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.

(Daily Mail)   Ever wonder what happens when you flush the toilet in mid-flight? This and other common myths about flying answered by pilot who wrote a book   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 82
    More: Interesting, Cockpit confidential, Flushing, cockpits, flights  
•       •       •

13476 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2013 at 3:39 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-13 08:56:23 PM
I always just assumed there was a garbage disposal at the bottom of that thing...
 
2013-09-13 10:04:56 PM
US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.

i.imgur.com

Virgin Airlines crapper (747)

i.imgur.com

Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows

i.imgur.com

SkyWest

i.imgur.com

United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-14 01:40:10 AM
I thought it became a chunk of blue ice that fatally strikes a suburban Armenian-American housewife.

/weird reference, maybe...but not at all obscure
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2013-09-14 01:46:49 AM
I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.
 
2013-09-14 03:46:57 AM
During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft


Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?
 
2013-09-14 03:53:09 AM
The stupidity in the comments section is a sight to behold. Pray those people aren't seated in an exit row on your flight.
 
2013-09-14 03:54:56 AM
So I cant really get my very own Joe Dirt asteroid?
 
2013-09-14 03:55:07 AM

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


I think they mean "having to carry that liquid added weight ..."
 
2013-09-14 03:56:29 AM

cmdwedge: The stupidity in the comments section is a sight to behold. Pray those people aren't seated in an exit row on your flight.


I'm usually seated in the exit row. Only damn seat I can be semi-comfortable in.
 
2013-09-14 03:58:19 AM

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...
 
2013-09-14 03:58:50 AM
Subby: Don't be ridiculous! I can't fly!
 
2013-09-14 04:00:03 AM

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


If you've ever turned you phone on during flight, you'd know that this is a non-issue as well.  Typically, you're flying way out of the range of any cell tower to get a good and stable enough signal to carry a conversation.

The only time that isn't an issue are the critical phases of flight: take-off and landing.  These are times in the flight where you want people paying as much attention as possible, so use of electronics is a safety issue.
 
2013-09-14 04:05:20 AM

RoyBatty: US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.

[i.imgur.com image 737x513]

Virgin Airlines crapper (747)

[i.imgur.com image 290x386]

Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows

[i.imgur.com image 216x372]

SkyWest

[i.imgur.com image 331x439]

United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif

[i.imgur.com image 259x332]


Do you take pictures of all the toilets you use, or just airline ones?
 
2013-09-14 04:10:00 AM

opaqueluminosity: HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?

It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...


Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.
 
2013-09-14 04:16:55 AM

HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?


I don't know what the author is talking about. They still use blue juice to this day. You only get smurf'd once.
 
2013-09-14 04:32:16 AM
i expect my piss and poo go all over middle america. right?
 
2013-09-14 04:37:52 AM
www.blogcdn.com
I know, it's fake.  Not blue, and the angle's all wrong.
 
2013-09-14 04:41:39 AM

Summoner101: FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.

If you've ever turned you phone on during flight, you'd know that this is a non-issue as well.  Typically, you're flying way out of the range of any cell tower to get a good and stable enough signal to carry a conversation.

The only time that isn't an issue are the critical phases of flight: take-off and landing.  These are times in the flight where you want people paying as much attention as possible, so use of electronics is a safety issue.



You can get a cell signal at altitude. In the right area you might even be able to make a lengthy call.

Agree on the safety issue, also with the projectile issue.

Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.
 
2013-09-14 04:52:14 AM
No but this seems as good a thread as any to state I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER FARKING CRICKETS IN THIS MOTHER FARKING HOUSE.

/I'm not an entomologist, man
//RouBatty, you need a new hobby, dude
///I just want to sleep!!!
 
2013-09-14 04:54:32 AM
I thought an angel got his wings.
 
2013-09-14 05:08:11 AM
I flew with SWA over the weekend and they are so intent on not having phone conversations in flight that they block viber, skype and vonage on their wifi they have you pay $8 for.
 
2013-09-14 05:19:07 AM
"He continues that although cellular communication can 'potentially' interfere with cockpit equipment, 'in all likelihood' it doesn't"
Oh, as well as a pilot, he's also an expert on electromagnetic physics and a highly qualified electrical engineer too? Marvelous.

Working tech shouldn't cause problems, but broken tech might.  Thus, instead of having airline staff wandering the aisles with electrical testers, basic volt meters to see if devices work/don't work, they just tell everyone 'turn it off when there's most risk'.   Simple
 
2013-09-14 05:25:39 AM
Because being stuck in close quarters with 150 other people who are trying to talk on the phone to anyone who will listen really sucks.

I could see people getting in fights over inconsiderate and rude behavior that comes from cell phone usage. I dont want to hear you talking to your great aunt rita about her variance of health problems.... just like you dont want to hear me leaving voice mail messages to my cat.

Wait... did i say cat? I mean... nevermind. Lol
 
2013-09-14 05:26:09 AM

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


Absolutely 110% this.

WHO CARES if it doesn't really screw with the airplane's electronics? If it keeps the tweenage girl from yakking on her phone in my ear the whole farking flight, I'll endure the "myth". Anything to keep her quiet.
 
2013-09-14 05:49:01 AM

MrDoh: "He continues that although cellular communication can 'potentially' interfere with cockpit equipment, 'in all likelihood' it doesn't"
Oh, as well as a pilot, he's also an expert on electromagnetic physics and a highly qualified electrical engineer too? Marvelous.

Working tech shouldn't cause problems, but broken tech might.  Thus, instead of having airline staff wandering the aisles with electrical testers, basic volt meters to see if devices work/don't work, they just tell everyone 'turn it off when there's most risk'.   Simple


Did you read the rest of what he said? Who said anything about testers and volt meters? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.....
 
2013-09-14 06:10:05 AM
What is book?
 
2013-09-14 06:20:52 AM
book is a added mass to the flight that comes only after you flush, 380 has big issues with tons of shiat that added, but in general use of fuel upset this, and partly why food is not served until after some time, and low budget flights that tend to carry less fuel is skipped 100%.

your well come
 
2013-09-14 06:37:21 AM

IsNoGood: book is a added mass to the flight that comes only after you flush, 380 has big issues with tons of shiat that added, but in general use of fuel upset this, and partly why food is not served until after some time, and low budget flights that tend to carry less fuel is skipped 100%.

your well come


What? It's a closed system, and as the aircraft burns fuel it becomes lighter. FFS, have I missed something - inflight sevice by way of a flying restaurant along side the aircraft?
 
2013-09-14 06:42:08 AM
Who the fark flushes after using an airliner toilet? I leave my steamer there, for the next person to enjoy. Even better when you can speckle the seat like Jackson Pollack in a 'brown' period.
 
2013-09-14 06:53:25 AM
I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,
 
2013-09-14 06:55:47 AM
The newer airliner toilets only suck on the ground and up to 10000ft. Higher then that the system uses cabin pressure to BLOW the turds to the holding tank (which, by the way, is filled with blue juice).
 
2013-09-14 06:57:10 AM
i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473
 
2013-09-14 07:08:52 AM

filter: I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,


I don't understand the authors point here.  You cruise at something like 33,000 feet, give or take.  I'm pretty sure the cabing is pressurize at something like...uh...8000 feet? I'm not sure where I read this but it certainly would explain a lot of people having ear problems and having a hard time equilizing to the new air pressure.  I know I do.

I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks.

I've got a few of you pilots here favorited.  Hurry up and explain this because I think this might be a competant pilot who wrote this, but he just sucks at dumbing down the facts for the plebs.

I'm not a pilot but I landed a Cessna 172 once.  Wooo!
 
2013-09-14 07:10:01 AM

HotWingAgenda: opaqueluminosity: HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?

It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...

Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.



It says the blue liquid they had to store in a tank added weight. They had to store it before it was flushed and it added weight to the aircraft. I think it's the reader that doesnt understand what's going on here.
 
2013-09-14 07:15:19 AM
As I will be flying today I'm getting a kick.

/Exit row for me.
//Keep the myth alive thank you
///airlines should have flights only for families with children
 
2013-09-14 07:15:33 AM
HotWingAgenda:

Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

Sadly, if the journalist had a basic grasp of the English language he would have made clear that the blue liquid that pushed "waster" into the tank came from a reservoir on the plane.  The writer's failure to make that clear evidently has led at least one logician to assume that some amazing delivery system propelled the liquid onto the plane for each flush.
 
2013-09-14 07:21:48 AM
content8.flixster.com
 
2013-09-14 07:28:56 AM

White_Scarf_Syndrome: filter: I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,

I don't understand the authors point here.  You cruise at something like 33,000 feet, give or take.  I'm pretty sure the cabing is pressurize at something like...uh...8000 feet? I'm not sure where I read this but it certainly would explain a lot of people having ear problems and having a hard time equilizing to the new air pressure.  I know I do.

I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks.

I've got a few of you pilots here favorited.  Hurry up and explain this because I think this might be a competant pilot who wrote this, but he just sucks at dumbing down the facts for the plebs.

I'm not a pilot but I landed a Cessna 172 once.  Wooo!


The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.
 
2013-09-14 07:30:40 AM

some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473


Holy crap!  You gotta be shiattin' me.
 
2013-09-14 07:35:51 AM

some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473


Nothing good has ever come from clicking on a liveleak link, yet I did anyway.
 
2013-09-14 07:46:08 AM

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


Unless the plane is flying at 5000 ft, you will not have a signal.
 
2013-09-14 07:53:00 AM

RoyBatty: US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.



Virgin Airlines crapper (747)



Delta Airlines - We love to fly and it shows



SkyWest



United Airlines - Official 2012 Rhapsody In Blue Motif


I don't mind those ground level toilets (you get them all over Asia) as much as I mind a speckled toilet seat.

People! Don't you think you are coming back to the toilet, or do you just not care what you sit on?!


/person going in after me gets the cleanest bathroom ever from all my scrubbing and wiping
//it might be wet though as I wash up for prayer
///in-flight slashies!
 
2013-09-14 08:30:32 AM

RatMaster999: some_beer_drinker: i am a big fan of the upper decker. since there is no tank, ill just leave the log on the back of the seat.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=742_1378572473

Holy crap!  You gotta be shiattin' me.


I wonder who the asshole was who did that.  Assholes just want to shiat all over everything.
 
2013-09-14 08:46:50 AM

HotWingAgenda: That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.


I took it as there probably a pair of tanks, one for fresh and one for waste. It makes perfect sense to me. Simply having that system added weight and also had other potential problems. Even if the wording is somewhat poor I'd like to think that a little common sense would fill in the gaps...

italie: Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.


So, the only proof that a consumer device caused radio interference was when the strength of the recreated signal was greater than the consumer device is able to produce? That means that the never happened then. You might as well say that's it verified that a toddler can punch a hole in an engine block. Hell, it's "possible".

Plane electronics are HEAVILY shielded for this very reason. No mass market cell phone is able to effect a properly designed plane. It might be an issue for random third world planes but here in the first world it isn't an issue.

Think about this, when the plane is on the ground and during ascent and decent it's being bombarded with radio signals anyway. Thousands, if not millions, of radio signals from varying sources stronger than produced by a cell phone are hitting the plane anyway.

Although technically possible it's not probable. It's never happened in this modern age, there's never been proof of it, and as such it is a myth.
 
2013-09-14 08:49:42 AM
"I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks."

"The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.
"

Newer emergency overwing exit doors are designed to open outward on a hinge instead of the "plug" type, and this is the same for cargo doors: almost every door that isn't plug type has pins or latches. When you pressurize the cabin, you create the differential pressure that pushes a plug type door into the frame, and that same differential pressure pushes the pins/latches against their corresponding holes/bars. The amount of friction created from that pressure makes it impossible to move the pin/latch, and you'd likely break the handle that would release them before you got any of them to move, provided the metal used in the pins/latches is strong enough, and you don't have a motor working to help you unlatch it (see UA 811).
 
2013-09-14 08:54:00 AM
Patrick Smith wrote a regular column for Salon back when Salon was worth reading. His site is askthepilot.com
 
2013-09-14 09:01:35 AM

FNG: I'm fine with keeping the cell phone myth alive.

A large percentage of people fly for business reasons. Can you imagine every sales rep on your plane on the way to a meeting or conference talking loudly on their phones the whole flight?

When you land, what happens? All those phone calls you would have had to endure as a passenger all happen at once as you're trying to get off the plane.

Keep the myth alive, people.


THIS!!

I fly to Alaska a few times a year (painfully beautiful place if you've never been) and TRY to get overnight flights so I arrive in the morning.

I xanax the shiat out of myself (flying makes me VERY nervous) and try to get some sleep on the flight.

If the business ppl were on their phones all night long, i'd end up being shot by an air marshall for attempting to choke the life out of all the p who wont stfu and let the other 90% of us sleep.

/dont wake me up for snacks either.
 
2013-09-14 09:01:59 AM
italie:
Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.

Yup.  No matter how well designed and how frequently inpected, the electronics in a plane aren't perfect.  Shielding wires get disconnected, grounds aren't perfect, due to corrosion, wear or breakage. MOST of the time, you're fine, but please don't make that phone call when the plane's coming down through rain and clouds and the pilot's depending on the ILS to find the runway.  We'd like to LAND on the runway, not be splattered all over it because some d*ckwad's cellphone signal interfered with the ILS system.
 
2013-09-14 09:26:11 AM
ka1axy:

Yup.  No matter how well designed and how frequently inpected, the electronics in a plane aren't perfect.  Shielding wires get disconnected, grounds aren't perfect, due to corrosion, wear or breakage. MOST of the time, you're fine, but please don't make that phone call when the plane's coming down through rain and clouds and the pilot's depending on the ILS to find the runway.  We'd like to LAND on the runway, not be splattered all over it because some d*ckwad's cellphone signal interfered with the ILS system.

They bother to shield the wires now?  I thought they didn't do that, so they could save weight.
 
2013-09-14 09:28:36 AM

CtrlAltDestroy: HotWingAgenda: That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.

I took it as there probably a pair of tanks, one for fresh and one for waste. It makes perfect sense to me. Simply having that system added weight and also had other potential problems. Even if the wording is somewhat poor I'd like to think that a little common sense would fill in the gaps...

italie: Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.

So, the only proof that a consumer device caused radio interference was when the strength of the recreated signal was greater than the consumer device is able to produce? That means that the never happened then. You might as well say that's it verified that a toddler can punch a hole in an engine block. Hell, it's "possible".

Plane electronics are HEAVILY shielded for this very reason. No mass market cell phone is able to effect a properly designed plane. It might be an issue for random third world planes but here in the first world it isn't an issue.

Think about this, when the plane is on the ground and during ascent and decent it's being bombarded with radio signals anyway. Thousands, if not millions, of radio signals from varying sources stronger than produced by a cell phone are hitting the plane anyway.

Although technically possible it's not probable. It's never happened in this modern age, there's never been proof of it, and as such it is a myth.


It used to happen all the time. All I've ever experienced from it is a static clicking through the headphones. I've never had one interfere with a navigation system. Since things have gone digital, its increasingly more rare to have any interference at all.
 
2013-09-14 09:56:18 AM

iron_city_ap: It used to happen all the time. All I've ever experienced from it is a static clicking through the headphones. I've never had one interfere with a navigation system. Since things have gone digital, its increasingly more rare to have any interference at all.


Sure, used to. That's why I added the "modern" qualifier. Today it isn't an issue. There's no technical reason to ban cell phones or other devices.

The self centered assholes who want to ban them in order to force other people to adhere to their personal wants and who place their personal desires above everyone else isn't a valid reason other.
 
2013-09-14 10:18:21 AM

Candygram4Mongo: I always just assumed there was a garbage disposal at the bottom of that thing...


There is.  It's called Seamus Eleventy Poopgrinder and its safety record is stellar - there are usually only two or three incidents a year of people getting their junk caught in its self-cleaning stainless steel jaws.  We take pride in our efforts to promote safety, for example we put the crushing jaws in as the first stage instead of the cross-cutting rotating blades.
 
2013-09-14 10:20:00 AM
I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.
 
2013-09-14 10:21:54 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.


And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.
 
2013-09-14 10:27:38 AM

Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.


Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.
 
2013-09-14 10:31:13 AM
Still...id rather them not allow cell use in flight for reasons I and many others already stated.

Im just saying the whole "it'll kill or interfere with the plane's electronics" thing is a bunch of crap
 
2013-09-14 10:50:52 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.


Exactly. Short of a purpose designed weapon there is NOTHING that anyone will bring on board that will make a difference.

It seems like people see something electronic and since they don't understand exactly what makes it work they assume that it's made of magic and demon powers and is now capable of the worst scenarios that they're unknowledged minds can create.

People with even basic knowledge of technology can look at shows like NCIS and see how much bullshiat the things they do are. But farking millions of people think that it's all possible.

"Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge."
 
2013-09-14 10:57:18 AM

CtrlAltDestroy: The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.

Exactly. Short of a purpose designed weapon there is NOTHING that anyone will bring on board that will make a difference.

It seems like people see something electronic and since they don't understand exactly what makes it work they assume that it's made of magic and demon powers and is now capable of the worst scenarios that they're unknowledged minds can create.

People with even basic knowledge of technology can look at shows like NCIS and see how much bullshiat the things they do are. But farking millions of people think that it's all possible.

"Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge."


Here's another thing many don't realize....

FAA has approved cell phones for in flight use. It is the FCC that had banned it due to a cell phone at 30000ft being visible to dozen of towers at a time and causing network issues.
 
2013-09-14 11:00:42 AM

kidgenius: CtrlAltDestroy: The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.

Exactly. Short of a purpose designed weapon there is NOTHING that anyone will bring on board that will make a difference.

It seems like people see something electronic and since they don't understand exactly what makes it work they assume that it's made of magic and demon powers and is now capable of the worst scenarios that they're unknowledged minds can create.

People with even basic knowledge of technology can look at shows like NCIS and see how much bullshiat the things they do are. But farking millions of people think that it's all possible.

"Your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge."

Here's another thing many don't realize....

FAA has approved cell phones for in flight use. It is the FCC that had banned it due to a cell phone at 30000ft being visible to dozen of towers at a time and causing network issues.


Then why do the airlines give the bullshiat "it'll mess with the plane" crap instead of the truth?

Hell...even just say "Look...we are all crammed in here. No one wants to hear your phone conversation, so we dont allow cellphone use."

Just don't lie and try to use fear-mongering nonsense.
 
2013-09-14 11:09:09 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.


And yet, if they didn't have this strong paranoia about anything going wrong, if something DID go wrong on that billion-to-one chance, they'd be crucified because WHY DIDN'T THEY TEST FOR THAT?

It's all well and good to have triple-redundant, multiple cross-linked backups, and then a single point of failure takes them all out anyway, and there's no more backups because what are the odds of THAT happening?
 
2013-09-14 11:35:24 AM

CtrlAltDestroy: HotWingAgenda: That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.

I took it as there probably a pair of tanks, one for fresh and one for waste. It makes perfect sense to me. Simply having that system added weight and also had other potential problems. Even if the wording is somewhat poor I'd like to think that a little common sense would fill in the gaps...

italie: Interference, while not a primary concern, is not a myth. It's possible. There have been a handful of suspected interference incidents documented, but only one of those has been verified in testing. In that particular case I use the term verified loosely, because the levels of interference they had to recreate the incident were well above the levels transmitted by most radio devices.

So, the only proof that a consumer device caused radio interference was when the strength of the recreated signal was greater than the consumer device is able to produce? That means that the never happened then. You might as well say that's it verified that a toddler can punch a hole in an engine block. Hell, it's "possible".

Plane electronics are HEAVILY shielded for this very reason. No mass market cell phone is able to effect a properly designed plane. It might be an issue for random third world planes but here in the first world it isn't an issue.

Think about this, when the plane is on the ground and during ascent and decent it's being bombarded with radio signals anyway. Thousands, if not millions, of radio signals from varying sources stronger than produced by a cell phone are hitting the plane anyway.

Although technically possible it's not probable. It's never happened in this modern age, there's never been proof of it, and as such it is a myth.


WOW, where do I begin...

Just because the device needed more power than a normal consumer device would put out does NOT preclude it from being a real world scenario. You have no idea what people have done to their electronics before boarding a plane. You also have no Idea what type of custom electronics people are bringing on a plane.

Yes, planes are designed to be shielded from interference. As tech increases inside the plane, more and more wires are getting routed through the plane, most right under your seat. It becomes increasingly complicated to cover every base.
You can't shield antennas, as their purpose is to pick up signals. Those antennas aren't always in the nose of the plane. All it takes is for a device near the antenna to be putting out a stronger signal than the desired incoming signal. Ever have a truckers CB radio momentarily kill your cars stereo? Same principle.

Please explain "Third world plane". Really. I'd like to hear this. Does Boeing have a "budget line" that Air Kenya purchases from?


Yes, the plane is getting hit with thousands of signals from other sources. Most of which are NOT on a similar frequency as most of the planes avionics. Most of which have traveled for some distance before reaching the plane (i.e. weakening them considerably).

I would also say that the modern world is a more likely environment for issues to occur for the following reasons:
- Personal electronic devices are FAR more prevalent, and people are carrying more of them.
- While there is better regulation on transmission power limits from most common devices, there are exponentially more manufactures of these devices, and churning them out at a breakneck pace. "Certified specs" may not always meet '"real world" deliverables.
- As more and more wire is strung through avionic systems, the "potential" for unwanted interference climbs. Filtering unwanted signals from any given device without hindering the wanted signals is one of the hardest tasks in electrical design.
- You are in a giant waveguide. Signals are bouncing all over the inside of that plane. As someone who has dealt with signal integrity to a parts per TRILLION level, the inside of an aircraft is electrical hell.
 
2013-09-14 11:39:42 AM
Kinda OT, But this is as good as place as any to ask this.

Hubby tells me yesterday that he wants to go to Italy. Great! Only problem is that I am realllyyy afraid to fly. I mean like really afraid. Years ago I dated a guy who worked for Northwest airlines, and he was able to get me on a plane that wasn't going anywhere, and I still need to be pushed down the jetway to get on the plane. Just the thought of me flying makes me kind of nauseous.

Anyone here successfully get over their fear of flying? How did you do it? Yes, I realize it's a stupid fear, but it's still fear. I don't think just sucking it up and getting on a plane is going to do it for me. I'm fairly certain that i'll embarras myself and family with the panic attack.
 
2013-09-14 11:48:59 AM
Don't fly, don't care but good luck to all Farkers who have to ..
 
2013-09-14 11:56:53 AM
What happens when someone flushes the toilet on an airplane in mid-flight is a question that has haunted me since childhood and has taken me to the far corners of the earth in search of answer. Now that I know what happens, maybe I can finally get some sleep.
 
2013-09-14 12:00:32 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: White_Scarf_Syndrome: filter: I believe you CAN open a door before you reach cruising altitude. Pressure isn't that different. Just saying....,

I don't understand the authors point here.  You cruise at something like 33,000 feet, give or take.  I'm pretty sure the cabing is pressurize at something like...uh...8000 feet? I'm not sure where I read this but it certainly would explain a lot of people having ear problems and having a hard time equilizing to the new air pressure.  I know I do.

I was about to mention the door opening bit, but then I realized that his explanation only works if the door opens inward.  The negative pressure outside relative to the cabin pressure would make it very hard to open the door inward.  Now if it opened outward his explanation sucks.

I've got a few of you pilots here favorited.  Hurry up and explain this because I think this might be a competant pilot who wrote this, but he just sucks at dumbing down the facts for the plebs.

I'm not a pilot but I landed a Cessna 172 once.  Wooo!

The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.


Airplane doors have pins that extend from the door into the body of the airplane when the airplane is pressurized. Regardless of the direction the door opens this is what prevents the door from opening midflight.
 
2013-09-14 12:13:02 PM

The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.


X-Band Radar
Directional antenna.
MUCH higher base frequency than most avionic equipment.
Directed away from avionics

Cell Phone
Operates on many similar frequencies as cockpit equipment
Omni-directional antennas
May be located near avionic antenna

Apples to oranges,  and the reflections are not as strong as you think.

//Also, please convert whatever 2Mah is representing into mW. Thank you.
///Your conversion better be around 50mW
 
2013-09-14 12:15:56 PM

Mister Peejay: And yet, if they didn't have this strong paranoia about anything going wrong, if something DID go wrong on that billion-to-one chance, they'd be crucified because WHY DIDN'T THEY TEST FOR THAT?

It's all well and good to have triple-redundant, multiple cross-linked backups, and then a single point of failure takes them all out anyway, and there's no more backups because what are the odds of THAT happening?


You're not making sense, yet again. What does the engine failure from stress cracks of UA Flight 232 have to do with the FACT that consumer electronic devices pose zero threat to an airplane? If you're saying that, "shiat happens so ban everything" then you're an idiot. If something did happen to make the electronics vulnerable then the airplane's own radio and radar systems would be it's own biggest threat. A cell phone or even a planes full of nothing but cellphones would be a drop of water to in Lake Superior. A non issue.

There's no technical reason to ban them. Just stop with the ignorant fear mongering.

*PLONK*
 
2013-09-14 12:20:34 PM

HotWingAgenda: opaqueluminosity: HotWingAgenda: During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank.

This liquid added weight to the aircraft

Say what? Did they teleport the blue liquid up from ground control for each flush?

It doesn't say each flush added to the weight of the aircraft...

Well the full passage says, "During the 1980s, toilets on planes used a blue liquid that pushed waster from the bowl into a storage tank. This liquid added weight to the aircraft, which consumed more fuel, and if it leaked, frozen blocks of waste could end up falling over town and cities." That implies that the flushing was what added weight, and more fuel was consumed when the toilet added that weight, potentially causing a leak in the waste tank.

I'm sick of journalists not having a basic grasp of the English language.



The smaller commuter planes still use the blue Juice. The holding tank for the waste is directly below you. The thing your sitting on, other than the seat itself, is a shroud that covers the tank. this guy was talking about the Large planes.  757, 767, etc. The tank for that is behind a wall in the aft baggage bin.,  yes, it's a vaccumed system  also in the sytem is what is called a "turd cutter" to prevent the lines from becoming clogged.
    Also, the blue ice chunks happened because the lav is serviced from outside the aircraft.  the valve that they connect to put in the blue juice would leak and over the course of the flight the blue juice would build up and freeze and when it got large enough it would break off and fall.  that whole issue has been fixed now, so you won't see this happening anymore.

/ the more your know
 
2013-09-14 12:20:41 PM

SexiSadi: Kinda OT, But this is as good as place as any to ask this.

Hubby tells me yesterday that he wants to go to Italy. Great! Only problem is that I am realllyyy afraid to fly. I mean like really afraid. Years ago I dated a guy who worked for Northwest airlines, and he was able to get me on a plane that wasn't going anywhere, and I still need to be pushed down the jetway to get on the plane. Just the thought of me flying makes me kind of nauseous.

Anyone here successfully get over their fear of flying? How did you do it? Yes, I realize it's a stupid fear, but it's still fear. I don't think just sucking it up and getting on a plane is going to do it for me. I'm fairly certain that i'll embarras myself and family with the panic attack.


Me. To the point i had to take MASSIVE doses of xanax.

Was flying with my fiance back to her home state to meet her family...and i was nervous as fark. She told me I turned white as a ghost.

After my third flight, i only get nervous now during bad turbulence.
 
2013-09-14 12:25:23 PM

CtrlAltDestroy: Mister Peejay: And yet, if they didn't have this strong paranoia about anything going wrong, if something DID go wrong on that billion-to-one chance, they'd be crucified because WHY DIDN'T THEY TEST FOR THAT?

It's all well and good to have triple-redundant, multiple cross-linked backups, and then a single point of failure takes them all out anyway, and there's no more backups because what are the odds of THAT happening?

You're not making sense, yet again. What does the engine failure from stress cracks of UA Flight 232 have to do with the FACT that consumer electronic devices pose zero threat to an airplane? If you're saying that, "shiat happens so ban everything" then you're an idiot. If something did happen to make the electronics vulnerable then the airplane's own radio and radar systems would be it's own biggest threat. A cell phone or even a planes full of nothing but cellphones would be a drop of water to in Lake Superior. A non issue.

There's no technical reason to ban them. Just stop with the ignorant fear mongering.

*PLONK*


You are missing one key point that invalidates your argument. Avionics are a known entity. They are DESIGNED to work in harmonious non-interference to the best our feeble little engineering skills can produce.

When designing a system, you have no control over what someone may throw at it after it leaves your lab. Most of these avionic systems were designed before cell phones and the like were a common thing.

/ Ain't always the size of the transmitter, it's how you use it.
// Picks up mic, throws it at you.
 
2013-09-14 12:26:50 PM

MrDoh: "He continues that although cellular communication can 'potentially' interfere with cockpit equipment, 'in all likelihood' it doesn't"
Oh, as well as a pilot, he's also an expert on electromagnetic physics and a highly qualified electrical engineer too? Marvelous.

Working tech shouldn't cause problems, but broken tech might.  Thus, instead of having airline staff wandering the aisles with electrical testers, basic volt meters to see if devices work/don't work, they just tell everyone 'turn it off when there's most risk'.   Simple


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  he's not talking about the things the passengers have, he's talking about the aircraft avionics equipment.  Most every plane, it's just directly below your feet in the cabin.  Almost all of the boxes are surrounded by a faraday cage built into the box casing.  On the most sensitive boxes at least. That's why he says it most likely won't interfere.  And that high in the air, a cell phone won't work.  It will just kill your battery.  Your phone will spend all it's time switching from tower to tower and never get a chance to connect.  I flew from Atlanta to Birmingham, AL and tested this.  my dbattery was dead when I got there, becuase of the phones processor constantly in use, and I never connected to a tower.  It was always searching.
 
2013-09-14 12:27:24 PM

italie: The more you eat the more you fart: Mister Peejay: The more you eat the more you fart: I just think all the "OMG the plane's electronics might be fried by a 2Mah (at most) cell phone signal....when there is a 10-50WATT source of microwave radiation less than 3 feet away from all those "delicate" electronics...in the form of the plane's own radar system.

And the plane was tested with that radar in place and operational.  Not with who-knows-what that people bring in.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Yeah...its proven to be able to protect from a microwave source between 1,000 and 2,500 TIMES more powerful.

No way in hell a cellphone is gonna cause a problem if the plane's own radar doesnt. Even the echos reflected back at the plane are far more powerful than a cellphone signal.

X-Band Radar
Directional antenna.
MUCH higher base frequency than most avionic equipment.
Directed away from avionics

Cell Phone
Operates on many similar frequencies as cockpit equipment
Omni-directional antennas
May be located near avionic antenna

Apples to oranges,  and the reflections are not as strong as you think.

//Also, please convert whatever 2Mah is representing into mW. Thank you.
///Your conversion better be around 50mW


I was referring to the max discharge rate of the batteries...a theoretical max output if 100% was used only for signal output.

X-band radar is the main flight radar...but there are also ILS, radar altimeters, and radar barometers, etc. ALL of which are muuuch more powerful than ANYTHING handheld electronic device.

Besides..what another poster said is correct after a google search: the FAA says cellphones are ok (most planes have in-flight wifi/4g).

Explain how the plane's cell transceiver doesnt mess things up...but the Nokia in someone's lap does...esp considering using wifi is omni-directional, uses the exact same fequencies, and is powerful enough to run 150+ ipads onboard.
 
2013-09-14 12:41:11 PM
Not all fleets are created equal. Modern, upgraded aircraft can handle a few cell phones.

Older, non up dated aircraft can not.

Can you tell, just by looking at the machine what the avionics are inside it and how they work? I know I can't. I'll always turn off my devices for take off and landing. I choose caution over getting that last Fark comment in.
 
2013-09-14 12:43:28 PM
The more you eat the more you fart:
I was referring to the max discharge rate of the batteries...a theoretical max output if 100% was used only for signal output.

X-band radar is the main flight radar...but there are also ILS, radar altimeters, and radar barometers, etc. ALL of which are muuuch more powerful than ANYTHING handheld electronic device.

Besides..what another poster said is correct after a google search: the FAA says cellphones are ok (most planes have in-flight wifi/4g).

Explain how the plane's cell transceiver doesnt mess things up...but the Nokia in someone's lap does...esp considering using wifi is omni-directional, uses the exact same fequencies, and is powerful enough to run 150+ ipads onboard.



Listen, the effort is there, I see and recognize that. What you are missing are a few key concepts that I really don't know If I can drive home.

I'm going to mow the lawn right now. You do some reading up on what you've just said, and we'll touch base in an hour.
 
2013-09-14 01:09:54 PM
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-09-14 01:28:30 PM
www.constructionweekonline.com

This is your captain speaking.  You do not buy beer, you only rent it.
 
2013-09-14 06:31:35 PM

yanksfan3000: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: White_Scarf_Syndrome: filter:
The door blowing outward issue applies to the cargo hold doors not the passenger doors.

Airplane doors have pins that extend from the door into the body of the airplane when the airplane is pressurized. Regardless of the direction the door opens this is what prevents the door from opening midflight.


And most of the time those work.
 
2013-09-14 07:44:38 PM

I've been a big fan of Patrick Smith for years, and as daha mentioned, he used to write an excellent column on Slate before they sadly gave him the axe. When he came out with this book a few months ago, I was sure to buy a copy just to support him. Having read most of his columns and having had pilots in the family, the cell phone interference issue is a potentially valid concern, but what is also of great importance is the transformation of those cell phones, iPads, Kindles, etc. into potentially very harmful missiles in the event the plane were to crash. That's why they tell you to put *all* electronic devices away during the times a crash is most likely, takeoff and landing. The article here simplifies what Patrick Smith goes into greater detail into within his book and online articles, that while the interferance thing is probably very unlikely, there are other equally valid safety concerns that overrule the overarching desire many people have in our modern society, the need to be in constant contact with everyone at all times. However, I digress, so go onto Amazon and buy a copy of the book. You won't be disappointed.


img826.imageshack.us

 
2013-09-15 12:05:26 AM

RoyBatty: US Air is trialing new weight saving toilets.

[i.imgur.com image 737x513]


With Japanese signage?  While I'm usually comfortable with squat toilets, I don't think I could use one in a bus, train or airplane.  Also, for the love of all that is holy, if you're using the can on an Amtrak Thruway, don't do it standing up unless you're in Kansas or something where there's no curves and minimal traffic or road wear.  Last thing anyone wants is to follow you in the toilet cubicle and find everything including the TP and paper towels soaked because you were trying to hit a moving target.
 
2013-09-15 12:09:37 AM

Erinvaries: I could see people getting in fights over inconsiderate and rude behavior that comes from cell phone usage. I dont want to hear you talking to your great aunt rita about her variance of health problems.... just like you dont want to hear me leaving voice mail messages to my cat.


Amtrak just tells you to take it to the phone booth unless you're pretty much the only person in the entire car.  On the Cascades trains, they're located in the vestibules between cars, next to the restrooms.  Superliners, typically lower level in coach.  Usually easily indicated by the existing presence of a payphone or evidence of a phone formerly being mounted there, though newer floorplans have the phonebooth, but the phone replaced with a small writing table and a jumpseat.
 
2013-09-15 12:19:11 AM

studebaker hoch: [www.constructionweekonline.com image 800x550]

This is your captain speaking.  You do not buy beer, you only rent it.


The company that's basically keeping the lights on in McMinneville.
 
2013-09-15 06:07:56 AM
Her is a idea to same money for ate airlines,

Only provide food and drink that give GAS, after a 30min time your made you flight into a airship... I think in india that already working on version 2 of this
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report