  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | About time. It will be nice once they don't make you turn them off at all. | |
|
 | | | Re: About time. Wait, people actually turn it off? | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: About time. Nothing makes me madder than someone sitting next to me putting their phone on silent or vibrate when they tell you to turn off your phones. How important could an email be. If someone is too important to follow the rules, why don't they get up an walk up and down the isles during take off, recline their seat during landing, tell the TSA they are too important to only have a quart sized bag of liquids and that they need a gallon of liquids. I'm sure once they see how important that person is they will allow them to . I make my living with my laptop and my smart phone and no damage to my work has ever happened because my phone was off for a 2 or 3 hour flight. The only reason people want to leave their phone turned on is because someone else told them to turn it off.
--
Everyone in my family votes democrat except me, I learned how to read.
The government cannot give you anything that it did not take from someone else. | |
|
| | |  Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
| Re: About time. On one of my flights last year, we were on the plane with a group of cheerleaders going to a cheerleading finals. When the flight attendants told them to turn off their phones, they just put them in their lap and kept on texting when the attendant walked away. When the attendant was walking back, they would hide their phones again. Those texts must be that fucking important. "omg on our way to the cheerleading finals, wish us luck!@!@#@@!-posted via twitter" | |
|
| | | | | | Re: About time. in my opinion, I'm paying $150 for a plane ticket as long as I'm not talking on my phone I should be allowed to use it. Especially since mine is touch screen.
I mean letting my parents know I am alright and how close to home I am. Not texting my significant other every 30 seconds. You know don't take it to extremes.
Like when I came home from florida it would have been nice to tell my parents that I was about 20 minutes from landing so they had time to leave and instead of them waiting a half hour because we were late landing. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: About time. said by mikedz4:Like when I came home from florida it would have been nice to tell my parents that I was about 20 minutes from landing so they had time to leave and instead of them waiting a half hour because we were late landing.
The problem in your scenario isn't interfering with the avionics of the aircraft. The problem is potentially degrading the cellular network. The cellular network was not designed to have mobiles on it at 35,000 feet with a view of dozens of base stations while traveling at 400+ knots.
The solution to this problem is to put a femtocell on the aircraft. Then the mobiles can transmit at a low power level that isn't likely to reach base stations on the ground. Of course you can bet the airlines will try to monetize this service if at all possible. | |
|
| | | | | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: About time. said by Crookshanks:The problem in your scenario isn't interfering with the avionics of the aircraft. The problem is potentially degrading the cellular network.
I cry for these deep financial losses to AT&T and Verizon. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Dumb examples. The " because I bought a ticket" argument made me laugh. How about this, just say that it wasn't FAA's stupid rules at argument here and the airline just felt it was safer for them to manage a plane of attentive non distracted people in case of an emergency so they wanted everything off.... you think your ticket argument stands?? I'd kick your ass off the plane... stop the jet' open the door and toos you out and chuck your phone at you with that attitude. You don't own the plane... you purchased a service which is to get you from a to b, not any "rights" that you want to give yourself. And I'm sure your parents can check flight status by calling the airline from their cell phone or check the status on the web as well. And what the heck does yours being touchscreen have to do with anything....??? | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: About time. not if they're not home or don't know the website. | |
|
| | | | | | |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: About time. Sure, they can be texted the plane's status. And if they don't have a mobile phone, you aren't calling them either. | |
|
| | |  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | My cell phone stays on - in airplane mode - the entire time. It is not because I feel I am important, but I will agree the fact that I have been told to turn it off plays a factor. I am well aware of just how stupid the FAA rules are, and I feel the need to rebel a bit against them. Mostly it is just because I like to listen to music, and am willing to risk crashing a 737 to do so. | |
|
| | | | | Wow, you must have some issues if those kinds of things make you really mad. | |
|
| | | | | Nothing makes me madder than those who don't understand that some rules are so dumb they should be broken on principle.
There is no point to the rule to turn off the devices as there is no evidence to show they cause any sort of issues. That's the whole point of this article- the FAA is finally realizing the rules are unenforceable.
And yes, we should tell the TSA that having more than a certain amount of liquid is stupid- because it is. There is no evidence to show that having any sort of liquid bomb in the amounts that can be carried will cause enough damage (or even be explosive enough).
Stop believing what the government tells you and start thinking for yourself. | |
|
| | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: About time. said by apple4ever:Stop believing what the government tells you and start thinking for yourself.
That is asking a LOT from most people. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | It is funny that phones must be turned off as soon as the door closes... it's funny that things have to be turned off for taxi and take off, but the moment the plane lands and the reverse thrusters have done their job it's now okay to use cell phones again,... you know, during taxi TO the gate.
The rules are dumb but they are the rules. I just wish they'd be honest about it. It's already been shown that there isn't a technical reason for a few things, cell phones for example remain banned because the idiots who can't handle someone talking into a small electronic device may experience sudden cabin stupidity and cause a scene. | |
|
| | | | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | said by apple4ever:Nothing makes me madder than those who don't understand that some rules are so dumb they should be broken on principle.
There is no point to the rule to turn off the devices as there is no evidence to show they cause any sort of issues. That's the whole point of this article- the FAA is finally realizing the rules are unenforceable.
And yes, we should tell the TSA that having more than a certain amount of liquid is stupid- because it is. There is no evidence to show that having any sort of liquid bomb in the amounts that can be carried will cause enough damage (or even be explosive enough).
Stop believing what the government tells you and start thinking for yourself.
Most accidents happen during take off and landing. I would like everyone on the plane to be attentive during these times. In most cases it is not needed - but the one time it is there will be many lives saved.
So, I think they should make everyone turn off devices and pay attention during taxi, takeoff and landing. | |
|
| | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
| Re: About time. said by OwlSaver:said by apple4ever:Nothing makes me madder than those who don't understand that some rules are so dumb they should be broken on principle.
There is no point to the rule to turn off the devices as there is no evidence to show they cause any sort of issues. That's the whole point of this article- the FAA is finally realizing the rules are unenforceable.
And yes, we should tell the TSA that having more than a certain amount of liquid is stupid- because it is. There is no evidence to show that having any sort of liquid bomb in the amounts that can be carried will cause enough damage (or even be explosive enough).
Stop believing what the government tells you and start thinking for yourself.
Most accidents happen during take off and landing. I would like everyone on the plane to be attentive during these times. In most cases it is not needed - but the one time it is there will be many lives saved. So, I think they should make everyone turn off devices and pay attention during taxi, takeoff and landing. It's not my job to make sure someone else is safe when I'm on the plane. | |
|
| | | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | said by OwlSaver:So, I think they should make everyone turn off devices and pay attention during taxi, takeoff and landing.
Pilots being attentive I understand. But passengers sit there. Absolutely nothing they could do during a take off or landing "emergency", other than getting off the plane afterward. And even through headphones, video screens, whatever other distraction, if the need arises to evacuate, people will notice. | |
|
| | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | said by OwlSaver:Most accidents happen during take off and landing. I would like everyone on the plane to be attentive during these times.
I'm sure those of us flying coach are really making a difference in the mechanical operation of an aircraft during take off & landing.
Personally, I make it a race to see who can be the first person aboard the aircraft to fall asleep. Loser gets to stay awake with the crying babies. | |
|
| | | | | | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Re: About time. said by Thaler:said by OwlSaver:Most accidents happen during take off and landing. I would like everyone on the plane to be attentive during these times.
I'm sure those of us flying coach are really making a difference in the mechanical operation of an aircraft during take off & landing. Personally, I make it a race to see who can be the first person aboard the aircraft to fall asleep. Loser gets to stay awake with the crying babies. If the flight attendants say that the front of the plane is on fire and we have to get out the back I do not want to be stuck in a window seat with the person on the aisle listening on his head phones and getting up. Seconds count. | |
|
| | | | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: About time. Pretty sure the guy on his headphones isn't going to rock out while the plane's on fire. I might be wrong though, some music is pretty catchy.
Also, if you're honestly that concerned about seconds counting in that particular scenario, you would've booked the aisle seat anyways. | |
|
| | | | | | | | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Re: About time. said by Thaler:Pretty sure the guy on his headphones isn't going to rock out while the plane's on fire. I might be wrong though, some music is pretty catchy.
Also, if you're honestly that concerned about seconds counting in that particular scenario, you would've booked the aisle seat anyways.
Agreed. But, the problem is not the usual case, it is the exception. I always try to get an aisle seat but sometimes I book so late that only middle seats are available (one less person to worry about).
I actually do not worry all that much - if extremely bad things are going to happen, all bets are off. But, I do expect the people who are responsible for air safety to worry about the details. I think that they have done a great job so far given the level of air safety. I am not sure how much of that I am willing to give up.
As far as I understand it the original reason to turn off cell phones was an FCC rule more than an FAA rule. The cell towers were just not designed to handle calls from planes. Maybe the solution is to redesign the cell towers so that they can. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: About time. I'd think if it was a real cell tower concern, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. would've been the first ones to complain about the airborne cell phone phenomenon. There's quite a lot of real-world data to study about it too - many passengers (knowingly or unknowingly) fly with their phones on today. I'd just assume that this falls within their projected fault tolerance to the networks...or we'd have a lot more lobbyists coming down hard on aviation. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: About time. I accidentally forgot to put my iPhone in airplane mode before a flight. When I realized it when the plane was at 35000 feet, it had no service and the battery was almost dead. It shouldn't be hard for a smartphone to recognize that it is traveling over 200 mph and should turn its cellular radio off if its speed is greater than 200 mph.
I even tried listening to an FM radio on a plane. Every frequency has a jumble of stations, and it's hard for an individual station to stay in long enough to hear a single song. It isn't even useful to get an idea of where the plane is because it can pick up radio stations up to 300 miles from where the plane is flying over. | |
|
| | | | | | said by apple4ever:There is no point to the rule to turn off the devices as there is no evidence to show they cause any sort of issues. That's the whole point of this article- the FAA is finally realizing the rules are unenforceable.
And yes, we should tell the TSA that having more than a certain amount of liquid is stupid- because it is. There is no evidence to show that having any sort of liquid bomb in the amounts that can be carried will cause enough damage (or even be explosive enough).
Stop believing what the government tells you and start thinking for yourself.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Also, I'm sure that you wouldn't need much explosives to fashion some kind of shaped charge that would punch a hole through the body of a commercial plane. | |
|
| | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | said by BucknRusty:Nothing makes me madder than someone sitting next to me putting their phone on silent or vibrate when they tell you to turn off your phones. How important could an email be.
Apparantly, important enough to not be bothered performing placebo electronic manuvers.
I simply turn mine to airplane mode as to not drain my battery (cell reception kinda sucks up there). The only thing keeping me from turning it entirely off is that I have no f***s left to give for useless & unnecessary procedures at the airport. | |
|
| | | | | Sorry, BnR, but you REALLY need to get over yourself.
Personally, my phone is in Airplane mode and put away in my carry-on prior to lining up for boarding, and it stays there until after I reach my destination and am waiting for my baggage.
I do not shutdown my iPad, though. I put it in airplane mode as well, but I use it to either watch movies, readbooks, or work for the entire flight.
And I do carry over 2 oz of liquid, because the TSA allows any amount for medical reasons... | |
|
 Chris 313Come get somePremium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA | Plain silly Who flies anymore? Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all. | |
|
| | | Re: Plain silly You sound like my wife. She refuses to get anywhere near an airport since those new scanners and 'friendly' patdowns started up. If I want to go anywhere on vacation I either have to go without her or pack everyone up and drive. | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Plain silly said by footballdude:You sound like my wife...If I want to go anywhere on vacation I either have to go without her or pack everyone up and drive. You're married. Choose the former.  | |
|
|  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by Chris 313:Who flies anymore? Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all.
I haven't flown since these invasive techniques began to be deployed. Society has to say 'No' at some point. | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Plain silly said by Maxo:said by Chris 313:Who flies anymore? Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all.
I haven't flown since these invasive techniques began to be deployed. Society has to say 'No' at some point. Any trip less than 500 miles, I now drive. Much less hassle and equivalent cost. If over 500 miles, I'll put up with all the hassles of flying. I miss the days of flying on private corporate jets after I retired. Those trips were still totally hassle free.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
|
| | | | | Re: Plain silly It does spoil you. You don't have to worry about what you carry on and depending on the airport you can often drive up to the plane get on and be in the air in 10 minutes.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | sk1939Premium
join:2010-10-23
Washington, DC
kudos:9 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by Linklist:said by Maxo:said by Chris 313:Who flies anymore? Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all.
I haven't flown since these invasive techniques began to be deployed. Society has to say 'No' at some point. Any trip less than 500 miles, I now drive. Much less hassle and equivalent cost. If over 500 miles, I'll put up with all the hassles of flying. I miss the days of flying on private corporate jets after I retired. Those trips were still totally hassle free. Never had the benefit of flying in a private jet, and flying normally takes too long. My limit is 850 miles before I fly for personal, and 150 miles for business. | |
|
| | | I don't. Not any more than absolutely unavoidably. I used to love flying, too.
said by Chris 313:Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all.
The ticket pricing is actually mind-bogglingly cheap. That's actually a good deal of the problem.
Back in the day, before airline deregulation:
• There were fewer and less egregious flight delays
• Luggage got lost/delay/misdirected, etc., but not like it does today
• You didn't pay extra for luggage, unless the bag count or weight was exceptional
• There was actually room in the seats--even in coach
• On any flight over about three hours, you got a real meal--even if it was just a sandwich for lunch
• Most airports had a wide variety of carriers from which to choose, and there were real differences between them
• You didn't used to regularly hear about stuff falling off of planes
Never mind today's "security":
• Didn't used to be body scanners and rampant groping
• Nobody questioned the shampoo, toothpaste, etc. you wanted to bring
• Nail clippers, nail files and, yes, even small pocket knives were not a problem
• TSA didn't regularly paw through passengers' luggage, out of their sight
The airlines treat their passengers like cattle, these days, rather than valued customers. Strike the first. I don't trust their airplane maintenance. Strike the second. I don't care to be subjected to the U.S. government's idea of "security." Strike the third.
Those of you that weren't flying (thinks back...) say... 25-30 years ago have no idea what you missed  | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Re: Plain silly said by jseymour 
The airlines treat their passengers like cattle, these days, rather than valued customers. Strike the first. I don't trust their airplane maintenance. Strike the second. I don't care to be subjected to the U.S. government's idea of "security." Strike the third.
Those of you that weren't flying (thinks back...) say... 25-30 years ago have no idea what you missed
This is where I am coming from I don't trust the maintenance. I fly military on a space available basis when I fly at all. In Military aviation if the maintenance is not done the aircraft is not mission capable and it does not fly period.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | |  FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor awayPremium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Plain silly said by Transmaster:This is where I am coming from I don't trust the maintenance. I fly military on a space available basis when I fly at all. In Military aviation if the maintenance is not done the aircraft is not mission capable and it does not fly period.
but you have no problem driving?
who did the maintenance on every semi-truck you pass?
who made sure the 5,000 rebar pieces on the back of the truck were actually secure?
who checks that the other drivers are going on wet roads with bald tires?
who regularly verifies and certifies that all of the other drivers even know what they are doing?
sorry, but statistics overwhelming support air travel (commercial) as a safer form of travel by ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
--
Everyone should own a Mac! Go Bucks! | |
|
| | | | | Wow! Ignorance is bliss! Having flown in the military and for the airlines you couldn't be further off base. The mission of the Military is war and as such shortcuts are taken. I have had numerous emergencies while flying in the USAF but have had few if any while doing the same at a major carrier. | |
|
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by jseymour: The ticket pricing is actually mind-bogglingly cheap. That is totally the problem.
Today, the cutrate economy passenger doesn't even pay the cost of fuel, crew and and aircraft, let alone the overhead, but something has to fill the part of the plane that's not first class or full businesses fare that once were the profit margin.
Just as with the railroads and bus lines, the current race to the bottom in air fares means the airlines don't really want passengers anymore... air freight on the other hand, packs in tight, never complains, doesn't mind flying at night, to cheaper secondary airports, and generously pays the bill, and fuel surcharges.
That market will be all they need, once they force the post office out of business and can charge fedex rates for everything. | |
|
| | MrHappy316Wish I had my tankPremium
join:2003-01-02
Monterey, CA | said by jseymour:• Luggage got lost/delay/misdirected, etc., but not like it does today
You are absolutely right, everytime i flew before 9/11 I never got my luggage, it wasn't until after I have not lost a single bag | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Business members. People going on vacation? International travelers. There are more, but you get the idea. | |
|
|  algPassionately apatheticPremium
join:2001-04-10
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | said by Chris 313:Who flies anymore? Forget in flight devices, aside from ticket pricing, those insane and invasive scanners turn me off from flying at all.
I fly all the time and wi jump on a plane for flights as short as Dallas if I'm making a same day return (I live in Houston). The griping about the hassles and horrors of flying are so exaggerated it is silly.
--
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. | |
|
| ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | People with places to be and s*** to do? Last I checked, Greyhound wasn't really that competitive for travel time across the country vs. an airplane. | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | Cabin safety issue....... A flight attendant told me a couple of years ago that banning electronics primary benefit was to keep all those hard, loose items from becoming airborne missiles in the case of a ground issue, aborted take-off, or rough landing, as rare as those might be.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| | Karl, sorry...you're unqualified to report on this one. When you can discuss the technical implications & ramifications of interference in every phase of flight, CAT II/III minima, RVSM, etc, then I'll engage you.
Claiming that its safe simply because an aircraft hasn't gone down in flames yet is irresponsible. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
 kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX | Cell-Phones One of my friends (a pilot) mentioned that the Cell Phone ban was more of a FCC rule, rather than an FAA rule. The primary worry was that the cell network would have problems with so many cell phones having a clear, high altitude view to so many cell towers and could crash with the constant switching as the plane traveled.
Not sure if that's 100% true, but technically it does seem to make more sense than "the plane will crash and burn from the pilot-killing rays that phones emit".... | |
|
| bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Cell-Phones Your friend was misinformed. I used to work for am EMI/EMC test lab. The issues isn't the cell phone's per say its the leaking frequencies that could impair other issues.
A CDMA phone int he 850MHz ban can leak radiation into the surrounding bands.
For my piece, I think anything that can beep or ring or be annoying be banned on airplanes. It not like I can move if my seatmate is being annoying. | |
|
| |
2 edits | Re: Cell-Phones said by bn1221:Your friend was misinformed. I used to work for am EMI/EMC test lab. The issues isn't the cell phone's per say its the leaking frequencies that could impair other issues.
Last I heard, the rule about using cell phones on airborne craft was an FCC rule, and applied to ALL airborne craft, including hot-air balloons, and was targeted at interference with the cellular network. Separately, the FAA has rules about electronic devices (not just cell phones) on aircraft (airborne or not) that is targeted to potential interference with the avionics. | |
|
| | | it's a fcc/faa rule. I contacted them 2 years ago about it and they gave me some sort of rubbish. Back in the day you could smoke on planes and believe it or not it was safer.
They had to use better air filters and actually filter the air. Now to save money they just re-circulate the air. Which means if the person 3 rows behind you is sick everyone else will get sick since the germs are basically just spread now. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Cell-Phones said by mikedz4:it's a fcc/faa rule. I contacted them 2 years ago about it and they gave me some sort of rubbish. Back in the day you could smoke on planes and believe it or not it was safer.
Wow!! You sure do have a lot of time on your hands... seems you call a lot of people seeking a response for a wide variety of topics. The best one was when you contacted the weather channel a few years ago about what local weather computer equipment was being used.
seriously... | |
|
| | Electronic issues There are some airlines that have allowed these items to be used. they do not interfer with the equipment. I understand that this is an income/revenue issue...how do they charge for the use of the devices?...not a safety issue.
The safety issue is a red herring. | |
|
| | 9-11 look at how many people used phones on planes during 9-11. Telling their familes they were ok and everything. You didn't see planes crash then, other than the hijacked ones.
Of course given the circumstances everyone probably didn't care. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 9-11 said by mikedz4:look at how many people used phones on planes during 9-11. Telling their familes they were ok and everything. You didn't see planes crash then, other than the hijacked ones.
Of course given the circumstances everyone probably didn't care.
Yea..l just how many people were in fact on their cell phones that day anyway?? Did one of your contacts at the FAA give you that information too? ... or are you just pulling from your rear again?
You're clueless with a lot of the stuff you're spewing.
By the way, for shots and giggles I have on a few occasions turned my phone on during approach over Minneapolis and San Francisco, both very populated metro areas... both on approach and while in low altitude holding patterns over the populated areas I was hard luck to get service that lasted more than a second or two. Could also barely squeak out a simple text message. But yea, everyone was on their cell phones that day making calls.
Also, thinking back to that day, ask yourself, how many guys do you know call their mothers and say "hi mom, it's...(insert your full name here)"...? | |
|
| | | | Re: 9-11 The people they show on tv called their families before they died.
I meant text not call on flights. Texting and browsing should be allowed. Some airlines offer radio service. Airtran offers xm on its flights. Wonder if southwest will add it? | |
|
| | My Cessna story I was in a small cesna about 20 years ago, I was 11. I had one of the first Game Boys the big fat one.
Anyway I turned that thing on and the pilot freaked out, the needles started moving up and down. Pilot told me to turn it off and everything went back to normal.
I doubt a Jumbo jet has the same issue with electronics, but I do turn mines off when I fly and I fly a lot. Plat with Delta.
It doesn't bother me when someone doesn't turn their crap off, it just bothers me when they hold it or don't store it correctly. The reason our tray tables are up and we must store something in the overhead or under our seat isn't because they might cause the plane to crash, it's because take offs and landings can and are at times bumpy, you don't want something in your hands becoming a projectile.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: My Cessna story Whoever builds planes that can't tolerate any RFI needs to goto jail. Wouldn't it be nice if the military can just aim a directional antenna of white noise at a plane and have it explode? | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Pssst Carl, nice free advert for Kindle. You get a kick back from Amazon for mentioning Kindle?
How about e-reader device, as there is more then just Kindle out there. Like Sony, Nook, etc.
Or is it just easier to type Kindle vs e-reader device?
I for one, can live without my device for 30 minutes or so. I can't see what the big deal is. One reason why I carry a couple of paperback books with me. Just in case the battery runs out on my device, and in case I have to switch device off. For my phone, I just turn it off after boarding the plane. Turn it on after I land.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?. | |
|
| | | Re: Pssst Carl, nice free advert for Kindle. The big deal is several things:
1. It's a lie, because it doesn't cause the problems they claim,
2. It's a lie that they do it for safety,
3. It's annoying how sanctimonious they get about it, and
4. If it really were possible, the FAA would force them to modify the aircraft to eliminate the fictional interference. Military navigation gear is hardened to prevent such interference from high-power search radars. | |
|
| | SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| Re: Pssst Carl, nice free advert for Kindle. Mythbusters did a show about this. The FAA spokesperson said that hey do it for the 'Just in case" scenarios. There are hundreds of devices that would have to be tested, which would take a long time. They could [I think they do] shield the equipment from interference. But there are no promises that the shield wont fail.
At the most, it's only a few minutes. When I travelled to Louisiana last year, we had to turn our device off for all of 20 minutes. That was for take off and landing. If 20 minutes is going to be a big deal, then maybe that person shouldn't fly?
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?. | |
|
| | Although interesting... This doesn't really qualify as broadband news. | |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | Dude, just put the toys away for 15 minutes Geez, can't do without this crap for 15 minutes? They need to ban cell phones (on planes, theaters, restaurants, etc) just out the annoyance factor. Nothing worse than some self obsessed douche talking way too loud about stuff no one else gives two squirts of piss about. | |
|
| | | Re: Dude, just put the toys away for 15 minutes My cell phone is my life. I'm lost without it. | |
|
| RDC17
join:2011-05-15
Baltimore, MD | I fly often, and I can't recall any incidents where people have flat out refused to put away their electronics. People yapping too loud on the phone in public, now that's a whole different story.
Of course, there is always a dick like Alec Baldwin out there who will make a scene over this rule every once in a while. | |
|
| | The real issue here... Is the FAA going to bow to the wireless industry and turn a somewhat tolerable experience into 6 hours of torture on a cross country flight, when some teen decides to yap yap yap for the whole flight on their cellphone? | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: The real issue here... Somewhat tolerable experience? Which airline are you flying on?
I opted for the 20 hour drive to New Orleans rather than subject myself to the indignity that is modern air travel. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Reasons There was a reason Mythbusters was forbidden to conduct their tests OR show full results. NOTHING will happen if you use your cellphones, laptops, kindles, or other standard wireless devices on an airplane. They just didn't want the general populace to ruin their potential for $80 a minute for wireless access. | |
|
 amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
·Verizon FiOS
| It's all BS None of these devices will cause the pilots any problems. A pilot told me that a few years ago, though I already knew that was the case.
Remember - you are not supposed to have any kind of radio receiver or transmitter active while in flight. That is until they put wifi on board planes. By placing a wireless router in the plane, suddenly everyone's wifi computer, tablet, and phone no longer interferes with the aircraft. | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Avoiding projectiles For the same reason that you have to fasten your seat belt and stow all your hand luggage, gadgets should also be stowed securely during take off and landing because this is when accidents happen and in an accident, a loose ipad will KILL passengers when it is projected at high speed towards the front of the cabin.
With regards to mobile phones, someone in the midle of the cabin wont get reception and his/her phone will go on full power constantly scanning the airwaves for service. And those near windows will go on full power and lock on many towers with equal strength and occupy a channel on multiple towers in an area. | |
|
| amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Avoiding projectiles said by jfmezei And those near windows will go on full power and lock on many towers with equal strength and occupy a channel on multiple towers in an area.
[/BQUOTE :So what. When you're on the ground, Verizon cell phones do that already. | |
|
| Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by jfmezei:For the same reason that you have to fasten your seat belt and stow all your hand luggage, gadgets should also be stowed securely during take off and landing because this is when accidents happen and in an accident, a loose ipad will KILL passengers when it is projected at high speed towards the front of the cabin.
How are gadgets any more dangerous than a hardcover book? No one's limited the use of books, hardcover or otherwise, during any portion of a flight. | |
|
| | Pilot As an airline pilot myself, I can say that electronic devices themselves, in my experience, do not interfere with the operation of the aircraft. In fact the specific airplane I fly is almost all electronic with its systems.
What I CAN say causes problems are cell phones when you send or receive a text message or call. Some carriers operate on a frequency that causes interference with our voice radios to Air Traffic Control. With out jobs and your safety on the line, we dont want to be told "Airline_Callsign descend and maintain flight level two BZZZZZZZZZ zero." and think we heard 250 vs 290.
Also, what's with the Karl hating? Does he REALLY need to know about RVSM, CAT II ILS or the like to simply cover a story written by the NYT? Chill out dude...
As for everyone else - at least for the guys at the pointy end of the airplane, please at least put your devices in "Airplane" mode
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
CPL:IA;ASEL/AMEL. CFI:ASE/AME; IA | |
|
| amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Pilot said by snipper_cr:What I CAN say causes problems are cell phones when you send or receive a text message or call. Some carriers operate on a frequency that causes interference with our voice radios to Air Traffic Control. With out jobs and your safety on the line, we dont want to be told "Airline_Callsign descend and maintain flight level two BZZZZZZZZZ zero." and think we heard 250 vs 290.
That's not good to hear. Don't your radios operate just above the FM radio band? That's a far lower frequency that cell phones use. I wonder why there would be interference? | |
|
| | | | Re: Pilot Its the SIM card, you must have heard that buzz just before your cell phoen goes off when near cheap stereo speakers, desktop computer speakers have been especally bad for this in my experience. But it affects a lot of speaker systems.
I'm not sure why the plane's radios are sensitive to it.
Time for more time with Google I suppose.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. | |
|
| | MrHappy316Wish I had my tankPremium
join:2003-01-02
Monterey, CA | Just above and they operate in AM mode but there is this funny thing called harmonics that always rears its head when it comes to radios and the freqs they are "supposed" to operate on | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Is it really that hard to put down your iWhatever or phone? If you can't put your toys away for a few minutes then you really have a problem.   | |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | Pacifiers Heaven forbid the arrested development people that have to have their electronic "fix" be denied them on takeoff and landing. It's pitiful to see grown people so dependent on an electronic device. It's a sickness and mental problem. | |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Embarq Now Centu..
| The thing that bugs me about the electronics "ban" is the false pretense about it.
And as far as the flying "experiance" itself - It's going to have to be absolutely impossible to drive before I'll fly again (the TSA just doesn't have a clue on what to do to make us really safe and instead concentrates on crap that won't make one little bit of difference but really pisses people off - like taking a whole brand new bottle of flouride). | |
|
| |  BS Rules
The rest of the conversation is inconsequential. FAA makes you put away your phone because in case of a crash your phone becomes a projectile that can literally break your skull and because they don't want assholes yapping on their phones on the whole flight. I wish they could just say that ...
TSA have their own set of stupid rules, which people have learned to accept. Taking off your shoes, jackets and other humiliating procedures. Most TSA "agents" have the qualifications of a mall "rent-a-cop" and can be outsmarted by any potential terrorist with an IQ higher than the room temperature ... Oh well ...  | |
|
| NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ | Re: BS Rules If a piece of straw can be driven into plywood in a tornado with 150 mph winds, imagine the damage a cell phone can do during a 200 mph crash landing. | |
|
| |  pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI | Re: BS Rules said by NickD:If a piece of straw can be driven into plywood in a tornado with 150 mph winds, imagine the damage a cell phone can do during a 200 mph crash landing.
Ok, go to a crash site and show me the damage done by the cell phone vs the rest of the carnage.
--
My Site | |
|
| | | | | Re: BS Rules Not all plane crashes involve total carnage. Remember that plane that landed in the Hudson? Records show that passengers experienced up to negative 6G. Now imagine what damage would any loose items do at 6x its regular weight. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: BS Rules You mean like the metal pens, eyeglasses, suitcases, briefcases, books, glass bottles, etc that come raining down on people during their "-6g" freefall? Get real. | |
|
|
|
