Passengers who don't turn off their devices
#61
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: LBA
Programs: BAEC Gold, PPL/IR
Posts: 438
Two points on interference.
I've travelled with my cellphone in the trunk of a large car, at least as far from the car radio as you can be from the cockpit of a single aisle airliner. I can still hear significant interference on the radio as the phone searches for a signal - and I don't want that to occur at the moment ATC tell the pilot "immediate hard left for collision avoidance" or something similar.
Secondly as was mentioned above not all of the items that could be influenced are in the cockpit, there are looms of wiring and instrumentation throughout the plane.
Aviation has developed into such a safe method of transport by overengineering safety to a very high degree - this is another example of that.
I've travelled with my cellphone in the trunk of a large car, at least as far from the car radio as you can be from the cockpit of a single aisle airliner. I can still hear significant interference on the radio as the phone searches for a signal - and I don't want that to occur at the moment ATC tell the pilot "immediate hard left for collision avoidance" or something similar.
Secondly as was mentioned above not all of the items that could be influenced are in the cockpit, there are looms of wiring and instrumentation throughout the plane.
Aviation has developed into such a safe method of transport by overengineering safety to a very high degree - this is another example of that.
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Originally Posted by AA53
Several years ago, a WN flight from SAT to DAL couldn't land because a cell phone interfered with the flight nav. The pilot turned the plane around and returned to SAT. The offending pax was found and arrested.. Follow instructions or take the chance...and I will call the FA.
That reminds me of the West Wing pilot (pardon the pun) episode.
Do the safety of the aircraft really depend on everyone turning off there phones and other electronics? If it were REALLY dangerous, wouldn't they be banned from the aircraft???? After all, if they can ban dangerous stuff like Starbucks or 3 1/4 oz tubes of toothpaste, it can't be that hard to detect someone carrying a phone.
I was a bit consfused after clearing US immigration at YVR the other day.
I went through security and a small bottle of water was found.
Of course, this being Canada, they simply wanted me to drink some of it.
So, here's the "security" issue, but don't tell TSA.
I can bring a bottle of WATER from landside in Canada. I can clear security in Canada with the bottle, and now I am airside in the US , as if I came in on a domestic flight, and can board a US departing aircraft with this outside purchased bottle of water..... Now, if TSA doesn't think this is a security threat, then how can a bottle purchased landside in the US be a threat?
#63
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: TXL
Programs: BA
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by nixande
But then there is always the possibility of a review ... in fact I think they should test wlan on a plane.
#64
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 36
Well said, chicaloca453...
Originally Posted by chicaloca453
Well said! Like it or not, it's a rule. Who are we to have so little disregard for the rules that we don't follow the ones we don't like? I think chewing gum in class is harmless, but it's against the rules so I don't (well didn't since I'm long past grade school). I think it's stupid to have to stop at a red light without any traffic around for miles, but I do. I think it's stupid to have to use a crosswalk to cross a street when the street is desserted. But I do. Rules are a way of life, and we need to respect them.
Flight attendants already have a tough job. Why should we make it any tougher by making them be the nagging mommies as well? Just do what you're told and turn off your devices. Even if there's the SLIGHTEST chance that something (laptop, ipod, phone, etc.) COULD interfere with the operation of the aircraft, why would you want to chance it? Your luck may run out someday.
As far as the OP's question, I would ring the call button and bring it to the FA's attention. Then, if she chose to ignore it, I'd write her up because she's not doing her job.
Some of us do follow the rules. Others ARE FAA "spies" planted to break the rules to see if they get caught. A FA is supposed to enforce the rules for EVERYONE. And if he/she does not and one of those spies sees it, she could lose her job (or he/his).
Some people have kids on board. When they see adults breaking the rules, they're more likely to think it's okay for them to as well. And it's not just about "dumb" FAA rules. It's about ANY rule. Why not try setting a good example and doing what you're asked. I mean really, is it going to hurt you to turn off that ipod 1 song early? Are we really THAT technology dependant? If we are, it's a sad thing.
Flight attendants already have a tough job. Why should we make it any tougher by making them be the nagging mommies as well? Just do what you're told and turn off your devices. Even if there's the SLIGHTEST chance that something (laptop, ipod, phone, etc.) COULD interfere with the operation of the aircraft, why would you want to chance it? Your luck may run out someday.
As far as the OP's question, I would ring the call button and bring it to the FA's attention. Then, if she chose to ignore it, I'd write her up because she's not doing her job.
Some of us do follow the rules. Others ARE FAA "spies" planted to break the rules to see if they get caught. A FA is supposed to enforce the rules for EVERYONE. And if he/she does not and one of those spies sees it, she could lose her job (or he/his).
Some people have kids on board. When they see adults breaking the rules, they're more likely to think it's okay for them to as well. And it's not just about "dumb" FAA rules. It's about ANY rule. Why not try setting a good example and doing what you're asked. I mean really, is it going to hurt you to turn off that ipod 1 song early? Are we really THAT technology dependant? If we are, it's a sad thing.
#66
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: DFW
Programs: AA Plat (2MM), Hertz 5 star
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA53
Several years ago, a WN flight from SAT to DAL couldn't land because a cell phone interfered with the flight nav. The pilot turned the plane around and returned to SAT. The offending pax was found and arrested.. Follow instructions or take the chance...and I will call the FA.
I googled extensively, and found nothing
Originally Posted by AA53
Several years ago, a WN flight from SAT to DAL couldn't land because a cell phone interfered with the flight nav. The pilot turned the plane around and returned to SAT. The offending pax was found and arrested.. Follow instructions or take the chance...and I will call the FA.
Originally Posted by oklAAhoma
Links please.
#68
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: DFW
Programs: AA Plat (2MM), Hertz 5 star
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by fishee
What exactly do you mean by "Oakland" residents? What is the distinction between "Oakland" and Los Angeles residents? And what is the relevance of your wife's weight -- that doesn't seem unreasonably large.
While I clearly agree that there is no "there" there...it is an inappropriate way to make a point
#69
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
This is absurd. If these electronic devices had the real ability to bring down a plane, they would simply not be allowed on board. If a mobile phone can bring down a 737, then the 737 should never have been deemed safe for flight?
I do put my Blackberry into "wireless off" right before takeoff, to save battery only. Ipod and laptop stay on at all times.
Also, funny I can use my Blackberry taxiing in but not taxiing out; the "danger" must be different.
I do put my Blackberry into "wireless off" right before takeoff, to save battery only. Ipod and laptop stay on at all times.
Also, funny I can use my Blackberry taxiing in but not taxiing out; the "danger" must be different.
#70
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
Researchers noted that there is no definitive instance of an electronic device used by a passenger causing an accident. However, they said their data support the conclusion that use of devices like cell phones "will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident by interfering with critical cockpit instruments such as GPS receivers."
#71
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by muddy
#72
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: HRO/SGF (Home)/DFW (Work)
Programs: AA EXP/2MM, Marriott Silver
Posts: 1,623
Originally Posted by justageek
...I think the thing people object to isn't so much the rules themselves, but being lied to about the reasons for them (namely, that you'll cause some kind of radio interference that will crash the plane).
#74
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
Then they should be banned from flight. Not even allowed in checked luggage, because someone could leave it on.
You could also say truthfully that a PERSON "will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident by interfering ..." Obviously, the airlines have decided not to ban people from flights (although they do screen them)
The question of why cell phones arent banned altogether is interesting though. Apparently someone somewhere has judged that the inconvenience outweighs the safety risk?
#75
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: LA
Programs: AA Plat, Starwood Plat
Posts: 6
Was on a flight leaving from JFK a couple of months ago when a man was repeatedly asked to turn off his phone which he didn't - it kept ringing and he kept taking the calls. When we were streaming down the runway in the middle of take off he started talking on the phone again and was sticking his hand in the FA's face to try to keep her from grabbing it. This was, however, a flight from JFK to Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific in Business Class. I'm pretty sure that AA wouldn't tolerate this behavior for a second.