion that having me turn off my dvd player is totally unnecessary but, what the heck, its only a few minutes till we reach the altitude where I can turn it back on. No big deal, really but I do find the flight attendants on SOME AIRLINES to be arrogant and full of themselves. My favorite airline to fly is JETBLUE, but today I had to take AirTran from Atlanta, and what a difference in customer service. I'll keep on flying JETBLUE whenever I possibly can.

Many of the phones now a days comes with Flight mode. What is the use of that if they don't allow us to use it even in that mode?

Those brave flyboys of yesteryear did not need ipods or cellphones. And they did what they were told.
How painful it must be to be so privileged: to fly regularly and to own PEDs.
Set a good example. Do what the FAA tells you. And do not annoy your fellow passengers.

So if I turned all of my connections off will this still create the same effect ? If I just want to listen to music on my blackberry, is this still a problem? And how does it affect the aircraft ? Would we crash ? Can you use electrical devices when the seat belt symbol disapers ?

I have always just accepted that electronic devices need to be switched off during take off for safety reasons. Although recently I was fortunately enough to fly on a private jet a couple of times and asked if I needed to switch my phone etc off and was told by the pilot it was fine dont worry. I turned to my colleague who had been on a few more private jets than I said that whenever he asked he was always told it was not a problem.
Now that could be because there are less mobiles than a commercial flight electronics etc. Or could it be as I have suspected for some time it is because of a conspiracy of hitler type flight attendants exercising control because they can!! Next time you are asked to put your Kindle away on the flight home check out the smug look on the stewardesses face.

I have to say that if I were an eBook reader manufacturer i would make my device without an on/off switch. Almost everytime now the FA's say anything with an on/off switch needs to be switched off. I think if the manufacturers did this it would actually make the airlines/FAA think about whether their regs actually fit the tecvhnology environment we know live in. I remember being on on AA flight just after they installed the GOGO Inflight internet service and they obvioulsy hadnt blocked Skype because the guy next to me did a call on it to someone on the ground. Cue debate between passenger, FA who said he could use his phone(laptop..) and ultimately pilot who came along and said quite good humouredly that whilst it wasnt banned yet it would be from now on....Sure enough next time i flew all those type of sites were banned.
My view is this was about the unknown effects now its about making sure people are paying attention but it is particularly with respect to ebooks inconsistent and its just that the autorities are behind the times as usual....

if you turn on airplane mode, would it still emit radio waves?

What about the Ipads some pilots use as EFB?

Airbus is making even their own EFB App for All aircraft up to the A340-600.

Honestly if pilots are allowed to f*** around with an Ipad for their work, why shouldn’t I?

Also some use the WIFI + 3G models, and the FAA allows this to be switched on so pilots can get the latest SATNAV, Winds aloft and WX information as well.

Niko

I was an executive private flight attendant for many years and i trained at flight safety in atlanta every six months. Never was the use of a laptop, cell phone or e- book an issue in safety, and we flew world leaders and the rich and famous. So many flight attendants just want or need to feel validated in their job and make sure that you know that they aren't just waiters. It's a power thing and they aren't very nice about it.

What if our iPods have airplane mode in the settings--can we use it then?