Accidentally left cell phone on, connected, during 2-hour flight.
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
But that is actually beside the point. Why would you feel the need to prove that it is safe (to yourself? to others?) by deliberately leaving your device(s) on. On the basis that it doesn't work anyway, what do you possibly have to gain from this? It's the attitude I don't get - I understand the engineering involved to an extremely detailed level.
#33
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 197
But that is actually beside the point. Why would you feel the need to prove that it is safe (to yourself? to others?) by deliberately leaving your device(s) on. On the basis that it doesn't work anyway, what do you possibly have to gain from this? It's the attitude I don't get
Defiance
I refuse to submit to ridiculous policies anymore than I have to. Anyway as has been mentioned all it does really is run my battery down faster so why does it bother you?
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
#35
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,265
I'm not aware of any accident or investigation reports that show that having a row 13 is unlucky. I have however seen investigation reports that show inconsistencies when phones have been left on.
#36
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
The real "reason" for the no-cell phone policies for flights is that, back in the 90s, with the old analog and later TDMA systems, if you were flying at altitude and at speed, you were right on the edge of cells and on top of that, bouncing very quickly from cell to cell. It caused degradation on cell networks. Thus was born the complete BS that cell phone signals can affect plane comm systems. Look at it this way, comm systems work fine on the ground when people on board are using cells, They work fine when flying over land where the air is practically alive with signals from all the cells of all of the networks. It's sort of like TSA - kabuki theater used to disguise the real "reason" for a policy that, if known, would cause even the most docile sheeple to question it.
Modern GSM and CDMA systems aren't really affected, but they won't scrap the policy because it would make them look stupid. Plus, they really don't want people using cells on planes, which I agree with from a courtesy standpoint. And further, they'll probably want to charge people soon for the "luxury" of using their cell phones while at altitude.
I'm wondering that, when internet access becomes widespread available, how they'll handle VOIP usage by passengers.
Modern GSM and CDMA systems aren't really affected, but they won't scrap the policy because it would make them look stupid. Plus, they really don't want people using cells on planes, which I agree with from a courtesy standpoint. And further, they'll probably want to charge people soon for the "luxury" of using their cell phones while at altitude.
I'm wondering that, when internet access becomes widespread available, how they'll handle VOIP usage by passengers.
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
#38
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,265
I didn't say that. What I said was "There are scientific links between cell phones and electronic interference."
It is much easier to certify particular devices used onboard (eg radio systems), than it is to certify every mobile phone made in the world - and that's before the dog chews on the case or the child manages to dip half the phone in the bath.
It is much easier to certify particular devices used onboard (eg radio systems), than it is to certify every mobile phone made in the world - and that's before the dog chews on the case or the child manages to dip half the phone in the bath.
#39
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles / Basel
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA EXP, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 26,930
The only reason I turn off the transmit mode of mobile phone in-flight is so that the battery is not drained by the phone searching for a signal.
I'd hate to see the cell phone bill, if I was talking to a colleague in Europe and was accidentally connected for over two hours!
I'd hate to see the cell phone bill, if I was talking to a colleague in Europe and was accidentally connected for over two hours!
#41
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
Now onto heart attack #2... that 02:25 cell phone bill.
I'd be alot more concerned about that.
At least... that's just me.
#42
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,795
When I was a kid, people were scared of cancer from televisions (or something. Mom just said "don't sit so close." ). When I was a teenager, people were scared of cancer from microwave ovens. People will be scared of cancer from cell phones until the next major radio-based widget arrives.
Electromagnetic energy is the closest thing the modern world has to magic; people love the gadgets but figure there must be a bad side to it somewhere.
Electromagnetic energy is the closest thing the modern world has to magic; people love the gadgets but figure there must be a bad side to it somewhere.
#43
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 194
The only reason I turn off the transmit mode of mobile phone in-flight is so that the battery is not drained by the phone searching for a signal.
I'd hate to see the cell phone bill, if I was talking to a colleague in Europe and was accidentally connected for over two hours!
I'd hate to see the cell phone bill, if I was talking to a colleague in Europe and was accidentally connected for over two hours!
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
I didn't say that. What I said was "There are scientific links between cell phones and electronic interference."
It is much easier to certify particular devices used onboard (eg radio systems), than it is to certify every mobile phone made in the world - and that's before the dog chews on the case or the child manages to dip half the phone in the bath.
It is much easier to certify particular devices used onboard (eg radio systems), than it is to certify every mobile phone made in the world - and that's before the dog chews on the case or the child manages to dip half the phone in the bath.
Did you know that nearly 100% of all planes that have crashed in history had a row 13, but planes were crashing before there were cell phones?
BTW, did you know that airlines give every pax the ability to completely saturate the plane with electro-magnetic radiation, that every FA can easily detect it, and the airlines do absolutely nothing about it?
#45
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
I a m probably going to get slammed for this comment, but...
I donīt believe that using cell phone on planes will make them fall from the sky, but I dread the day in which they are allowed. Can you imagine sitting next to an unknown person for hours and having to listen to their incessant and usually completely stupid chatter without being able to walk away?
I donīt believe that using cell phone on planes will make them fall from the sky, but I dread the day in which they are allowed. Can you imagine sitting next to an unknown person for hours and having to listen to their incessant and usually completely stupid chatter without being able to walk away?