I already posted links upthread that discuss the risk, which seems to quantify it as "small, but existent". This probably describes many factors in airplane safety, and I'm glad we generally defer towards safety in these situations. Otherwise, the FAA wouldn't be so anal about little cracks and rules about pilots getting enough sleep and such, which I'm sure are inconvenient to the airlines.
Admitting that I haven't followed the links, I do see that they're from Wikipedia. This means that anyone can write things there. I've written on Wikipedia, but it was something I knew about. I don't consider this a valid source, in general. There were some citations that could have had more credibility, though.
Could it, maybe, possibly do something? Perhaps. Given that people leave cell phone and wifi on all the time on planes, and I've yet to read a report of one coming down over this, I'll remain skeptical.
Also note that my having wifi on if they're charging for it doesn't seem to be a risk anymore and, while I could be wrong, I doubt that they've added a lot of shielding for this.
Admitting that I haven't followed the links, I do see that they're from Wikipedia. This means that anyone can write things there. I've written on Wikipedia, but it was something I knew about. I don't consider this a valid source, in general. There were some citations that could have had more credibility, though.
Yes, the citations are from the IEEE and the British Civil Aviation Authority, which I think are fairly credible sources. Much more credible than random people saying "I don't think it's a problem", which seems to be the other side of the argument.
Quote:
Could it, maybe, possibly do something? Perhaps. Given that people leave cell phone and wifi on all the time on planes, and I've yet to read a report of one coming down over this, I'll remain skeptical.
Actually, this is specifically addressed. Phones (in particular) send much stronger signals when transmitting than simply on. So, it's much more dangerous to be using your Blackberry than to simply having forgotten to turn it off. Similarly, if you're not actually connected to a WiFi network, your computer is just looking for a network to join rather than transmitting at full strength.
Incidentally, there's at least some theorizing that interference have been responsible for some recent incidents (investigations are still underway, so no real evidence yet):
Also note that my having wifi on if they're charging for it doesn't seem to be a risk anymore and, while I could be wrong, I doubt that they've added a lot of shielding for this.
Actually, shielding is added as part of the installation and (as noted in the links I provided), it doesn't take much shielding to minimize the risk, but it's often not present.
Yes, the citations are from the IEEE and the British Civil Aviation Authority, which I think are fairly credible sources. Much more credible than random people saying "I don't think it's a problem", which seems to be the other side of the argument.
Quite credible. I think anaylses have been done on the other side as well. In the end, though, we have many thousands of hours of planes flying with cell phones on (I'm sure that there are at least 4 on any given flight), with no mishaps. As an engineer I can appreciate the theoretical analyses, but empirical evidence with a large data set means more to me. "Could, theoretically happen" versus "doesn't happen in practice."
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by newyorkgeorge
What was AA to do. Land at the nearest airport and kick the parents and kids to the curb.
Exactly, yes, and bill the parents for the cost of the diversion. If airlines did that once or twice the issue of kids on planes wouldn't be an issue at all. This wouldn't have any impact on the majority of parents who can manage their kids and whose children are good fliers, and isn't "collective punishment" as a ban on all children in F would be.
Kick 'em off. If it's before pushback, no refund. If it's after, bill the parents the cost. As long as it's put in the CoC it would be enforceable.
Programs: AAdvantage EXP, AA 1.5MM, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 2,133
bad PR move, diverting a flight to off-load family due to naughty children. I imagine the press would have a lot of fun dishing on that one. sometimes perception out-ranks truth ...
Programs: AA EXP 2MM, Marriott PLT Premier, HHonors Silver, SPG, Avis First
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garp
I flew into the UK a few days after the arrests that triggered the liquids ban, so I understand the thinking behind the ban. As far fetched as the scheme was, apparently it could have worked. Nobody seems to object to having their shoes screened, thanks tot he ShoeBomber. That is now part of flying. I am willing to live with the inconvenience in both cases if it closes a potential security hole.
You haven't been to the TS/S forum or met Spiff, have you?
Exactly, yes, and bill the parents for the cost of the diversion. If airlines did that once or twice the issue of kids on planes wouldn't be an issue at all. This wouldn't have any impact on the majority of parents who can manage their kids and whose children are good fliers, and isn't "collective punishment" as a ban on all children in F would be.
Kick 'em off. If it's before pushback, no refund. If it's after, bill the parents the cost. As long as it's put in the CoC it would be enforceable.
That is ridiculous. Can we do the same for EXP elites who dont follow the rules? 50% of my flights would be stopped... not rational thinking.
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum Preferred, TSA Artful Concealer Silver, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 5,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by benzguy80
bad PR move, diverting a flight to off-load family due to naughty children. I imagine the press would have a lot of fun dishing on that one. sometimes perception out-ranks truth ...
I seem to recall story recently where a flight returned to the gate to offload a parent and an unruly child, and good for the Captain and crew for making that decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aamilesslave
You haven't been to the TS/S forum or met Spiff, have you?
LOL
__________________
I can has ur upgrade? Will trade for waffles, or a mini of Jack in my Kippie. My WaffleHouseMemory | Twitter
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambb
That is ridiculous. Can we do the same for EXP elites who dont follow the rules? 50% of my flights would be stopped... not rational thinking.
This has nothing to do with, "not following the rules." Getting hit by someone else's kids? Kids who won't put on seatbelts? Kids treating F like a playground?
They're a hazard to themselves and others. Put them and their parents off.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by benzguy80
bad PR move, diverting a flight to off-load family due to naughty children. I imagine the press would have a lot of fun dishing on that one. sometimes perception out-ranks truth ...
Are you kidding? It would be terrific PR. This isn't a case of "naughty children," but out-of-control hellions. What airline was it -- AirTran? -- that put off the woman with the toddler who "refused" to be seat belted (and was screaming and kicking). Public reaction was overwhelmingly in support of the airline.
This has nothing to do with, "not following the rules." Getting hit by someone else's kids? Kids who won't put on seatbelts? Kids treating F like a playground?
They're a hazard to themselves and others. Put them and their parents off.
Some people see all rules violations as equivalent. Therefore, being smacked in the head by rambunctious kids is the same as the person using the Blackberry during takeoff. If you put one off the plane, gotta put 'em all off. Rules are rules, after all!
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by brp
Some people see all rules violations as equivalent. Therefore, being smacked in the head by rambunctious kids is the same as the person using the Blackberry during takeoff. If you put one off the plane, gotta put 'em all off. Rules are rules, after all!
Cheers.
I'm fine with putting off someone who refuses to turn off his Blackberry. That's the whole point: adults who can't or won't conform their conduct in compliance with the rules should be put off. That includes parents who let their children run wild. If I had been on that flight, I would have been demanding that either the children be restrained (if necessary, with duct tape), or we divert and they be put off. I will not suffer physical assault from anyone, regardless of age.
Programs: AAdvantage EXP, AA 1.5MM, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 2,133
I figure it's up to AA to police pax doing things that don't directly involve me, unless it's a particularly egregious offense like attempt to light off a tennis shoe IED. I too dislike folks ignoring the FA's instructions to turn off electronic devices, but it's none of my business.
Scoff-laws are everywhere. For the most part it's up to law enforcement and the courts to deal with them. I tell myself that when I see people (even on bicycles) running stop signs and stop lights, but I'm a hardliner on that one because I lost a friend to a stop light runner (in a pickup, not on a bicycle).
Not sure what I would have done in the OP's position other than complain to the FA's, the parents, and (afterward) the airline. Hopefully won't have to deal with this type of airborne circus.
I just find it amazing that not one adult onboard that a/c could not control those children. I don't think I would resort to restraint tape, but would somehow ensure calm in my cabin. Rest assured, I would find a way
