If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Reacting to the latest almost-crash caused by goose strikes, does the FAA 1) begin a goose-culling program, 2) call for jet engine re-design, or 3) hassle the passenger who took the goose-strike video?   (nypost.com) divider line 186
    More: Obvious, FAA, management consults  
•       •       •

7374 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 May 2012 at 12:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-03 03:57:16 PM

umad: It is a travesty how modern airliners are designed. They can take off and land near high powered radar systems, cell phone towers, and radio towers that blast them with a ton of EMI, but they can't handle the interference from a hand-held device. WHAT WERE THESE ENGINEERS THINKING? It is like they intentionally broke the laws of physics just to put us all in danger. They need to pay.


It's almost as though different types of radio signals have different amounts of interference they can cause, and proximity plays a role. Gee, who'd have thunk. If only someone had ever studied this.
 
2012-05-03 04:01:04 PM

pontechango: Mikeyworld: So, according to your Wall of Text®

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed/ 0

About the Authors

Bill Strauss is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center and is the technical activities committee chairman for the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society. He is an active pilot and former NASA astronaut. Daniel D. Stancil (IEEE Fellow) is a professor in Carnegie Mellon's department of electrical and computer engineering.

If you want something short, uninformed and caught up in a network of criminal activity, stick to the NY Post.


I have respect for IEEE, and what they do. Being an electronics installer for the US Navy, I have a technician's understanding for Electronics and the physics behind it based on a 30-yr career. But that doesn't cut to the chase, there's many ways to skin a cat, I feel head-to-tail is the more correct.

pontechango: Mikeyworld: the FAA and the airlines have gone with us voluntarily turning off our device instead of them fixing their instruments to be less susceptible to these interferences

... but that would require more nanny government regulations that would cost the airlines money

There we go! Do it right, or don't bother. Being from the 'The terrorists have won' school, I think there's too much over-reaction. They knocked down the WTC once in the two-hunnert year history of our country, ONCE! I know a lot of good people got killed, but all of western civilization is being asked to pay for it. Do you really think passengers will sit and watch it happen AGAIN? Make the regulations. Make the airplanes as safe as they can be. then, get outta the way and let me fly. If it ain't safe, don't advertise it as such.

/ harden the cockpits while you're at it


Exactly. Put an atruim outside the cockpit for the air marshalls to sit, both doors locked and let the 'Jackers try to figure out if it's accessible

LibertyHiller: pontechango: Mikeyworld: So, according to your Wall of Text®

Pfft, they're just a bunch of perfessers. What would they know about the real world?


The electronics physics are pretty real. Been there, done that. You could even figger it out with a potato, or two
 
2012-05-03 04:03:15 PM

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.


Yes. But they can be trusted to turn off the cellular. Or at least they're close enough to turn it off if it causes an issue.
 
2012-05-03 04:14:01 PM
Hydro plane 'Whoosh' boats have already got it figgered out

www.weismann.net

The scoop is open-backed, so momentum will carry everything heavier than air out the back. The engine will suck air outta this column. Do ya think they'd settle for a drop in power?

/hot, like an exhaust
 
2012-05-03 04:16:42 PM

EMCGuy: . The likelihood of a crash being caused by this is extremely low. That doesn't mean your annecdote about leaving your cell phone on the whole flight means a damn thing.



There are thousands of commercial flights a day across the globe. I would imagine that on most of those there is a least on phone on, and most likley more. Seems at some point, after years of such occurances, it stops being annecdotal and becomes statistical.
 
2012-05-03 04:18:13 PM

giffin: Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.

Yes. But they can be trusted to turn off the cellular. Or at least they're close enough to turn it off if it causes an issue.


If a pilot looks up from his game of 'words with friends' and sees the plane turned toward a mountain, do you think he'll take the time to turn off his Ipad? At that moment, it may be too late. Another point for the terrorists
 
2012-05-03 04:23:40 PM

Mikeyworld: Hydro plane 'Whoosh' boats have already got it figgered out

[www.weismann.net image 500x400]

The scoop is open-backed, so momentum will carry everything heavier than air out the back. The engine will suck air outta this column. Do ya think they'd settle for a drop in power?

/hot, like an exhaust


Inertial separators aren't uncommon in small turboprop engines, but the drag penalty they'd have on a large turbofan is just obscene.
 
2012-05-03 04:24:06 PM
What did we do before 2001 when people had cell phones and didn't turn them off on commercial flights? Did anything at all happen? I don't remember that being an issue prior to that, but then again I hadn't flown in a few years and the next time I did was 9/11/2002....

~S
 
2012-05-03 04:35:03 PM

Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.


If it's about attention, then why don't they make passengers put away books/magazines?
 
2012-05-03 04:38:49 PM

Cyclonic Cooking Action: What did we do before 2001 when people had cell phones and didn't turn them off on commercial flights? Did anything at all happen? I don't remember that being an issue prior to that, but then again I hadn't flown in a few years and the next time I did was 9/11/2002....

~S


It looks like we have a lottery winner! You are one of thousands of lucky people who weren't called to inaction. We went about our business and let the government take care of us, like they said they would. Ignorance was bliss.We didn't think that our government would let them kill us. so we sat down and waited...

I doubt it'll happen again. Most of us know, now, that the government ain't gonna help us, we have to take care of our own space. I certainly hope that we know to detain, not destroy. It may look terroristic, but it may have a reason in that madness.
 
2012-05-03 04:39:04 PM

giffin:
No, it isn't. My father-in-law is a pilot. He can hear a burst of static in his headset when the cell phones that are close to the front of the plane reconnect to the towers. Coinciding with this burst of static, he had the plane pull off the landing approach (Airbus autolander) because it lost the beacon. It's not dangerous, but it does make the plane need to come around again. It's a PITA if someone happens to be sitting too close to the wrong antenna, not a danger.


I believe that you believe that he believes that to be true, but I claim bullshiat.
 
2012-05-03 04:44:03 PM

bangmaid: TheGogmagog: bangmaid: Rain-Monkey: I'm a bit confused about the GPS function claim. I doubt my device is communicating TO the satalite signals. So there isn't any output on my garmen or phone related to GPS (as far as I know).

Doesnt matter that its not transmitting TO anything. It can still interfere. Ever turn on a blender and it interferes with an antenna TV reception? Same concept.

As it was explained to me, having flown with the coast guard, when an aircraft is flying VFR, it doesn't matter, becuase they can see where they are going...

But when they're doing IFR rescues (no visibility) the precision of the instruments is crucial, becuase being off by several feet in altitude can be life or death.

As it was explained to me, during IFR missions, if someone turned on a Garmin GPS they would be thrown out of the helicopter becuase it interferes and if EVERYONE on a plane had their iphone on in IFR conditions, its the same concept.

watch the end of Die Hard 2 and you'll know what Im talking about

lack of transmitting =/= lack of interference


Because Die Hard 2 is my go-to source for reliable, scientific information.
 
2012-05-03 04:52:51 PM

winsecure: I believe that you believe that he believes that to be true, but I claim bullshiat.


Why do you hold that? My references are a logical explanation from a pilot, this Boeing article, my own experiences with Blackberry phones set next to other electonics, and a degree in electrical engineering and computer science. "Bullshiat" is not a refutation.
 
2012-05-03 05:28:44 PM
It does seem rather bogus to allow these horribly dangerous electronic devices on board at all. After all, a turrist could just build a powerful transmitter with a handful of parts from Radio Trash and take down any airlines, right?
 
2012-05-03 05:34:53 PM
"If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

QFT.
 
2012-05-03 05:38:16 PM

gweilo8888: SoCalSurfer: During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

...and even if an iPad can't block somebody exiting, it can sure as hell do them a significant injury when it goes flying during an accident.


A hardcover pointy-cornered book is much heavier and more likely to cause injury yet they are allowed.

And if it's solely about distraction, why am I allowed to read said hardcover pointy-cornered book but not my infinitely smaller and lighter Kindle?
 
2012-05-03 05:53:50 PM
According to my boss who used to be high up in cellular world, cell phones don't interfere with the airplane, but because you're directly over the cell towers, all the towers will carry your signal, thus overloading their jury rigged system.
 
2012-05-03 05:54:41 PM

bangmaid: Rain-Monkey: "If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS

No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

Cell phones can get a signal up to about 2000ft above ground. If 100 people are flying through that airspace and all of their cells are being switched from tower to tower that quickly, it tweeks out the cell towers. That's part of the reason they must be shut off- the cell carriers want them to be.

Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.


GPS receivers don't transmit. They receive. Receivers don't hurt electronics, unless the processors spill so much RF that they leak into the planes' systems.

Which no one has been able to reproduce, with any reliability.

\don't fly anyway
\\cause I don't wanna end up in Gitmo for pimp-slapping the TSA agent
 
2012-05-03 06:21:34 PM

giffin: winsecure: I believe that you believe that he believes that to be true, but I claim bullshiat.

Why do you hold that? My references are a logical explanation from a pilot, this Boeing article, my own experiences with Blackberry phones set next to other electonics, and a degree in electrical engineering and computer science. "Bullshiat" is not a refutation.


Did you read TFA you referenced?

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies."

/MSEE
 
2012-05-03 07:36:04 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: Except it's not a "ban" it's a "please do". If it were a "ban" you'd turn over your devices to a flight attendant and be able to get them back at 10k feet.

I've forgotten to turn off my phone or had my laptop in my bag on (with wi-fi oh noes!) many times on planes. No one came running hence not a "ban".


Good god, you're annoying. You're also factually incorrect. A ban doesn't cease to be a ban because somebody accidentally or intentionally violates it. If that were the case, it would be a physical impossibility to ban somebody from doing anything that's physically possible to do, because somebody, somewhere might ignore that. (Or at least, you couldn't ban them without inforcing the ban with "death before you perform said action".

Which in your case, sounds like a damned good idea.

You bore me. Welcome to ignore.

Jument: gweilo8888: SoCalSurfer: During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

...and even if an iPad can't block somebody exiting, it can sure as hell do them a significant injury when it goes flying during an accident.

A hardcover pointy-cornered book is much heavier and more likely to cause injury yet they are allowed.

And if it's solely about distraction, why am I allowed to read said hardcover pointy-cornered book but not my infinitely smaller and lighter Kindle?


I have never seen an eleven pound book on a plane. I have seen many eleven pound laptops on planes. What part of "it is a blanket ban to save them having to argue with each individual passenger about whether their individual device is allowed or not" did you not understand? Stop throwing up pointless straw men.
 
2012-05-03 07:46:53 PM

Mikeyworld: The electronics physics are pretty real. Been there, done that. You could even figger it out with a potato, or two.


shop.lab88.co.za

I'm on it...
 
2012-05-03 07:59:31 PM

cirby: Yeah, this is just some bureaucrats with too much time and not enough real work. Someone should probably take a closer look at their actual productivity and see if the FAA could use some "personnel realignment."

On the other hand, when people started using cell phones in large numbers, there really was a reason to stop people from using cell phones on passenger jets. Cell towers used to be a lot less capable, and the routing/switching hardware could have some issues if a series of towers were doing handoffs too fast.

If a passenger jet was flying low enough for people to still use cell phones, and a lot of people on a jet had theirs turned on, the routing system could hiccup. For a few moments, anyway. So someone at the FCC decided that they needed to stop this from ever happening.

Nowadays, though, pretty much all cell systems can handle the strain easily.

/used a cell at 33,000 feet back in the 1990s
//it didn't work too well, but it did work


Big time.

Probably some myrmidon down in the bowels of the FAA building thought of writing up the "violation"--I'm sure it hadn't occurred to anyone else prior to that moment--and rushed to his equally drone-like supervisor in excitement waving a reg sheet highlighted in yellow and pink: "Look! that guy who took that duck video must have violated Rule 19-slash-forty-two-dash-A! We can send him a sternly worded memo! We'll be famous!"

It would be sad to be such a pathetic turd, but some people seem to live for it.
 
2012-05-03 08:36:50 PM

liam76: Bungles: liam76: SoCalSurfer:
During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

then why can't you read a book, magazine, etc.


Just flew on virgin and they had the back of headrest TV's going the enitre process so it isn't a "sound" issue either.

[...]

No it isn't.

See the bolded portion.


That Virgin in-flight entertainment system will interrupt your audio feed with whatever announcements are currently happening. The headphones attached to your iPod won't.

liam76: Bungles: Yes, your anecdote about what allegedly happened during a sole Virgin flight totally supersedes what anyone in aviation has learnt as part of their basic training for decades.

Why exactly do you believe they do it then, when the danger presented is demonstrably minuscule (studies that have been funded in large part by the aviation companies themselves, for insurance purposes)? Just to piss you off? It might surprise you, but in the global cutthroat airline industry, companies tend not to present inconveniences just to piss off customers

I am a flight test engineer. I know it is a dated rule. If an Ipad was in any way unsafe they wouldn't allow pilots to use them. If earphones were inherently unsafe an airline (and perhaps more I don't know about) wouldn't give you in-flight entertainment with ear phones during the take off and landing period, insurance and the FAA wouldn't allow it. If not being alert and immediately prepared to listen ot the flight crews instructions was a safety hazard during take off and landing they would say no sleeping.

They do it because the FAA is a slow moving govt bureaucracy which has soem half baked ideas of what constitutes safety.


The pilots can use an iPad since they won't be listening to music on the thing. As a flight engineer you should know that take-off and landing are the most likely times for an aircraft to run into issues. As such, to give ALL passengers the best chance of surviving a worst-case scenario, everyone should be prepared to respond to flight attendant instructions during those periods.

Turning electronics off is not because of safety for the aircraft systems. It's for the safety of the passengers through psychology. That's why I turn my phone to airplane mode and pocket it when flying. But I understand when I need to be prepared to possibly react and why. As evidenced by this thread, even very smart people don't know that, so it's safer for the FAA to just tell everyone to turn that shiat off, full stop.
 
2012-05-03 08:38:20 PM
Damn the goose stepping Nazis at the FCC...

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-05-03 10:29:28 PM
I took some pictures out the window on my last flight with my very old film camera.
The flight attendant told me to turn it off during takeoff. I told her it was a film camera. "I don't care, turn it off". "It's mechanical, no electronics". "I said to turn it off!" I handed it to her (strap still around my neck). "You turn it off, it has no switch" "take the battery out then." "It has no battery." Pause. "How does it take pictures?" "Film." "What is film?" "Light sensitive paper." "That's amazing!"
Needless to say, despite her being half my age, really cute and easily manipulated, I declined to try to pick her up.
 
2012-05-03 10:34:31 PM

rhinoguy: I took some pictures out the window on my last flight with my very old film camera.
The flight attendant told me to turn it off during takeoff. I told her it was a film camera. "I don't care, turn it off". "It's mechanical, no electronics". "I said to turn it off!" I handed it to her (strap still around my neck). "You turn it off, it has no switch" "take the battery out then." "It has no battery." Pause. "How does it take pictures?" "Film." "What is film?" "Light sensitive paper." "That's amazing!"
Needless to say, despite her being half my age, really cute and easily manipulated, I declined to try to pick her up.


This is a joke...Right?
 
2012-05-03 10:40:02 PM

mongbiohazard: bangmaid: Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.

Bullshiat.

GPS is passive. If this were true then no planes would be safe from this "disruption" as the signals from GPS satellites are coming from space and are simply received by GPS receivers. The receivers don't communicate back to the GPS satellites.


Every radio receiver antenna is also a transmitter (by definition, if it's excited by a frequency it's carrying energy at that frequency, which means it's transmitting at that frequency too) so at least in principle, yes inbound gps RF signals scattering off of receiver antennae will change what the plane receives.

In reality, yes that line of argument is bullshiat.
 
2012-05-03 10:57:12 PM

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Did you read TFA you referenced?

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies."


They also said, "a few showed a strong correlation between the airplane reaction and the suspected PED." In one incident, "In one of these cases, the flight crew confirmed the interference by turning the unit on and off to observe the correlation." The article quotes a few more incidents where they turned devices off and on and watched systems glitch and return to normal in response.

There are some rare but relatively confirmable incidents, even if they're not reproducible with similar hardware. Not common, and not dangerous in any of the reported scenarios, but enough that I can see why they'd go into CYA mode when the plane is close to the ground,
 
2012-05-04 02:53:24 AM
Oh, my wife is on a red-eye to NYC right now. Should I call her?
 
2012-05-04 09:38:04 AM

Pitabred: As evidenced by this thread, even very smart people don't know that, so it's safer for the FAA to just tell everyone to turn that shiat off, full stop.


Does it suck being retarded? Or is it like Alzheimer's where it is actually rather pleasant but hard on everybody you know?

giffin: but enough that I can see why they'd go into CYA mode when the plane is close to the ground,


Maybe you could answer me.
 
2012-05-04 11:48:39 AM

gweilo8888: I have never seen an eleven pound book on a plane. I have seen many eleven pound laptops on planes. What part of "it is a blanket ban to save them having to argue with each individual passenger about whether their individual device is allowed or not" did you not understand? Stop throwing up pointless straw men.


If you've seen an eleven pound computer on a plane, it hasn't been in this or last decade.
 
2012-05-04 12:07:39 PM
So I just wanted to point out that there are ways to make calls from the plane and as far as I know there are no rules against it. Last flight I was on I paid $5 for the wifi and used Google voice to call a few people. Worked just fine and the flight attendants said nothing when I was wearing headphones with a mic and talking.
 
2012-05-04 12:20:26 PM

umad: Pitabred: As evidenced by this thread, even very smart people don't know that, so it's safer for the FAA to just tell everyone to turn that shiat off, full stop.

Does it suck being retarded? Or is it like Alzheimer's where it is actually rather pleasant but hard on everybody you know?


What? An ad hominem attack? Why, I'm honored! I love how you call me "retarded", you quote the only part of my post that could have been omitted entirely without changing the meaning.

Seriously though... do you have a reading problem? Did you not see the justification for it, that landing and takeoff are the most likely times for a plane to encounter a problem, and that is when people need to be able to pay attention and not have headphones in? For EVERYONE'S safety? The only entertainment devices that are on during takeoff and landing are those that can be interrupted for announcements by the flight attendant with a button up front.
 
2012-05-04 12:37:47 PM

Pitabred: umad: Pitabred: As evidenced by this thread, even very smart people don't know that, so it's safer for the FAA to just tell everyone to turn that shiat off, full stop.

Does it suck being retarded? Or is it like Alzheimer's where it is actually rather pleasant but hard on everybody you know?

What? An ad hominem attack? Why, I'm honored! I love how you call me "retarded", you quote the only part of my post that could have been omitted entirely without changing the meaning.

Seriously though... do you have a reading problem? Did you not see the justification for it, that landing and takeoff are the most likely times for a plane to encounter a problem, and that is when people need to be able to pay attention and not have headphones in? For EVERYONE'S safety? The only entertainment devices that are on during takeoff and landing are those that can be interrupted for announcements by the flight attendant with a button up front.


Like I said, retarded. Do you honestly think people aren't going to notice a FARKING PLANE CRASH happening around them because they have their earbuds in? You probably also think people would drive around hairpin turns with the gas pedal on the floor if we didn't have speed limits.
 
2012-05-04 01:17:29 PM

Weaver95: Charlie Freak: The FAA rule is that you have to comply with the instructions of the crewmembers, which includes no cell phones. Carry on.

And america was BUILT on mindless obedience to faceless government agencies! OBEY citizen! it's THE LAW!

yeesh.

whatever happened to the ability to question authority? did we all just forget about common sense? iPads cannot affect flight controls. they don't have the range, and the OS isn't even remotely compatible with the microcode controlling the flight control consoles up front. study after study proves this. the FAA knows this. you and I know this. But we don't change the rules because....f*ck you, that's why!


You're well and capable of questioning the authority. You're well and capable of changing the laws. I've noticed, though, that instead of filing a complaint with the FCC or calling your Congressman, you've decided to... impotently post a message on the Internet.
 
2012-05-04 04:46:22 PM

vwarb: Just one more reason to stop flying. Seriously. Take a train. Put this ridiculous system out of business.


Build me a train from California to Asia and I'm totally with you.
 
Displayed 36 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report