that's the thing, do you really think ipods pose less of a risk when they're "asleep"? i mean just because the screen is off and hard drive isn't spinning, doesn't mean other parts aren't "on".SunByrne said:What MadPict said--modern aircraft avionics are pretty sensitive, so it's a good idea to make sure things are off (or in the iPod case, sleeping) below 10,000 feet.
If airlines were at least consistent and courteous in applying the rules, I'd have no problem. But saying one little handheld games machine is going to interfere with crucial flight instruments when a fully-fledged laptop (and an all-but-identical PDA) isn't, well, it's just unreasonable. Especially when this same airline didn't bat an eyelid on the same flight on the same route the previous week. Note that I'm talking about use while cruising, not during take-off/landing.MadPict said:The restriction on turning off all electronic equipment is to prevent essential flight instruments being affected by any spurious transmissions during the most risky part of the flight - take off and landing. (This topic was covered over on the old forum with answers from well versed people inc. a pilot)
Yes, if the airlines were to be demanded of to set some solid rules, they'd probably say that "Everything that uses an electric current is to be turned off during the entire flight", explaining the harshness of this rule with something like "it would be too time consuming for the flight attendants to have to have to memorize what sort of electronic equipment poses a risk and what doesn't". They are in their full right to do so, too, so it's best just to leave it at what it is today and just hope to be lucky enough to get to listen to ones iPod from time to time.scabmettler said:"The industry and airlines need to get together to make a consistent and reasonable set of rules"
Admirable, but in my pessimistic opinion, highly unlikely. What you're asking is that the airlines, airports, U.S. government, and private security companies all agree on what needs to be checked, how it is to be checked, and how often. Those are some pretty big bureaucracies which, while related, are all separate agencies. I completely understand your frustration, though.
Actually, it's not at all unlikely, the ICAO exists specifically to handle issues such as this. You put your finger on it though when you mention the US government. Of course, there are many, many governments involved other than the US government, but the (current) US administration has a pretty bad track record of imposing unilateral aviation security rules instead of going via ICAO. Result = fragmented airline market, with one major player playing by its own private rules.scabmettler said:Admirable, but in my pessimistic opinion, highly unlikely. What you're asking is that the airlines, airports, U.S. government, and private security companies all agree on what needs to be checked, how it is to be checked, and how often. Those are some pretty big bureaucracies which, while related, are all separate agencies. I completely understand your frustration, though.