The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from CC?

[Pushka]

At last... the first post of the thread except mine which seems to actually address the topic.

And the OP's.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's just people being people. Many of the things people do that upset others and which are against the FA's directions can be the result of lack of travel experience as much as arrogance due to status.
There. That makes another on topic post.

 

[medhead]

A device in Flight mode, with Wi-Fi and BT turned off, cannot interfere with Airplane electronics. End Of Story.

Only according to you. You have no evidence or links to support that opinion.

But if this discussion has been done to death I have no idea why you feel the need to post this kind of unsubstantiated claim. Also the issue is not just interference. Listening to a iPod via headphones is dangerous. Finally, the fact remains the crew direct passengers to turn it off for safety reasons. Your opinion is irrelevant. Crew says turn it off so you turn it off. Regardless of status.

 

[anat0l]

And the OP's.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's just people being people. Many of the things people do that upset others and which are against the FA's directions can be the result of lack of travel experience as much as arrogance due to status.
There. That makes another on topic post.

But for those who lack travel experience, then being told should be sufficient for them to follow that direction. Why would they have any reason not to follow the crew's instructions? Because they think there's no point or it's a stupid instruction?

I kind of like it how in the US, every safety demo must state that, "It is federal aviation law that all passengers must follow all directions on lighted signs, posted placards and cabin crew instructions". I suppose since it is not stated explicitly here in Australia, somehow we are given a liberal licence to wilful disobedience. (Not to mention that almost every judge in the country takes a frivolous and contemptuous approach to punishing disobedience and transgressions in the air).

 

[Pushka]

But for those who lack travel experience, then being told should be sufficient for them to follow that direction. Why would they have any reason not to follow the crew's instructions? Because they think there's no point or it's a stupid instruction?
.

Lots of reasons why they might ignore the FA rules. For a start you assume they even bother, or know, they need to listen to them.

I do wonder the point of the seat belt instruction. I think that at that point that everyone is wearing them anyway, that it sets the tone that the information that follows might be just as "irrelevant". I think it makes people tune out.

 

[anat0l]

Lots of reasons why they might ignore the FA rules. For a start you assume they even bother, or know, they need to listen to them.

That's probably why it should be reinforced that disobedience may constitute a legal offence.

I do wonder the point of the seat belt instruction. I think that at that point that everyone is wearing them anyway, that it sets the tone that the information that follows might be just as "irrelevant". I think it makes people tune out.

Well the point is (in theory, I suppose) to remind everyone to check that their seat belt is done up (if it isn't, do it up).

Of course, we expect most people should be wearing them anyway; in fact, Qantas had a safety video of old that actually said, "We know you're more than capable of using a seat belt...", of which Qantas was heavily chastised by this forum for being so condescending.

There's also an element of "legal coverage" here - if you were not told to fasten your seatbelt, even though you may or may not know what's good for you, if something happens as a result of someone not fastening their seat belt, they may claim damage against the airline that they were never told to fasten their seatbelt (irrespective of the safety demonstration).

Well aware of the merits of "over instruction" which may result in actually having a counterproductive effect, but far from it that gives people the right to be disobedient. Then we make a further case for what is "accidental" (or ignorant) disobedience versus wilful disobedience.

 

[medhead]

Don't casa mandate safety demo content? Including demo of seat belt?

 

[anat0l]

Don't casa mandate safety demo content? Including demo of seat belt?

They do, but what's your point?

I thought Pushka was more addressing the point of FAs stating to fasten seat belts apart from the safety demo. For example, as the cabin is being prepared for departure, or when the seat belt sign is switched on for landing.

 

[medhead]

They do, but what's your point?

I thought Pushka was more addressing the point of FAs stating to fasten seat belts apart from the safety demo. For example, as the cabin is being prepared for departure, or when the seat belt sign is switched on for landing.

The only seat belt instruction, as in this is how they work, is during the demo. It is very likely that some people aren't wearing their seatbelt when it's switched on for landing.

I do wonder the point of the seat belt instruction. I think that at that point that everyone is wearing them anyway,

 

[spentan]

Only according to you. You have no evidence or links to support that opinion.

But if this discussion has been done to death I have no idea why you feel the need to post this kind of unsubstantiated claim. Also the issue is not just interference. Listening to a iPod via headphones is dangerous. Finally, the fact remains the crew direct passengers to turn it off for safety reasons. Your opinion is irrelevant. Crew says turn it off so you turn it off. Regardless of status.

With all due respect, the discussion has been done to death, (in multiple threads on AFF).

Its quite simple, if mobile phones were a danger to planes (or any other device), they would be prohibited from being in carry on or even in check in luggage. Or something like faraday bags would be used for storage during the flight, similar to Duty free liquids.

I think it is a stretch to say that listening to an iPod is dangerous. It is a risk (lack of attention), but i'd rather have someone listening to an iPod with headphones, than have someone sleeping in the seat. Even if you could wake them up, they'd be pretty groggy, in comparison to someone taking their headphones off and being able to assist.

I agree, my opinion is irrelevant,

But I think its comparable to speed limits. Having a speed limit at 50km/hr on a freeway, just so that someone doesn't crash is similar to having a device placed in flight mode and switched off (safest option).

You will always get people who will go 10km/hr over the limit, but it is very different to going 50 km/hr over the limit, (for example using an array of CB Radios in your seat)

 

[spentan]

The merits of that argument are up for debate in another thread.

But first and foremost you are required by law to follow any and all crew instructions. Having status or being more educated than the FA is no excuse to flout their instructions. If they tell you to turn devices off, do it.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether higher status people are entitled to disregard or ignore crew directions. This is not an electronic devices thread.

No! In fact, I'd say that those of high status can be more pigheaded, more convinced of their "rightness" than the general passenger herd.

If passengers are allowed to disobey clear directions from those legally responsible for their safety, then it sets a poor example at best, a danger to life and limb at worst - such as in an emergency.

I think the answer to this thread is pretty obvious, Following the cabin crews directions should be no different for high or low status pax.

At last... the first post of the thread except mine which seems to actually address the topic.

No it doesn't. Ignoring the direction of the crew is ignoring the direction of the crew - that's intentional disobedience, period. You are not entitled to that, no matter who you are. (Including Tony Hancock).

I agree, you're not entitled to it, but it still won't stop people from doing it.

The problem is that the laws/rules have not been updated to reflect the advances in technology.

Personally, I don't think that you can compare "leaving your phone on (but in flight mode)", with "not wearing a seatbelt" or something to that effect.

Yes, they are both direct disobedience of the crew, but one has much more of a safety implication than the other.

 

[medhead]

With all due respect, the discussion has been done to death, (in multiple threads on AFF).

Its quite simple, if mobile phones were a danger to planes (or any other device), they would be prohibited from being in carry on or even in check in luggage. Or something like faraday bags would be used for storage during the flight, similar to Duty free liquids.

I think it is a stretch to say that listening to an iPod is dangerous. It is a risk (lack of attention), but i'd rather have someone listening to an iPod with headphones, than have someone sleeping in the seat. Even if you could wake them up, they'd be pretty groggy, in comparison to someone taking their headphones off and being able to assist.

I agree, my opinion is irrelevant,

But I think its comparable to speed limits. Having a speed limit at 50km/hr on a freeway, just so that someone doesn't crash is similar to having a device placed in flight mode and switched off (safest option).

You will always get people who will go 10km/hr over the limit, but it is very different to going 50 km/hr over the limit, (for example using an array of CB Radios in your seat)

And yet you're still going on about it. Your still going on about technicalities. This thread is not about technicalities and unless you're involved in testing interference in aircraft you really shouldn't bang on about technicalities.

As for you prohibition suggestion it's an absolute furphy. The devices are not prohibited from use during the whole flight. Only during take off and landing. So it's not about danger, I don't even know why you would use that word, during the whole flight. They are turned off as a safety measure in case of interference during take off and landing. No one has said that is dangerous.

Passengers ignoring crew directions are a potential danger to my safety.

 

[harvyk]

A jerk is a jerk regardless of their status, plus unless they start showing off their bit of plastic you really can't tell what status a person is just by looking at them (or listening to their rants about how they are a top teir member).

as for the risk of phones? Well it doesn't really matter what you personally believe the risk is or isn't. When you are on a plane you are on the airlines turf, thus they say all mobiles off, then if you want to stay on the plane it's all mobiles off, end of story.

If you want this to change, fund a proper study to prove that mobiles are safe and that the laws should be changed, bring concrete evidence to the table, become a subject matter expert, petition he airlines and casa, then I'll listen to you. But until you can do that, saying "well I took this flight once and used my phone inflight and we all survived" will simply get a slow clap from me and nothing more.

/rant

 

[davyjohn]

I've sat next to Jetstar pilot (or so I assume, as he was reading his ipad training manuals before seat belt sign went off). Ipad was in 3g mode all the way from Sydney to Perth. Very poor example. I commented, but he just ignored me.

 

[marki]

The very high status ones are like rudderless ships. No directions get through.

 

[777]

Personally, i think the more you fly (not necessarily the more status you have) the more complacent you can become about safety instructions and about what is and isn't reasonable behaviour. Part of it is simply self perpetuating. If you see a hundred other people using their phones on the 150 flights you've taken over the last five years the more likely you are to think it's normal. I'm not saying it's reasonable but it's probably basic human psychology that you become complacent about things the more you are in the habit of seeing/ doing them.

 

[danny09]

My point of view is, you do what your told. But I wouldnt be worried if the pax next to me was texting or on facebook whilse we are taking off.

As for higher status pax not being more compliant, well I disagree.

We all know phones/mobile devices dont cause interference with the planes, as people have said, if they did we wouldnt be allowed to take them onboard, or mandatory checks would be in place.

I personally think its all about having courtesy for other pax & staff.

The JQ pilot having his 3g on the ipad, is just wrong & should be setting an example.

 

[dodgeyhack]

We all know phones/mobile devices dont cause interference with the planes

I know this is beating a dead horse, but....

What? No we don't.
If the experts in the field aren't game to make that claim I'm certainly not going to.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I know this is beating a dead horse, but....

What? No we don't.
If the experts in the field aren't game to make that claim I'm certainly not going to.

ok, admit the experts in the field aren't ready to make a blanket approval of cellular devices in transmit mode.

but the experts have basically agreed that if a device is in flight mode, it doesn't need to be completely turned off.

the FAA is currently working to amend this requirement.

i did a bit reading over the weekend and it seems that cellular devices could be left on in flight... but the legal requirement is that each and every device has to be approved by the FAA before this can happen. so it would mean each and every available phone model would need to be tested and certified. given the hundreds of models, it is understandable that the airlines have no interest in going down this path.

most of the reports out there claiming interference date from 10-15 years ago. phones have come a long way since then. if you leave a phone by a speaker now it rarely, if ever, causes the 'bip bip bip' interference that was once common.

but something I don't get is this... can understand if airlines want devices in flight mode... but as to completely off? that seems an unnecessary step. can it possibly be related to safety? I don't know, given qantas seems to allow gate-to-gate viewing of IFE. imagine if there was an accident on landing... do you want the two people between you and the aisle to be attached with head phones absorbed in the movie rather than paying attention? do you want to trip over their headphone cord that they have left dangling on the floor?

to me that seems entirely contradictory.

'safety' is bandied around so often it becomes hard to know what is and is not actually safety related. several things in the last 10 years that were totally, utterly and completely safety related have gone out the window as soon as the airline could charge for it or have some other financial gain.

on topic... this probably means some very frequent flyers have become a bit cynical.

 

[harvyk]

i did a bit reading over the weekend and it seems that cellular devices could be left on in flight... but the legal requirement is that each and every device has to be approved by the FAA before this can happen. so it would mean each and every available phone model would need to be tested and certified. given the hundreds of models, it is understandable that the airlines have no interest in going down this path.

This is pretty much my understanding is that whilst it is generally safe to have mobiles on planes, they would need to certify each phone type as safe to use in flight, a pretty big expense when the alternate is "use flight mode" end of story.

I don't know, given qantas seems to allow gate-to-gate viewing of IFE. imagine if there was an accident on landing... do you want the two people between you and the aisle to be attached with head phones absorbed in the movie rather than paying attention? do you want to trip over their headphone cord that they have left dangling on the floor?

When using the onboard IFE, playback stops during any announcement. Thus lets say you where engrossed in a movie via the planes IFE on takeoff and the words "Brace Brace Brace" came over the PA, the movie would stop during that announcement and you'd hear the instruction. Likewise you could be engrossed in a book, you'd still hear the instruction even if you where not paying attention to what was going on. Infact you'd probably hear the command to brace far easier over the headphones than with the planes PA system, I find it's rare that a plane has it's PA system turned up loud enough that I don't need to struggle to hear what is been said, esp with pilots announcements.

With your own IFE, (and I'm not talking about QF's iPad which do stop playback during announcements), they continue playing, thus an important instruction could be given during take off or landing and you'd be oblivious to it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

When using the onboard IFE, playback stops during any announcement. Thus lets say you where engrossed in a movie via the planes IFE on takeoff and the words "Brace Brace Brace" came over the PA, the movie would stop during that announcement and you'd hear the instruction. Likewise you could be engrossed in a book, you'd still hear the instruction even if you where not paying attention to what was going on. Infact you'd probably hear the command to brace far easier over the headphones than with the planes PA system, I find it's rare that a plane has it's PA system turned up loud enough that I don't need to struggle to hear what is been said, esp with pilots announcements.

With your own IFE, (and I'm not talking about QF's iPad which do stop playback during announcements), they continue playing, thus an important instruction could be given during take off or landing and you'd be oblivious to it.

this is inaccurate.

obviously if the cabin was prepared for an emergency, no one would be using headsets.

in an unprepared emergency however, for example the OZ flight, there may be no warning of an accident.

the command to 'brace' (if it does not come from the flight deck which would cut into any film) may need to be issued instantly by cabin crew from their seats. cabin crew do not have the time to lift the receiver, dial the appropriate number, then issue the command.

without intercom people would have their attention on the film, not adopt the brace position, and to make it worse, then potentially have their head-sets cluttering the aisles.

in unprepared emergencies, perhaps similar to OZ (we'll need to wait and see if any commands to brace were issued from the flight deck), having your head sets on, with full full sound, can ONLY be a detriment to safety.

as a frequent flyer I might accidentally leave my phone on standby without being turned off (it's happened once or twice）but I would never dream of listening to IFE during take-off or landing.

so indeed... some frequent flyers can, in some cases, have a better appreciation of safety than regulators, airlines or crew.