Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Chicago Trib)   Head of the FCC is, like most sensible people, opposed to cell phone use on airplanes   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 116
    More: Followup, cell phones, airplanes, voice calls  
•       •       •

2265 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-11-23 09:37:10 AM  
I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.
 
2013-11-23 09:48:40 AM  
I'm pretty certain that there's no way a cell phone could carry a call through a flight, anyway.  Although you might be able to receive signal at 30,000 feet, there's no way in hell you're going to be able to transmit back that distance through a giant sardine can.  And your phone would be picking up signals from so many cell sites, that it would likely have no idea what to do.

of course, things could have changed in the way cells handle calls these days, i've been removed from the phone business about 10 years now, but i doubt that they've changed the protocols that drastically.
 
2013-11-23 10:04:50 AM  
I can't imagine sitting next to something like this on the red eye....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM7uAcUlde0

There is going to be a need for many more air marshals.
 
2013-11-23 10:51:34 AM  

NFA: Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?


Can you imagine that same flight, but surrounded by eight or ten assholes shouting into their cell phones?
 
2013-11-23 11:15:31 AM  
I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.
 
2013-11-23 12:05:41 PM  
Yeah, one more reason to hate having to fly.
 
2013-11-23 12:56:28 PM  
Can you imagine trying to post in a thread surrounded by people all blathering on about their oh-so-original take on cell phone use?
 
2013-11-23 01:14:36 PM  

ekdikeo4: I'm pretty certain that there's no way a cell phone could carry a call through a flight, anyway.  Although you might be able to receive signal at 30,000 feet, there's no way in hell you're going to be able to transmit back that distance through a giant sardine can.  And your phone would be picking up signals from so many cell sites, that it would likely have no idea what to do.

of course, things could have changed in the way cells handle calls these days, i've been removed from the phone business about 10 years now, but i doubt that they've changed the protocols that drastically.


You are a few miles above the ground. You have a line of sight to dozens - maybe hundreds - of towers. The system already seamlessly can hand you over form one tower to another. You'll always have a halfway decent signal being that high up; probably a couple bars tops, but doable. Remember "let's roll"? Also, cell towers could modify their radiation pattern at the towers - maybe even without retrofitting.

But may God have mercy on our souls if this is allowed. Flying sucks the sweat off the a dead man's balls already. This would suck the entire cock right off. I envision fly-rage leading to fisticuffs. But... earplugs. I already do my best to tune out all the other mewling puking fleshbags that I'm forced to share space with. I really think this could lead to violence if this became widespread.
 
2013-11-23 01:46:02 PM  
I thought cell phones didn't work on planes, except magically on 9/11. Every time I've checked, I can't get a signal.
 
2013-11-23 01:48:38 PM  

NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?


The gym TVs are always tuned to FoxNooz, and they were talking about this yesterday. One of the Ubiquitous Blond Bimbos said that she would stop flying if she had to listen to somebody on their cell phone for an entire flight. That's the only time I've ever agreed with anything uttered by a UBB.
 
2013-11-23 02:17:51 PM  

ekdikeo4: I'm pretty certain that there's no way a cell phone could carry a call through a flight, anyway.  Although you might be able to receive signal at 30,000 feet, there's no way in hell you're going to be able to transmit back that distance through a giant sardine can.  And your phone would be picking up signals from so many cell sites, that it would likely have no idea what to do.

of course, things could have changed in the way cells handle calls these days, i've been removed from the phone business about 10 years now, but i doubt that they've changed the protocols that drastically.


google picocell and femtocell.
 
2013-11-23 02:18:51 PM  
Needs hero tag.
 
2013-11-23 02:21:38 PM  

Triumph: I thought cell phones didn't work on planes, except magically on 9/11. Every time I've checked, I can't get a signal.


You probably weren't cruising a few hundred feet above a major metropolis on your way to crash into a building.

Cellphones lose signal above a few thousand feet. They can "see" too many towers and get confused.

Equipment can be installed on aircraft to make them work in flight. Personally I hope they don allow voice calls but let people text, no harm in that.
 
2013-11-23 02:22:20 PM  
I predict that if cell phones are allowed on airplanes the 5% of people are have cell phone or bluetooth devices surgically implanted on their ear will create a s**tload of drama on airplanes not seen before.

It is a good thing those airplanes phones are so expensive.
 
2013-11-23 02:23:28 PM  
Seriously though, we need less cell phones in life not more.
 
2013-11-23 02:23:44 PM  
I'm unclear on why anyone is discussing using cell phones on flights, because once more than about 4 ground cell towers are able to contact your phone, they shut down any ability for you to make a call anyway.

The original rule for "no cell phones on planes" rule dates back to the mid 80s when AT&T and other cellular carriers didn't want people to be able to contact their home network and avoid roaming charges, lobbied and passed under the false veil of "safety".
 
2013-11-23 02:25:11 PM  

NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.


I usually resort to an episode of explosive diarrhea in such cases. It sends a more widespreading message, so to speak, than does a disapproving stare and a muttered "shh!"

I would accept texting, and restrain myself to prolonged, growling farts.
 
2013-11-23 02:25:17 PM  

ekdikeo4: I'm pretty certain that there's no way a cell phone could carry a call through a flight, anyway.


That's be even worse.  Sitting next to some asshole saying, "Hello?  HELLO??  HELLOOOO?  Are you there??" for a couple hours?  Bleh.


/expect many more air rage incidents if voice calls are allowed in flight.
 
2013-11-23 02:25:31 PM  
Some of us have important jobs which require us to be in contact 24/7. I frequently get emergency calls regarding cardiopulmonary bypass techniques and symptoms of post perfusion syndrome. I'm in the shipping business and I think I may have been given someone's old number, but I'm right there on Wikipedia, ready to save lives!
 
2013-11-23 02:28:07 PM  
If they go ahead with allowing cell phones on flights they better offer a phone/no phone section for seating options.
 
2013-11-23 02:29:51 PM  

pounddawg: If they go ahead with allowing cell phones on flights they better offer a phone/no phone section for seating options.


So, they're going to stick some seats on the wings?
 
2013-11-23 02:32:04 PM  
Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing.
 
2013-11-23 02:34:54 PM  
Cue all the people who, if it annoys them, they have reasons to ban it, and if they do it, they have reasons to legalise it.
 
2013-11-23 02:36:20 PM  

NFA: "I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?"



Gosh, yeah, that would be pretty terrible. Good thing it's never existed.

cache.gawkerassets.com

/ We're only against it if we can't charge for it.
 
2013-11-23 02:38:19 PM  
It would be better is he was against imposing censorship on free speech because some ignorant social conservative group with "family" in its name got their panties in a bunch over seeing some body part or dirty words.
 
2013-11-23 02:40:27 PM  
spmkk
NFA: "I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes. BUT NOT CELLPHONES!
Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?"
Gosh, yeah, that would be pretty terrible. Good thing it's never existed.
/ We're only against it if we can't charge for it.


Good point, but it does have the added benefit of keeping calls short and to the point. You don't have to hear most people drone on about the football game, the kids or other social drama. And incoming call are out too.
 
2013-11-23 02:46:25 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing.


They already make them small enough to fir in your hand. If you used one on a plane, there is a good chance the FCC and DHS are going to want to talk to you.
 
2013-11-23 02:46:51 PM  

ComaToast: Some of us have important jobs which require us to be in contact 24/7. I frequently get emergency calls regarding cardiopulmonary bypass techniques and symptoms of post perfusion syndrome. I'm in the shipping business and I think I may have been given someone's old number, but I'm right there on Wikipedia, ready to save lives!


I get calls of people thinking I am Papa Johns.  I started taking their order and telling them about our new 6-pack delivery service, tell them we will be there in 20 mins or it's free, hang up and turn off my phone.
 
2013-11-23 02:47:53 PM  
"YEAH, I'M TALKING ON AN AIRPLANE...HAHAHAHA!!!...I KNOW, RIGHT??...HAHAHAHA!!!"

I'd punch the guy right in the peanuts.
 
2013-11-23 02:49:34 PM  

Enemabag Jones: "Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing."



Yes, because your right to not be subjected to (gasp!) nearby conversation in a semi-public place supersedes someone else's right to stay connected with their work team or speak to their loved ones.

You have every right and opportunity to be on a plane where the riff-raff isn't doing anything to annoy you: charter one. But you don't like that option, so you'd rather legislate other people out of rights -- or break the law yourself to deprive others of their rights, as you explicitly suggest above -- so that you can travel in an environment custom-tailored to your liking without paying extra for it.


images.nitrosell.com
 
2013-11-23 02:49:41 PM  

NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.


I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?
 
2013-11-23 02:50:16 PM  
redmid17
They already make them small enough to fir in your hand. If you used one on a plane, there is a good chance the FCC and DHS are going to want to talk to you.


Discretion would be in order.
 
2013-11-23 02:50:28 PM  

neilbradley: I'm unclear on why anyone is discussing using cell phones on flights, because once more than about 4 ground cell towers are able to contact your phone, they shut down any ability for you to make a call anyway.

The original rule for "no cell phones on planes" rule dates back to the mid 80s when AT&T and other cellular carriers didn't want people to be able to contact their home network and avoid roaming charges, lobbied and passed under the false veil of "safety".


They will be putting micro-cells on the planes themselves and tying them to the same satellite system that provides the internet. That's how it will work. They do it on cruise ships, too.
 
2013-11-23 02:55:58 PM  
spmkk
You have every right and opportunity to be on a plane where the riff-raff isn't doing anything to annoy you: charter one. But you don't like that option, so you'd rather legislate other people out of rights -- or break the law yourself to deprive others of their rights, as you explicitly suggest above -- so that you can travel in an environment custom-tailored to your liking without paying extra for it.


I used the word discretion earlier. You would not use a keychain tv remote to shut off a tv in a sports bar during a game. But it if is something nothing is watching anyway, it could be done quietly.

A person on a ten minute call involving work, by all means. The person going into the 40 minute mark blathering on about the grandkids, maybe time to put your hands in your pocket and hit the unlock car button.
 
2013-11-23 02:56:21 PM  

Enemabag Jones: redmid17
They already make them small enough to fir in your hand. If you used one on a plane, there is a good chance the FCC and DHS are going to want to talk to you.

Discretion would be in order.


Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.

Overfiend: NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.

I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?


I'm a pretty frequent flier too. I think people are overestimating how much of an issue this would be. They've already got this on international flights for a bunch of international airlines. Have yet to hear of a "air rage" incident.
 
2013-11-23 03:01:55 PM  
How many people are going to overwhelm the plane internet trying to use Skype?
 
2013-11-23 03:03:39 PM  
Everyone is talking about cell phone towers, but wouldn't Skype or Google voice work fine on wifi?
 
2013-11-23 03:06:02 PM  

Intrepid00: How many people are going to overwhelm the plane internet trying to use Skype?


I would guess none. All of the airlines with in-flight access I'm aware of block high bandwidth apps like Netflix and Skype. Satellite bandwidth is expensive and those services would compete with the inflight options the airlines want to make you pay for.

http://www.southwest.com/wifi/

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/wifi/faqs.as px
 
2013-11-23 03:06:38 PM  

The Angry Hand of God: Everyone is talking about cell phone towers, but wouldn't Skype or Google voice work fine on wifi?


No. They block it
 
2013-11-23 03:06:49 PM  
redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.


I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.

I'm a pretty frequent flier too. I think people are overestimating how much of an issue this would be. They've already got this on international flights for a bunch of international airlines. Have yet to hear of a "air rage" incident.

You might be confusing the average international flier and the average domestic flier.
 
2013-11-23 03:07:37 PM  

The Angry Hand of God: Everyone is talking about cell phone towers, but wouldn't Skype or Google voice work fine on wifi?



In-flight WiFi providers typically block those services. You can VPN around those restrictions (never tried it myself, but I can't see why not), but I'm not sure the bandwidth would allow for a very good voice connection, especially if a lot of people are trying to use it.
 
2013-11-23 03:08:12 PM  

Overfiend: NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.

I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?


Designate a flight as "quiet" or "non-quiet" for cell phone use. Anyone who breaks the rule is removed from the plane, preferably in flight.
 
2013-11-23 03:10:31 PM  

spmkk: Enemabag Jones: "Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing."


Yes, because your right to not be subjected to (gasp!) nearby conversation in a semi-public place supersedes someone else's right to stay connected with their work team or speak to their loved ones.


Speaking of things that are not rights.

You have every right and opportunity to be on a plane where the riff-raff isn't doing anything to annoy you: charter one. But you don't like that option, so you'd rather legislate other people out of rights -- or break the law yourself to deprive others of their rights, as you explicitly suggest above -- so that you can travel in an environment custom-tailored to your liking without paying extra for it.


On trains they have 'quiet cars.' On planes there is no such option. Institute a quiet cabin policy and charge a fee for the 'luxury' and then your point might be valid.
 
2013-11-23 03:12:09 PM  
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.

I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.


Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.

I'm a pretty frequent flier too. I think people are overestimating how much of an issue this would be. They've already got this on international flights for a bunch of international airlines. Have yet to hear of a "air rage" incident.

You might be confusing the average international flier and the average domestic flier.


No I'm aware there is a bit of a disparity in the travel habits of those groups. I just don't think cell phone usage on domestic flights would be as egregious as people think it would be.
 
2013-11-23 03:15:59 PM  
redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.


That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.
 
2013-11-23 03:19:36 PM  

Enemabag Jones: redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.

That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.


It's okay to admit you don't know how things work.
 
2013-11-23 03:19:43 PM  

Enemabag Jones: spmkk
You have every right and opportunity to be on a plane where the riff-raff isn't doing anything to annoy you: charter one. But you don't like that option, so you'd rather legislate other people out of rights -- or break the law yourself to deprive others of their rights, as you explicitly suggest above -- so that you can travel in an environment custom-tailored to your liking without paying extra for it.

I used the word discretion earlier. You would not use a keychain tv remote to shut off a tv in a sports bar during a game. But it if is something nothing is watching anyway, it could be done quietly.

A person on a ten minute call involving work, by all means. The person going into the 40 minute mark blathering on about the grandkids, maybe time to put your hands in your pocket and hit the unlock car button.


By all means get yourself a jammer before your next flight, I hear there are some you can buy from overseas. I encourage you because I'm dying to read about your arrest when your busted for using a jammer and you don't understand why.
 
2013-11-23 03:23:29 PM  
Easy solution for jerks shouting into their cell phones: The flight attendants tell them to shut up, or be removed from the airplane and placed on a no-fly list. They can already do this to disruptive people.

This will change the behavior of 98% of the potential "shouters" in a hurry.

The main reason we aren't talking on our cell phones during flights is because Boeing and other companies, along with airlines, make money on in-flight phone service.

Allow in-flight cell phone usage, along with texting (which will take care of the most disruptive types, anyway). I rarely use my phone, but I'd love the option of being able to make a call home before landing, just to let them know I am almost there (or remind somebody I need a pick up)
 
2013-11-23 03:25:02 PM  
The primary reason Im all for using electronic devices for more of the flight than previously is so I can have the following experience.

1) Sit in chair
2) Listen to safety briefing, find the closest exist
3) Takeoff (I enjoy watching the wings....its cool)
4) Stick headphones in ears for entire duration of flight drowning out both babies and annoying jackholes
5) Land aircraft
6) Leave plane
 
2013-11-23 03:26:51 PM  
There are still no cell towers floating in the middle of the Pacific, right? That's the flight I can't imagine enduring 17 hours of phonedouches on.
 
2013-11-23 03:27:51 PM  
If you're -really- so vital to the company's operations that you can't be out of contact for a few hours, you'll be in a Gulfstream, not booked in coach on a Boeing. I can't understand why people would want to be in constant phone contact. Read a book, play some games on your tablet, look out the window. Relax!
 
2013-11-23 03:29:29 PM  

Overfiend: NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.

I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?


As someone who remembers the old question about smoking, I can almost see it morphing into, "Yes sir, and will that be Talking or non-Talking"
 
2013-11-23 03:30:58 PM  
redmid17 ,
Enemabag Jones: redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.
That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.
It's okay to admit you don't know how things work.


Do you know perfectly how radio frequencies, are you a radio engineer?

I am discussing this. If a GMS or CDMA band can be used on a plane, it is possible that sending conflicting signals within that band might work. I know it would be illegal. If there were devices in that frequency for airplane devices (within CDMA, GSM), then cell phones probably could not be used on them.

This would actually be an interesting technical conversation, and I am not in my personal lab designing a cell phone jammer into a GM remote. Throwing out ideas and doing it are two different things.

Do keep in mind other people are not as careful as I am and I bet someone would eventually try it.
 
2013-11-23 03:31:53 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: It would be better is he was against imposing censorship on free speech because some ignorant social conservative group with "family" in its name got their panties in a bunch over seeing some body part or dirty words.


Because this is America, and in America nothing is more important than Family Values.

Manson Family Values.
 
2013-11-23 03:33:30 PM  

DrunkWithImpotence: Overfiend: NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.

I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?

As someone who remembers the old question about smoking, I can almost see it morphing into, "Yes sir, and will that be Talking or non-Talking"


For some reason that sounds like a scene from Airplane to me.

/love that movie
 
2013-11-23 03:34:49 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Overfiend: NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.

I love the term "stink eye".

As a frequent flies business traveler (I don't talk much on the cell phone but I do email and text from it quite a bit) I am sitting on the fence.

So many people use headphones for music or noise cancelling, cell phone use might not be as big a problem for a large group of airline passengers.

As a frequent rider on Amtrak I do appreciate the "Quiet Cars".

Maybe there's a way people could have their cake and cell phone use too?

Designate a flight as "quiet" or "non-quiet" for cell phone use. Anyone who breaks the rule is removed from the plane, preferably in flight.


"This is your stop sir. You have 7.8 seconds to complete your call."
 
2013-11-23 03:36:19 PM  

Enemabag Jones: redmid17 ,
Enemabag Jones: redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.
That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.
It's okay to admit you don't know how things work.

Do you know perfectly how radio frequencies, are you a radio engineer?

I am discussing this. If a GMS or CDMA band can be used on a plane, it is possible that sending conflicting signals within that band might work. I know it would be illegal. If there were devices in that frequency for airplane devices (within CDMA, GSM), then cell phones probably could not be used on them.

This would actually be an interesting technical conversation, and I am not in my personal lab designing a cell phone jammer into a GM remote. Throwing out ideas and doing it are two different things.

Do keep in mind other people are not as careful as I am and I bet someone would eventually try it.


No I am not an engineer. I just don't like it when people present obviously stupid and clearly illegal options for a problem that does not and might never exist.

Koodz: There are still no cell towers floating in the middle of the Pacific, right? That's the flight I can't imagine enduring 17 hours of phonedouches on.


You can already make phone calls on a lot of intercontinental flights. Emirates and Qantas give that option to passengers.
 
2013-11-23 03:38:14 PM  

buzzcut73: If you're -really- so vital to the company's operations that you can't be out of contact for a few hours, you'll be in a Gulfstream, not booked in coach on a Boeing. I can't understand why people would want to be in constant phone contact. Read a book, play some games on your tablet, look out the window. Relax!


Seriously. What are these super important people going to tell their coworkers anyway? "Sorry, can't get to the office right now, I'm on a plane." Yeah, that's worth having to put up with every other self, uh, I mean super important person on the plane answering their calls as well.
 
2013-11-23 03:39:55 PM  
So then it's OK to be annoyed if you are in seat A and the person in seat B is talking to the person in seat C?
 
2013-11-23 03:40:05 PM  
redmid17:
No I'm aware there is a bit of a disparity in the travel habits of those groups. I just don't think cell phone usage on domestic flights would be as egregious as people think it would be.

Know how I know you talk way too loud on your cell phone in public places?
 
2013-11-23 03:43:44 PM  

buzzcut73: If you're -really- so vital to the company's operations that you can't be out of contact for a few hours, you'll be in a Gulfstream, not booked in coach on a Boeing. I can't understand why people would want to be in constant phone contact. Read a book, play some games on your tablet, look out the window. Relax!


mrbesilly.typepad.com

Just not "Words With Friends".
 
2013-11-23 03:45:51 PM  

FloydA: redmid17:
No I'm aware there is a bit of a disparity in the travel habits of those groups. I just don't think cell phone usage on domestic flights would be as egregious as people think it would be.

Know how I know you talk way too loud on your cell phone in public places?


I hardly ever use my cell phone outside of my apartment. I average about 50 call minutes a month. Overwhelming percentage of my phone conversations are on my home phone, office phone, or via texting. I don't have a car and use public transit or walk where I'm going. My text to talk ratio is probably at least 50-1.
 
2013-11-23 03:53:28 PM  

Coastalgrl: 2) Listen to safety briefing, find the closest exist


How very existentialist.
 
2013-11-23 03:55:01 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing.


I owned one of the keychain TV remotes, and it was effing awesome. The ability to silence the ubiquitous televisions in waiting rooms, restaurants and airports was a godsend. I will be among the first to purchase a keychain cell jammer as soon as they're available.
 
2013-11-23 04:07:35 PM  

ComaToast: Some of us have important jobs which require us to be in contact 24/7. I frequently get emergency calls regarding cardiopulmonary bypass techniques and symptoms of post perfusion syndrome. I'm in the shipping business and I think I may have been given someone's old number, but I'm right there on Wikipedia, ready to save lives!


But are you still able to make it to the gym in 26 minutes?
 
2013-11-23 04:19:51 PM  

neilbradley: I'm unclear on why anyone is discussing using cell phones on flights, because once more than about 4 ground cell towers are able to contact your phone, they shut down any ability for you to make a call anyway.

The original rule for "no cell phones on planes" rule dates back to the mid 80s when AT&T and other cellular carriers didn't want people to be able to contact their home network and avoid roaming charges, lobbied and passed under the false veil of "safety".


People like you drive me up a farking wall.

Cell phones and PEDs came about quickly, faster than testing could be done to certify "safe use", and that all airborn equipment was properly protected (remember half of the instruments in these planes was designed before cellphones were a common thing). When testing was first started, control on the power output of personal electronic devices was not as well regulated as it is today. Early on, *ONE* single in flight incident was recorded where an electronic device interfered with a cockpit monitor. The monitor weakness was found, but only under extreme conditions that should have never been created from a single PED, phone, etc.

To view this from the eyes of the FAA and safety, you can't test for every single device someone might bring on a plane, nor can you test for every combination of device interference. It just isn't possible. You had a known occurrence of interference. You had a potential safety risk, even if infinitesimal, that you have to assess and reasonably account for.  To combat this you could have either banned ALL electronic devices with  transmitters (imagine that clusterfark), or institute rules that would create a reasonably "safe" environment. Takeoff and landings are times when  the pilot has very little time to correct for errors or anomalies. Having everyone "Turn off their electronics" really was geared toward "Not  actively use the transmitter on your phone." Most flight attendants won't know the difference between an ipod and an iphone at a distance, so a blanket ban was the easiest to institute. Could someone use a device without worry at this time? Sure. The idea was to keep the risk to a minimum, never complete compliance.

Understood safety margins for how immune systems are have been established, and thousands of flight hours have been logged to back up this data. The FAA can now reasonably say "Your ipad will not cause a fiery death". People just need to know and understand that just because they *believe* something is safe, and they may be right about it in the long run, does not mean it is safe enough to justify 200+ lives without a  crapload of testing and data to back it up.
 
2013-11-23 04:26:34 PM  

redmid17: FloydA: redmid17:
No I'm aware there is a bit of a disparity in the travel habits of those groups. I just don't think cell phone usage on domestic flights would be as egregious as people think it would be.

Know how I know you talk way too loud on your cell phone in public places?

I hardly ever use my cell phone outside of my apartment. I average about 50 call minutes a month. Overwhelming percentage of my phone conversations are on my home phone, office phone, or via texting. I don't have a car and use public transit or walk where I'm going. My text to talk ratio is probably at least 50-1.


As a regular user of public transit, I believe you.  I also now believe, even more strongly than before, that you talk way too loud on your cell phone while riding public transit, and for some reason you are magnetically drawn to the seat nearest me, so that I get the privilege of listening to one side of your very, very important conversation.
 
2013-11-23 04:40:06 PM  
 Loud cell phone usage (anywhere) is still not as annoying as people who play their music from the phone without headphones. It's bad enough being that one douche who turns off the engine but continues to blare his stereo while pumping gas, but now I have to listen to your sh*t on public transit or while waiting in line somewhere? Headphones, motherf*cker. How do they work?
 
2013-11-23 04:52:52 PM  
You're not that important, and neither is the person you're yammering to.
Shut it off and enjoy the flight in quiet.
 
2013-11-23 04:56:33 PM  

Hoban Washburne: I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.


As a retired heavy jet pilot I can assure you that there is no flight safety argument against operating laptops, video games, cell phones and other consumer electronics during ANY phase of flight, nor has there ever been one. There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.

The ONLY technical argument that ever existed, and it was a valid one throughout most of the 90's, was that cell phone tower switching for phones moving at 500+ mph was problematical, and it tended to disrupt ground-level users trying to access the same towers. It didn't do jack-shiat to the airplane.

/agrees with the cell phone ban, but good luck enforcing that once other electronics are permitted
 
2013-11-23 05:14:17 PM  

FloydA: redmid17: FloydA: redmid17:
No I'm aware there is a bit of a disparity in the travel habits of those groups. I just don't think cell phone usage on domestic flights would be as egregious as people think it would be.

Know how I know you talk way too loud on your cell phone in public places?

I hardly ever use my cell phone outside of my apartment. I average about 50 call minutes a month. Overwhelming percentage of my phone conversations are on my home phone, office phone, or via texting. I don't have a car and use public transit or walk where I'm going. My text to talk ratio is probably at least 50-1.

As a regular user of public transit, I believe you.  I also now believe, even more strongly than before, that you talk way too loud on your cell phone while riding public transit, and for some reason you are magnetically drawn to the seat nearest me, so that I get the privilege of listening to one side of your very, very important conversation.


Well I've never been to Seattle. Unless you visit Chicago and routinely ride the 22, 125, or 37 near the busses near the back of the bus sometime during the 50 minutes I talk on my cell phone a month, I don't believe it's likely I am who you think I am. I'm not infallible but if I've talked on a phone on a bus or CTA car in the last month or two I would be extremely surprised.

If, for some reason, I happen to be wrong, you have my sincerest apologies.
 
2013-11-23 05:30:51 PM  

Coastalgrl: The primary reason Im all for using electronic devices for more of the flight than previously is so I can have the following experience.

1) Sit in chair
2) Listen to safety briefing, find the closest exist
3) Takeoff (I enjoy watching the wings....its cool)
4) Stick headphones in ears for entire duration of flight drowning out both babies and annoying jackholes
5) Land aircraft
6) Leave plane


I could do the takeoff thing all day an not get tired of it. The roar of the engines, the rush of acceleration that just keeps pushing, and then zip, up into the air. Woot!
 
2013-11-23 05:37:59 PM  

Stone Meadow: Hoban Washburne: I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.

As a retired heavy jet pilot I can assure you that there is no flight safety argument against operating laptops, video games, cell phones and other consumer electronics during ANY phase of flight, nor has there ever been one. There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.

The ONLY technical argument that ever existed, and it was a valid one throughout most of the 90's, was that cell phone tower switching for phones moving at 500+ mph was problematical, and it tended to disrupt ground-level users trying to access the same towers. It didn't do jack-shiat to the airplane.

/agrees with the cell phone ban, but good luck enforcing that once other electronics are permitted


 As an EE who designed some of the equipment that keeps your heavy in the air, I can assure you that you would be wrong.
 
2013-11-23 05:52:50 PM  

redmid17: Enemabag Jones: redmid17 ,
Enemabag Jones: redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.
That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.
It's okay to admit you don't know how things work.

Do you know perfectly how radio frequencies, are you a radio engineer?

I am discussing this. If a GMS or CDMA band can be used on a plane, it is possible that sending conflicting signals within that band might work. I know it would be illegal. If there were devices in that frequency for airplane devices (within CDMA, GSM), then cell phones probably could not be used on them.

This would actually be an interesting technical conversation, and I am not in my personal lab designing a cell phone jammer into a GM remote. Throwing out ideas and doing it are two different things.

Do keep in mind other people are not as careful as I am and I bet someone would eventually try it.

No I am not an engineer. I just don't like it when people present obviously stupid and clearly illegal options for a problem that does not and might never exist.

Koodz: There are still no cell towers floating in the middle of the Pacific, right? That's the flight I can't imagine enduring 17 hours of phonedouches on.

You can already make phone calls on a lot of intercontinental flights. Emirates and Qantas give that option to passengers.


I am an engineer. RF is no my specialty but I have dabbled in it.

The thing about jammers is that they tend to be a broadband noise source so as to cover the entire band you are trying to jam and anything that happens to be in between. They also tend to be relatively powerful as jamming a transmission is somewhat like honking an air horn or running a loud machine to drown out a conversation. A less carefully designed jammer may cover an even wider band than it needs to as those designing such things don't usually care about FCC compliance I their illegal contraption.

It is very likely that a jammer poses a much greater risk of interfering with aircraft communications or navigation than something like a cell phone that is designed to NOT interfere with other licensed devices.
 
2013-11-23 05:55:55 PM  
The people with cell phones and people with crying babies should be in a different section than normal people.
 
2013-11-23 05:58:43 PM  

italie: a fiery death


Please.  Those in the industry prefer the term, "uncontrolled landing".
 
2013-11-23 05:59:12 PM  

NFA: I'm okay with electronic devices being used on planes.  BUT NOT CELLPHONES!

Can you imagine being trapped next to some A-hole while he shouts into a cellphone for the entire 5 hour flight?

I've been in restaurants where people shout into their cellphone and the restaurant employees do nothing to stop them.  I've said things like, excuse me can you speak up, the people in the kitchen can barely hear you.  The person shouting into the phone just gave me the stink eye and continued shouting.


This.  I can just see Mr. Self-Important on his bluetooth talking the entire flight.  No...just no.  PMDs most certainly should be allowed but NOT cell phones!
 
2013-11-23 06:06:19 PM  

italie: Stone Meadow: Hoban Washburne: I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.

As a retired heavy jet pilot I can assure you that there is no flight safety argument against operating laptops, video games, cell phones and other consumer electronics during ANY phase of flight, nor has there ever been one. There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.

The ONLY technical argument that ever existed, and it was a valid one throughout most of the 90's, was that cell phone tower switching for phones moving at 500+ mph was problematical, and it tended to disrupt ground-level users trying to access the same towers. It didn't do jack-shiat to the airplane.

/agrees with the cell phone ban, but good luck enforcing that once other electronics are permitted

 As an EE who designed some of the equipment that keeps your heavy in the air, I can assure you that you would be wrong.


Nope. I was part of our test team that introduced laptops at the flight engineer's station in the later 90's, when our heavies still used "steam gauges" (not "glass cockpits"). Net effect? None. Not measurable. And modern glass cockpits are even more resistant to interference. Think about it...does your cell phone materially affect your laptop?

Didn't think so...and it won't an airliner's avionics, either.
 
2013-11-23 06:06:40 PM  

Oldiron_79: The people with cell phones and people with crying babies should be in a different section than normal people.


amazingdata.com
 
2013-11-23 06:09:19 PM  

Oldiron_79: The people with cell phones and people with crying babies should be in a different section than normal people.


Remember the old smoking sections at the back of the bus? Yeah, that's where we can stick the cell phone users.
 
2013-11-23 06:15:44 PM  
If they allow cell phone conversations, they need to allow knives. It's only fair that fellow passengers be able to stab the annoying caller.
 
2013-11-23 06:22:28 PM  

Stone Meadow: italie: Stone Meadow: Hoban Washburne: I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.

As a retired heavy jet pilot I can assure you that there is no flight safety argument against operating laptops, video games, cell phones and other consumer electronics during ANY phase of flight, nor has there ever been one. There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.

The ONLY technical argument that ever existed, and it was a valid one throughout most of the 90's, was that cell phone tower switching for phones moving at 500+ mph was problematical, and it tended to disrupt ground-level users trying to access the same towers. It didn't do jack-shiat to the airplane.

/agrees with the cell phone ban, but good luck enforcing that once other electronics are permitted

 As an EE who designed some of the equipment that keeps your heavy in the air, I can assure you that you would be wrong.

Nope. I was part of our test team that introduced laptops at the flight engineer's station in the later 90's, when our heavies still used "steam gauges" (not "glass cockpits"). Net effect? None. Not measurable. And modern glass cockpits are even more resistant to interference. Think about it...does your cell phone materially affect your laptop?

Didn't think so...and it won't an airliner's avionics, either.


That's wonderful that you were part of a test team that didn't have an issue. Hold on while I get out and an honorary RF doctorate for you, as you clearly understand the situation completely. While you wait, please do some sifting through the FAA/NTSB/NASA archives and pull out a few of the test reports that ~did~ show incidents. (Hint: There were more that 50 in the 90's)

I agree that all glass is less prone to interference, as most of that gear was designed with PED radio emissions in mind. The worry was about the older kit, as most of it was designed before a thought of 200+ random interference devices on your bird were even a realistic thought. To boot, just because a cell phone doesn't interfere with a laptop places ZERO bearing on how that cellphone would interfere with equipment that would be logically susceptible to its emission.
 
2013-11-23 06:22:40 PM  

Stone Meadow: Think about it...does your cell phone materially affect your laptop?

Didn't think so...and it won't an airliner's avionics, either.


I can tell when my phone is about to ring by a characteristic "dah-dit dah-dit dah-dit" sound coming through my computer's headphones.

So, there's that.
 
2013-11-23 06:27:54 PM  
James10952001 ,
I am an engineer. RF is no my specialty but I have dabbled in it.
The thing about jammers is that they tend to be a broadband noise source so as to cover the entire band you are trying to jam and anything that happens to be in between. They also tend to be relatively powerful as jamming a transmission is somewhat like honking an air horn or running a loud machine to drown out a conversation. A less carefully designed jammer may cover an even wider band than it needs to as those designing such things don't usually care about FCC compliance I their illegal contraption.
It is very likely that a jammer poses a much greater risk of interfering with aircraft communications or navigation than something like a cell phone that is designed to NOT interfere with other licensed devices.

Then that is a "bad idea" answer. Thanks for sharing the knowledge.
 
2013-11-23 06:53:53 PM  

spentshells: Seriously though, we need less cell phones in life not more.


What we need is more wifi so I can surf Fark while flying.  The ass-crack of dawn flight from Boise to Portland is always on that goddamned Q400 and I'm always crammed up in the window seat.  All of you buttheads would make the flight go by faster.
 
2013-11-23 06:54:19 PM  
This is why I have good noise-blocking earbuds, an app that plays thunderstorm noises and Xanax.
 
2013-11-23 07:38:31 PM  

italie: neilbradley: I'm unclear on why anyone is discussing using cell phones on flights, because once more than about 4 ground cell towers are able to contact your phone, they shut down any ability for you to make a call anyway.

The original rule for "no cell phones on planes" rule dates back to the mid 80s when AT&T and other cellular carriers didn't want people to be able to contact their home network and avoid roaming charges, lobbied and passed under the false veil of "safety".

People like you drive me up a farking wall.

Cell phones and PEDs came about quickly, faster than testing could be done to certify "safe use", and that all airborn equipment was properly protected (remember half of the instruments in these planes was designed before cellphones were a common thing).


Facepalm. It has everything to do with desire of regional control by the media, TV stations, and radio stations. Ever wonder why they also include radios and TV in their list of "can't use" items? It's not safety. They don't transmit. It has everything to do with regional licensing, and the same applies to cell phones.

To make the claim that "the dangers weren't known" is just ignorant. All instruments in a plane are basically wrapped in a Faraday cage (look that up, as it doesn't appear that you understand anything about electronics) and can take a direct lighting strike to the outside of the plane and continue to operate.
 
2013-11-23 07:45:39 PM  

neilbradley: italie: neilbradley: I'm unclear on why anyone is discussing using cell phones on flights, because once more than about 4 ground cell towers are able to contact your phone, they shut down any ability for you to make a call anyway.

The original rule for "no cell phones on planes" rule dates back to the mid 80s when AT&T and other cellular carriers didn't want people to be able to contact their home network and avoid roaming charges, lobbied and passed under the false veil of "safety".

People like you drive me up a farking wall.

Cell phones and PEDs came about quickly, faster than testing could be done to certify "safe use", and that all airborn equipment was properly protected (remember half of the instruments in these planes was designed before cellphones were a common thing).

Facepalm. It has everything to do with desire of regional control by the media, TV stations, and radio stations. Ever wonder why they also include radios and TV in their list of "can't use" items? It's not safety. They don't transmit. It has everything to do with regional licensing, and the same applies to cell phones.

To make the claim that "the dangers weren't known" is just ignorant. All instruments in a plane are basically wrapped in a Faraday cage (look that up, as it doesn't appear that you understand anything about electronics) and can take a direct lighting strike to the outside of the plane and continue to operate.


...and those Faraday cages had one input each, a farking antenna located at various places in the plane, operating at similar frequencies to many cell phones.

//Please, continue to tell me stories if you like.
 
2013-11-23 07:47:00 PM  

Stone Meadow: italie: Stone Meadow: Hoban Washburne: I have long suspected that the "no electronics rule" was more to stop annoying cell phone use than safety.  The rules are so (seemingly anyway) arbitrarily skewed against cell phones.  I'm 100 percent okay with this though.  Can you imagine trying to sleep while some bro-douche business guy or some 50 year old soccer grandma yells into their phone the entire time?  People are already discourteous enough on airplanes.

As a retired heavy jet pilot I can assure you that there is no flight safety argument against operating laptops, video games, cell phones and other consumer electronics during ANY phase of flight, nor has there ever been one. There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.

The ONLY technical argument that ever existed, and it was a valid one throughout most of the 90's, was that cell phone tower switching for phones moving at 500+ mph was problematical, and it tended to disrupt ground-level users trying to access the same towers. It didn't do jack-shiat to the airplane.

/agrees with the cell phone ban, but good luck enforcing that once other electronics are permitted

 As an EE who designed some of the equipment that keeps your heavy in the air, I can assure you that you would be wrong.

Nope. I was part of our test team that introduced laptops at the flight engineer's station in the later 90's, when our heavies still used "steam gauges" (not "glass cockpits"). Net effect? None. Not measurable. And modern glass cockpits are even more resistant to interference. Think about it...does your cell phone materially affect your laptop?

Didn't think so...and it won't an airliner's avionics, either.


If anything it would be the radio communication. Both my phone and my laptop absolutely interfere with my shortwave and VHF receivers. It's especially bad on the long wave frequencies used by navigation NDBs although I don't think commercial aircraft use those anymore. Still plenty of ADF units in light aircraft though.
 
2013-11-23 08:05:39 PM  

Enemabag Jones: redmid17 ,
Enemabag Jones: redmid17
Enemabag Jones: redmid17,
Discretion isn't going to help you. A very expensive lawyer might.
I never said it wasn't illegal or anyone caught using one would be free from legal liabilities.
Okay let me be more clear then. You would be a farking idiot to even bring one of those on a plane, let alone use it. All of the retarded handwringing people were doing about cell phones, tablets, and other electronics on the plane actually makes sense for signal jammers, a lot of sense.
That would be the big concern. You don't want to hit the button that makes the wings fall off the plane.
It's okay to admit you don't know how things work.

Do you know perfectly how radio frequencies, are you a radio engineer?

I am discussing this. If a GMS or CDMA band can be used on a plane, it is possible that sending conflicting signals within that band might work. I know it would be illegal. If there were devices in that frequency for airplane devices (within CDMA, GSM), then cell phones probably could not be used on them.

This would actually be an interesting technical conversation, and I am not in my personal lab designing a cell phone jammer into a GM remote. Throwing out ideas and doing it are two different things.

Do keep in mind other people are not as careful as I am and I bet someone would eventually try it.



*IF ONLY* there were some way that average everyday farkers could search for information about the 'radio frequency spectrum' and end up with some sort of link along the lines of this.

If, perchance, an opportunity to do so would present itself sometime in the future, it might then become apparent that, thankfully, such important concepts 'one device interfering with the radio frequency used by another device/organization' have already been taken care of by segmenting the bandwidth and allocating sections for various groups (thus, one radio station can only transmit at one specific frequency and will not interfere with any other).

The chart I linked to looks quite confusing to me, but going by the legend on the left hand side, it is readily apparent that there is bandwidth allocated for the exclusive use of the aviation industry (re: airplanes and airports). I doubt if any respectable cellphone-jammer company would make a device that would work in that or any other allocated range. But I can just picture some cheap Chinese knock-off being made with very little quality control over the frequency used and being sold overseas for 1/2 price.
 
2013-11-23 08:20:45 PM  

serialsuicidebomber: *IF ONLY* there were some way that average everyday farkers could search for information about the 'radio frequency spectrum' and end up with some sort of link along the lines of this.

If, perchance, an opportunity to do so would present itself sometime in the future, it might then become apparent that, thankfully, such important concepts 'one device interfering with the radio frequency used by another device/organization' have already been taken care of by segmenting the bandwidth and allocating sections for various groups (thus, one radio station can only transmit at one specific frequency and will not interfere with any other).

The chart I linked to looks quite confusing to me, but going by the legend on the left hand side, it is readily apparent that there is bandwidth allocated for the exclusive use of the aviation industry (re: airplanes and airports). I doubt if any respectable cellphone-jammer company would make a device that would work in that or any other allocated range. But I can just picture some cheap Chinese knock-off being made with very little quality control over the frequency used and being sold overseas for 1/2 price.


Ever hear a trucker on his CB over your AM radio? Please note how far apart those two devices are on your chart. When it comes to interference, it isn't always about adjacent spectrum.
 
2013-11-23 08:31:50 PM  

italie: serialsuicidebomber: *IF ONLY* there were some way that average everyday farkers could search for information about the 'radio frequency spectrum' and end up with some sort of link along the lines of this.

If, perchance, an opportunity to do so would present itself sometime in the future, it might then become apparent that, thankfully, such important concepts 'one device interfering with the radio frequency used by another device/organization' have already been taken care of by segmenting the bandwidth and allocating sections for various groups (thus, one radio station can only transmit at one specific frequency and will not interfere with any other).

The chart I linked to looks quite confusing to me, but going by the legend on the left hand side, it is readily apparent that there is bandwidth allocated for the exclusive use of the aviation industry (re: airplanes and airports). I doubt if any respectable cellphone-jammer company would make a device that would work in that or any other allocated range. But I can just picture some cheap Chinese knock-off being made with very little quality control over the frequency used and being sold overseas for 1/2 price.

Ever hear a trucker on his CB over your AM radio? Please note how far apart those two devices are on your chart. When it comes to interference, it isn't always about adjacent spectrum.


AM Radio? I remember getting interference on our TV back in the days when people used to watch it from broadcasts, instead of through cable.
 
2013-11-23 08:34:15 PM  

italie: That's wonderful that you were part of a test team that didn't have an issue. Hold on while I get out and an honorary RF doctorate for you, as you clearly understand the situation completely. While you wait, please do some sifting through the FAA/NTSB/NASA archives and pull out a few of the test reports that ~did~ show incidents. (Hint: There were more that 50 in the 90's)


Really? More than 50 in the 90's you say. Now let's put that in context: during the 90's in the USA alone we averaged about 5 million commercial flights per year. In round numbers that's 50 million flights during that decade. Fifty. Farking. Million.

And there were 50-odd reported RF incidents? NONE of which resulted in an accident, death or even injury? Yeah, that totally justifies outlawing using consumer electronics on flights...all the while the crew is using them. Totally justified.
 
2013-11-23 08:50:02 PM  

Stone Meadow: italie: That's wonderful that you were part of a test team that didn't have an issue. Hold on while I get out and an honorary RF doctorate for you, as you clearly understand the situation completely. While you wait, please do some sifting through the FAA/NTSB/NASA archives and pull out a few of the test reports that ~did~ show incidents. (Hint: There were more that 50 in the 90's)

Really? More than 50 in the 90's you say. Now let's put that in context: during the 90's in the USA alone we averaged about 5 million commercial flights per year. In round numbers that's 50 million flights during that decade. Fifty. Farking. Million.

And there were 50-odd reported RF incidents? NONE of which resulted in an accident, death or even injury? Yeah, that totally justifies outlawing using consumer electronics on flights...all the while the crew is using them. Totally justified.



Of those 50 million flights, I'm sure that ~at least~ the same number had an in flight engine incident that didn't result in an accident, death, or even injury. I'm also very sure that ~at least~ one of those incidents lead to a process or implementation change that prevented further incidents, and possible injury or death. If there is a CHANCE of an issue, it must be investigated and controlled. If that issue is not a controllable (or even readily identifiable) entity, then you prepare for the worst case scenario.

No one ever used the word "outlaw". Minimizing risk during takeoff and landing, sure.

//You may be cool with flying by the seat of your pants, but the FAA has other beliefs on the matter.
 
2013-11-23 08:55:51 PM  
Voice calls should be allowed. And every passenger should be allowed to smack anyone on a voice call in the face if they feel like it.
 
2013-11-23 08:58:49 PM  

Jument: Voice calls should be allowed. And every passenger should be allowed to smack anyone on a voice call in the face if they feel like it.


With their junk. If so inclined.
 
2013-11-23 09:03:20 PM  

italie: serialsuicidebomber: *IF ONLY* there were some way that average everyday farkers could search for information about the 'radio frequency spectrum' and end up with some sort of link along the lines of this.

If, perchance, an opportunity to do so would present itself sometime in the future, it might then become apparent that, thankfully, such important concepts 'one device interfering with the radio frequency used by another device/organization' have already been taken care of by segmenting the bandwidth and allocating sections for various groups (thus, one radio station can only transmit at one specific frequency and will not interfere with any other).

The chart I linked to looks quite confusing to me, but going by the legend on the left hand side, it is readily apparent that there is bandwidth allocated for the exclusive use of the aviation industry (re: airplanes and airports). I doubt if any respectable cellphone-jammer company would make a device that would work in that or any other allocated range. But I can just picture some cheap Chinese knock-off being made with very little quality control over the frequency used and being sold overseas for 1/2 price.

Ever hear a trucker on his CB over your AM radio? Please note how far apart those two devices are on your chart. When it comes to interference, it isn't always about adjacent spectrum.


Look up "harmonics".
 
2013-11-23 09:21:16 PM  
redmid17:
Well I've never been to Seattle. Unless you visit Chicago and routinely ride the 22, 125, or 37 near the busses near the back of the bus sometime during the 50 minutes I talk on my cell phone a month, I don't believe it's likely I am who you think I am. I'm not infallible but if I've talked on a phone on a bus or CTA car in the last month or two I would be extremely surprised.

If, for some reason, I happen to be wrong, you have my sincerest apologies.


I apologize if my comments seemed "personal."  In my experience, people who talk on their cell phones on public transportation always seem to assume that they are not actually bothering anyone, and they always seem surprised that others can actually hear them shouting about their medical conditions, their financial information, their disagreements with friends/family/loved ones, etc.

It was not my intention to critique you, personally.  I only intended to critique those who don't understand that the bus/train/ferry/airplane is not a good place to carry on a phone conversation.  If you don't do that, please feel free to disregard my comments.

But people who shout into their cell phones while riding public transportation really are incredibly annoying.
 
2013-11-23 10:25:35 PM  
They should have a small soundproof booth in the back of the plane where you can make you cell phone calls. And also smoke. Maybe a vent to the outside could be installed.
 
2013-11-23 10:36:00 PM  
cell phone user = asshole in my book
I actually carry  a book.
 
2013-11-23 10:48:18 PM  

vudukungfu: cell phone user = asshole in my book
I actually carry  a book.



A book with an asshole in it?

/strange book
 
2013-11-23 10:49:35 PM  

italie: You may be cool with flying by the seat of your pants, but the FAA has other beliefs on the matter.


On the contrary, for well over a decade the FAA have been under unrelenting pressure to drop their absurd prohibitions against consumer electronics in flight, and only begrudgingly edging forward. NONE of which can be traced to any technologically defensible safety concerns. And moreover, won't be...since aircrew have been free to use them since the late 90's.

And now? They've thrown in the towel for everything except cell phone use in flight...and why? Because they know that cell phone use if not a safety threat beyond the entirely understandable desire to throttle the douchebag next to you who's yelling into his plastic prosthesis.

So give it up. If there were technological reasons to prohibit electronics use in flight, the FAA would stick to their guns. But they aren't, so we know there aren't any reasons beyond "Because we say so."
 
2013-11-23 11:11:39 PM  

Stone Meadow: italie: You may be cool with flying by the seat of your pants, but the FAA has other beliefs on the matter.

On the contrary, for well over a decade the FAA have been under unrelenting pressure to drop their absurd prohibitions against consumer electronics in flight, and only begrudgingly edging forward. NONE of which can be traced to any technologically defensible safety concerns. And moreover, won't be...since aircrew have been free to use them since the late 90's.

And now? They've thrown in the towel for everything except cell phone use in flight...and why? Because they know that cell phone use if not a safety threat beyond the entirely understandable desire to throttle the douchebag next to you who's yelling into his plastic prosthesis.

So give it up. If there were technological reasons to prohibit electronics use in flight, the FAA would stick to their guns. But they aren't, so we know there aren't any reasons beyond "Because we say so."


It's more a case of cell phones won't work above a few thousand feet without additional equipment on the planes that didn't exist when the rule was made. Now there are enough people annoyed by cellphone users that it may keep the rules around for a while.

I don't talk on my phone in public unless I have to and then I try not
to talk too loud. I'm not an asshole though.
 
2013-11-23 11:22:36 PM  

James10952001: I don't talk on my phone in public unless I have to and then I try not
to talk too loud. I'm not an asshole though.


I understand...and was referring (by implication) to the fear we all share of those inconsiderates who WILL talk too loudly and too long in flight.
 
2013-11-23 11:37:25 PM  

Stone Meadow: James10952001: I don't talk on my phone in public unless I have to and then I try not
to talk too loud. I'm not an asshole though.

I understand...and was referring (by implication) to the fear we all share of those inconsiderates who WILL talk too loudly and too long in flight.


Yeah that's the problem. Most folks are fine but there's always *that* guy (or girl) who thinks the universe revolves around them.
 
2013-11-24 12:27:09 AM  

Stone Meadow: italie: You may be cool with flying by the seat of your pants, but the FAA has other beliefs on the matter.

On the contrary, for well over a decade the FAA have been under unrelenting pressure to drop their absurd prohibitions against consumer electronics in flight, and only begrudgingly edging forward. NONE of which can be traced to any technologically defensible safety concerns. And moreover, won't be...since aircrew have been free to use them since the late 90's.

And now? They've thrown in the towel for everything except cell phone use in flight...and why? Because they know that cell phone use if not a safety threat beyond the entirely understandable desire to throttle the douchebag next to you who's yelling into his plastic prosthesis.

So give it up. If there were technological reasons to prohibit electronics use in flight, the FAA would stick to their guns. But they aren't, so we know there aren't any reasons beyond "Because we say so."


Are you purposefully ignoring facts ~you~ are presenting when arguing, or just trolling? There WAS a valid reason for banning cell phone use. A documented and non-containable risk. I would call "Malfunctioning instruments" a safety concern. A minute concern, but a valid reason none the less. (Being a pilot, you should recognize the merit in not farking with fate at 30K feet, no matter the odds.)

As I stated before, the issue has never really been all PEDs. It's PEDs with transmitters in them, especially ones at certain frequencies, and with power potential at or above 500mW. Asking your average flight attendant to tell the difference between a device with or without a 500mW transmitter in it is not a feasible request. The only way around that is to shut them all down. The individual airlines would never agree to a full out PED ban, so shutting them all down during crucial flight time was a fair, and proper call. Even if you had non-compliance, you would at least be able to easily identify those with a phone to their ear in an active conversation.

Now, since the introduction of a ban during takeoff/landing, things have changed. Spectrum has been re-aligned. Cockpits have been refreshed, newer instrumentation put in that was designed with the current implementation of a cell phone in mind. Your instrumentation is more immune. What most people don't understand about signal conditioning though is that discriminating a wanted bandwidth from an unwanted one isn't easy. You have an antenna whose job it is to promote the acceptance of most all radio waves. Then the instrument must filter out the unwanted. It's not as though you can just say "Only include frequency 900.23456KHz", especially if in an analog domain. Filtering out the garbage is incredibly hard work, and there are always precision limits and trade offs. That filtering has improved a bit, leading to more noise immune systems.Shield the device all you want, that isn't the issue.

Cellphones have a history of being feisty little buggers when it comes to transmit power, and the reason the FAA (and FCC) was holding strong. As battery life becomes more of a concern cell manufactures are trying to us less and less transmit power. When cell phones first came out, it wasn't uncommon to see output of 2W from a phone. 2W was a problem as it had the potential to be seen by some cockpit instruments as stronger than the signal you were trying to pickup. (ex: FAF is on a 3W carrier, and would be seen as much less by the time the signal propagated to the plane. It's not the only one either.) These days the transmit power is variable in use, but much more centered under 300mW. 300mW isn't going to be much of an issue under most conditions.

Bottom line is there is no farking conspiracy. There was a discernible risk with cellphones. It's getting better, it's more thoroughly tested, instruments are better protected. These are the reasons that the FAA is loosening the reigns a bit.
 
2013-11-24 07:44:47 AM  

italie: The FAA can now reasonably say "Your ipad will not cause a fiery death".


if your iPad was ever thought potentially able to cause a firey death, you'd have been allowed to bring it on board just as much as you'd have been allowed to bring dynamite.

Stone Meadow: There are so many generators, high- and low-frequency alternating and direct current devices on airliners that the leakage of UL-listed consumer electronics is simply a non-issue from any kind of safety-of-flight perspective.


Which is why aircraft are designed with shielded electronics.

Stone Meadow: And now? They've thrown in the towel for everything except cell phone use in flight...and why?


To be fair, the mobile phone prohibition is the FCC's prohibition. The FAA enforces it within their realm.

italie: Bottom line is there is no farking conspiracy. There was a discernible risk with cellphones. It's getting better, it's more thoroughly tested, instruments are better protected. These are the reasons that the FAA is loosening the reigns a bit.


The blatant lies about a personal DVD player that made a commercial airliner's GPS show an error or 30 degrees which were constantly being pushed in support of the electronics ban may not have been part of a conspiracy, but I'm sure you can see why people don't trust a government and an industry that has demonstrably lied to them repeatedly.
 
2013-11-24 10:00:34 AM  

heili skrimsli: italie: The FAA can now reasonably say "Your ipad will not cause a fiery death".

if your iPad was ever thought potentially able to cause a firey death, you'd have been allowed to bring it on board just as much as you'd have been allowed to bring dynamite.


Over-simplified statement to make the point understandable to the general public, a little like making you turn off all PEDs instead of just "devices with transmitters". I guess I didn't simplify it enough.

italie: Bottom line is there is no farking conspiracy. There was a discernible risk with cellphones. It's getting better, it's more thoroughly tested, instruments are better protected. These are the reasons that the FAA is loosening the reigns a bit.

The blatant lies about a personal DVD player that made a commercial airliner's GPS show an error or 30 degrees which were constantly being pushed in support of the electronics ban may not have been part of a conspiracy, but I'm sure you can see why people don't trust a government and an industry that has demonstrably lied to them repeatedly.


I've seen those in the NTRS reports, but never presented in a "DVD PLAYER BAD" manner by any investigative agency. I have always been under the belief that those cases were related to a device fault (burst capacitor acting as a crude radiator, etc), improper identification of what the device was, or the device having been modified post-purchase by the user. If you've ever seen a spectrum output of a power supply in certain common failure modes, you'd bee leaning toward option #1.

Chalk that one up to the media reading a report and running with their Swiss-cheese understanding of the situation. The FAA/FCC/etc probably had little to do with it.
 
2013-11-24 10:16:22 AM  

italie: I've seen those in the NTRS reports,


Given that GPS is a digital signal, interference that damaged the signal would mean that the GPS would not function.

There's no damn way to interfere with that signal and just cause a '30 degree error in course' in the way that it has been described.
 
2013-11-24 10:42:13 AM  

heili skrimsli: italie: I've seen those in the NTRS reports,

Given that GPS is a digital signal, interference that damaged the signal would mean that the GPS would not function.

There's no damn way to interfere with that signal and just cause a '30 degree error in course' in the way that it has been described.


Unless you designed that system, there is no way you can make that statement. Doing so is just irresponsible. Digital signals are much less prone to certain types of interference, but by no means immune. (Adjacent band interference would be a prime example here.)


The only two documented DVD player interference incidents were in '99. The report I currently have is a little light on which incident belongs to which item within a year, assuming it was one of these two. Make of them what you will:

FLT mode annunciator displayed "HDG error" and "no Autoland'" messages; 30 degree split between left and C
right HDG systems using # 2 CADC; # 1 CADC agreed with standby compass;

VOR 30 degree needle difference between # I and # 2; DME and CDI Capt and FO agreed wilh GFMS and C T/O
# I VOR;
 
2013-11-24 03:54:48 PM  

insano: "spmkk: Enemabag Jones: "Invent keychain sized cell phone jammers if this gets approved.

It would not have have to be huge, just look like a GM car remote and would only have to work in bursts.  Just like that keychain tv remote thing."


Yes, because your right to not be subjected to (gasp!) nearby conversation in a semi-public place supersedes someone else's right to stay connected with their work team or speak to their loved ones.

Speaking of things that are not rights."



Emphasis corrected.

Technically neither of the above are "rights". However, the ability to stay in touch with your family while in transit is a far more reasonable expectation than silence in public. (Yes, public - the fact that you've paid for your seat doesn't make the plane your own, and it CERTAINLY doesn't give you the right to cut someone else off from communicating with the outside world just because you don't feel like being bothered by the sound of their voice.)
 
2013-11-24 05:18:01 PM  
ecx.images-amazon.com

Cockpit Confidential by Patrick Smith.

Page 159

/case closed
 
2013-11-24 08:47:53 PM  

italie: Unless you designed that system, there is no way you can make that statement. Doing so is just irresponsible. Digital signals are much less prone to certain types of interference, but by no means immune. (Adjacent band interference would be a prime example here.)


I have more than enough expertise in digital electronics and wireless digital communication to be certain that the suggestion that this was caused by some portable DVD player is utter bullshiat.

When you break digital packets transmitted via any medium (including radio waves through air) you don't merely change the data inside the packet, you destroy the packet. There's no way that a portable DVD player receives valid GPS data packets, alters the data, reforms the packets, and then transmits them to a GPS receiver.

It's absurd to even suggest.
 
2013-11-24 09:42:20 PM  

heili skrimsli: italie: Unless you designed that system, there is no way you can make that statement. Doing so is just irresponsible. Digital signals are much less prone to certain types of interference, but by no means immune. (Adjacent band interference would be a prime example here.)

I have more than enough expertise in digital electronics and wireless digital communication to be certain that the suggestion that this was caused by some portable DVD player is utter bullshiat.

When you break digital packets transmitted via any medium (including radio waves through air) you don't merely change the data inside the packet, you destroy the packet. There's no way that a portable DVD player receives valid GPS data packets, alters the data, reforms the packets, and then transmits them to a GPS receiver.

It's absurd to even suggest.



Packet mutilation was never a suggestion. You stated it yourself,   "Given that GPS is a digital signal, interference that damaged the signal would mean that the GPS would not function. " and on that note you would be correct. What you aren't applying (and it's a crucial exclusion) is that you have no knowledge as to how that system reacts to a partial or complete loss of signal. If those systems are reliant on multiple signals to operate properly, it's entirely possible that the gauge reverted to a baseline while in error, or calculated an improper result based upon a less than desirable number of inputs to the multilateration algorithm.  The annunciator reported a heading error, which tends to back that theory up a bit. But I don't know for sure either, because to the best of my knowledge I didn't design the gear on that plane (pieces of that gear,maybe).

As much as pilots know their plane, they aren't EE's. I
wouldn't expect them to report "The needle was 30 degrees off due to a loss of 2 satellite signals, leaving us with only 3 valid signals..." or something to that effect. I would expect the very text on the report, "...30 degree split between left and C right HDG systems using # 2 CADC; # 1 CADC agreed with standby compass; "

GPS, especially in aviation usage, necessitates 4 or more incoming signals to accurately determine position. GPS signals are by nature VERY weak when they reach the receiver. GPS antenna on that plane could have been anywhere, even right underneath the DVD player in question. All you need to kill a one signal is a stronger signal at a similar frequency. A failed switching power supply, or a ballast circuit for an LCD screen, could ~very~ easily turn into a crude and powerful enough radiator to obscure a weak GS signal (read: jammer) . All it would take is an open or leaky filter cap. With the cheap shait passing for electrolytics these days, that isn't a remote idea for a failure. (Scenarios like this are actually quite common, and were a forethought when the GPS specification was laid out.)


// I have no doubt the you have plenty of expertise in digital electronics and wireless digital communication.
/// What you seem to be lacking though, is expertise on the analog side.
 
2013-11-24 10:49:25 PM  
A fricking switching power supply will spit out crap across the entire AM/MW band. Here's a picture of me after finding the culprit causing S9+ interference on some of my favorite ham bands:

googledrive.com

Granted, you're not going to find switching power supplies in the cabin. The point is, it's equipment that's faulty, operating outside of its designed parameters, that should be of concern, in my opinion, not cell phones/laptops operating within their designed parameters.
 
2013-11-24 11:10:20 PM  

b0rscht: A fricking switching power supply will spit out crap across the entire AM/MW band. Here's a picture of me after finding the culprit causing S9+ interference on some of my favorite ham bands:

[googledrive.com image 800x600]

Granted, you're not going to find switching power supplies in the cabin. The point is, it's equipment that's faulty, operating outside of its designed parameters, that should be of concern, in my opinion, not cell phones/laptops operating within their designed parameters.


That is kind-of my overall point. How does a flight attendant determine which PEDs are operating within designed parameters? How do they determine what those designed parameters are? (Answer: They don't)

For how quickly cellphones/consumer electronics are stamped out these days, and how many farking transmitters are on the things, it's a wonder they don't cause more EM harm than they do.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report