Quote :

"It is theoretically possible."

and so is quantum tunnelling of your farts entering the electrical system. should we now ram a cork up everyone's ass before they board a jumbo jet?

Quote :

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

It IS theoretically possible, especially in YOUR realm of risk assessment, where ANYTHING could go wrong, despite having been given plenty of time to do so with literally ZERO occurrences in it. how long does NOTHING have to happen before you will conclude that it won't?

1/9/2012 10:59:14 PM

Quote :

"Look, I'm not reading all of your bullshit."

GOD I LOVE TDUB!

1/9/2012 11:01:46 PM

Seriously?

You tell me that I haven't shown that there is any risk. I tell you the risk as described by experts. You delve into hyperbole.

The typical argumentative aaronburro.

1/9/2012 11:05:35 PM

Quote :

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

Quote :

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

Now I KNOW you know nothing about aircraft. People walking around affects stability and can cause the airplane to crash if left unchecked... and I have GOOD data to show that!

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 11:09:41 PM

I'm glad planes aren't designed to allow passenger movement... Oh wait...

1/9/2012 11:12:16 PM

You do not want to go down that road, I assure you.

1/9/2012 11:13:24 PM

no, you HAVEN'T shown the experts saying there is a risk. in fact, you've got at LEAST one expert saying it's ANECDOTAL!!! YOUR OWN GOD DAMNED EXPERT!!! Besides, it's not MY job to show there is a risk! IT'S YOURS!!! YOU are the stupid mother fucker saying that there is a risk posed by an action that has happened literally thousands of times a day with literally no recorded events of even the slightest interference. YOU are the one proposing that it's the MAGIC case of the MAGIC device in the MAGIC right spot in the MAGIC airplane. Who the fuck is being absurd at this point? I've given you an EQUALLY probable event, namely quantum tunnelling of a fart into the electrical subsystem, and all you can say is "hyperbole." When the two events have almost an equal probability (namely, zero), I'd say that I'm responding to absurdity in kind. In all of these cases, surely if it were an issue, they could have taken the phone in question and done tests. And either they didn't do it or they did and the results were negative. In other words, it the MAGIC cases you present, they either didn't care or they couldn't reproduce the MAGIC. I'm sorry if I don't go around fretting about MAGIC cases that can't be reproduced. In the meantime, I'm expecting you to ram a cork up your ass before you go flying and to sedate yourself and strap yourself in the seat, just to be safe.

1/9/2012 11:13:43 PM

They aren't designed to operate around radio waves either... oh wait!

1/9/2012 11:13:48 PM

I'm glad avionics aren't designed to not be obstructed by Cell phone frequencies..

Oh wait...

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM. Reason : DOH! ]

1/9/2012 11:13:54 PM

exactly. let's not even talk about the myriad number of cell-phone towers on the ground with far greater signals strength through which planes fly every fucking day with literally zero problem. it's not even that you've got no proof of a problem, but rather that you've got overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even if it doesn't fit your demand for proof of zero risk. We are running the god damned experiment every fucking day and you can't even see it!

1/9/2012 11:16:05 PM

merbig, you're a dumbass.

1/9/2012 11:16:26 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad planes aren't designed to allow passenger movement... Oh wait..."

JUST TODAY at work, we addressed the safety issue of having passengers in certain seating arrangements to accommodate CG restrictions.

(As of about 4 months ago, I'm not flying in the Prowler anymore; I'm instructing in the Sabreliner, which is a business jet with multiple seats in the cabin area; 6-9, depending on which model).

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 11:18 PM. Reason : you can get an airplane out of CG limits more easily than you'd think.]

1/9/2012 11:17:38 PM

I think he's just inciting an internet argument and therefore has tricked us all....

(Duke where you at man?? I got primary orders back to Corpus)

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 11:18:10 PM

I'm at NAS Pensacola.

(My NATOPS check in the Prowler is still good; I would just be out of 5/90.)

1/9/2012 11:20:47 PM

90% chance he's trolling

1/9/2012 11:27:24 PM

a guy got thru with a tin flask of whatever alcohol he had... it was amusing to see him spiking his beverages

1/9/2012 11:33:53 PM

Quote :

"no, you HAVEN'T shown the experts saying there is a risk"

None of them have actually said that there is no risk, or entirely refuted the theoretical possibility of EMI causing problems. Shielding is used to try and protect the equipment from interference, but it's not a guaranty.

Quote :

" in fact, you've got at LEAST one expert saying it's ANECDOTAL!!!"

I even said it was anecdotal... I posted it specifically for you.

I also posted this:

Quote :

"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.""

Did you conveniently ignore this as well?

Quote :

"YOU are the stupid mother fucker saying that there is a risk posed by an action that has happened literally thousands of times a day with literally no recorded events of even the slightest interference."

So you're a reactive type person and not a proactive person? I guess you wait until people are hurt before you do something about it as well...

Quote :

"YOU are the one proposing that it's the MAGIC case of the MAGIC device in the MAGIC right spot in the MAGIC airplane."

I never used the word "magic." That was you. Nice strawman though.

Quote :

"I've given you an EQUALLY probable event, namely quantum tunnelling of a fart into the electrical subsystem, and all you can say is "hyperbole.""

It's not theoretically possible. EMI is not absurd by any definition.

Sorry if my "proof" or "evidence" or "risk" doesn't satisfy you. It satisfies me. If I see you on an airplane talking on a cell phone, I will personally turn it off for you. At no time are you allowed to even potentially put my life at risk. I don't care if you disagree with my assessment.

1/9/2012 11:35:22 PM

^I sure hope you don't drive... b/c other people are putting your life at risk significantly...

1/9/2012 11:37:52 PM

Quote :

"None of them have actually said that there is no risk"

and none of them have proven there's a risk. just like no one has proven my quantum tunnelling farts not a risk. cork up, buddy.

Quote :

"So you're a reactive type person and not a proactive person?"

No, I'm proactive. when you can actually show a problem. but you can't show the risk. I'm not gonna go apeshit over something that aint happening, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.

Quote :

"I never used the word "magic." That was you. Nice strawman though."

no, but what you are describing amounts to that. the magic device and the magic place in the magic airplane on the magic day. the perfect confluence of events that has yet to happen. Thus, it must be magic.

Quote :

"It's not theoretically possible."

The hell it isn't. Do you know anything about quantum tunnelling? It very much happens.

Quote :

"Sorry if my "proof" or "evidence" or "risk" doesn't satisfy you. It satisfies me."

Fine. you better also fly with a cork up your ass, sedated, and strapped into the seat, just to be safe. because you've got literally the same level of risk.

1/9/2012 11:39:15 PM

Quote :

" I will personally turn it off for you."

Good fucking luck.


I would say that a bunch of passengers getting up from the front of the cabin and standing in line for the pisser at the rear of the cabin on a regional jet would likely be much more dangerous than any cell phone scenario. Until you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it couldn't pose a hazard--even in unusual flight regimes unlikely to be encountered--I propose that we weld the lavatory closed.

1/10/2012 12:08:54 AM

Quote :

"I sure hope you don't drive... b/c other people are putting your life at risk significantly..."

And it isn't feasible for me to stay inside all day or to not drive.

But I like how you refuse to go out on a limb to say that cell phone don't pose any danger to airplanes and that it makes no sense to mitigate the risk by banning cell phone use.

Quote :

"and none of them have proven there's a risk. just like no one has proven my quantum tunnelling farts not a risk. cork up, buddy."

When it comes to EMI from cell phones on an airplane, why chance it? It is something that is very simple to mitigate and not even worry about... I know you and your "buddies" are more interested in discussing the technical details and how the risk of it happening is extremely negligible.

Quote :

"I'm not gonna go apeshit over something that aint happening, despite being given ample opportunity to do so."

Nobody is going apeshit over anything. Banning cell phone usage is hardly going "apeshit" over anything. It's called being realistically conservative. We all know it is theoretically possible. It can be avoided by not using your phone call on an airplane. It is nothing more than a mere inconvenience.

Quote :

"the perfect confluence of events that has yet to happen."

We don't know if it has yet to happen or not, do we? How can you be so sure and absolute without any evidence to the contrary?

Quote :

"The hell it isn't. Do you know anything about quantum tunnelling? It very much happens."

You didn't just say "quantum tunneling." You said "quantum tunneling of farts," something you made up on the spot. Which is why you're being absurd.

Quote :

"because you've got literally the same level of risk."

Not at all. One event is theoretically and realistically possible. Another is an aaronburro-pulled-out-of-his-ass-hyperbole, a means for you to read your own drivel.

1/10/2012 12:12:15 AM

Here's a good example of how silly this is...

Are you aware that airliners don't take off with a full bag of gas? I don't even mean because they're weight or climb or balance limited; I'm talking about beyond that, they light-load them on gas with only what they need to make the flight plus a reasonable reserve for delay/divert. They do this strictly to preserve their razon-thin and competitive profit margins, because carrying around a bunch of extra fuel that they aren't going to need is extra weight that hurts fuel efficiency, and therefore the bottom line.

It would do a lot more for safety to just mandate that everyone carry a bunch more extra gas. I'm not advocating it and believe it to be wasteful and unnecessary, but that would mitigate risk a lot better than worrying about a cell phone, in my opinion.

1/10/2012 12:56:02 AM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
http://www.schneier.com/


Security theater is a term that describes security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to

actually improve security. [1] The term was coined by computer security specialist and writer Bruce

Schneier for his book Beyond Fear, [2] but has gained currency in security circles, particularly for describing airport security measures. It is also used

by some experts such as Edward Felten [3] to describe the airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks.

1/10/2012 8:21:25 AM

how come they have to search my butthole everytime i fly?

does this happen to everyone else?

1/10/2012 8:26:33 AM

I just read this for the first time and I have two things to say:

merbig is a rah-tard.

You're being a douche if you don't turn off you cell phone/electronics when they ask you too. Are you really doing something that important that you can't turn it off for a few minutes?? Just follow the fucking rules for a few minutes in your douchey life.

1/10/2012 9:09:30 AM

if merbig holds a degree from NCSU, all of our degrees have been devalued by that much.

1/10/2012 9:54:12 AM

lol ^

Basically he's arguing that because there's an infitesimally small chance of interference with nav equipment, it should be unquestionable to allow it. Even though there's a better chance of getting decapitated by luggage falling out of the overhead in moderate turbulence, you don't see him lobbying for a ban of carry ons. He has no grasp of risk management. Conceivably, the absolute worst case scenario resulting from interference would be a go-around due to a intermittent loc/vor/GPS etc. God help us all if that happens!

With all this being said, as an airline pilot, my phone stays in airplane mode/off in my pocket. The only interference I've ever experienced is the same electromag com interference you get by having your cell close to the computer speakers - that ticking noise. Also, if the damn flight attendant tells you to put the fucking thing away - put it away. They're just doing their jobs. Write your congressman to change the regs. Fighting with the FA over regs is just going to get you kicked off the flight and deservably so.

1/10/2012 11:25:16 AM

I mean, its something extremely small that can (should be) controlled easily by asking people to turn off their phones. And it's something that's NOT A BIG DEAL that people should comply with. It's ridiculous that people are getting so amped up about it in this thread.

1/10/2012 11:31:21 AM

I know several GA pilots and instructors that use their cell phones/leave them on in GA aircraft. Done it myself.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

1/10/2012 11:32:45 AM

^^There's two arguments going on.

1) You should turn off your phone because it's the rules. Valid.
2) You should turn off your phone because it's detrimental to flight. Invalid.

1/10/2012 11:48:42 AM

i was always under the assumption that the FAA rules against having them on/having headphones in ear had more to do with passenger awareness in the event of emergencies vice any ACTUAL interference

1/10/2012 11:54:52 AM

or bleeding money out of passengers by making them use the planes wired phones.

1/10/2012 11:58:45 AM

Quote :

"He has no grasp of risk management."

Dude... Are you serious? Banning cell phone use because there is the slightest chance that it could cause a problem is at all unreasonable? It's the slightest of slight of inconvenience. It's like you read a quarter of what I say, roll your head back and reply. I have never said that the chance of it happening was great in any fashion. All I have said that it's just an unnecessary risk. Ultra-conservative? Yup. I would agree with any wording you choose to describe how small the risk is.

Regardless of that, think of what you're asking people to do. You're asking them to not use their cellphone for talking. That's it! Is that at all unreasonable when you can pretty much only use a cellphone on domestic flights only, in which case you're asking that they refrain from talking on them for a few hours. It's not the end of the world for anyone. It's not asking anyone to do anything that is in anyway unreasonable.

To say that I don't know risk management is ludicrous! What's the risk in this situation? EMI from a cell phone that could put the people in a life threatening situation (again, incredibly small, but irrelevant) and the way to mitigate the risk is ban cellphones. The amount of effort, the consequence on passengers is nothing. Statistics are great when you're sitting in your ivory tower looking at costs, but they suck when your number is up and there isn't a damn thing to do about it.

Your attitude of "there are bigger things we allow happen, so why care about this?" is careless. We allow people to talk on the cell phone in some states while banning right on red!!!! Where are there priorities!!! They obviously don't know risk management... No.... Just because you can categorize risks based on probability, does not mean risks of lower probability aren't risks. And just because a low chance risk can be mitigated with little effort and of no harm or infringment on other's rights does not mean choosing to mitigate the risk is stupid. You have to look at what the risk is and what is being asked of the people involved to mitigate it.

1/10/2012 6:54:19 PM

This one is pretty much effectively zero, dude.

Think of the concept of an asymptote. It isn't exactly zero, but you can essentially view it as that. The risk is not just small; it can be viewed as infinitesimally small.

Quote :

"1) You should turn off your phone because it's the rules. Valid. 2) You should turn off your phone because it's detrimental to flight. Invalid. "

I don't really view #1 as all that valid; in fact, part of why I violate the rule is out of principle because the rule is so damned obscenely stupid and people (to include the FAA) are just obstinate in their inertia against flushing it.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2012 7:06:13 PM

I just want to point out that #1 above wasn't initially in the discussion. I started with

Quote :

"And yeah, people who don't turn their cell phone off during take-off are stupid. And their refusal to put it in airplane mode is even more idiotic. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-09/news/30073637_1_signal-interference-sensors-altitude"

but has now progressed to "well, it's the rule therefore there must be some fact behind it."

1/10/2012 7:54:35 PM

^^ I will still argue that while I disagree with the rule in principle, I stand by my belief that it's a valid argument if only for civility's sake.

^ It definitely became an argument in the thread, regardless if it was introduced that way or not.

1/10/2012 8:49:07 PM

Quote :

"I know several GA pilots and instructors that use their cell phones/leave them on in GA aircraft. Done it myself."

I, too, have done this, with no ill effects. It was potentially much more dangerous for me, as someone with no FAA certs to fly anything, to take full control of the aircraft for a while.

but whatever. as a passenger on commercial flights, i turn my phone off to save the battery, then I go to sleep.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 9:28 PM. Reason : wow this thread is way off topic though]

1/10/2012 9:27:27 PM

Quote :

"When it comes to EMI from cell phones on an airplane, why chance it?"

when it comes to your farts disrupting the electrical system, why chance it? cork it up, baby!

Quote :

"It's called being realistically conservative. We all know it is theoretically possible."

and yet, it's still not happening. which tells us exactly how much we need to worry about it: zilch

Quote :

"We don't know if it has yet to happen or not, do we? How can you be so sure and absolute without any evidence to the contrary?"

How can we know anything, mannnnn? no, but really, what makes you think it has happened, much less to any appreciable degree? you've got your anecdotes, and that's it. I can equally posit, because zero testing was actually done, that the guy in the back was farting and it was messing up the systems. Moreover, AGAIN, the honus is on the person saying it is a problem to show that it is a problem, not for the other person to show there can never ever ever be and has never ever ever been a problem. You simply don't understand how "proof" works. And so, because you have no proof, you just resort to the "OMG, IT MIGHT HAPPEN ONE DAY!!!!!!" bullshit without actually looking at what the real risk is.

Quote :

"You didn't just say "quantum tunneling." You said "quantum tunneling of farts," something you made up on the spot. Which is why you're being absurd."

and clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about, because literally anything can undergo quantum tunnelling. That's why it's a probability.

Quote :

"Banning cell phone use because there is the slightest chance that it could cause a problem is at all unreasonable?"

no. saying "slightest chance" is what is unreasonable. EVERYTHING is a "slightest chance," at which point we devolve into absurdity. That's what he means and you don't understand by "risk management".

1/11/2012 12:55:31 PM

Goddammit, stop. You're making advocates of reason look unreasonable.

1/11/2012 4:20:17 PM

anything I should try when I leave for Vegas on Saturday?

1/11/2012 5:22:16 PM

shove a metal toy soldier up your ass in a condom

1/11/2012 5:23:41 PM

^ This. Also, try the Bellagio Buffet.


As for the plane ride beforehand, just sit back and have a drink.

1/11/2012 5:49:17 PM

Quote :

"This one is pretty much effectively zero, dude. Think of the concept of an asymptote. It isn't exactly zero, but you can essentially view it as that. The risk is not just small; it can be viewed as infinitesimally small."

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disputing it. What I am saying is that for me, it is still not a risk that I would be willing to take, simply due to the consequences of being wrong is and the amount effort involved in avoiding the consequences. I have a problem with other people who make the decision for me (such as yourself) that such a risk is worth taking when the law is on my side.

Quote :

"no. saying "slightest chance" is what is unreasonable. EVERYTHING is a "slightest chance," at which point we devolve into absurdity. That's what he means and you don't understand by "risk management""

You obviously have no idea what "theoretically possible" means, as you are implying that farting in an airplane can cause interference...

aaronburro, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You just can't resist indulging yourself in absurd comparisons in order to make a point.

1/11/2012 8:37:49 PM

Quote :

"you're just arguing for the sake of arguing"

1/11/2012 8:43:09 PM

Quote :

"You obviously have no idea what "theoretically possible" means, as you are implying that farting in an airplane can cause interference..."

that's because it is, in fact, theoretically possible.

1/12/2012 12:22:49 PM

Bump

6/26/2012 10:47:23 PM

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/31224633/detail.html

Our government is doing this.

6/26/2012 10:49:41 PM

Image Source: Floorgem.com

7/18/2012 8:10:52 PM

Cool gif.

7/19/2012 2:36:54 PM

Once I had to toss a tube of toothpaste because the container wasn't 2oz or less or whatever the cutoff was. It was a regular sized tube of toothpaste with about 7-8 brushings worth of toothpaste left with the rest of the tube rolled completely up... but the container for those dregs of toothpaste was too large. Having to toss it was worthy but no big deal.

[Edited on July 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM. Reason : -]

7/19/2012 6:02:52 PM