I'd like to know why this isn't asinine.

I'd think that'd be illegal, but I'm not terribly familiar with air traffic laws.

/DNRTFA

I want these motherfarkin' phones off this motherfarkin' plane!

Given the heightened security level I think it was wise to err on the side of caution. That took courage on the part of that pilot. You know there were a bunch of pissed travelers on that flight. Well, at least they're alive.

If there was a danger, wouldn't it have been as likely to present itself on the way back as on the way there?

Nice roaming service.

If it had a custom ringtone of My Humps I would of gone apeshiat

FTFA: "A mobile phone was located on board the aircraft which none of the passengers appeared to own."

I might freak out a bit too if the phone didn't belong to anyone on board....

Conclustion of a study done on cell phones in flight:
There is little evidence, if indeed any, to suggest that the use of cell phones interferes with an aircraft's avionics or communications systems.

Pilots mentality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass

Can't say either is wrong.

It is catagorically IMPOSSIBLE for a cell phone to ring at 35,000 feet while over the MIDDLE of the ocean. In fact, it is nearly impossible for it to happen while over dry land. Why hasn't the media picked up on this insanity?

If no one claims the phone, turn around.

If someone claims the phone, proceed and give them a beat down when you arrive.

imcguyver, they weren't worried about interference. Cell phones are now banned on flights because of the liquid bomb scare. Someone made it through security with contraband.

The whole thing is still asinine.

furf: I might freak out a bit too if the phone didn't belong to anyone on board....

Well, I wouldn't admit owning it if it was me. Or rather, I hope I would, but I can see how someone would not want to admit it.

Enough is ENOUGH!

I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MUTHAFARKIN' CRAZY FROG RINGTONES ON THIS MUTHAFARKIN' PLANE!

They eased the restrictions one day to late:



British Airways welcomes the Government's announcement (Monday August 14), easing restrictions on hand baggage on flights departing all UK airports.

From Tuesday 15 August all UK airports will implement the new hand baggage policy:

Customers traveling will be able to take on board as hand baggage one cabin bag no bigger than 16cm by 35 cm by 45 cm, the size of a small laptop bag.

These restrictions are enforced on UK outbound routes only, but we recommend that all passengers carry hand baggage that complies with these regulations.

Restrictions remain in place on the contents of cabin baggage:

Cabin baggage MUST NOT contain:

Any cosmetics
Any toiletries
Any liquids
Any drinks
Cabin baggage CAN contain the following:

Electronic equipment, including laptops, mobile phones and portable music and DVD players,
Prescribed medicines in liquid form e.g. diabetic medicines
Baby milk and liquid baby food (the contents of each bottle MUST be tasted by the parent)
To help progress through the airport all customers are encouraged not to include items capable of containing liquids (e.g. bottles, flasks, cans etc.) in either their hand or checked baggage.

All electronic equipment will need to be removed from the item of hand baggage and screened separately. We recommend these items be packed carefully for easy removal at the security search point.

Pushchairs and walking aids will be permitted but must be x-ray screened.

Once in the departure lounge customers may purchase any item in any store and take it onto the aircraft as normal unless you are traveling to the USA.

For customers traveling to the USA, extra restrictions are in place - customers WILL NOT be permitted to take any liquid or gel items purchased in the departures lounge into the aircraft cabin. All food or beverage items must be consumed before boarding.

Maybe it was an alarm on the phone. Most cell phones have alarms, don't they, to wake you up? But in any case, I feel much safer knowing this happened.

Fahkinell
Well, I wouldn't admit owning it if it was me. Or rather, I hope I would, but I can see how someone would not want to admit it.

Very true...but I would hope that the owner (myself included!) would just suck it up and admit it rather than having the plane turned around!

furf: Very true...but I would hope that the owner (myself included!) would just suck it up and admit it rather than having the plane turned around!

Absolutely, but I don't find it particularly worrying that noone admitted to owning the phone. Though it does make me want to cockpunch the owner with a pitchfork. Slightly.

Here is another one.. Keep beating to the tune of the media and you will be wasting your time over and over wondering who should answer the phone. The problem is there there WAS NO phone. It couldn't have rung so it is a complete fabrication.

_______________________________________________________________

Who hears me?

If a cell phone could really cause a plane to crash they wouldn't be allowed on airplanes.

What?! No HERO Tag?


I hate phones on the plane. Even when you are Taxiing.

"YEAH. YEAH I'M ON THE PLANE. WE JUST LANDED. I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I'M A DIP shiat AND I'M ON THE PLANE! WE JUST LANDED!"


/Cue trigger happy tv piccy

FTFA: The captain assessed the situation with the BA security team at Heathrow and it was decided that it was safe to continue. The captain decided to return to Heathrow as a precaution.

So lemme get this straight, the captain talked it over with the security folks abck at Heathrow, the security folks said there was nothing wrong and that he should continue with the flight. But the CAPTAIN freaks out and goes back to Heathrow EVEN THOUGH it was safe to continue?

I'd be farking pissed at the captain and demanding some sort of compensation from the airline for having this farkwit inconvenience 217 passengers because he decided that everybody else was wrong and he was right.

/asshat

mekkab: I hate phones on the plane.

Same here. Apparently for a lot of people, owning a phone makes them forget about common courtesy around other people in public.

imcguyver
Conclustion of a study done on cell phones in flight:
There is little evidence, if indeed any, to suggest that the use of cell phones interferes with an aircraft's avionics or communications systems.

Indeed, it won't interfere with the plane. The earliest bans on cell phones were for the opposite reason -- it interfered with the cell network. The height actually makes it possible for a single phone to connect to multiple towers at once and it apparently could crash the cell network. Granted, that problem has probably been fixed for decades, but it's the origin of the ban on phones.

Just ask the person recieving the call to step outside. Problem solved.

People become cellphone abusers whenever they're not getting enough WEENERS!

/Make LOVE, not YAP.
//Wrap the planes in aluminum foil to foil the discourteous cellphone assholes:0

DON.MAC: GSM phones can mess up the VOR receivers. I've seen it. That same system is what keeps the plane from running into mountains when landing though clouds so keep the damn phone off when the pilot is checking its calibration and flying though clouds


Mythbusters tested cell phones and avionics. Phones did nothing. The simple fact is that modern avionics are too shielded for the low power trasmissions of a cell phone to affect them. With unshielded wiring, it took hundreds of times the normal transmission power of a cell phone to make any changes in avionics.

Why not just roll down the window and throw it in the farking ocean? Problem solved.

lacydog
I'd think that'd be illegal, but I'm not terribly familiar with air traffic laws.

I'm not a commercial airline captain, but my dad is.
The captain of an airplane is like the captain of a ship, in other words, while at sea (or in the air) the captain is the law. The captain can do pretty much anything he/she wants to in regards to the safety of the aircraft and the passengers.
The captain can eject anyone they want to, the captain can decide to immediatly land the plane at any time, you name it, the captain can do just about anything (within reason . . .)
But, contrary to popular myth, the captain may not perform a wedding at sea (or in the air). That one started somewhere, and some captains believe it, but that can't be done.

imcguyver
Conclustion of a study done on cell phones in flight:
There is little evidence, if indeed any, to suggest that the use of cell phones interferes with an aircraft's avionics or communications systems.

A cell phone most certainly can interefere with communications onboard an airliner. I've heard interference myself on several occasions when I've forgotten to turn mine off and it happened to ring while taxiing out. It makes a very distinctive noise through the comm system.

Your "study" blows, as I can pretty much reproduce the interference at will. Cell phone noise over the comm is well known among airline pilots.

yoyopro: But, contrary to popular myth, the captain may not perform a wedding at sea (or in the air). That one started somewhere, and some captains believe it, but that can't be done.


As far as I know, they can. Pricess Cruises offers a wedding at sea package:

Prices for At Sea weddings begin at $1,800 for the ceremony plus $450 for registration and license fees. The program is available fleet wide with marriages performed by the captain under the legal authority of the ship's Bermuda registry. Princess' wedding program assists with all required paperwork associated with Bermuda regulations.

yoyopro: The captain can eject anyone they want to

That's pretty harsh, at 35,000 feet.

sylaak
Mythbusters tested cell phones and avionics. Phones did nothing.

Mythbusters proved nothing, except for their inability to recreate a fairly common occurance.

sylaak
marriages performed by the captain under the legal authority of the ship's Bermuda registry

Ahh, yes, that's Bermudan law . . . but to my knowledge, both British and American law specifically forbid it.

But thanks for that info.

Thanks for bringing the truth, yoyopro.
Even though AOC has the most "efficient" flight plan already plotted out, the actual flight crew needs to sign off on it. They rule the roost!


/Works in ATC automation.
//Doesn't want to fly anymore
///Is that ironic? No, I just hate the new restrictions since I would ONLY fly with all luggage as carry-on (i.e. toothpaste, contact lense solution, etc.)

2006-08-14 08:19:27 PM savonola
Given the heightened security level I think it was wise to err on the side of caution. That took courage on the part of that pilot. You know there were a bunch of pissed travelers on that flight. Well, at least they're alive.

Patrons should note that in tonight's performance of Fark™ the role of barjockey is being played by savonola.

No refunds.

mekkab
Doesn't want to fly anymore

No shiat, mister - - after decades of many many flights, I've now discovered the joy of train travel. With the exception of overseas travel, I just can't stand to set foot in an airport. It's just too much of a hassle.

Toiletduck

I could see how a cell phone would interfer with your communtication equipment during take off and landing, but at 35,000 feet?

I never get that high, so I can't comment.

Can anyone show proof that cell phones work 500 miles from a cell tower? Why is this discussion going in the wrong direction.? There couldn't have been a phone ringing if they were halfway to their destination. That would be hundreds of miles from the nearest land and at least 35,000 feet up.

Unless I am wrong, it is far more important to talk about kicking people out of planes at 35,000 feet. Is it me, or are people just not that intelligent..?

____________________________________________________________

Saying they were "half way there" is a huge exaggeration.

Mastmang
Can anyone show proof that cell phones work 500 miles from a cell tower?

There is no need to show proof, as they were not 500 miles from a cell tower.

There couldn't have been a phone ringing if they were halfway to their destination.

They weren't halfway to their destination. They were over Ireland.

Look, they thought the phone was ringing. It was apparently making some kind of noise, perhaps just an alarm going off. The fact that A: It was making some kind of noise B: The owner couldn't be found and C: According to more detailed news reports, some of the passengers were becoming frightened, it made sense for the captain to decide that it was in the best interests of safety to turn around while they were still close to their originating airport.

Does that address some of your concerns?

You know, the funny thing is that there are planes flying right now in which cell phones are mistakenly left on. Often enough people put the things on vibrate, throw them in the carryon bag, and just forget about it.

Same thing with all those laptops that have integrated wifi that people don't know how to turn off. Every few seconds the laptop looks for a signal and doesn't find one. On a plane with 300-400 people there has to be at least 2 or 3, maybe as many as 10 or 20.

If avionics were as fragile as some people would have us believe the logs would be filled with people reporting failures of all sorts, yet we don't hear about them. Not even in airports when you're about to board the plane. Has anyone here ever heard a flight attendant mention a computer's wifi system even once?

You apparently haven't read the rest of the thread.

Somone prolly left it from the last flight.