|
Originally Posted by Teacher49
(Post 8597459)
IMO, we need to do our best without acting like cowards and old ladies. Then live free or die. (And my guess is that there will be hundreds of millions in the "live free" category and relatively few in the "die" category as time goes on.
|
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Except that most of that thread thoroughly debunked the nonsense that consumer personal electronic devices pose any risk whatsoever to aircraft control and navigation systems.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 8596872)
"Cell phones as safety hazard" and "personal electronic devices are a safety hazard" comes close to the ridiculous concept that "CD players are a safety hazard" when a few dozen people are using them in-flight and the flight continues just fine.
If you don't have definitive evidence, you term the risk nonsense and ridiculous, and urge complacency. I say there might be a problem, and you say there isn't. Interesting. |
Originally Posted by CessnaJock
(Post 8597833)
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Except that most of that thread thoroughly debunked the nonsense that consumer personal electronic devices pose any risk whatsoever to aircraft control and navigation systems. If I don't have definitive evidence, I term the risk unknown, and urge caution. If you don't have definitive evidence, you term the risk nonsense and ridiculous, and urge complacency. I say there might be a problem, and you say there isn't. Interesting. By the way, there's an unknown risk involving invaders from outer space beaming (a la Star Trek) into the cockpit to take over the plane. Better urge caution, at least following your line of reasoning. Back to this:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Any other comic book worthy "worst (sic) case scenario"?
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 8597464)
Wrong, what I said is still terrorism.
Terrorism committed to point the finger at someone else is one of many such examples. ;) Terrorism committed to accomplish political objectives doesn't always require finger pointing or claiming responsibility either. Another such example. ;)
Originally Posted by World Conflict Quarterly
The FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. |
Originally Posted by prismwiz
(Post 8594921)
Some people in this thread are commenting on how terrorists appear to be stupid...
... An attack on a school would be the most horrific. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 8597969)
Seems that others disagree http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html
Pretty difficult to intimidate or coerce by committing these acts anonymously, but I guess you're the expert here. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 8597922)
By the way, there's an unknown risk involving invaders from outer space beaming (a la Star Trek) into the cockpit to take over the plane. Better urge caution, at least following your line of reasoning.
As I said long ago, there is anecdotal evidence that stray EMI messes up instruments. And there is systematic evidence suggesting that it could be a problem. Not that it is a problem, mind you. But not that it can't possibly be one, either. Add to that the well-documented tendency of large-scale software systems to respond to untested combinations of stimuli in unexpected ways, and you have a recipe for chaos. I think it would be prudent to carry a means of detecting and locating sources of RF emission on airliners. You are free to disagree, but it really doesn't bolster your argument to denigrate the opinions of others. |
Some here need a lesson in expected outcomes and risk management. This kind of so called "worst case terrorist scenario" misses the boat entirely.
|
Originally Posted by alanR
(Post 8597971)
For Jihadists that would be as successful as Abu Gharib or Guantanamo have been for the Americans.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 8598056)
Some here need a lesson in expected outcomes and risk management. This kind of so called "worst case terrorist scenario" misses the boat entirely.
Et cum spiritu tuo. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8598073)
They did it at Beslan and it didn't work out as you portray.
|
Originally Posted by CessnaJock
(Post 8598160)
I guess you're saying that I hold my point of view out of ignorance.
Et cum spiritu tuo. I didn't say that you hold your point of view out of ignorance, but the point of view expressed certainly seems to factor out expected outcomes and risk management in such a way that would justify spending money to prepare for an invasion from Mars tomorrow. |
Originally Posted by CessnaJock
(Post 8587520)
If you go over the links in this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=619038 you will find any quantity of both anecdotal and systematic evidence that electronic devices can interfere with aircraft control and navigation systems.
Now suppose you are a terrorist cell intent upon bringing down a few dozen U.S.-flag airliners (as in the Manila plot) and you know that broadband RF noise of sufficient power could do it. Remember - these people are fanatical, not stupid. Could you disguise your device as a laptop or GameBoy and walk right onto a plane with it? Or build a timer into it and secrete it in a checked bag or cargo shipment? And yes, I am an expert in those matters. Really. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 8598027)
Seems that others agree. :rolleyes:
Seeing as how the Federal Bureau of Investigation has legal jurisdiction to investigate crimes of terrorism in the United States and acts of terrorism involving US citizens/US interests overseas, I think I'll stick with their definition. ;) |
I'm not a EE or materials engineer but I wonder...how light could they make a faraday cage? I mean if you were to enclose the cabin in a cage would that keep any EMI from getting out?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:56 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.