Before We Ban Mobile Phones On Planes, Why Not See If They're Really A Problem?
from the we're-congress,-we-don't-do-empirical-evidence dept
We've already explained why it's rather silly for Congress to pass an outright ban of talking on mobile phones in-flight, but that probably won't stop the effort from going forward. However, new research is showing how this may be even less necessary than many assume. First, contrary to the idea that most people are worried about in-flight phone use, most younger users seem to actually support it.As for the concern that it would just be really "annoying"? It turns out that when you look at actual tests (what a concept), this turns out not to be a problem. Passengers develop their own etiquette for keeping quiet and not pissing off other passengers. In other words, social pressures can handle most of the worst scenarios without the need for any sort of law that bans it in all situations. But, of course, this is Congress we're talking about. They're not huge fans of basing laws on what actually happens, but on what will generate the best headlines.
Also, just to respond to some of the misconception in the comments to the previous post: the potential ban has absolutely nothing to do with the technology issues related to using mobiles on airplanes. It's entirely about the etiquette/annoyance issue. Most of those technical issues have been worked out by putting a "picocell" on the airplane itself to redirect the voice traffic in a more efficient manner, rather than having the phones try to connect directly to towers on the ground.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, in-flight, mobile phones, planes, voice calls
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seriously. A little common sense, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you not read the last paragraph? No one's questioning whether there's a technical problem. It's only the etiquette question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it could be a problem
Perhaps technology has improved. I'd rather not take the chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it could be a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it could be a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it could be a problem
I've heard that sound on several sports and newscasts where anyone with one of these phones or ATT is within 20 feet of a microphone.
..though I've never seen this interference cause any problem other than an auditory annoyance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it could be a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it could be a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it could be a problem
If it were AT ALL anywhere near that easy, we'd not be hearing about "shoe bombs".
We'd not be allowed taking ANY form of electronics on the plane whatsoever. Cargo bays would be electromagnetically shielded from the rest of the plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it could be a problem
electronics used in the 747-400, 777 and A-380.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pfft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a big problem
detector in one incident. I chalk that
up to lousy smoke detector design.
In another incident a CD player upset some
navigation equipment. So it's not like they
positively can't cause a problem. But the
problems would be small and easy to overcome.
The pico cell would solve (I'm guessing)
another problem that occurs when the plane
is in the air.
Overall I agree with the first poster.
The in-flight phone rates are insane and
it's all about the revenue. Though they
don't take laptops, cd players, radios and
so forth away and these devices have
demonstrated ability to cause problems
with "sensitive aircraft electronics" which
I suppose to be receivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a big problem
As the article points out, this is NOT about technology. This is about etiquette and/or airlines attempts to control revenue streams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a big problem
& Space Technology and Air Safety Week for the
last two decades.
Some of the latest testing is here...
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.pdf
You will notice there were issues. Being done
in the UK they did not test using all of the
US cell phone bands. They also didn't test
enough configurations of aircraft to say there
will be no problem from use of cell phones in US
Aircraft. We're talking life safety, it's no time
to fool around or take a guess that it's OK.
Need more? Try this...
http://tinyurl.com/6jv374
And some more reports of interference...
http://tinyurl.com/5braa7
Or find a copy of Air Safety Week, June 7, 1999
for a long article about problems with navigation
equipment caused by consumer electronics brought
onto aircraft.
The senate bill isn't about technology but the
FAA has the final word. The FCC has something
to say about it too. So the senate bans something
that is already banned... BFD. Par for the course,
a do nothing bill. But wait, there must be something
more to it. Recently there was discussion about lifting
the ban on cell phone use on aircraft in flight. So
who stands to gain and who loses if the ban is lifted?
As far as avionics are concerned, you are woefully
misinformed. Go back to sleep or watching Myth Busters
or whatever you were doing.
Additionally you did not read all of my post, or failed
to understand it, and missed my point. The known problems
could easily be fixed. It IS about revenue. The etiquette
arguement is also a diversion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
than a computer model and the result is data. You
can dismiss the rest as anecdotal if you wish. On
the other side of the argument you have feelings
and opinions which all add up to- zero!
Hmmm. Data, albeit with flaws, vs some clod's opinion...
Wow! You're right! Cell phone use during flight
could never cause any sort of problem! Your cogent
argument has as certainly convinced me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
That is not necessarily true (and you have now shown that you really don't know what you're talking about). Whether a mock up is a better model that a computer simulation depends on the fidelity of the mock up and the simulation. A good computer simulation can be much closer to reality than a poor mock up.
The result of this rigged test was invalid data.
I didn't express any "feelings" in my comment and my opinion was based on a reading of the referenced material.
OK, so you admit the data you referenced is flawed.
I was kind of waiting for someone to say something stupid like that. It just so happens that I'm an electrical engineer with experience in the design of instrumentation systems and with a special emphasis on noise reduction. I even took optional courses in that area during my degree studies (University of Texas). But a reader shouldn't need to know that in order read the references you linked to and to see that my nontechnical comment about them was true.
I think an argument that rests on the facts is much more compelling than one that resorts to name calling as yours has. And the fact is that cell phones are used in private aircraft of all sorts everyday and have yet to cause any significant problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
systems, ECL main frame computers, biomedical electronics,
down-hole instrumentation, high power pulse generation,
linear accelerators and much more. I've been responsible
for signal integrity and standards compliance as well as
circuit design on numerous projects... advancing the
crumbling edge of technology for over 30 years.
Been there, done that, bought a house in the country
with the money.
You wrote:
"I think an argument that rests on the facts is much more compelling than one that resorts to name calling as yours has. And the fact is that cell phones are used in private aircraft of all sorts everyday and have yet to cause any significant problems."
I see. You discount anecdotal data unless it fits your
point of view. There are no facts here, where is your
supporting data? The qualifier "significant" renders
your argument suspect and subjective, it is a weasel word.
I call them like I see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
OK, I'll bite.
First, I don't think "anecdotal" means what you think it means. Look it up. I made an observation of a current situation, that's not an anecdote. And anyone else is free to make their own observation to confirm or disprove it.
Second, if you think the word "significant" is a weasel word here then I challenge you to provide an example of any problem that a cell phone has created on a private aircraft. Remember, FAA rules only prohibit cellphone usage on commercial aircraft so there should lots of examples from private aircraft, right? Go ahead, let's just see the magnitude of the problems you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
You never said you have any experience.
Have you designed any electronics for
aircraft and seen the product though
production? No, I thought not.
Your observation is to me second hand,
unverified and anecdotal. Again I ask
show me the data. But you can't.
I never said a mock-up was more accurate
than /any/ simulation.
I get it... You're a troll, I took the
bait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a big problem
Wrong again. Try reading what I wrote and note the part about "experience in the design of instrumentation systems and with a special emphasis on noise reduction".
Why, yes, I have. Military systems in particular.
Wrong again and par for the course.
You still haven't looked up that word "anecdotal" have you? An inability to learn is another sign that you're not an engineer. And if you believe that my observation that there are no existing reports of significant problems relating to the use of cell phones in private aircraft is "unverified" then I again invite you cite such reports. Your continued failure to do so leads me to believe that you can't.
Why, that's just exactly what I've been asking you to do. If those reports of problems with cell phones in private aircraft exist then cite them. I've been pointing out the lack of such data and you're the who's been refusing to provide it.
You said "It's called a mock up, one step closer to reality than a computer model and the result is data." No competent engineer would make such a broad unqualified statement. It's stupid. It all depends on the mock up and the simulation and such a broad statement is easily disproved. I've definitely seen mock ups that were further from reality than simulations.
There you go with the name calling again. And you "get it"? Apparently not. You popped off when you didn't really know what you were talking about and got slapped down. But still, I don't think you "get it" and probably never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Etiquette?
I trust people to be rude and obnoxious and self-centred. Sure, 99.9% of the population would be nice about it. That leaves roughly 1 a**hole on every few flights. And as I fly a lot, I'd hate to have to sit next to one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etiquette?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etiquette?
I don't trust people to be courteous, and if 5 people per long-haul flight were to speak at normal volume, the
These "tests" are cute, but it's not real life. This is from someone who does research related to medicine and cancer. Just because it works in a fake experiment, or in one real experiment involving people, doesn't mean dick all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etiquette?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Etiquette?
Oh, and let's ban personal music players, because people play those with the volume too loud.
Oh, and let's ban people wearing perfume because that can be obnoxious (I don't really like any perfumes at all).
So why exactly are we not banning all these "socially nuisances" but we decide that a cellphone is a major problem requiring government intervention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Etiquette?
1. Firearms
2. Smoking
3. Sex (including masturbation)
4. Paintball games
3. Campfires
4. Livestock (to be cooked over those campfires)
See what happens when you start banning things? You take all the fun out of flying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Etiquette?
As for the sex thing, I don't completely agree with laws restricting that either. I understand why they exist (unlike the cellphone ban), but I don't necessarily agree with their premise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law? are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: law? are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: law? are you serious?
If you want both on planes I wish you luck with your pursuit of happiness as every obnoxious a--hole on the plane starts yacking away because they are bored.
Besides, it will only take the first cellphone (or WiFi for that matter) activated bomb to bring down a plane and you'll realize what a huge mistake it was in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: law? are you serious?
a cell phone ban would not prevent someone from using a cellphone activated bomb...
I'm going to assume someone who's ok with breaking the law for say BLOWING UP A FREAKING PLANE is ok with added cellphone violation penalty...
seriously, people at least TRY to think before you post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: law? are you serious?
Or timer activated. That's why alarm clocks and watches are banned on airplanes, isn't it? Not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phones on Planes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phones on Planes
get your head checked pal.
just because someone is annoying doesn't mean we need a law. If that were the case, there would be a law against your post. It annoys me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phones on Planes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should not be a law. It would be challenged on the freedom of speech. Airlines need to require at least some quiet time on all flights if cell phones are allowed.
And my PC speakers buzz and vibrate EVERY time my AT&T phone on the 3G network rings. Do we really want pilots having that kind of interference in their comm systems? Or possible interference in other systems.
Shut up. Sit back and read a book. Almost everyone talks louder when they're conversing on a phone. There is already enough aggravation in air travel. Please don't open up the path for ratchetjawed people to invade my brain. Please no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I seriously doubt that they're using the same cheap, crappy gear that you probably are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
Maybe that works for what was tested-- "Popular" cell phones and on American/European frequencies. What your failing to realize is that there is a wide variation in air interfaces- 3G and upcoming 4G network types. There's also variation between even models from manufacturers. None of this has been a requirement for equipment approval (FAA) on planes.
So what happens? Some visiting person from another country powers up their odd-frequency new 5G phone on a plane, something reputable Mythbusters or Popular Mechanics didn't test, and it mucks up recieving of navigation beacons, or otherwise. That proverbial visitor didn't know-- The frequencies used in the home country were set by their government. Next, this plane falls out of the sky. Who gets sued?
If SuperPicoCell company wants to test and certify individual manufacturers and models, and guarantee insurance payouts, there may be a chance. Until then, it makes sense that people can get to their destination safely. Am I wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
If cell phones and other electronics were truly a risk, then why are they allowed on a plane AT ALL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
Is it that difficult to sit still for 4 hours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
You are being alarmist and are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (Tom)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's probably because you aren't using an AT&T or T-Mobile phone. It's a feature of GSM technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PC speakers buzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PC speakers buzz
The proper term is electromagnetic due to the fact that the fields involved have both electrostatic and magnetodynamic components. You should know that if you had ever studied electromagnetics so I guessing that you haven't and so don't know what you're talking about. And problems of electromagnetic interference can't be fixed? Well, that is just not true and only further demonstrates ignorance of the subject.
The guy was trying to use his experience with his PC speakers as some kind proof about cell phones on planes which is absurd. It really takes a special kind of arrogance to go popping off ignorant statements about a highly technical field when you know very little about it.
Imagination seems to be all you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why only planes?
Sure, let's restrict everyone's personal freedoms everywhere, so no-one has to be bothered by anyone else, anywhere, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why only planes?
There are plenty of things we can not do because someone decided we shouldn't be able to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why only planes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not safety...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not safety...
And how is it any different than people having cell phones on other forms of transit (metro trains, rail cars, buses, etc...)
Wouldn't the first few instances of such nuisances, being covered by CNN and Fox ('cause you know they will), cause extravagant cellphone use to become a social stigma?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so once again congress tries to control us with laws and rules they dont have to follow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phone use etiquette ?
Using the flawed logic of spontaneously generated etiquette, why bother with any laws, regulations, etc. People would develop their own etiquette for not; stealing, murdering, raping, etc, Right?
If you want to pointlessly flap on your cell phone buy your own plane, otherwise STFU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone use etiquette ?
If so, I have a bunch of web forums I think we should get banned...oh, and a few 24 hr infotainment channels that shouldn't be allowed to be viewed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Cell Phones should not be on Airplanes. . .
Here's the deal. As people that are constantly on the move, many times taking a flight is the ONLY respite we get when it comes to always being connected to our business. It's actually restful not to have to worry about phone calls while your in mid-flight.
Now you want to take our solace!? Our peace and quiet?!
I don't care what the article says about people making their own edicate rules and trying to be curteous. This example that they give doesn't represent the WHOLE. There was still some a-hole talking on the phone on some flight that was ignorant of how much they are inconveniencing the guy next to them.
And sure, it's just 1 a-hole out of 100, but in 3-4 years it's 15 a-holes out of 100. Again, lifting this ban ruins my quiet and solace that I find on a plane. In many cases it's the only time during the day that we as the roaming sales force that spends so much of our time out and abroad get to relax during out day. No phone service. No one breathing down my back wondering why I'm not being more productive at 30,000 feet.
Take your cell phone and stuff'em.....in your carry-on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Cell Phones should not be on Airplanes. . .
Taking your solace and your peace and quiet... where the hell did you take a wrong turn in life that your plane rides are your solace and peace and quiet... your in a metal can strapped to gigantic plane engines... want my advice... prolly not but here it is... NOISE CANCELATION HEADPHONES... or good old EAR PLUGS... problem solved...
BTW, I think your due for a career change, at your pace the millions of dollars your trying to earn hopping 3 flights a day (which if your not earning millions why are you flying so much, are going to be enjoyed by your survived family when you have a heart attack @ age 45
good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones and interference.
I would believe what they were sharing about the cell phone causing radio interference on some of those airplane radios. Some of that equipment that is in that cockpit can be quite old. Not every plane gets updated with the latest in navigational electronics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones and interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phones and interference.
My comment on radio equipment and speakers was in response to other people stating that it wasn't possible for this to happen.
Again, my biggest concern is that I just want my peace and quiet (or as much as I can get on a plane) and not have to deal with people talking overly loud on a phone since they got the cheap seats next to the engines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cell phones and interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones and interference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phones and interference
Because then you can't hear and obey the commands of the flight crew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
However, to say that cellphone interference being dangerous enough to warrant a federal ban is silly... might be stretching things a bit.
In a given plane, the data and instrumentation cables and all the panels and sensitive equipment is shielded. It is reasonable, *assuming* all planes are in perfect condition, to say that it is silly to think cellphones will interfere with the plane. A Boeing 747 has a maximum passenger allotment of 524 people. The new Airbus A380 can carry up to 853 passengers. That's a lot of lives depending on an assumption that, historically, has proven absurd.
Almost all of the major plane crashes involving large aircraft over the last 4 decades have been the result of maintenance issues with the aircraft. Damaged joints. Rusted structural supports. Leaky fuel lines. Improperly calibrated instrumentation. Faulty wiring. Etc. Historically speaking large passenger jets are poorly maintained. Not all of them. Not most of them. Not really even enough to say "some of them." It's really just a handful of them. Just 524-853 passengers worth roughly 2-3 times a decade. How's that for perspective?
Now let's say the year is 2014. An airbus that has been in service with 2007 is on a routine Trans-Atlantic flight from Dubai to New York. Unknown to the maintenance crews and the cabin crew and the pilots and the passengers on board a single cable carrying information from instrumentation at the rear of the plane has slowly been weakening over the 7 years of the planes service. As the plane passes over land for the last time until New York a business professional calls his wife to let her know he will be out of cellphone range for a while. The call is short and to the point and goes off without a hitch.
The Airbus continues on and makes it's flight across the Atlantic. However as it approaches the east coast of the states it gets caught in a fairly rough, but none the less manageable storm. The turbulence from which finally damages the shielding enough to expose the cable. This in and of itself does not pose an issue. However as the storm abates the passengers including our business professional looks out to see they are approaching land. Our business professional places his cellphone call to tell his wife he will be home soon. Again it is a short call and goes off without a hitch... however unknown to every one on board it also confuses the instrumentation. 30 minutes later all that is left of the plane and it's 800 some odd passengers is burning wreckage in the middle of a JFK Airport runway.
Is this improbable? Yes. But then so was what happened to Apollo 13. So was what happened in many of the accidents and crashes that have happened over the years. In almost each case the problem could have been avoided with rigorous maintenance and a refusal to send old decrepit planes back into service. But hey, 500 people here 800 people there, no big deal right?
If banning cellphones on planes prevents even one such accident, even if we never know about it and even if it gives the various air travel companies a monopoly, I say its worth it.
Oh and that's not even counting all the smaller aircraft that travel from smaller airports to larger ones in connecting flights. The maintenance and safety records for those are outright atrocious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
Unfortunately, you can't read and your opus is completely off-topic.
From TFA: "the potential ban has absolutely nothing to do with the technology issues related to using mobiles on airplanes. It's entirely about the etiquette/annoyance issue."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
And yes I can and did read the article. Regardless of what the ban is about it would achieve the same goal. As some one who actually is *mildly* intelligent I understand that a good thing achieved for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
*shudder*
Please, look beyond the immediacy of the achieved "good thing"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
Improbable to the point of absurdity even.
...I say its worth it.
I get the feeling that you'd say almost anything. In a world full of people thinking like that airplanes would be banned completely, along with automobiles, knives and anything else with which anything could possibly go injuriously wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue with cellphone interfearance.
Don't even leave your house... there is an 98 cellica down the street with faulty wiring that as soon as the punk teenager starts it up this morning and runs over the curb will bruise the wiring harness sending a false signal to the injector rather then the abs system resulting in speeding into your now lifeless body rather then stopping before you as you cross the street...
on second thought, go a head, cross the street, one less paranoid f### off the streets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a few days ago there was a shouting match on the #23 bus that crosses Manhattan on the street of the same name. After enduring 15 minutes of relentless and loud droning by a thoughtless fool, passengers around him erupted in frustration and anger. When I got off at my stop the mutual name calling and shouting was continuing.
This scenario is repeated all over the city, every day. If and when phones can be used in the subway, it will spread there.
And please don't give me some class bias nonsense that business people on a plane will be more considerate. You only have to ride the expensive Acela between Boston and Washington to hear the same ignorant abuse of other people's right to silence.
One of these days, someone is going to be killed over cell phone rage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Taxis drivers too
If cell phone use ever makes it to the air, the Sprint/Nextel service should always be banned with that awful squawk it performs for the push-to-annoy service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And Taxis drivers too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phones on planes
It is annoying having to follow rules but there is a reason that makes sense. It is my understanding that the air phone system uses a different frequency than cell phones and does not interfere with nav equipment. Why take the chance. Take a break and enjoy the ride. Why do we need to always be on the phone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But we can all attest to the FACT that on the ground today most people are no where close to developing their own etiquette for keeping quiet and not pissing off other people NOT using cell phones. Social pressure, so far, can NOT handle most of the scenarios of people talking nonsense into their phones to keep their friends aware of their every movement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the ban, it's who creates the ban.
I also kinda harbor a hope that in-flight cell use will stay banned, but only if the airlines do it.I prefer not to be annoyed, but I don't think I've a constitutional right to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phone use in airplanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the billing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom is the answer
(note: freedom also applies to many other political issues, and the right answer is always: the government shouldn't be involved.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banning poor behavior?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illusion ...delusion.. imagine...
and those who don't....those on autopilot completely obsessed with "self".. me me me , what I want .. what is important to me, don't repress me, I am free to do what I want..say what I want..think what I want....
think??? If only..
the vast majority of people born in the "commercial" first world have been programmed since birth to consume.. their god given right... Are you a victim of corporate / telco brainwashing?
Ponder this..
10 years ago.. how many had a mobile phone
15 years ago?
You still had a business.. you still communicated with friends and family, sure, it wasn't spur of the moment, at the touch of your fingertips.. but it still happened.
Modern communication technology has been a boon to both business and personal relationships.. Some here have stated they are "free" because they can "make a phone call"..
Are you so free when the boss calls you at 9pm...7am.
while you are asleep,
showering,
having sex?
Are you so free you can afford not to go to work to earn the money to pay the bill to use your phone..
I doubt there are many reading this blog who are sooooooo important.. that they could not go without being contacted for a few hours... The world still continues without a phone..
I live in Australia.. I run a business in media.. I love my phone... If I fly overseas.. I am offline for 8 to 26 hours.. When I get off the plane...
the business is still there..
the family..
my friends...
and I have had time to reconnect with ... myself..
You are not your phone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? It's about Etiquette?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? It's about Etiquette?
You know, the best way to keep an airplane from crashing after takeoff is to never takeoff. Just taxi all the way to the destination. I mean, why take the chance, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really? It's about Etiquette?
That was always just an excuse. However, now that cellphones are used on private aircraft everyday without problem that excuse is beginning to wear a little thin.
Why take the chance.
You know, the best way to keep an airplane from crashing after takeoff is to never takeoff. Just taxi all the way to the destination. I mean, why take the chance, huh?
-------------------------------------------------
Well you sure do have alot to say Mr. Anonymouse.
Of course you left out the next line or so when I mentioned it was probably because the FAA just didn't trust cell phones at that time. it may be a thin arguement but it's the FAA's playground and you have to follow the rules. I'm assuming your young enough to understand playground rules, right? There is a difference in risk and risky behavior resulting in increased risk. If you don't understand then this discussion is beyond you. I'm sure the FAA knows it's a minimal risk and that it can lift the ban. I'm also sure that they know that the ban on phone usage supports the ramp up in airport/airplane security. Allowing the use and dropping the ban would go against this increase in security and the FAA would have to show that technically it's not an issue. This would result in millions in testing that would trickle through the airlines to your ticket price. Be careful what you ask for. I also seem to remember that the highjackers of 9/11 communicated with cell phones. Kind of goes with the security measure don't you think. It's a volital subject as you can see so why would the FAA open itself to it. Again we are talking about taking minimal risk when flying in a plane that is in it's design perameters physically and technically. Also again when you are talking about taking that marginal risk and add a device that may or may not interfere with the technical specifications of a plane resulting in a crash then WHY TAKE THE RISK.
Again when speaking of etiquette it simply can't be and shouldn't be regulated by legislation. You're not in free society when you are on a plane. It's the same as being a customer in a place of business and that business has rules you must follow. The FAA has the rule and frankly I support it just because the environment simply does not lend itself to talking on the phone with out great disruption. If the captain comes over the loud speaker and says hey we're going down I would like to hear the instruction without waiting for this anonymous moron to hang up his phone.
Can't fix stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really? It's about Etiquette?
I'm even mature enough that, unlike you apparently, I don't have to think of things in terms of childish analogs in order to comprehend them.
You certainly seem to be sure of yourself, or should I say full of yourself? Because you certainly don't provide any support for your assertions.
And where is the evidence you have that cell phones are a security risk? If they are, then why are the installed on-board phones allowed? And if cell phones are a security risk on planes, then couldn't they be so just about everywhere? Do you just want to see cell phones banned entirely?
Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about (surprise, surprise). It was actually some of the passengers who used cell phones on the planes (against the rules) to report on the hijacking.
Parameters are subject to sudden and unpredictable change (not to mention possible design errors). Again, if you want zero risk in the air then you better just keep the plane on the ground.
My city has a noise ordinance. If you are playing loud music than can be heard more than 100 feet from your property you can be issued a citation by the police. Every year many such citations are issued. So much for not being able to legislate "etiquette" and so much for the idea that everyone will practice good "etiquette" willingly. Another example is smoking on planes. It took government regulation to get that stopped. An expectation of "good manners" just didn't do it.
And guess what gives that rule authority: Law. Without laws the FAA would have no such authority.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the cell phone ban on scheduled flights. I'm just not in favor of being dishonest about the reasons. When you are strapped into your assigned seat beside some inconsiderate loudmouth phone yakking jerk you cannot just get up and move to a quieter seat. Nor can you legally just take matters into your own hands, so to speak. In such a situation regulations are needed that can be enforced by air crews to avoid feuds between passengers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really? It's about Etiquette?
I vote that Anaonymous Coward should be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible!
Why does Congress need to get involved? Can't the airlines handle this themselves?
Mostly, I don't want to live in a socialist country!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible!
Yeah, before you know it they'll be wanting to ban handguns and smoking on planes too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incredible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your absolutely right! Why is India taking all the jobs?
It's because they speak The Queen's English! The fact they are cheap as hell is just icing on the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know what happened
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courteous travelling
For me, it's worth paying a few hundred dollars to get across country in 4 hours.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phones on Airplanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is insane!
In fact the only possible conclusion from this silly experiment would be that inside an aircraft is the worst possible place for the phone. People try and sleep or read on an airplane, which cannot be said for lots of other public places where the phones annoy.
No experiment needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phone Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inconsiderate Cell Phone Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UIx8QNVZak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law no.
I would be happy with wi-fi though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones on Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just let me text
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they can put some phone booths next to the crapers for those who want to talk, and make it sound proof, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't fing get the hype... it's all just talk
Did some of the people not read the article?
IT"S NOT ABOUT TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS...
I'll probably get flamed for this, but MythBusters proved cell phones won't bring a plane down. - Discussion over
I think people are upset about cell-phone users because they themself feel lonely and sad that there is noone that they need to talk to that bad that they have to do it on the plane. Your complaining about someone using a cell phone in a restaurant... why, because you only get half the conversation and it pisses you off that you can't hear the other half... I find that 2 people at the table next to me are generally much louder then the guy over in the corner on his lunch break trying to whisper sweet nothings in his sweety's ear. Same goes for plane passengers, what people aren't allowed to talk on planes... maybe we should have a voice ban on planes... I'll have a petition made and passed around right away (oh go a head an make fun of my spelling skillz). Some of these people freaking get me...
Are you seriously that lonely that you can't accept that people have reasons to talk to eachother. Think about a busy commuting dad that is wanting to talk to his daughter because she got picked to be tree # 2 for her 1 grade play, or the husband that is flying back home because his wife went into labor. With stupid ass bans such as this propsed one, our right to communicate freely given to us by technology, is being taken away because someone got a 4 dollar a minute revenue stick up their ass. (agreeing with the first post)
And i'll assume the postition that if you were to, say turn around to the person talking to loud and say, hey bud, I'm sorry to bother you, but I am very tired and wanted to try to sleep, would you mind talking just a little quiter, and did so in a NON-ASSHOLEISH manner... they might just quiet down a little bit... and isn't this the exact same thing you would do if it was a couple people talking loudly behind you? Or would you just bottle it all up and let loose on the web like some of you have just right now?
GET THE F OVER IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phones on a Plane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CELLSPHONES ON PLANES
If they allow cellphones in planes, in such an enclosed environment where there is no escape, then be prepared for a lot more passenger rage.
NO NO NO!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relying on "etiquette" and good manners in this case just seems incredibly naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it could be a problem by Brian
On a side note, when I was a bit younger and was aware of how cell phones were no good on planes, I was told that it's because planes passed over cell towers so quickly that phones had a hard time keeping up with all the tower hopping, and that the phones did not necessarily bother the pilots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not in my book...
1. As an airline pilot, I have heard interference from several cell phones over my comm systems, in several different models of planes. Sometimes those phones were my own, the other pilots', or a passengers.
2. In regards to the comment in the article, " In other words, social pressures can handle most of the worst scenarios without the need for any sort of law that bans it in all situations"....what a load of crap!!! My airline arrests, detains, denies boarding to hundreds of passengers a year...due to actions these clowns have taken on our planes. And you think common courtesy is alive and kicking somewhere out there? I'll take my naps in the back of the airplane in peace thank you...without someone's inane conversation regarding their minute by minute account of how their airplane ride is going, or whatever some of these folks will say to pass their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are freaking crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason why they don't want cell phone use in planes
What happens if you go up in the air ..??
you get the SAME DISTANCE from lots and lots of towers.... this creates a big processing problem,, which tower should handle that little chat with the wife... the network goes crazy trying to figure out which tower to use ... suppose you are flying over a city you could have all the towers in the city trying to measure your signal and re - distance they are all the same signal strength...
now add this to between 6 and 8 hundred callers at once like on your big jets .. OK then got the picture... now add 10 Jets into the mix ... this will bring the network to it's knees...
all this about safety of the electronic's is rubbish..... just recently the Picocell has become available and the trunking chanels have been sorted....
Historic paranoia on this issue has created a goldmine for the airlines but in the beginning they will overcharge and people will struggle to use them....
My advice is to use an earpiece with a small mic and use your phone anyway the teleco's can just put up with it............ it won't crash the plane !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phone inconsideration
A lot of arguments plus and minus on the technical aspects. Sure...some legit, some myth. Many of the tech aspects can be resolved (at great expense due to aviation approvals, certification, etc., which costs will of course be passed on to the passenger), by shielding, and various other means. Numerous problems have been caused in the past by several transmitting devices, not just cellphones. Many of these problems have been successfully resolved. However, with constant technology changes, we never know with 100% accuracy what effect that new wiz bang electro super wi fi gadget is going to have. Unfortunately with aviation, as many other things in our society, much of the learning curve is a result of some tragic event having taken place, often at the expense of many lives. Why take the chance?
As for peoples RIGHTS, this argument is wearing very, very thin in many areas of society. People have a basic problem in confusing rights with privleges. Cell phone use, particularly in areas in which others may be affected, is a priviledge. Unfortunately, many people's world consists of that 2 foot radius around them, and everything outside of that radius is non existent. The basic concept of consideration for others has gone the way of the do-do bird. How often have you just walked down the street, without the distractions of cell phones, etc. and people just walk right into you as if you don't exist. I keep seeing the argument in this post of laws not being required, that people will develop a suitable etiquette on their own. Hasn't happened in the past...why would it suddenly happen now? I don't think some of us are so all important that we can't be out of touch for a few hours while on an airplane.
As an airline pilot currently flying long haul flights to Europe, I have a basic knowledge of some of the technical aspects. I also have some knowledge of the human aspects of being sealed in an aluminium tube for 8 or 9 hours at a time. Sometimes it isn't pretty. It sometimes doesn't take much to spark an incident among passengers. In many cases, all it takes is a lack of consideration for others. Unfortunately, many cell phone users don't exhibit consideration for others at the best of times, much less at 35,000 feet in an enclosed, confining, noisy aluminium can. I have better things to do (like fly the plane) than try and resolve passenger disputes, arranging for the authorities to meet the flight, or in extreme cases, possibly having to divert to somewhere short of destination (much to everyone's inconvenience). Let's not open up the potential for more problems in the air...it's already bad enough...NO CELL PHONES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about the contitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very, very, very glad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason cells were banned on airplanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phones During Flight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellphones affect avionics, here's your proof
There are numerous reports in the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) database of navigation errors which ceased after the crew asked for PEDs to be turned off. Although the VOR system was most often cited, the instrument landing system (ILS) was reported to have been affected 17 times, radar altimeters 10 times, autopilot systems eight times, ground-proximity warning systems seven times and an engine fuel controller once, in data through March 2001. Significantly, in a number of cases, the cockpit crew verified that the PED was the source of the error by having it turned back on and seeing the navigation error repeat, before requiring that the device be secured.
Personal electronics have caused avionics interference on airliners and general aviation aircraft. These devices are being used on revenue flights, including cell phones during approach. Passengers are not aware that their electronics are restricted for safety reasons.
http://www.overhaulmaintenance.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=comm&id=news /VIEW04136.xml&headline=Are%20Personal%20Electronics%20A%20Threat%20To%20Aircraft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellphones affect avionics, here's your proof
http://www.overhaulmaintenance.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/VIEW041 36.xml&headline=Are%20Personal%20Electronics%20A%20Threat%20To%20Aircraft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]