Federal regulations require compliance with crew members instructions, lighted information signs, and posted placards at all times
Chuck Schumer calls flight attendant a bitch because she asked him to turn his phone off. Living under those laws you pass is kinda annoying, isn’t it?
Note: it’s a stupid law. If your phone could take down a plane, they wouldn’t let you on with it.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Actually, Uncle, there are quite a few accounts of both abuse of cabin crew by cell-phone users as well as reports of cell phones and other PEDs (“passenger-operated electronic devices”) causing interference on aircraft comm systems, flight controls, and instrumentation on various types of commercial airliners. A small sample of these reports can be found here:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf Specifically, reports 13, 17, 26, 36, 37, and 42 detail incidents involving cell phones and personal computers. More disturbing, however, are reports filed on batteries and battery packs for cell phones, computers, and other PEDs overheating and/or catching fire on airliners. Give the report some time – it’s a real eye-opener.
JT
December 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
http://xkcd.com/651/
December 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
My day job involves going into the air in a two-seater Cessna, with more than three hundred pounds of electronics equipment drawing over 750 watts of 110 volt AC power, with some radio antennas sticking out the side of the plane. Two cell phones (thank you, business cell) on all the time. It’s a 40-year old plane you can stick your feet out one side and your arms out the other.
Not a single issue.
I find it very hard to believe a 3 watt MP3 player is going to screw up the VOR on a modern jet.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
gattsuru it won’t. While I appreciate the report from JT, every single one of the reports said something like “suspected” pax device. No proof people were even using them. As a nerdy electrical engineer I’ve read countless studies that counter the claims that cell phone or laptops can cause catastrophic interference. Like Uncle said if this were the case you wouldn’t be allowed on with it.
Now the battery meltdown that’s concerning. People need to bring an extra battery or 2 and not depend on the $10 recharge kits.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
JT, I think you might want to reread those incidents. 42 has nothing to do with personal electronic devices, VHF comm static is pretty common during flight, especially if the antenna shielding is marginal. The concerning one is the TCAS RAs (collision warnings), but like others it’s only suspected interference; false positives on those things are not unheard of.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
This explains why ever Congressperson should have their own private plane paid for by taxpayers, so they can chit-chat with their homies in the Congresshouse and Senatorium and cook up lucrative real-estate deals and earmarks without interference from common people like flight attendants. We probably need to provide them with foreign maids and manservants whom they can berate and threaten to take away their green-cards.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I have a better suggestion: make them park in the regular-folk parking at Reagan, make them wait in the same luggage check, boarding pass and security lines and get the same security checks, make them fly economy rather than business or 1st class, make them carry their own carryons and make them pay for their flights out of their salaries rather than out of campaign funds or travel funds. Just an idea.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Hi, gatsuru.
As you noted, the reports indicate that the PED interference is “suspected”. However, in many of the reports, the encountered difficulties were noted as “ceasing when the FAs did a ‘PED walk'” or when the PIC made an “announcement for a shutdown of electronic devices.” Diagnosing and isolating one particular device requires being able to exactly duplicate the circumstances of the discrepency (device make and model, which seat or overhead bin it was located, etc.) in order to move it from the “suspected” to the “confirmed” column, which would be prohibitive in terms of collecting the needed information (“Excuse me, sir/ma’am, what kind of cell phone do you have? Who is your service provider? What kind of laptop do you have and is it wireless-enabled? Could you show me your boarding pass so I may get your seat number? In which carry-on compartment did you store it?”) and time required to test each device for interference with a/c systems. In some cases, airline maintenance crews WILL test for interference in systems if they know the specifics of the PED, can duplicate the circumstances, and are concerned enough that the situation is hazardous.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
>> 5. gatsuru.
Just for clarification, did you read the full report numbered 555344 (#42 of 50, p.105)? The text of the report specifically references a cell phone in use by a passenger (“Siemens CE0168”) which was subsequently confiscated by a flight attendant. Also, there were no mentions of TCAS RAs in that report.
J.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Bottom line is the slug behaved like the pos he is.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
>> 10. fred
Agreed. No courtesy at all.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Almost twenty years ago the FAA ran a test with various radios, including an ANALOG cell, in a 727. Sure enough, there was enough leakage into the controls to constitute a hazard. As in random control surface movements and other nasties. The “no cells in planes” regulation came out of that.
Oddly perhaps, the much lower frequency and higher power transmissions from Amateur and commercial gear caused no problems. So those are generally banned unless you have express permission of the “captain of the vessel.” Probably also for good reason.
I do not know whether or not that test was repeated with a digital phone – but personally I do not want to be in a commercial airliner when some arrogant camels rectum of a passenger decides to experiment.
Of course, I don’t want to be in a gunfight either. But given the choice, I might well choose the gunfight.
And Schumer? Just another sphincter ani.
Stranger
December 18th, 2009 at 12:44 am
All this blathering about whether or not PED’s are a danger to commercial airliners misses the point entirely.
Shumer should be made to obey the same rules, regulations, and laws as any other citizen. The fact that he deems this as appropriate cause to denigrate the person whom he would defend if she had done the same to anyone else, shows his lack of character and principle. Lacks that should preclude him being elected to any office, let alone the Senate. That his lack of character and principle have not resulted in a termination of his political career speaks directly to the endemic stupidity of New York voters.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
>> 13. straightarrow
No question about Schumer’s deficit of character – unfortunately for the rest of us, he reflects the attitudes and values of those voters who put him in office.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
To get the on-topic stuff out of the way first: Schumer is part of the only logical fallacy ever demonstrated to actually be correct.
Shumer is a politician. Schumer is a dick. Therefore all politicians are dicks. CORRECT!
In regard to cell phone use on aircraft: has anyone noticed that use of cell-phones has long been prohibited on flights as too dangerous, but now that the airlines have the technology to install a cell on the plane, they are suddenly OK?
Do your own Google search. Thirty seconds was enough time to find dozens of links to articles about airlines allowing passengers to use cell-phones now that they can CHARGE for it.