What were the weather conditions at ORD at the time of the screaming? Sky & Temp.

No,not hyperbole at all but clearly the nuance of my post has escaped you - merely to point out that using the reasoning that "I have left my phone on and my plane has not crashed, therefore there is no danger in leaving my phone on" really doesn't allow contradiction because if someone left their phone on and did crash they probably wouldn't be in a position to tell us.

+1.

Ahh, another "trust me, I'm an armchair expert." :rolleyes:

That's not nuance, but made-up hyperbole that contributes nothing to a rational discussion, IMHO.

If you can show that use of a cell phone has contributed to any fiery crashes, please do so.

Agree, compared to what you must go through at Security and being limited to 3 ounces this is nothing. Believe it or not, there was a time in the world that cell phones and the Internet did not exist and somehow the world made it by.

I'm just glad posters on FT are more educated in the field of frequent flyer miles than electronics - although the level of speculation, unencumbered by facts, is about equal.

Howdy,

I've not nothing better to do at the moment (well - lots of stuff - but that would mean walking out of my office and my wife would likely make me fix something or do some sort of chore - so I'll hide up here and post to FT).

Anway -

1. I looked and there does not appear to ever have been a test of any kind conducted by the FAA pointing to interfearance on a plane from a cell phone.

2. A wide variety of airlines do allow cell phone calls while in-flight.

3. Most electronics are never actually turned off (see the guy who's laptop is on - and he shuts the lid - it's still on, just sleeping).

Sounds like I'm in favor of cell phones in flight? Nope - in all likely hood if AA allows it, I'll switch airlines or switch jobs. This is the one time of day when no one can talk to me - I relish it.

So I don't want cell phones being used on planes. I'm the guy who annoys you - I'm on my phone until the FA asks me to turn it off. It's how I make my living - and I spend so much time away from home - that when I do have 5 spare minutes to talk to the wife or kid - I'll take advantage of it.

And God knows - if my bosses see that I've got 10 seconds spare - they'll start up a conference call...

I'm OT here...

Point initial was - there's no evidence that cell phones can disrupt anything.

Me - I'd vote we disallow them being used once you step on the JetBridge...but that's just my thought.

Please I would ask you - the next time you are sitting next to a person who either forgot to turn it off - or is finishing up just after or before it should be off - you don't need to assult them - it's not going to crash the plane.

If you want to be the class room monitor - press your call button, the FA will make rude comments, the guy will finish his conversation, apologize to the FA and feel like .....

If it makes you happy - go for it.

Keep the faith,

Pakse

What's the big deal:confused:? The Federal Aviation Regulations mandate that cell phones be turned off so just do it and carry on.

some people follow rules blindly because they are the rules and someone in authority told them to.

some people refuse to follow rules where they see no reasonable benefit to doing so.

While this is undoubtedly true, the physics of the situation don't support the interference idea. Spiff has done more detailed calculations, but a few immediate things come to mind:

First, the actual amounts of radiated power are small, and the energy falls off with the square of the distance. So, even from the first row of F, the amount of energy reaching the cockpit is reduced substantially by distance.

Second, leaked power is generally radiated spherically. So, the small amount of energy is being sent in all directions. Only a small fraction is radiated "at" the cockpit, and this declines with distance as well as the sphere gets larger.

Finally, the equipment in the cockpit is not designed to receive signals. Sure, all electronic equipment can pick up interference, but the efficiency in doing so is substantially reduced.

As a concrete example, consider the spherical radiation profile. Let's say one is about 3 meters (~10 feet) from the sensitive equipment. That's closer than one would be,of course. The sphere at 3 meters has a surface area of about 113 square meters. Let's say that the sensitive area is even as large as 4 sq. meters (it's likely smaller). This means that only 3% of the small amount of radiation even reaches the equipment. And this doesn't even factor in the degradation with distance of the signal itself.

Highly unlikely, and not just because "some people of FT have left their phones and the plane didn't crash."

I agree 100%, and I always turn mine off. The FAs are required to have me to that- under penalty to themselves- and I have no reason to inconvenience them. I'm not going to use it, and there's no reason to have it on. So, I just turn it off because they has asked me to.

And some do it out of respect for the FA who is required to enforce this rule under penalty of fine. I don't follow rules that don't make sense as long as I'm not jeopardizing someone else, or causing my self undue inconvenience. This one is stupid, but there's no advantage to me to fail to follow it.

I decide whether to follow rules based on convenience, not just to buck those in authority.

Cheers.

Wow. This may be the best post ever on FT :D^

Clearly the nuance has escaped you once again because you seem convinced that my point is that a cell phone has contributed to a fiery crash when that is not my point at all.

Perhaps we have a different concept of rationality.

Yes, and more use of 'irrespective'......and more bloviating. Basically, nothing new or useful. ;)

Some already do:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/membe...-img-4014a.jpg

RJ at AMM on Oct 28

Happy Travels