Re: to be or not to be?
said by whamel:There is hard proof that, other than purposeful sabotage, these devices don't cause problems. Studies have been done that up to 30% of flyers never turn their devices off. If these devices caused problems, crashes at takeoff and landing would have been frequent enough to prove they cause problems.
There hasn't been hard proof that these devices are actually dangerous, but there's enough suspicion that they are -or may be- to act cautiously and prohibit their use during landing/ takeoff. The other alternative is just to allow everything and find out the hard way: with crashes and/or failures.
»www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/techn ··· 23&_r=2&
A study released this year by two groups, the Airline Passenger Experience Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, found that as many as 30 percent of passengers said they had accidentally left a device on during takeoff or landing.
The Nobama Clock
Re: to be or not to be?
said by FFH5: That seems to be a compelling enough reason of it's own, to have people put down the phone/tablet/notebook/etc. for those few vital minutes of flight.
...other than purposeful sabotage,....
Not that it would totally prevent problems, but some continuing to type away should stand out like a guy trying to light his underwear/shoe on fire.
certainly ALL items stowed, PAY ATTENTION during those portions of the flight is the best policy anyway for other safety reasons.
Re: How will no-wifi, but video ok be enforced??
said by vpoko:And none of that means the person with WiFi turned on for their iPad/3DS/PS Vita/iPod/etc are going to take the extra time to turn off the WiFi just because a signal can't get to them. They leave it on because it's convenient when they get back home or somewhere with WiFi and they don't have to remember to turn it back on.
They don't turn the WiFi access point on the plane on until after takeoff anyway, and you're not going to get WiFi from the terminal all the way on the runway.
·Time Warner Cable
Re: I'm fine with this
As much as I don't want to hear people yacking on cell phones, I don't think that's a valid reason for the FAA to prohibit it.
As long as it doesn't mean that people yammer away for 5 hours on an 8 hour flight I'm fine with it. Cell phones and voip should be banned for this reason.
I also don't like screaming children on flights, but they're allowed.
Bose noise canceling headphones, take me away!
| |Simba7I Void Warranties
Re: ... voice calls... sure.
said by amonster:I think MythBusters blew the hell out of that awhile ago. The only phones that created interference were the old phones from a decade ago. They now operate on different frequencies, like 700MHz for LTE. I doubt broadcast TV interfered with any aircraft equipment before analog was turned off.
Has anybody ever seen a CELL PHONE that actually works at cruising altitude? The ban is there to keep the cell RADIO off to reduce potentially harmful RF sources from interfering with aircraft electronics. There is no legitimate reason to UNBAN such a thing, because all doing so would accomplish, is adding useless RF. IT STILL WON'T WORK!!!!
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,1T+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
MyLaptop[Asus G53SX,32GB RAM,2x1TB HDD,Win7]
WifeWS[C2D@2.4G,4G RAM,250G HDD,Win7]
Router[PE1750,4G RAM,3x36G HDD,2xIntel Pro/1000+GT Quad Port,Gentoo]