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.

(The New York Times)   The real danger of using electronic devices on an airplane: an increasing risk of becoming part of Fark headline, like Alec Baldwin, or that teenager that was punched by the 68 year old guy   (bits.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 74
    More: Asinine, Alec Baldwin, Words With Friends, electronics, airplanes, electromagnetic waves, Walter Isaacson  
•       •       •

3414 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-06 12:34:20 AM

proxymoron: While I can appreciate the various arguments that there is a potential for interference, I find it quite ironic and frustrating that when flying planes that support in flight WIFI that the wireless networks are still up and running during takeoff and landing.  While the internet may be "blocked" they are indeed transmitting during those times. I fail to see how that is any less dangerous than a Kindle or for that matter even a cell phone.

So it would seem we don't have to worry about someone crashing a plane from leaving their Kindle on, instead the airlines will do it for us with the WIFI.


Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.
 
2013-01-06 12:52:59 AM

italie:
Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.


No, the only way they can ensure that is to either confiscate your electronics or ban them from the cabin in the first place. The fact that they don't do this and simply politely ask leads me to believe that they are not concerned about any real interference threat.
 
2013-01-06 01:00:09 AM

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: italie:
Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.

No, the only way they can ensure that is to either confiscate your electronics or ban them from the cabin in the first place. The fact that they don't do this and simply politely ask leads me to believe that they are not concerned about any real interference threat.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-hon e ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/
 
2013-01-06 01:09:01 AM
I've always assumed that the reason for the "no electronics" rule is not because of some mysterious interference that might occur once every million flights, but rather because the flight crew needs your undivided attention in case something goes awry during takeoff and ascent. Granted you could be engrossed in a book or a magazine for those 10 minutes but I guess that's better than having music blasting in your ears while the pilot is screaming for everyone to brace for crash.

If electronics really were a hazard, don't you think they'd collect them at the gate and place them all inside a Faraday cage until you've arrived at your destination?
 
2013-01-06 01:10:17 AM

italie: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: italie:
Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.

No, the only way they can ensure that is to either confiscate your electronics or ban them from the cabin in the first place. The fact that they don't do this and simply politely ask leads me to believe that they are not concerned about any real interference threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-hon e ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/


Take two.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-ho ne ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/

The interference threat is real. Chances of it taking down the plane, probably thin.

The point being there is a known danger. The FAA does everything they can to shield against it. If you want to be an ass about it, go ahead. Calling it BS is just ignorant.

//BTW, Did you know that twin engine commercial aircraft are required by the FAA to have the ability to fly on just one engine? Why even put the second engine on there then? I find it crazy that they use two engines and waste all that fuel, don't you? Silly BS safety rules.
 
2013-01-06 01:33:02 AM
I thought what is proposed is relaxing the rule that all devices need to be switched off during takeoff and landing -- Mp3 players, tablets, phones in flight mode, etc.

So why are y'all talking about in-flight cellular phone communication while in the air? That's never going to be allowed, nor should it.
 
2013-01-06 01:39:17 AM

italie: italie: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: italie:
Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.

No, the only way they can ensure that is to either confiscate your electronics or ban them from the cabin in the first place. The fact that they don't do this and simply politely ask leads me to believe that they are not concerned about any real interference threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-hon e ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/

Take two.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-ho ne ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/

The interference threat is real. Chances of it taking down the plane, probably thin.

The point being there is a known danger. The FAA does everything they can to shield against it. If you want to be an ass about it, go ahead. Calling it BS is just ignorant.

//BTW, Did you know that twin engine commercial aircraft are required by the FAA to have the ability to fly on just one engine? Why even put the second engine on there then? I find it crazy that they use two engines and waste all that fuel, don't you? Silly BS safety rules.


Not being an ass about it, nor do I have a problem with turning things off. Just seemed to me that they don't consider it a legitimate threat to safety. If they did, then they would surely do a little more than just saying "please."
 
HBK
2013-01-06 02:22:28 AM
Italie = MAXIMUM TROLLING

/he's got a lot of bites
 
2013-01-06 02:28:22 AM

HBK: Italie = MAXIMUM TROLLING

/he's got a lot of bites


I couldn't tell if he was going for the record of most posts in a thread or most troll bites. Troll is most likely.

italie: the Bevets of FCC regulations.
 
2013-01-06 03:24:16 AM
Does everyone else here panic when their plane flies low over a highway during take off and landing? Because you have a whole bunch of people down there talking on their cell phones and those electromagnetic waves are going straight up through the plane. There should be no cell phones allowed within 2 miles of airports just in case it screws with a planes systems.

If people were truly concerned about safety we would all have to wear helmets when driving cars and crossing the street. Car accidents are one of the highest causes of premature death in this country and mandating helmet use would probably save more lives than any other car safety improvement since the seat belt.
 
2013-01-06 03:25:31 AM

DuudeStanky: italie:
I just wish the populous would understand that it isn't certain doom and gloom with the electronic rules. It's a potential risk. If there is a snowballs chance in hell that something could cause your plane to crash, even a 1 in 100,000 chance, why on earth would you fight so badly to take that chance?
 If we all play the what-if game, why should any of us risk using cellphones? They could cause our cars to accelerate wildly, make our houses explode or make gay people want to get married (NTTAWWT). Just because nobody has proven 100% that these don't happen because of cellphones, its a risk to us all!


I'm all in favor of banning them during takeoff and landing due to people not paying attention, but to ban them under the guise of unproven danger with no evidence seems ridiculous.


Because people don't turn them off anywhere they're simply asked to (school, movie theaters, cars), so ya know what? Lie if it stops a cramped tube of 200 people from all having 200 shouted conversations into 200 phones for three hours.
 
2013-01-06 03:54:20 AM
If your plane can be disrupted in any way by an Ipad, you shouldn't be flying in the first place.
 
2013-01-06 05:16:45 AM
It's a shame the emergency exits are sealed shut by the pressure differential at 35,000 feet.

People who cannot shut off their farking devices for 20 minutes need to be thrown out of the aircraft at that altitude.

"I'm fine with being radioactively strip searched but asking me to not stare at a computer screen for 20 minutes? NOW YOU'VE GONE TO FAR! "

/just do what they farking tell you.
 
2013-01-06 05:29:08 AM
Qantas had a problem with a Furby that messed up the navigation system which is why they are still listed as banned. The flight was on a clear day so it wasn't a problem but if it had been a heavy IFR flight, it could have been a real problem.

I've seen phones screw up the ADF and cause the VOR/ILS needles to bounce around. An ADF is a device that points to AM transmitters and thunderstorms and are going out of style but many plane still have them. ILS is how the pilot finds the runway when they can't see it.
 
2013-01-06 06:53:40 AM
art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-01-06 09:25:11 AM

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu:

Not being an ass about it, nor do I have a problem with turning things off. Just seemed to me that they don't consider it a legitimate threat to safety. If they did, then they would surely do a little more than just saying "please."



If you can't draw a line between "threat to safety" and "threat to permanently disabling the plane" that isn't my problem. They are a legitimate threat to safety.That threat has been minimized to an acceptable risk level. Ignoring that it exists or calling it BS is being an ass.

Do they factor in the point that people will ignore it? Yeah. Is it enough of a potential risk that they burden the flight crew to look for it? Yes. All it takes is for one instrument to go dark to cause an issue in the cockpit. Does that guarantee there will be an issue? No. All we need is one point of confusion for stuff to get ugly, as we've seen in the last 20 years. All AF447 needed was bad pitot data for things to go downhill. There are several other situations just like it where one piece of bad data/distraction ultimately led to a crash.

I'm not trolling in the slightest. I'm not white knighting for the FAA either. I just have a morbid curiosity as to why and how far people will take inane arguments against minimizing risk. It's a simple farking request that takes 7 minutes of your "game time" to comply with. I'm not suggesting you put a helmet on throughout the flight. in the event a meteorite falls on your head. I am saying there is a KNOW and PROVEN risk. Read that word again RISK. If you don't want to comply, fine. Just don't act like a spoiled brat about it when you get kicked off a flight, or the first time 200 people die as a result.

//This is just as bad as the drinking and driving debates around here.
 
2013-01-06 12:20:58 PM

italie: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu:

Not being an ass about it, nor do I have a problem with turning things off. Just seemed to me that they don't consider it a legitimate threat to safety. If they did, then they would surely do a little more than just saying "please."


If you can't draw a line between "threat to safety" and "threat to permanently disabling the plane" that isn't my problem. They are a legitimate threat to safety.That threat has been minimized to an acceptable risk level. Ignoring that it exists or calling it BS is being an ass.

Do they factor in the point that people will ignore it? Yeah. Is it enough of a potential risk that they burden the flight crew to look for it? Yes. All it takes is for one instrument to go dark to cause an issue in the cockpit. Does that guarantee there will be an issue? No. All we need is one point of confusion for stuff to get ugly, as we've seen in the last 20 years. All AF447 needed was bad pitot data for things to go downhill. There are several other situations just like it where one piece of bad data/distraction ultimately led to a crash.

I'm not trolling in the slightest. I'm not white knighting for the FAA either. I just have a morbid curiosity as to why and how far people will take inane arguments against minimizing risk. It's a simple farking request that takes 7 minutes of your "game time" to comply with. I'm not suggesting you put a helmet on throughout the flight. in the event a meteorite falls on your head. I am saying there is a KNOW and PROVEN risk. Read that word again RISK. If you don't want to comply, fine. Just don't act like a spoiled brat about it when you get kicked off a flight, or the first time 200 people die as a result.

//This is just as bad as the drinking and driving debates around here.


Your arguments sound just like what DARE uses on grade school kids. Too much hyperbole. Just like how the FAA sounds.
 
2013-01-06 01:12:09 PM
I did not read the thread. But I will say that I have had either an iPod or a cell phone or a kindle but usually two of the three on for the duration of no less than 100 flights over the last decade. The flight attendants don't care - just pretend to nap and close your eyes as they walk by. Its foolproof. Also, why are those noose canceling headphones exempt? Ever since I got a pair they don't even pay attention to me at all. The light is clearly on and the chord is clearly leading to a device in my pocket but I don't even get a second glance when I wear them.
 
2013-01-06 01:28:16 PM

italie: I'm not suggesting you put a helmet on throughout the flight. in the event a meteorite falls on your head. I am saying there is a KNOW and PROVEN risk.


Everyday life is filled with millions of known and proven risks. I'm willing to bet you still take showers, walk down stairs, eat peanut butter, and permit conversations in your car if you have passengers. Each of these has a known and proven risk associated with that. The risk of electronics during takeoff/landing is likely comparable to the risk of a meteor strike - why do you dismiss attempts to minimize risk of the latter but not the former?

Flight is amazingly safe; even a tiny relative risk increase is negligible. Assume you were "immortal" except for death caused by airline disaster. If you took two plane flights every single day, on average you would live for 7,610 years before dying to a plane disaster. That's counting likelihood of both accidental and deliberate death (e.g. terrorism).

If electronics were actually a real risk, they would not even be allowed on the plane in the first place. Hell, I can't even take a four ounce bottle of mouthwash on a plane; my cell phone is considered less dangerous than that by the people in charge of minimizing risks of flight.
 
2013-01-06 02:12:25 PM

Sum Dum Gai: italie: I'm not suggesting you put a helmet on throughout the flight. in the event a meteorite falls on your head. I am saying there is a KNOW and PROVEN risk.

Everyday life is filled with millions of known and proven risks. I'm willing to bet you still take showers, walk down stairs, eat peanut butter, and permit conversations in your car if you have passengers. Each of these has a known and proven risk associated with that. The risk of electronics during takeoff/landing is likely comparable to the risk of a meteor strike - why do you dismiss attempts to minimize risk of the latter but not the former?

Flight is amazingly safe; even a tiny relative risk increase is negligible. Assume you were "immortal" except for death caused by airline disaster. If you took two plane flights every single day, on average you would live for 7,610 years before dying to a plane disaster. That's counting likelihood of both accidental and deliberate death (e.g. terrorism).

If electronics were actually a real risk, they would not even be allowed on the plane in the first place. Hell, I can't even take a four ounce bottle of mouthwash on a plane; my cell phone is considered less dangerous than that by the people in charge of minimizing risks of flight.


1. You can't assess/assign/compare risk factors with any validity without having a basis of comparison.

2. Flight is amazingly safe. There is a reason for that. Probably has something to do with the FAA.

3. I've linked previously to a real world occurrence of this risk. If you don't consider an instrument going dark a safety issue then there is no pleasing you.
 
2013-01-06 09:20:16 PM

JohnBigBootay: Also, why are those noose canceling headphones exempt?


They prevent suicides?
 
2013-01-07 12:52:00 AM

Shrugging Atlas: red5ish: We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle Series L-1011. Came off the line twenty months ago. Carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system. And you're telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?

The wisdom of Toby Ziegler is never to be questioned.


I hope it carries over to his children.

But my comment is: For pure mindless bureaucratic stubbornness, I'll see your N.R.A ... and raise you one F.A.A.
 
2013-01-07 04:19:10 PM

italie: italie: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: italie:
Wifi on-board is transmitting at known and controlled levels considered to be safe. The only way they can ensure the same with your device is to ask you to turn it off at crucial times. Which they do.

No, the only way they can ensure that is to either confiscate your electronics or ban them from the cabin in the first place. The fact that they don't do this and simply politely ask leads me to believe that they are not concerned about any real interference threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-hon e ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/

Take two.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference-with-ho ne ywell-avionics-prompts-boeing-354179/

The interference threat is real. Chances of it taking down the plane, probably thin.

The point being there is a known danger. The FAA does everything they can to shield against it. If you want to be an ass about it, go ahead. Calling it BS is just ignorant.
.


Known in the sense that the only system that have ever actually been effected was being effected by a brand new powerful plane wide system that caused only a minor disruption of the type the engineers had already prepared for and protected the system against, inside of completely safe tolerances.

From your article:

"The screens reappeared well within Boeing's specified recovery time frame. The screens have not blanked in flight and are not a safety of flight issue. Honeywell is working to ensure the problem is addressed and fixed and that our technology will continue to exceed specifications," says Honeywell.

So basically, as long as the pilots don't try and reboot the entire plane's WIFI system mid air while having it pump interference it can't actually produce, because it required special laboratory equipment to push up the output that high, they won't have a minor flicker on one of their read outs, assuming they have exactly the wrong model number.
 
2013-01-07 05:11:31 PM

Mr Guy: So basically, as long as the pilots don't try and reboot the entire plane's WIFI system mid air while having it pump interference it can't actually produce, because it required special laboratory equipment to push up the output that high, they won't have a minor flicker on one of their read outs, assuming they have exactly the wrong model number.


But then 20 years down the road, a wire gets frayed and contacts the airframe, and becomes susceptible to all that noise, even without lab equipment.
 
Displayed 24 of 74 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report