Aren't they still testing how to avoid to crash a 747-8 with cheap electronics? At least they should before it will enter service...

dutchoven69: There is a risk of intrument problems resulting from mobil phones used in flight. It hasn't been conclusively proven, but why take a chance just because you can't live without your cellphone for a couple of hours? Most people could live without the risk, and you aren't important enough to justify taking it.

Douche.



There's a risk of your typos causing heart attacks in grammar nazis. It hasn't been conclusively proven, but why take a chance just because you can't live without your fark for the rest of your life? Most people could live without the risk, and you aren't important enough to justify taking it. GTFO. It's for the CHILDREN.

Standard Deviant: So, we have to turn off our iPod, but they can leave on every single 4 inch TV in the back of the seats. Got it.

your ipod could be a cheap knockoff reeking of RF emissions, where they do testing on their tv's to make sure they aren't.

here to help: Novart: Our campaigns to implement marriage equality and economic reform have also been tremendous failures, but I wouldn't wait for the government or the south to just "get it".

Completely wrong. Marriage equality has taken massive strides in a very short time and we already HAD decent regulations in place that worked but were repealed. There is a very good chance we can get those regulations or a variations thereof implemented.

Novart: As has been stated earlier here, the airlines themselves aren't waiting 10 years to figure it out. If they believed it was such a risk, they would actually be proactive about ensuring all devices are off rather than simply asking and doing a quick eyeball check of the passangers.

No, the studies are ongoing and if people keep flouting this very simple policy it WILL end up that electronic devices will simply not be allowed at all. Meaning a few misguided rabblerousers will ruin it for everyone.

Novart: Last but not least I have no problem with turning my phone off at any given time, so I'm not sure why you would assume that is my true motivation. I also have no desire to punish other passangers for a percieved slight by an airline, so at least extend to me the basic courtesy of assuming that I would't respect the decision of anyone who did that. The argument can stand alone without the help of self-made martyrs.

That entire section of text didn't make any sense to me at all.

Just turn your phone off when asked so we can all still enjoy our shiny flashy things once the plane is safely in the air.

KTHXBYE.

Then perhaps I just don't share your optimism that "repealed" is a step forward, or that a state like California just now repealing it's own gay marriage ban represents much of a leap to equality. For our argument I'd compare that to a bad dictator getting bumped off in Africa. It's good, but just brings us back up to the same shiatty situation we were dealing with before.

The risk of devices crashing a plane is enough to ban their use, so why would they turn around and give us the benefit of a doubt because of an "on-going investigation"? Devices will be left on even without an attempt to subvert the rules. If there's even the risk of these studies concluding that there is a real risk, why put hundreds of people's lives at risk? Because they're just that nice? It doesn't add up.

It doesn't surprise me that you can't make sense of my last paragraph. It was, after all, a response to your own illogical assumptions.

As for our airlines trust in us being broken, it doesn't require rabble rousing, just basic human memory failure. If there was even the risk of our

stuffer: Standard Deviant: So, we have to turn off our iPod, but they can leave on every single 4 inch TV in the back of the seats. Got it.

your ipod could be a cheap knockoff reeking of RF emissions, where they do testing on their tv's to make sure they aren't.

Maybe they should have spent the special tv money on some motherfarking shielding for their motherfarking instruments. No, TV is far more important., what am I saying?

ViralMonkey: And the electronic devices rules are without base in science. They're just being dicks.

Their policy of treating e-cigarettes like real cigarettes springs to mind.

ViralMonkey: And the electronic devices rules are without base in science. They're just being dicks.

Pretty sure it's science that says certain RF emissions can interfere with airplane navigation and communication, and while properly functioning consumer electronics don't really emit those, broken, modified, or knockoff products can, and there is no way for flight attendants to determine which devices are functioning properly. I don't want for my life to be risked for no reason (however small) because some dude on my plane bought a cheap knockoff or decided to modify his shiat with a 10W full bandwidth super antenna.

untaken_name: stuffer: Standard Deviant: So, we have to turn off our iPod, but they can leave on every single 4 inch TV in the back of the seats. Got it.

your ipod could be a cheap knockoff reeking of RF emissions, where they do testing on their tv's to make sure they aren't.

Maybe they should have spent the special tv money on some motherfarking shielding for their motherfarking instruments. No, TV is far more important., what am I saying?

some of their instruments (radio and navigation) work by receiving certain RF, so they can't shield them from that or they wouldn't work. I'm sure they shield them the best they can, but they're always vulnerable to the frequencies they operate at, which is what they're worried about broken, knockoff, or modified devices emitting.

ViralMonkey: I'm not American. Freedom isn't some concept that the USA has exclusive rights to.

And my statement about freedom is valid. private company or government.
You should have a good reason for making rules stopping people doing something.
Just because you're allowed to doesn't mean you're not being a dick by doing so.

And the electronic devices rules are without base in science. They're just being dicks.
Which would be more acceptable if they came out and admitted it. But they pretend it's for safety instead.

I would agree if flying was a necessity, it is not. They are for profit companies that are *free* to institute whatever farking policy they want. You are *free* to not use their service. While you would be incredibly inconvenienced, you are not being deprived of any personal freedom. I see what they are doing as less "just to be dicks" and more "in the very unlikely event that some device, some day, causes a problem, we should have some sort of policy in place to protect the company from liability". Just because a company should have a good reason does not mean they are required to because freedom. Their company, their rules, don't like it, don't buy from their company.

here to help: Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help, do you fly?

Not often but yes, it is necessary sometimes. I just want to be able to have a f*cking cigarette or two on a 9 hour flight and have a little more leg room (I'm freakishly tall). But you know what? I deal with it. So can you.

Sounds like you're with me that people need to stfu and turn their shiat off, but if you're worried about people being dicks with their electronics and risking your life you should really quit smoking :p

jshine: If Al Qaeda could crash airplanes with a (legal) cell phone, why are any planes still left flying?

If Al Qaeda could crash planes with ANY electronic device, legal or not, why has it not been done yet?
What, there's no Muslim EE's smart enough to rig up a small device that could output signals with enough wattage at the right frequencies to really mess with a plane? Does anyone really believe they haven't tried?

There should be no doubt they have. And obviously never succeeded. It must not be so easy.

downtownkid: anecdotal evidence

How can you even type that phrase without giggling? Anecdotal "evidence" is NOT evidence. "Anecdotes" is not the plural of "data." And anecdotes certainly do not require actual scientific evidence to disprove. They mean nothing. Gossip and hearsay are anecdotal evidence.
According to "anecdotal evidence", bigfoot is real and aliens kidnap rednecks in Kansas. Is this really deserving of more than a polite laugh and rolled eyes?

MyRandomName: Gleeman: imgod2u: sprawl15: tricycleracer: Yet, I can use on-board WiFi (for a fee) and that's totally super safe, unlike those dastardly cellular signals.

On-board electronics must be cleared by the FAA before they're put on-board. Your phone does not.

fastfxr: If we're talking about interference with "inboard navigational equipment", that iPad will produce FAR more interference in the cockpit than my phone will back on the cabin.

2 iPads in the cockpit will cause more interference than 2 iPads in the back. It would not cause more interference than 2 dozen people with laptops, a hundred people with phones trying to get signals, mp3 players, etc., etc.

Radio waves don't work like that.

The Inverse Square Law, how does it work?

LOL, retard. You know you are helping his comment that radio waves do not work like that. Hint... power is reduced as a function of the inverse square. Even though the area increases, power decreases.



/reading, it's fundamental!

Jeebus Saves: It's not that people are important or can't live without their phone for 10 minutes. For a lot of people, rules have to make sense to follow. "Because I said so" isn't a good reason. No water, but deadly phones are ok.

It worked when it was your mom, didn't it? OR ELSE. You're welcome to gripe about how dumb it is all you want, just farking do it for a few minutes.

You were a juvenile delinquent, weren't you?

Here's the best reason to shut your stuff off; because they said so. they own the plane, they make the call. What you think, what you know, what you want-- doesn't matter. Your opinion means nothing. Shut it off, and deal.

Now for minor reasons you might want to comply,

"In a study published in 2006, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University who rode 37 airline flights with a radio-frequency measuring device found emissions from cellphones that could interfere with global-positioning satellite systems. And the nonprofit RTCA Inc., which advises the FAA on technical issues, said in a lengthy study in 2008 that emissions from transmitting personal electronic devices, or T-PEDS, could interfere with critical aircraft systems.

Regulators believe there is a chance that electronic emissions from passenger devices could interfere with navigation instruments, and if even the remotest possibility of disaster exists, it's better to turn them off for takeoff and landing.

Cellphones are banned during entire flights-not just during takeoff and landing-because they can interfere with ground-based antenna capacity.

The Federal Communications Commission, along with the FAA, bans in-flight use because a phone flying at more than 500 miles per hour, six miles above the ground, connects with lots of cell towers, hogging bandwidth. Connecting at that speed and altitude also takes lots of power from the phone, yielding stronger emissions that could interfere with instruments."

and finally


"The problem is taking flight attendants away from their jobs, and they have to be ready for an emergency," says FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette."

But the most important reason is because they said so. Thats the only reason they need. You agreed to the rules when you bought the ticket. If you don't like it, walk.

So, shut it off, and deal with it you arrogant jackasses. You are a sad worthless fark if you cant unplug for a simple flight.

ViralMonkey: Fair enough.
Meanwhile I'm going to continue to ignore the rule as being pointless

Can't argue that, I'd light up in the bathroom if I knew for sure all that would happen was a scolding and being told "don't do that, please return to your seat".

All passengers on domestic flights should be issued a single shot taser when they get their boarding pass.

/solves all the problems

My issue is that those 10-15 minutes are the 10-15 minutes that I really need some sort of distraction from the fact that I might die horribly. Single earbud, ipod nano, and a turned head keeps it hidden well enough so that I don't sit there and fret about my impending doom. When someone does bug me about it, I get agitated because I'm already agitated by the whole flying thing!

ReverendJasen: downtownkid: anecdotal evidence

How can you even type that phrase without giggling? Anecdotal "evidence" is NOT evidence. "Anecdotes" is not the plural of "data." And anecdotes certainly do not require actual scientific evidence to disprove. They mean nothing. Gossip and hearsay are anecdotal evidence.
According to "anecdotal evidence", bigfoot is real and aliens kidnap rednecks in Kansas. Is this really deserving of more than a polite laugh and rolled eyes?

...and we're we merely talking about gossip and hearsay you might have a point. Had you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to read the link that I posted you would see that there are enough reports from pilots and flight crews to warrant concern and therefore the rule. If you and the other jackholes in this thread want to start Libertarian Airlines, where any optional safety consideration is ignored in favor of complete freedom, then go right ahead.

downtownkid: ReverendJasen: downtownkid: anecdotal evidence

How can you even type that phrase without giggling? Anecdotal "evidence" is NOT evidence. "Anecdotes" is not the plural of "data." And anecdotes certainly do not require actual scientific evidence to disprove. They mean nothing. Gossip and hearsay are anecdotal evidence.
According to "anecdotal evidence", bigfoot is real and aliens kidnap rednecks in Kansas. Is this really deserving of more than a polite laugh and rolled eyes?

...and we're we merely talking about gossip and hearsay you might have a point. Had you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to read the link that I posted you would see that there are enough reports from pilots and flight crews to warrant concern and therefore the rule. If you and the other jackholes in this thread want to start Libertarian Airlines, where any optional safety consideration is ignored in favor of complete freedom, then go right ahead.

LOL, 'optional safety'.

lewismarktwo: downtownkid: ReverendJasen: downtownkid: anecdotal evidence

How can you even type that phrase without giggling? Anecdotal "evidence" is NOT evidence. "Anecdotes" is not the plural of "data." And anecdotes certainly do not require actual scientific evidence to disprove. They mean nothing. Gossip and hearsay are anecdotal evidence.
According to "anecdotal evidence", bigfoot is real and aliens kidnap rednecks in Kansas. Is this really deserving of more than a polite laugh and rolled eyes?

...and we're we merely talking about gossip and hearsay you might have a point. Had you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to read the link that I posted you would see that there are enough reports from pilots and flight crews to warrant concern and therefore the rule. If you and the other jackholes in this thread want to start Libertarian Airlines, where any optional safety consideration is ignored in favor of complete freedom, then go right ahead.

LOL, 'optional safety'.

The rule is not imposed by the FAA but rather left up to the airlines. They have the choice (that is, "option") as to whether or not to impose this rule if they deem it is necessary for their passengers safe travel. What part of that is too difficult for you to grasp?

if only there were some sort of government agency that could certify EM interference instead of worrying about whether or not people see boobies or say Fark on TV.