not hard at all, but I prefer to follow the example of the FAs in their jumpseats during taxi/takeoff: I keep texting/emailing during/after takeoff until I lose cell signal about 5K-10K feet.
I've been using my phone for text/web while the plane takes off and lands for over 10 years and in over a million miles, no crashes yet! Honestly if there was an actual risk to life or property, they sure as hell wouldn't trust the 200+ people on the airplane to turn off their devices. They'd be collecting them at the aircraft entrance in some sort of big pouch that prevented signals from escaping. I use a privacy screen so good luck figuring out if my airplane mode icon is on.
First, you have the burden of proof wrong. You've linked to a clear statement from the FAA telling airlines to limit the use of electronic devices to airplane mode. Referencing the FCC rule doesn't make the FAA guidance go away, and it doesn't say that it's contingent on the FCC rule remaining in place. If you think that the FAA is only stating the requirement because of the FCC rule, it's on you to demonstrate that unambiguously.
Ummm...no, the burden of proof is on the guy saying the FAA has a regulation forbidding something. That would be you. But since you mention it, I'd say the fact that the FAA InFO you yourself cited cites the FCC regulation without citing any of its own is a pretty unambiguous indicator. You think the FAA has a regulation forbidding cellular communications and just didn't mention it there? That's really hilarious.
Also, nice try conflating FAA guidance and FAA regulation. They aren't the same thing. Guidance is much broader. One of the ways it's broader is that it includes recommendations for complying with regulations from other parts of the government. In this case, the FAA guidance is to require airline mode so as to comply with FCC regulation. This isn't that complicated.
Wow. Just wow. That is absolutely not an FAA regulation forbidding cellular communications on airplanes, or requiring airplane mode, or anything of the sort. Here are some words and phrases that don't appear in that regulation: "cellular", "phone", "transmission", "airplane mode".
That regulation is specifically structured to give carriers the broadest possible latitude to regulate any and all electronic devices as they see fit. The fact that they somewhat oddly structured it as "everything is banned, but we'll allow exceptions if the carrier determines they're safe" doesn't change that.
Paragraph (b) says that the carrier may make a determination that the electronic device is safe. The InFO that you link to tells an airline how it can qualify for the exception, and that exception requires that devices be operated in airplane mode.
Yeah...and the InFO helpfully explains why use of that exception requires those devices to be in airplane mode: because there is an FCC regulation requiring it! They say it explicitly! They're out there saying, out loud, "look, we want to help you relax your PED regulations, but don't go and let people use phones because the FCC says that's not OK" and you're trying to use that to argue that I'm wrong to say it's the FCC and not the FAA banning phones. That's just nuts man.
Regardless of the exception, though, there's a very clear title in the federal code, enforced by the FAA, on the use of cell phones and all other PEDs on airplanes.
Um, it can't be "regardless of the exception" ...the exception is part of the title. And given the "ban everything and then make exceptions" structure of the title, it's a pretty important part.
Is there really no argument too disingenuous for you to use? Nothing too "up is the new down" for your taste? I post an actual page from AA's website that details their connectivity policy, and you say "that's just a random webpage about WiFi in flight" and then respond by linking a newsroom item!? Seriously? The page I linked was not in fact solely about WiFi; the title is in fact "Wi-Fi and Connectivity" and it includes a section on "Phones and Electronic Devices" which is what I linked. That's as official an explanation of their policy as you're going to get. Your link to a press release from the marketing folks, by contrast, carries absolutely no weight whatsoever.
So, to recap, you're still incredibly wrong, about everything we've discussed. And the hackishness of your arguments is really spectacular. You should probably just quit while you're behind.
Just because you make a command doesn't mean you have authority. Authority and issuing commands are unrelated. As in, neither one necessarily has anything to do with the other.
In terms of "should", at least in the US, most people would say that is a request or even a command. To show you that point, if you fly in the US you often hear flight attendants say "you need to ..." Are they just making an observation?
At about 9:30 p.m. one night many years ago, I walked into my nine-year-old son's room and said, "Richie, I'd like you to turn out your light now." Fifteen minutes later his light was still on, so I returned and asked him, "Didn't I tell you to turn off your light?" My son replied, "No, dad, you didn't tell me to turn it off, you just told me you'd like it if I did."
Just because you make a command doesn't mean you have authority. Authority and issuing commands are unrelated.
That's true as stated, but doesn't fit this situation. Sure, issuing a command by itself is not a claim to authority...but if you issue a command and then claim a title which carries authority you are explicitly claiming authority. When the FA said "turn your phone to airplane mode; I'm a flight attendant" it was the latter part of the sentence that was claiming authority.