Weaver95: whatever happened to the ability to question authority?

When you're done questioning electronics use during a critical phase of flight, can I question that whole pesky "doors being closed in flight" thing? I love the rush of wind in my hair, and it's clearly just authority figures being assholes that make us close all the doors...

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.



vindicated

The FAA said Cardone, 54, won't be fined - but the letter "will be made a matter of record for a period of two years."

"A record with whom?" asked Cardone>

Umm, the FAA?

a frequent flier who is worried that he's on some no-fly list. He said the letter "has a lot of Big Brother in it."

Oh for goodness sakes. This guy sounds looney-tunes.

Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

If the passengers were flying the plane that is. WTF are you going to do to stop the plane from crashing?

SoCalSurfer: During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

...and even if an iPad can't block somebody exiting, it can sure as hell do them a significant injury when it goes flying during an accident.

Walker: C and a repeat.

♫ ...TWO BITS!!! ♫

Jacobin: You CAN change your settings on an iphone to "airplane mode" when you get on a plane so that it can't transmit potential harmful electronic whatever.

The video camera still works.

FAA guy is a douche.

It can be done, but rarely is. It could also be easily checked, at the very least search for active bluetooth devices. Even though those can be individually turned off or set to stealth and still be active, it would be closer to a half assed attemt to check, like checking the seatbelts. Sure some douche could unbuckle his seat belt, but you would catch those people who just don't know what they are doing.

Weaver95: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

except that, in this article/blog the FAA makes no such claims. in fact, they deny that the purpose of the 'no electronics' rule is to keep passengers focused.

There is some thought that the rule forbidding devices during takeoff and landing was made to ensure that passengers paid attention. The F.A.A. has never claimed this. (If this was the case, passengers would not be allowed to have books, magazines or newspapers during takeoff and landing.)


Has it perhaps crossed you mind that if they say it's to stop the plane crashing, then people actual (generally) pay attention to it?

If they said "It's to stop that idiot with headphones on not hearing the BRACE BRACE BRACE" then that said idiot will say "It's OK, I'll pay attention too, the rule doesn't apply to me"?

Rain-Monkey: No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

No, it isn't. My father-in-law is a pilot. He can hear a burst of static in his headset when the cell phones that are close to the front of the plane reconnect to the towers. Coinciding with this burst of static, he had the plane pull off the landing approach (Airbus autolander) because it lost the beacon. It's not dangerous, but it does make the plane need to come around again. It's a PITA if someone happens to be sitting too close to the wrong antenna, not a danger.

/anecdote, not evidence, sure
// but an isolated incident is still evidence that a universal claim is wrong

SoCalSurfer:
During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

then why can't you read a book, magazine, etc.


Just flew on virgin and they had the back of headrest TV's going the enitre process so it isn't a "sound" issue either.


GriffXX: I suspect this is more about not having a hundred people crammed in a metal tube all screaming into their phones than about interference with equipment.

i think most peopel are fine with the phone issue for this reason, but the all electric devices off is BS.

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.

Once you go through the cockpit door a magical

theknuckler_33: The FAA said Cardone, 54, won't be fined - but the letter "will be made a matter of record for a period of two years."

"A record with whom?" asked Cardone>

Umm, the FAA?

a frequent flier who is worried that he's on some no-fly list. He said the letter "has a lot of Big Brother in it."

Oh for goodness sakes. This guy sounds looney-tunes.

He's a "Fox News contributor," so that goes without saying.

This is the standard protocol the FAA follows in cases where a plane engine sucks up birds. They call it "Goose Steps."

bangmaid: Rain-Monkey: "If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS

No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

Cell phones can get a signal up to about 2000ft above ground. If 100 people are flying through that airspace and all of their cells are being switched from tower to tower that quickly, it tweeks out the cell towers. That's part of the reason they must be shut off- the cell carriers want them to be.

Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.

What a pile of horse shiat. If the GPS function on a cell phone can even remotely interfere with airplane instruments, cell phones would be banned.

liam76: SoCalSurfer:
During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

then why can't you read a book, magazine, etc.


Just flew on virgin and they had the back of headrest TV's going the enitre process so it isn't a "sound" issue either.


GriffXX: I suspect this is more about not having a hundred people crammed in a metal tube all screaming into their phones than about interference with equipment.

i think most peopel are fine with the phone issue for this reason, but the all electric devices off is BS.

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.

Once you go through the cockpit door a magical


99% of electronic devices used on planes usually have earphones.

That's one of the major things they're trying to stop you using. It's a rule across the world. It isn't just the FAA deciding to be a dick.

gweilo8888: Weaver95: whatever happened to the ability to question authority?

When you're done questioning electronics use during a critical phase of flight, can I question that whole pesky "doors being closed in flight" thing? I love the rush of wind in my hair, and it's clearly just authority figures being assholes that make us close all the doors...

if iPads are so dangerous, then why do pilots use them while in flight? in fact, they put that iPad right on top of critical flight control equipment during take off and landing and nothing happens to the aircraft.

or am I not supposed to ask questions like that?

Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.

I just flew:

Manila-Nagoya-Detroit-Birmingham-Atla nta-San Fran-San Luis Obispo-LAX-Narita-Manila.

Thats 10 planes. None of them crashed due to me NOT completely turning off my devices. (I did use airplane mode though because, HEY, you never know.)

bangmaid: Rain-Monkey: "If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS

No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

Cell phones can get a signal up to about 2000ft above ground. If 100 people are flying through that airspace and all of their cells are being switched from tower to tower that quickly, it tweeks out the cell towers. That's part of the reason they must be shut off- the cell carriers want them to be.

Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.

Yeah....

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The "gps function" in consumer handhelds is a receiver-only and merely receives signals from GPS satellites. Which would be broadcasting the same exact signal through that space regardless of whether you had the GPS receiving device in it or not.

I'm not even going to touch the wild assertions about how "cell towers" work. But the fact you're using the term "cell"/"cellular" is rather... amusing.

I assume this is in the politics tab because it's a link to the NY Post?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace /aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed /0

Of the cockpit instruments that can be interfered with by RF emissions from portable devices, the most problematic might be those used for navigation. To understand what's at stake, we need to first note the variety of different technologies used today for aircraft navigation. The most common are the VHF omnidirectional range system and the instrument landing system, both of which operate near 100 MHz, and GPS, which operates between 1200 and 1600 MHz. PEDs have the potential to interfere with each of them, but the most serious concern has to be for GPS receivers, which are becoming key navigational aids these days--particularly when clouds or other weather problems make it impossible for pilots to see runways.

GPS-certified landing approaches are now widely used in general aviation. Though most airliners presently use instrument landing systems, use of GPS technology will increase significantly over the next few years. There are three times as many GPS-certified approaches as instrument landing system approaches in the United States.

In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.

Our data and the NASA studies suggest to us that there is a clear and present danger: cellphones can render GPS instrument useless for landings. Clearly, the cause of the problem is that the FCC issues RF emission standards for consumer electronics, conferring only minimally with the FAA and with no formal consideration of the implications of those standards for the aircraft environment. For its part, the FAA relies on the airlines to initiate safety plans and, like other government agencies, defers to the FCC on questions of electromagnetic radiation.

Have cellphones caused accidents? We cannot be sure they have, but the data support the belief that they may have. Without any direct record of the RF environment in a plane at the time of its crash, it is difficult to see how one could definitively attribute a crash to PED interference after the fact. This holds true even if investigators were to look for PED interference as the primary cause of the accident, which, typically, they do not.

p.s. F*CK RUPERT MURDOCH

Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

THIS
THIS
THIS

When seconds count, I don't want to be behind the guy who needs to finish his recording so he can have his 15 minutes of fame on YouTube.

Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Wait, wait, wait, WAIT! So along with the sub-par food, screaming children, assholes kicking seats, dickheads leaning too far back and obese guy's leg rubbing up against yours, you all REALLY want to add "douchebag screaming into cellphone while you're trapped with no sound dampening for a two and a half hour flight" to the joys of flying??? And frankly if there's even a .00001% chance that someone's phone might cause the flight to suddenly cease, THAT'S TOO HIGH.

nickerj1: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The "gps function" in consumer handhelds is a receiver-only and merely receives signals from GPS satellites.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe it's the transmitters on the mobile devices that are affecting the Airplane's GPS receivers?

TheGogmagog: Nasty_McFilth: They probably did the exact same thing that was done in the article posted yesterday.

I came to see two or three commenting on the situation, then 500 people pointing out the repeatness of it.

And instead you found the exact opposite.

His goose is cooked.

GoldDude: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

THIS
THIS
THIS

When seconds count, I don't want to be behind the guy who needs to finish his recording so he can have his 15 minutes of fame on YouTube.

You really think it will make a difference? Really?

pontechango: nickerj1: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The "gps function" in consumer handhelds is a receiver-only and merely receives signals from GPS satellites.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe it's the transmitters on the mobile devices that are affecting the Airplane's GPS receivers?

If this were even remotely possible phones would be banned completely. It is bullshiat regulation and serves no purpose other than making idiots like you fell better.

I'm going to use my iPad during take-off like I'm gonna watch a video about aeroelastic flutter on an airplane

TrancePI: I just flew:

Manila-Nagoya-Detroit-Birmingham-Atla nta-San Fran-San Luis Obispo-LAX-Narita-Manila.

Thats 10 planes. None of them crashed due to me NOT completely turning off my devices. (I did use airplane mode though because, HEY, you never know.)


What a TrancePl might look like

Bungles: Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.

bangmaid: Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.

Yeah. It's a little known fact that the GPS antennas in iPhones actually suck up the GPS signals from the satellite, blocking out GPS availability within a range of 100 meters. This is why you cant use your iPhone in your car. You would not only black out your cars own GPS system, causing it to drive you into a lake, but you will also black out the GPS systems around you, and cause ALL GPS systems within a radius of 1 mile to operate in degraded mode.

Android phones are not effected by this issue due to superior antenna design.

giffin: Rain-Monkey: No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

No, it isn't. My father-in-law is a pilot. He can hear a burst of static in his headset when the cell phones that are close to the front of the plane reconnect to the towers. Coinciding with this burst of static, he had the plane pull off the landing approach (Airbus autolander) because it lost the beacon. It's not dangerous, but it does make the plane need to come around again. It's a PITA if someone happens to be sitting too close to the wrong antenna, not a danger.

/anecdote, not evidence, sure
// but an isolated incident is still evidence that a universal claim is wrong

One time, I was in Buffalo and I was really craving some pizza so I whipped out my phone to order some. I turned it on, and BAM, a plane came down into a house near me, killing everybody on board. It took years of counseling and removing all electronic devices from my life before I could finally cope with what I had done.

It is a travesty how modern airliners are designed. They can take off and land near high powered radar systems, cell phone towers, and radio towers that blast them with a ton of EMI, but they can't handle the interference from a hand-held device. WHAT WERE THESE ENGINEERS THINKING? It is like they intentionally broke the laws of physics just to put us all in danger. They need to pay.

/just adding my own isolated incident to disprove that universal claim

AeAe: Bungles: Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.

My best frined's sister's ex-girlfriend died because her seat was not in the full upright position upon landing. It's pretty serious.

AeAe: Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.

I'm pretty sure I could be asleep and still be ready for action if the plane crashes. Something about falling out of the sky and crashing into the ground really puts some Moxie in a man.

jst3p: AeAe: Bungles: Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.

My best frined's sister's ex-girlfriend died because her seat was not in the full upright position upon landing. It's pretty serious.

Oh no! Jesus Christ. I'm sorry for making fun. What's a frined?

For all of those complaining about "screaming children" and "loud cell phone talker"






Add in a movie rental or music/book and you won't notice anything.

giffin: Rain-Monkey: No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

No, it isn't. My father-in-law is a pilot. He can hear a burst of static in his headset when the cell phones that are close to the front of the plane reconnect to the towers. Coinciding with this burst of static, he had the plane pull off the landing approach (Airbus autolander) because it lost the beacon. It's not dangerous, but it does make the plane need to come around again. It's a PITA if someone happens to be sitting too close to the wrong antenna, not a danger.

/anecdote, not evidence, sure
// but an isolated incident is still evidence that a universal claim is wrong

How can he possibly verify that this is the cause? He is dumb for assuming this and you are dumber for believing and repeating it.

AeAe: Oh no! Jesus Christ. I'm sorry for making fun. What's a frined?

It is like a friend, but she can't spell well.

To play devils advocate.

In a poorly maintained jetliner, with bad grounds and shorted wiring. A cell phone call COULD cause some flight instruments to behave strangely. It's not the sort of thing that should effect a pilot though, unless they are doing an instrument only landing, or get so confused by the misbehaving instruments they forget to fly the airplane.

AeAe: Bungles: Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.


You may not have noticed, but the cabin announcement that you hear on most aircraft when they are about to land is intended to rouse you from sleep as much as anything, as is the stewardess checking seat-belts.

It's not about being "totally focused", it's about not having earbuds in when you simply wouldn't be aware of an announcement.

Anyone who argues that such a request is unreasonable is probably the sort of obnoxious asshole that you'd be glad can't talk on his phone.

Empty Matchbook: And frankly if there's even a .00001% chance that someone's phone might cause the flight to suddenly cease, THAT'S TOO HIGH.

Well there is a larger chance of some idiot crossing the center line and killing you.

So I can only assume you don't drive because of the high risk.

pontechango: nickerj1: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The "gps function" in consumer handhelds is a receiver-only and merely receives signals from GPS satellites.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe it's the transmitters on the mobile devices that are affecting the Airplane's GPS receivers?

what is this I don't even....

Nem Wan: DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO. YOU EXIST TO POPULATE MY EXPERIENCE.

That was perhaps the most eloquent summation of the mentality of the majority of people I can't stand.

Weaver95: pontechango: nickerj1: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The "gps function" in consumer handhelds is a receiver-only and merely receives signals from GPS satellites.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe it's the transmitters on the mobile devices that are affecting the Airplane's GPS receivers?

what is this I don't even....

The man DOES have a point. I can't use google maps on my phone and make a phone call at the same time.

I always thought it was because when I'm on the phone the phone is too my ear and I can't see the screen, but clearly it's just because a phone call kills my phones GPS reception.

fluffy2097: To play devils advocate.

In a poorly maintained jetliner, with bad grounds and shorted wiring. A cell phone call COULD cause some flight instruments to behave strangely. It's not the sort of thing that should effect a pilot though, unless they are doing an instrument only landing, or get so confused by the misbehaving instruments they forget to fly the airplane.

So naturally in such a case, the first thing the FAA needs to worry about are consumer electronics...

"If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

Not if adults act like adults and comply with a simple request that will inconvenience them for about 10 minutes of their life. He obviously is not an adult so I hope he is on the no fly list.

Yes 99.9% of devices are safe to use. So older devices are not and making a list and forcing people to read it just isn't practical. Also there are a few anecdotal examples of newer devices that were malfunctioning causing problems including, yes an iPhone which as I recall belonged to the pilot. Anyway, while it is a bit ridiculously over precautions do you have the right to volunteer everyone on the plane to take that one in a billion chance? What does it say about you if you can't put down your f-ing iPad and facebook for 10 minutes to follow a simple rule.

Rapmaster2000: Bungles:

But I don't wanna! How come I can look at a magazine, but I can't have my laptop out, huh? How come I can look out the window, but I can't have my tray table down?

Tray Table: potential injury in an emergency
Laptop: potential missile in an emergency (same reason why you don't load up your rear window space with bowling balls)

/just in case you weren't being facetious
//I think you were...but just in case :)

Bungles: liam76: SoCalSurfer:
During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

then why can't you read a book, magazine, etc.


Just flew on virgin and they had the back of headrest TV's going the enitre process so it isn't a "sound" issue either.

GriffXX: I suspect this is more about not having a hundred people crammed in a metal tube all screaming into their phones than about interference with equipment.

i think most peopel are fine with the phone issue for this reason, but the all electric devices off is BS.

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.

Once you go through the cockpit door a magical


99% of electronic devices used on planes usually have earphones.

That's one of the major things they're trying to stop you using. It's a rule across the world. It isn't just the FAA deciding to be a dick.

No it isn't.

See the bolded portion.

Bungles:

People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Call me crazy but based on experience of landing in a controlled fashion upon the intended surface, I'm going to say that once the plane hits the ground (you know, crashes) even people with headphones on are going to pay attention.

The sudden drop might also be a clue.

Are you worried they might not have the chance to kiss their own ass good bye?

giffin: No, it isn't. My father-in-law is a pilot. He can hear a burst of static in his headset when the cell phones that are close to the front of the plane reconnect to the towers.

Your fathers plane has wiring issues. Probably a bad ground.