Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2013, 08:26 AM
 
447 posts, read 1,043,836 times
Reputation: 756

Advertisements

The rule is not there because the device interferes with the plane. Everyone with a brain knows this.

The rule is there because they don't want your device to become a flying missile should the plane crash during takeoff or landing.

People don't get as upset when they are told to stow an item because it 'might' interfere with the planes equipment as opposed to being told "this is the risky part of your trip and we want you to stow your tablet so it doesn't also kill the guy 3 rows down when it whacks him in the head".

 
Old 09-06-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Ft. Myers
19,719 posts, read 16,825,951 times
Reputation: 41863
I think that as humans evolve more we will have necks that are permanently bent down at a 45 degree angle so we can see our electronic devices a little easier. It seems everyone I see today is staring down at that stupid little device in their hands, oblivious to everything around them. When I go into the lunchroom at work you see 4 people sitting at a table together and each one of them is texting or playing some game on their phone.

In addition to our necks evolving into bent ones, our mouths will probably go away in time too, because no one talks to other people today, we all send them text messages instead.

Don
 
Old 09-06-2013, 09:08 AM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,792,180 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtexan99 View Post
The rule is not there because the device interferes with the plane. Everyone with a brain knows this.

The rule is there because they don't want your device to become a flying missile should the plane crash during takeoff or landing.

People don't get as upset when they are told to stow an item because it 'might' interfere with the planes equipment as opposed to being told "this is the risky part of your trip and we want you to stow your tablet so it doesn't also kill the guy 3 rows down when it whacks him in the head".
untrue. Some FA may ask you to stow your laptop. But no one asks you to stow your cell phone. Just put it in your front pocket and all is well.

And it is the FCC that regulates airplqne cell phones. Not the FAA.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 09:12 AM
 
1,075 posts, read 1,771,536 times
Reputation: 1961
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtexan99 View Post
The rule is not there because the device interferes with the plane. Everyone with a brain knows this.

The rule is there because they don't want your device to become a flying missile should the plane crash during takeoff or landing.

People don't get as upset when they are told to stow an item because it 'might' interfere with the planes equipment as opposed to being told "this is the risky part of your trip and we want you to stow your tablet so it doesn't also kill the guy 3 rows down when it whacks him in the head".
The rule is that the device must be powered off and stowed during takeoff and landing. It is no more of a hazard as a projectile when powered on than when powered off. So why turn it off?

Electromagnetic interference is a very real possibility, although its effects are not necessarily catastrophic. Newer avionics are designed to be more immune to interference from portable electronics, including those with active transmitters. Still, since there are a multitude of aircraft avionics configurations and even more types of portable electronic devices, making a universal determination of electromagnetic compatibility pretty much unobtainable, the FAA has decided to rely on a blanket rule to try to eliminate the problem.

The rule is probably in need of some updating, but that should be left up to the FAA and industry experts using testing and analysis, not some random passenger who doesn't want to stop playing Candy Crush.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 09:26 AM
 
537 posts, read 739,793 times
Reputation: 912
It's a stupid rule based on false assumptions and old technology. Planes are not falling out of the sky because some tool left their iPhone on. I've never heard of a pilot run out of the cockpit screaming, "For the love of God! We can't control the plane because someone left their iPad on!! Ahhhhhhhhh" Nope. Hasn't happened. The FAA clings tenaciously to their rules despite the lack of any harm from these devices.

Most pilots (private and commercial) fly with paperless charts on their iPads/iPhones right in the cockpit and no planes are falling out of the sky. Getting the regulatory dinosaurs to change their senseless edicts is an exercise in futility.

Oh, and let's not forget the other inconveniences we suffer through when flying commercial: no carry-on liquids over 3 oz. Based upon a terror hoax and bad science. Taking off shoes? Another staged hoax based upon bad science.

It's all security theater and more than inconvenienced passengers are suffering from it. Just ask the people in Hawaii who have seen tourist business plummet because of TSA security theater idiocy. I, for one, am part of the tourist traffic die-off because of the post 9/11 hysteria.

I grew up loving to fly on the airliners. Today? Not at all. It's a miserable, tedious ride with clenched teeth.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Temporarily residing on Planet Earth
658 posts, read 1,553,698 times
Reputation: 393
WLTSC

(We Like To Stay Connected)...
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,639 posts, read 18,115,633 times
Reputation: 6913
One issue is that mobile devices at high altitudes can access several different cell towers on the same frequency at the same time, potentially causing congestion and overload.

If you've ever turned on an FM radio in mid-flight (another no-no on commercial airliners), you'll encounter tons of interfering stations from the ground over about a 200 or 300-mile radius on almost every frequency, as long as you're over a populated area. Same thing.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: The Help Desk
259 posts, read 670,182 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckodeirish View Post
-the device does not disrupt aviation technology so it's no big deal?
Hmmm thoughts?

Cellphones and other devices don't interfere with the planes electronics, but that's probably not what the person is thinking because most sheeple believe they do.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:43 AM
 
Location: The Help Desk
259 posts, read 670,182 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
One issue is that mobile devices at high altitudes can access several different cell towers on the same frequency at the same time, potentially causing congestion and overload.

If you've ever turned on an FM radio in mid-flight (another no-no on commercial airliners), you'll encounter tons of interfering stations from the ground over about a 200 or 300-mile radius on almost every frequency, as long as you're over a populated area. Same thing.

Right, and let's think about it;

All those AM and FM transmitters kicking out energy, coupled with the fact the cell phone signal is miniscule compared to the LARGE signal coming from the cell tower,and still, no plane crashes.

The 'cellphone' rule is just another group that wants to 'waggle their finger' because they can.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:44 AM
 
3,279 posts, read 5,315,009 times
Reputation: 6149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyon Cat View Post
It's a stupid rule based on false assumptions and old technology. Planes are not falling out of the sky because some tool left their iPhone on. I've never heard of a pilot run out of the cockpit screaming, "For the love of God! We can't control the plane because someone left their iPad on!! Ahhhhhhhhh" Nope. Hasn't happened. The FAA clings tenaciously to their rules despite the lack of any harm from these devices.
^^^^This^^^^.

I think it is important to note 2 separate things: (a) supposed "dangers" of someone leaving their phone on vs (b) how "rude" it supposedly is. The former is a reason for people to care & for rules to be drafted/endorced, the latter--not so much, especially if they're just playing games on it with the sound off etc vs shouting loudly into the device etc.

If safety and/or noise isn't an issue, frankly it's not anyone's business to judge someone as being too hooked to their device, that's THEIR business, not someone else's. Especially while having to wait, a smartphone or tablet is a totally understandable tool for usage in such situations. It's no different than, say, someone reading a physical book or watching the overhead movie--and in fact, if anything, I'd say an overhead movie shown to everyone is far more disruptive noise-wise than someone playing a game on their phone.

By the way, no, I don't fly, but I do sympathize with those who do & in having to do their waiting are told they can't use their tablet or phone to help pass the time. Given that it's shown that they aren't really the hazard they've been made out to be, it's ridiculous.

LRH
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top