Blabla… what other people write here may have merit, but there’s only one reason you can’t wear your headphones IF indeed you can’t: because your crew says so.

That’s the only reason. Period.

You have to do what your crew says. It doesn’t need to make sense to you. It doesn’t even need to make sense to them. For all the takeoff and landing ritual, the crew is just following the instructions and rules they’ve been given. Sure, some things make sense, but some things may not. When you ask a crew member why you need to do this or that, they may make up something that makes sense, they may even know the real reason, but just as likely that’s only their own interpretation.

Why, as operating crew, can I go on a flight with 6 bottles of wine in my carry-on bag in Madrid, but in Melbourne they take my deodorant from me? Why could my First Officer take his hummus on board to put in the galley’s chiller, but not the halal chicken, in Dubai? Why couldn’t I take a Mach 3 razor through security in the Philippines after I’ve done that for the last 20 years or so? All the same answers: because someone with the authority there says so, and I have to follow their instructions. Sure, I’ve shaken my head in disbelief many times, but what’s the point.

Regarding your headset in specific:

• When I’m a passenger in the airline I work for, I wear a headset during takeoff and landing all the time. It’s allowed here. (When I’m flying the plane I also wear a headset, but that’s SOP - standard operating procedure - and I need to hear what Air Traffic Control says.) I am usually watching a movie already when boarding is still going on, and keep watching until either my movie finished or the plane reaches the gate at the destination. Nobody ever told me here it’s not allowed.
• When we do a specific type of approach (a CAT2 or CAT3 approach, or low-visibility approach) with very low landing minima, we are instructed to tell the passengers that no PEDs (Personal Electronic Devices) are allowed during the procedure. Even though many tests have not linked any abnormalities to PED interference, nobody dares to take the risk and say: it doesn’t cause interference. So there’s this rule, and since the airline I fly for pays me to follow their rules, I’ll tell people not to use PEDs in that case. Why? Because I say so, because they’ve told me to say so.
• In other airlines, it may be policy to not let passengers use PEDs on any takeoff or landing. That’s their right, and you have to follow their rules. Because someone in management there decided that, and told the crew to tell you.
• I can imagine that in economy class the guy in the middle seat will be hindered by headset cables in case of an evacuation. I can imagine that the airline wants you to listen out what’s happening in the plane. I can imagine a flight attendant doesn’t know whether you are in flight-mode when using a PED and therefore forbids all use of it. I can imagine many things… but ultimately, those are guesses, even by the crew. Only the one with authority who came up with the rule, will know the real reason of the rule.

I’ve argued many times that safety demos should actually include a reason for asking people to do something. People are much more likely to listen and follow instructions if they know why.

In the meantime: just do what your crew says. They are trying to maintain order in the plane to the benefit of everyone, also you.

There are a number of reasons that you're asked to turn off your electronics for those phases of flight and interference with the instrumentation is only one of them. I'll talk about the two main reasons you're asked to do this.

To answer your question in the briefest way: Nothing has been proven yet by means of a series of rigorous studies by guys with lots of initials after their names. This is because there has never *been* a study like that.

Longer answer:

There is, however, plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that something's going on there. Cell phones and devices equipped with wi-fi (like a Kindle or iPad) are the chief offenders. I have personally had cell phones interfere with my headset a number of times... it creates a kind of buzzing sound that comes in spurts when the device is searching for a signal. It's annoying and has caused me to not hear a controller's instructions a couple of times.

The IATA (International Air Transport Association) published a report acquired by ABC in which it is said that they have observed 75 reports in the last few years where interference was suspected. Again, these were not test conditions... but the crew reported issues with all kinds of systems, made an announcement that people needed to shut stuff off, and then the problem went away. Take that for what you will but have a look here at their article published about 2 weeks ago: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-cellphone-plane/story?id=13791569

I believe something similar to Jack Nance's last point: the main issue is that some older aircraft aren't properly shielded against interference and there may also be cases in newer aircraft where the shielding is not installed correctly after maintenance. Even if it is properly shielded, we're coming out with new tech all the time. The new iPhone 4, for example, has been shown by Garmin to interrupt their G1000 system on a number of cases and they can actually repeat the interference consistently (and so can I now that I've talked to them about it). The failure is a pretty big one that could cause a loss of control if it happened at the wrong phase of flight.

The other reason the airlines want you to shut off your electronic gadetry is that it's a distraction during a phase of flight where they might need your attention. Headphones interrupt what you might hear during an emergency, hand held games have a way of absorbing people's attention, etc. Take the US Air flight that landed in the Hudson, for example. That whole ordeal lasted only a few minutes and the crew doesn't have time to repeat themselves to people who weren't listening.

So those are the reasons from a logical point of view. From a legal point of view you're required to comply with the crew's instructions - failure to do so violates a federal law (found in part 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations). They don't often seek punishment for violations of this reg, but it has happened.

There was a crash at LAX (on runway 25R, if memory serves) circa 1990. A full sized passenger liner attempted to land on 25R, which is used for takeoffs. There was a small turboprop plane attempting to take off at the time. The front of the turboprop was crushed by the rear of the landing plane.

At the time, it was customary for passengers with cell phones to make and receive calls while on final approach. There was speculation that the sudden use of all those cell phones might have somehow caused interference with the navigation systems.

This should not be possible because the cell phones operate on a different frequency. But, suppose one or several of those phones were defective. Or perhaps the Intermediate Frequencies, used internally, of so many phones might have somehow interfered with the IF of the navigation systems.

Scientists and engineers all said that seemed hugely unlikely. On the other hand, a lot of people died that day. To be on the safe side, all cell phone (and other electronic use) use was banned. Eventually, the use of electronic devices was allowed when not on initial climb-out or final approach. A small navigation error at altitude simply would not have the same dire consequences.

Possible interference with the plane’s on-board electronics. It’s not because when everything works well, no crosstalk occurs that we can count on everything working as it should. Therefore, as a precaution, this is not an unreasonable measure.

They also want people to pay attention to safety/cabin crew instructions instead of being on their phone. As an extension, if something goes wrong they want people to behave orderly, instead of crawling over each other in search of their phones which have flown off god knows where in the crash. Better to have those off and stowed away during take off and landing.

Why are large electronic devices required to be switched off during take-off, taxi, and landing?

There are a number of (some without technical merit) probable reasons behind this. A technically valid reason *for large devices* to be turned off is crash safety, but not in the way you’ve been told. Takeoff and landing are when most accidents occur. Any unsecured items will become missiles in an accident: phones, books, a 10-lb laptop, and a person who isn’t wearing a seatbelt. But people get bored easily, so “anything larger than an iPad” is deemed as potentially dangerous.

Why are small electronic devices required to be in airplane mode during flight?

There’s more debate here, and airlines moved from requiring phones to be off, to them in airplane mode. I’d guess at least 25% of people in each flight ignore this yet there has only been one crash where rf interference was suspected as a cause.

A more valid reason for airlines to keep this rule is to make sure passengers can pay attention to announcements, both routine, and in an emergency. Yes, many people have headphones on and won’t hear instructions, but at least they aren’t preventing neighbors from hearing announcements.

Also, keeping your phone in airplane mode saves battery since a phone in normal mode will keep its cellular radio on and look for cell towers (there aren’t any at 30,000ft).

In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration requires all passengers to be seated for takeoff and landing. Airlines who do not enforce federal regulations face huge fines.

The same passengers who ignore the safety rules will be the first to sue the airline when they get hurt because of something that, had they been seated, they wouldn’t have a scratch.

Takeoffs and landings are historically when the most people are killed in an accident. Just like a car, the chances of survival are much higher for those strapped in by a seat belt.

Someone out of their seat when they are supposed to be seated represents a security threat to everyone onboard.

The required time of seat use is minimal. Smart people with bladder issues go before boarding.

If you can’t sit seated in a seat belt on an airliner for taxi, takeoff, and landing, please drive.

Thanks for the question…

During takeoff and landing, passengers are asked to keep their seats in upright position. But Why??? Let's see…..

Takeoff and landing are most critical phases of a flight. A good takeoff ensures a continued safe flight and a good landing ensures the aircraft to be used again.

During Takeoff—

Anyway, during takeoff, if luck runs out, and an engine fails or catches fire, then it triggers an emergency. The pilot will immediately reject the takeoff and bring the airplane to a halt.

All the passengers would be asked to get evacuated. Now, if a person is sitting with their seats in reclined position, then it will obstruct the passenger sitting behind to stand up and run out of the airplane.

At or during Landing—

Same is the case of landing. If something occurs during landing, or the captain makes an emergency landing, the same case will happen. The person sitting behind the reclined seat will not be able to stand up quickly and get evacuated.

That may hinder the evacuation process.

Hope, that you have got your answer. Please Upvote, if helpful to you….

You’re still in a vehicle driving around on the ground. It’s not the safest situation in the world.

They might have to stop suddenly. Airplane brakes are pretty effective, if you’re standing when they do an emergency stop, you are going to fall over and possibly hurt yourself. If you’ve been exceedingly stupid and opened the overheads, you’re probably going to drop your bag on someone, which may hurt them.

The crew also don’t yet know if the brakes caught fire, or any one of a number of other bad things happened that might need them to suddenly call for an evacuation.

So, wait until you get to the gate and the engines shut down.

Well, there are a few other steps between taking off and landing than just cruising.

Right after takeoff, the plane needs to follow a specific route in order to get away from the busy area around the airport safely. The pilots guide the aircraft along this route as it climbs, as well as talking on the radio with a controller who tells them what altitude to climb to at first, or what point along the route they can go to next.

As they get farther from the airport, and higher up, they talk on the radio to another controller who is responsible for an even larger area, who gives them instructions as they climb and get farther away. It can take twenty minutes or more to reach cruising height, by which time the pilots have talked to several controllers each of whom are responsible for directing traffic either in a certain area or between certain altitudes.

By the time they have reached cruising altitude, hopefully they are out of the busy area and on their way to the destination. Right after they have finished climbing, the pilots add up how much fuel is in the tanks and compare it to how much fuel their flight plan says they should have at this point. Hopefully it's the same amount, but if it isn't, they need to figure out why, and whether they have enough to continue. They also make sure the aircraft is on course, going the right speed, and they've radioed their estimated time of arrival, fuel quantity, and other details back to their company dispatchers or flight watch people, who are keeping track of those things.

The workload on the cruising portion of the flight is pretty low. Many people say this is because of the autopilot, but the fact is, steering the plane by hand is not a lot of extra workload, in fact, I would say from having flown lots of planes without autopilots, it's actually MORE boring than using the autopilot. There are more important things you can be doing than staring at a compass and steering! Still, the pilots need to make note of where they are at regular intervals, add up the fuel over and over as well, to continue making sure it matches the flight plan. Often, planes do not go on a straight line from their point of origin: they go between navigational "waypoints", which the pilots anticipate and make the correct course adjustments as they reach each one. They must use the radio to make regular reports of their position, observe the time they pass over certain places so they can compare this to their flight plan, and of course they must watch out for other aircraft. Other aircraft they see *should* be at different altitudes than they are, but better safe than sorry! I like to know where all the other planes are. Also, they listen to the international distress frequency on one of their radios. Often when another plane is in distress, the first people to report it are other pilots who hear them calling for help.

A lot of my time in cruising flights is spent fiddling with the cabin heat controls, in response to complaints from flight attendants, who always seem to be too hot or too cold. Sometimes one will be too hot and one will be too cold and they will be in the same part of the aircraft.

Sometimes we spend a lot of time worrying about weather. In the summer, thunderstorms can reach altitudes a lot higher than most planes fly. We can see thunderstorms on our radar, as well as out the window. We always try to fly around storms rather than through them, and this is more complicated than it sounds, because other aircraft might be trying the same thing, and we can not leave our assigned course or altitude without permission. We must come up with a plan well in advance, so the controllers can compare it with other planes' plans and make sure we do not conflict with them. Sometimes in bad weather this can get very busy. Sometimes if there are clear skies around the storm and no other planes around, we disconnect the autopilot and just fly around the storm. Other times we must request and recieve changes of course, speed and altitude to keep us clear of other flights. Or we can not see the storm and must use radar to plot a course through it. For all these things we must ask for permission first. We are legally responsible to keep the plane safe, but if we act without a clearance we have to have a very good reason, because it may affect the safety of other planes. So you can see, a lot of planning goes into everything a plane does.

Other times, everything is very routine. We take up time chatting with the other pilot. Sometimes he or she is a friend, other times you might not know them at all. Regardless, there is one subject most pilots love to talk about : Planes. So there is always at least one thing in common. If we are lucky, there are some meals left over and we can eat our tea while admiring the scenery out the window.

Soon enough, it is time to start worrying about landing. Like takeoff, there is a specific route the flight must take in order to approach the busy airspace without getting in the way of other aircraft. Pilots must plan their approach to this busy airspace, and of course this takes into account the weather as well. Again, fuel quantity is a concern because if the weather is terrible at our destination, we must work out where else we can go with our extra fuel. Between themselves, the pilots do a "briefing" in which the pilot who is doing the actual flying will tell the other pilot what the plan is. Regardless of who is the captain, it is the duty of the other pilot to point out any suggestions they might have, and of course, any flaws in the plan. The captain has the final decision on things, but this almost never becomes necessary. The pilots will brief and discuss the arrival, and whoever will be actually flying the plane will make the plan and the other pilot will listen and make suggestions. If the crew also has a flight engineer, then all three are involved in this.

Just like when they climbed up at the beginning of their flight, they are passed from one controller on the radio to the next as they make their way down and towards the airport. The controllers give instructions to direct the flow of traffic based on the speed and location of all other planes in the area who are also heading to that airport. The descent to landing is the busiest part, and requires the most advanced planning, well before the aircraft leaves its cruising altitude.

Hopefully at some point during this arrival the plane will pop out of the clouds and the pilots will see the runway. Sometimes this happens a hundred miles away (easy) or just two hundred feet (or sometimes less!) above the runway.

Then comes the landing, which all pilots like best, because it gives them a chance to directly control the plane, which is something all pilots love.

A2A: Why are passengers asked to unplug devices (from the outlets in the seats) before airplane takeoff and landing?

As with many, really many, things that happen during takeoff and landing of an aircraft. The order to unplug your devices from the outlets in the seats or, in the seat in-front of you is related to:

a) Security. If something gets to happen, you don’t want a bunch of wires and cables to entangle into passengers legs, arms and necks whenever rescue crews arrive to your doomed aircraft. The less obstacles and interferences, the better.

b) Takeoff and landing are, for obvious reasons, crucial phases of a flight. Pilots and crew don’t really want foreign stuff, that is your cables, cell phones and tablets, plugged into the aircraft’s electrical system and potentially, very remote, but possibly causing any kind of trouble. So, why risk this…just tell everyone to unplug their stuff…anyway, if landing, there is no much time left on-board the plane…and, if taking-off, you can wait 5 minutes until the plane reaches cruising altitude and all is nice and stable.

Cellular telephones need to be turned off in all phases of flight in the USA, because a FCC regulation requires it. The concern arose from worries that cellphones in flight would overload base stations. This is now known to not be a problem, but the regulation remains.

The FAA prohibits the use of electronic gadgets in flight unless the air carrier has determined that they are safe, but a tolerance is extended towards their use above 10,000 feet and outside of takeoff and landing procedures, at carrier discretion, without formal testing. The concern was interference with avionics, but this, too, has proven to not be a problem.

It may interfere with the navigation and communication devices. In 2002, pilots of a Boeing 737 making a landing approach at Chicago Midway Airport noticed an erroneous airplane position from the course deviation indicator. At one point, it showed that the plane was on course but the next moment, off course and too far south. When they finally sighted the runway, they were too high and too far north to land. The pilots eventually discovered that a passenger was using her mobile phone. When the device was turned off, the cockpit instruments returned to normal and the Boeing 737 landed safely. (Words in bold copied from page 164–165 Life in the Skies by Captain Lim Khoy Hing. )

All electronics create an electro magnetic field. Obviously a phone or tablet that is specifically designed to communicate wirelessly are doing this, but so are every other device you might have. It’s just a product of flowing electricity.

When these EMF interfere with electronic components this is known as electromagnetic interference. If you are old enough, you might remember your dad yelling at you mother at a critical part of a football game to turn the garbage disposal off because it was messing with the TV.

Air craft, especially modern ones, have massive amounts of sensitive electronic equipment that they rely on for conducting a safe flight. Navigation equipment, attitude sensors, computer flight controllers, etc… stray EMF can interfere with the proper operation of this equipment. The most dangerous portions of a flight are takeoff and landing, when the plane is low and slow and the pilots have the highest work load.

Since there is no realistic way to test the effects of every single electronic device’s effect on the aircrafts electronics of every aircraft configuration, it is just safer to have all non aircraft devices off during these most critical portions of the flight.

So when the pilots tell you to please turn off your electronic devices, just do it. You can live for ten minuets with out crushing candy.

This is a hot question on the Web and on Web Q&A sites. I didn't find any super-trustworthy sources on the first couple of pages of a Google search ("why turn off all devices airplane"). But I came across several thoughtful answers, the best of which was on WikiAnswers. This answer is substantively consistent with several other sources in my Google search:

The reason they don't want you using personal electronics during takeoff and landing is that most personal electronics, even though they're shielded and not supposed to emit much, emit certain amounts of RFI (Radio Frequency Interference). While one or two devices might not interfere, a lot of them could interfere with aircraft pilot-ground communications, which is critical during takeoff and landing, when the aircraft is most vulnerable.

If there is an emergency, the pilot needs to have clear communication with the Air Traffic Controller for emergency instructions and other necessary coms.

Cell phones and notebooks are the biggest RFI and EMI (electromagnetic interference) offenders; even though they're shielded, they still emit quite a bit of interference, and cell phones by their nature could theoretically directly overlap an emergency com frequency that the pilot is using.

If you've ever noticed the bulge cylinder on the end of some computer and AC adapter cables, that's a device specifically designed for RFI reduction. But not all cables have those.

On another note, any fuel leak vapors during takeoff and landing could also be set off by the use of personal electronic devices if the plane were forced to abort the takeoff and a tank ruptured, though RFI is the primary concern.

Same if the plane had a hard landing that resulted in a wing tank rupture and subsequent fuel leak. It's the same reason you're asked to turn your cell phones off while fueling your car.

Source: www.wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_you_turn_off_electronics_during_airplane_takeoff

Here are some other good thoughts from Wisegeek.com:

...Another reason for electronic devices to be turned off during takeoff and landing is that, even though there is little likelihood of a CD player interfering with the aircraft’s operations, flight attendants cannot monitor every single electronic device aboard the aircraft. They do not have the training to ascertain whether an electronic device might be an interfering agent or not. Therefore, the simplest solution is to have all such devices turned off during takeoff and landing.

A 2000 Congressional hearing failed to make a definitive decision on whether electronic devices do, in fact, interfere with an aircraft during takeoff and landing. Since this was the case, the decision was to have all such devices turned off, since that would harm no one, was a free solution, and was known to be a viable alternative. The U.S. government certainly did not want to clear the use of these devices during takeoff and landing and then have the unthinkable happen — a crash caused by interference from a laptop. World governments and airlines have chosen to follow this rationale, in general. Plus, who wants to listen to 300 people talking at full volume on cell phones during a four-hour flight? Sky marshals would have to travel on every flight to prevent passengers from attacking each other.

Source: www.wisegeek.com/why-do-all-electronics-have-to-be-turned-off-for-takeoff-and-landing.htm

Three concluding thoughts:

• I was surprised that there are compelling substantive reasons for the "turn off your devices" policy. I still am not sure that the answers above are correct, but it does feel like there is a rough consensus around these thoughts on the Web.
• Given the clear rationale outlined above, I wonder why airlines don't do a better job of explaining this to passengers. My sense is that better exposition of the rationale would lead to greater compliance/less crabbiness.
• The Mythbusters piece that Charlie Cheever posts below is a cool discovery -- worth checking out.

Of course, a passenger MUST be seated until aircraft is secured at the gate. That's because the plane will still move to the gate, and can still crash or abruptly brake, and you could harm somebody else. Really, we don't care if a dumb passenger gets hurt, s/he can break an arm if s/he wants, I don't care, but said dumb person may hurt somebody else on the way.

A brief history: once the plane landed, people stood up (embarrassingly, it's very common in my country), they were right at the door while cabin crew was yelling “PLEASE REMAIN SEATED! WE HAVEN'T STOP YET!” People started to argue, that they were in the gate, some of them very rude. Suddenly, the plane started to move because an issue with parking brake, the pilot felt the plane moving and pressed the brake. All those guys standed up before the seat belts signs were turned off fell, and do you know who broke the nose? Yes, the flight attendant seated on the front jump seat.

So, that's the answer, sorry if I was rude at some point of my answer, but it's outrageous, I feel angry every time I think about my poor friend at the hospital because of absurdity.