Drew_Fl Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 And I'm sure those folks weren't worried about a flying bear at all.Point is, if it's at all possible, why screw with it at 30,000 feet? ~Bang in all seriousness i agree with you. i think the best way to go about it is to safeguard the electronics themselves from being interfered with from cell signals (which would be expensive). i only say this b/c we all see (or may be one of) the people who hide their cell phones from the flight attendants during the approaches and take offs. if this is proven to really be a threat to our safety, i don't trust my fellow man not to attempt a tweet or a txt in a severe thunderstorm trying to make a tough landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 You don't get it, Bang....the security measures at the airport don't really make us any safer, the safety instructions before takeoff are completely irrelevant, and cell phone usage causes zero problems when used during any part of the flight. It's just the imbecile airport employees making up stuff for ****s and giggles. Everyone knows that. :yes: Hey, and I can drive better when I've had six or seven drinks! Oh yeah! ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 IF this was true do you not think that someone would have found a way to get 20 of these into their carry on and turn them all on in hopes of bringing down the flight? Rarely does anyone want to bring down a flight that they're on...and the few who do, don't want to simply crash the plane. They want the plane to crash into something significant, not just crash into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 More specifically if this were true the entire TSA would be liable for criminal negiligence for letting a single wireless device on the plane. The idea that not allowing people to use them would be be sufficient protection if they were indeed dangerous is laughable. This cannot be true. Its called risk management. We manage risk EVERY DAY. You drive to work? You do realize that the risk of you dieing in a fatal car accident is greater than 0? What you decided is that the value of your job is worth that risk. In any case, a risk event may never occur, even if the chances of that event occurring approach 1. On the other hand, a risk events that have very low chance of occurring may still happen. In the case of flying, the decision is that the risk of a certain thing causing an issue is less than the value of doing whatever takes on the risk. On other things, they have decided the inverse. Given that multiple people are subject to the given risk event, it is NOT morally your decision but either the TSA or the given carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm more worried about the morbidly obese bringing the plane down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 Repeated post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Phone interference was cited as a possible factor in a 2003 crash in New Zealand in which eight people died after the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.The pilot had been calling home. hang up and fly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 Hey, and I can drive better when I've had six or seven drinks!Oh yeah! ~Bang Dr. Johnny Fever, is that you? That explains the whole Bang music hour gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Dr. Johnny Fever, is that you?That explains the whole Bang music hour gig. BOOOOOOOOOGERRRRRRR!!! ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Or better yet, people need to actually follow ****ing instructions. Its not that difficult. Or better yet, maybe not manufacture planes that might crash cause some doofus left his ipad on in his carry-on luggage and forgot about it. Yes Bubble, surely it would be easier to rely on 200+ people to follow instructions and not accidentally or purposefully leave their electronics on. Thats really the appropriate path to airline safety. Its hard enough to get people to not drive and TALK on their cell phones, never mind remoind to actually shut down their ipads and turn off their cellphones. I guarantee 25% of air travelers believe that "turn off your cellphones" means, "leave it on, but dont talk on it.", hell thats what I thought until I read this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Or better yet, maybe not manufacture planes that might crash cause some doofus left his ipad on in his carry-on luggage and forgot about it.Yes Bubble, surely it would be easier to rely on 200+ people to follow instructions and not accidentally or purposefully leave their electronics on. Thats really the appropriate path to airline safety. Its hard enough to get people to not drive and TALK on their cell phones, never mind remoind to actually shut down their ipads and turn off their cellphones. I guarantee 25% of air travelers believe that "turn off your cellphones" means, "leave it on, but dont talk on it.", hell thats what I thought until I read this article. Well then you must have a low IQ no offense. Or did you mean to say - I know they say it but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Well then you must have a low IQ no offense. Or did you mean to say - I know they say it but whatever. Because I have a higher IQ than say, you, I correctly understand the physics of the situation involved means that a mobile phone in USE should produce much much more interference than a cell phone thats simply on. When the cell phone is in use, it is emitting RF waves that could interfere, something Im sure even you could grasp. What I did not account for is that some airlines have not appropriately shielded there ****pit navigation systems from even the relatively low interference of a cell phone thats simply on. Which is B.S. because I guarantee that on 99.9% of flights, there is at least one cell phone on somewhere. This is a problem the airlines must correct for, and it really doesnt take a genie or genius to install shielding equipment on the navigation or autopilot systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I think it's plausible ... planes rely on communication with external systems for navigation and information on altitude, speed etc. If someone has a wireless device and the signal inside the cabin resonated close to sensitive equipment I can see how you would get problems. It doesn't mean that it couldn't be screened, but I don't know what the safely cost of screening an entire cabin is given all the different ways a signal could get focused around structures and the contents of the cabin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 If there was any real chance of interference, the airline industry would collect cell phones prior to boarding, and distribute them upon departure. I see people leave there phones on all the time. Many times people have there phone in their carry on. Now that everyone, and there 10 year old kid has a cell phone, shear increase in population of phones would assuredly have caused planes to crash. It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 just my $.02, but when i'm flying i'm more worried about a flying bear through the windshield than a cell phone taking down the plane. :ols: Well done. And I'm sure those folks weren't worried about a flying bear at all.Point is, if it's at all possible, why screw with it at 30,000 feet? ~Bang Erm... at 30,000 feet, you can use your iPad. (Which is another reason why I find this to be bogus.) If there was any real chance of interference, the airline industry would collect cell phones prior to boarding, and distribute them upon departure.I see people leave there phones on all the time. Many times people have there phone in their carry on. Now that everyone, and there 10 year old kid has a cell phone, shear increase in population of phones would assuredly have caused planes to crash. It's nonsense. Seriously. I'd love to hear what a Boeing lawyer would say in court after a bunch of families sued because three iPads caused a plane full of 200 people to crash. "Well, see, Your Honor, we don't actually make sure that our planes can handle the everyday electronic equipment that we allow our passengers to bring onto said planes. But we ask them to turn their equipment off! Sometimes we even ask twice! So you can see, Boeing clearly isn't liable for the other 197 passengers who complied." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_RedskinsFan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I am calling total BS on this. I think the reason they dont want cell phones on is because nobody wants to hear 200 people talking on them, if that could even happen at 30k feet. If a cell phone could take down a plane, they would not be allowed on it at all IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 What would be the reason for it to be bogus? As with most conspiraices it has to answer the first question. Why don't they really want you to use these devices? Is it just to be dicks and make you read the in flight magazine? There doesn't seem to be any purpose other than the potential for a problem, no matter how remote. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 What would be the reason for it to be bogus?As with most conspiraices it has to answer the first question. Why don't they really want you to use these devices? Is it just to be dicks and make you read the in flight magazine? There doesn't seem to be any purpose other than the potential for a problem, no matter how remote. ~Bang Conspiracy? Who said it was a conspiracy? I'm sure someone along the way said, "Hey, hypothetically, this could happen. We should probably make a rule so we don't get sued." Just like I'm also sure that there have been electronic devices on somewhere on every flight I've ever been on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam@section118 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Two things: 1. Ask any person who has been forced to work tech for a theater that has a crappy communication system. If you talk and/or text on a cell phone, the headphones start screeching and the system can start to freak out. I remember one of the first key rules I learned during our first production in college was "If the cell phone is on during a run, we kill you, fail you, then kill you again" 2. I have friends that are/were pilots. They all said the same thing. Cell phone can mess with you, and in the rare instance they did mess pilots. It is very rare, but in a situation where if you [being the pilot] mess up you will not live to see another day, why take the chance. Just turn the stupid thing off for 5 minutes, then turn it back on when you land. I have to laugh at whoever said it was because no one wants to hear 200 plus people talk at the same time. While that may be true, that has nothing to do with this. While I am no genius (hell, as much as I fly I should have the pre boarding announcements memorized and I still forget to turn my phone off sometimes, and I am very paranoid about where my phone is at all times) I will take the word of my pilot friends. It may not be likely, but why play with fire if you need not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DButz65 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Last year flying from BWI To Jacksonville Florida...some moron, sitting right in front of me and my wife, with his 10-12 yo daughter refused to turn his cell phone off. He was being very rude to the flight attendants. The pilot came on the PA system as we started to taxi to the runway and said if you did not turn your cell phones off now...he would turn around and PERSONALLY remove said people from the plane. 30 seconds pass, the plane stops..and we pull back into our loading dock/zone...the ****pit door opens, and this HUGE guy of a pilot walks out and walks directly to this douche bag, and says "OUT NOW" as the door opens and 3 marshals escort the ahole out of the plane, as his daughter is crying "no daddy turn your phone off" while he is still trying to argue.... I felt horrible for the little girl...so did most people, but the pilot and marshal's got a applause from everyone on board. He may have been a douche but at least his daughter had a Santana Moss jersey on, he's done something right at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 What would be the reason for it to be bogus?As with most conspiraices it has to answer the first question. Why don't they really want you to use these devices? Is it just to be dicks and make you read the in flight magazine? There doesn't seem to be any purpose other than the potential for a problem, no matter how remote. ~Bang Because during takeoff and landing they want you in your seat, not playing with anything. And they don't wan the potential for stuff flying around the cabin during those times like laptops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I wonder why casinos don't want you on the phone when sitting at a table ? I wonder why waiters won't wait on you when you are on your phone. I wonder why planes ask you to turn off your phone. Phones don't bring down planes. The conspiracy is thinking that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I wonder why planes ask you to turn off your phone. Phones don't bring don't planes. The conspiracy is thiniking that they do. If a plane asked me to turn my phone off i would **** myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Because I have a higher IQ than say, you, I correctly understand the physics of the situation involved means that a mobile phone in USE should produce much much more interference than a cell phone thats simply on. When the cell phone is in use, it is emitting RF waves that could interfere, something Im sure even you could grasp. What I did not account for is that some airlines have not appropriately shielded there ****pit navigation systems from even the relatively low interference of a cell phone thats simply on. Which is B.S. because I guarantee that on 99.9% of flights, there is at least one cell phone on somewhere. This is a problem the airlines must correct for, and it really doesnt take a genie or genius to install shielding equipment on the navigation or autopilot systems. I'm in agreement this study is misleading and the effects are being a bit overblown (but still very real if there's no shielding to protect against the waves). Thanks however for needlessly typing out a paragraph that had zero to do with my statement which I'd reword if I could. I apologize for the "low IQ" part, that was poorly worded. Take a chill pill bra, it's the Internet, no need to get super-defensive even if I do regret my choice of words. what I really meant to say was "How could you take that to mean anything other than - press and hold the POWER button on your phone and don't repeat that process until we announce you can." I'm just saying when they say "turn your phone off", that's quite obviously literally what they mean. How could that possibly equal - "just don't talk on your phone?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 For those in this thread who are absolutely certain that the risk is bogus, what is your background in designing and testing systems to protect against electromagnetic waves? How much do you know about how the structures of an airplane and how the contents of the cabin will impact these waves? Properly screened electronics should not be susceptible, so in a modern brand new aircraft the risk is likely very small. Now put that same aircraft through years of service, some rough landings, and some dubious quality maintenance procedures, and how perfectly intact do you think the original shielding will be? Are you certain enough to risk 'blinding' the pilot during take off an landing when critical instruments stop functioning? With the number of devices relying on radio signals inside an aircraft to provide the pilot with data on position, speed, altitude etc. the risks of getting bad data or loss of data due to a portable electronics devices are not zero. Shut your damn phone off and chill out for five minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.