Rules versus news?

[Mark in CA]

I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that this passenger was disobeying the cabin crew. But it does raise questions about censorship and the value of photographic documentation during an in-flight incident. We've seen cabin video taken by passengers during all kinds of situations, but this time the FAA took a dim view of it, for some reason, and made some pretty ridiculous assertions about the use of the iPad during this incident.

FAA Scolds Passenger For Using iPad To Shoot Video Of Bird Strike - The Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2012/05/faa-scolds-passenger-for-using-ipad-to-shoot-video-during-takeoff.html)

[Tableview]

No doubt he was disobeying the instructions of CC. Fair enough, but this does seem extreme.

I have recently photographed bus drivers breaking the law and endangering other road users by using cellphones whilst driving. In one case the driver was using one hand for the phone and the other to shield his eyes against the setting sun whilst driving on a busy motorway and holding the steering wheel with his knees. My written complaint was dimissed, as I expected, with : "He denies it." I therefore sent in clear and detailed photographs proving that he was both a lawbreaker and a liar. The response to this and some subsequent incidents was that it was illegal to take photographs on a bus and was an intrusion into his 'private life'.

I have continued to take the same action and am waiting to be prosecuted or thrown off a bus, although I have to say I rarely use them.

[TightSlot]

This is the video HERE

The rules on electronic device usage are FAA rules. He was disobeying the CC instructions as well as the FAA rules.

Having done so, he decided to publicise his failure to comply on one of the busiest web sites in existence.

Mr. Cardone apparently decided before take-off that the rules did not apply to him. He now understands that they do. This has, in my view, nothing to do with censorship or anything so grand or significant: This is a temper tantrum from a toddler who can't always do what he wants.

It sometimes feels like every time somebody is caught breaking the rules, whether it be speeding, parking. large or heavy baggage - whatever... the excuse offered is the same: "The rules are for everybody else, but my circumstances are different because...". We live in a world where everybody is "special".

My life is hemmed in with rules and regulations some of which I regard as being petty, pointless or just plain nuts. Usually, I comply if only for a quiet life and sometimes I don't and sometimes I get caught not complying. When that happens, I can blame nobody but myself. I rolled the dice and lost.

Simples!

[radeng]

Does that make an illegal act photographed in breach of the rules not subject to any disciplinary action?

I suspect that in the event of some incident leading to a civil action for damages, it would be considered admissable, even if not in a criminal case.

[Mark in CA]

Tableview -- your mistake appears to be to have thought the system would work. Well, it did, but not in the way you expected. Perhaps next time you would be better to submit said video directly to the news editor at one of the major TV news outlets.

As for the illegality of photographing these things, I can't speak for where you are, but in the U.S., this is what typically happens: ACLU Calls on Maryland Transit Authority to Cease Unconstitutional Harassment of Photographers | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-calls-maryland-transit-authority-cease-unconstitutional-harassment-photographers)

Here's another interesting source. Probably others like it around. Photography on Transit Systems (http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/photopermits.html)

Usually, the "privacy" plea is related to the individual's "expectation of privacy" in a particular situation or environment. I doubt the driver of a public transport bus should have any expectation of privacy.

[RevMan2]

FAA ( and virtually every other aviation authority) prohibits the use of electronic devices during takeoff and landing.
Doesn't this rule out ANYTHING except analogue (roll film) cameras?
At a rough guess, my Nikon D7000 has more processing grunt that my (or this guy's) iPad

[edi_local]

I hate the argument of "Oh, my phone won't bring down a plane" or "They don't interfere" or "Not like anyone can stop me using my phone in the plane anyway" or "I'll just pretend to turn it off and then bring it out when the CC aren't looking".

Obviously, replace phone for any modern day electrical annoyance/item.

Yes, your phone may not cause the Pilot to lose all control and go nose first into the local park, but why can't people just follow simple instructions which are there for their own safety. What if the plane suddenly jerks violently sideways or up/downwards. That phone/iPad/Laptop that you're too busy playing angry birds on, that same one you paid more attention to than the CC who were telling you how to get off the plane in an emergency evac, will more than likely come flying out of your hand and hit the person next/behind/infront. It's the same thing that will divert your attention if an incident happens, that same thing that will block others path out of the aircraft should the unthinkable happen. Now who's fault is that? The gormless tweeter will say "Oh, I didn't know the plane would jerk, not my fault" but common sense and the law states that they shouldn't have had the damn thing out in the first place.

I rather think it's time that people who don't follow the rules on board and aircraft are made an example out of and I, for one, agree with the FAA on this one. This man, who can't be bothered to follow simple instructions from trained aircrew should not have an easy time getting on aircraft if he holds the rules of aviation in such low light. Sure, the loudmouth who tries to claim it's his human rights to play solitaire on approach to LHR will kick up a fuss and get support from bloggers and other associated hangers on, but it's time that some proper authority was given back to those in charge of aircraft over those who think the rules don't apply to them.

For the sensible people who turn off their phones and pay attention to Flight Crew instructions please accept my rantings. :ok:

[ExXB]

Edi local

I agree that instructions from the flight crew must be followed. That doesn't mean that the underlying reasons behind the instructions make sense.

My iPad weighs 600g, the Steve Jobs biography weighs almost a Kilo. (953g) I can read the book, but I can't use the iPad. I am no more, or less, distracted by my iPad than by a book or magazine. Also I pay attention during safety briefings unlike most people who are reading something.

In airplane mode my iPad is not broadcasting on wifi/bluetooth/GSM frequencies. But since it is an electronic device it probably is generating some faint radio signals. Just like the iPads in the cockpit, or being used by the cabin crew, or like my pacemaker (if I had one), or my phone that I put into airplane mode before I put it into my pocket and forgot to turn off. Or my expensive camera in my carryon bag, etc. etc. etc.

Your arguments are simply not valid, except you are correct we should follow instructions of the flight crew.

I understand that the FAA is looking at these rules, under pressure from the US media (horray!) but until they change their minds (when, not if) we must follow these instructions. But don't expect me to like it.

[easyflyer83]

I can't believe the US media is making a fuss about it. Of all the pressing issues in the world and they decide to take on a rule that deprives people of their electronics for a very small period of time. Only in a America is my response..... A country I by and large love to spend time in I should add!

People just don't like being told what to do. That is a big part of it..... And the plane spotters/enthusiasts are the worst because they think they know it all and that they know more than the crew.

I am pretty confident that many devices don't pose a problem but some will. So rather than having a big debate before take off about whether ones device is ok, is exempt, could definitely cause a problem etc etc then let's just keep the simple all electronics switched off for take off and landing rule.

Most passengers, to their credit, do as we ask but alot also do as you ask after a comment, rolling of the eyes or an huff and a puff. My response on pprune to those pax would be.... Grow up.

[RevMan2]

Again...
Can someone (TightSlot?) define "electronic device" (as in "Please turn off all electronic devices now") for us.
Anything with a battery?
Anything capable of generating a signal?

Would there be this (in the case of the iPad, justified) hoohaa if the birdstrike had been documented by a point-and-shoot digital camera with video capability?

[ExXB]

Actually people don't mind being told what to do, provided what they are being told actually makes sense.

I follow the rules but that's just me. I flew squeezy last weekend to Bristol and from Gatwick and the cabin crew, doing their job, instructed that all electronic devices be turned off and stowed. But no comment was made as people sat there and read their newspapers and books during the safety demo. On the flight from Geneva, while the french language tape safety demo was playing (softly) the cabin crew was walking through the cabin talking to passengers. They were not demonstrating things that the tape was telling them the cabin crew were demonstrating. At least on the flight from Gatwick (HB registered) we got a professional demonstration in two languages, with an offer to provide instructions in German or Italian (in those languages) if anyone wished.

As I mentioned, I powered down my iPad when instructed to. Did I need to? I don't think so, but I did.

[Tableview]

Can someone (TightSlot?) define "electronic device" (as in "Please turn off all electronic devices now") for us.

I think it's pretty clear when you bear in mind that it's not just about the potential for interference to the aircraft's systems (very limited) but more about the need to concentrate on, or at least be aware of, what is going on. This means not listening to music through headphones, playing idiotic computer games (or sensible ones if there are any!), reading from Kindles, etc. Out of courtesy, I stop reading, even if I'm not really concentrating on the announcements.

[easyflyer83]

Can someone (TightSlot?) define "electronic device" (as in "Please turn off all electronic devices now") for us.


Anything with an off/on button or switch is a very good guideline.

But no comment was made as people sat there and read their newspapers and books during the safety demo.

I agree but they aren't an electronic device, which is what we are debating. Plus just because they are reading a book during demo doesn't automatically mean that you should be allowed to use your electronic device on take off.

People reading during the demo annoys me too but for crew to start demanding that newspapers and books are put away for the demo could be argued as being a step too far. Being told to be quiet during the demo is a completely different matter and the crew I fly with generally have no issue with telling pax to be quiet.

On the flight from Geneva, while the french language tape safety demo was playing (softly) the cabin crew was walking through the cabin talking to passengers. They were not demonstrating things that the tape was telling them the cabin crew were demonstrating. At least on the flight from Gatwick (HB registered) we got a professional demonstration in two languages, with an offer to provide instructions in German or Italian (in those languages) if anyone wished.


Crew should not be talking during the foreign demo and they are aware of this through recent memo's. Occasionally when it comes to pax there are times where you need to speak to them briefly regarding something....usually of importance.
The actual foreign PA at EZY is not demonstrated at the same time. If you could understand the French that was being played you would realise that the wording is in the context of the actual demonstration coming afterwards. With so many languages, particularly from LGW, you can't expect the crew to be able to give a fully coherent demonstration if they don't know what they are listening to. Video's would be a great way to overcome this but it isn't going to happen.

Actually people don't mind being told what to do, provided what they are being told actually makes sense.


I don't agree. A good example recently was me asking a pax to take off his headphones for landing. Particularly as he was sat at the exit it was imperative that he could hear any emergency commands. Instead he rolled his eyes. I don't for one minute expect him to know that but I don't mind being asked and most crew will be honest with their answers.

As I mentioned, I powered down my iPad when instructed to. Did I need to? I don't think so, but I did.

1) You did need to because it is regulation.
2) You could well be correct that the ipad causes no issues but you aren't qualified to make a cast iron assertion to that effect.

As i mentioned before...alot of it is to make the rule simple. All electronic devices.......it is crystal clear. No ambiguity. I'm pretty confident that many devices don't cause interference but I know that some can...even if only in theory. Now think about all the new gadgets and devices that come on the market. Do we really want debates and arguments during cabin secure as to whether the device is safe or not for use?

It's a simple rule that doesn't hurt anyone.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

A little while ago a Virgin a330 returned from airborne in LGW with a cargo smoke indication in the rear hold. On return a full evac was initiated, without a hitch I might add. A superb demonstration of a well trained crew performing their most important role on the aircraft in a timely well trained manner.
The pax on board had a heads up. They received a PA from the flight deck, and no doubt the cabin crew prepared the cabin for a possible evac on the runway. This took several minutes and passengers naturally would have co-operated and prepared, albeit whilst rather nervous of what was unfolding.

Now a different scenario. You are on board my 737 with 3 cabin crew and a reasonable load of some 100 pax. some muttering and rolling of eyes have occurred whilst the cabin crew have ensured that the legal mandate of the CAA has been complied with ( electric devices off). One of the cabin crew has made a sarcastic comment to one of the suited middle aged business men who huffed and puffed about being deprived of their iPad for 10 minutes, remarking that the two 11 year old children only 2 rows ahead, behaved and responded impeccably when politely asked to switch of their Nintendo DS devices. Business man tries to look at name badge, feeling disgruntled and determined to write in and complain as he is a blue frequent flyer member and thus too important to be spoken to in that manner.
3 chimes sound as the aircraft enters the runway. Being a frequent flyer, he knows the crew are in their seats and unable to see him slip his ear phones back in, and continue to watch the family guy episode he missed last week. He feel she thrust push him back into his seat, but as soon as the sensation begins, He feels it ease off. Not to worry he thinks, they were obviously just lining p in a hurry. All of a sudden there are people getting out of their seats and yelling at him to open that overwinter exit he is sat next to ( he always selects this seat when open during OLCI ) he is baffled and startled by these deranged idiots trying to climb over him. He looks around and glimpses out of the corner of his eye people climbing over their seats trying to get at him! What the F is going on? All he can hear is Stewy Griffin in his ears. Next he starts to smell smoke, then sees it coming out of the vents in the ceiling.
By now he is being trodden on, like some peace of meat being run over in the road.........what this expert flyer did not hear was the faint evac command given by the captain over a quieter than normal PA system, due to a loss of all but one DC bus, that is struggling to cope, opts shut down drill.

Whether or not an instruction makes sense is down to personal perception, knowledge and values. It will not alter the course of your life by switching off the iPad or kindle,but it sure enhances your chances of not being distracted when that all important instruction comes. Cabin crew conduct a t review when on the runway, it helps avoid panic due to adrenalin, and focussed attention on what to do should the worse occur. And if it doesn't? Well what harm did it do to prepare? None!

Opinions are like arse holes.......everyones got one ExXB.

The above happened to a colleague of mine some years ago now. It was a new fandangled iPod that caused the distraction. When the idiot concerned took the airline to court over his injuries, he lacked a leg to stand on ( no pun intended) when he admitted what he was up to. Sadly For him the airline had picked up some witnesses as to who this man was that delayed the evacuation, and what he was up to at the time.

At the end of the day it is a very simple request. A child can obey, why act like a baby?

[edi_local]

Edi local

I agree that instructions from the flight crew must be followed. That doesn't mean that the underlying reasons behind the instructions make sense.

My iPad weighs 600g, the Steve Jobs biography weighs almost a Kilo. (953g) I can read the book, but I can't use the iPad. I am no more, or less, distracted by my iPad than by a book or magazine. Also I pay attention during safety briefings unlike most people who are reading something.

In airplane mode my iPad is not broadcasting on wifi/bluetooth/GSM frequencies. But since it is an electronic device it probably is generating some faint radio signals. Just like the iPads in the cockpit, or being used by the cabin crew, or like my pacemaker (if I had one), or my phone that I put into airplane mode before I put it into my pocket and forgot to turn off. Or my expensive camera in my carryon bag, etc. etc. etc.

Your arguments are simply not valid, except you are correct we should follow instructions of the flight crew.

I understand that the FAA is looking at these rules, under pressure from the US media (horray!) but until they change their minds (when, not if) we must follow these instructions. But don't expect me to like it.

Your book doesn't have a fairly big glass screen, nor is it filled with pieces of sharp circuit board and wires, as well as various screws and other flying pieces of gadgetry, one of which is a (potentially very) warm battery which could split open or short circuit and start a fire.

It doesn't matter if the instructions don't make sense to you, me or that frequent flyer in 1A. The fact is they are there for a reason and that reason is so you're paying attention and know what is going on and can act in an instant should you need to. A bunch of FAA work experience boys didn't just sit around and say "Let's make them turn off their laptops and give them a semi-plausible reason, that'll annoy them". I honestly hope the FAA give two fingers to the US Media and any other people who want them to change due to public demand. The people who make the rules are the experts, not the people who can't go 10 minutes without hearing their favourite song or playing on some app.

I'm glad you do pay attention to the safety briefing, I do every single time, even if I'm taking a trip in an identical aircraft on the same airline twice in a row. Most, sadly do not, they are far too important for that kind of thing. They obviously know exactly what to do in an emergency and the Cabin Crew are just there to break the silence on the pushback. They are the exact same people who are going to get in my way when I'm crawling around, looking for the exit. They are the ones who will be sat taking pictures of the whole thing on their iPhone and they are the ones who will moan on the news that their human rights were breached when the CC gave them a gentle push to get them the hell out of the smoke filled cabin.

[radeng]

If the CC are going to take the time to go through the safety briefing, it is only polite to pay attention.

A matter I've brought up a couple of times with CC on BA is that in the A319 and 320, the automated briefing tells you to vacate using overwing exits in the case of a water landing. "Other exits may be opened if above the waterline...." However, when a manual briefing is done, this is not mentioned.

The response, give them credit, is that it is a valid point that they will raise with their supervisors.

[Hotel Tango]

What irritates me the most is that I have seen positioning crews flout the rules in one way or another. Then they come on these forums and preach to us pax.

And the plane spotters/enthusiasts are the worst because they think they know it all and that they know more than the crew.

Actually, from my experience, I think that in many cases they probably do :)

For many CC crews it's purely a job and they actually know near to nothing about aviation. They simply enforce - parrot fashion - what was taught them in their training course. For obvious reasons these training courses are, with the exception of some of the more major carriers, somewhat simplified just to meet the regulatory requirements. Many new CC then come to the job honestly believing that THEY know it all. Their lack of real knowledge and their patronising attitudes to hide this fact can easily encourage regular pax to rebel.

[easyflyer83]

What irritates me the most is that I have seen positioning crews flout the rules in one way or another. Then they come on these forums and preach to us pax.


No excuse for positioning crew talking through the demo. Most crew I know will make a point of paying attention... I certainly do, even when in uniform.

For many CC crews it's purely a job and they actually know near to nothing about aviation. They simply enforce - parrot fashion - what was taught them in their training course. For obvious reasons these training courses are, with the exception of some of the more major carriers, somewhat simplified just to meet the regulatory requirements. Many new CC then come to the job honestly believing that THEY know it all. Their lack of real knowledge and their patronising attitudes to hide this fact can easily encourage regular pax to rebel.

Give me a break. Crew know more about their role than what you do....fact. True, many spotters know stuff regarding such matters as flap settings that your average crew member wouldn't have a clue about but don't say that spotters know more than crew about their job.

That said, there are technical matters that crew know that your average spotter probably wouldn't.

What happens if there is a decompression specifically in the flightdeck?

How can the flight crew of an airbus escape if the door fails and evacuation throught the windows is not possible?

How long does PSU oxygen last for?

How long does the emergency lights last for?

How do you use a deflated slide on the overwings of an airbus?

I could go on. Sure, you may know some of what a crew knows but you don't know the manual like a crew member does. It's not rocket science by any stretch but unless you are or have been crew you probably don't know more than crew.

I came into this role 7 years ago thinking that I had superior knowledge. In many ways I did but it my knowledge wasn't something I could put into every day use as crew. However, what I learnt on training was stuff that knew nothing about.

A matter I've brought up a couple of times with CC on BA is that in the A319 and 320, the automated briefing tells you to vacate using overwing exits in the case of a water landing. "Other exits may be opened if above the waterline...." However, when a manual briefing is done, this is not mentioned.

The response, give them credit, is that it is a valid point that they will raise with their supervisors.

From my days at GB, the BA video is incredibly long winded and detailed. That isn't always a good thing. IMO going into variables such as what exits to use if above the waterline and how to manually inflate the slide if it fails to inflate automatically can, in a non-derogatory way, confuse people. Keep it simple, to the point and get the vital pieces of info in the demo. The rest can be detailed on the safety card and when there is time to prepare such info can also be specifically targetted to those who need to know.....the ABP's. That is why we have specific criteria and "like to have" for our ABP's as they are likely to be able to take in specific info and act on it.

The BA manual demo never mentioned the fact the bag of your oxygen does not inflate which IMO is far more important as there are many instances where pax have said they weren't receiving oxygen simply because the bag doesn't inflate.