Aircraft and turning off your 'electronic devices'
Discussion
Famous Graham said:
You didn't read a word anyone said. There's been plenty of explanation, just you don't like the answers you've been given, so you've summarily dismissed them.
Graham,As we've got on in the past, I'll answer you.
I can and DO read what people say. But I've seen little facts just lots of supposition and "planes are dangerous, they can fall out of the sky" hyperbole.
The explanations have been of the form "it's the law" and "phones interfere" (I wasn't talking about phones). So except for Le TVR who mentioned the crystal oscillator (I have learned something new), nothing specifically addressing my comments. And emphatically nothing about why even transmitting devices are permitted throughout most of a flight, yet absolutely nothing is at take-off and landing*...so how much effect can transmitting devices actually have if they're permitted when over mid-ocean, for example? And by extension how much effect can a (effectively) non-transmitting device then have? Can people see the logic in my argument? I'm not asking people to say "you're right", just that "I can see where you're coming from, but..."!
But so far there's been almost nothing except "it's the law, live with it"...which as I've said before, when spouted by a copper in SP&L has been met with derision and complaint...but here most posters seem very happy to go along with it, all in the name of "safety".
- Is this the same "safety" that gave us Guantanamo?
- Or how about 42-day detention?
- Or the ceaseless march towards ID cards?
- Or maybe it's the same "safety" that's seeing more and more rural speed limits dropping and more cameras popping up?
- Or possibly the same "safety" which means we can't gain information about coppers anymore without risking arrest?
...every single one of these 'necessary laws' has been questioned and pilloried as unnecessary on here, yet this "law" about flight safety is being soundly espoused by most on this thread without them knowing ANY of the facts!!!
So do you see why I keep pushing this? If there is a genuine safety reason then I'm happy to hear it...but a GENUINE one, not one of the same nature as the "1/3 of all KSI accidents are caused by speed" misdirection, which is what I'm getting from Ifor.
And if it's just because it's "the law", then quite frankly, under the PH "arbitrary laws are crap" mantra (which we have for everything road-related and quite a lot of Human Rights stuff), I'll keep having a go about it...
* Yes, I'm aware they're the riskiest points in a flight...but if these devices have a known effect, why are they permitted at all?!?
Havoc,
Please don't try the tired trolling technique of attempting to link other, broadly agreeable, arguments to your own now rather tiresome, petulant attempt at a rant, the validity of which has long since been blown out of the water.
Lets try..one more time, with gusto, to get this through to you:
1) Electronic items have the capacity, and have been shown in practice to interfere with comms and navigation systems aboard airliners. Forget Mythbusters, or any of the glib or frankly mindless comments to the contrary. It happens.
2) The times at which dependence on these systems is most critical are in the approach and departure phases.
3) It simply isn't feasible in a mass-transit environment to distinguish which of the gadgets in a cabin full of passengers may or may not pose a significant risk. Your protestations to the cabin crew about your personal gadget carry no weight - they cannot know if you are Albert Einstein or Terry Feckwit (but they may form an opinion). Hence, the prudent thing to do is, ultimately because the aircraft commander directs it, that they be turned off and put away.
4) You previously stated that this direction by the aircraft commander "is not the law". It has been manifestly, and repeatedly, pointed out to you that it *is*....and has been for many, many years, long before the advent of some of the more recent unneeded and authoritarian legislation with which you foolishly try to equate with it.
5) Should you wish to undertake international air travel in an environment where every attention is paid to your wishes and opinions, the answer is simple, and readily available: there are a number of enterprises who will provide you with personal jet transport - provided you have the funds. If you don't then either accept the basic strictures that commercial mass-transit flying involves, with good grace, or walk.
Now then, is there anything in the above you don't understand?
Please don't try the tired trolling technique of attempting to link other, broadly agreeable, arguments to your own now rather tiresome, petulant attempt at a rant, the validity of which has long since been blown out of the water.
Lets try..one more time, with gusto, to get this through to you:
1) Electronic items have the capacity, and have been shown in practice to interfere with comms and navigation systems aboard airliners. Forget Mythbusters, or any of the glib or frankly mindless comments to the contrary. It happens.
2) The times at which dependence on these systems is most critical are in the approach and departure phases.
3) It simply isn't feasible in a mass-transit environment to distinguish which of the gadgets in a cabin full of passengers may or may not pose a significant risk. Your protestations to the cabin crew about your personal gadget carry no weight - they cannot know if you are Albert Einstein or Terry Feckwit (but they may form an opinion). Hence, the prudent thing to do is, ultimately because the aircraft commander directs it, that they be turned off and put away.
4) You previously stated that this direction by the aircraft commander "is not the law". It has been manifestly, and repeatedly, pointed out to you that it *is*....and has been for many, many years, long before the advent of some of the more recent unneeded and authoritarian legislation with which you foolishly try to equate with it.
5) Should you wish to undertake international air travel in an environment where every attention is paid to your wishes and opinions, the answer is simple, and readily available: there are a number of enterprises who will provide you with personal jet transport - provided you have the funds. If you don't then either accept the basic strictures that commercial mass-transit flying involves, with good grace, or walk.
Now then, is there anything in the above you don't understand?
Edited by eharding on Tuesday 24th February 19:21
havoc said:
Famous Graham said:
You didn't read a word anyone said. There's been plenty of explanation, just you don't like the answers you've been given, so you've summarily dismissed them.
Graham,As we've got on in the past, I'll answer you.
I can and DO read what people say. But I've seen little facts just lots of supposition and "planes are dangerous, they can fall out of the sky" hyperbole.
The explanations have been of the form "it's the law" and "phones interfere" (I wasn't talking about phones). So except for Le TVR who mentioned the crystal oscillator (I have learned something new), nothing specifically addressing my comments. And emphatically nothing about why even transmitting devices are permitted throughout most of a flight, yet absolutely nothing is at take-off and landing*...so how much effect can transmitting devices actually have if they're permitted when over mid-ocean, for example? And by extension how much effect can a (effectively) non-transmitting device then have? Can people see the logic in my argument? I'm not asking people to say "you're right", just that "I can see where you're coming from, but..."!
But so far there's been almost nothing except "it's the law, live with it"...which as I've said before, when spouted by a copper in SP&L has been met with derision and complaint...but here most posters seem very happy to go along with it, all in the name of "safety".
- Is this the same "safety" that gave us Guantanamo?
- Or how about 42-day detention?
- Or the ceaseless march towards ID cards?
- Or maybe it's the same "safety" that's seeing more and more rural speed limits dropping and more cameras popping up?
- Or possibly the same "safety" which means we can't gain information about coppers anymore without risking arrest?
...every single one of these 'necessary laws' has been questioned and pilloried as unnecessary on here, yet this "law" about flight safety is being soundly espoused by most on this thread without them knowing ANY of the facts!!!
So do you see why I keep pushing this? If there is a genuine safety reason then I'm happy to hear it...but a GENUINE one, not one of the same nature as the "1/3 of all KSI accidents are caused by speed" misdirection, which is what I'm getting from Ifor.
And if it's just because it's "the law", then quite frankly, under the PH "arbitrary laws are crap" mantra (which we have for everything road-related and quite a lot of Human Rights stuff), I'll keep having a go about it...
* Yes, I'm aware they're the riskiest points in a flight...but if these devices have a known effect, why are they permitted at all?!?
The rules we follow in aviation have nothing to do with civil liberties. They are simply there to try and help us not die.
Seriously that is clutching at straws.
This is no fun anymore, I don't like having a battle of wits with someone who's only half armed.
Imagine my embarrassment this morning, descending towards a Latin American airport, I see out the window the most perfect view of three snow-capped volcanos, one curling smoke out of its crater, against a flawless azure sky. I pull my (turned-off) trusty mobile phone camera out and attempt to capture the image, when the f
king thing went into uncommanded full-on phone mode. Cue panicked button jabbing, almost had to stamp on it to get it to turn off, I think I might have broken it 
Still, the passenger in front of me captured it perfectly on her mobile phone camera!
king thing went into uncommanded full-on phone mode. Cue panicked button jabbing, almost had to stamp on it to get it to turn off, I think I might have broken it Still, the passenger in front of me captured it perfectly on her mobile phone camera!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff