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 18
    More: Followup, cell phones, airplanes, voice calls  
•       •       •

2253 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2013 at 2:15 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-23 03:27:51 PM
3 votes:
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 04:52:52 PM
2 votes:
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 03:10:31 PM
2 votes:

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 11:15:31 AM
2 votes:
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.
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-11-23 09:37:10 AM
2 votes:
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 06:06:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:19:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:55:58 PM
1 votes:
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 02:49:34 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:27 PM
1 votes:
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 02:36:20 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:54 PM
1 votes:
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 02:25:17 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:38 PM
1 votes:

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 12:56:28 PM
1 votes:
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 12:05:41 PM
1 votes:
Yeah, one more reason to hate having to fly.
2013-11-23 10:51:34 AM
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report