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
    More: Followup, cell phones, airplanes, voice calls  
•       •       •

2279 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2013 at 2:15 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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