GPS Usage on Passenger Airplane

[+uminski]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

[+mcrow]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

 

I know when we went to Jamaica last winter we couldn't have any elctronics powered up while in the air. I think that's standard policy.

[Mushtang]

Some allow it, some don't. Unfortunately even that doesn't matter to a flight attendant that doesn't know what the policies are. If they tell you to do something you pretty much have to do it, or risk a ton of trouble.

 

If you can point to the list of allowed electronics in their in-flight magazine, they might change their mind, but if not you really can't push it.

[+jcar]

I've always ask before using, never had an issue on United, in fact the stewards have asked during the flight where we were. Recently I was on an Alaskan flight and asked and was told it was not approved. Was sitting near someone who works for Continental, and got a mini lecture for even asking.

[+wimseyguy]

I always ask as I am boarding, usually to a member of the flight crew if possible. I've never been told no, once we are above 10,000'. I did notice on this past weekend's flight that Southwest has added GPS receivers to their list of 'never allowed' equipment, but if the captains says OK, I'll listen to him. He's driving.

[+Prime Suspect]

I would have asked the flight attendant if he or she was also going to order everyone using a laptop on board to shut them off. It's a good bet that most all of them have Wi-Fi capability.

[+Dryphter]

I use mine on Northwest whenever I get a window seat. I travel at least once per month. Never had them say anything, although maybe they didn't see it or didn't know what it was. But basically if they tell you to turn it off, better do it.

 

I had one tell me to turn off my palm pilot once so I asked her if she knew that a Palm is always 'on' and the only thing the power button does it shut the screen off. She wasn't quite sure what to say, but I turned it 'off' anyway.

[+vree]

Don't know how reliable this list is or how they obtained their information... but here's a list for you:

Airlines which approve/disapprove the use of GPS receivers during cruise.

 

If it's on the internets, it must be true...

[+briansnat]

Happened to me once on American. "What's that you have there?" "A GPS". "You'd better put that away before we take it away".

 

Some airlines allow it, some don't.

[+Renegade Knight]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

 

The FAA does not believe that GPS receivers cause any harm. They allow each individual airline to set it's own rules on their use. Some allow them. Some don't. I did notice that they must send their flight attendants to some kind of assertiveness training when watching them smack down some rule breakers this past week.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

First of all, never argue with any flight crew. Especially about electronics. It's a sure way to get into trouble. Secondly, as you can see from the supplied link, Continental doesn't approve of the use of GPS receivers during any part of the flight. When in doubt, ask in advance. Some pilots will permit it anyway. And even for the ones that approve it, the flight crew has the final say at all times.

[+boda]

Happened to me once on American. "What's that you have there?" "A GPS". "You'd better put that away before we take it away".

 

Some airlines allow it, some don't.

Last year I flew on American to Denver. I missed their on-line mention that it was not allowed; so when boarding, I asked the flight attendant. She said, "OK above 10,000 when the Captain announces that is OK to use electronic equipment." As I was leaving the plane, the Capt. asked how it worked. Later, in one of these forum threads I saw that American didn't allow GPS use, with the quote from their website.

[+StarBrand]

If a member of the flight crew says put it away. Then put it away. No sense in arguing.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

I have, since 2004, frequently employed GPSrs on both domestic and international flights, and with no problems. However, if I am at all unsure of airline policies, I simply ask beforehand, and, if the cabin attendant appears confused about the concept of a GPSr, I suggest gently that they may wish to ask the captain for guidance.

[+Team Cotati]

They have WiFi at 35,000' now do they? I hadn't heard about that. Probably one heckofa usage fee, eh?

 

Treat your gizmo just like any other electrinic device. When they inform you that you 'may now use your carry-on electronic devices'....turn the thing on. Later, if a member of the flight crew asks you to turn your gizmo off, turn it off. This is not difficult and it won't even hurt one little bit.

 

Those people have many tasks to perform during a flight....one of them ought not to be babysitting stubborn geocachers.

 

I use my gizmo everytime that I take a commercial flight. Never once been challenged nor never once have I asked permission.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+AKStafford]

I've always kept mine out of site, using my body to block a crew member from seeing it. It makes the time go by much faster. If ever challenged, I'd just play dumb. I've got a ton of experience doing that...

[+GrateBear]

Maybe I'm a renegade, but I use mine on every flight. I always get a window seat, turn it on as soon as I'm seated, and have a great time watching where we go. Flight attendants have seen it, said nothing, although I usually try to hide it behind a magazine. I find it very hard to believe that all those who are married to their cell phones turn them off before take-off/landing. Jeez, as soon as the wheels hit the ground they are calling someone or taking a call.

[+FireRef]

This kind of thing is one reason I very rarely will fly, unless absolutely necessary. Consideirng that air traffic is safer than driving, some of the idiotic rules that these airlines, the FAA, and the TSA have come up with make traveling by air similar to living in a fascist state. I have never agreed with absolute authority under any circumstances, and even more certainly not under circumstances where the person in authority clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. I would rather drive a lot longer trip to have control over what I bring and how I get there, rather than getting there quickly, but being subject to the crap that travelers have to put up with in a free country.

 

The FAA has indicated that there is no problem with using them - how an airline can tell you what you can and cannot do, when it will have no bearing on the flight, is beyond me. No weapons -makes sense. Nothing that could mess with the plane's electronics -makes sense. However, show there is any effect from a receiver receiving and decoding radio signals which are penetrating the plane 100% of the time, and I will have no problem with this.

 

Even with the occasional plane hijacking before 9/11, it was STILL safer to travel by plane. I'm not saying we should support hijackers. I am only saying we need to do a little more common sense in our rules. Prohibiting water bottles? Prohibiting TINY shampoo bottles? Some of these things are just completely idiotic. Prohibiting weapons? This makes sense...

 

I'll stick to my car where I can do reasonably what I want.

 

Power Corrupts

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

 

(step off soapbox)

[+admo1972]

Just last weekend, I flew Continental (Continental Express actually, which is operated by ExpressJet airlines), and I left my GPS in my luggage because I read on the internet somewhere that Continental does not allow the use of GPS on the airlines. However, in the in-flight magazine, they have a page in the back that details the kinds of equipment allowed and not allowed on the flight. It specifically says that GPS units are allowed once the plane reaches 10,000 feet, along with iPods and other approved electronic devices.

[+D@nim@l]

Just last weekend, I flew Continental (Continental Express actually, which is operated by ExpressJet airlines), and I left my GPS in my luggage because I read on the internet somewhere that Continental does not allow the use of GPS on the airlines. However, in the in-flight magazine, they have a page in the back that details the kinds of equipment allowed and not allowed on the flight. It specifically says that GPS units are allowed once the plane reaches 10,000 feet, along with iPods and other approved electronic devices.

 

I fly Continental a lot and have always been able to use my GPS and you are correct, it states that it is a permitted device in the Continental onboard magazine. I was looking for the online version but that type of info is omitted.

[+gypsyg8r]

I've found that you can also go to the airlines website and do a search for GPS and most of them tell you whether or not you can use them. Continental's website doesn't mention a GPS specifically, but you can receive messages on your pager at any time, but only use your cell phone while the cabin doors are open, and your computer can't be used until above 10000 feet.

 

Delta specifically mentions that they're allowed:

http://www.delta.com/traveling_checkin/inf...vices/index.jsp

 

American Airlines specifically mentions that they're prohibited (of course, they also specifically say you can't use a cordless mouse, either):

http://www.aa.com/content/travelInformatio...sonal%20Devices

[+Team Cotati]

Think about it. The TSA knowingly lets these things onboard aircraft carrying 100's of people. How 'dangerous' do you think that they could be? If a member of the flight crew asks you turn your gizmo off, turn it off.

[+sbell111]

Just last weekend, I flew Continental (Continental Express actually, which is operated by ExpressJet airlines), and I left my GPS in my luggage because I read on the internet somewhere that Continental does not allow the use of GPS on the airlines. However, in the in-flight magazine, they have a page in the back that details the kinds of equipment allowed and not allowed on the flight. It specifically says that GPS units are allowed once the plane reaches 10,000 feet, along with iPods and other approved electronic devices.

I was about to mention the same thing.

 

My standard practice is to check the inflight magazine shortly after I get situated.

• If the mag states that GPS is not allowed, I leave it in my carryon.
  
• If the magazine makes no mentioon of GPSrs, I use it, but will turn it off if asked to.
  
• If the magazine allows GPSr usage, I freely use it and will show the magazine to a crewmemeber who questions my usage.
  

Obviously, I only use it during cruise after we are given the go ahead for electronic devices.

Edited August 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+The Leprechauns]

My standard practice is to check the inflight magazine shortly after I get situated.

• If the mag states that GPS is not allowed, I leave it in my carryon.
  
• If the magazine makes no mentioon of GPSrs, I use it, but will turn it off if asked to.
  
• If the magazine allows GOSr usage, I freely use it and will show the magazine to a crewmemeber who questions my usage.
  

Obviously, I only use it during cruise after we are given the go ahead for electronic devices.

This is exactly what I do as well. I've been asked twice in five years to turn off my GPS.

 

Hmmm, I am flying cross country on Continental in a few weeks. I will need to check that in-flight magazine.

[+Prime Suspect]

They have WiFi at 35,000' now do they?

Yes, they do.

[+Team Cotati]

They have WiFi at 35,000' now do they?

Yes, they do.

 

That's great news, thank you very much.

[+brodiebunch]

At any large company, you will never get a straight answer on anything.

 

Someone with too much information has too much power.

[+Team Cotati]

You can never have enough information.

 

And besides, on an airliner there is only ONE information source that matters...the captain. The sole arbritrator of truth, justice and the American Way. What some stuffed suit in a corporate office may think is irrelevant once that airplane leaves the ground.

 

Don't mess with the captain or his trusty crew, do so and deep deep du du awaits.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+007BigD]

Yep...Its great fun-EH? knowing you are cruisin at 500 MPH and being able to know what you are flyin over!

 

Guess its here or there as far wher it can be used, but I still tucked it away and my Girlfriend will always play Flight attendant and tell me to turn it off when takin off!

 

They told my brother..."You wanna end up in TenBuck2", and made him put it away. Dang unruley Flight attendants!

[+FireRef]

You can never have enough information.

 

And besides, on an airliner there is only ONE information source that matters...the captain. The sole arbritrator of truth, justice and the American Way. What some stuffed suit in a corporate office may think is irrelevant once that airplane leaves the ground.

 

Don't mess with the captain or his trusty crew, do so and deep deep du du awaits.

 

Exactly what kind of deep do-do? I can see if it is a safety issue, but if the airline clearly states something is allowed (such as in the magazine everyone has been referring to), and the person wandering around doesn't want you to have it, or use it, what right do they have to contradict a policy of the company?

 

I don't remember when purchasing an airline ticket signing away my rights as an individual or as a citizen. Maybe captains in the military have that kind of power, but I don't see civilian pilots having nearly as much.

Edited August 15, 2007 by FireRef

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't remember when purchasing an airline ticket signing away my rights as an individual or as a citizen. Maybe captains in the military have that kind of power, but I don't see civilian pilots having nearly as much.

 

Congress does that for you. Don't try to mod your xbox. It's a crime. Not because it's wrong, but because concievably it could be used for something wrong.

[+FireRef]

...I don't remember when purchasing an airline ticket signing away my rights as an individual or as a citizen. Maybe captains in the military have that kind of power, but I don't see civilian pilots having nearly as much.

 

Congress does that for you. Don't try to mod your xbox. It's a crime. Not because it's wrong, but because concievably it could be used for something wrong.

 

I don't know too many people that follow those rules - but that is the concept of licensing, rather than selling. You're not purchasing the program/item - you're purchasing a license to use it, according to what the company making it will allow you to do. Never agreed with that one either...

[+Team Cotati]

The captain has absolute and total authority of all aspects of the aircraft and the conduct of safe, lawful and orderly operation. That you can be most assurred of. It happens to be written law and regulation. Don't worry, it is ok.

 

Please let me know the first time that you see a captain ask for permission to take some action other than ATC clearances and such, ok? And even then, the captain can take alternate actions based upon his own assessment of the situation.

 

Resistance is futile, trust me.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't remember when purchasing an airline ticket signing away my rights as an individual or as a citizen. Maybe captains in the military have that kind of power, but I don't see civilian pilots having nearly as much.

 

Congress does that for you. Don't try to mod your xbox. It's a crime. Not because it's wrong, but because concievably it could be used for something wrong.

 

I don't know too many people that follow those rules - but that is the concept of licensing, rather than selling. You're not purchasing the program/item - you're purchasing a license to use it, according to what the company making it will allow you to do. Never agreed with that one either...

It's worse than that. The DMCA flat out makes it illegal to enable piracy. (As opposed merely making piracy the problem) That's separate from copyright and lisencing. Ever wonder why we have such crappy complicated electronics that don't quite work right these days? Electronics makers are forced to reduce useful features because copyright holders have the DCMA letting them scream and yell about the potential for piracy. Legitimate uses be damned.

 

If it does'nt change we are all going to be buying bootleg electronics from Communist China because they have more freedom.

 

Back to airlines. Percieved threat is all they need. The FAA list of banned items is shorter than the TSA list of items confiscated for the safety of us all. Like you, I'd rather drive. I have more control and freedom to offset my increased risk.

[+Team Cotati]

I've often seen where peoples "I'd rathers" melt rather quickly when faced with 'reality'. But hey, maybe you CAN drive to England. I wouldn't put it past some to try.

[+Team Cotati]

What exactly is the implication of this statement?: "I don't remember when purchasing an airline ticket signing away my rights as an individual or as a citizen."

[+alienbogey]

This is a simple thread topic and it has a simple, very commonsensical answer several posts above this one:

 

If the airline prohibits it - Leave it off

 

If they allow it - Turn it on if you like

 

If they allow it and a crewmember asks you to turn it off - politely show them their airline's PRINTED policy in the inflight magazine or whatever source, then go with what they say, on or off.

 

Simple.

 

Now, yes, some airlines allow and some don't. The source of the don't allow policy is concern over electronic devices that have not been tested and approved by the FAA as guaranteed not to interefere with the aircraft's navigation equipment. Yes, electronic devices that are receive only shouldn't interfere, but unless tested and demonstrated not to interfere you don't really know.

 

So, some airlines ban more than others.

 

Devices which transmitt (cellphones, for example) are much more likely to interfere with navigation which is why all airlines (so far as I know) ban them airborne. Yes, people yank them out as soon as the wheels touch the ground but that's fine because the flying and navigating are over. My airline specifically allows them once on the ground.

 

It always absolutely amazes me when people - as reported to me by flight attendants - attempt to use their cells or other banned devices when airborne. THEY MAY INTERFERE WITH THE NAVIGATION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Is your phone call so important that you're willing to risk the aircraft following a misguided signal right into a mountain?

 

Finally, whatever you think of the legitimacy of the ban of the device in question, yes, crewmembers have the right to ask (read "order") you to stop using it. It is in the interest of safety, refusing constitutes interference with a flight crew member in their duty, and is a federal offense. Civil rights are not in question - the last time I read the Constitution there was no amendment regarding electronic device usage on airliners.

 

My credentials for this post: Captain at a major US airline.

 

But, no need to read beyond the simple rules at the beginning.

[+BigFurryMonster]

It is quite fun to see the KM-to-destination ticking away with the speed of 1 every 4 seconds... (900 km/h).

 

I can imagine that the crew does not want to go and check every single electronic device onboard, so they's better tell people to shut stuff down even when there is no real danger.

[+FireRef]

This is a simple thread topic and it has a simple, very commonsensical answer several posts above this one:

 

If the airline prohibits it - Leave it off

 

If they allow it - Turn it on if you like

 

If they allow it and a crewmember asks you to turn it off - politely show them their airline's PRINTED policy in the inflight magazine or whatever source, then go with what they say, on or off.

 

Simple.

 

Now, yes, some airlines allow and some don't. The source of the don't allow policy is concern over electronic devices that have not been tested and approved by the FAA as guaranteed not to interefere with the aircraft's navigation equipment. Yes, electronic devices that are receive only shouldn't interfere, but unless tested and demonstrated not to interfere you don't really know.

 

So, some airlines ban more than others.

 

Devices which transmitt (cellphones, for example) are much more likely to interfere with navigation which is why all airlines (so far as I know) ban them airborne. Yes, people yank them out as soon as the wheels touch the ground but that's fine because the flying and navigating are over. My airline specifically allows them once on the ground.

 

It always absolutely amazes me when people - as reported to me by flight attendants - attempt to use their cells or other banned devices when airborne. THEY MAY INTERFERE WITH THE NAVIGATION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Is your phone call so important that you're willing to risk the aircraft following a misguided signal right into a mountain?

 

Finally, whatever you think of the legitimacy of the ban of the device in question, yes, crewmembers have the right to ask (read "order") you to stop using it. It is in the interest of safety, refusing constitutes interference with a flight crew member in their duty, and is a federal offense. Civil rights are not in question - the last time I read the Constitution there was no amendment regarding electronic device usage on airliners.

 

My credentials for this post: Captain at a major US airline.

 

But, no need to read beyond the simple rules at the beginning.

 

The first thing I have a problem with here is - if the airline policy states one thing, what right does a flight attendant (or captain) have to contradict this?

 

The next thing is that simply because they "may" interfere doesn't mean that they should be dealt with. They "may not", so therefore, shouldn't we follow this? Has a test been performed where it has? Has any proof of them interfereing?

 

There was a series of tests performed a year of two ago by an independent group between cell phones and hospital equipment - remember how everyone thought that cell phones might interfere with hospital equipment, so people were always required to turn them off? This group tested a large number of cell phones, and 50-60 different pieces of common hospital electronic equipment. The tests went up to and included placing cell phones transmitting at full power INSIDE the equipment. There was no interference generated - no effect at all!

 

Now, of course, many hospitals still haven't changed their policies. But - I believe Mythbusters did a show on aircraft navigation equipment with the same results - no effect at all. Not as scientific as the aforementioned tests, but definitely begs the question..."If there is this big of a possibility of there being an effect, why has no one tested it?"

 

No, I don't want a plane I'm flying in to fly into a mountain. But if we prohibited everything that "might" interfere, I guess people with pacemakers can't fly. Palm pilots, which was mentioned in an earlier post, never shut off short of removing the batterys, and many organizers do the same. None of those. Watches... well, most are electronic, and that little quartz crystal in there is being electrified and vibrating in order to make the watch work - there's EM emissions being given off - better scrap those, too. Actually, people generate enough electricity in their brains to light a 100 watt light bulb... some of that energy might leak out and affect the flight instruments. Who knows... stranger things have happened, and some plane crashes still haven't been explained. Yes, the last couple of examples are silly, but I think you see the point - where do we draw the line?

 

Do you see my point? Firstly, how can you prohibit something on a whim, and secondly, if it is listed as allowed, how can a flight attendant (or captain) be allowed to change that? (in my job, if I just do whatever I want, and it is different from the policy set by my superiors, I get in trouble)

Edited August 15, 2007 by FireRef

[Motorcycle_Mama]

How about this from the US DOJ? Is this good enough for you?

 

9-63.110 Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants

 

Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with t he performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).

 

Venue is governed by the standard venue provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3237 and 3238 and Rule 18, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. See also United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1982). "[T]he offense continues for at least as long as the crew are responding directly, and in derogation of their ordinary duties, to the defendant's behavior." United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d at 50. Prosecution is always proper in the district over which the aircraft was flying when the interference took place, if that can be determined. In many cases, particularly those in which either (1) the aircraft is diverted due to the defendant's actions, (2) the defendant's interfering actions continue, or (3) the crew remains concerned about defendant's possible further actions, venue is also proper in the district in which the aircraft lands. Since determining the district over which the aircraft was flying when the action took place may be difficult, and that district may have little or no connection to the matter, the Department advocates prosecution in the district where the aircraft lands and the defendant is deboarded and arrested in all appropriate cases.

 

The interference and other Title 49 aircraft offenses are supervised by the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS), which can be reached at (202) 514-0849.

 

Also, Federal regulations and the Contract of Carriage, which is binding when you buy a ticket, requires that you comply with all flight crew instructions and regulations.

[+FireRef]

How about this from the US DOJ? Is this good enough for you?

 

9-63.110 Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants

 

Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with t he performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).

 

Venue is governed by the standard venue provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3237 and 3238 and Rule 18, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. See also United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1982). "[T]he offense continues for at least as long as the crew are responding directly, and in derogation of their ordinary duties, to the defendant's behavior." United States v. Hall, 691 F.2d at 50. Prosecution is always proper in the district over which the aircraft was flying when the interference took place, if that can be determined. In many cases, particularly those in which either (1) the aircraft is diverted due to the defendant's actions, (2) the defendant's interfering actions continue, or (3) the crew remains concerned about defendant's possible further actions, venue is also proper in the district in which the aircraft lands. Since determining the district over which the aircraft was flying when the action took place may be difficult, and that district may have little or no connection to the matter, the Department advocates prosecution in the district where the aircraft lands and the defendant is deboarded and arrested in all appropriate cases.

 

The interference and other Title 49 aircraft offenses are supervised by the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS), which can be reached at (202) 514-0849.

 

Also, Federal regulations and the Contract of Carriage, which is binding when you buy a ticket, requires that you comply with all flight crew instructions and regulations.

 

Definitely clears up a few things. And solidifies my intent not to fly - the way this is written, you don't even have to do anything except them thinking you're going to do something and you're in trouble.

 

The final line still does not address the point - are they permitted to supersede airline regulations (allowing the use of the GPS) by prohibiting its use?

[+Kealia]

<snip...>

Do you see my point? Firstly, how can you prohibit something on a whim, and secondly, if it is listed as allowed, how can a flight attendant (or captain) be allowed to change that? (in my job, if I just do whatever I want, and it is different from the policy set by my superiors, I get in trouble)

 

Problem with authority much?

 

Seriously, I agree that arbitrary rules and enforcement are frustrating, but are you really going to avoid flying because you can't use your GPS?

 

I like using mine, and have only been asked to shut it off once. I did. They call the shots. End of story.

If you really disagree with their policy, write a letter or start a petition, but causing grief for the flight attendants (and subsequently yourself) will accomplish nothing.

[+Kealia]

The final line still does not address the point - are they permitted to supersede airline regulations (allowing the use of the GPS) by prohibiting its use?

 

My understanding is that they can do whatever they want if they think it's in the best interest (read: safety) of the crew, airline, or passengers.

 

Do they overreact sometimes? Sure. Would I want it any other way? Nope.

[+FireRef]

Overreacting, whether on the side of safety or paranoia, is never appropriate.

 

We have gone from a "free country" (which was never completely true, but freer than others) to a country where all you have to do is think someone is doing something wrong, and now, they are. Or pretty darn close.

 

My lack of interest in flying isn't due to a lack of permission to use a GPS - it's because I don't plan to sign my rights as a citizen away. I have the right to do things which are legal, and which do not harm or interfere with others rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and (in this case mainly) the pursuit of happiness. Reading a display on a device which doesn't cause interference (show me evidence it does, and I'll change my opinion in a heartbeat - otherwise, i'll believe the science people) is something that the airlines and captains and flight attendants are overreacting to if they prohibit its use out of safety concerns. There are none. A strong magnet will cause more damage to flight instruments and sensors than a GPS.. should we ban those too?

 

We have gotten to the point that when a few terrorists make a plot, kill a bunch of people in one specific incident, we interfere with the rights of many people to "protect" everyone else. The pendalum needs to swing back the other way to be more concerned with rights than "protection". If someone wants to do something bad, they'll find a way. You know the old saying "If we ban guns, the only ones with guns will be the criminals". The people that break the law will do it anyway, regardless of how many things we prohibit. Letting people restrict or prohibit things which are harmless is just leading to the loss of rights. Remember making people throw out tiny shampoo bottles? Or Water bottles? If there's hydrocarbons or other illicit substances in there, they have sniffers that can detect them. Deal with the people who have things they aren't supposed to - don't make the average person with legitimate possessions get rid of them or not use them because someone "might" have something they're not supposed to.

[+Kealia]

Alright, I'm bowing out of this one. It seems that you have a serious beef with something that goes a lot deeper than a GPS on a plane. I'm not interested in debating our rights as Americans, what we should be doing about terrorism, or anything else political with you. I come in here for fun. I can get grief everywhere else

 

So, back on topic: I also used my GPS on a recent flight to Hawaii. It was fun to see where we are, but when people kept asking me where we werem, the answer was always the same, "somewhere over the Pacific!"

Edited August 15, 2007 by kealia

[Motorcycle_Mama]

FireRef,

 

Here's the part you are missing. By purchasing a ticket, you are agreeing to their terms. Don't like the terms then don't buy a ticket. It's pretty simple.

 

And yes, of course, they can supersede the Federal regulations and airline policy if they feel it is warranted. And as has been pointed out already in this thread, it's up to the airlines. AND within that airline, the flight crew (any of them) have the authority to restrict nearly anything that they think might be dangerous.

 

By arguing with the flight crew, you automatically will be likely to be charging with interfering with a member of the flight crew. At this point, you will pretty much be guilty until proven innocent. Again, don't like it then don't get on the plane.

 

Whether or not the country is free has no bearing on your liberties or lack thereof when you enter into a contract with a private party which is what happens when you VOLUNTARILY purchase an airline ticket.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+FireRef]

I understand that - which, again, is why I wouldn't plan to do much flying, if at all. I missed a very important event 9 years ago because of a plane being delayed because of rain (planes fly in rain all the time) - I missed the connecting flight because of the delay in the first one. Since then, I don't plan to fly unless absolutely necessary, since I don't feel like giving control of my life up to people who aren't concerned with schedules. (safety is important, but as I said above, planes fly in the rain all the time).

 

If this is a private contract I'm entering into, why do the flight attendants have the force of law behind their orders? I don't know too many cases where private corporations have the law behind their decisions.

 

But yes, this has gotten off topic. I'll withdraw from it, since I've already gotten my wrist slapped and a thread closed because I tried to steer someone else back on topic there (and the topic was my own). I will close with my response to the original post. I believe they should be allowed until evidence that they are in some way dangerous to other electronics is produced. Simply because someone believes they are is not enough in my opinion.

[+treasure_hunter]

We used our reciever on AA and United. We asked the attendant, she asked the Pilot (The person you need to ask! - For future references!), and he said it's fine.

 

Check out the picture I took of the GPSr while in flight.

 

 

Pretty cool aye?

 

Edited to clarify coords at time of picture.

 

N 37 53.742

W 086 35.098

 

This location is over the Ohio River near Owensboro, KY shorty after taking off from Louisville International Airport.

Edited August 16, 2007 by treasure_hunter

[+Team Cotati]

We used our reciever on AA and United. We asked the attendant, she asked the Pilot (The person you need to ask! - For future references!), and he said it's fine.

 

Check out the picture I took of the GPSr while in flight.

 

 

Pretty cool aye?

 

Edited to clarify coords at time of picture.

 

N 37 53.742

W 086 35.098

 

This location is over the Ohio River near Owensboro, KY shorty after taking off from Louisville International Airport.

 

Glad to see the example that you set by not having the gizmo turned on before reaching 10,000'. Lots of fun with the giz, eh?

 

As an aside, I never before thought that I could get such joy from a thing as simple as knowing that certain folk will not be siting on the same aircraft as I. Never before now that is? WOW!! Scary.

 

I now understand fully the need for Air Marshalls on domestic flights. Wish we had enough for 100% coverage though.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+treasure_hunter]

The tin can of the aircraft really toyed with the signal. The Lowrance doesn't have very good reception anways.

 

The pilot gave the Ok for me to turn on the unit. He said it wouldn't cause any troubles.