Nice typo. The cabin help does seem rather ornery these days....

basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

Why should you have it on, exactly? Are you extremely important? Then why not charter a plane?

You have to be important to own and operate a cell phone? Weird, I thought all you had to do was be able to pay for the monthly bill. Maybe I should tell all those people using cell phones on the train that they're not important enough to be using them.

Fark It: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

It's to make sure you're paying attention during an emergency. And they asked you nicely to stop doing something on their plane.

/Angry Birds can wait

So reading a magazine somehow consumes less of your attention than reading a book on a Kindle? I mean, if "paying attention in an emergency" is the benchmark, why do they let me read my books during rollout and takeoff?

I never understood why we're supposed to be so butthurt about the electronic gadget rule. It's 10-15 minutes. Turn it off crybaby. If your life collapses because you can't have your electronics for 15 minutes, kill yourself now.

basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

I just read through the safety spiel. Was I supposed to be paying attention? They didn't tell me to put my analog book away.

When I hear people argue on planes about this, all I can hear is them saying :

"Although I agreed to your rules when I boarded your vehicle, I am only going to pay attention to the instructions where I agree with reasons behind them. In cases where I disagree, I am going to do whatever the hell I want and then act shocked when there are consequences."

I asked a commercial pilot I went out with about this a few years ago. She said at most if there is something like a cell phone on, you get a clicking sound in the head set. She also said 9 times out of 10 it was a result of someone in the cockpit leaving their phone on. So yes, another pointless rule. You can't bring water on a plane, but they let you bring a cell phone on that can bring down a plane as long as you promise to turn it off. Makes sense to me.

RussianPooper: GAT_00: I never understood why we're supposed to be so butthurt about the electronic gadget rule. It's 10-15 minutes. Turn it off crybaby. If your life collapses because you can't have your electronics for 15 minutes, kill yourself now.

I don't understand being butthurt about it either, but neither do I understand why it's still in place.

Because there's a standard in place for electronic device usage on an aircraft (RTCA/DO-160) that most devices can't meet. Instead of looking at each device individually to determine if they are or are not allowed, they just ban all devices to prevent some of them that are particularly poorly made from interfering with equipment onboard.

They take my water but leave my cell phone. Yeah, it makes sense.

Why do I have to turn off my devices if they are in airplane mode. I can (sort of) understand not making calls, but is listening to music really interfering with the systems? And what about a kindle? There are no signals emanating from it. You may as well tell people to turn off their watches.

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

You will never get a (good) answer to this. Which, of course, is why it's such a hot topic for debate.

Yes, my nook simple touch is an engine of destruction - they've been known to bring down airliners while people used them at the gates!

As for the safety (paying attention) argument, it's not OK to read on the nook, but it's OK to read the same book as long as it's a paperback?

Let's just admit the original ban was stupid and move on.

Chimpasaurus: You may as well tell people to turn off their watches.

The newest thing I've heard, and it's inconsistent from airline to airline, is turning off your noise-cancelling headphones.

Smeggy Smurf: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

Because Fark You bite me, that's why. The usual answer for stupidity these days

We're trying to keep up a theme here, people!

cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: cameroncrazy1984...

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

...

So reading a magazine somehow consumes less of your attention than reading a book on a Kindle? I mean, if "paying attention in an emergency" is the benchmark, why do they let me read my books during rollout and takeoff?

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.

Fark It: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

It's to make sure you're paying attention during an emergency. And they asked you nicely to stop doing something on their plane.

/Angry Birds can wait

I always thought it was so that you can't communicate with or offer gps information to someone on the ground who could damage the aircraft.

But there's a creature on the wing!

I like to keep my electronics on all the time, I don't want to be bothered by you people.. look at you, not one of you here would stop me either. I'd distract you with a mirror, a diet plan, some weights.. you ugly, weaklings.. stay out of us important, good-looking peoples way.
Just because you're poor and you can't afford a tablet, some good noise-cancelling headphones or whatever else I have that your poor self is coveting is no reason to think that I should have to turn off my stuff.
go be poor elsewhere, and stop snooping on those of us in first class.. to the back with you!

dutchoven69: cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: cameroncrazy1984...

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

...

So reading a magazine somehow consumes less of your attention than reading a book on a Kindle? I mean, if "paying attention in an emergency" is the benchmark, why do they let me read my books during rollout and takeoff?

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.

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

FNG: It is my personal belief that although your devices are harmless, 200 people yammering on their cell phones would drive everyone crazy. Therefore, the rule remains in place. Courtesy to fellow passengers.

But what do I know.

Apparently you didn't know courtesy was outlawed in the 80s.

A few years back I was doing RF field work with an Industry Canada technical officer - the Canuck FCC - when the conversation drifted to this rule. He told me of an instance at YVR in which a large passenger liner found itself a few degrees off runway approach and tracked it to the RF spew emanating from a cheap, offshore handheld translation device. I don't know why anyone is surprised that RF potentially interferes with RF, even when your call is like sooper important.

Complete BS. American is going to start allowing pilots to use iPads in the cockpit.
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.


/EE and I know, dammit

Torgo_of_Manos: The issue that turning that crap off is supposed to deal with is safety...same with tray tables and seat backs...
If the stewards would say we want to have your full attention if we crash, that's why you have to turn them off I am sure that would be whole lot more believable.

Also what basemetal said.

THIS. If the stated rule wasn't based on junkscience but rather upon the reasonable desire for people to stow their devices and pay attention for a few minutes, no problem. Just be honest about it.

It is no more a distraction than praying, is that next? Telling us we cannot pray because it is distracting?

I have never been on a corporate or private jet where anything like this was enforced. The pilot doesn't care what you do on those planes. You would be surprised how well your cell phone works as the plane is approaching the airport for landing, for example.

The rule is mostly to keep gross blowhards from talking loudly about nothing for entire flights, and is valid enough for that. Can you imagine Snookie talking about her cold sores all the way from EWR to LAX?

You do realize that one aspect of torture is to keep your torturee uncomfortable and wondering why the arbitrary duh, right?

People are so uptight about this. You think planes are bad? You should see people getting all upset when i won't turn it off in a farkin' movie theater. Like I'm gonna crash the movie or something.

Just turn the iPad off. You bought a ticket, therefore you agreed to the rules of the plane. They asked politely. Surely your imagination can entertain you for five minutes so you don't delay the flight.
Or are you that inconsiderate and dickish? Is this how you act at work?

My entire life I've always left my electronic devices on, from my original gameboy to my current iphone when the flight attendant asks because I've never believed the devices to actually be dangerous to the operation of the airplane. I do, however, put them face-down in my lap until we're "allowed" to turn them back on. Haven't had a single incident in over 100 flights, or caused an airplane to crash for that matter...

Here's why you have to turn it off...

Because they say so.

Any other conversation beyond that is moot.

Indubitably: You do realize that one aspect of torture is to keep your torturee uncomfortable and wondering why the arbitrary duh, right?

The best part is you pay for the right to be tortured.

It's brilliantly twisted.

Syndromes anyone?

;)

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.

sprawl15: Because there's a standard in place for electronic device usage on an aircraft (RTCA/DO-160) that most devices can't meet. Instead of looking at each device individually to determine if they are or are not allowed, they just ban all devices to prevent some of them that are particularly poorly made from interfering with equipment onboard.

So very much this. While it's not likely that a problem would occur, the consequences are potentially tragic so they do what makes sense to minimize the possibility. Plus, it wouldn't hurt you to give it up for a few minutes.

Also, leave that box of stinky food in the terminal.

The "turn that shiat off" is now, and -always-has-been-, about crowd control. Those of you making "but I'm in airplane mode!" or "how can it interfere with anything?!" arguments are correct... but only because the reasoning written to be read by the sky waitresses is disingenuous, at best.

If you're Farking away on your electronic gizmo, they don't have your attention, and they can't get your attention, and you don't have the slightest bit of awareness about what's going on around you.

Which, you might claim, is all well and good if you're an experienced flier, don't care about what's on the snack cart or what the terrible, edited movie will be, or whatever...

... but the -point- is: Takeoff and landing (and any time moving on the ground) are when Shiat Happens. A cabin full of people mildly pissed that they can't use their gadget is easier to get the hell off the plane in a hurry if there's a collision / problem than one that is full of people with earphones crammed in, eyes glued to the latest torrent-provided pr0n and completely immune to the inputs of the outside world.

Frankly, if they just came out and said as much ("This is the most dangerous time to be in a plane. For the safety of yourself and those around you (not that any of you will give a fark about those around you, but still), TURN OFF YOUR SHIAT AND SIT STILL FOR A MINUTE.") at least the "LOL my phonez can't kill your plane!" argument would be eliminated. But someone, at some point, apparently, decided that was more likely to spook the cattle than the white lie of "electronics are dangerous." Probably true when it was rare to have a portable electronic device at all... and hard now to change it in the face of entrenched positions.

sixtyten: I have never been on a corporate or private jet where anything like this was enforced. The pilot doesn't care what you do on those planes. You would be surprised how well your cell phone works as the plane is approaching the airport for landing, for example.

Smaller volume has a smaller effect. TMYK.

tricycleracer: dutchoven69: cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: cameroncrazy1984...

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

...

So reading a magazine somehow consumes less of your attention than reading a book on a Kindle? I mean, if "paying attention in an emergency" is the benchmark, why do they let me read my books during rollout and takeoff?

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.

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

You can use that, or a cell phone. To be honest, you don't even have to go without your precious phone for that long. It's only during those moments close to take off and landing we should be talking about here. In aviation, that is the concern.

If you can live without a phone for 10 - 15 minutes, that should be good enough.

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.

So as soon as the plane clears 10k and the on-board WiFi kicks on, no one should have a problem with me making a VOIP call over WiFi with my phone securely in airplane mode.

I had this some years ago. Turned my pda to flight mode and resumed playing my game, stewardess told me to turn my phone off and I show her the screen displaying "phone off", then she it changes to "all electronic devices have to be turned off."
So after a long period of her not telling me why, I comply. But I'm left with the feeling that this is more like some ritual than a real rule, maybe they should sacrifice a chicken in aisle before every flight.

/What Chimposaurus said.

Flying sucks in about a hundred different ways so you're kind of an idiot for forking over hundreds of dollars to be treated like garbage anyway.

The few times I've had to fly I really needed my ear buds just to endure behind crammed into that stupid sardine can. I Just hide my player, put my ear buds in and cover them with a hat or collar. Then close my eyes.

If they DO catch you, some of them seem to like finding ways to annoy passengers, just take them out and play nice. I never did get caught though.

No, it won't crash the plane.

whitecorporatemaleoppressor: THIS. If the stated rule wasn't based on junkscience but rather upon the reasonable desire for people to stow their devices and pay attention for a few minutes, no problem. Just be honest about it.

Except that it's not.

Because I board the plane, stow my crap, dig out my novel, and start reading. They don't make me put it away for the safety spiel, nor do they care if I pay attention.

The electronics thing is entirely about the junk science.

Sure, it's not a huge imposition, but why allow any imposition unless there's a reasonable reason for it?

SFSailor: The "turn that shiat off" is now, and -always-has-been-, about crowd control. Those of you making "but I'm in airplane mode!" or "how can it interfere with anything?!" arguments are correct... but only because the reasoning written to be read by the sky waitresses is disingenuous, at best.

If you're Farking away on your electronic gizmo, they don't have your attention, and they can't get your attention, and you don't have the slightest bit of awareness about what's going on around you.

Which, you might claim, is all well and good if you're an experienced flier, don't care about what's on the snack cart or what the terrible, edited movie will be, or whatever...

... but the -point- is: Takeoff and landing (and any time moving on the ground) are when Shiat Happens. A cabin full of people mildly pissed that they can't use their gadget is easier to get the hell off the plane in a hurry if there's a collision / problem than one that is full of people with earphones crammed in, eyes glued to the latest torrent-provided pr0n and completely immune to the inputs of the outside world.

Frankly, if they just came out and said as much ("This is the most dangerous time to be in a plane. For the safety of yourself and those around you (not that any of you will give a fark about those around you, but still), TURN OFF YOUR SHIAT AND SIT STILL FOR A MINUTE.") at least the "LOL my phonez can't kill your plane!" argument would be eliminated. But someone, at some point, apparently, decided that was more likely to spook the cattle than the white lie of "electronics are dangerous." Probably true when it was rare to have a portable electronic device at all... and hard now to change it in the face of entrenched positions.

Yes, Captain Obvious, but I would argue the body language of the passengers should said flight-extinction event occur would alert them faster and more efficiently than listening to the whatsits...

Just noting.

;)

ethics-gradient: I had this some years ago. Turned my pda to flight mode and resumed playing my game, stewardess told me to turn my phone off and I show her the screen displaying "phone off", then she it changes to "all electronic devices have to be turned off."
So after a long period of her not telling me why, I comply. But I'm left with the feeling that this is more like some ritual than a real rule, maybe they should sacrifice a chicken in aisle before every flight.

/What Chimposaurus said.

Why, you ask? This isn't your f*cking living room, that's why.

Christ, entitled Americans and their "rights".

farkerts: Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

You will never get a (good) answer to this. Which, of course, is why it's such a hot topic for debate.

If I had just waited a -smidge- more, I'd'a had a perfect quote to launch my diatribe.

They try to make you turn everything off so that you are easier to control should something happen during the most dangerous part of any flight. Really has nothing to do with electronic interference.

But, "SIT THE FARK DOWN. SHUT THE FARK UP. PAY SOME FARKING ATTENTION. THIS IS WHEN YOU MIGHT DIE." (Followed by, "ok, now do whatever the fark you want. But don't you dare disturb our gossiping in the galley with your ridiculous desire for an aspirin or bottle of water" at cruising altitude, of course) wouldn't be as charming... though these days, it might not be surprising coming from some of the Battle Axes Of The Sky.

ethics-gradient: I had this some years ago. Turned my pda to flight mode and resumed playing my game, stewardess told me to turn my phone off and I show her the screen displaying "phone off", then she it changes to "all electronic devices have to be turned off."
So after a long period of her not telling me why, I comply. But I'm left with the feeling that this is more like some ritual than a real rule, maybe they should sacrifice a chicken in aisle before every flight.

/What Chimposaurus said.

Think about it, a flight attendant is a pretty shiat job. This is their chance to flex a bit.

Funny how they only yell at you to turn off the device if they can see it. If it's in your pocket or bag, they don't care. That must mean that the thin, cotton layer of your pants pocket can shield the cell phone's harmful signal.

If it really was a danger, they would sweep the plane to detect these devices.

Fark It: /Angry Birds can wait

Maybe. But not Words With Friends.

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.

tricycleracer: So as soon as the plane clears 10k and the on-board WiFi kicks on, no one should have a problem with me making a VOIP call over WiFi with my phone securely in airplane mode.

Yes and no. That would be perfectly legal (since the FCC only has laws against cellular use), but it's up to the individual airline to decide.

Basically, all portable electronics are banned but airlines are allowed to un-ban them at their leisure. 14 C.F.R § 91.21.

I've been on many flights, ten of which were over seas flights to the Middle East, hundreds of rides in Blackhawks and Chinooks but only three or four domestic, commercial flights. I have never shut off any electronic devices on any of them. On the commercial flights I just put my phone in my pocket until we get off the ground, on the choppers and military flights I keep it in my hands and text the entire time.

If my phone won't take out a US Army UH-60 that is essentially 5000+ moving parts, all built by the lowest bidder, flying in close formation around an oil leak waiting for metal fatigue to set in, then I'm pretty sure that 747 with shielded electronics is going to be fine. So STFU and go get my peanuts you overpaid traveling waitress.

basemetal: "Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive."


As will you if I don't. Stop misrepresenting the issue as a matter of life and death for you, but merely a matter of whiny inconvenience for others - neither one of those is the case.

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

You sound entitled.....do you also lean to the left politically?


/go figure

sprawl15: RussianPooper: GAT_00: I never understood why we're supposed to be so butthurt about the electronic gadget rule. It's 10-15 minutes. Turn it off crybaby. If your life collapses because you can't have your electronics for 15 minutes, kill yourself now.

I don't understand being butthurt about it either, but neither do I understand why it's still in place.

Because there's a standard in place for electronic device usage on an aircraft (RTCA/DO-160) that most devices can't meet. Instead of looking at each device individually to determine if they are or are not allowed, they just ban all devices to prevent some of them that are particularly poorly made from interfering with equipment onboard.

Bears repeating.... This is why.

Because it's not your farking plane and you don't get to make the farking rules?

SFSailor: ... but the -point- is: Takeoff and landing (and any time moving on the ground) are when Shiat Happens. A cabin full of people mildly pissed that they can't use their gadget is easier to get the hell off the plane in a hurry if there's a collision / problem than one that is full of people with earphones crammed in, eyes glued to the latest torrent-provided pr0n and completely immune to the inputs of the outside world.

If that's the reason, the FAA no longer seems to know that that's the reason. They claim it's a "better safe than sorry" approach to electronic device interference.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-do-we-shut-o ff -electronics-during-takeoff/2011/12/29/gIQAqfgoOP_blog.html

madgonad: She reminded me of the policy and I told her that there is no FAA rules against screaming children. No response.

The only appropriate response to that would be a dunce cap and fifteen minutes in the corner. Lucky for you, airplanes don't have corners.

SFSailor: A cabin full of people mildly pissed that they can't use their gadget is easier to get the hell off the plane in a hurry if there's a collision / problem than one that is full of people with earphones crammed in

You are strapped into a high chair too small for most anorexic midgets with your knees practically on your chin, WTF do you think you could do if something happened?

Do you really think ear phones would block out the noise and concussion of a plane crash? Or that anyone would be too interested in Angry Birds to leave a burning plane?

Worst justification ever.

Sargun: Because it's not your farking plane and you don't get to make the farking rules?

Oh, but I pay the bills, so you bet your farking ASS I make the rules, biatch...

;)

It's a conspiracy by SkyMall. No one is going to buy pet stairs and water oxygenators if they have something better to look at for those first and final 10 minutes.

Ahem: Link (new window)

The real reason:

Your cell phone won't work once you're at altitude, so the only thing they care about is you shutting it off so they don't have to talk over you during the FAA-mandated safety briefing.

Laptops &c are discouraged because if the pilot has to mash the brakes before takeoff then the laptop will become a missile embedded in someone's cranium.

Other than that, it doesn't matter. The RF isn't going to trash the airplane's equipment or throw off navigation. There are redundancies in place for all of that.

If they cared about EMI, they wouldn't offer you Wi-Fi on board. If they cared about you paying attention, they wouldn't let you read during the safety briefing.

Christ, the on average, a commercial passenger jet is struck by lightning once annually. That's a lot worse than 40 iPhones.

Indubitably: Yes, Captain Obvious, but I would argue the body language of the passengers should said flight-extinction event occur would alert them faster and more efficiently than listening to the whatsits...

Just noting.

;)

I loathe almost every aspect of the current culture of commercial flying, but I'm willing to grant the people who think about worst-case scenarios, crowd-control, disaster-response, etc, this:

A crew of, what?, 3-8? college dropouts trying to control a skittish crowd of 100-300+ (with a wide variety of physical and mental ability, experience on a plane, etc) need every advantage they can get.

It also serves a role in setting "the sky-hostess is an authority figure" expectations, also related to safety. (Though vastly over-abused in the 99.x% of time in flight where there's no reason for them to be any kind of authority at all, should something go sideways, I'd rather most passengers' first reaction be to listen to them.)

Also: "Flight-extinction event" - LOL.

GAT_00: I never understood why we're supposed to be so butthurt about the electronic gadget rule. It's 10-15 minutes.

More like a half hour including taxi time (where they still insist all devices EXCEPT cell phones be kept off), and that's on departure AND arrival. A full hour is a long time to be bored, especially on flights where the plane only spends about 45 minutes in the air.

But really, it's not the magnitude of the inconvenience so much as the silliness of it. I survive, no shiat, but it's pointless and all the given explanations are bullshiat. My job regularly deals with EMI issues; there's no farking way my iPod is gonna cause problems and for fark's sake they're sending video signals throughout the plane (for the safety demo and such). After the safety demonstration's over I'm allowed to wear earplugs and a blindfold to sleep so there goes the attention excuse.

The only real reason I can think of why all devices are banned is that indiscriminate policy is simple to enforce in the face of a rapid tech curve. Twenty years ago a cell phone was rare; now gaming systems have wireless communication. It's also theoretically possible for someone to have home-built equipment that does not comply with any EMC regulations. I can tell what might or won't cause interference, but the layperson (including flight attendants) won't and it's easier to just prohibit all devices. But most consumer-grade devices have to comply with EMC regulations anyway and home-built equipment is likely to be rejected at the security checkpoint.

Fark It: It's to make sure you're paying attention during an emergency.

Unless there's actual flames and smoke, getting someone's attention in an emergency is generally not a problem.

Lord Dimwit: For the record, the worst non-terrorism-related air disaster in history was partially caused by radio interference. It killed 583 people. So yeah, while the chances of your phone causing enough radio interference to do any damage are really slim, turning it off for ten minutes doesn't hurt anyone and lessens the chances of an accident by a tiny, tiny amount.

The Tenerife disaster was caused by confused ground crew, heavy fog, and KLM's chief pilot being too much of an ass to listen to his co-pilot.

kingoomieiii: basemetal: Why should you have it on, exactly? Are you extremely important? Then why not charter a plane?

It's like talking to the TSA!


no it isn't. it's their plane, their rules.
The TSA is government infringing on your rights.

if a private company says 'no phones' then that means no phones.
Do you also have a problem with these guys (new window)?

Put your cell phone near your cable modem/router......call your cell phone from a different phone....try to use your internet without rebooting your modem/router.


When you are on a plane look at the wall of the airplane....there are miles and miles of wires in between the interior and exrterior skin of the aircraft....they act as antennaes.....

The issue I have with the 'it's for crowd control' counter-argument... if you're reading a book, they don't tell you to close your book and listen. But if you're reading a kindle - they want you to 'shut it off'... which it doesn't have a shut off. Just a 'sleep'. So any EMI it actually might produce, it's still producing. So if they would make people reading the newspapers that they hand out JUST BEFORE the safety lecture, and those reading books set them down.... it would make more sense too.

dragonchild: But really, it's not the magnitude of the inconvenience so much as the silliness of it. I survive, no shiat, but it's pointless and all the given explanations are bullshiat. My job regularly deals with EMI issues; there's no farking way my iPod is gonna cause problems and for fark's sake they're sending video signals throughout the plane (for the safety demo and such). After the safety demonstration's over I'm allowed to wear earplugs and a blindfold to sleep so there goes the attention excuse.

It may seem silly because being aware of something happening has farkall to do with the law.

Lord Dimwit: "For the record, the worst non-terrorism-related air disaster in history was partially caused by radio interference. It killed 583 people."


Are you farking high? Tenerife was a result of fog and pilot error, and the absence of ground radar at the airport. The only "radio interference" involved was two people keying their mics at the same time and stepping on each other, making a few critical seconds of transmission inaudible to a key party.

deffuse: Private company, private enclosure, your paying for a service they control.

s'funny. That excuse didn't work when it was used to refuse service to black people.

A Farker summed this up perfectly about 4 years ago:

mongbiohazard
2008-05-12 06:32:35 PM

No, it's about consideration, you boob. If it was about the "corporations" wanting money then they'd be happy to let you burn up all the minutes you could - and charge you more for using the tiny cell relay they installed in the plane to "improve your service".

But it's really so that we don't have to listen to 200 assbags blathering on at the top of their lungs the entire time in an enclosed space - especially during long trips where people might want to try and nap.

I don't care what excuse they use, considering the yammering retardation I hear before and after the "cell-phones off" time I'm content with any BS excuse to keep them verboten during the flight.

Fark flight attendants.

SFSailor: Indubitably: Yes, Captain Obvious, but I would argue the body language of the passengers should said flight-extinction event occur would alert them faster and more efficiently than listening to the whatsits...

Just noting.

;)

I loathe almost every aspect of the current culture of commercial flying, but I'm willing to grant the people who think about worst-case scenarios, crowd-control, disaster-response, etc, this:

A crew of, what?, 3-8? college dropouts trying to control a skittish crowd of 100-300+ (with a wide variety of physical and mental ability, experience on a plane, etc) need every advantage they can get.

It also serves a role in setting "the sky-hostess is an authority figure" expectations, also related to safety. (Though vastly over-abused in the 99.x% of time in flight where there's no reason for them to be any kind of authority at all, should something go sideways, I'd rather most passengers' first reaction be to listen to them.)

Also: "Flight-extinction event" - LOL.

I agree, friend.

However, most folks who fly already know the routine, and those in the herd that don't will soon follow or die, so whatevs, right? Amirite? In all seriousness, trust your plane-people to respond well, for they will now; in most real FEEs, it doesn't matter one way or t'other, no?

;)

P.S. I'm glad you liked my jokey, yay!

Because you are under their control when you are on their plane. Just like if you are on a boat and the captain tells you not to go out on deck, you don't get to ask "Why?", you just have to follow his orders.

I know following orders is a difficult thing for the "Me Me ME" generation. Goddamn if some of you couldn't benefit from a few years in a warzone.

Lord Dimwit: Even if that's not the "real" reason or whatever that the FAA mandates it, it's still a damn good reason. If that's what someone needs to tell themselves to justify the horrific inconvenience of turning off their phone, so be it.

Except then people shouldn't be allowed to do anything else like sleep or read books, etc. If you look around at what people are doing during takeoff and landing, they sure as hell aren't paying attention.

I think the article.. an a lot of people on here.. are leaving out one important fact; a lot of the arguments that result in the plane being turned around wind up being someone using a device WHILE STUCK ON THE GROUND BACK AT THE GATE, because the plane is being prevented from taking off or even taxiing out to the runway to get ready to takeoff. Not to mention, some of the planes being "turned around" aren't even being moved; they are walking people back off.

If someone's cellphone, laptop or game can crash a farking plane while it is sitting still, parked on the ground, not even moving... WTFF are you ever be allowed to turn them on while in the air!?!?

Personally don't believe Alec Baldwin should have ever apologized for sitting at the damned gate, not moving, playing that word game a few months ago.

Can blame it on passengers, but betting 75% or more of the problem is due to basic waiters being given this new-found power and thinking they are now gods above men and being total and complete assholes with that power.

/about like the 'morans' at the Canadian border crossing that have no idea what Niagara Falls is or what is there...

This is really easily explained, sorry if it has been earlier, but too many comments to go through.

I fly every week, so I see alot of stuff. The big constant seems to be old people, and ones that are not so bright (these are generally separate groups btw). Every week in the news they have stories about "cell phones cause cancer", "cell phones can make your car explode while fueling", etc. Issue is we (ie, intelligent) know these things are bogus, but the unwashed masses do not. In order to keep said masses from stampeding the flight attendants, crying and wailing, they simply ask everyone to turn them off. Issue solved.

The more you know...

Lord Dimwit:
For the record, the worst non-terrorism-related air disaster in history was partially caused by radio interference.

Tenerife?

I guess you could call "talk over" radio interference, but the radios were working as designed. It was operator error, too many people talking at the same time on the same channel.

As far as the subject of the thread, well, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em get thrown off.

SuperTramp: I'd rather they made an announcement to "stow your children in an overhead bin."

Children should be checked baggage not carry on

"because I said so" is not valid when dealing with sentients with a right to self determination.

"because I said so" is lazy and disrespectful.

"because I said so" is what is wrong with politics, religion, pseudo science, parenting, and any number of other social constructs that claim to be working for the greater good and instead has slipped into self aggrandizement and authoritarianism, gentle or otherwise.

Just another Heartland Weirdass: Fark flight attendants.

If you insist...

Just another Heartland Weirdass: Fark flight attendants.

I have, during Flight Attendant school in Ft. Worth.

1 married guy, 1 gay guy, me and 19 women was the demographics of my class. All in the same hotel, with 2 other classes with similar make ups.

Do the math.

Chimpasaurus: Why do I have to turn off my devices if they are in airplane mode. I can (sort of) understand not making calls, but is listening to music really interfering with the systems? And what about a kindle? There are no signals emanating from it. You may as well tell people to turn off their watches.

The problem is that there's not a good way to tell what could more plausibly cause a problem.

Someone could just as soon have a weird Android-running variant made in China which inexplicably has a 2W RF transmitter operating on channels not approved by the FCC. Or someone "clever" modified it for other inexplicable reasons. Hey, I bought a USB Tesla Coil for my laptop!

That being said, there's still no evidence that any electronic device has ever interfered with any aircraft, and the whole thing is rather implausible. No airworthy craft should be glitching on RF from inside the passenger area, signals are shielded for a reason. Nor should a glitched signal bring down an aircraft even if it DID occur.

The problem is that if you DO maintain there's a possibility of a problem, this is an irresponsible way to address it. You will never be able to get 100% of devices "off". Many phones and electronic devices don't have a proper "off" even when stowed, in an overhead bin. So if you say there's a potential problem that might kill everyone, you're crazy not to hunt it down with the aircraft mfg. Yet nothing of the sort is being done AFAIK, because no engineer believes this is real.

Hmm these devices do not cause any interference... American Airlines is using iPad's in the cockpit as a work tool. The issue is not spoiled brats not turning off the device, the issue is stopping the erosion of choice and continued assault of liberties.

It's like not wanting to take your shoes off when a host asks you to do so at that person's house. It's their house. Take off your damn shoes or go away, don't stand there and argue with them.

Make More Hinjews: Smeggy Smurf: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

Because Fark You bite me, that's why. The usual answer for stupidity these days

We're trying to keep up a theme here, people!

Gimme twenty D batteries, mickey fickey!

madgonad: My kids are perfect angels on the plane (ages 4 and 6), that is, until they make me turn off their movie 15 minutes before landing. Then the rest of the passengers get to experience screaming children until we pull up to the gate.

On my last trip a flight attendent got involved and asked if there was anything she could do to help. I politely told her that they were totally quite watching their movie (using headphones). She reminded me of the policy and I told her that there is no FAA rules against screaming children. No response.

Personally, I dislike the policy because I fly a lot for business and I always loved to listen to music during takeoff. Now that joy is gone, and for no good reason.

Any chance you were on a United Flight to Jackson Hole, WY two weeks ago? This exact situation played out in the row in front of me.

Its odd how it always seems to be the calm, rational, airline employees asking nicely for some inconsiderate ass to turn off their electronic device. Said ass refuses (presumably because they are better than everyone else and don't have to follow instructions) and airline employee regretfully escalates situation.

My one experience with this was me missing the announcement to turn off electronic devices for landing and being subjected to a loud, threatening tirade from the attendant.
I immediately turn off my movie and mumbled an apology. I asked the guy next to me if i had missed multiple warnings and he said no, they made the announcement then she came storming over before he could even warn me.

It was kinda funny, in hindsight, that he told me all this in a whisper as if he was afraid of being overheard. And that he was in full uniform coming home on leave from the Army.


For the record, I wasn't watching anything on my phone. This was before phones had video capabilities.

Noticeably F.A.T.

It's perfect until you remember that 1) it's not just cell phones, and 2) there's no rules against talking to other passengers.


The difference is that some people cannot grasp the fact that they can speak at a normal volume and the phone will pick it up just fine. Instead they shout into the damn things as if they were talking into cans attached to strings.


No more rhyming, I mean it.

madgonad: My kids are perfect angels on the plane (ages 4 and 6), that is, until they make me turn off their movie 15 minutes before landing. Then the rest of the passengers get to experience screaming children until we pull up to the gate.

Everyone's kids are quiet as long as they are hypnotized by TV or a movie, whether on a plane, at home, or any other place. Well educated kids accept that at times there are rules to follow which require to - gosh! - be without entertainment for some time.

Unfortunately, many adults are just like your kids these days.

Maud Dib: [www.travelaid.se image 490x350]

LOL... new prank... set up a wifi network router named "Airbus A310 Technician Service Interface AX310TSI" and wait for other people's wifi cards to discover it.

Noticeably F.A.T.: Lord Dimwit: The Tenerife Disaster.

Thanks.

Giltric: Put your cell phone near your cable modem/router......call your cell phone from a different phone....try to use your internet without rebooting your modem/router.


When you are on a plane look at the wall of the airplane....there are miles and miles of wires in between the interior and exrterior skin of the aircraft....they act as antennaes.....

As soon as you can convince me that aircraft designers put no thought into shielding their equipment, I'll take your comparison to a $50 piece of consumer hardware seriously. If there was truly any chance of a plane-full of cell phones causing interference, why do they use the honor system to enforce their policies? My water gets confiscated before I get to the gate because of some vague, unscientific threat made years ago, but when it comes to my cell phone their reaction is "Please, use your best judgment?"

Its for that little area where the wiring harness and shielding has chafed against bulkhead pillar 454nxc.

Abyss: Hmm these devices do not cause any interference... American Airlines is using iPad's in the cockpit as a work tool. The issue is not spoiled brats not turning off the device, the issue is stopping the erosion of choice and continued assault of liberties.


No, the issue is dealing with entitled dumbasses like yourself. The iPad may be safe to use but not every electronic device is an iPad. Many others can cause interference: Link (new window)

Your freedoms end when they begin causing danger to others.

Caeldan: The issue I have with the 'it's for crowd control' counter-argument... if you're reading a book, they don't tell you to close your book and listen. But if you're reading a kindle - they want you to 'shut it off'... which it doesn't have a shut off. Just a 'sleep'. So any EMI it actually might produce, it's still producing. So if they would make people reading the newspapers that they hand out JUST BEFORE the safety lecture, and those reading books set them down.... it would make more sense too.

That always pisses me off - "turn off your kindle" - uh... how? You mean by changing to the screen saver?

Additionally, if you fall asleep, they don't wake you up - even if you're in the exit row.

Radio Shack could "flummox" a wet dream.

Noticeably F.A.T.: Oznog: USB Tesla Coil

That sounds farking awesome.



There is a USB plasma globe- that's got a pretty significant EMI, probably the largest EMI you'd find, but still not known for interfering with anything, consumer or aviation.

Fun fact- if you put a penny on the glass and just barely touch it, you can draw a tiny, visible spark to a finger and burn a little black hole in your skin. Please, try this at home.

Caeldan: The issue I have with the 'it's for crowd control' counter-argument... if you're reading a book, they don't tell you to close your book and listen. But if you're reading a kindle - they want you to 'shut it off'... which it doesn't have a shut off. Just a 'sleep'. So any EMI it actually might produce, it's still producing. So if they would make people reading the newspapers that they hand out JUST BEFORE the safety lecture, and those reading books set them down.... it would make more sense too.

What idiot designed the thing without an on/off button? And can't the people just pull out the batteries to turn it off like with a cell phone?

Wow, that's an amusing way to fark up a comment.

Abyss: Hmm these devices do not cause any interference... American Airlines is using iPad's in the cockpit as a work tool.

They do cause interference. The question is not if they do or don't, but how much, a much more difficult question to answer when letting the general public make their own decisions. AA determined that the risk of two iPads is negligible and allowed them.

Oznog: That being said, there's still no evidence that any electronic device has ever interfered with any aircraft,

Well, interfered significantly enough to cause an event.

kingoomieiii: Pathman: Do you also have a problem with these guys (new window)?

Nope! They've got a good reason for a phone ban. "Booga booga sci-fi radio interference" isn't a good reason, and neither is "We need to show you how to buckle these extremely simple seatbelts one more time".

By the way, it's the FAA I take issue with in this case.

But that's clearly not the reason for the ban, otherwise talking to other people would be banned.

Thorny4Pie: Here's why you have to turn it off...

Because they say so of the 14 C.F.R § 91.21 ban.

Any other conversation beyond that is moot.

/FTFY

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

Why should we have to turn them off, exactly?

Why should you have it on, exactly? Are you extremely important? Then why not charter a plane?

You have to be important to own and operate a cell phone? Weird, I thought all you had to do was be able to pay for the monthly bill. Maybe I should tell all those people using cell phones on the train that they're not important enough to be using them.

You have to be self important to purchase a private service knowing they will have electronic restrictions and then make a farking scene about it during take off procedures.

Do you cause trouble in lines, movie theaters, etc with every rule you don't care for?

do you start a fight about lowering a bar on roller coasters? Many of those seem unnecessary.

The list could go on and on I'm sure.

chairborne: "because I said so" is not valid when dealing with sentients with a right to self determination.

"because I said so" is lazy and disrespectful.

"because I said so" is what is wrong with politics, religion, pseudo science, parenting, and any number of other social constructs that claim to be working for the greater good and instead has slipped into self aggrandizement and authoritarianism, gentle or otherwise.

Granted, but are they saying "because I said so?" Seems to me they're giving reasons, albeit flimsy ones.

Settle down, Che Guevara

kingoomieiii: By the way, it's the FAA I take issue with in this case.

The FAA has nothing to do with it. Airlines are given complete freedom to allow you to use whatever you want (aside from cell phones). However, in doing so they take the risk upon themselves were someone to use something ridiculous and cause a problem. They'd prefer not to take the risk.

Lord Dimwit: Also, even if the device can't do anything to wang up chung the plane,...

FTFT80's

I think this all boils down to the fact that a large percentage of people kvetching about turning off their phones in fact have no idea how to do so, and they fear being revealed as a hopeless bumpkin. Countless are the times I have seen people turn off the screen, and think they have turned off the phone. Ah, the joy when at the end of a 2-hour flight they find their batteries dead from the constant search for an unattainable signal...

The "turn off all electronics" rule is stupid. Everyone knows it's stupid. It should be abandoned, and we shouldn't meekly sit by and accept every bullshiat inconvenience that the national security retards throw our way.

"Oh, but you might inconvenience ME."

Well, sorry, but too bad.

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: If I was giving you a ride somewhere and asked you to not change the radio station, root around in my glove compartment or aggressively play with your ballsack during the trip would you do it anyway? It's not hurting me or my car but it's MY friggen' car. You want to do that sh*t, get your own car.

If I gave you a shiat-ton of cash to give me a ride, and as long as I wasn't blatent about changing the station you did nothing about it, you bet your ass I'm farking with the radio.

An aircraft isn't a private residence. Stop comparing the two as if one has anything at all to do with the other.

It's almost as if commercial air travel is a business and you are their customer, not their guest. Hah, as if!

Imagine, if terrorist figure out the havoc cell phones can cause. 4 of them board and plane, turn on their phones at the same time and OMFG PLANE CRASH!

/I haven't turned off my phone in years
//stupid rule is stupid

Mythbusted?

Yeah, that's a load of shiat!! How come it's okay when you're at thirty-eight thousand feet but not when taking off and landing? If there was any danger at all they would search you and make you take the batteries out or confiscate them or something before even getting on the plane.

here to help: And I love how people scream about their "FREEDUMZ" over have to turn their phones off for ten minutes during take off/landing yet they allowed it so you can't get on a plane without being irradiated or sexually assaulted.

Priorities, people!

I take that up a notch and point to the millions who accept torture, war lies, and all manner of authoritarian bullshiat but think pat downs are the goddamn end of freedom as we know it.

Oh noes, that guy's knuckles brushed my wiener!

As a frequent flier, let me say this:

If I have to put up with your screaming kid, your doddering mom who can't get into her seat in less than 10 minutes, your huge and falling apart non portable "carry on" bag that takes you 3 minutes of brute force before discovering it must not fit, and all the other dumb, non-frequent flier annoyances you members of the non-flying public unleash upon those of us required to fly for our jobs, then you can damn well wait 20 seconds while I take a quick call or reply to a chat or email. I am fully aware of the timing of the plane and you won't be delayed while I make sure I have enough data downloaded before we go dark for the flight.

Non frequent fliers deserve their own airline, so business travellers can relax and work in peace, and that includes last second email replies from the tarmac.

OK, I know I'm late to this party, but I'm going to rant, anyway.

1. To those who say that the rule is all about requiring people to pay attention for a few minutes: shut up. Really. Shut up. That's not what the rule is about. Because then they should inform people with books and magazines and newspapers to pay attention for a few minutes. That's not it at all.

And for the love of God, planes go down so rarely right now that it's just not an issue. Trust me, if there is a problem with the plane, I'll damn well lift my head up from whatever it is I'm doing and will pay attention. That argument absolutely holds no water whatsoever. So just stop it.

2. To those who say that, "You bought a ticket, you agreed to the rules, you should follow the rules," I say, "shut up." Airlines don't make the rules, the government makes the rules, and as citizens we damn well have the right to question a stupid rule, and on balance, this is a stupid rule. Of course, they shouldn't be jerks about it -- most flight attendants are poorly paid and work really hard. It's not their fault.

I don't have much of a problem with forcing customers to keep cell phones off, but that's mostly a courtesy issue (though, again, what's the difference between someone talking on their cell phone and some idiot next to me who won't shut up while I'm trying to read my book?).

If you're worried about turbulence, then force people to keep their computers packed away. But there is nothing wrong with letting someone use an iPod or an e-reader during takeoff and landing. None. They're not bothering anyone. They're posing no danger. And for many of us, it makes the flight go faster and also makes what's usually an annoying and highly uncomfortable trip that much better. I don't know what the hell is wrong with trying to make the trip just a tad more enjoyable.

doctor wu: Yeah, that's a load of shiat!! How come it's okay when you're at thirty-eight thousand feet but not when taking off and landing?

Because small course deviations/electronic failure on takeoff and landing can be catastrophic, while small course deviations/electronic failure at 38,000 feet might make the flight take a few minutes longer.

Radio Shack products are all over the airports:



Even in the future:

I have a suggestion: duh.

That is all.

Duh=get over yersleves.

;)

Indubitably: I have a suggestion: duh.

That is all.

Duh=get over yersleves.

;)

P.S. I meant "sleves," btw.

P.P.S. Oh shiat, now I'm explaining poems as a farking reflex? fark you. I quit explaining. Read or die.

sprawl15: doctor wu: Yeah, that's a load of shiat!! How come it's okay when you're at thirty-eight thousand feet but not when taking off and landing?

Because small course deviations/electronic failure on takeoff and landing can be catastrophic, while small course deviations/electronic failure at 38,000 feet might make the flight take a few minutes longer.

Exactly what interference would a cellphone cause to a satellite navigational aid? Please detail me the interference caused, wavelengths involved, etc. that would cause an electronic failure on takeoff.

This text is now purple: deffuse: Private company, private enclosure, your paying for a service they control.

s'funny. That excuse didn't work when it was used to refuse service to black people.

Government regulated company, Government regulated enclosure.
When you read stories about "DE-regulation" from the 70's, it means the airlines were less regulated, but they are by no stretch of the imagination UN-regulated.

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: doctor wu: Yeah, that's a load of shiat!! How come it's okay when you're at thirty-eight thousand feet but not when taking off and landing?

Because small course deviations/electronic failure on takeoff and landing can be catastrophic, while small course deviations/electronic failure at 38,000 feet might make the flight take a few minutes longer.

Exactly what interference would a cellphone cause to a satellite navigational aid? Please detail me the interference caused, wavelengths involved, etc. that would cause an electronic failure on takeoff.

Okay: Link (new window)

sprawl15: doctor wu: Yeah, that's a load of shiat!! How come it's okay when you're at thirty-eight thousand feet but not when taking off and landing?

Because small course deviations/electronic failure on takeoff and landing can be catastrophic, while small course deviations/electronic failure at 38,000 feet might make the flight take a few minutes longer.

If there was a serious chance of this happening, all electronic devices would be banned from planes or the entire passenger section would be inside a sealed Faraday cage. It's just a stupid rule, much like the "using cell phones at a gas station" crap.

However, you agreed to it when you bought your ticket, so suffer through it and complain somewhere other than the plane. You know, like here.

Sid_the_sadist: So STFU and go get my peanuts pretzels you overpaid traveling waitress.

Now now, don't want to upset the snowflakes.

Noticeably F.A.T.: Smelly Pirate Hooker: A Farker summed this up perfectly about 4 years ago:

It's perfect until you remember that 1) it's not just cell phones, and 2) there's no rules against talking to other passengers.

And your point seems to make sense until you remember how loudly many people talk into their cell phones. And how many people, absent a cell phone, would simply sit quietly or try to nap or read or whatever. It's not like an entire plane full of people is suddenly going to go into Algonquin Roundtable mode once their cell is not available.

Like others, I'm amazed at how many people can't go any amount of time without their electronic pacifier, and how many throw a virtual fit (or an actual fit when they're on an airplane) at being asked to turn it off for even a brief amount of time. You must be the assholes using your phones at the movies, or the opera, or a funeral. Just turn off the goddam phone. How hard is that?

here to help: And as long as we're whining about sh*t we don't like about flying I don't like that I can't go into the can and have a smoke. IMMA GONNA THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM!!!!

*falls to floor kicking and wailing*

You do know smoking used to be allowed, right? It wasn't banned until 1988 for flights less than 2 hours, and by 1990 was banned for most all continental flights. By 1998 it applied to all flights.

The more you know!

Geotpf: For the record, the worst non-terrorism-related air disaster in history was partially caused by radio interference. It killed 583 people.

No, that was caused by the following ridiculous circumstances:

1. A major airport was closed due to multiple bomb threats.
2. A ton of airplanes were then sent to a smaller airport, crowding it beyond normal capacity.
3. A dense fog rolled in, so the tower couldn't see the runway and the various planes couldn't see each other.
4. One airplane's pilot misunderstood an ambiguous message from the tower, thinking they had clearance to take off when they actually didn't.
5. It then proceeded down the runway smack dab into another airplane.
6. BOOM.

Now, the second airplane transmitted at the same time as the tower, causing interfence that resulted in neither being able to be heard by the first plane, which is probably what you are referring to. However, two people talking over each other on the same radio channel (which is how all two way radios work) is a world of difference from a plane's electronics shorting out and causing a crash because somebody forgot to turn their Gameboy off.

Link (new window)

This is why FAA now mandates that while an aircraft is taking off or landing, all other aircraft in the area must power down all their radios and avionics. Just to be safe.

Indubitably: I have a suggestion: duh.

That is all.

Duh=get over yersleves.

;)

You have to initialize the variable prior to calling it. Programming fail.

For the love of god, not another one of these. Simple fact, you phone will not work above 3,000 feet. I have intentionally left it on flying VFR, and looked at it in cruise. No signal. Also left it on accidentally on an airliner, and guess what... NO SIGNAL. The reason it's not legal is that it simply won't work, so no sense changing the rules.

As far as devices in airplane mode, the FAA says no, so therefore no. It might make sense to some fed somewhere, but simply put, the crew must follow the rules. Don't complain to us, we didn't make the rules. Call the FAA, maybe if enough of you do, then the stupid rule will be changed

To be fair, my trs-80 model 1 used to jam neighbors' reception of tv channel 2.

/4k ram, bay bee

cameroncrazy1984: Exactly what interference would a cellphone cause to a satellite navigational aid?

VORs are in space now? Neat!

Dr. Whoof: If there was a serious chance of this happening, all electronic devices would be banned from planes or the entire passenger section would be inside a sealed Faraday cage. It's just a stupid rule, much like the "using cell phones at a gas station" crap.

That's the point. All electronic device usage is banned from planes, by default. Airlines just happen to be allowed to waive these rules.

Fark Me Runnin: Indubitably: I have a suggestion: duh.

That is all.

Duh=get over yersleves.

;)

You have to initialize the variable prior to calling it. Programming fail.

Yeah, not a programmer, just grammar.

;)

It's amusing how many people think using their phone anywhere they want is some kind of inalienable, precious right guaranteed by the Constitution and any place of business that asks them to limit its use in any way is a partner to a grave injustice perpetrated by the jack-booted thugs of the FAA, TSA, FDA, USPTO, ABBA, etc.

Some of you people are retards.

here to help: Yes... I did know that. I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Frankly I don't see why they don't allow us chronic smokers to sneak in one or two over the course of a flight in the cans. They're well ventilated and isolated. But it's their rules so I'll suffer in silence... like an adult.

Or, you could lobby to get the rules changed. Like an adult.

Smelly Pirate Hooker: It's amusing how many people think using their phone anywhere they want is some kind of inalienable, precious right guaranteed by the Constitution and any place of business that asks them to limit its use in any way is a partner to a grave injustice perpetrated by the jack-booted thugs of the FAA, TSA, FDA, USPTO, ABBA, etc.

Some of you people are retards.

And some just 'tards, no?

Cells phones are no threat to taking down commerical aircraft. If they were, they would not be allowed in the cabin under the control of their owners. Consider, there are likely 100s if not 1000s of flights daily with active cellular and other electronic devices. Hell, I've accidently left one of my phones on either in seatback in front of me or in the overhead bin. There is no way I am the only person that has done this.

I can understand if it is about safety during taxi, takeoff and landing. Under emergency actions, you don't want stray, hard objects zooming around the cabin. You may also want people paying attention to the flight attendants instead of tweeting that they are about to make a water landing or something. I think most reasonable people can understand that. Just farking say so and ask us to put them away below 10,000 feet. For most folks, it is not a problem and giving people the truth instead of some bullshiat reason will get many more flyers on your side.

sprawl15: That's the point. All electronic device usage is banned from planes, by default. Airlines just happen to be allowed to waive these rules.

If you can waive the rules, they can't be all that terribly important, now can they?

The point is that it's not really a safety issue, it's just a rule that was put in place because someone somewhere thought it might happen. If it were a credible threat, you would not be allowed to even bring the devices on board. As others have mentioned, they make you get rid of your water bottle, but not your cell phone.

However, the place to dispute this rule isn't on the plane with flight attendants who are just doing their job. The correct way to do it is to take your complaint to the FCC, FAA and the airlines and try to get like minded people to stand with you on it.

Dr. Whoof: here to help: Yes... I did know that. I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Frankly I don't see why they don't allow us chronic smokers to sneak in one or two over the course of a flight in the cans. They're well ventilated and isolated. But it's their rules so I'll suffer in silence... like an adult.

Or, you could lobby to get the rules changed. Like an adult.

Much as I would also like to see it changed, I am aware that the "pro-smoking" lobby is a very small (probably non-existent) lobby.

here to help: Dr. Whoof: here to help: Yes... I did know that. I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Frankly I don't see why they don't allow us chronic smokers to sneak in one or two over the course of a flight in the cans. They're well ventilated and isolated. But it's their rules so I'll suffer in silence... like an adult.

Or, you could lobby to get the rules changed. Like an adult.

To get smoking allowed on planes again?

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

I think I'd have more success perfecting a method of producing gold nuggets from my butt.

It's YOUR hypothetical, moron.

Came for the pics of Toby

Left satisfied.

here to help: If I was giving you a ride somewhere and asked you to not change the radio station, root around in my glove compartment or aggressively play with your ballsack during the trip would you do it anyway? It's not hurting me or my car but it's MY friggen' car. You want to do that sh*t, get your own car.

What if i hired you as a limo driver? if i want to roll my privacy window up and have at my ball sack and radio knobs then im damn well entitled to.

When your makeing rules for children its ok to not give reasons for the rule.
here to help: Frankly I think if people keep behaving like this the airlines should just not allow devices on the plane at all. Wanna behave like bratty, insolent children? Well then you get treated like bratty, insolent children.

Sorry -- when people ask you to follow rules without reason your already being treated like a child.

next time you fly leave your device on and just set it aside. Your plane will still take off.

\I have been threatened with arrest in the air... Don't argue with a stewardess even if you are in the right and getting piss poor customer service. Passive aggressive is the way to go.
\\The arrest thing was sooo dumb -- continental has to be the shiattiest business ever.
\\\Fly westjet if you can -- i have NEVER had a bad experience flying with them.

wonkable: For the love of god, not another one of these. Simple fact, you phone will not work above 3,000 feet. I have intentionally left it on flying VFR, and looked at it in cruise. No signal. Also left it on accidentally on an airliner, and guess what... NO SIGNAL. The reason it's not legal is that it simply won't work, so no sense changing the rules.

As far as devices in airplane mode, the FAA says no, so therefore no. It might make sense to some fed somewhere, but simply put, the crew must follow the rules. Don't complain to us, we didn't make the rules. Call the FAA, maybe if enough of you do, then the stupid rule will be changed

What about my ipod? An old school nano style one? -- i was asked to turn mine off.

It has a little cystal display and headphones and it plays music. Its more than just phones -- ALL electronics. Doesnt seem to matter if its a walkman, or an ipod, or a phone. -- And that makes me wonder -- if i brought an old cassette walkman on a plane could i listen to it? imean its playing off a magnetic tape, so there is NO way it could affect anything on the plane right?

It cant just be about the cell reception because I have been asked to turn off things that obviously need no connection.

MadCat: The one argument in the whole debate (not just this thread) that I somewhat buy is that leaving cellphones on in low altitude flight may cause issues with the transmission towers for cell signals as the aircraft quickly moves from cell to cell. Enough phones left on in the air, moving that quickly could conceivably crash the switching system.

/I still turn mine off though
//Because I agreed to turn it off when I bought the ticket
///Contractual obligations are contractual obligations whether you like them or not

I'm hoping that people don't have a problem with the cell phone not being used while the plane is actually in the air. I mostly want to use it when I'm sitting on the tarmac. And electronic devices that don't use cellular anytime.

basemetal: Just turn the damned thing off, you'll survive. I swear if you delay my flight and make me miss my connecting flight the passengers and I will beat you within an inch of your life and tell the media you made a try at the cockpit door.

/turn it off
//you aren't that farking important.

So apparently, being a total pussy is the new Internet Toughguy. Here's an idea: instead of bending over and pulling your buttcheeks apart for every moronic, outdated, luddite, and completely idiotic breach of your personal freedom that someone tries to shove down your throat, try growing some balls. Or to paraphrase you: "Stand up for yourself, coward. I swear, if you reduce the general amount of common sense and encourage the TSA to keep scanning people's shoes, I will beat you within an inch of your life, and tell the media that I mistook you for a pathetic, whining, yellowbellied, self-aborbed churl who sold out his entire species because he didn't have the guts to say "this is wrong".

here to help: But there ARE reasons. They are still studying the effects all these device running at once can cause and there are crashes that they suspect may have been due to electronic interference. They are erring on the side of caution and those of us who aren't whackadoodle wannabe libertarians with mixed up priorities are thankful that they are.

Your rights end at my nose.


So Its like an atheist who reads the bible just to be safe? Erring on the side of caution?

I err on the side of caution when it comes to vampires -- i always make my kids carry garlic in their pockets because VAMPIRES!!! Vampires may have never shown up before but damnit im erring on the side of caution and damnit my kids are going to walk around with garlic in their pockets all day because im the boss and i make the rules.

here to help: Hiring a limo would be more akin to chartering a private jet. Commercial flights are more like taking a bus or a taxi so your point is invalid.

Still a valid point. You arent in contact with your driver and the ride commonly comes with an amenity or two so its more like a limo.

here to help: Ugh... why did I even come in here. I KNEW it was just gonna be the same boring derpfest as every other time we have this discussion.

And,

I repeat:

"We tend to attack ourselves in others."

InfamousBLT: GUYS. LOOK. They are asking you to turn off your electronic devices for maybe 15 minutes a flight. HOW IS THIS A BIG DEAL?

If it's not a big deal, why are they doing it?

Here's why it's "a big deal". In the 90's, my coworkers and I used to fly around 40 days a year. Then the endless horseshiat with the TSA swung into effect, and the mewling assholes of the world started whining that "you don't have the intrinsic right to fly." Well, fine. Hey, if by mutual cowardice we've decided that we'd rather shrivel up and die than face the endless horrors of being a rational adult, then great. Let's dissolve like a slug in a bowel of salt. And so we have. I haven't been on anything other than a private, corporate jet for a decade now. Thankfully, I'm in a situation where I can do that, if I want. But guess who's NOT going- the literally dozens of support team members that used to go to trade shows and the like with Management. As people started refusing to fly, businesses began to shrink, until finally we're left with the pitiful shell of an economy that we have today.

Hey, congratulations, jackasses. Because one guy failed to blow up a plain with his shoes, and another failed to blow up a plane with his underwear, and a third failed to blow up a plane with shampoo, we all get to watch our economy tank because people would rather just not bother with the moronic, futile, pointless hassle of air travel. But hey, the really STUPID among you can rest safe at night, knowing that you proved your point that "there is no Right to Fly".

Seriously though, I have no idea what point those kind of people were trying to make. It's not like they ever looked like anything other than sniveling, ignorant cowards, and yet we let them screw everything up for the rest of us.

here to help: Ugh... why did I even come in here. I KNEW it was just gonna be the same boring derpfest as every other time we have this discussion.

Because you're heretohelp?

I love these threads because there is a payoff if you read all the posts. Usually someone will post an article that clears up some confusion, like downtownkid: did with this one.
Link (new window)
If you read the whole thread you see it, and it becomes that much more funny to watch everyone argue about the topic.

here to help: it's EVERYONE ON THE PLANE using them all at once during critical stages in the flight.

WHICH STILL WOULDN'T DO JACK shiat. Do you have any idea at all how modern electronics are calibrated and insulated? They're literally made to take a lightning strike, and use channels and frequencies that are completely unique to air travel. You could have every iPhone in New York stuffed in one playing "angry birds", and it couldn't possibly do jack shiat to the airplane.

Seriously, why are you people searching so desperately for a "reason", when you know there isn't one? Seriously, some of you would have given Mussolini a standing ovation, and asked him to do a encore on the harmonica.

When someone shows me how my phone can interfere with the plane's operation I'll turn the thing off.

Until then I'm fighting the man.

WhoIsWillo: [screenmusings.net image 640x480]

Came here to say this, leaving happy.

/miss the West Wing. Glad it left while it was still good, but dammit.

Oznog: For the record, the worst non-terrorism-related air disaster in history was partially caused by radio interference. It killed 583 people.

If your story is to be believed, it was caused by "gross over-reaction to completely imaginary bomb threats", not "radio interference." Hey, imagine they'd had balls, instead of shrieking "OMG, someone said the word BOMB! MOVE EVERY AIRPLANE IN THE COUNTRY TO ONE TINY AIRPORT, and then ORDER THEM AROUND HAPHAZARDLY!"

There'd be 583 people alive today that aren't.