The Dangers of Gadgets on Airplanes?

AtheriShadow

I read this article today and I think the same things every time I'm on an airplane.

Does anybody here have any thoughts on why small, harmless gadgets are prohibited while planes are taking off & landing (and wireless/transmitting ones always are) even as the airlines install their own entertainment electronics and start their own wifi services? Any interesting stories about run-ins with people and their technology on airplanes?

Nuri

I suspect one reason they don't want you to use electronic devices is that they want you to listen to the instructions you are being given. It's hard to hear the instructions or announcements when you've got earbuds in. I have seen flight attendants get very irate with people for zoning to music while they are giving their instructions.

Another is that if it DID cause an accident, even if it had never happened before, they would probably be sued for negligence. That's what you get for Americans being litigious motherfuckers.

Apreche

I remember reading an interview with some commercial pilots about this issue. Really there are separate issues with different gadgets. Some, like cell phones, can can cause problems. It may or may not interfere with the plane's instruments, but because the cell towers are on the ground, and the way cellphones work, it can violate FCC regulations when used from such a location moving at such a great speed. Also, landing is really the time the pilots need to have all the instruments working perfectly with no chance of interference. During takeoff it's mostly for the purposes of keeping your attention.

Churba

I suspect one reason they don't want you to use electronic devices is that they want you to listen to the instructions you are being given.

Yes, this is one of the reasons. After all, we do this day in, day out, and retrain extensively every six months, with failure during re-training resulting in dismissal. It's not for our benefit, and the more people who know how to help themselves, the more people who are going to survive if something occurs, and evacuation is necessary.

I have seen flight attendants get very irate with people for zoning to music while they are giving their instructions.

I've given someone a personal demonstration because of this, more than once. I've also had someone fined, and one bloke arrested at destination for threatening one of my co-workers because he didn't appreciate being told what to do. Trust me, we know our game, and you're not subtle enough to get it past us, unless one of us is green as a fresh leaf - though we don't always act on it, we certainly have the power to. Remember, you're legally obligated to follow any lawful and reasonable instruction from an on duty Flight attendant or Pilot while you are on board the aircraft, and yes, you can be punished for failing to do so.

Really there are separate issues with different gadgets. Some, like cell phones, can can cause problems. It may or may not interfere with the plane's instruments, but because the cell towers are on the ground, and the way cellphones work, it can violate FCC regulations when used from such a location moving at such a great speed.

This is indeed one of the reasons.

Also, landing is really the time the pilots need to have all the instruments working perfectly with no chance of interference.

Again, true. There are various stages of ability to contact the pilots when we're in the air, but most of takeoff and landing is Sterile cockpit, which means that we're not allowed to contact the pilots, at all.

During takeoff it's mostly for the purposes of keeping your attention.

Wrong. During takeoff, it's even more critical than landing that nothing go wrong or suffers from interference, because if anything does go wrong, we don't have the altitude or airspeed to really deal with it - which is, obviously, a very big problem, because at that stage, without as much power and control as the aircraft can afford, you're suddenly not an aircraft, but an oddly shaped ballistic projectile.

Also, using your phone isn't allowed during refueling or de-icing, because while it doesn't seem likely, there is a chance that the transmission will cause a small spark, or an increase in charge in the airframe, and cause an explosion. It may seem like a tiny chance, but it's a good idea, for two reasons -
1)It's far from impossible, though powerfully improbable, and it only takes one occurrence for a hell of a lot of people to die.
2)Your individual phone is a very, very small risk. But you're far from the only person on the plane. Every phone in use increases the risk, and with the potential for the risk to be multiplied, for most aircraft, 200-300 times, suddenly, chances are getting a lot better that shit's going to get real noisy, real fast.

Listening to an iPod or reading a Kindle during takeoff isn't dangerous. It's time the airlines stopped pretending that it is.

If something goes wrong, and your attention is focused on reading your device, watching a movie on your iphone, or listening to music, your chances of survival decrease dramatically. Stop Pretending we're doing it maliciously, just to annoy you, it's about the safety of yourself and the people around you.

For years we've been told that gadgets produce EMI—electromagnetic interference—that cause glitches in an aircraft's avionics. A cellphone could interrupt communication between pilots and the tower for a crucial second, or a child's Game Boy could cause a light on a flight computer to go on the fritz.

No, You've been told for years that your Gadget MIGHT produce EMI - Because it's shorter and easier than saying "This list of devices will produce EMI, and these ones wont" - not to mention, it saves having to train FA's to recognize and differentiate devices that are safe and that are not. After all, just for one example, some cockgenius takes a Mobile Phone jammer on a plane, and turns it on, I'm pretty fucking sure that's going to create some EMI.

We can't take excess liquids on a plane on only the slimmest evidence of any real threat. If gadgets were such a threat to safety, they'd be banned entirely.
Instead, an arbitrary set of rules established by the FAA and extended by the airlines prohibits iPods during takeoff, but explicitly allow electric shavers to be used during flight.

No, they're a threat that can be reduced to near zero levels. I might add, the reason you're banned from using devices during takeoff is because it IS a threat to your safety, but it is far less of a threat - Almost zero, in fact - after takeoff and before landing. They are banned entirely, When they're a threat to your saftey. So go on, Keep demanding that airlines Either entirely ban gadgets or relax their regulations entirely, because I'll lay down that with the law as it is, push hard enough, and you can kiss your entertainment devices in flight goodbye. And then, you will complain about that, too, because you're a whiny entitled jackass. As it is, the reason you can use them in the first place is because the airlines have determined them, as per the very same set of rules that the article linked, Devices that won't cause interference with the navigation or communication systems on the aircraft.
Also note - Mobiles are banned for the ENTIRE flight, not just takeoff. Aircraft mode is great, as it ceases all transmissions from the phone, but it doesn't change anything - we still have to tell you to turn them off, because having them on is against the law, because the law doesn't take Aircraft mode into account.

Hundreds of travelers at this very moment are using electronic gadgets during takeoff after the flight attendants have taken their jump seats. We're told it's dangerous. It isn't. Let's drop the pretense.*

And these travelers are breaking the law, because they are lawfully directed not to do so by the crew. And yeah, we could enforce it if we wished, but most of the time we don't, because no matter what we do, we're outnumbered. If all of you want to do something, we can't stop ALL of you. The difference is that we do have you in a confined space, from which there are no exits that we do not control, and by willfully breaking the law, which requires you to comply with any Lawful instruction from a Crew member, we now have the power to restrain you until the police arrive at destination to formally charge you.
Will it happen?
No, most likely not, because we're ordinary people like most of you, and we do understand - on top of that, can you imagine trying to arrest and charge even half a plane full of people? It's doable, but it would be a massive shemozzle for the airline and the airport.

In 1993, the International Association of Transport Aircraft (IATA) suggested that airlines prohibit the use of personal electronic devices during takeoff and landing, despite a lack of evidence that these gadgets had caused a single accident. The IATA's Terry Denny then said, "We haven't been able to trace an accident to the use of one of these devices...but we are convinced that this could happen."

Yep, that's why the law was made.

Nuri

I get the feeling that frequent fliers tend to ignore the instructions part. Personally, I like the review. Granted, I haven't flown that often, but it's not like it takes a lot of effort on my part, and in the case of an emergency I just assume that everyone around me would lose their shit, so I'd like to know what to do. I've been thanked by a flight attendant for actually watching her demonstrate and reading the card. That alone tells me everything I need to know about how rude and dismissive people usually are.

Alan

My aunt was a flight attendant for Hawaiian Airlines out of Vegas. She told me many stories about passengers not wanting to cooperate with the instructions. From what she told me that she just gave up trying to talk over everyone.

Also aviation fuel is crazy dangerous as Churba said.

Churba

Part 2/2

In 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration commissioned a study to see if "intentionally transmitting" gadgets like cellphones and Wi-Fi caused interference with avionics. The final report "said there is insufficient information to support a wholesale change in policies that restrict use of PEDs." ("PEDs" is FAA-speak for a gadget, or "Personal Electronic Device(s)"; a PED with a radio transmitter is a "T-PED".)

Which is to say, they couldn't find a reason to change their policy—but there hadn't been a whole lot of evidence to begin with.

Yep. The problem is that the law is already in place. Insufficient information is insufficient information. It means there is not enough evidence to support EITHER side. So, the law being in place, which is the current default, stays the default. See, when you're not being an idiot, it's easy to see why the law remains.

Yet the FAA has approved in-flight Wi-Fi service for a variety of airlines. While the routers and systems must undergo an FAA certification, there's nothing magical about the onboard 2.4GHz signal broadcast that prevents it from interfering with the plane's avionics. The thousands of flights completed safely each day—a marvelous and commendable record, it should be noted—clearly indicate that having activated gadgets on board aircraft does nothing of negative consequence.

Yep, But you're still not allowed to use your laptop during takeoff and landing.

So your laptop's Wi-Fi won't mess up the planes avionics, but your Kindle might? How fragile are these planes?

As I explained previously, this isn't the case. This phrase is purely taking advantage of the nonspecific wording of the usual safety announcements. Also, I might add, you can't use your laptop OR kindle during takeoff and landing, so your point is moot.

I've had conversations with pilots and other employees of airlines about this issue before, and after they realize the electromagnetic interference argument isn't going to fly, they invariably change tack to "safety". "Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of the flight," they say. "And it's important that passengers be able to hear instructions from the crew in case something goes wrong."

I notice it only said "Other employees of airlines" - so, did you speak to flight attendants? Have you spoken to them off the plane? I'll wager the writer hadn't, because they'll be able to tell you, some of our most important problem solving tools are the passengers. Ever notice, we have ALL the window shades open during takeoff? That's so that you can see anything going wrong outside. Not us - We're strapped in tight to our jumpseat, waiting to save your arse if anything goes wrong. And if you hear an announcement when you're asleep, you'll probably wake up - emergency announcements are made at full volume, as opposed to regular announcements, which usually go out at about half.
But if you're asleep and you wake up to hear the emergency announcement, you know something is up. You have your headphones in, you kinda hear it, then some people are still going to just crank up their headphones so they can keep listening through the announcement.

That's a nice idea, but look around the cabin of an embarking aircraft. Parents are soothing cranky kids. People are asleep. Many passengers are drunk or medicated to help address anxiety.

Yes, but we've already spotted most, if not all of them, and accounted for them. But the amount of people who have ipods or other entertainment devices is far greater than those with children, chemically impaired, or otherwise have a problem, and this is important - because I know I might have to help them in the event of an emergency, and while sometimes large, it's a manageable number. But goddamn near everyone has some sort of entertainment device, and I'm sorry, but if in an emergency, I have to provide even cursory assistance to all of you, or even most of you, then most of you are going to die.

(This also presumes that a passenger could do anything to protect themselves or others during a takeoff accident, even though we all know that in a majority of incidents, there's little to do except pray.)

Oh, you shut your whore mouth. The pilots do all they can, but as soon as we hit the ground or water - Baby, it's all you. We try to help, but it's 99% you doing what we say and getting the fuck out. And the pilots are very, very good at what they do. In fact, most incidents that occur during takeoff or landing are survivable. It's big mid-air accidents that cause problems - Ie, Things such as the cloud formation "Cumuli-granite"(Ie, Running right into a mountain) or a sudden case of falling right the fuck out of the sky for no apparent reason - that is when you've got nothing to do and little chance of survival.

I have a lot of sympathy for flight attendants. Herding and soothing a few dozen passengers, many of whom are belligerent and rude, is a thankless job. Their jobs should be easier.

Don't give me the shits. If you did, you'd not be whinging like an entitled asshole just because you have to go 20 minutes without your fucking toys. Seriously, that's the amount of time you are without your devices - 20, maybe 30 minutes absolute max. If you can't go without your devices for that amount of time, then you have greater problems than what we will and will not allow you to do on our planes and why.

But every time a flight attendant perpetuates the lie that these harmless gadgets are somehow a threat to safety, it erodes the faith that they should be cultivating with their customers. How are we to trust someone telling us that reading a Kindle during takeoff is dangerous as we stare across a field of EMI-spewing LCD seat-back screens?

Every Time we perpetuate the Lie? WE DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE. And don't carry on with your horseshit about how we're saying that your kindle is different to the LCD in the back of the seat - that's your chosen interpretation of what is invariably a very vague statement.

Here's a deal: I'll listen attentively to the flight safety demonstration, make doubly sure to note where the exit doors are and who I'll have to climb over to get to them—and you guys will let me listen to my iPod after the flight attendants are in their seats and I'm making peace with my god.

No, here is the deal. You comply with the rules, or risk getting punished when you break them, and if you do get punished, you don't whinge about it, because it's your own fucking fault. And while you're at it, stop acting like we can do a fucking thing about it, because your inability to sit fucking still without entertainment for twenty minutes isn't worth me risking my job.

Trust me, I'll be a lot more apt to listen to flight attendants commands if they don't start the flight with a well-intentioned deception. And more likely to believe the FAA and the TSA when it comes to other security and safety concerns when some of their policies aren't demonstrable half-truths.

Trust me, You'll listen to and comply with any lawful command issued to you by a flight attendant while on the aircraft, or you'll be arrested? Because that's the law, and I'm sorry, if you started dicking me about with this sort of shit on a flight, you can bet I wouldn't be looking the other way when you broke it.

George Patches

I suspect one reason they don't want you to use electronic devices is that they want you to listen to the instructions you are being given. It's hard to hear the instructions or announcements when you've got earbuds in. I have seen flight attendants get very irate with people for zoning to music while they are giving their instructions.

Adding credit to this, statistically speaking, if something goes wrong during a flight it's most likely to happen during take off or landing. The speeds at which the airplane is close to its stall speed, full power is necessary, and wind speed is at its most dangerous.

loltsundere

Awesome pwnage Churba. I was moved.

WindUpBird

Churba, I feel like you need to get that over to Giz and show them what's what.

AaronC

As a commercial pilot who flies under Part 135 Air Carrier rules I can't allow my passengers to operate unapproved electrical devices, however the process to get the approved is very simple. Take the device up while its on, fly a circut around the pattern, note no discrepancies and return to ground. Then shut down and enter the devices information in a special book on board the helicopter. Then I can fly with it on, however, this has to be done for every make and model, not for a category of equipment. Since most customers wouldn't want to pay for this kind of flight time the list is empty except for company devices that have already been checked out.

All that said, there are no incidents where modern electronic devises can be traced back as the cause for any incidents or accidents. If there are I'd love to know about it. I've had passengers suddenly start texting or using their cell phones, I've never had even a twitch on the gauges.

I agree with almost all of what Churba has said, good points.

1 note: Aviation fuel. Jets use jetfuel, not AvGas. Piston aircraft use Avgas and its highly flammable, like gasoline you use in your car. Very dangerous stuff. Jet fuel on the other hand requires a very high compression rate to ignite. You can literally throw lit cigarette into a bucket of Jetfuel and it will not light, much like diesel fuel. Its certainly dangerous, but no more than any other flammable fuel, its not especially dangerous.

Landing is traditionally taught as being more dangerous because its at the end of the flight, obvious I know. What I mean is that its when you're the most tired, the most run down and have the least amount of reserves available as a pilot. Its why you want to fly as standard as possible, use checklists and other aids to memory, rely on procedure and training as opposed to winging it. Its not that landing is more dangerous than take off (I agree lack of airpseed and altitude is more dangerous than descending) but its traditionally when people are more likely to make mistakes.

Apreche

As a commercial pilot who flies under Part 135 Air Carrier rules I can't allow my passengers to operate unapproved electrical devices, however the process to get the approved is very simple. Take the device up while its on, fly a circut around the pattern, note no discrepancies and return to ground. Then shut down and enter the devices information in a special book on board the helicopter. Then I can fly with it on, however, this has to be done for every make and model, not for a category of equipment. Since most customers wouldn't want to pay for this kind of flight time the list is empty except for company devices that have already been checked out.

This is very interesting. While it is true that it would be difficult to do this test for every make and model of say, Nokia phone, it would probably be beneficial to do the test for say, the iPhone or the Nintendo DS. There are a lot of people with these device, and relatively few different models.

AaronC

....While it is true that it would be difficult to do this test for every make and model of say, Nokia phone, it would probably be beneficial to do the test for say, the iPhone or the Nintendo DS. There are a lot of people with these device, and relatively few different models.

The one main issue with this, that I should have specified, is that the check out flight and the specific gadet is only legal for that one hull number, so it would only apply to one specific aircraft. You'd have to fly the same iPhone in each aircraft, even though they are the same model!

Now the manufacturer and the FAA can always get together and do the check during the initial build and certification of the model, and that could get it done model wide, instead of for only 1 aircraft at a time.

George Patches

Now the manufacturer and the FAA can always get together and do the check during the initial build and certification of the model, and that could get it done model wide, instead of for only 1 aircraft at a time.

Logic is far beyond our government.

Apreche

Here's a question.

The main thing we're worried about here is the electronic devices interfering with the flight instruments, right? A radio transmitter might interfere with some flight gear, but it's not going to interfere with the jet engine.

Assuming that is the case, why do we need to fly at all? We can make a room that is enclosed in a Faraday cage. In that room we can have one verified to be functioning model of the most popular flight instruments. Then we can just turn on the cellphone in that room, and then have a computer system test all of the instruments simultaneously to make sure they are functioning. If we have to we can modify the air pressure of the room, or blow some air over the instruments to test them.

With one such room, we could quickly and easily approve, or disapprove, the most popular consumer, and non-consumer, electronic devices for the most common commercial aircraft. I'm sure the military would also be interested in such a testing facility, as they would know if it was safe to bring their latest doo-dads up in various aircraft.

Churba

1 note: Aviation fuel. Jets use jetfuel, not AvGas. Piston aircraft use Avgas and its highly flammable, like gasoline you use in your car. Very dangerous stuff. Jet fuel on the other hand requires a very high compression rate to ignite. You can literally throw lit cigarette into a bucket of Jetfuel and it will not light, much like diesel fuel. Its certainly dangerous, but no more than any other flammable fuel, its not especially dangerous.

I know. I also suspect you're far more used to Jet-A and Jet A-1, whereas I was trained on Jet-B precautions(Since I was trained in Australia), which is far more volatile and dangerous(Being a 50/50 mix of Kerosene and Gasoline), which might account for our slightly dissenting opinions on this.
But still, I'm not the one that makes the rules - but I can see the sense behind it - because It's the same as why they attach the grounding lines before they attach the filler hoses - because it could cause an electrical spark(however low the chances of that are) and an electrical spark is far, far different to dropping a match in a bucket of Fuel.
Yeah, You drop the match, or a cig, or whatever into a bucket of Kerosene, jet fuel, whatever, it's not going to ignite. But if you run a spark through it, your chances that it's going to ignite have gone way, way up.

Landing is traditionally taught as being more dangerous because its at the end of the flight, obvious I know. What I mean is that its when you're the most tired, the most run down and have the least amount of reserves available as a pilot. Its why you want to fly as standard as possible, use checklists and other aids to memory, rely on procedure and training as opposed to winging it. Its not that landing is more dangerous than take off (I agree lack of airpseed and altitude is more dangerous than descending) but its traditionally when people are more likely to make mistakes.

Absolutely true on your end, but we're often trained the opposite way - because if something goes wrong, takeoff or landing, you do what you can, you get it on the ground, you do your thing, and you evac out our window, and we handle the rest. The issue for us is time to prepare, brief ABPs and general PAX, prepare ourselves, etc, etc - chances are, if you're landing, you have more to work with, and this gives us more time to prepare. Takeoff, it's more likely that if things go wrong, they're going wrong really fast, and thus we have less time between discovery and dirt to prepare.

All that said, there are no incidents where modern electronic devises can be traced back as the cause for any incidents or accidents. If there are I'd love to know about it. I've had passengers suddenly start texting or using their cell phones, I've never had even a twitch on the gauges.

I know, aye, the chances of it nowadays as opposed to when the law was made, is 4/5ths of 5/8ths of fuck all. Electronics on an aircraft are pretty well shielded - hell, I was on an Alliance Airlines flight back home, and Fokker F100, that was struck by lightning, hard, and kept flying. if that's not going to fry your electronics, a cell isn't. But as I've said, it's not the main issue. And even if we did say "We need your full attention during takeoff and landing, just in case, okay?" he'd still be whining, just for a different reason, because the issue isn't "The lie of EMI" or any of that, the issue is "I'm pissy because you're not letting me have my toys till we hit cruising altitude."

Awesome pwnage Churba. I was moved.

I used to be a Purser - I've had this argument on dozens of planes, in dozens of places, at every tick of the clock. This is territory well tread for me, but still, thankyou.

Churba, I feel like you need to get that over to Giz and show them what's what.

I'm tempted, I must admit.

The main thing we're worried about here is the electronic devices interfering with the flight instruments, right?

Not really, no. But it is a factor.

This is very interesting. While it is true that it would be difficult to do this test for every make and model of say, Nokia phone, it would probably be beneficial to do the test for say, the iPhone or the Nintendo DS. There are a lot of people with these device, and relatively few different models.

You still wouldn't be able to use it during takeoff and landing, and that's what the article is whinging about.

Assuming that is the case, why do we need to fly at all? We can make a room that is enclosed in a Faraday cage. In that room we can have one verified to be functioning model of the most popular flight instruments. Then we can just turn on the cellphone in that room, and then have a computer system test all of the instruments simultaneously to make sure they are functioning. If we have to we can modify the air pressure of the room, or blow some air over the instruments to test them.

It's an issue of simulation - How do you perfectly simulate a transmission device going up in an aircraft and performing a number of actions in a lab?
By the time you have spent the effort, you might as well just have done the thing.

With one such room, we could quickly and easily approve, or disapprove, the most popular consumer, and non-consumer, electronic devices for the most common commercial aircraft.

You still won't be allowed to use them during takeoff and Landing, which again, is what the article is whinging about.

I'm sure the military would also be interested in such a testing facility, as they would know if it was safe to bring their latest doo-dads up in various aircraft.

Not terribly. They already shield their aircraft against pretty much anything they can throw at them, well above and beyond anything that consumer electronics can put out.

AaronC

Churba, I think the difference between Jet A and Jet B could account for any dissenting opinion. I'll say this, even though I know that my fuel isn't going to ignite, I never fuel the helicopter without grounding it out first. Why tempt fate?

My aircraft is to small to have a crew chief, purser or attendant, so I'm left on my own to brief my passengers and make any inflght announcements regarding what has to happen. That said my company still makes all passengers watch the safety video and where I work, if they don't actually watch it, they don't get to fly. Then we have a little quiz on exiting the aircraft and inflating the life raft once we get to the helicopter, simply because I want them to be able to inflate the rafts if for some reason I'm not able to! I tell em, don't get out till I tell you to get out, unless I can't tell you, then take me with you! I also want to make sure they have been briefed because the law holds the pilot responsible for making sure they have been briefed. There have been pilots who have lost their certificates to fly because passengers were able to claim after an accident that they were not briefed. All those passengers who complain on the airplane about a safety brief, I say screw em. I hate it when people give the attendant a hard time and really, how hard is it to wait a few minutes. As you said in your original post, its not the attendants fault that the law is the way it is. If you don't enforce that law, then why should someone take you serious about keeping the aisle clear, or the exit door clear, or anything else?

Our largest birds do have a crew chief/attendant and their job is more hands on with the passengers.

Churba

Churba, I think the difference between Jet A and Jet B could account for any dissenting opinion. I'll say this, even though I know that my fuel isn't going to ignite, I never fuel the helicopter without grounding it out first. Why tempt fate?

Especially when tempting fate means that the one time it does all go wrong, You're a crispy critter.

I also want to make sure they have been briefed because the law holds the pilot responsible for making sure they have been briefed. There have been pilots who have lost their certificates to fly because passengers were able to claim after an accident that they were not briefed.

We have the same thing - Except obviously, rather than the pilot doing the briefing, we call forward and confirm with the purser that all briefings have been conducted, etc, etc, and then the purser talks to the captain and tells them so.

All those passengers who complain on the airplane about a safety brief, I say screw em. I hate it when people give the attendant a hard time and really, how hard is it to wait a few minutes.

I've said more than that - I've had people taken off my plane for being dickheads about it.

As you said in your original post, its not the attendants fault that the law is the way it is. If you don't enforce that law, then why should someone take you serious about keeping the aisle clear, or the exit door clear, or anything else?

Well, that's slightly more complex. Just because we don't, doesn't mean we can't, for a start. And I agree, I think that it's stupid the way it is, and while there is a valid reason for parts of it, getting rid of it isn't the ideal fix.
Also, it's far from a few people who will be doing this on a flight. Sure, one person rushes my exit door, and I'll give him or her a rapid ride face-first to the floor and slap the flexis on them. But I can't Arrest everyone, and on top of that, if I go around being too exacting about it, then trust me, the rest of that flight is going to be a living hell, and my PAX are far less likely to listen to me than if they're happy because they didn't have my razor arse there telling them that as much as I regret it, I've got to make sure they turn it off.
And of course, during takeoff, I'm strapped into my jump. I'm not going anywhere - to the point where I've nearly been injured by a (thankfully empty) cart that got away at the top of the plane because one of my co-workers hadn't properly made sure everything was secure in it's stowage, and it barreled down the isle, which was exactly in line with my jump-seat. All I could do was do my best to mitigate the mayhem that was about to ensue, and try not to get too badly hurt in the process.

In the end, it's a matter of Ideal Vs Practical and sensible. The best I can do right now, is be honest with people about why, be sympathetic, and ask them nicely to do what I'm asking them too. Most people do. Some people don't. But it's the Practical and sensible way to go about things.