Vchat20Landing is the REAL challenge Premium Member join:2003-09-16 Columbus, OH
1 recommendation |
Vchat20
Premium Member
2008-Aug-7 5:25 pm
Couple things coming from an educated standpoint...First off, I want to see you even attempt to get service at >15,000ft THROUGH the hull of the aircraft. Also, even IF you can get service, I want to see how your phone would act if it would work at all at any decent altitude seeing a number of cell towers all at once.
Secondly, I don't care HOW many tests have been done that proves cellphones cause no interference to flight equipment. All it takes is one malfunctioning cellphone, a new wireless band, new wireless based short-range services (ala wifi/BT), or any other number of completely possible factors to interfere. God forbid this, albeit rare, situation happens on a CATIII approach in bad weather.
I'd rather have the comfort of knowing that my flight will safely remain in the air rather than giving one or two passenger their god-given right to cellphone use in an airplane.
If you absolutely MUST make a call, use in-flight phones (if applicable). Otherwise, PLAN AHEAD so you don't need to use a phone DURING the flight. |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2008-Aug-7 6:21 pm
said by Vchat20:First off, I want to see you even attempt to get service at >15,000ft THROUGH the hull of the aircraft. Also, even IF you can get service, I want to see how your phone would act if it would work at all at any decent altitude seeing a number of cell towers all at once. Secondly, I don't care HOW many tests have been done that proves cellphones cause no interference to flight equipment. All it takes is one malfunctioning cellphone, a new wireless band, new wireless based short-range services (ala wifi/BT), or any other number of completely possible factors to interfere. God forbid this, albeit rare, situation happens on a CATIII approach in bad weather. I'd rather have the comfort of knowing that my flight will safely remain in the air rather than giving one or two passenger their god-given right to cellphone use in an airplane. If you absolutely MUST make a call, use in-flight phones (if applicable). Otherwise, PLAN AHEAD so you don't need to use a phone DURING the flight. Ok, Mary: given the number of phones on the average B737 or larger flight that are "accidentally" simply left on for the duration of the flight, what's your point? That's a lot of devices that are still broadcasting (especially newer phones that are polling for Email, etc.), at least minimally. Can't tell you how many flights I've been on where you'll hear a phone ringing from the overhead compartment, from under someone's seat or from a shirt-pocket when we're on final approach. I fly on a weekly basis and it happens at least once a month. |
|
Vchat20Landing is the REAL challenge Premium Member join:2003-09-16 Columbus, OH 1 edit |
Vchat20
Premium Member
2008-Aug-7 6:33 pm
But can you tell me for [u]100%[/u] certain that in EVERY case a cellphone or other wireless device will NOT interfere with the aircraft's equipment? No, you can not. Like I said, there are many factors to throw in that are all perfectly possible that could throw a nice monkey wrench into the works. I'd rather not take that chance. And THAT is what the original cellphone ban is for. New phones come out ALL the time and it just takes too long to test them against interference on an airplane (There's a huge difference between FCC's certification tests and testing for interference with flight equipment, in case you decide to try that card.)
And the reason WHY you actually have ringing phones on final approach is because by that time you are at an altitude where the phone is well within it's LOS range-to-tower limits and can get service. Regardless, the points where phones CAN get service are on takeoff and landing/approach. BOTH very critical legs of the flight AND where you are told to TURN. OFF. YOUR. ELECTRONICS.
I seriously do not know why people fight this. Enjoy your damn flight, take a nap, something. Hell, read a damn book. It isn't life or death if you can use your cellphone on a flight. God damn. |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2008-Aug-7 6:40 pm
said by Vchat20:But can you tell me for [u] 100%[/u] certain that in EVERY case a cellphone or other wireless device will NOT interfere with the aircraft's equipment? No, you can not. Like I said, there are many factors to throw in that are all perfectly possible that could throw a nice monkey wrench into the works. I'd rather not take that chance. And THAT is what the original cellphone ban is for. New phones come out ALL the time and it just takes too long to test them against interference on an airplane (There's a huge difference between FCC's certification tests and testing for interference with flight equipment, in case you decide to try that card.) And the reason WHY you actually have ringing phones on final approach is because by that time you are at an altitude where the phone is well within it's LOS range-to-tower limits and can get service. Regardless, the points where phones CAN get service are on takeoff and landing/approach. BOTH very critical legs of the flight AND where you are told to TURN. OFF. YOUR. ELECTRONICS. I seriously do not know why people fight this. Enjoy your damn flight, take a nap, something. Hell, read a damn book. It isn't life or death if you can use your cellphone on a flight. God damn. And the point that you're CLEARLY MISSING is that, on any given flight, there are dozens of phones transmitting at those "critical moments". The "oh noez, teh RFs are gonnaz knock down the plane" arguments are bogus. It would have happened by now. There've simply been too many flights with too many phones in too many critical situations for the magical permutation, if it was gonna happen, to have occurred by now - simply from people leaving their phones turned on in their luggage in the overhead spaces (nevermind the ones that are talking and messaging before touchdown). |
|
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN |
to Vchat20
yes, we can be 100% certain thanks to Mythbusters! » kwc.org/mythbusters/2006 ··· ane.htmlIf they sell Alcohol on an airplane then cell phones should be allowed as well. The odds of one rude drunk or one rude cell user are the same I'm sure. Now, banning babies and small children has my vote for sure! |
|
|
And Mythbusters is rigorous testing laboratory??? Really, since when? That is an entertainment show..... |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to MemphisPCGuy
"As seen on TV"......... it MUST be TRUE! FAA studies have shown that flying facing backward, on a tightly packed plane with no windows, no food service, strapped in with no chance to walk about, no passenger item in the cabin (and given 9-11 requirements probably no clothes, and a through 'probing', before boarding) would be 2x as safe as current flights (a lot safer than driving, and 200x safer than a greyhound bus) this isn't about damage to the plane because of the device, it's about reaction due to the way the device is used. |
|
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN 2 edits |
I think it was done pretty well and there is no other evidence that cells phones cause issues with aircraft. As for talkers .. again .. I point to drunks, babies and children .. you can't switch those off. |
|
Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD |
Sure you can: ya know those floatation devices that are tucked under the seat? They cover up a toddler's face REEAL nice-like... |
|
|
to MemphisPCGuy
Wow, with all the kid hating in this discussion, it's a wonder any of you ever grew up from the eggs you were obviously hatched from. Not.
What, did you spring from the earth a full grown adult? No? Didn't think so.
There is, of course, a fine line-parents who are present and doing a good job of parenting can minimize the pain others must feel hearing a screeching toddler-but it only goes so far. Before my daughter was born, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but now-not so much. Kids cry. Fucking deal with it. At least they have an excuse-THEY ARE BABIES-what's yours? |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
to MemphisPCGuy
said by MemphisPCGuy:I think it was done pretty well and there is no other evidence that cells phones cause issues with aircraft. Really? Care to tell that to Carnegie Mellon University? » www.cmu.edu/PR/releases0 ··· one.html |
|
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN |
Did you read the article you linked to? All they did was monitor for cell phones (with a laptop!?! hidden in overhead luggage) and noted that people were using them on every flight. They went on to 'feel' this was a potential for disaster. Apparently all the flights actually landed, as they have the data. |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
1 recommendation |
said by MemphisPCGuy:Did you read the article you linked to? All they did was monitor for cell phones (with a laptop!?! hidden in overhead luggage) and noted that people were using them on every flight. They went on to 'feel' this was a potential for disaster. Apparently all the flights actually landed, as they have the data. I did. And I have a bit more respect for someone with a Phd then someone who won't do a bit of research. Oh and did you read this part of the article? quote: With support from the Federal Aviation Administration, three major airlines and the Transportation Security Agency, EPP researchers crisscrossed the northeast United States on commercial flights, monitoring radio emissions from passenger use of cell phones and other electronic devices. They tracked these radio emissions via a broadband antenna attached to a compact portable spectrum analyzer that fit into an innocuous carry-on bag.
"A laptop computer controlled the system and logged the data," said Granger Morgan, head of the EPP Department. "While we looked primarily at wireless phones, we also discovered that emissions from other portable electronic devices were problematic."
Whenever you put a device like they used, you test it to make sure it will not interfere with the results. I would venture to say that this laptop is not the same sort you pick up from your local computer store. Try again. |
|
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN |
to satellite68
said by satellite68:Wow, with all the kid hating in this discussion, it's a wonder any of you ever grew up from the eggs you were obviously hatched from. Not. Kids cry. Fucking deal with it. At least they have an excuse-THEY ARE BABIES-what's yours? Nice! I never said anything about hating kids, I only used them as an example in relation to being annoyed by people around you on a flight. I personally have been annoyed by more babies and children than cell phone users. |
|
|
a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY |
to moonpuppy
Here's my take on this: - As others have pointed out, all it takes is ONE incident, and ~400 lost lives, to bring to light that using a cellphone on a flight isn't a god-given birthright. If it's killing you, use the freakin' airphone!! - Maybe you guys haven't caught on this YET, but letting people use cellphones while in the air, when our nation has a pretty high probability of another 9/11, isn't the SMARTEST thing to do. What if some nutcase decides to pull out his 'phone' that actually has preinstalled equipment that interferes with the airplane's approach communications? Sure, sounds absurd, but highly likely to me. Seriously, I'm sometimes stunned by some peoples' " It's my birthright, I don't give a flying f*** about it, f you" sort of attitude. I mean, cell phones give you GPS data. A terrorist can EASILY communicate that to sources you'd rather not give that info to, if you get my drift.... point is, at this time, MAYBE in flight cellphone use isn't the smartest thing to do. Peace, a333 |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
said by a333:Here's my take on this: - As others have pointed out, all it takes is ONE incident That's all that needed to be said. This country is VERY reactionary with laws. Nothing is done until it becomes a problem. ONE incident, that's all it takes. Also, we knew that terrorists used to hijack planes and hold hostages. Now, they kill themselves and everyone on board. |
|