Even though engineers are obviously highly prized by terrorist recruiters for their skills, the reason, according to Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog writing in New Scientist is that they tend to have a more rigid, conservative mindset, and at least in Middle Eastern countries, there've been fewer jobs for them, so more of them have gone radical.

All of the engineers I know are just alcoholics. [Sphere]

Apparently an anonymous source told Reuters that

The TSA will now let pilots decide whether to allow passengers to keep items in their laps or require them to remain seated during portions of the flight [and that the TSA] will let pilots and airlines determine whether in-flight entertainment systems that show a plane's location should be turned off to avoid a security risk.

The NY Times has confirmed this claim with Gale D. Rossides, the acting director of the Transportation Security Administration, who says that "her agency had given airline captains discretion in determining when passengers could move about the cabin during a flight and whether they could have blankets or pillows on their laps."

Rossides also remarked that more "changes in security measures will take place in coming days," so who knows who'll be calling the shots about pillows and blankets a few days down the line.

What we know for now is that JetBlue already appears to be turning their in-flight entertainment systems back on and letting pilots make some decisions, so let's enjoy that news for now while we sort out whether it's still time to fire the TSA. [Reuters via Business Insider via CrunchGear]

Security expert Bruce Schneier nails the core incompetency: "For years I've been saying 'Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.'"

So what has the TSA done in response to the attempted attack? They've told airlines to make passengers stay in their seats during the last hour of flight. They've made it verboten for passengers to hold anything in their laps, again only during the last hour of flight. Perhaps most hilariously telling, they've forbidden pilots from announcing when a plane is flying over certain cities and landmarks.

There is no other way to interpret it: The TSA is saying clearly that they can't prevent terrorists from getting explosives on airplanes, but by god, they'll make sure those planes explode only when the TSA says it's okay.

I want our government to prevent terrorism and to make flights safer. But we are spending billions of dollars and man-hours to fight a threat that is less likely to kill a traveler than being struck by lightning. In the last decade, according to statistician Nate Silver, there has been "one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 miles flown [the] equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune." (Sadly, this does mean that in the future we can expect one out of every two round-trip flights to Neptune to be hijacked.)

The TSA isn't saving lives. We, the passengers, are saving our own. Since its inception, the TSA has been structured in such a way as to prevent specific terror scenarios, attempting to disrupt a handful of insanely specific tactics, while continuing to disenfranchise and demoralize the citizens who are actually doing the work that a billion-dollar government agency—an agency that received an additional $128 million just this year for new checkpoint explosive screening technology—has failed to do.

We just had the first legitimate attempted attack in years, and the TSA changes the threat level from orange...to orange.

This goes far beyond simple customer satisfaction issues like "Take Back Takeoff." (Although they are of a kind.) It has to do with wildly irrationally response of a government agency in the face of failure. An agency whose leader, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, said at first blush that the attempted attack showed that—here comes the Katrina-class foot-in-mouth—"the system worked." (She shoveled shit in her mouth this morning, while still talking up the asinine new measures that the TSA will be taking to respond to this isolated threat.)

I don't want to die on an airplane. I don't want to die in my home while eating an organic bagel infested with parasites that lay eggs on my liver. I don't want to die from starvation or bad water or a thousand other things that I pay our government to monitor and regulate.

But I also don't expect the government to protect from the literally endless possibilities and threats that could occur at any point to end my life or the life of the few I love. It's been nearly a decade since terrorists used airplanes to attack our country, and last week's attempt makes it clear that the lack of terrorist attacks have nothing to do with the increasing gauntlet of whirring machines, friskings, and arbitrary bureaucratic provisions, but simply that for the most part, there just aren't that many terrorists trying to blow up planes. Because god knows if there were, the TSA isn't capable of stopping them. We're just one bad burrito away from the TSA forcing passengers to choke back an Imodium and a Xanax before being hogtied to our seats.

President Obama, don't let this attack—this one attack that was thankfully stopped by smart, fearless passengers and airline staff—take us further in the wrong direction. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. Americans of all stripes and affiliation standing up to say, "This isn't working. We gave you our money. You're not making us safer." We appreciate the attempt to make us safer and acknowledge that it came from an honest attempt to protect American (and the rest of the world's) lives.

But it's a failure. It's wrongheaded. It's a farce. Tear it down. Put the money towards the sort of actions at which our government excels, like intelligence. The failure of the TSA leaves us no choice, but it's okay. The American people are ready to take back the responsibility for our own safety. Really, we already have.

ABC News is reporting that Al Qaeda sewed about 80 grams of PETN, an explosive that's similar to nitro-glycerin, into the Nigerian attacker's underwear. For comparison, the shoe bomber only had about 50 grams in his footwear. Luckily, officials are saying the detonator was either too small or wasn't making proper contact with the explosive.

What does this mean for the future of airline security? After the shoe bomb attempt, we all had to start taking off our shoes at the screening line. Are we going to start walking through the detector in our birthday suits now?

Security expert Bruce Scheier points out that increased security in these sorts of situations just doesn't work, because the tools TSA uses can't detect schemes like these:

I don't want to even think about how much C4 I can strap to my legs and walk through your magnetometers.

Not to mention how ineffective the whole no movement during the last hour of flight idea is. In his words:

Do we really think the terrorist won't think of blowing up their improvised explosive devices during the first hour of flight?

For years I've been saying this:

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

This week, the second one worked over Detroit. Security succeeded.

Whatever inconveniences this may cause, I'm just glad that we averted another disaster. It's pretty unbelievable that twice—twice!—this stuff has snuck by security in various articles of clothing, and both times we've been incredibly lucky that no one got hurt.

Here's to hoping airport security figures out a way to accurately screen for explosives attached to the body soon, without needing all of us to get a little too friendly with each other at the metal detector. [ABC News]

Images via Pinkycay, Fastfission

Again, these are isolated incidents, and there's still no official word from TSA. But in certain instances, some passengers are reporting that electronics usage on inbound U.S. flights is restricted. We'll let you know if an official announcement comes.

The New York Times is reporting that no one will be able to move from their seats during the last hour of flight. That means no bathroom breaks, no accessing carry-on luggage, nothing. When that plane starts descending, you're planted.

Multiple sources, among them Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing, have also been told that no electronics are allowed on international flights. None. So you can't even play video games to distract yourself from how badly you have to pee.

From what we can tell, this is largely restricted to inbound international flights. TSA hasn't made any announcements yet either, so hopefully this is either a temporary measure, or the restrictions will be less severe once the official policy becomes clearer.

So much for using those free in-flight Wi-Fi codes we told you about. If you're flying today, tell us what you hear. [Business Insider, New York Times, @xenijardin]

Image via Bekathwia

Update: According to @charleneli, here's the situation:

New flight rules - Body search, no electronics apply only to int'l flights to US. Just landed in ORD from Canada, missed connection

Update 2: The TSA also released this statement, which seems to confirm that electronics usage policies will be on a case-by-case basis (emphasis added):

"Passengers flying from international locations to U.S. destinations may notice additional security measures in place. These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere. Due to the busy holiday travel season, both domestic and international travelers should allot extra time for check-in."

Update 3: We've been hearing reports from readers about their experiences under the new flight regulations. The good news is, most of you aren't having problems using your gear. The bad news is there's still no official word from TSA, so your milage may vary.

Reader Mikkel had this to say:

I arrived in to LAX last night on a British Airways flight. The only time there were restrictions on electronics were (as always) right after takeoff but now also during the last hour of the flight. Other than that, things were pretty normal. What surprised me, was that the airline had disabled the on-board map so we couldn't see where we were. They told us this was by order of the US government.

I got another email from reader Nic saying the same thing about the in-flight map. Here's a third from commenter Beatledud's observations, and his opinion on why the whole "stay seated an hour before landing rule" defeats the purpose of turning off the location tracker:

In the flight most things were normal. We were allowed to use gadgets but they wouldn't tell us how long it would take to get to DC. And while the moving GPS map on my video screen was disabled, the ETA time stamp on how much was left on the journey worked just fine, and it ended up accurate. DUMB.

Oh, and the having to buckle up and stay seated the last hour of the flight? First this seemed counterproductive since they were ATTEMPTING to prevent passengers from knowing when they were almost landing. Giving an hour heads up cancels that out. And they gave us 30 minutes to go to our bags and the bathroom before the hour lock down. And oh, what a lock down it was, I must have seen 30 people still doing whatever 20 minutes in and half a dozen people just get up anyways for the final 40 minutes to use the bathroom, go to their bags, whatever, and that was just where I was sitting.

The pre-boarding chain of events in Beatledud's story featured beefed-up security measures, but it sounds like everything was relatively normal onboard. He's not the only one to have an uneventful flight. Gynranger left this story of his normal sounding domestic travels in the comments:

I few yesterday, just a domestic flight, from New York, NY to Savanna, GA. We were allowed to use electronics but during take off until cruising alt and about 30 minutes before landing they made us shut everything off, including iPods or computers and other devices even those that didnt broadcast.

There have been some cases where in-flight restrictions were more extreme than usual, like this one from reader Arturo:

We flew from Eugene, OR to San Francisco today: they would not even let us read paperback books that we had brought with us. According to them, the new TSA directive is that in the last hour of flight, we are not allowed to leave our seats, nor use or have anything from our carry-on luggage or personal items.

This seems to be the main restriction, that you can't have anything on your lap during the last hour of flight. That's just the word from the airlines though. As of this writing, TSA still hasn't announced their new guidelines to the public. This is the latest statement up on their page:

Q: What additional security measures are being taken for international flights to U.S. destinations?
A: TSA issued a directive for additional security measures to be implemented for last point of departure international flights to the United States. Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.

So that's what we've been hearing. Again, there hasn't been an official word from TSA. Certain airlines have said that electronics are OK for now, and judging from your stories that seems to be the case. We'll keep an eye on the situation, and we'll try to break the news easy if it turns out you won't be jamming to Miley during the flight home. [TSA, Thanks to everyone who wrote in with their stories]

Update 4:

The biggest airlines aren't budging—yet. Here's something Tim Smith of American Airlines sent me. It typifies the response from the big carriers:

The fact is (and as a technology expert you no doubt already know this) technology creates hundreds of new products each year at a pace that is so fast that we simply cannot keep up with it. We as a company do not have the time, nor the money to test every device that comes down the pike. Plus, even if we did that and one type of device were to be approved by testing, it adds a significant burden on our inflight staff to try and police whether something is actually an approved device or not. Many electronic devices and products often look alike – meaning it either takes an expert in such devices or someone who has the time to go from seat to seat with a list of devices trying to check the model numbers on each device prior to take-off or landing. That is not at all practical. There are many other things going on during that period of flight – several of them important, mandated safety-related steps.

Three obstacles are in the way:

• EMI, or electromagnetic interference, which most of the airlines are willing to admit is the least of their concerns.

• Regulation and the cost of compliance. Most of the airlines think that testing would be too expensive.

• Customer safety. More than anything, it seems most airlines are concerned with passengers being aware during safety briefings or in the case of an accident.

If things go to plan, I'll be joining others in showing how EMI from small gadgets is a non-issue sometime in the next week or so. But even the airlines know that dozens of iPods and Kindles and other non-transmitting devices are functioning without issue in planes every day.

As far as regulation from the FAA is concerned, FAA 14 CFR 91.21B pretty much punts this to the airlines: "It should be noted that the responsibility for
permitting passenger use of a particular PED technology lies solely with the operator."

And customer safety, well...it's an issue. An issue for which I have a lot of sympathy with the airlines. You don't want laptops flying around if there's turbulence—but you don't want that during any part of the flight, yet laptops are kosher at altitude. You want people to be able to listen to music or watch TV, but not miss announcements. As both a customer satisfaction and a customer safety issue, it gets murky very quickly.

But there is good news!

I'm happy to report that more than one airline responded to my queries with more than rote (if friendly) dismissal. And while nothing is for certain until it actually happens, it's looking like there's a chance the more progressive airlines are ready to take a look at the policy and question if it befits a modern airline with modern passengers.

More very soon. (With more terrible headlines.)

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.

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.

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.*

The EMI Lie

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."

In the intervening decades, gadgets became something more than a toy for the rich or nerdy, but an intrinsic sidekick for nearly everyone. Especially the iPod.

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.

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.

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

"But it's about paying attention"

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."

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.

If there were an accident, alerting an unaware person with headphones would take no more effort than nudging a sleeping person next to you. It's not prohibited to sleep during takeoff, just as it isn't prohibited to read a book or magazine or to be deaf. (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.)

Ah, but what about gadgets flying around the cabin as missiles if there is turbulence? It could happen, sure, but is a Kindle appreciably more dangerous than a hardcover book? If a Nintendo DS could hurt someone during an unexpected loss of altitude, why are they ever allowed to be unstowed? The answer is simply that the likelihood of these things happening is far less than the likelihood that customers will go absolutely apoplectic if they aren't allowed some sort of inflight entertainment.

If the airlines are already able to make a judgement between ultimate safety and convenience, why not loosen up just a little more?

Little things matter

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. They're the ones who have to explain to passengers why the pilots were too busy playing with their laptops to land the plane.

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?

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.

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.

* I'm not talking about using Wi-Fi or cellphones during takeoff. I'm in complete support of "Airplane Mode" during takeoff, if not the entire flight. What anecdotal evidence there is about EMI from gadgets is almost exclusively suspected to be from radios and other transmitters.

@joeljohnson deals primarily with first-world problems, but hopes it does not interfere with your pursuit of fixing third-world ones. This isn't the last he's got to say about this issue.

You may also remember that Google already said it would foot the bill for Virgin America Wi-Fi during the same period.

The catch? Once you log into the network, you'll be pestered if you want to set Google to your homepage or try Google Chrome. But that's it. I can deal with that. You'll also have the option to make a donation to Engineers Without Borders, the One Economy Corporation or the Climate Savers Computing Initiative.

Meanwhile, Yahoo is providing free Wi-Fi for an entire year in Times Square, and Microsoft and JiWire will give free Wi-Fi at airports and hotels if you make one search on Bing. I like free stuff! [Google]

Airports for Google-Sponsored Free Wi-Fi:

• Austin (AUS)
• Baltimore (BWI)
• Billings (BIL)
• Boston (BOS)
• Bozeman (BZN)
• Buffalo (BUF)
• Burbank (BUR)
• Central Wisconsin (CWA)
• Charlotte (CLT)
• Des Moines (DSM)
• El Paso (ELP)
• Fort Lauderdale (FLL)
• Fort Myers/SW (RSW)
• Greensboro (GSO)
• Houston (HOU)
• Houston Bush (IAH)
• Indianapolis (IND)
• Jacksonville (JIA)
• Kalamazoo (AZO)
• Las Vegas (LAS)
• Louisville (SDF)
• Madison (MSN)
• Memphis (MEM)
• Miami (MIA)
• Milwaukee (MKE)
• Monterey (MRY)
• Nashville (BNA)
• Newport News (PHF)
• Norfolk (ORF)
• Oklahoma City (OKC)
• Omaha (OMA)
• Orlando (MCO)
• Panama City (PFN)
• Pittsburgh (PIT)
• Portland (PWM)
• Sacramento (SMF)
• San Antonio (SAT)
• San Diego (SAN)
• San Jose (SJC)
• Seattle (SEA)
• South Bend (SBN)
• Spokane (GEG)
• St. Louis (STL)
• State College (SCE)
• Toledo (TOL)
• Traverse City (TVC)

Now, the FAA says the airlines need approval from the FAA's hazardous materials division, and has asked them not to store spare lithium ion batteries for the readers on planes. A few airlines went through some special training to get the okay, but at least Delta and JetBlue don't carry spares or charge the readers on board at all.

The current rate for gadgets exploding on planes is about one every four months, says a former NTSB dude. Which isn't so bad, considering there are millions of flights happening in that time period. Still, I have the feeling this xkcd comic is going to stay funny for the reasons it's funny now for like another year, max. [NYT]

http://xkcd.com/651/

The first problem is, nearly all electronics are lumped together, despite differences in their innards and the services they perform. The second problem is this constant generic request to turn them "off." Until airlines can speak coherently about ebooks, smartphones, tablets and other traveler-friendly gadgets—and address the various states of rest between "on" and "off"—the system remains in a sphere of stupidity. Whether this is mildly annoying or potentially deadly remains to be seen.

The last time I flew, I had in my carry-on bag three cameras, three laptops, a smartphone and a classic iPod. Judging from the long security lines, I wasn't the only one trucking plentiful gadgetry.

When I got on the plane, the flight attendant asked everyone to turn "off" phones and other portable electronics. She appeared at my side as I was switching my iPhone to airplane mode and repeated, "It's time to turn off your portable electronics." I replied, "That's what I'm doing." She sneered like a 1930s copper who'd just collared the dumbest guy in the bootlegging operation: "So flipping through screens is how you turn it off? There's no on-off switch on the side?" She thought she'd caught me in a lie. I just looked back in disbelief, made the screen magically go dark, and put my supposedly "off" phone back in my pocket, satisfying whatever interpretation of the rules was in this poor misinformed woman's head.

On another leg of our journey, just before takeoff, a flight attendant pointed to the ebook reader my wife was using and said in a stern voice, "Please turn off all portable electronics." She did not ask the gentleman seated next to us to turn off his digital watch, though it may well have been drawing more power at the time.

Worst of all, she did not check every single cellphone and laptop to make sure they were in a state where they could not emit a hefty dose of RF. Most of the smartphones on board were probably in standby (with some kind of radio emission still happening) and most laptops were probably closed but not powered down—hopefully sleeping.

The only command we're given is to turn stuff "off"—a command increasingly ignored for its incoherence. What does it mean for a phone or iPod to be "off"? Most people don't even know. If the command is this easy to ignore with no consequences, the likely conclusion is that the gear really isn't a threat. But if it is, the airlines may not discover their own boneheadedness until the danger reaches some lethal saturation point.

Here's the actual FAA regulation:

§ 121.306   Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the [airline] has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that [airline] operating the particular device to be used.
[Doc. No. FAA–1998–4954, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999]

You will have noticed the date, 1999, but still, that preamble speaks volumes: "no person may operate…any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft…" followed by exception after exception. The mentality of that is old school, to put it politely. You will also note that the discretion is left up to the airline (with heavy support from the aircraft maker), layering on confusion in sugary heaps.

What is the issue? This suggests it is "interference with navigation or communication systems," and in that case, it's understandable that such potential for jamming is minimized during the most dangerous parts of the flight, take off and landing. All electronics give off a bit of radiation; communications devices like phones and laptops give off considerably more. Minimize the amount of RF emissions (including unpredictable radio "harmonics") and you will reduce the chances—however unlikely in the first place—that portable electronics will threaten the safety of the flight.

That was Boeing's recommendation to the feds 10 years ago, when cellphones were starting to boom, and it makes sense. Unfortunately, what's going on now is a mere pantomime true RF security. Here's why:

Smartphones
How many people actually know how to turn off their smartphone? When I carried a BlackBerry, I never turned it off, because it took like 5 minutes to power back on. At the same time, I was always finding it fully awake in my bag or pocket, long after I thought I'd secured it. You CrackBerry addicts are making fun of me right now, and that's fine, but the fact is, I can't possibly be alone. How many people know about airplane mode on iPhones or other phones? For flight attendants, turning off the screen is all that apparently matters, but there's no way that is truly compliant.

Laptops
When was the last time you shut off your laptop during the boarding process? When I run out of the house, I just slam the thing shut and shove it in my bag. When I am at the airport, I pop it open to do some work. So when I'm finally at an altitude where it is safe to use portable electronics, I pop it open and then remember to turn off Wi-Fi. And not so we don't plummet out of the air—more so I can save at least some battery life. My guess is that most people who carry laptops on board just let them sleep, with Wi-Fi engaged. And on certain Vista notebooks I've carried, just closing the lid didn't mean squat.

Handheld Gaming Systems
Back about 14 years ago, there were a spate of reports that Game Boys were causing interference with the operation of planes. According to Boeing, there was never any actual proof of this, though it did inspire one of the funniest Simpsons moments ever. The real joke is, back then, portable gaming systems didn't all come with embedded Wi-Fi and Bluetooth like they do now. My guess is that many a properly stowed Nintendo DS can still sniff around the plane for cute Nintendogs or whatever, even with the lid closed.

Ebook Readers
This one is going to need special attention. I often get quite a bit of quality reading done at take-off and landing, precisely because I can't pop open a device and watch a movie or a TV show. But when I carry a Kindle or some other reader, I can't use it during that happy time. The question is, why can't I? With the 3G radio turned off—a very easy maneuver—an ebook reader uses less battery life than the Bluetooth earbud on standby that you may have forgotten to take off your ear. There is no power needed to hold a picture on E-Ink, so the battery is only taxed when the page is turned. How's this for irony? If you are looking at a page of words, your reader actually is off.

Noise-Canceling Headphones
Here's where most airlines get it right. Anything that takes 35 hours to drain a single AAA battery and has no inherent telecommunication function probably isn't going to cause the plane to go into an "uncommanded roll." Armies of Bose addicts fly friendly and unfriendly skies every day, and are generally allowed to use their own big ole cans during take-off and landing, provided they're attached to the airlines' audio system and not their own iPod. This kind of common sense needs to be applied to other devices.

In the end, what we've really got is an increasing array of devices that are replacing the books and crosswords of yore, and almost none of them have an "on-off switch" on the side. They're powered up and doing their thing, often while still nestled inside our pockets or our bags. Some are perfectly harmless beyond a shadow of a doubt, some could easily join together to form a cloud of harmless or harmful electromagnetic radiation. So why are airlines so confused? Hell, they've made special dispensations permitting knitting needles, even foot-long metal suckers. Is it too much to ask that they give equal consideration to our many cherished gadgets?

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about airlines, the FAA or rolls (commanded, uncommanded, hot and buttered) to tips@gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line. Oh, and if you're dying to look up FAA regulations whenever you damn well feel like it, check out this PilotFAR iPhone app that reader (and developer) Nick Hodapp just showed me.

(Click on the image to see it bigger.)

I have no idea whether or not all of the stats are true, but I believe the shit out of them. Peach versus baby blue is the new good versus evil. Apply haphazard census information to a bathroom guy graphic and it's un-freggin-questionable. That's the bathroom guy, after all. He's never abused my trust by leading me into a women's restroom only to laugh and laugh while recording the event for a little YouTube subscriber bait.

That's restraint.

Having flown both types of carriers, I'd have never known that a company like Air France has 10x the staff of a company like EasyJet. And I don't know the last time I was served a meal on a non-international flight, no matter how large or expensive the carrier or ticket. [Flickr via Digg]

After learning that the aircraft was experiencing a technical problem that would require an eight hour delay, the as yet unidentified passenger came forward claiming to be an aircraft engineer that was qualified to work on the Boeing 757-200. After following strict procedures to confirm his credentials, the man was allowed to work on the plane. In the end, the Thomas Cook flight arrived at its destination only 35 minutes late. Needless to say, I'll bet you can think of a personal situation where a dude like this would have come in really handy. [BBC via Slashdot]

There's obviously a cost in maintaining and expanding the air Wi-Fi network, but who should pay for it, the airlines or you? 50-50? Would you pay extra in a ticket to get Wi-Fi access? Maybe it should be free for longer flights?

Your answer in the comments. [Runway Girl]

In practice, that would mean a media server, mostly full of video and music content, would be added to the planes' local networks. Instead of accessing in-flight films and music through a seatback or fold-out screen, passengers could just view it as if it were on a home server, or in a more likely implementation, through a local HTTP interface or set of client apps.

It's an interesting idea, and one that both Aircell and Row 44, two of the biggest providers of in-flight wi-fi, are both actively considering. The main draw is cost, because a bank of hard drives and beefed up router cluster is a tiny investment compared to fitting a plane with individual passenger systems.

But there are some obvious drawbacks. The proposals talk about hosting media for playback on phones and laptops, which could create a compatibility nightmare for the airlines and passengers, and will create an IT nightmare for cabin crew. Then there's the matter of keeping all these gadgets charged: demanding that passengers all use DC adapters to keep their smartphones and laptops charged would work, but it's not exactly elegant.

Having locally hosted media as an option would be a nice additional perk for wi-fi users, and for airlines that don't already have entertainment systems built into their planes it could well be a cheap way to offer their passengers something to do during long flights, but as a total replacement for kickass system like Virgin's? Maybe not. [NYT]

All 100 of Virgin's daily flights will have Wi-Fi, costing $12.95 for flights > 3 hours, $9.95 for flights < 3 hours, $5.95 for red-eyes and $7.95 if you just want to use your cellphone/PSP. Virgin's already our favorite airline just for being a nice airline, so being able to get Wi-Fi on all flights just makes it better. [Virgin America]