The iPhone has a setting that makes it safe to use on an airplane. So-called “airplane mode” disables cell phone, radio, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals, thus allowing you to watch movies staring Jennifer Love Hewitt while flying through the air.
And that’s what reader Casey tried to do. Unfortunately, it seems that the flight attendants had never heard of “airplane mode,” and called the police when Casey refused to stop watching I Know What You Did Last Summer.
I am an iPhone owner, and this is my story. I recently was traveling to Hawaii on ATA airlines and took my iPhone along for the trip. During the first 2 hours of my 5 hour flight I was listening to music using the ipod function of my iPhone.
The iPhone was sitting on my tray table in front of my seat, in plain sight. Then I decided to watch a movie. So I fired up the classic “I know what you did last summer”, a movie I had never seen before. About 1 and a half hours into this cinematic masterpiece I had a flight attendant try to get my attention.
I paused the movie just as Jennifer love Hewitt was screaming something about “please stop killing my friends” or “what do you want from me”, honestly I am not sure what she was saying because I paused the movie and looked to see what the flight attendant wanted. He said something to the effect of “you can’t use a cell phone in flight”. OK, that makes sense, so I assured him that I had the phone in airplane mode and that all cell, wifi and bluetooth was off.
He again said “you have to stop using it” and walked on… Now I know something about flying and the rules, and I am pretty sure I can use the MP3 part of a cell phone if it is in airplane mode, above 10,000 feet. So, I continued to watch, needing to find out who the killer with the hook was and why they were messing with J Love.
About 10 minutes later, the same guy comes back and waves his hand in front of my face, I pause the movie again, and look over at him. He says that I am not allowed to use a cell phone in flight and I am breaking FAA rules. Again I tell him I have the phone in airplane mode, and would be more than happy to show that to him. He didn’t want to see it and said I am breaking FAA rules.
“OK, maybe I am wrong ?” I think to myself.
So I ask what rule I am breaking. He tells me I am talking on my cell phone. I again explain I am not using the cell part and it is disabled. I go on to further explain that I have been on other airlines that have specific written rules that say cell phones in airplane mode are OK above 10,00 feet, so how could it be a FAA rule. And if it is, what rule ? He has no answer for that, but to now yells at me “You have to do anything I say, I am going to have you arrested”….
ANYTHING ? Wow…I didn’t know they had that power in the air?
So now the head flight attendant comes over and tell me the same thing about FAA rules, and I explain again to her the same stuff, and asked her again “What rule am I breaking?” She runs off and comes back with a slip of paper that has about 4 or 5 FAA rules that the flight attendant is supposed to check off and sign and give to you as a written warning. She has crossed all of them out and written “Talking on cell phone”…I tell her again “I am not talking on my cell, the cell part is off, and this is a device that has many functions that maybe you are not aware of and the offending functions are disabled.”
She goes on to tell me that I am breaking FAA rules. I say “WHAT RULE ?”
Oh, while this is going on the first flight attendant guy is behind her yelling at me about that he wants me arrested.
Then she runs off and comes back with a HUGE book of FAA rules. Finally, I will get to see the rule about no phones in airplane mode (even though I know it doesn’t exist) She drops it in my lap, open to a page that says “Things not allowed in flight: Talking on cell phones, Playing online cell phone games… Things allowed over 10,00 feet: MP3 Players…etc..”
So I say “what does that show? I am not talking on my phone”
She grabs the book and runs off in a huff. And again the guy yells at me “I have called the police, you are going to jail”…
So we start our decent and I turn my iPhone off, because I follow REAL FAA rules. We land and there are police waiting for me, the flight attendant that started this whole thing makes me walk to the front of the plane while everyone else has to stay in their seats and I stand there for 10 minutes. I kind of feel like I am standing in front of class as punishment because I was disruptive, not that this has ever happened to me in school, ok maybe it has.
Then the police take me off the flight and to a waiting area. I explain everything that happened, they go and talk to the male flight attendant. I see him waving his arms and looking very angry and animated. Why is he so hell bent on getting me in trouble ? So then the police come back over to me and explain that he said this particular plane is not shielded for ANY electronic equipment at all, so even a phone in airplane mode could cause problems.
OK, so why didn’t he tell me that at all in flight, all he said was i was breaking FAA rules, and also why was everyone else allowed to use their laptops, mp3 players, etc ?? The police officer looked confused, and said he would be right back. He talked to the guy again and then came back and said that the airplane is not shielded for ONLY phones in airplane mode.
Come on, really ? he has changed his story 3 times, and all he said in flight was FAA this and FAA that, nothing about this specific plane. The police sorta laughed and said wait one second, they went and talked to him, he got really upset and left. Then they came back to me and said I was free to go.
I have never been harassed by someone so much as that flight attendant. He was very rude to me the whole flight, lied about FAA rules, and changed his story to police 3 times. I took a Southwest flight later in the week, they have it clearly written in the inflight magazine that airplane mode is fine over 10,000 feet.
So, if you have an iPhone, ATA airlines does not want your business. I was harassed, embarrassed, and delayed for no reason, other than I own an iPhone, the ATA flight crew has no idea about what are real FAA rules, and they like to just make up whatever they want to scare you into obeying them, because you “have to do anything” they say…
Casey
Casey submitted this complaint to ATA and they’ve not responded. Apple’s website says that the iPhone is safe to use on an airplane while in “airplane mode,” and we see no reason to doubt this.
It seems that ATA owes Casey a big apology.
(Photo:Drewski2112)
More From Consumerist
-
Turns Out A Bag Of Pot Is Not Legal Tender At Denny's
-
What Food Combinations Do You Love That Make People Think You’re Crazy?
-
X-Ray Technology Makes Your iPad A Silly Place To Try To Hide Saw Blades From The TSA
-
Stealing Tide Is Still Enough Of A Problem That This CVS Has Theft-Protection Devices On The Stuff
-
Personal Finance Roundup
@jamar0303: I think the cell phone manufacturers need to talk to the FAA if they’re going to go around telling people that their phones can be used on airplanes.
My favorite part is the people who think this iphone in flight mode could effect anything in the plane.
FYI, people, FACT here, the EMF and potential radio interference has about a 5 foot radius. So if this guy was sitting front row first class. The FA MIGHT have an argument, but if this guy was back in coach. There is NO WAY it could interfere with the plane, ILS, etc.
Casey did the right thing and ATA FA was being a “Pocket Hitler.”
Similar thing happend to me on a flight from Taiwan to Thailand in July. I just got my iPhone and was watching it on the plane. The flight attendant came over and said: “ooh, is that an iPhone?” I go through the standard demo and then she goes: “Unfortunately, you can’t use it on the flight. It hasn’t been approved yet to use in the air.” I conceded and just went along with it because I remembered reading something about how FAA hasn’t fully tested it when the iPhone was released.
BTW: the airline was KLM and the flight attendant was a gorgeous tall Swedish blonde.
@Javert: Seig hail, sir! We shall smite our enemies carrying those evil iphones for the glory of law and order and the state!
@btdown: I smell a troll.
@ChewySquirrel: I smell another troll.
Neither poster replied concerning their original comments.
@n301dp:
Last I knew the big airlines use EFIS and GPS, and not much on ILS. That being said, yeah, interference bad. That also being said, planes are pretty shielded so the typical GSM dancing noises you hear on your speakers and junk at home sometimes probably aren’t.
That being said, as someone who flys a lot, the ATA guys were a bit postal about it. That makes no sense because every blackberry, or other smart phone doesn’t really turn off either. You put them in ‘airplane mode’
And what kind of BS is that ‘not shielded for phones in Airplane mode’ ? Last I checked the radio is off, so how could a phone device with the radio off cause interference that some other electronic device couldn’t and require ‘extra’ shielding.
I call bullshit on this one. I would have argued too, especially on those long ass flights.
@N301DP
You wrote:
“Also–are you an expert in aircraft systems and avionics?”
This implies that the FA / Supervisor were “experts”. If the OP’s story was correct, neither were. They reacted to the “cellphone” issue, which was a none issue.
As far as the whole “interfering” is concerned, I find all the “lemmings” suggestions to be highly offensive.
As more people submit to this mentality, the more of a “hostage” status we take on. Just because I get on a plane doesn’t mean I need to act like or be treated like a hostage.
If an FA doesn’t like what I am doing, but I am being peaceful, they can pound sand. I only have to obey “lawful” instructions. Whether the instructions were lawful, I will leave in the hands of a judge.
The only way bad laws are changed is when we stand up for our rights and go through the court process.
Lemming mentality hurts all of us. Don’t be a Lemming.
@ all the “turn off your cellphone” … guess what, the OP’s “cell phone” was off.
Just not the rest of the device!
Just because the iPhone is one part “cell phone” that doesn’t mean the entire device is a “cell phone” now does it?
Guess what, my laptop has SKYPE installed, does that make it a ‘cell phone’? When I put a Verison Card to get celluar service into the slot does that make my laptop a ‘cell phone’?
No, it doesn’t. The OP complied with the FA before hand and turned off the “cell phone”. The mistake was trying to explain “air plane mode” and not just saying: “The cellphone part is off”.
The day of “single-function” devices is quickly fading away.
How does that affect FA’s? Their only job is to request that a CUSTOMERS turn off their “cell service” … not the actual device.
I think what a lot of these airlines forget is that the entire time 9/11 was happening every passenger on those flights who were able to use their cellphone, were using it. And I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t cellphones that caused those planes to crash.
All those phones on those planes and I bet below 10,000 feet for quite some time.
If they hadn’t used their cellphones we would never know the heroism of a lot of those people.
C’mon, those two can’t tell the difference between talking on a cellphone and watching a movie!?
You don’t have rights when you’re flying. W-Bush took care of that a long time ago. The FAA regulations and Patriot Act require you to comply with any Flight Attendant directive. Seriously, they can drag you off the tarmack and throw you in jail for years without a trial. Is Jennifer Love Hewitt worth that to you?
Take it up with ATA *after* you leave the airport, and have your civil rights properly restored. Sheesh.
I think once the flight attendent realized that he was wrong, he bucked up and changed his story to try and maintain his sense of being right. Then when THAT didn’t work, he tried something else. This isn’t about the airlines, but about a flight attendent who is too insecure to admit when he made a mistake.
As an airline pilot, I would like to apologize for your treatment by this aircrew. I don’t work for ATA, but bad actions by one of us reflects badly on the rest of us, and I wish more crews would realize this.
First off, the line about shielding is a load of horsepuckey. Shielding is not selective that way, and rarely varies from airplane to airplane (of the same make and model). It varies by model and customer option. This FA was flat-out lying.
Second, cellphones CAN cause radio issues for us. I have personally witnessed this by experimentation on repositioning flights. By using various electronic devices (a shaver, a few cellphones, etc) we were able to get radio noise and needle deflection, and one autopilot disconnect. Nothing that will crash the airplane, but stuff that will cause trouble. This is why the FAA bans them. (Besides, do you really want to be trapped in a metal tube for a few hours next to some jackass who feels the need to yammer on his cellphone about how important he thinks he is, or how the thing on his neck is getting bigger, or whatever inane thing he thinks will make everyone around him impressed? I wouldn’t…)
There are reasons we do some of the more “stupid” things we do. The reason we have you put your things away for takeoff and landing is that those two events are usually when airplanes crash. If the airplane crashes, we would like you to be paying attention and prepared to leave as quickly as possible. It would really suck to survive the impact only to burn to death in the fire because you weren’t paying attention. This is the same reason we insist you wear normal clothes. Miniskirts and tube tops are not going to help you if you have to get out of the airplane in a hurry. We always plan our actions “just in case” and spend many, many hours in simulators practicing emergency scenarios. The passengers would do well to be just as prepared. Most airline crash victims survive the impact and are killed in the post-impact environment. You VASTLY increase your chances of survival by preparedness.
As far as the “Screw the airlines, stop the subsidies!” sentiment goes, let me be completely clear on this subject:YES, STOP THE SUBSIDIES AND AIRLINE TAX BREAKS. IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH OUR SERVICE, DO NOT FLY. IF THE SECURITY CIRCUS BOTHERS YOU, DO NOT FLY. Right now our management is hopelessly addicted to these tax breaks and subsidies. It’s like heroin, but unfortunately legal. They are killing our industry for their own personal gain. Our pilot group has taken a 60% pay cut since 1999, and we have lost our retirement and most of our health benefits, so the company can “save money”. They negotiate millions of dollars in concessions from us, then turn around and award those millions to some executive as a “performance bonus”. It’s a slap in the face and it’s killing the industry. Anything that puts those money-hungry vampires out of commission is fine with me. The security circus is a joke, and a bad one at that. They’ve confiscated my flashlight four times now because I might use it as a weapon. (On one occasion I found the flashlight taken from me later on the TSA desk being used by TSA employees.) The whole system stinks and it needs fixed, but nobody seems to have the guts to wade into the mire and fix it. (“When you are up to your arse in alligators, it is hard to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp.”) The only way I see for the industry to repair itself is for enough customers to leave that the whole thing falls apart from the top down. Only one thing will drive the execs out, and that will be when the money goes away.
Geh, this is getting long and I have to get moving. In any event, please don’t blame all of us for the actions of a few rotten apples. By and large we’re all good people trying to make a living. Every time I have problems with a FA I report them to scheduling and make sure I don’t have to fly with them again. Enough pilots do this and they’re out of a job. One less jerk to ruin things for all of us. Everyone I work with does the best they can with what we have. Sometimes it doesn’t make sense to the passengers, but there’s usually a reason for everything. In this case, however, I hope this asshattery is punished.
Thoughts:
1) It doesn’t matter one whit whether cellphones cause interference with avionics (as they assuredly do not). What matters is that there is a regulation about their use (that doesn’t really apply to the poster’s situation).
2) One IS required to comply with flightcrew directives. Even if they’re being excretory orifices.
3) Just tell them, “oh, it’s not actually an iPhone. It’s the new iPod Touch. I understand your confusion now, since they look just the same but the iPod Touch doesn’t have the phone.” Perhaps not 100% true, but in my opinion an iPhone in “airplane mode” is the moral and electronic equivalent of an iPod Touch. It’s not the responsibility of flightcrew to keep up to date with all the latest toys, nor should they just believe what some yahoo tells them. Why not make it easy for both them and you?
What pisses me off is that when I get told to turn off my iPod Nano during takeoff. I comply, but as an Electrical Engineer I know that there is absolutely no way, in this dimension or in any other, that an iPod Nano would EVER interfere with ANYTHING. Ever. Period. I would like to meet the witch doctor alchemist that told the airliners and/or FAA this load of crap. Transmitting devices are one thing (wi-fi and cell phones), but low powered DC devices are a completely different animal. This is Physics 101.
When does a cell phone have service well over 10,000ft. anyway, especially to/from Hawaii flying over the ocean?
I don’t see how they could accuse someone of talking on their phone where clearly there probably are no cell towers.
I had a similar experience, and I’m glad I stood up to the FA.
I was living in the US on a student visa. When I was given the visa, they stapled it into my passport and told me to never give it up to anyone.
Flying from NY-Vancouver through St. Louis, I tried to ask the gate agent in St. Louis for a different seat. No problem, just let me see your passport for ID. I handed it over, the guy gave me my new boarding pass, and then RIPPED OUT my visa and took it.
I demanded he give it back, and he kept insisting regulations required him to take it. I explained over and over that without it, I could not get back into the US and continue school, that he was wrong, and that he had to give it back.
Finally he agreed to give it back, with the caveat that he was alerting customs officials in Vancouver and I would be arrested upon landing. I think my exact words in response were “bring it on.”
Needless to say, nobody was waiting for me in Vancouver, and moreover, when I went through Customs and Immigration, I related my story and they told me (a) the guy was wrong, and (b) had I not gotten the card back, I would have been screwed.
Don’t let these tin bullies screw up your life!
@Benstein: It’s a safety issue. We ask you to turn things off and pay attention during the takeoff and landing because those are the times that we are most likely to crash the airplane. If you are alert and paying attention when the airplane crashes you stand a much better chance of getting out alive. Most airline crash fatalities occur in the post-impact environment. This is also why we don’t like it when people where short skirts or other constricting clothing. If the worst should happen it’s not going to help you get out of the airplane.
@Treved: Congrats to you! I am glad you got your visa back and could get back to go to school! What an ass that guy was!
@thirdgen: The iPhone actually does show a little orange airplane icon when you’re in airplane mode.
I have fallen asleep before takeoff and absent-mindedly forgotten to turn off all sorts of personal electronics and nothings fallen out of the sky yet.
@Airbus-Driver: I think short skirts might actually make it easier to flee a crashed airplane.
But maybe I’m wrong and long pioneer-style dresses are actually easier to run in.
If you read the thread on Airliners.net Reply #60 spells it out pretty clearly.
++ The FA was enforcing an ATA policy. ++
They (the airline) do not allow the use of Cellphones with or without airplane mode.
Cribbed from airliners.net: reply #60
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Upon boarding an ATA aircraft, the passenger agrees to ATA’s Contract of Carriage. The first paragraph in it states: “These rules constitute the conditions upon which each carrier agrees to transport, and are expressly agreed to by the passenger to the same extent as if such rules were included in the passenger’s ticket and/or ticket jacket.”
RULE 190
Electronic Devices
There are certain portable electronic devices that function as a ?miniature broadcasting
station? and, as a result, may cause interference with airborne navigation equipment
and aircraft systems. For this reason, the following electronic devices will not be
allowed to be operated at any time while on ATA Airlines, Inc. aircraft:
? Portable TVs
? Radios
? Remote controlled devices
? Wireless computers/ mouse
The use of portable cellular phones, cellular phone games and pagers is permitted
while in the jet bridge and aboard the aircraft while parked at the gate prior to door
closing. Cellular phones, cellular phone games and pager use is prohibited after door
closing and should remain off in flight. This includes cell phones equipped with airplane
mode function. Upon arrival, cellular phones and pagers may be used only after
an announcement has been made authorizing use.
The ATA flight attendant was FOLLOWING the ATA policy, and enforcing it. The passenger, so called “expert” on rules, was in violation of the Contract of Carriage. Whether or not you argree with the rule isn’t the issue. The rule was there, and the passenger was in clear violation of it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Casey was wrong. The FA was right, and if he had better communication skills the issue could have been avoided. :
FA: Excuse me sir, you are going to have to turn that off.
Casey: The cell phone is off. It’s in airplane mode.
FA: I’m sorry. ATA policy is that ALL cellphones including those with Airplane mode MUST be turned off at all times.
I’m waiting for someone to blame this whole thing on an iPhone update that Steve Jobs downloaded into the phone himself.
Maybe the stewards and stewardesses got a faulty update from ATA and were bricked.
No, I didn’t write “flight attendant”. When they’re cool, efficient and do their jobs I use that phrase. When they’re bratty and whiny, I call them “steward/ess”.
I would have just insisted it was an iPod, and then he could have sucked a nut, dude.
These crew were amazingly ignorant. If you had flown any major half decent airline, they would already have policies in place for airplane mode equipment which are more and more common… Any piece of equipment in airplane mode (as long as it can be demonstrated that it is actually in that mode) is the same as any other electrical device without transmitting features and subject to those rules.. ipod, video camera etc.
Although, an overriding law covers the crew in this situation.. that law states that passengers must obey the instructions of any crew member. All crew members operate under the delegated authority of the pilot in command who is THE LAW when the plane is in the air.
This was poor customer service on the airlines part, and an apology and compensation are deserved, but beware all readers.. if you disobey crew members safety related instructions no matter how lame you think the rules are, you can be arrested.. THAT’S THE LAW whether you agree to it or not.
I once had a passenger show me a piece of equipment that I wasn’t sure about its safety implications. The passenger courteously explained to me that it had been allowed previously, and it was a simple call to the captain on my part for clarification. The captain ok’d it.. problem solved. If the captain said No, it doesn’t matter if it was ok on a different flight, the captain sets the law when it comes to safety onboard.
@treved I agree you were right to stand up for yourself, but I think in the OP’s case this was one where waiting to resolve the situation after the flight wouldn’t have caused him any harm.
I do not work for the FAA and have not run the tests that says certain things interfere. How many of you do??? All I know is what their rule is and they must be followed. As a flight attendant I can tell you I do not appreciate the disprespect most people give me and the job I’m trained to do. Sure I give you peanuts and coke and I pray that’s all I ever have to do, but if there were an emergency, would you look to me for assistance or Mr. IPhone? I try to stay up on the latest technology, but if I’m not sure, “Better safe than sorry”. I may not agree with the rules, but my job is to enforce them and I certainly don’t go to other peoples jobs and argue their company policies with them. If asked to do so TURN IT OFF! It’s a phone for God’s sake! There are people dying of diseases and in war everyday. You have and IPhone!!! We get it.
Too many posts to respond to, and I think these have been covered in various posts, but to summarize (and possibly add):
1) You are not required to follow every order the FA gives you. This is common sense. If the FA tells you to get out of your seat and lie face-down in the aisle for the entire flight so that he/she can sit down, you tell them to piss off. If the FA tells you to turn off your transmitting communications device, you comply. If the FA tells you that you can’t have another martini, you acquiesce.
2) The FA could have avoided this entire scenario by simply telling the OP that ATA’s policy is to not allow any cellular devices in-flight, regardless of whether or not they are transmitting. It may be an idiotic policy, but the OP *did* agree to it when the flight was boarded.
3) Communications devices *can* cause problems with flight instruments. This is similar to the way taking a piss on the third rail *can* electrocute you. Which is to say, not particularly likely – but it has happened.
4) The FA was a jackass. Don’t call the police unless you have your story straight. If you can’t even figure out what law someone is violating, they probably aren’t.
5) The OP overreacted a little. That doesn’t excuse the FA’s attitude or actions. Turning off the phone completely would have been reasonable. Asking WHY the phone should be turned off wasn’t an unreasonable request, but the FA’s request wasn’t wholly unreasonable to begin with. Uninformed, but not unreasonable.
6) ATA’s policy is asinine. Portable TVs and radios don’t broadcast anything. They emit an EM field just like every other electronic device under the sun. If you’re banning radios, you may as well ban digital watches.
7) Just don’t fly with ATA, ever, and you can avoid this. You can further avoid these situations by not flying when it is at all possible.
I do frequent trans-Pacific travel, so that’s not possible. But, I can take my money to more supportive airlines, such as ANA or Singapore Airlines (should have gotten a mileage card from one of them to begin with instead of United…).
@Baz: It didn’t sound like he was arguing to me. Rather, it sounded more like he was asking for clarification to the FAA rule he was breaking. Had he told th FA to screw off, then he could be arrested, however, you need to look at the scope of the rule of obeying the FA.
If the request seems reasonable and does not interfere with your privacy or comfort, you should comply.
If the request is like this one, do not argue, but ask your qualifying questions, such as which rule or law are you breaking, and ask to see proof of this. This isn’t an unreasonable request, considering the FA’s should KNOW the rules, and there should ALWAYS be a FAA rulebook on the plane. If you want to make sure you are in the right, do what they ask while they retrieve the book. Have them look it up, and when it does not apply to you, politely say, “Thank you for the insight, however, this rule does not apply here. Was there another rule you wanted me to review?
In a situation such as this, I would have looked at the FA, after the rules didn’t apply, and said, “I am NOT breaking FAA rules. Tell me something, is your life that awful that you would risk being known by the media and this the free-world as the FA Nazi? The FA who was not intelligent enough to know what the in-flight FAA rules are? ATA won’t be in your corner to defend you whaen YOU make them look bad, son.”
@Treved: Did you file a complaint? That guy was completely out of line!
At best he had no clue what he was doing and needed more training. At worst he’s a bigot who does this to anyone with a Visa just to screw over anyone from outside the US and needed to be fired.
I’m also glad you got your Visa back.
The carriage contract is a contract of adhesion. I don’t get to negotiate with the airline about the terms of my purchase. I only get to decide whether or not to fly. I don’t read the airline’s policies before I book my flight. I certainly don’t know anything about shielding or ILS navigation systems. I do know my portable electronic devices have airplane modes, however.
A properly trained flight attendant could have explained these issues that we are discussing here in great detail here. I’m quite certain that most of us want to be safe in the air. We just don’t want to be subject to someone else’s power trip.
To those who think we should just do as we’re told – we’re living in a culture of fear if you think you need to comply with whatever some ill-informed, power-hungry flight attendant is telling you and when you know your device is NOT causing any airplane interference.
I guess we are.
Anyway, I have used my phone before on a flight to make an important call while we were still in the air. It’s such a myth that having cell phones on the plane will disrupt much, like that person had posted, when we have air traffic controllers constantly communicating with the captain and observing things in the air.
Also, I recall that one of the planes involved in 9/11 had a passenger who used his or her phone to call emergency while the plane was crashing.
I think cell phones were originally not allowed on flights because they were in direct competition with the in-flight telephones, which were not so popular…
Wow, is this ever the neverending comments post!
Took me 30 minutes just to get through all the comments, only to be left wondering why I just spent 30 whole minutes reading all the comments. Guess it beats working!
Anyway, uh, so, I have nothing to add that hasn’t been said. Thanks for reading. Good-bye.
@IMPUDENCE: As much as it pains me, it appears that this scenario could be construed as a violation of 49 USC 46504. From Lexis:
Provision prohibiting intimidation of flight crew is constitutional, is general rather than specific intent statute, and evidence supporting defendants’ convictions was sufficient; defendants repeatedly refused to relinquish boombox as requested, made angry declarations of vulgarity in response to requests, and very real threat they would play radio com-ponent and thus cause malfunction in navigational equipment was doubtless intimidating. United States v Hicks (1992, CA5 Tex) 980 F2d 963, cert den (1993) 507 US 998, 123 L Ed 2d 178, 113 S Ct 1618 and cert den (1993) 508 US 941, 124 L Ed 2d 640, 113 S Ct 2417.
The OP could have avoided this battle. Betcha he’s on the “So you think you’re gonna fly?” list.
@Rectilinear Propagation: Sadly in my experience airline personnel don’t have access/haven’t read the pertinent documents. Though if they had the FAA regs on board, I’m surprised they didn’t have the contract of carriage.
I don’t dispute that the airline could have handled the situation better, but it is also Casey’s responsiblity to read the contract of carriage, if not have a copy with him.
Conversely, could we be reading a different story along the lines of “Casey is complaining because after refusing on principal to turn off his iPhone that was in airplane mode, ATA cancelled the remainder of his ticket, and it cost him xxxx hundreds of dollars to fly home.”
Because frankly, I think the airline would have been within their rights to cancel his return ticket.
@RvLeshrac: ATA’s policy on radios and tv’s is law.
@Airbus-Driver: I’m guessing, in order, Northwest or United. American, maybe. Am I right, without naming names?
WOW! I think I’ve had this flight attendant on ATA… we had landed into Indianapolis… and the plane had stopped for a second. He then says… I KID YOU NOT “our seat belt sensors have detected that several of your seat belt buckles are undone, we are not moving this plane until you buckle up” … WHAT?! How dumb do some flight attendants think we are?
AMEJR999 “Actually, there is a FAA rule requiring compliance with all instructions from the flight crew.”
LOL, assuming those instructions don’t break FAA rules. So what you have just said here is that there is an FAA rule requiring compliance with all instructions from a flight crew who are BREAKING FAA rules by asserting something that ISN’T an FAA rule. That’s a good one. The passenger was trying to follow FAA rules and did the right thing.
I also think the crew knew that there must have been an inflight mode but were too immature to admit he was right. They just wanted to bully him. Come on! 4 flight attentendents were not bright enough to see the phone was an mp3 player in “in-flight mode”? You’d think when he said it had a special in flight mode and offered to show them, they would have just said ok and had a look. Then using a big of common sense they would have thought it over a bit. NO, he just demanded he do anything he said. The flight attendant forced the issue and was a jerk.
test
@mconfoy: What part of the link to the FAA rule in my post was made-up?
Your own link has the same rules listed (Emphasis mine):
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.
I reiterate.. it’s the carriers call on what electronic devices can and cannot be operated on a flight.
@THIRDGEN,
That’s a good point about how do they know it’s airplane mode, BUT they also let everyone else with mp3 players use theirs. I know an mp3 player can’t be a phone, but then HOW do they know which are must mp3 players and which are phones and which are both? You just said they don’t have time to know when someone is in airplane mode.. So they also don’t have time to know each model and manufacturer of every device and what they do. Therefore, they should either tell everyone NO to using anything, or let them use them. Or use some common sense which the flight attentdent clearly lacked.
Being a Retired ATA Flight Attendant of many years…. I can tell you that complicance to ATA’s rules and regulations is not taken lightly. ATA has an impecable air safety record. With that in mind 35,000 feet above ground we expect the Passengers as well as the Cabin Crew to comply with all safety regulations. I realize this was an inconvience to you…but we as airline professionals expect complince to Our rules and regs. I realize the iphone in question is somewhat of a new device. But once asked by a FA to turn off your phone or whatever it is you are to comply . Like it or not. There has to be some type of respect and honor system in our society today.
Hope you had a good time on your trip anyhow.
As a corporate pilot (Citation X) and a mechanic with extensive avionics training. I can tell you that I have never had an aircraft issue with cell phones in ANY mode of flight (Heck they sell headsets with cell phone adapters for pilots). I also believe that following rules and regulations is in everyones best interest. That said, the gentleman was RIGHT there are no FAA rules prohibiting cell phone usage(most rules on cell phone usage are FCC rules). And he was right about the FA being an ass. Keep in mind most flight attendants dont have a aviation technical education and have never read the regulations to any great extent. ( heck pilots many times get confused with the archaic regulations we must comply with. In this case the FA was wrong and ATA should offer the customer an apology, clarify its own rules and retrain their FAs.
To the would-be lawyers warning about an imagined law against “interfering with a flight attendant,” including THIRDGEN who selectively quotes the law, 49 USC 46505 actually illegalizes interfering with flight crew by ASSAULTING or INTIMIDATING them. (It helps to actually read the whole paragraph, although I don’t know how you could miss this since it comes first.)
Although I haven’t reviewed the case law, I doubt that saying, “I don’t believe I have to do that” qualifies as “intimidating.”
That said, there might be another more general law criminalizing failure to comply with FAA regulations, and an FAA regulation requiring passengers to comply with the flight crew. Although airlines always tell you that FAA regulations require you to “observe” the instructions of the crew, it’s not clear what that means nor can I find any law punishing simple failure to do so. Can anyone point us in that direction?
You know how Apple thoughtfully included a cell signal, WiFi and Bluetooth-free Airplane Mode on the iPhone so that the wunder-device could be using as a media player in flight? Well, apparently ATA didn’t get the memo.
@zouxou:
Yes, that is the most important thing. Here in America, abuses of power are tolerated if they are “for the greater good.”
Casey had every right to act the way he did, particularly given how much airplane tickets cost these days. Fact is, in-flight prohibitions on electronic devices are precautionary regulations. They are more about passenger control than an actual risk to aircraft instruments.
Doesn’t anybody watch Mythbusters?
@Casey: you were correct to continue a legally permitted (and totally fabulous) personal electronic device.
@Many of you: what interesting thoughts you have dears.
@Many more of you: Baaaaaaa. Do what the nice air hostess/train conductor/FBI man says – even if he is wrong, violating your rights or just plain stupid.
Get off your fat lazy asses and stand up for your rights and the rights of others.
Systems Engineers and Airlines are very concerned about interference to electrical/electronic systems in the aircraft from portable devices. Current aircraft use sensors and computers that are not only effected radio signals (such as cell phones) – but are also concerned about signals generated by portable devices that contain micro-processors (like the IPhone, laptops, game devices, etc). Aircraft wiring and associated devices are shielded to prevent interference from external signal sources – but as with everything these do break down over time and sometimes allow signals to enter. Portable device designers/manufactures are also required to build devices to eliminate signals that might escape their device while operation – those too break down over time or can become disabled/disturbed when the user opens the device for service, upgrades, etc.
Design engineers have run and recorded many real-world instances where a portable device’s signal has been picked up through shielding – hence the FAA Regulations on the topic.
Example: The Fuel Quantity computer in a Boeing aircraft operates at 300 mhz and has many wires attached to the sensors in the fuel tanks in a constantly flexing wing. Many older laptops and games operate at that frequency – and if the fuel system wiring isn’t shielded perfectly – and/or the laptop is allowed to transmit from poor case shielding, the result is fuel gages displaying incorrectly – or blanking completely. Or, something that doesn’t effect the operation of the aircraft, but the error does effect our computer that results in a very expensive computer being removed and tested to confirm a possible real fault.
Most newer aircraft use fly-by-wire technology that eliminates all cable control – meaning that something like an engine or flight control is totally controlled via simple shield wiring running right under your seat or in the sidewall panel just feet from your device. Even when a device is produced per FCC transmit/interference regulations (look at the little sticker on the back of the device) – it is still very possible for it to leak interference into an aircraft system in close proximity.
We would prefer that no one operate any device while in flight – because that’s the only way to be truly safe.
And to the folks that want us to wait until an aircraft crashes before we take action – that’s not REALLY what you want is it ???? I didn’t think so….
@joeonsunset: I was busy studying for Wills and Trusts when I cited the USC re: intimidating flight crews. I did read the part about assault and intimidation. To make a case for intimidation, all the prosecutor would have to do is show that the FA felt intimidated. This is ridiculously easy to do:
Prosecutor: How did you the defendant’s actions make you feel?
FA: Well, I was scared, specially after 9/11. I thought maybe there was a reason why he wouldn’t stop messing with his computer thingee.
Prosecutor: What would you describe his demeanor as?
FA: Well, he was being really pushy, I would say maybe even intimidating.
Prosecutor: What is your job on the plane?
FA: I clean, eject fornicators from the bathroom, do cross-check on the doors, etc.
Prosecutor: This the defendant’s actions keep you from performing these actions?
FA: Yes, I was on my way to kick out a couple from the bathroom when I noticed was using his device after I told him not to. When I told him to stop it is when he get aggressive.
There, in four questions, the prosecutor has shown the required elements under the statute.
I have been a flight attendant for nearly a decade. Its f/A’s like this that make us look bad. Unless it was written in ATA’s guidelines there is no reason that the ‘Iphone’ could not have been used above 10,000 feet in ‘airplane mode’. Which in that case the F/A could have nicely shown the guy.
Also, it is policy for flight attendants to be up-to-date and current with all rules and regulations of their airline which can be found in their on board manual. If it is printed in the manual that the ‘Iphone’ or similar device is safe to use well then there is no standing in court of law. We are required By Law to know that information. If an FAA inspector stopped any F/A on airport grounds and asked any question that could be found in the on board manual and the F/A responded incorrectly then the F/A will be fined.
On another note, there are so many F/A’s that are jerks our credibility is low. Therefore, if this goes to court guaranteed the judge will laugh and hopefully this guy will be compensated.
You have to nearly physically assault a F/A and have witnesses for an F/A to press charges that they felt threatened to hold up in a court of law. This situation will not satisfy the “I felt threatened”.