Aircraft and turning off your 'electronic devices'
Discussion
havoc said:
* Le TVR, your point about crystal oscillators is noted, but they're in digital watches as well, and I'm not aware of anyone banning digital watches from planes...and I'd suggest that the strength of oscillator in a modern MP3 is not substantially greater than that in a watch.
Crystal used in watches are much much lower in frequency and the watch case is normally metal so very little is radiated.Crystals in players are usually in the HF frequency bands and the player case is usually plastic and the wires to you earphones act just the same as a VHF aerial. A lot (in radiocommunication terms) gets radiated. Testing has shown that manufacturers of such equipment are not going to pay 1 yen extra for screening etc
In the past I have located and "decommisioned" an similar device that was blocking a police radio repeater. Said device was radiating less than 1 nanowatt and complied with the product standard.
Famous Graham said:
havoc said:
So, that said, can someone who isn't a hypocrite explain to me where these two arguments differ substantially**?
Deliberately drive a fully loaded bus past a policeman at 150 and you might have an analogyThe best excuse I ever heard was The mobile phone signal could interupt the braking system upon landing ... when I asked the Stewardess how it could be possible as the braking system is hydraulic she ummed and couldnt answer ... I replied .. ahhh it must be because it could jam under the brake pedal! ... she wasnt amused
- I actually had switched all my electronic stuff off on the flight, and was just engaged in smalltalk to the stewardess who was sat opposit me **
Actually it could. Whilst the system is obviously hydraulic, what do you think controls those hydraulics? Aircraft use autobraking systems where the rate of deceleration is set by twirling a knob. It is not like a car in this respect. (well maybe a bit like Mercs brake assist system.)
JVaughan, this next bit isn't aimed at you.
We have another example of where people think they know better than the airlines, the CAA or the professionals who are flying the aircraft, but without the knowledge to back that up. We know the risks and why we have certain rules and regulations. We understand the systems and what the pitfalls and issues are. That's because we are professionals.
When people with naff all knowledge start banging on about how these rules are stupid and then get all ars*y about it, then I get fed up.
If you were an aircraft engineer and understood the systems well, then I'd listen, but since all the professionals and people who know what they are talking about are in agreement, then maybe it's time to wind your neck in.
Trying to equate what we do in an aircraft to the enforcement of speed limits, is laughable.
There are times where 70mph on a motorway is perfectly safe, others where it is suicidal.
Flying is fundamentally dangerous and it is through the application and enforcement of rules and regs that now mean that it is one of the safest modes of transport available to the human race. Amazing really. So you'll forgive me for considering your right to listen to music for 45 minutes to be less important than the safety culture that's been built up the hard way over the last 100 years.
Try flying in 3rd world countries, you'll see the difference. Whilst I think we are sometimes over-regulated in certain areas, when it comes to actual airline ops, we've got it pretty well sorted. The accident statistics bear that out. Whilst the CAA are a right royal pain in the ar*e for the postholders and clerks, for us at the pointy end, it's not too bad.
Flying is generally safe, but it only takes one thing or a few seconds of idiocy for a flight to end in the nastiest way possible. So again. I will not apologise or even consider your opinion when it comes to making sure that I, my passengers and other crew get home at the end of each day in one piece.
JVaughan, this next bit isn't aimed at you.
We have another example of where people think they know better than the airlines, the CAA or the professionals who are flying the aircraft, but without the knowledge to back that up. We know the risks and why we have certain rules and regulations. We understand the systems and what the pitfalls and issues are. That's because we are professionals.
When people with naff all knowledge start banging on about how these rules are stupid and then get all ars*y about it, then I get fed up.
If you were an aircraft engineer and understood the systems well, then I'd listen, but since all the professionals and people who know what they are talking about are in agreement, then maybe it's time to wind your neck in.
Trying to equate what we do in an aircraft to the enforcement of speed limits, is laughable.
There are times where 70mph on a motorway is perfectly safe, others where it is suicidal.
Flying is fundamentally dangerous and it is through the application and enforcement of rules and regs that now mean that it is one of the safest modes of transport available to the human race. Amazing really. So you'll forgive me for considering your right to listen to music for 45 minutes to be less important than the safety culture that's been built up the hard way over the last 100 years.
Try flying in 3rd world countries, you'll see the difference. Whilst I think we are sometimes over-regulated in certain areas, when it comes to actual airline ops, we've got it pretty well sorted. The accident statistics bear that out. Whilst the CAA are a right royal pain in the ar*e for the postholders and clerks, for us at the pointy end, it's not too bad.
Flying is generally safe, but it only takes one thing or a few seconds of idiocy for a flight to end in the nastiest way possible. So again. I will not apologise or even consider your opinion when it comes to making sure that I, my passengers and other crew get home at the end of each day in one piece.
Edited by IforB on Tuesday 24th February 12:19
Edited by IforB on Tuesday 24th February 12:22
havoc said:
stuff
Can't you just accept, that for 45 mins or whatever, you have to switch off your electronic devices? it's quite simple, you're being told to do something because you have to do it, it matters not one bit if you agree or disagree, just turn the thing off!My other half was one of the people you're talking about and left the job because of passangers these days speaking to them like dirt - I accept that you said you didn't raise your voice but the amount of times she was asked why they had to switch things off etc, drove her to dispair, you're on their plane, you go by their rules.
She has since left the industry because of the passangers and the way they treat them, I was on a flight with her once and would have quite happily punched the chap in the face if he'd spoken to me the way he spoke to the crew. The pilots on here and CC alike are telling you, it's their rules, you go by them, simple as that.
It might be helpful if all CC had a firm grasp of what they should say.
I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
Famous Graham said:
havoc said:
So, that said, can someone who isn't a hypocrite explain to me where these two arguments differ substantially**?
Deliberately drive a fully loaded bus past a policeman at 150 and you might have an analogy
gazza_3 said:
I always like to think-
In my car, you go by my rules.
In your car, i'll go by your rules.
In the Pilots 737, i'll go by his rules.
Are you a taxi-driver then?In my car, you go by my rules.
In your car, i'll go by your rules.
In the Pilots 737, i'll go by his rules.
Edited by havoc on Tuesday 24th February 12:43
havoc said:
gazza_3 said:
I always like to think-
In my car, you go by my rules.
In your car, i'll go by your rules.
In the Pilots 737, i'll go by his rules.
Are you a taxi-driver then?In my car, you go by my rules.
In your car, i'll go by your rules.
In the Pilots 737, i'll go by his rules.
No, but I don't want people eating in my car, or I don't want to drive if people havn't buckled up. No feet on the dash etc.
longblackcoat said:
It might be helpful if all CC had a firm grasp of what they should say.
I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
you've just said it there, they have no discretion, why does it need to be in black and white? anyways, the people you're talking about, won't read the literature as they know best, it drives me to despair that you would have to ask over and over again, why you need to turn it off? you turn it off because you're told to, the reason she was aggresive with you, is more than likely, she's been asked twenty times already why you have to turn them off! are you trying to outsmart them or something? I would imagine most don't know the detailed reason why you as a passanger need to turn it off, neither do they care, all they know is you turn them off, so do it.I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
Apart from all the practical, technical and theoretical reasons for not doing so, anyone who feels put out by not being able to use their mobile electronic device during a flight is a cock in my book and I'd pefer not to have you on my aircraft.
The summary reason for not doing so is that you've been asked not to.
If you can't accept that you need to grow up and get a life. Adults who act like insolent children are pathetic.
Some of the eejits on this thred make me realise that it's a blessing that my only passengers are aviators and animals.
The summary reason for not doing so is that you've been asked not to.
If you can't accept that you need to grow up and get a life. Adults who act like insolent children are pathetic.
Some of the eejits on this thred make me realise that it's a blessing that my only passengers are aviators and animals.
longblackcoat said:
It might be helpful if all CC had a firm grasp of what they should say.
I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
Why should they need to bother? They are Cabin Crew, not engineers or airline management, their role is not to debate policy or physics, but to make sure passengers are safe by enforcing the rules they are told to. Most will have an answer ready for this sort of question, as they'll probably get asked it 50 times a day. However, it is neither big nor clever to start trying to pull their comments apart because they might not be 100% correct in your eyes.I've asked a good few CC about the need to switch off a phone/Blackberry/laptop, and have had varying answers, none of which remotely answered the question. On one flight I was told, very aggressively, that this was the rule, and that if I wasn't going to comply I would be deplaned (we'd been sitting in the 'about to take off' queue for 20 minutes). I was genuinely shocked at that response, but perhaps the CC had had an appalling day. Not that bothered, it was a real rarity.
But if they were all given a nice, clear, explanation, that could point passengers to the relevant law, and state categorically that even non-transmitting devises such as an iPod really do interfere with navigation (I have to admit to scepticism here) then 90+% of the complaints and bad feelings about this would be nipped in the bud. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to print this in the literature which is crammed in the seat pocket, pointing out that the CC have NO discretion in this matter, and until the law changes it's simply unreasonable to have a go at them for it.
It is not rocket science to imagine the reason why you shouldn't use these devices. The reasoning has also been expained in detail here already. So just let them get on with their jobs.
If they are sitting doing nothing and you are chatting, then by all means, do like JVaughan did and ask them, but when they are running about trying to get the cabin prepared for take off or landing, they simply have more important things to do.
To go back to Havoc's argument about speed limits.
We all know the limit in the motorway is 70mph, we know the reasons why, we might not agree with them, but if you are caught exceeding it, then you are simply bang to rights. Not many people will argue that one.
In this case as well, no-one gives a t*ss if you agree with the rules or not, all we ask is that you follow them. If you refuse, then like breaking the speed limit, you will get some form of punishment.
Unlike the Police, who if they want, can have some discretion and give you a slap on the wrists and let you off with a warning, you are far more likely to get done in this case. CC aren't given leeway in these matters, there are laid down procedures for dealing with trouble makers and you by refusing to turn off your electronic device when asked, ARE a trouble maker. You are putting other people at potential risk by your selfish actions.
I have come to the conclusions from reading your comments, that you are in fact 12 years old and therefore incapable of seeing the potential consequences of your actions.
havoc said:
Famous Graham said:
havoc said:
So, that said, can someone who isn't a hypocrite explain to me where these two arguments differ substantially**?
Deliberately drive a fully loaded bus past a policeman at 150 and you might have an analogyThe 150mph was an arbitrary figure, but one which is "against the rules". As is using an electronic device. I could have said "at night with your lights off" or something else illegal.
The "driving past a policeman" bit was breaking the rules in front of someone tasked with enforcing them, ie using your device in front of cabin crew.
The "loaded bus" was to illustrate that there are many other people in both cases who would be affected by your behaviour.
The end result of which was to demonstrate that your original comparison was inaccurate and the analogy flawed, as you requested.
If you think that's illogical, then I can finally see why you think it's acceptable to complain about having to do without your ipod for half an hour.
IforB said:
Why should they need to bother?
Because it's good customer service. I'd have thought that, knowing there's an issue with customer perception (you mention that they get asked this 50 times a day), giving the CC something which is easily understood / technically accurate would be a good way to defuse problems. And all the CC would need to do would be to point the passenger to the relevant page of the in-flight instructions. IforB said:
I have come to the conclusions from reading your comments, that you are in fact 12 years old and therefore incapable of seeing the potential consequences of your actions.
I'll assume you missed your anger management classes today. Have I been impolite or aggressive to you?Re asking CC a question when things aren't busy ..... they're ALWAYS busy. But as a rational and, dare I say it, reasonably intelligent person, it's in my nature to enquire. I don't like to be told "just do this" unless I have some form of reason. A polite, sensible "actually, the use of ALL electrical equipment is contrary to XXX Act 2005 - sorry, blame the government, they're the ones setting the rules" would immediately divert any frustration elsewhere, and allow the CC to get on with their job.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff