Support NeoGAF

[equap]

I never shut off the phone. I turn on Airplane mode, put it in my pocket or whatever. and turn off Airplane mode after it landed.

big whoop!

 

[bdouble]

Its funny this is so controversial. I love it. It won't do shit in my honest opnion. They have tested it time and time again. I think its more to the fact they want to cut down communication. Its an easy way to control people in a small environment as fragile as a tube flying through the sky.

 

[soundahfekz]

I hope you realize I'm talking about the devices being turned off the entire flight and not at takeoff and landing. The fact that they don't even check to see if your phone is off, pretty much shows how much they really care for the rules, so no, they don't force you to turn it off.




for the last time, we're talking about the scenario of being forced to turn off every device for the whole flight, not for ten minutes.

My apologies then. I've never encountered having to have the entire device off and not just on airplane mode while flying at cruising altitude.

 

[KHarvey16]

Its funny this is so controversial. I love it. It won't do shit in my honest opnion. They have tested it time and time again. I think its more to the fact they want to cut down communication. Its an easy way to control people in a small environment as fragile as a tube flying through the sky.

They haven't "tested it" and that's the problem. "It" would be every piece of electronics in every plane.

 

[Castor Krieg]

I was a little worried, that using mobile phones in flight can disrupt communication equipment, or so we have been told.

No. It doesn't disrupt in-flight equipment, only connection to base station. Nothing to do with security.

 

[KHarvey16]

No. It doesn't disrupt in-flight equipment, only connection to base station. Nothing to do with security.

This cannot be said at the present time(and with the diversity and number of devices that exist and will exist, likely will never be possible to say).

 

[Castor Krieg]

This cannot be said at the present time(and with the diversity and number of devices that exist and will exist, likely will never be possible to say).

Yes, you can say it. The issue with mobile phones has to do with how base stations handle connections to mobile devices while in-flight. In-flight equipment is shielded. Till mobile devices interact with base stations in the same way as before you, and everybody else is safe.

 

[Shambles]

They haven't "tested it" and that's the problem. "It" would be every piece of electronics in every plane.

Why on earth would you need to do that, there's no magic voodoo to electronic devices They all operate in a similar manner to each other. Anyways there's nothing to test because everything on the plane has been designed to withstand a hell of a lot more interference than what your phone is going to produce.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, you can say it. The issue with mobile phones has to do with how base stations handle connections to mobile devices while in-flight. In-flight equipment is shielded. Till mobile devices interact with base stations in the same way as before you, and everybody else is safe.

No. The FCC has their regulations concerning ground interference, but the FAA also have their own regulations regarding in flight safety. Look up DO-160, for instance. Cell phones in flight violate both of these. The FCC some years ago went to examine the issue on their end and gave up, but even if their ban was over turned the FAA guidelines still apply.

 

[Castor Krieg]

No. The FCC has their regulations concerning ground interference, but the FAA also have their own regulations regarding in flight safety. Look up DO-160, for instance. Cell phones in flight violate both of these. The FCC some years ago went to examine the issue on their end and gave up, but even if their ban was over turned the FAA guidelines still apply.

What I and no doubt others are trying to explain, is that rules have nothing to do with how SCIENCE works. The reason you turn off your mobile phones concerns rate/power allocation in the base stations.

 

[KHarvey16]

What I and no doubt others are trying to explain, is that rules have nothing to do with how SCIENCE works. The reason you turn off your mobile phones concerns rate/power allocation in the base stations.

No that isn't the reason on the FAA side. I design avionics for a living, I deal with this every day. Regulations regarding RF radiation and susceptibility are developed and implemented in tandem - susceptibility is modeled on radiation elsewhere being controlled. If shielding was all anyone needed, believe me, no one would spend the money to test the levels they're radiating at and then spend the money to redesign because they throw out too much noise.

Your perception of how this all works is wrong.

 

[Zutroy]

I think you're the one annoying yourself there. Whatever happened to mind your own business

Whatever happened to doing what you're told?
It's not your house your flying in. When you buy a ticket you agree to follow their rules. Don't wanna follow their rules? Walk.

I read somewhere that the reason they want you to turn them during takeoff/landing is so
A) You pay attention to all safety announcements
B) If the plane were to crash there wouldn't be objects flying around smashing into people.

 

[BigDes]

Whatever happened to doing what you're told?
It's not your house your flying in. When you buy a ticket you agree to follow their rules. Don't wanna follow their rules? Walk.

I read somewhere that the reason they want you to turn them during takeoff/landing is so
A) You pay attention to all safety announcements
B) If the plane were to crash there wouldn't be objects flying around smashing into people.

Eh I don't know about b so much.

Books are heavier than phones, especially those stupidly large airport versions and they don't make you put them away on take off

 

[Treefingers]

Whatever happened to doing what you're told?
It's not your house your flying in. When you buy a ticket you agree to follow their rules. Don't wanna follow their rules? Walk.

I'm not talking about the guy who pulled out his iPad I'm talking about the guy who made it his business even though it's not.

 

[Haint]

They haven't "tested it" and that's the problem. "It" would be every piece of electronics in every plane.

It's tested thousands of times a day and has been since portable electronics have existed. Almost any flight you get on is guaranteed to have (multiple) electronic devices running in someone's pocket, their carry on, or their under carriage baggage. You're delusional if you think a simple reminder over the intercom can reliably control hundreds of people's actions. There are probably at least 20-50 devices running on your average flight at all times. The FAA knows this, the airlines know this, the TSA knows this, Boeing knows this--anyone with any amount of common sense knows this.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

It's tested thousands of times a day and has been since portable electronics have existed. Almost any flight you get on is guaranteed to have (multiple) electronic devices running in someone's pocket, their carry on, or their under carriage baggage. You're delusional if you think a simple reminder over the intercom can reliably control hundreds of people's actions. There are probably at least 20-50 devices running on your average flight at all times. The FAA knows this, the airlines know this, the TSA knows this, Boeing knows this--anyone with any amount of common sense knows this.

+1

 

[Xcellere]

I'm not talking about the guy who pulled out his iPad I'm talking about the guy who made it his business even though it's not.

How is it not my business? Someone is blatantly ignoring a law intended to preserve everyone on board's safety (regardless of whether or not you agree with the intricacies of said law). No one was asking the guy to turn off his iPad for the whole flight, just 10 minutes from landing to the runway. It's not THAT big of a deal to live without electronics for such a short time-span. If you're going to act like a fool, someone should call you out on it.

 

[polyh3dron]

It's tested thousands of times a day and has been since portable electronics have existed. Almost any flight you get on is guaranteed to have (multiple) electronic devices running in someone's pocket, their carry on, or their under carriage baggage. You're delusional if you think a simple reminder over the intercom can reliably control hundreds of people's actions. There are probably at least 20-50 devices running on your average flight at all times. The FAA knows this, the airlines know this, the TSA knows this, Boeing knows this--anyone with any amount of common sense knows this.

pretty much this.

i never turn my iphone off on takeoff or landing and when I use it in the air I don't even put it in airplane mode.. every now and then i'll get my texts. I am still alive as you can see.

Spoiler

or am i? dun dun dunnnnn

 

[Sullichin]

It doesn't bother me when I see people do this. Who cares, it doesn't affect me in the slightest -- if it could really be dangerous to use during those times, these devices would be banned outright.

 

[Treefingers]

How is it not my business? Someone is blatantly ignoring a law intended to preserve everyone on board's safety (regardless of whether or not you agree with the intricacies of said law). No one was asking the guy to turn off his iPad for the whole flight, just 10 minutes from landing to the runway. It's not THAT big of a deal to live without electronics for such a short time-span. If you're going to act like a fool, someone should call you out on it.

Because it's not your business, it's his & the flight attendants' business.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's tested thousands of times a day and has been since portable electronics have existed. Almost any flight you get on is guaranteed to have (multiple) electronic devices running in someone's pocket, their carry on, or their under carriage baggage. You're delusional if you think a simple reminder over the intercom can reliably control hundreds of people's actions. There are probably at least 20-50 devices running on your average flight at all times. The FAA knows this, the airlines know this, the TSA knows this, Boeing knows this--anyone with any amount of common sense knows this.

They don't know what those devices are or what kind of RF they are generating. I'm telling you, the FAA and anyone in the industry dealing with avionics understands why the rules are in place. Again if passenger electronics were treated the same as every other piece of equipment on an airplane, they would not be there. Period. They are an exception that regulatory agencies and airlines have deemed acceptable due to a combination of low probability and the effect on those flying if handled consistent with other devices.

The science is clear. The risk is present that a device could cause interference with systems on board an aircraft. I can send you a very long list of companies who spend an awful lot of money making sure they meet strict FAA guidelines who would LOVE to say forget it and not worry about testing for what you belive is a nonexistent problem.

 

[Haint]

They don't know what those devices are or what kind of RF they are generating. I'm telling you, the FAA and anyone in the industry dealing with avionics understands why the rules are in place. Again if passenger electronics were treated the same as every other piece of equipment on an airplane, they would not be there. Period. They are an exception that regulatory agencies and airlines have deemed acceptable due to a combination of low probability and the effect on those flying if handled consistent with other devices.

The science is clear. The risk is present that a device could cause interference with systems on board an aircraft. I can send you a very long list of companies who spend an awful lot of money making sure they meet strict FAA guidelines who would LOVE to say forget it and not worry about testing for what you belive is a nonexistent problem.

I didn't say it was a nonexistent problem. Read my post on the last page, it focuses entirely on the "low probability" angle. I think you're absolutely right that it's a low probability issue they have deemed acceptable, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

 

[Bossun]

Because it's not your business, it's his & the flight attendants' business.

If you have compromised my chances to live or survive you made it my problem. And I'm not talking about interferences or things like that. But if there is a problem and the guy loses 10 seconds because he's on his phone and I'm stuck between him and the window it's my problem. If his phone fly and hit me it's my problem. If he's stuck because he doesn't know what to do because he was/is on his phone he made it my problem. If hypothetically his phone made some interferences that changes a thingy in the thingy from the pilot he made it my problem.

If he decided to keep his phone because he cannot live without it for 5 minutes and feel so superior that he thinks he's above the law and doesn't abide by a rule everybody should complied to he made it my problem.

 

[Enco]

It's tested thousands of times a day and has been since portable electronics have existed. Almost any flight you get on is guaranteed to have (multiple) electronic devices running in someone's pocket, their carry on, or their under carriage baggage. You're delusional if you think a simple reminder over the intercom can reliably control hundreds of people's actions. There are probably at least 20-50 devices running on your average flight at all times. The FAA knows this, the airlines know this, the TSA knows this, Boeing knows this--anyone with any amount of common sense knows this.

.

Just take a look at the idiots who don't understand what 'please keep your seat belts fastened' or 'stay seated until the plane as come to a stop' means.

 

[ant1532]

based of the op, i dont think like you.

 

[KillGore]

heaven forbid you get bored on a commute. HOW CAN YOU SURVIVE?

You mean like driving? driving doesn't take 10 hours and I find driving very interesting, being on the passenger side is boring though, so yes, I usually pop out my phone when I'm on the passenger side (or back).

My apologies then. I've never encountered having to have the entire device off and not just on airplane mode while flying at cruising altitude.

No apologies needed, sorry if I came off as high-strung.

 

[jdub03]

Did you grow up on an airplane?

This made me laugh so hard. Who cares where you grew up. I grew up allive and I'd like to stay that way.

 

[KHarvey16]

I didn't say it was a nonexistent problem. Read my post on the last page, it focuses entirely on the "low probability" angle. I think you're absolutely right that it's a low probability issue they have deemed acceptable, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

Sure they are. I've seen arguments that the ban is only because of the FCC's concerns about ground interference or the airlines desire to control the cabin environment. People have said its impossible for a piece of consumer electronics to interfere with anything on the aircraft.

As for your post specifically, I'm not sure you understand what I mean when I say test. Flying around with the device operating and counting the number of crashes doesn't encompass "testing", I can assure you. In aviation, and with the FAA specifically, testing means meeting strict requirements, having your product approved as meeting those requirements and then having your product approved for use on a specific model of airplane. This is how every piece of electronics destined for installation on an aircraft iis treated, and frankly that should make you feel pretty good. Everything is characterized and then compared to the limits in place for whatever class of device you're building. Consumer electronics do not go through this.

It's a huge, huge pain in the ass but everyone knows why it needs to be done and does it willingly. There is no difference in this context between a phone that sits in your pocket or the GSM modem on the data recorder behind a panel in the cargo area, except one cost a million dollars to test and is guaranteed to never ever turn on during flight. If the industry felt the risk were low enough to simply forgo this expensive testing and potential redesigning I can assure they would. But they don't, and people should be fairly appreciative of that attitude.

 

[Keylime]

If the pilots have iPads in the cockpit, I'm listening to my music during takeoff without fear of bringing that bird down.

 

[KHarvey16]

If the pilots have iPads in the cockpit, I'm listening to my music during takeoff without fear of bringing that bird down.

Those iPads were tested for a long time and at great expense. They are also only approved to use two at a time(and only that specificly approved model).

 

[Wolfe]

ITT people make claims about technology they don't understand and justify selfish cunt behavior.

It is a cautious policy for the safety of everyone on the flight. There is no guarantee that a cellular signal will directly interfere with the instruments on a plane but it is entirely possible and has been observed and recorded as capable of doing so.

Whatever dude, if it was true that someone cell signal was capable of doing so then they wouldn't allow them on the flight period. You really think they would let someone bring a device on board that could potentially take the plane down and then trust them to turn it off when you tell them to if it was even remotely a safety issue?

Give me a break.

Edit:
I don't have a problem with the policy, I just have issue with the whole "it can cause interference and bring down the fucking plane yo!" argument. I gladly turn my shit off when they ask cause why not, I want to make the trip as enjoyable as possible considering they're already ripping me off on the ticket/baggage price

 

[Feep]

Those iPads were tested for a long time and at great expense. They are also only approved to use two at a time(and only that specificly approved model).

Troll confirmed.

 

[bengraven]

My wife and I got into a fight the first time we flew together because she refused to turn her cell phone off. She's like fucking hiding it between her seat and the fuselage. If you're not going to use it, why keep it on? I swear she was trying to be defiant like a teenager.

 

[tfur]

Who cares if it actually does something or not. The rule is "You do not use your phone" so just just don't use it. That's the least you could do if you are well educated and not a self-absorbed jerk.

And if you can't get 2 hours without your phone you have a problem.

That's part of the fashion bro...

Call me ROCK GOD!

 

[KHarvey16]

Troll confirmed.

But it's true! The approval is for a maximum of two devices in the cockpit, one for the pilot and copilot. They use them instead of these huge flight manuals, and American Airlines can justify the expense to test it because it saves them half a million gallons of fuel a year not having to lug 40 lb manuals around.

 

[Kibbles]

Why the fuck do you care if some kid is on their phone during a boring flight?

edit: Yea I read the part about wireless disturbance bs, and thats all it is, is BS.

 

[Oppo]

On the Porter flight I took to Chicago this weekend, I filmed the takeoff out the window with my iPhone. The steward came by and asked me if "that was on airplane mode", to which I (truthfully) said yes, and they were like, alright, carry on. Also I noticed that the audio procedure specifically called for "airplane mode" during flight, nothing about switching devices off.

 

[RBH]

NEWARK — The agency that operates the New York City area's three major airports wants passengers who don't turn off their cellphones or tablets before takeoff to pay up or go to court.

The executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Monday the agency is considering levying fines that could reach tens of thousands of dollars for behavior that causes flight delays.

"We think that with the economic costs of delays and with the passenger inconvenience and the effect on our airports' ability to serve 100 million passengers a year, it's the right thing to do," Pat Foye said.

The issue of electronic devices on planes received national publicity in December when Alec Baldwin was kicked off a New York-bound flight in Los Angeles for refusing to turn off his cellphone. Baldwin, who stars on NBC's "30 Rock," later issued an apology to fellow American Airlines passengers who were delayed but mocked a flight attendant on Twitter.

The use of electronic devices on planes generally is prohibited during takeoffs and landings, and passengers are warned by public announcements. The Port Authority initiative is believed to be the only one of its kind being contemplated at a domestic airport, but it's unclear whether the agency would have the power to implement it. News of the Port Authority's plans was first reported in the New York Post.

According to Foye, Port Authority police last year responded to about 400 calls involving passengers who refused to turn off their electronic devices at John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty International airports. Foye said he believes for every one of those episodes there may have been dozens more in which police weren't called but delays may have ensued.

New York has some of the most crowded airspace in the country, and delays at any of its three major airports can cause havoc around the globe, such as in January 2009 when a security breach closed a terminal for six hours. Flight delays caused by storms in New York often have a ripple effect across the rest of the country.

Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration announced it is looking at ways to test devices to see if they are safe for passengers to use during critical phases of flights such as takeoffs and landings.

Foye said the fines would be targeted primarily at repeat offenders and egregious behavior that causes lengthy delays. He didn't give specifics on how the fines would be calculated but said the airlines would receive some reimbursement.

"The Port Authority legal department has been looking at options we have for bringing civil litigation, and we're prepared to bring that," he said. "We wanted to put people on notice that that is a potential remedy."

Attorney David Stempfler, head of the Air Travelers Association advocacy group, said there could be jurisdictional issues because, while the Port Authority polices the airports, federal agencies such as the FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration govern what takes place inside airplanes.

"It seems like the injured party here is the airline, not the Port Authority," he said. "It's the airline that needs to be taking action against the passengers for doing this. The concept needs to be fleshed out more."

United Airlines, Newark Liberty airport's largest tenant, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

American Airlines said shortly after Baldwin was removed from the plane in Los Angeles that FAA regulations require that cellphones and other electronic devices be turned off as soon as its airliners' doors have been closed. It said Baldwin refused to comply, stood up when the fasten seat belt light was on and took his phone into the lavatory, slamming the door so hard the cockpit crew heard it and became alarmed.

Baldwin spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said that it was the flight attendant who acted inappropriately and that Baldwin was singled out while other people on the plane were violating the regulation.

Air traveler Jamie Williams, a resident of Portland, Maine, who was typing on his laptop Monday at a Newark Liberty airport coffee shop, said he favored the Port Authority's plan even though he hadn't experienced a delay due to an unruly passenger.

"I would have no problem with that," he said. "I think it's a good idea."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/port_authority_considers_finin.html

 

[TheDiabolical]

should of tricked her into saying the word "bomb"

 

[FOOTE]

Cause a scene next time if you want her off the phone, OP.

I wouldn't give a shit, personally.