Passengers who don't turn off their devices
Nov 1, 2006, 9:22 am
#122
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by rrgg
Think about this for a minute. The problem is NOT that your specific iPod will bring down the plane. The problem is that hundreds of new electronic devices are introduced every year and we cannot test them all. They are not required to meet some given standard for interference. In isolated incidents there are documented pilot reports of interference due to personal electronic devices, and just recently there was a study out of England (Leeds?) showing cell phone interference in a controlled study.
Nov 1, 2006, 9:38 am
#123
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
Then all electronic devices should be banned from every flight, even checked luggage. The policy should be implemented today. The danger is just too large.
Who said "the danger is just too large?" This is risk management.
Nov 1, 2006, 9:44 am
#124
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Amb Elite & LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,230
Then all electronic devices should be banned from every flight, even checked luggage. The policy should be implemented today. The danger is just too large.
It would be interesting to see how many people from a full plane would be upset if they knew others were inappropriately using electronic devices.
I'd guess that 50% would just say you shouldn't, 25% would say probably doesn't have an affect but turn it off anyway and mabye 25% that would fight 'the man'.
Nov 1, 2006, 9:47 am
#125
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by rrgg
They're already banned.
I mean not allowed on board anywhere on the plane. After all, numerous people could accidentally leave their phones on. Since phones being on apparently poses a serious threat to the safety of the aircraft, the only way to completely be sure this won' happen is to ban them entirely from any aircraft in the pax compartment or in the hold.
Nov 1, 2006, 9:48 am
#126
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFO, SJC, OAK, LVK AA Lifetime Plat 2MM, LUV A-List, Hyatt Gold, SPG Lifetime Gold, Commercial Pilot (not employed by airlines)
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by rrgg
The phone in the plane is far from a tower and working at maximum strength to get a signal.
edited:
Nevermind--I got it--cell tower. I thought you meant control tower at first.
Nov 1, 2006, 9:54 am
#127
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by mikem132
I got a Treo phone last January. I flew to HI in April for the first time with that phone. There is a way to just turn off the radio on it, which I did. Upon arriving in HNL, I found my battery dead. Apparently, that thing turns itself on and checks email and stuff. It was in a bag the whole time, and must have been searching for a signal or something the whole flight to kill the battery. Nobody said anything to me and it apparently did not screw up the flight. On the way home I just pulled out the battery.
Nov 1, 2006, 10:00 am
#129
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
They are?
I mean not allowed on board anywhere on the plane. After all, numerous people could accidentally leave their phones on. Since phones being on apparently poses a serious threat to the safety of the aircraft, the only way to completely be sure this won' happen is to ban them entirely from any aircraft in the pax compartment or in the hold.
I mean not allowed on board anywhere on the plane. After all, numerous people could accidentally leave their phones on. Since phones being on apparently poses a serious threat to the safety of the aircraft, the only way to completely be sure this won' happen is to ban them entirely from any aircraft in the pax compartment or in the hold.
There's a potential threat and some appropriate measure can help manage it. You're claiming "serious threat," not I.
Nov 1, 2006, 10:42 am
#130
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by rrgg
Like I said, risk management.
There's a potential threat and some appropriate measure can help manage it. You're claiming "serious threat," not I.
There's a potential threat and some appropriate measure can help manage it. You're claiming "serious threat," not I.
Nov 1, 2006, 10:56 am
#133
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
Then what's the risk?
You know full well that pilots document problems with instrument readings. It's not like there's so much interference from electronic devices that avionics utterly shut down in an instant. This kind of risk level can be managed with some appropriate policy about how to treat electronic devices. It's a bit of a straw man argument for you to imply there's either a "serious" risk or no risk whatsoever and then dismiss what I've said. We're not talking about an all-or-nothing risk.
P.S. Can we move this thread to Security or Technology?
Nov 1, 2006, 11:34 am
#135
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: (MKE+ORD)/2
Programs: UAGM (former 1P), Hilton Gold (former Diamond), heading for dirt.
Posts: 289
After reading the responses it suddenly hit me that, yes, the rules only seem to apply to me! Well, OK, a few others must mostly just me.
The phone rule is dumb and I completely agree with that but how hard is it to turn the phone off since you probably won't get any calls in flight anyway and if you do it will annoy me to no end. Not because I think it will do any harm, but because I turned my phone off when asked and you didn't.
I really really hate people to whom the rules do not apply, especially when they interpret rules which do not allow for interpretation. What part of "turn it off" or "fasten your seat belt" or "seatback to the full upright position" needs interpretation?
The phone rule is dumb and I completely agree with that but how hard is it to turn the phone off since you probably won't get any calls in flight anyway and if you do it will annoy me to no end. Not because I think it will do any harm, but because I turned my phone off when asked and you didn't.
I really really hate people to whom the rules do not apply, especially when they interpret rules which do not allow for interpretation. What part of "turn it off" or "fasten your seat belt" or "seatback to the full upright position" needs interpretation?