91–100 of 301 posts
Yes, absolutely turn off all devices. We know with certainty that ANY transmitter can cause terrible havoc with the plane's electronics. Unless you're paying the ripoff $10 fee for in-flight Wifi, then the dangers are magically avoided.
There's a big difference in power levels between wifi (that only has to go a few hundred feet to the on-plane transceiver) and cell phone radio (that has to go possibly several miles to a ground tower). Additionally, GSM has a transmission pattern that can cause noise in radio receivers and other audio devices - just try holding an active GSM phone up against a poorly shielded speaker sometime!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response is an example of the natural tendency of some people to find comfort in authority, even when it is shown to be ineffective. Nothing personal. Lots of people react in the same way. Sad nonetheless.
Not really. It is an example of me reading an Ask The Pilot column, on Salon, in which this topic was discussed, and finding myself in agreement with the reasonable points made therein, by an actual pilot. As far as authority goes in general, and the FAA in particular, I think the FAA and Homeland Security are utterly full of it, most of the time. This issue is more evidence of that; I agree with those who point out…
Yes, absolutely turn off all devices. We know with certainty that ANY transmitter can cause terrible havoc with the plane's electronics. Unless you're paying the ripoff $10 fee for in-flight Wifi, then the dangers are magically avoided.
There's a big difference in power levels between wifi (that only has to go a few hundred feet to the on-plane transceiver) and cell phone radio (that has to go possibly several miles to a ground tower). Additionally, GSM has a transmission pattern that can cause noise in radio receivers and other audio devices - just try holding an active GSM phone up against a poorly shielded speaker sometime!
If there were any credible threat from leaving your phone on, or having it actively transmitting, then ALL phones would be outright banned from the plane. Otherwise, a group of terrorists could take down a plane simply by passively not turning their phones off? When you look at all of the other TSA security theater bullshit, it's a safe conclusion (IMO) that the RF from your phone will not interfere with the operation of the plane, based on the simple fact that they are not banned in the first place.
Not to mention, I think that if this were even a moderate concern it would be easy to equip the flight attendants with an RF monitoring device they could walk down the aisle with and detect close-proximity transmitters from cell phones.
On modern flights where coach seats have been spaced at the minimum allowable level and people are forced to bring everything as carry on to avoid bagge fees you see far more safety threats from under-seat luggage sticking out into the seating aisle, potentially inhibiting safe exit of the plane in an actual emergency.
Airlines should encourage passengers to keep their mobile devices on. That would allow pilots to test their equipment and make sure there is no dangerous interference with passengers' mobile devices.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/04/working-with-the-ch...
Perhaps eliminating restrictions on electronics use would have a similar effect. What if the FAA started out by allowing use on a select number of flights where the pilots were highly trained and aware of the supposed risks? Over time, restrictions could be lifted more broadly presuming these initial experiments showed no cause for concern.
There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…
The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity. Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year. Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, rang…
1.6 billion hours per year
= 182648 person years per year
Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers)
= 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen
= equivalent of 4566 deaths
which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response is an example of the natural tendency of some people to find comfort in authority, even when it is shown to be ineffective. Nothing personal. Lots of people react in the same way. Sad nonetheless.
Not really. It is an example of me reading an Ask The Pilot column, on Salon, in which this topic was discussed, and finding myself in agreement with the reasonable points made therein, by an actual pilot. As far as authority goes in general, and the FAA in particular, I think the FAA and Homeland Security are utterly full of it, most of the time. This issue is more evidence of that; I agree with those who point out…
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other options than "allow free cell phone use" and "frisk all passengers to ensure they're not smuggling in an active cell phone". Asking passengers not to use them is a decent compromise between safety and inconvenience. Naturally, if a crash were to actually occur due to mobile phone use, the FAA would need to revisit this guideline. Note that GSM phones in particular _do_ interfere with radio systems - t…
> cell networks aren't designed to deal with the rapid > tower transfers I always see this argument brought up (on HN), but what does the FAA care about cell carriers' networks? Why don't they ever use this justification when asked to justify their policy?
So conclusion might be something along the lines of "it's not designed to do that", which seems like pretty good justification when you are talking about airplane safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they actually aren't willing to test whether cell phones interfere with their equipment, they shouldn't be allowing cell phones on the plane at all. Relying on people's compliance (or even just their attention) to ensure the plane doesn't explode is absurd.
There are other options than "allow free cell phone use" and "frisk all passengers to ensure they're not smuggling in an active cell phone". Asking passengers not to use them is a decent compromise between safety and inconvenience. Naturally, if a crash were to actually occur due to mobile phone use, the FAA would need to revisit this guideline. Note that GSM phones in particular _do_ interfere with radio systems - t…
Most cell towers have a lot of RF engineering put into them to direct the signals DOWN, not UP.