My friend had all their packaged/sealed baby food taken away... I would be so pissed

1/4/2012 9:34:32 AM

So you can't feed a baby on a plane?

1/4/2012 9:50:24 AM

Only with your boobs.




BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS

1/4/2012 9:53:37 AM

Do they have to examine the milk-filled breast? There could be a bomb in those titties.

1/4/2012 9:59:13 AM

That'd be a pretty shrewd move by a female or obese male suicide bomber. You're going to die anyway; why not strap the bomb inside you like dude from Dark Knight?

1/4/2012 10:03:58 AM

1/4/2012 10:07:52 AM

hmm, TSA has never given me issues with open or sealed cans of dip... interesting.

1/4/2012 10:10:41 AM

infant formula is one of the things allowed through, it's specifically mentioned in the list of allowed liquids over 4 oz. Your friends should have made a supervisor come over, Samwise16 ...



I kind of can't believe the snow globe story. on the one hand, I see how a(n unaltered) snowglobe could be a more effective weapon than many other objects of the same size. However, I'd bet most airports have them for sale inside the security zone unless they've made a special attempt to clear them from the shops.


If you get in a quiet terminal or one for small planes that is ground level, you can see how the TSA act when nobody's looking... propping a door open so they don't have to swipe for cigarette breaks and worse.

1/4/2012 10:11:19 AM

I knew a guy that worked for TSA in Raleigh for a year. The shit he told me it's a wonder terrorists don't take over airplanes on a daily basis. Same sort of crap as ^.

1/4/2012 10:16:30 AM

I think she did ask for their supervisor and they still made her throw it away. Want to say it was like 9 jars of food (like Gerber baby food) - that stuff ain't cheap :/ and I guess she had checked to see if it was ok, sealed jars are supposed to be allowed, and they still didn't give a what

1/4/2012 10:39:59 AM

Quote :

"Your friends should have made a supervisor come over, Samwise16 ... "

that's a great way to get thrown in jail. the one thing people should know now is NOT to question the TSA

1/4/2012 10:40:10 AM

only for trolls who can't be polite

1/4/2012 10:53:06 AM

only, no. questioning the TSA in any way is usually a great way to get an escorted visit to the butt hutt

1/4/2012 10:54:05 AM

^ I used to travel with a guy that hated the TSA. He would read up on their rules the day before we would leave and then question them when they required him to do shit they weren't supposed to.

I remember one incident where a TSA agent was just being a total douche and pulled him aside for additional searching, when he asked the agent why he was being pulled aside the guy just responded "cuz I said so." He asked that the supervisor be present and the agent responds "I am the supervisor here." It was at that point my buddy asked for a uniformed police officer to be present for the search, the agent replied "You don't have that right, I don't have to do that."

As he said that an executive for Delta was passing by and stepped in, chewed out the TSA agent, called over a uniformed police officer, and then found the actual supervisor on shift and the two of them chewed out the agent for basically lying about the need for additional searching, lying about being a supervisor, and refusing my friend the right to a search supervised by a uniformed law enforcement officer.

1/4/2012 1:24:37 PM

so, basically, he was a douche and got lucky

1/4/2012 2:19:08 PM

I got yelled at in Houston for touching my thumbs to my head. The picture in the x-ray machine clearly has his thumbs touching his head. Plus in Seattle, they guy said touch your thumbs to your head...silly different policies!

1/4/2012 2:28:22 PM

^^ yeah he excelled at pissing people off. He was one of the few people who had the right, he never backed down from a disagreement and the entire time I knew him he was right %98 of the time. He knew his shit and never lost his cool, escpecially with the TSA.

Flying with him was awesome too, cuz he could almost always get us free drinks on the plane.

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2012 3:45:51 PM

merbig is either the biggest troll ever, the biggest idiot ever, lafta, or all three.

1/4/2012 4:40:29 PM

yes, this is a repost from reddit.

The TSA Proves its Own Irrelevance: A compilation of its own "Top 10 Good Catches of 2011" -- 'not a single terrorist on the list. Mostly forgetful, and entirely innocent people'

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html

1/9/2012 1:38:08 PM

I too, can imitate elduderino by being a faggot, but I would rather not.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 6:21:30 PM

Quote :

"And yeah, people who don't turn their cell phone off during take-off are stupid."

i never turn my cell phone off when i'm flying. hell, I've even made a call on it or checked something on Google while flying low and slow enough to get reception.

i don't turn it off when flying commercial either, because it's fucking stupid. i put it in airplane mode once we're high enough that I get no reception anyway, but that's only because it preserves my cell phone battery by keeping it from searching all the time.

1/9/2012 6:39:19 PM

also, a TSA agent once showed me the symbol/code on my boarding pass that indicated that I had been randomly (or "randomly", since I was on a 1-way flight) selected for further, more detailed search. Fucking moron.

1/9/2012 6:41:51 PM

^^ So you're basking in your ignorance?

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/12/poll_do_you_turn_off_your_gadg.html
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011-12-21/Many-fliers-refuse-to-turn-off-electronic-gadgets/52146544/1

I guess I'm not surprised...

Who the hell does this Bill Strauss think he is? A fucking doctor? Doesn't he read TWW, the culmination of the best society has to offer in terms of intelligence? Doesn't he know we make Mensa look like pre-schoolers?

I mean, if you're operating your phone in airplane mode after take off/before landing, it's not a problem. They allow you to have your phone on while flying, it just needs to be in airplane mode. But when they tell you to turn it off, don't be a self-centered dumbass who thinks he knows more than everyone else.

1/9/2012 6:58:05 PM

its a load of shit and a means to cover up pilot/crew fuckups

1/9/2012 7:14:55 PM

unless given conclusive evidence to the contrary, i don't buy it.

i base that on my own experience as an aviator and electronic warfare officer. i have flown many, many hours in jets with my cell phone on, and on occasion have even used my cell phone while flying in military jets and light civil aircraft. I have spent many, many hours flying while jamming on those frequencies, with a power output on the order of tens of thousands or maybe millions of times greater (I'd have to look up the power output/antenna gains of cell phones, and even then the power outputs of my jammers were classified, so I'll just make a rough guess). Even then, GPS interference was sporadic, and THEN we had INS on top of that. I'm sure an airliner has the same, if not better.

Go read up on GPS, L1 and L2, harmonics, cell phone freqs, etc. If you really wanted, you could do the math. I don't buy it. The only ill effect I've ever seen or heard of with a cell phone is a little chirping over the intercom, kind of like you hear on your computer speakers if you're about to get a call. I've never seen or heard of any ill effects to avionics, navigation, or autopilot, and even if there was, which I don't think is the case, I'm sure it would mild, sporadic, and there are generally backup systems. I think that to describe this issue as negligible is an understatement.


...but if someone really studies this scientifically and in-depth, and provides strong evidence to the contrary, I will reconsider my position.

1/9/2012 7:27:37 PM

BUT YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

1/9/2012 7:32:10 PM

^^^,^^ translation:

"I just certified myself as an expert and I'm right because my own anecdotal evidence says I'm right, regardless of the other anecdotal supplied by 'actual' experts. In other words, my anecdotal evidence trps theirs."

^I DON'T WANT TO BE AN IDIOT BUT I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION SO I WILL MOCK THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS SUPPLIED ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE IN THIS THREAD, MAINLY BECAUSE I WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE A SELF CENTERED DOUCHE ON AIRPLANES.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 7:32:20 PM

Actually, theDuke is the only one who has supplied any expert testimony as far as I'm concerned.

1/9/2012 7:39:00 PM

Only if you completely ignore any link I have provided... And the subsequent links on the pages I have linked to.

But it doesn't matter, because you're a giant tool anyway, as far as I'm concerned.



[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 7:46:57 PM

Quote :

"theDuke is the only one who has supplied any expert testimony as far as I'm concerned."

1/9/2012 8:08:56 PM

This guy is so pathetic regardless of whether he's trolling or not. I love it. Say something else merbig.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM. Reason : Also, as someone who flies for a living. +1 to the Duke.]

1/9/2012 8:36:07 PM

Quote :

"^^ So you're basking in your ignorance? http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/12/poll_do_you_turn_off_your_gadg.html http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011-12-21/Many-fliers-refuse-to-turn-off-electronic-gadgets/52146544/1 I guess I'm not surprised... Who the hell does this Bill Strauss think he is? A fucking doctor? Doesn't he read TWW, the culmination of the best society has to offer in terms of intelligence? Doesn't he know we make Mensa look like pre-schoolers? I mean, if you're operating your phone in airplane mode after take off/before landing, it's not a problem. They allow you to have your phone on while flying, it just needs to be in airplane mode. But when they tell you to turn it off, don't be a self-centered dumbass who thinks he knows more than everyone else. "

Bro.. give it the fuck up... the fact is that Duke and I FLY FOR A LIVING!!! If you could get cell phones to interfere with ANYTHING on an airplane do you honestly think they'd let you ON the plane with it!?!?

GOD I LOVE TDUB!

1/9/2012 8:53:29 PM

Again, none of you have said, without any doubt that there is NO chance for any modern day cellphone to cause disruptions with the airplane's electronics. All that has been presented is anecdotal evidence of douchiness where you lucked out and your cell phone/electronics didn't cause a problem.

If you honestly believe and can prove that there is no chance for any modern day cellphone to cause any interference with the onboard navigation and other equipment on an airplane, please say so and show me. I'm all ears. Otherwise, each time you douchebags decide to use your plane during takeoff and landing, you are putting everyone on the airplane at risk, needlessly and selfishly. Even if there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of fucking any shit up, it is beyond selfish for you to risk our lives without taking us in consideration.

^It's called being reasonable. The fact that you can't grasp this should be grounds to have your license revoked. Using the "I fly for a living" card doesn't mean jack shit. You fly the fucking thing, it doesn't mean you know how every intricate piece of equipment works, it just means you know how to operate it. A bus driver knows how to mash the gas and turn the steering wheel, but I don't expect him to understand how his radio works or how his gasoline/diesel engine works. You are nothing more than a glorified car/bus driver. If you can provide actual proof, I'm all ears. But if you click my links and read what is said, you would realize that their sources are also actual airline pilots, who are a lot older than your punkass.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 8:56:03 PM

^^ gets it

^ doesn't.

Quote :

"If you honestly believe and can prove that there is no chance for any modern day cellphone to cause any interference with the onboard navigation and other equipment on an airplane, please say so and show me."

that's because it's damned hard to prove a negative. no chance? well, hell, the phone my fly down the aisle and hit a window in the *perfect* spot and blow it out. that's a hazard!

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2012 8:58:51 PM

Proving a negative is a bitch. I can't prove it, obviously. I can tell you that I have a lot of anecdotal experience and technical knowledge about airplanes and RF interference...you know, since my job is to be an aviator and to create RF interference (and fire the occassional anti-radiation missile). I'm not even slightly worried about it, and you shouldn't be, either.

Are we going to ban everything on airplanes that somebody thinks might cause a problem in some one-in-a-million scenario, unless we could impossibly prove that it could never happen?

Quote :

" All that has been presented is anecdotal evidence of douchiness where you lucked out and your cell phone/electronics didn't cause a problem."

Bullshit. I have offered anecdotal evidence from myself and others, but I have also offered that from a technical standpoint, I find this hypothesis to be dubious. I haven't done a scientific study on this specific matter, and as far as I know, nobody else has, either. As far as I know, it was just put in place by the FAA as a "just in case". Keep in mind that I am not only an aviator, but my job is electronic warfare. My job is to get into the RF spectrum interference stuff, and know how it works, because I jam enemy RADARs/missile systems/communications.

Not only that, but I did a 3.5 month assignment where half of my job was to track/analyze/prosecute & resolve unwanted interference against friendly systems (typically SATCOM or VHF/UHF) for U.S. CENTCOM. I had an electrical/RF engineer who made about $400k/year who worked for me, along with a handful of lower-level guys who got out in the field with spectrum analyzers and took measurements of stuff that we plotted in 3d (freq/amplitude/time) to figure stuff out. We did a bunch of calculations with power output, noise thresholds, antenna gains, attenuation under various conditions, etc, to determine if potential problems were even plausible before we went on any wild goose chases over them.

So no, I haven't run the numbers or done any scientific study on this, but my gut feeling, which is reasonably well qualified, is that this is absolutely nothing to worry about. MAYBE if you have a whole jetliner full of people all making cell phone calls at once, especially in an area where the phones ramped up the transmit power due to low signal from the towers, then MAYBE you could get some effect, but even then, I find it exceptionally unlikely that it would really be a problem. A few people sending text messages or making a Facebook post? I'll go out on a limb and file that in the "no fucking way" category of causing any effect at all, let alone a problem.

Quote :

"Using the "I fly for a living" card doesn't mean jack shit. You fly the fucking thing, it doesn't mean you know how every intricate piece of equipment works, it just means you know how to operate it. A bus driver knows how to mash the gas and turn the steering wheel, but I don't expect him to understand how his radio works or how his gasoline/diesel engine works. You are nothing more than a glorified car/bus driver. If you can provide actual proof, I'm all ears. But if you click my links and read what is said, you would realize that their sources are also actual airline pilots, who are a lot older than your punkass. "

Comparing the systems knowledge that a naval aviator or an airline pilot has about his jet to that which a bus driver has about his bus is so beyond absurd that I struggle to even conceive of an analogy to illustrate it.

Also, if you want to talk about old, experienced pilots, I was flying with an old guy the other day--retired fighter pilot who's been flying jets since the 1970s and has probably 20,000-30,000 hours logged. We were in a jet with less state-of-the-art avionics and vastly fewer redundant systems than any airliner used in any first-world nation. At a few thousand feet, he whips out his iPhone to check something.



[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM. Reason : I have never even heard of an aviator who turns his phone off, unless it's to save battery.]

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2012 9:06:00 PM

Quote :

"Again, none of you have said, without any doubt that there is NO chance for any modern day cellphone to cause disruptions with the airplane's electronics. All that has been presented is anecdotal evidence of douchiness where you lucked out and your cell phone/electronics didn't cause a problem."

All you presented is some engineer saying "well maybe, it could". Also, I'm curious what you think qualifies any of the authors of the articles you posted as "experts".


[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM. Reason : Duke wears 1more anchor than me]

1/9/2012 9:12:51 PM

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/db/transportation/cell-phones-interfere-plane-instruments.html

1/9/2012 9:24:41 PM

^^^ But cell phones aren't necessary on a plane. PERIOD. You don't think it is at all selfish to put people potentially at risk simply because you don't believe it to be possible? What could be so damn important that you decide to put 100+ people at a slightly elevated risk?

I understand you have anecdotal evidence. But did you even read anything that was posted?

Quote :

"EMI has not been cited as the cause of any fatal U.S. airline accident, but pilots have reported incidents in which they suspected EMI caused cockpit instruments to go haywire. Some electronics experts — including Douglas Hughes, an electrical engineer who worked for McDonnell Douglas and the Department of Defense— suspect it might have caused military aircraft accidents and been an undetected factor in some airline crashes. Goverment accident investigators in New Zealand said a pilot used a cellphone in the cockpit before he and seven passengers were killed on a charter flight in 2003."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-12-21/in-flight-electronics-planes/52147604/1

Quote :

"The case is even stronger when you combine the technological evidence with dozens of chilling circumstantial incidents in NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, where pilots can anonymously report safety-related problems. Among the reports in NASA's database: A regional jet was climbing 9,000 feet last May when the pilots' directional indicators suddenly went haywire, leading the airliner 4 miles off course. After the confused pilots asked passengers to make sure their electronics were off, the cockpit instruments returned to normal. A regional jet was climbing 9,000 feet last May when the pilots' directional indicators suddenly went haywire, leading the airliner 4 miles off course. After the confused pilots asked passengers to make sure their electronics were off, the cockpit instruments returned to normal. The pilots of an airliner flying at nearly 300 mph toward Philadelphia suddenly got a warning on the instrument panel that they were about to collide with a plane a mile ahead of them. They made an emergency climb before controllers said their radar showed no plane there. A flight attendant later told the pilots she had caught a woman making a cellphone call to her daughter during the approach. Pilots descending to land in Baltimore watched their instruments swinging oddly until they broke out of the clouds at 1,800 feet almost a mile off course. They concluded that numerous passengers using their cellphones had caused the error. Not every device in every seat on every plane is a problem. Incidents seem to depend on which devices passengers use and where they sit, which could be near an antenna outside the fuselage or an electronics bay hidden away inside the plane. On one long over-water flight, for example, pilots began having trouble with their instruments and asked flight attendants to check the cabin. The attendants asked passengers to turn off their laptops one by one until they found the one that was causing the problem."

http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/cox/story/2011/01/Ask-the-Captain-Why-cant-I-use-my-cellphoneKindleiPad-in-flight/43067102/1

Quote :

"The electronic device below 10,000 feet rule is a sham. I can't (nor, will anyone else) find any recent and legitimate interference to navigation devices incidents. At first, the rule was a precaution since nobody knew the effect of the myriad new electronics on, say, the ILS receivers during an approach to minimums. The rule still being around is the result of the FAA and airlines caving in to the cellphone lobby. The headphones thing is so you can hear the safety briefing by the (flight crew). —Joseph_L_Cooke Answer: The ban on electronics below 10,000 feet creates a strong debate. There are cases where electronic devices have caused systems problems. I know of an example were a small radio caused electrical problems on a jet. The result was an airworthiness directive by the FAA to correct the problem. Another example was an older model analog cellphone that was found to cause problems with the navigation system on a European operator's jet. I was asked to research if that model phone was used in the U.S., it was not. It was, however, an example of the potential problems that can be caused. The issue is broader than just cellphones or any other specific electronic device. The growth of the electronics has far outpaced the testing ability for aircraft. While we know that transmitters such as remote control toys, cellphones, and radios, can cause problems with some navigation receivers (VORs, ILS, and LOC specifically), other devices are less certain. Aviation navigation electronics use frequencies near FM radio frequencies; they are shielded but there remains a risk that an onboard transmitter could affect the performance. Many of the more modern jets use GPS and inertial positioning. This reduces the risk of interference, but there remain older airplanes dependant of the traditional ground based navigation. There is one other consideration for the ban of electronic devices below 10,000 feet. Almost all landings of airliners use the Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) for vertical and later alignment with the runway. Even during good weather, the pilots tune the ILS for navigation information. Sensitivity increases closer to the runway. This means even a slight amount of interference by a device could be significant during an ILS approach near the runway. Being conservative is justified with the electronic ban below 10,000. Maybe one day the manufacturers will be able to certify electronics to be "airplane friendly," but until then we should turn them off below 10,000 feet."

Some of the anecdotal evidence jives with what others have said earlier. And then there is additional anecdotal evidence and other possibilities not previously brought up. What makes your anecdotal evidence more important or relevant than this person's? Certainly it makes sense that there exists a condition that has a very small likelihood of occurring where interference from a cellphone or laptop could cause a problem, does it not? Why are you allowed to decide for me whether it is worth the risk of you doing something to meet that risk? You can't just say "well don't fly on planes," when what you are doing is against the airline's rules/regulations, and potentially against the FAA's rules/regulations (I think the FAA strongly recommends that airliners ban cellphones on planes, but it isn't a requirement?).

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ^^ Um, they either cite NASA or they are an airline pilot as well with more experience than you.]

1/9/2012 9:26:15 PM

I've live streamed video on ustream of the plane I was in taking off.

1/9/2012 9:30:46 PM

Quote :

"EMI has not been cited as the cause of any fatal U.S. airline accident, but pilots have reported incidents in which they suspected EMI caused cockpit instruments to go haywire."

so, "pilots pulled shit out of their ass with no actual backing to it," to you, means "menacing danger!!!!"? really?

Quote :

"You don't think it is at all selfish to put people potentially at risk simply because you don't believe it to be possible?"

and if he's not actually putting anyone at risk, what then? exactly. are we going to ban underwear because some random guy might fwap a flight attendant and kill her in a freak accident, too? do you not realize the MASSIVE number of cellphones that are left on EVERY FUCKING DAY with literally ZERO problems? every. fucking. day. there's your god damned proof.

Quote :

"http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-12-21/in-flight-electronics-planes/52147604/1"

congrats. you've got worthless anecdotes where they didn't even TRY to show that the cellphones were at fault. it was just "oh my gaaaaaaawwwwwwwd, she had a cell phone!!!!!"

1/9/2012 9:36:12 PM

I read it; I still call unmitigated bullshit, and I don't really feel like going through and refuting all of that stuff. Suffice to say that I'd chalk most of it up to correlation not implying causality, coupled with having seen plenty of spurious electronic weirdness myself. I mean, citing a spurious or unexplained TCAS reactive advisory as evidence of cell phones causing problems? Whoever wrote that has never flown with TCAS...it's pretty good, but not good enough that you could draw anything like that conclusion. VORs, TACANs, and localizers being on VHF freqs? Sure, but (a) no airliner is using a fucking VOR to navigate in any recent decade, and (b) cell phones operate WELL above these frequencies. WAY too far for even any rolloff or switching imprecision to be a factor, and harmonics only go up, so that wouldn't be a factor, either.

1/9/2012 9:45:36 PM

Quote :

"and if he's not actually putting anyone at risk, what then?"

I like how you said "if." If he isn't putting anyone at risk, nobody is hurt and he's slightly inconvenienced...

How about this?

Quote :

"and if he is actually putting anyone at risk, what then?"

The plane crashes and everyone dies! But at least he got to say goodbye.

Quote :

"so, "pilots pulled shit out of their ass with no actual backing to it," to you, means "menacing danger!!!!"? really?"

Out of everything I posted, this is what you have a problem with?

Quote :

"congrats. you've got worthless anecdotes where they didn't even TRY to show that the cellphones were at fault. it was just "oh my gaaaaaaawwwwwwwd, she had a cell phone!!!!!" "

Quote :

"A regional jet was climbing 9,000 feet last May when the pilots' directional indicators suddenly went haywire, leading the airliner 4 miles off course. After the confused pilots asked passengers to make sure their electronics were off, the cockpit instruments returned to normal. "

Seriously? Pilot asked passengers to turn of phones. They do. Instruments work fine afterward.

Quote :

"The pilots of an airliner flying at nearly 300 mph toward Philadelphia suddenly got a warning on the instrument panel that they were about to collide with a plane a mile ahead of them. They made an emergency climb before controllers said their radar showed no plane there. A flight attendant later told the pilots she had caught a woman making a cellphone call to her daughter during the approach."

Pilot gets a false reading, flight attendant caught a woman making a phone call during the approach when passengers are explicitly asked to turn their shit off.

Quote :

"Not every device in every seat on every plane is a problem. Incidents seem to depend on which devices passengers use and where they sit, which could be near an antenna outside the fuselage or an electronics bay hidden away inside the plane. On one long over-water flight, for example, pilots began having trouble with their instruments and asked flight attendants to check the cabin. The attendants asked passengers to turn off their laptops one by one until they found the one that was causing the problem."

How about this one where the attendant asked passengers to turn laptops off one by one until the culprit was found. Oh, you're right. It's not a cell phone, even though both are banned for the same exact reasons. But I know, you'll play semantics.

How about this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-cellphone-plane/story?id=13791569&page=2#.TwuogTEgdrA

What the fuck does this Dave guy who works for fucking Boeing who builds the God damned airplanes know about anything?

Quote :

"Dave Carson of Boeing, the co-chair of a federal advisory committee that investigated the problem of electronic interference from portable devices, says that PEDs radiate signals that can hit and disrupt highly sensitive electronic sensors hidden in the plane's passenger area, including those for an instrument landing system used in bad weather. "It could be you that you were to the right of the runway when in fact, you were to the left of the runway," said Carson, "or just completely wipe out the signal so that you didn't get any indication of where you are coming in." Asked if a cellphone's signal could really be that powerful, Carson said, "It is when it goes in the right place at the right time." To prove his point, Carson took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment. A Blackberry and an iPhone were both over the limit, but the worst offender was an iPad."

Yes, there are people such as yourself and:

Quote :

"...ABC News's own aviation expert, John Nance. "There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "It's pilots, like myself, who thought they saw something but they couldn't pin it to anything in particular. And those stories are not rampant enough, considering 32,000 flights a day over the U.S., to be convincing." Nance thinks there are alternate explanations for the events. "If an airplane is properly hardened, in terms of the sheathing of the electronics, there's no way interference can occur.""

Quote :

"are we going to ban underwear because some random guy might fwap a flight attendant and kill her in a freak accident, too?"

Hyperbole, the language of idiots.

Quote :

"do you not realize the MASSIVE number of cellphones that are left on EVERY FUCKING DAY with literally ZERO problems?"

And all it takes is one time at the right time to cause something catastrophic...

Quote :

"every. fucking. day. there's your god damned proof. "

... That's not proof at all you god damned idiot. What the hell is the risk vs reward here? A few people inconvenienced to potentially save some lives or many people with a nice convenience but at the risk of themselves and the other passengers.

If you can't be off your phone for a few hours in an airplane, you have issues...

1/9/2012 10:02:47 PM

^You just shouldn't fly on airplanes.... or leave the house if this is you ability to do risk analysis.

There are Millions of things that can cause problems with aircraft Avionics... even IF cell phones cause a thousandth of a percent of malfunctions on an airplane your risk of electrical fire from flying through a cloud is much greater. So... guess we should stop all IFR Traffic.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 10:11:07 PM

Quote :

"cell phones operate WELL above these frequencies. "

I'm not sure about CDMA phones, but don't GSM phones operate from 380-1900 MHz depending on the carrier? The most common I have seen is 800, 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz. Don't commercial airliners typically operate on 450 MHz to 800 MHz?

And in terms of frequency of incidence, in 6 years, there was something like 75 reported cases reported to the International Air Traffic Association. I never said the rate of incidence was high or the chance of it happening was high. With there being some 3200 flights a day, you can see that in 6 years, those 75 cases are rarities to say the least.

With that being so, what is the benefit of allowing the usage of phones on the airplane that makes even such a small chance worth taking? Why should you be allowed to risk my life, even if it is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of your call causing an accident, all for a phone call. That's what you guys have been unable to describe. I never once said the risk was high. I know it's not. I'm just wondering why you should be able to deem it a risk worth taking when my life is at stake?

^ Why is the risk worth taking all for you to talk on a phone? If you think taking stupid, pointless, selfish risks that puts other lives at risk for literally no gain other than to satisfy your own selfish desire is a good choice, then please, stop flying, stop driving, just die or something.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 10:11:09 PM

^don't drive either

1/9/2012 10:18:11 PM

Quote :

"I like how you said "if." If he isn't putting anyone at risk, nobody is hurt and he's slightly inconvenienced..."

and you still haven't shown that he is putting people at risk. The honus is on YOU to prove that there's a problem or a risk. all you've got is "maybe something might happen, even though I can't show anything is wrong"

Quote :

"Out of everything I posted, this is what you have a problem with?"

no. because EVERYTHING you posted is anecdotal with ZERO actual data or experiment backing it up after the fact.

Quote :

"Seriously? Pilot asked passengers to turn of phones. They do. Instruments work fine afterward."

it's also possible that someone stopped farting in the back. did they do ANY testing on the plane afterwards with the phones that were in the cabin? of course not. an. ec. dote.

Quote :

"Pilot gets a false reading, flight attendant caught a woman making a phone call during the approach when passengers are explicitly asked to turn their shit off."

it's also possible that someone stopped farting in the back. did they do ANY testing on the plane afterwards the woman's phone? of course not. an. ec. dote.

Quote :

"Not every device in every seat on every plane is a problem."

so now it's MAGIC when it causes a problem! that's damned good science you got there, man.

Quote :

"How about this one where the attendant asked passengers to turn laptops off one by one until the culprit was found."

did they then take the laptop afterwards and prove that it was the culprit? of course not. the guy in the back might have stopped farting when that specific laptop was turned off. an. ec. dote.

Quote :

"Yes, there are people such as yourself and:"

and a guy you quoted who said, specifically: "There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all." Did you even bother to read what you posted?

Quote :

"And all it takes is one time at the right time to cause something catastrophic..."

and with all of these flights and all of these cell phones left on, we've never had that magic phone that blew up the plane! we've never had that magic phone that we could find and test and show that it was causing problems. thousands of phones EVERY DAY. that magic phone still hasn't been found!

Quote :

"That's not proof at all you god damned idiot."

it's practically proof by brute force, you nitwit! if it were this terrible terrible risk, it would have happened by now, since it's been happening every god damned day on hundreds of flights across the nation, hell, thousands across the world. and this phantom menace you are so damned sure exists still can't be bothered to actually rear its ugly head.

Quote :

"And in terms of frequency of incidence, in 6 years, there was something like 75 reported cases reported to the International Air Traffic Association."

and how many of these were actually PROVEN through testing to be due to cell phones? right. literally ZERO.

Quote :

"Why should you be allowed to risk my life, even if it is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of your call causing an accident, all for a phone call."

why should that pilot be able to risk your life by flying through a cloud, just to get you there faster? you are engaging in this absurd game of "OMFG ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!!!!!" For that matter, you being able to get up and walk down the aisle might somehow, magically, cause a malfunction in a servo and send the plane into a death spiral. All because you wanted to stretch your legs. better strap down ever single passenger to make sure that doesn't happen. flight attendants walking down the aisle might cause the same risk, so let's strap them down too! in fact, in order to make sure that no one gets free, we're going to sedate everyone with prescription narcotics just to be safe. because that one magic person might make that one magic step that causes that one magic death spiral.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2012 10:18:17 PM

^it's true.... merbig, you're not using any sort of risk analysis... you're simply arguing that it COULD happen and therefore is an unnecessary risk. By that logic, you shouldn't take a shower b/c you might slip on a bar of soap and break your neck, or walk on the sidewalk b/c someone might run over you with a car while you walk. You're also not listening to the guy who is a qualified Electronics Countermeasure Officer, who probably knows a thing or two on electromagnetic interference. (Duke I assume your NATOPS check is still good...)

GOD I LOVE TDUB!

1/9/2012 10:32:14 PM

^ And that same guy hasn't been able to show or explain why there is 0% chance of it happening.

^^ Look, I'm not reading all of your bullshit. If this was a discussion about a choice that affected him and him only, you would get no contest with me. Just because we are unable to prove with absolute certainty that a cellphone could cause a problem, does not mean that we should allow it to happen when the risk outweighs the benefit of allowing such action.

You and others have yet to tell me why it is a good idea to allow phone usage on airplanes. Because it we can't prove that it causes a problem? Well the converse of that is equally true. I can't prove to you that large amounts of artificial sweetener will cause health problems, does that mean you should?

Lets use a little common sense and risk mitigation. There is no NEED to use a cellphone on an airplane. But there is a NEED for all of the flight instruments to work. Why even think about risking that? For the sake of being argumentative? So you can be a disruptive and loud douchebag to the person next to you who is trying to sleep?

1/9/2012 10:42:38 PM

Quote :

"And that same guy hasn't been able to show or explain why there is 0% chance of it happening."

because, as we've already stated a thousand times, YOU CAN'T PROVE A GOD DAMNED NEGATIVE!!! Prove to me that there is no chance a unicorn won't swoop down from the clouds and impale a passenger liner. PROVE IT!!!

Quote :

"does not mean that we should allow it to happen when the risk outweighs the benefit of allowing such action"

we can't even show there's a god damned risk! this is LITERALLY the same as my scenario of your magic step on the magic floor causing the magic death spiral. LITERALLY. A non-existent risk can never outweigh an actual benefit. is it a real benefit? no, not really. is it anything to get all up in a tizzy over? fuck no! you are over saying that anything that can't be proven to be zero liability should be banned completely, and that's fucking ABSURD.

Quote :

"Lets use a little common sense and risk mitigation. There is no NEED to use a cellphone walk down the aisle on an airplane. But there is a NEED for all of the flight instruments to work. Why even think about risking that?"

1/9/2012 10:49:14 PM

Quote :

"we can't even show there's a god damned risk!"

It is theoretically possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

Quote :

"Electromagnetic interference to aircraft systems is theoretically possible from active radio transmitters such as mobile phones, small walkie–talkies or radio remote–controlled toys and also from unintentional emitters such as ordinary radio receivers, computers and virtually any non–trivial electronic device."

That is why it was banned in the first place...

Quote :

"There is no NEED to walk down the aisle on an airplane."

If it was theoretically possible, it would be banned too....

1/9/2012 10:55:11 PM