Electronic Bogeyman Gone?

The news reports a story in the New York Times, that the FAA may soon allow some use of electronic devices on flights.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D.-Mo. has been urging the FAA to modernize this way, and give passengers the same rights as pilots and flight attendants.

For years the FAA has told passengers that I pads and such were the equivalent of the Bogeyman under the bed. Some part of the public even believed this myth, others just went along as there wasn't much choice.

It was ludicrous, but that never slowed down the govt. folks that for 5 years claimed that Bob Hoover was unfit to fly as a pilot, and for decades claimed that it was unsafe for pilots over 60 to pilot an airliner. If anyone doesn't mind bringing a few facts into the argument, airline pilot age was first upped to 62 , then to 65. Now if the all knowing govt was correct you would think there would be airliners falling all over us due to those too old pilots. But on the contrary, there hasn't been a fatal crash of a U S major airline in over 3 years.

If the FAA were now to admit that they were wrong, they'd lose face, but then again, as far as this matters goes, they never did have much logic on their side.

I don't use many electronic gadgets myself. I don't know how to operate most of them , even if I owned them, and I don't have any desire to use them in flight while riding on an airliner. I prefer to look out the window or read.

But if would be nice to ride on a plane where the flight didn't start out with the officiial version of a hoax, that many, if not most people no longer believe in.

In some cases the FAA can change when they are wrong. After passengers were repeatedly stranded for 8 or more hours being held on planes on the tarmac, Congress finally forced the FAA to make this illegal and it has almost disappeared now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

It was ludicrous, but that never slowed down the govt. folks that for 5 years claimed that Bob Hoover was unfit to fly as a pilot,

---

There was another issue at stake in the Hoover case, which was relevant to his fitness to fly, but not relevant to his flying skills. It is my limited understanding that the FAA's actions were an attempt to address what they saw as a problem, without damaging the credibility of an aviation icon. The FAA took a lot of heat for it that apparently was not entirely deserved.

Victor, I think you probably aren't familiar with the Bob Hoover case or else you have a warped sense of justice.
In brief:
Bob is a WW II vet and combat pilot, test pilot and widely thought of as a hero if anyone is.
He is universilally known as either the best pilot of all or certainly one of the best. Virtually everyone in the aviation and airshow business would say this, just like saying Babe Ruth was the best or one on the best. There is no doubt of that.

So Bob flew a show in Ok., and no problems. But later two FAA guys say that his performance was at fault. Could they have seen something that really was wrong? Bob has been flying shows for decades and no one else ever saw or said they saw any errors, not even one time.
Problem for the FAA, was that this show of Bob's , like so many others was on video tape. No errors could be seen. Some of Bob's peers were at the show and found no error in his performance. Others could find nothing on the video less than his usual high standards.
THE FAA COULD NOT FIND ONE AIRSHOW EXPERT, NOT ONE OF HIS COMPETITORS TO SAY THAT BOB FLEW ANY LESS THAN EXCELLENT. NOR COULD THEY IN YEARS TO COME.

Never mind logic, facts, and fairness.

They then claimed he had some medical problem.
So Bob retook all the medical exams, and passed with flying colors.
Still not good enough for the FAA.
Bob went to England and Australia and took their flying exams and of course passed with the highest recommendations.

So here is a man widely acclaimed to be an American hero who is legal to fly anywhere else in the world, except his own country.
And this without any evidence, just on the say of two guys who in no way were expert, much less airshow equals to judge Bob.

Finally ,after years a new man was appointed head of FAA and he did the right thing. He apologized and reinstated Bob, but you can't give back the years he lost.
By the way, unlike some big shot celbrities around aviation, Bob is also a nice guy. Still is.

Why did the FAA do this to him? Was it just personal jealousy?
Bob says they wanted to stop him flying because the FAA was trying to stick with their age limit of 60 for airline pilots, and Bob flying as an expert acro pilot over that age was making them look bad.
That is as good an explanation as I have heard.

Everything you said about his skills and airshow performance, on that day and every other day, is correct.

Everything you said about his status as an American hero, WW2 Veteran, test pilot, and aviation icon, is correct.

If my sense of justice was warped, I'd tell "the rest of the story" to defend my posting. But like the FAA administrator during that time period, I'll gladly take a little heat myself to not tarnish a most deserving reputation.

I apologize if this seems argumentative or "muck-raking". My intent was not to be evasive or cause an argument, but simply to point out that the FAA is not always the big evil party-pooper everyone always thinks.

Victor, do you work or did you work for the FAA?
I don't nor do I work for Bob Hoover.
But fair is fair, and facts are facts and to persecute any one person without facts or to distort facts is wrong.

If you have some secret indictment of Bob, that exonerates the FAA let's hear it. Don't make some vague reference to it. And if they had more information adverse to Bob, they would have certainly used it, they had no compunction against trying to damage his reputation.

If you are by any chance referring to Bob's flying the T-28 in California, yes I am aware of the claims between the owner?seller and Bob. I don't know which side it correct, but the facts are that despite the engine problem Bob brought the plane and the passenger back to the airport and didn't crash.

By the way, I know something bad about a pilot named Victor from California, but so as not to damage his reputation , I am going to keep it secret. And my "secret" has to do with an actual accident, not some made up supposition or allegation.

There is another news release today that quotes Sen, McCaskill that the ban, "doesn't make sense and lacks scientific basis."
That has been obvious for years, but now most people are seeing the same thing.

Sorry to further the "thread creep", but I did want to address Bill Greenwood's comments and set his mind at ease.

My actual name is Bill, "Victor Bravo" was my old contest numbers in sailplane racing 30 years ago. I do not now, and never have, worked for the FAA. In fact, I was one of those "...until you're not happy" anti-FAA types for most of my flying time, and I even had an FAA violation against me (buzzing, 1983).

After having gone through the STC-PMA process, and having a truly good and professional experience with FAA ACO and MIDO offices, I learned that there are still a lot of good pro-aviation people in the FAA. There are probably plenty of uncaring bureaucrats and authority-trippers, but in fairness I'm now quick to point out that I have worked with good people who give a damn.

I've been in a couple of situations that could be called "accidents", one time hitting a power pole landing on a road near Mono Lake (sailplane competition off-airport landing), one time pulling the landing gear assembly out sideways (sailplane off-airport landing), and one time dead-sticking an RV-3 into a river wash (prop failure). I'm guessing (hoping) these are not the incidents you're referring to.

My comments had nothing to do with Bob Hoover buying or selling an airplane (not familiar with that story). That would have nothing to do with his being fit to fly.

I believe, in my personal opinion, and based on hearsay, that the FAA administrator (Admiral Don Engen, another "pilot's pilot") did have some compunction against tarnishing Bob's reputation. I doubt any other FAA administrators before or since would have felt that way.

Sorry for being evasive, please be assured I'm not playing cat and mouse with you. I'm just being an old-school aviator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victor Bravo

Sorry for being evasive, please be assured I'm not playing cat and mouse with you. I'm just being an old-school aviator.

---

Old school would have never mentioned it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimRice85

Old school would have never mentioned it...

---

I'm afraid you're right. I just wanted to let people know the story is not one-sided. Shoulda not opened my big trap.

Back to the OP, I'm not so sure that I want cell phones ok'd during an airliner flight. It has nothing to do with making the plane do a barrel roll, it has everything to do with the person sitting next to you on his or her phone for two hours. Taking my cue from Neil Boortz, I've decided that if it ever happens and I'm sitting next to a guy or gal that is on a cell phone for more than five minutes, I'll take out the magazine from the seat pouch and read it aloud. Eventually, there'd be an understanding reached.

David

I just find it hard to believe that there are that many people who are that important that they must be in constant communications. i hope I never reach that status.....A little peace and quiet every now and then is nice...

Victor Bravo,
I don't know if Don Engen was in office when Hoover was prosecuted or if he was the one who reinstatated him.
Maybe you can tell us the details.

And I am anxious to hear more details of what evidence, if any that you have to back up your claim that the prosecution of Bob was "not one sided."
So far we have your allegation and nothing factual.

Jerry,
It is not really an issue of someone "being in constant communication" on a plane.
It would be fine if the airlline were to ask people to shut off cell phones, etc. so as not to disturb neighbors, just like is done in libraries or theaters.
Also there are ways to use these devices on mute or with earphones that don't bother others with the noise.

The problem I object to is the official govt agency, the FAA , telling the airline that they must announce to the public something that it a lie.
And in some cases the airline acting like a thug to a passenger for using the same type device that is ok to use in the cockpit.

I don't even own a cell phone or I pad, may get one some day. I'd much rather go flyign than play with a gadget. But like a restroom on an airliner, I don't want to have it forbidden to use if I want or need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosiejerryrosie

I just find it hard to believe that there are that many people who are that important that they must be in constant communications. i hope I never reach that status.....A little peace and quiet every now and then is nice...

---

My "empirical" evidence that it would be a real PIA is the fact that when an airliner touches down and the announcement is made that cell phones may be used, there's a flurry of activity of passengers firing up their phones and talking away. I still think my solution would be the best way to keep it to a minimum. :-)

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Jerry,

I don't even own a cell phone or I pad, may get one some day. I'd much rather go flyign than play with a gadget. But like a restroom on an airliner, I don't want to have it forbidden to use if I want or need to.

---

I hear ya', Bill! I own a business, so I need a cell phone, but it was just about a month ago that I actually got my first "smart phone". The only reason is that the upgrade was free (Nokia Windows Phone). And, my wife bought our first Ipad II for one major reason; there's an option called "Face Time". It's like Skype but portable. Our two granddaughters live in Baton Rouge, an hour and a half a way, and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1700 miles away. It allows us to keep our voices and faces in the minds of the two munchkins. I do spend time on the computer, but I don't belong to any of the Facebook/Twitter universe.

David

I read somewhere that something on the order of only 50% of passengers actually turn their phones off. I've accidentally left mine on before and didn't realize until I we landed that I'd forgotten to do so. Never appeared to be an issue.

Jim Hann,
your idea of the FAA violating the airline pilot for a passenger not turning off a cell phone or I pad, sounds like something that one would read in the National Enquirer or should it be Inquisitor, along with stories of people who say they have been kidnapped and taken aboard alien spacecraft to be examined by out of this world beings.
It sounds like myth or propaganda, not reality.

Now, I am not from your "show me" state of Missouri, but when you or anyone writes something that doesn't ring true, then I'd like to see proof.

So don't be shy, tell us the name and date and airline of any pilot who was violated for this passenger offense. Then we can all sympathize with him.

Maybe one day we will know the truth about aliens and craft from outer space and it may turn out that they are flown secretly by the FAA to search out rebel cell phone users.

Today I rode an airline flight back to Denver and had a borrowed cell phone in my pocket. As we descended to land they made the annoucment. Just out of curiosity I held the phone in my lap as if I was using it. I was in the front row right next to a male and female stew or as they are called now F A.
Neither paid the slightest attention to my phone, I think they make the annoucement, but know already that is silly and they are not worried about such electronic nonsense.

By the way, or maybe it is to the point, this airline is profitable, has an almost impeccable safety record and is famous for treating their customers well. I own stock in it and have a 67% profit as of today.

Your post sounds like you don't see passengers as customers, to be treated with respect, rather than threatened and bullied.

If a "flight attendant" equates serving a passenger with "kissing their ass",then they should not be in a business that interacts and serves the public.
And no matter the job, a little courtesy and decency goes a long ways to make every ones day better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Hann

Bill,

To paraphrase a T-shirt I've seen on more than one off duty FA, they are there to save your @$$, not kiss it!

---

I disagree.

I'm old enough to remember when an airline cabin crew was there to serve their customers, not frighten the s**t out of them. When FLIGHT SAFETY is at stake, THEN they can get all authoritative, throw people off airplanes, and give orders.

But my feeling is that this has gone way too far off balance. If you have a couple of drinks in the airport bar, or are frustrated with TSA's nonsense and in a bad mood... all of a sudden you now have to live in fear of the cabin attendants, because if you pi** one of them off they can toss you off the flight and ruin your trip. Nowdays you're supposed to sit there, shut up, eat the micro pretzels, don't make eye contact with Mistress Dominatrix Authority, and be thankful you're not forced to fly on the outside of the airplane. Not just no, but HELL no.

Add this to the horrendous and draconian experience of just getting to the airport, through the Electro De-humanizer and getting to the airplane. Add that to the insult of now having to pay extra money to bring your suitcase. And add that to the experience of extra fees on your ticket to talk to someone on the phone instead of online reservations. All I can say is that airline travel has become a horrible experience for me.

I'm even able to remember decent food on airliners (my goodness I'm old), but I was happy to give that up for a lower fare, which ALSO is less stressful for the cabin crew BTW. So I'll pack a sandwich, fill up an empty water bottle downstream of the TSA dog and pony show, and I'll even pay ten dollars for a %$*#&^ granola bar at the news stand.

But when I'm paying hard-earned money to travel, and I've gone through a truly aggravating and insulting experience by the time I've gotten into that narrow seat, I draw the line at living in fear of the FA's if I happen to be annoyed or in a bad mood (and there's a whole lot to be angry about, deal with that). If I'm genuinely causing a safety problem, then throw my a** off the airplane. But anything short of that, I'm the customer who chose to spend his money with that airline and I deserve to have my a** kissed if that's what I need. Just like a restaurant, just like a car dealership, just like Wal-Mart.

They're there to save my a** in an inflight emergency, and in such an emergency I'll treat them like heroes. In a financial emergency like the one our nation is in, they can treat me like a hero for paying good money to put up with everything air travel has become.

My apologies to the several airline pilots and a couple of FA's I know if they feel insulted. I'm not saying their job is easy, by any means.

OK, no offense taken either way. It's my turn to agree; today's world is indeed a lot different. Sadly, 9-11 made us all into racists and haters and profilers on some level.

As unlikely as it would be, then the only honest way to have "truth in advertising" about today's airline travel is to put a big sign in the airport terminals and airline website homepages, saying "There has been a fundamental change due to 9-11 and its aftermath, Reagan-era airline de-regulation, Bush-era corporate greed, and the oppressive TSA and FAA environment we operate in. We can no longer provide "customer service" as it was once known. Making your trip a pleasant (or respectful) experience is no longer the first priority of this airline and its Flight Attendants. We aqpologize for any inconvenience."

Jim,
1. I am just a gen av pilot, never flew for an airline.
2. I have been an airline passenger for over half a century, saw the days when they treated customers like they valued you, and an airline job was a great one to have. I have owned stock in 4 airlines, still have in one. I have flown the CEO of a major and his wife in my plane on their visit to Colorado and like most of us have many friends who are with airlines. And I used to know a few stews, before they had to come up with a new fancier name.
3. It is sad that you and so many airline folks are pissed off at your management or industry or FAA. BUT NONE OF THAT IS THE PASSENGERS DOING.
4. I don't know what an "ASI" is, but once again it is not the passengers fault.
5. You talk about the ASI or company or FAA coming down on the pilot for some infraction about deicing. Deicing is serious business and a big safety factor especially if you are on an ATR, but ONCE AGAIN, IT IS NOT THE PASSENGERS RESPONSIBILITY, other then maybe to look out the back window at the wings and call the stew if it is not clear.
6. The idea that any passenger is really a security risk these days is far fetched. If the cockpit door is locked ,and passengers are no longer idle and complacent hostages ,then anyone having less than a bomb or a metal saw is not going to really affect flight safety.
7. If the airline or the FAA really thought that cell phones and Ipads and kids game boys would/could affect the safety of flight,would it be prudent to let several hundred people on board with these devices?
Would terrorists need to sneak bombs aboard in their shoes or underwear if they could down a plane by just a few Peds?
8.You talk of the FAA punishing pilots, but as I said I have never heard of the FAA violating any pilot for the action of a passenger in the cabin with a PED which the pilot was not involved in and had no responsiblity for. You cite confidentiallity, but that is a cop out in my view, so just as I said, you have not named one case of a pilot being cited for a passenger ped act.
9. You may be a nice reasonable, level headed guy, but unfortunetley you stiil seem to think a passenger is supposed to respect you or be punished. United just diverted and hassled 2 parents, for the act of protesting when the airline was showing a movie with guns a violence in front of their 4 and 7 year old children. The stews claimed the parents were a security risk,
I hope they get a jury trial in a civil suit and win a large settlement against both United and the stews involved. No one deserves to be treated like that. What if a passenger who had a bad day called into the FAA just before the flight and reported that they saw someone who looked like the pilot or cabin crew drunk near the hotel bar late the night before. Would it be ok for them to tell a little white lie, or is it only ok if it comes from the crew towards the passenger?
10, Your airline may not be profitable and may have scammed you on the pension, but as of last week, my Southwest stock was up 67%.
And unlike most other airlines, they have been profitable for every year of their existence, have an almost perfect safety record, and have received high marks for customer treatment.
11. As for ATRs being subject to safety problems from Peds, baloney.
ny. If you go hold in severe icing conditions at minimum speed long enough you may have a safety problem, but it won't be with an Ipad.
12. I am sure there is an occaisional passenger who is not polite, maybe even drunk. By the way, who is it that serves passengers alcohol on the flights and makes a good profit from it? Could that be the airline and the stews? Nah, they's never do such a thing.
And there recently was a confrontation between a minority stew and the wife of a famous and wealthy preacher. The lady asked for some service, the stew got offended, and claimed the lady assaulted her. The stew went for the big $$$, but did not win that is civil court.
13. Overwhelmingly, for the most part it is not the passengers and the public who mistreat the airline; rather it is the other way around.
A few years back there were dozens of cases of passengers being held hostage by airlines out on the tarmac, even for 8 or 9 hours, without working toliets or food and water, even with infants and elderly on board.
The airlines did not even seem embarrased by this, ( to be fair some of the pilots did speak out against this), and did not willingly change their ways.
It took a passenger to organize and get congress to act and mostly put a stop to this. The airlines blamed it on everyone other than themselves and fought tooth and nail against doing something that any fair minded person knew was right.
Even Congress/govt sometimes gets it right and this problem is almost gone a few years later.
14. The airlines have a great safety record lately, take credit for this, and of course that is more important than customer service, but it would be nice to have both.

This record contains sensitive security information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a “need to know”, as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the administrator of the transportation security administration or the secretary of transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. Government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.

I'm sorry Jim, I did not mean to have anything to do with putting your job status at risk. I enjoy a good spirited discussion, and I believe you do too, and I'm insulted that this type of "free speech" discussion could be held against you by an employer.

Without back-pedaling away from any of the opinions I shared, I do apologize sincerely for any perceived or real risk this discussion caused.

My apologies as well to the EAA forums staff, if this discussion resulted in any tense moments for you, thinking about Jim's best interests as a fellow EAA supporter.

Bill

Rather than reading the SkyMall aloud, I like to participate in the conversation as if the obnoxious cell phone user was talking to me rather than someone else, or, if their conversation isn't conducive to that, I give helpful suggestions to them on how to respond or add to their call.

I love it when they object with the "Excuse me, this is a private conversation" with the response of "then why are you having it in public?"

OTOH, I have found a use for my cell phone on the rare occasions that I carry it that elevates it to a cathartic event. When I am delayed significantly by some doofus who is trying to solve the world banking crisis at an ATM or has decided that today is the day they will overcome their crippling phobia of computers via the self checkout line at WalMart I have in the past whipped out my cell phone, looked at it accusingly, flipped it open with an air of disgust and "answer" it:

What? No! Oh good grief, you are so stupid! Why are you wasting my time!

When the dirty look comes, sheepishly close the phone and apologize.

Never been caught by the object of my ire, but one of the WalMart minders for the self checkout gave me a high-five as I walked past her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Rather than reading the SkyMall aloud, I like to participate in the conversation as if the obnoxious cell phone user was talking to me rather than someone else, or, if their conversation isn't conducive to that, I give helpful suggestions to them on how to respond or add to their call.

I love it when they object with the "Excuse me, this is a private conversation" with the response of "then why are you having it in public?"

OTOH, I have found a use for my cell phone on the rare occasions that I carry it that elevates it to a cathartic event. When I am delayed significantly by some doofus who is trying to solve the world banking crisis at an ATM or has decided that today is the day they will overcome their crippling phobia of computers via the self checkout line at WalMart I have in the past whipped out my cell phone, looked at it accusingly, flipped it open with an air of disgust and "answer" it:

What? No! Oh good grief, you are so stupid! Why are you wasting my time!

When the dirty look comes, sheepishly close the phone and apologize.

Never been caught by the object of my ire, but one of the WalMart minders for the self checkout gave me a high-five as I walked past her.

---

Very good, Frank! :thumbsup:


David