Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Quite frankly, anyone who actually feels unduly inconvenienced when asked to turn his or her reader off during takeoff and landing is likely pathologically self-absorbed.

I'm often unduly inconvenienced by stupidity.

[captkjaneway]

I like to concentrate on ensure the wings are not going to rattle off, the doors are closed and we actually make it up in the air during the first 15 minutes so being Kindleless isn't a big issue!

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by WarningU2

I have flown with my Sony ereader. Flight attendents have seen it and never said anything until ... yesterday. Turn off electronic devices. I said its an electronic book - it doesn't have wireless and it admits no frequency to interfere with the planes electronics. Just because I questioned this it was like I committed an act of terrorism. I tell ya the world has gone mad. Too many people with a little authority and not thinking. If an ereader can bring down a planes communication system I'm really worried.

Computers contain microprocessors that produce electromagnetic radiation. Most of this energy is controlled for its intended purpose, but some escapes, particularly when it is transmitted to and fro between other components, such as memory. This wasted emission of uncontrolled energy is known as electromagnetic noise.

This is similar to the wasted light that escapes upwards from street lights into the night sky, known as light pollution, which is scattered by the Earth's atmosphere and interferes with astronomical observatories - light is also electromagnetic radiation.

If you move a radio receiver, that is configured to receive FM wavelengths, close to a computer, you can sometimes "hear" electromagnetic noise, because it interferes with the radio's reception - the sound emitted is a hissing or sizzling, sometimes referred to as white noise.

Your e-book reader is a computer - it contains a microprocessor, memory, etc. Aircraft use a range of highly sensitive communications equipment - including radio receivers, transmitters, transponders, radars, etc - as well as computers of their own - all of which utilise electromagnetic radiation.

Airlines are concerned that electromagnetic noise, emitted by electronic devices used by passengers, may interfere with an aircraft's sensitive equipment. IMHO, turning off passenger's electronic devices during short periods - because communications equipment is absolutely crucial during take off and landing - is a small price to pay for ensuring maximum possible safety.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Also, all e-readers are not created equal. Sony's models, with their aluminium skins, should be pretty much 100% safe considering the relatively miniscule EM noise they emit will be screened by the metal. Readers with a plastic carapace will constitute a larger, though still miniscule, risk.

Still, I'd never argue if a flight attendant asked me to turn my 505 off. Quite frankly, anyone who actually feels unduly inconvenienced when asked to turn his or her reader off during takeoff and landing is likely pathologically self-absorbed.

Whilst I agree that the Sony reader - by virtue of its metal body - probably emits less energy, its screen is not aluminium. Yes, the risk is minimal, because radiated energy follows the inverse-square law, whereby its strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the emitting source. Nevertheless, I feel it is better to err on the side of caution. Flying involves taking risks and fewer the better, unless someone feels they can defy gravity indefinitely, with impunity.

Originally Posted by captkjaneway

I like to concentrate on ensure the wings are not going to rattle off, the doors are closed and we actually make it up in the air during the first 15 minutes so being Kindleless isn't a big issue!

Landing is at least as dangerous as taking off, nevertheless, in terms of statistics, flying is a comparatively safe form of travel.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Whilst I agree that the Sony reader - by virtue of its metal body - probably emits less energy, its screen is not aluminium.

Well, no, the body is aluminium. I don't know what the actual screen is made of, except that it is silver in colour, as I never took it off when I had a look inside. Either way it is screened both by an actual processor screen in front, where the...eh...screen is, and by the aluminium body everywhere else. I'd be willing to lay down a few bob on a bet that the EM radiation cannot be measured by normal equipment more than a few centimetres from the device.

[Namekuseijin]

Frankly, who in their right minds are reading during take off and landing? I mean, don't you guys have better things to do, like praying for your souls?

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Well, no, the body is aluminium. I don't know what the actual screen is made of, except that it is silver in colour, as I never took it off when I had a look inside. Either way it is screened both by an actual processor screen in front, where the...eh...screen is, and by the aluminium body everywhere else. I'd be willing to lay down a few bob on a bet that the EM radiation cannot be measured by normal equipment more than a few centimetres from the device.

Re-read my post.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Frankly, who in their right minds are reading during take off and landing? I mean, don't you guys have better things to do, like praying for your souls?

Hopefully pilots and aviation engineers rely on the laws of physics, rather than prayers.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Hopefully pilots and aviation engineers rely on the laws of physics, rather than prayers.

Woooosh

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Frankly, who in their right minds are reading during take off and landing? I mean, don't you guys have better things to do, like praying for your souls?

LOL

[WillAdams]

More importantly, take-off and landing are the most dangerous times and they want people to be alert in the event of any sort of difficulty which requires their attention.

It's a basic courtesy to follow the rules.

William

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

It's a basic courtesy to follow the rules.

It's a civic duty to question the rules. Government bodies, like the FAA, are beholden to the citizens.

[The Old Man]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

... it is almost as if the rules around airports and airplanes are just pulled out of thin air and serve no real purpose.

This, of course, is NOT true! All these rules have a purpose. Without the new expensive scanning machines hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost to industry, Lobbyists would lose jobs and politicians would suffer contribution loss. Thousands of security personal would be fired or not hired. Trainers and supervisors would have less or even nothing to do. Airports would be less crowded because passengers would not be required to show up three hours in advance. This would curtail food and beverage purchases and require fewer food service employees and cleaners. Thinking about it for any length you will come to the realization that without the present security procedures the entire economy would probably collapse.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by The Old Man

This, of course, is NOT true! All these rules have a purpose. Without the new expensive scanning machines hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost to industry, Lobbyists would lose jobs and politicians would suffer contribution loss. Thousands of security personal would be fired or not hired. Trainers and supervisors would have less or even nothing to do. Airports would be less crowded because passengers would not be required to show up three hours in advance. This would curtail food and beverage purchases and require fewer food service employees and cleaners. Thinking about it for any length you will come to the realization that without the present security procedures the entire economy would probably collapse.

You forgot to mention Janet Napolitano's salary.

[puddych]

very tongue in cheek...turn of all electronic gismos ect...in theory this includes all electronic watches...should we open them up to remove the batteries???
If not we are all "criminals"

urs
who had this thought whilst turning of his sony at the demand of the flight attendant on a recent voyage

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I'd be willing to lay down a few bob on a bet that the EM radiation cannot be measured by normal equipment more than a few centimetres from the device.

Would you be willing to bet your life on it? How about the lives of the 100 other people on the plane? Would those 100 other people be willing to let you bet their lives?

Are the chances extremely small that there will ever be a problem... yep. But I don't see how any individual passenger can think they have the right to make that bet for everyone.

[EowynCarter]

But I don't see how any individual passenger can think they have the right to make that bet for everyone.

Why allow electronics devices on planes at all then ?