expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| reply to sousademiami
Re: Shouldn't be a law
"If cell phones are no threat to the computer/electrical systems of the plane"
That's just it....IF..
There's STILL alot of concerns about this, its simply not proven to be inconsequential RF interference, and until it is, they can't approve it. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| reply to expert007
Re: Shouldn't be a law
I disagree. Etiquette is out the window with just about everybody. This is a small inconvenience for Tiffany that wants to talk smack on Brittani (yes, spelled with an I)who's now dating Justin. Now I know that paints a broad picture, but I think a pause for civilities purposes isn't necessarily a bad thing.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Cox HSI
| reply to Anon
Going to agree with the majority here and state that cell phones do not interfere with properly shielded equipment (and I'm pretty damned sure most airline equipment has to be properly shielded from all the non-cell-phone interference it already gets) which includes airline instruments and gauges.
This should not be a law nor an FAA regulation. Too much regulation = bad. Let the individual airlines decide how to handle it. It could be a selling point, boosting profits for an ailing industy (airline A offers in-flight cell use - people can talk all they want as long as they can deal with others talking, airline B offers no cell use - people who want a quiet flight can have one, or even better airline C offers text messaging only but no conversations unless emergency). |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| tsume....you're right.....to a point.
Shielding is the most important element to eliminating RF interference. Unfortunately, in an aircraft of 5+ years (or 20-25) the integrity of shielding runs from so-so to downright poor.
Cat IIIB landing, no visibility, RVR at a minimum, are you damned sure you're ok with cell phone usage on an aircraft? You don't even need to know what that stuff means, but understand that there are VALID technical concerns.
And no, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat.  |
|
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO
2 edits | reply to expert007
said by expert007  :"If cell phones are no threat to the computer/electrical systems of the plane" That's just it....IF.. There's STILL alot of concerns about this, its simply not proven to be inconsequential RF interference, and until it is, they can't approve it. No, not really. Modern cell phones do not interfere. This myth was born from old analog "cell" phones which had a chance of interfering with some older equipment. Now this myth is perpetuated by the airlines for a variety of social and political reasons. Have you watched Myth Busters?
»kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/epis···ane.html |
|
greendragon
Premium
join:2003-09-20
Stewartville, MN | reply to expert007
In that case the pilot could but on the "No Phones" sign and not have to worry about it anymore..
--
Folding for our future!! |
|
Airplane
@ca.us | They can finally repurpose those No-Smoking lights and chime! |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to expert007
There are not valid technical concerns. How many people leave their cellphone on during flights? I sat next to a guy once who was sending messages on his blackberry the whole time. The fact is if cell phones caused any interference we would have seen it by now. The real world evidence points to there being no effect on an airplane by cellphones. |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| reply to S_engineer
But what about Grandma who is stuck on the tarmac for 2 hours for some stupid reason or another, who's plane is now going to be 2 hours late and has someone waiting to pick her up when she lands?
My mom has called me so many times I cant count them all from the plane while it was waiting for something, to tell me that she'll just get a taxi when she gets here so I dont have to wait at the airport for 2hrs and possibly be late for work, etc.
--
Im Your Boogeyman, Thats What I Am |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| reply to insomniac84
I'm sorry, but you have faulty logic.
"Because people haven't died of it yet, it's not a problem" just doesn't make sense. If you knew anything about aircraft design and engineering, you'd understand that everything is built to avoid a single point of failure. Since you're not privy to avionics anomaly reports, its somewhat obnoxious to claim that you know better than everyone else...particularly insiders.
You're just plain wrong, but trying to make you understand that is fruitless. Therefore I'll stop. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | How about this, we just take the easy road... it's already been shown that they do not cause interference on planes.
Personally, however, if something as little as a cell phone can take down a plane, I'd rather not be on one to begin with. |
|
MyDomainName
@charter.com
| reply to Boogeyman
Oh noes!
So what about Grandma stuck on the tarmac or people on late planes? That kind of information is provided by the airport. People can call ahead or find out when they get there and life will go on either way just like always. Seemed to work well enough before the cellphone was glued to everyone's ear. |
|
old_dawg
"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD
|  reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :I disagree. Etiquette is out the window with just about everybody. This is a small inconvenience for Tiffany that wants to talk smack on Brittani (yes, spelled with an I)who's now dating Justin. Now I know that paints a broad picture, but I think a pause for civilities purposes isn't necessarily a bad thing. +++++ 1 !!!!, Where's the big thumbs up icon to put here. 
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to Boogeyman
You are already allowed to use phones when you are on the ground. That's not going to change. |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | Yeah, I guess I misunderstood the topic, hehe. I guess I would have to agree with the ban then, as long as you can still use your phone on the ground.
--
Im Your Boogeyman, Thats What I Am |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to expert007
said by expert007 :I'm sorry, but you have faulty logic. "Because people haven't died of it yet, it's not a problem" just doesn't make sense. If you knew anything about aircraft design and engineering, you'd understand that everything is built to avoid a single point of failure. Since you're not privy to avionics anomaly reports, its somewhat obnoxious to claim that you know better than everyone else...particularly insiders. You're just plain wrong, but trying to make you understand that is fruitless. Therefore I'll stop. Well until you can point out a real world case or a serious test that shows cellphones are a danger to planes, I am going to rely on real world observation and confidently say cellphones are not a danger. And guess what, the industry/insiders side with me. If cellphones had any chance of causing problems you would have to separate the battery from your cellphone and place it in checked luggage. You definitely would not be allowed to take a cellphone onto a plane.
And to make it even worse you dispel my claim based on some kind of flawed logic, while using much worse logic in your claim. You are basically saying, "Airplanes are complicated and although no proof that cellphones can harm planes exist, logically there must still be a chance it could happen and if I had to guess I would say the data to back me up may exist, it's just not public data" Well there is a chance that when you touch an object you will pass right through it, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Oh and UFOs exist, but of course that data isn't public either. |
|
