This is one of the best known aircraft cabin announcements these days, and one which is increasingly receiving 'pushback' as technology around iPhones, Blackberries, iPads, Kindles, laptops and even kids’ electronic computer games, advances – like the aircraft – into the stratosphere.

This explosive [no pun intended] use of personal electronic devices [PEDs]of all kinds has focused more attention on possible interference with the aircraft’s avionics as it takes off and lands. PEDs include cell phones, Palm Pilots, Blackberries, CD/MP3 players, laptops and iPads. With the growth in the range and sophistication of such devices more versions of PEDs are assured.

Consequently, complaints, especially in places like the United States, are rising against the need to switch off the devices, as instructed on virtually every commercial airliner – particularly as no overriding, conclusive evidence confirms that use of such devices leads to life-threatening interference.

So far few incidents have been attributed to switched on electronic devices at take off or landing, the two parts of the journey where the aircraft would be most vulnerable. The reasons are simple: this is when traffic between the cockpit crew and air traffic control is highest; when the crew has to concentrate the most and when their instruments must be working perfectly.

The only exception recorded appears to be the crash of a Crossair flight near Zurich, Switzerland in January 2000, where investigators found false readings given by aircraft instrumentation were later traced to the exact time of a text message received by a passenger.

Pilots also continue to file incident reports documenting experiences with in-flight cell phone usage and speculate on what impact they may have on the pre-flight checklist.

Not surprisingly, PED usage is now considered the second most likely cause of air rage, second only to alcohol.

It takes about 10-15 minutes for a commercial aircraft to climb to 10,000 feet, which is considered cruising altitude, so supporters of the ban argue that it is not unreasonable for passengers to turn off personal electronic devices during the first 20 minutes and last 10 minutes of a flight to ensure safety.

Take off and landing are the crucial times. Aircraft rarely crash when at cruising altitude so opening up the Kindle or pocket video games is OK. Of course, after much experimentation, the technology now exists for cellphones and computers to be used in flight and many larger airlines are already offering these services.

So why the continued ban? It is very much a matter of governments enforcing the ban to be safe rather than sorry. A blanket ban is the best way of achieving this outcome. For example, portable CD players have been known to cause interference in communications or navigations systems of older, pre-1984 aircraft.

As airlines routinely keep their aircraft in service for 20, even up to 30, years, it's possible that electronic devices could cause problems in these older aircraft.

Another issue is that flight attendants cannot monitor every single electronic device on board, nor do they have the training to ascertain if an electronic device might be an interfering agent or not. Many passengers sympathise with the attendants' dilemma, particularly as there have been notable incidents of passengers blatantly ignoring requests to shut down cell phones.

Technology, though, is now playing a major part in reducing the risks, to the point where some aircraft now allow cell phone calls while the plane is taxiing for takeoff and landing, although many still enforce bans, which has led to air rage incidents as people seek to switch on their phones as soon as the plane has landed.

Overall, passengers still support the ban because of the possibility of dangerous incidents, terrorist threats and potential navigational problems. As the technology allows for PED use at cruising altitude, some airlines have also adopted a 'tap not talk' policy so passengers only use texting or email via wireless networks. No talking please!

Some pretty bad incidents do occur, though. In 2004, a passenger on a Japan Airlines flight refused to stop e-mailing on his cell phone and assaulted the flight attendant who asked him to stop. He stayed on board after promising to behave himself.

Oh, and who are most likely to throw a hissy fit in the air? According to the author of a book Air Rage: Crisis in the Skies, famous people have a higher likelihood of air rage. This leads to a disproportionate number of air rage incidents occurring in first and business class.

These are not directly related to PEDs, but some of the famous people locked in air rage incidents include Naomi Campbell, who else? Little Naomi went ballistic when her luggage got lost (some might sympathise with the diva on this one); Icelandic singer Bjork lashed out a at a reporter at a Thai airport for just welcoming her to the country. Duh! Snoop Dogg, pretty well known for behaving badly at the best of times, was asked to leave a business class lounge.

But the most famous recent meltdown was Jet Blue flight attendant Steven Slater going ballistic when a female passenger opened the overhead luggage compartment, hitting him in the head with the door without apologising. Incensed, Slater made an in-flight announcement, grabbed a can of beer, opened the emergency shoot (fortunately the plane was still on the ground) and slid down to the tarmac and his 15 minutes of fame.

As for the PED ban? Overall it will continue to have its have critics, but it's highly likely to stay in place for a long time yet, particularly at large, busy airports and those with frequently poor weather conditions. PED will, increasingly, figure in the lexicon of air rage going forward.

By Alastair Carthew, a Phuket based writer and communications advisor.
Email: alastaircarthew@gmail.com
Tel: +66 (0)76 317929.