Globaliser

There is absolutely no call that is so important that it overrides safety instructions. Anyone who thinks that their call is that important is just too up themselves.

And if you genuinely think your call is important, then tell the crew that you think you have an important call to make or receive, and see what arrangements can be made. There is absolutely no call that is too important for that small amount of courtesy and cooperation. Again, anyone who thinks that their call is so important that this is unnecessary is just too up themselves.

Anyway, there are some significant factual disputes in this story as published. Given my personal observation of the relative number of passengers who are too full of themselves and their own self-importance (particularly the ones who are actually only flying because someone else is paying for it), compared to the number of cabin crew who are on beyond-the-rule-book power trips, I know which side of the factual disputes I tend to favour.

pjoalfa

IMHO, if they offloaded people a lot more often for this infraction, you'd see a distinct drop in the problem. When people start to realize they would get absolutely no leeway on this they'll be a lot less likely to test the rules.

Whatever did people do before cellphones and crack-berries? Seems to me the world didn't come to a crashing halt.

Agree with all the FAs posting here. NO call is more important than following safety instructions, no matter what your feelings are on the validity of said rules. If you don't like it, write your MP and turn off your damned phone.

glamgirl20

Funny you should mention MPs... I nearly had to offload one a couple of years back, due to a phone issue....

mkjr

so why is being on the phone such a big deal when I see pax do all sorts of things during take off once the no phones goes out, none of which are paying attention to safety matters or FA's. Do not spew the whole cell phones interact with flight equipment. If that were true should the not ban them like they do knives?

ferrismo

As posted previously there is a small possibility that a phone can interfere with the avionics. If everyone had their phone on and transmitting i.e sending a txt, in a call, data session or even registering to cell this would greatly increase the chances of causing a problem, during the critical stage of take off and landing. Once you up in the air the risk is reduced, radio contact is not essential to keep the plane flying, but on the ground the plane needs to be in constant contact with the control tower.
You turn your engine off when you fill up at a petrol station right? Even though the risk of causing an explosion is very small if it was left running, so why do you turn it off then???
The answer is the same as why you are asked to turn your phone off on a plane.

mkjr

oh never mind...

SmilingBoy

Besides pointing to the fact that it is a rule, what is the safety issue of using a phone before pushback? I can't really see the plane crashing or the crew having navigation problems during that time. So what is the reasoning behind this rule?

I never take phone calls while on the plane, but I do keep my Blackberry on until pushback. After all, the time between boarding and pushback often takes a while, so why not use the time to read/write e-mails? I am not sure whether this is allowed or not since the safety briefing is usually only made when the plane is moving, and it is only mentioned then that phones should be switched off.

Murdoch

[QUOTE=phb;12655736]Re phones and gas stations.

Theoretically the phone may cause a spark. It's not the radiation or static, but the fact that there is an energy source which if shorted could create sufficient energy to ignite an explosive atmosphere.

But think about it folks. You are driving a car or bike onto the forecourt. It has a battery many times the capacity of the cell phone in your pocket, not to mention any number of potential electrical, chemical and mechanical souces of ignition. What's the biggest risk?

The real reason that cell phones are banned on forecourts is that EM radiation can interfere with weighing and measuring equipment, like that petrol pump.

I'd heard (from someone that works in a petrol station) that because phones are heavish (compared to, say, keys or coins) that if you drop one it may cause a spark which ignites any petrol lying about. Might be rubbish - but there's another theory for the pile!

(First three paragraphs are from phb - sorry dont know why they're not in a box ...)

Lucifer UK

You won't be paying attention to the safety brief...look at the PHX 744 that BA evacuated pre-brief on the stand for example!

hammythehammer

I wonder how these important people cope when they use the underground or for the ten hours on board a flight?
If you are that important that you need an extra 3 minutes using your mobile , maybe you shouldn't take that flight.

Lucifer UK

To be fair, I did have to brief a former boss of mine on the results of a meeting I had just been into, before he went into another in London, while I was sitting in my CE seat at the gate.

Also, to be fair, we had a 3-hour delay on the ground, thus we were not just about to depart.

BOH

Most US airlines allow the use of cell phones during the taxi phases. Have been on a few where the pilot announces immediately on turning onto the taxiway after landing that cell phones may now be used.

Even the rules in the UK differ. IIRC, BA allows devices to be used on board provided the engines are not running. Therefore is fine during boarding and up to just a few minutes before departure.

U2 however seem to enforce a rule of only permitted inside the airport terminal.

I think this difference across the various carriers simply causes confusion and is a potential cause of widespread flouting. Either they are dangerous or they are not and all carriers (with guidance from the OEM) should strictly enforce a common rule.

SmilingBoy

Now what difference does it make to my attention whether I am reading an e-mail or reading a newspaper (distributed by the crew)?

Globaliser

I agree about the confusion this causes, and the desirability for consistent rules.

However, it is not the case that "either they are dangerous or they are not". It just isn't as simple as that. The question's more along the lines of "Is the event likelihood 10E-7 or 10E-10?" And you could have a lot of legitimate disagreement about that.

But at least it is good to see that airlines do, generally, take this very seriously: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...dismantle.html

Globaliser

None: During the safety briefing, you should not be reading a newspaper either.