iPhone and SAA

[OverKill69]

Wow...

Its pretty simple. Put your phone next to a TV and see what the interference does to the TV picture... Now aren't you glad there aren't any TV's on board planes that control anything important.

ROFL

"Rouxenator" is the reason why most flight attendants won't let you use your device in flight mode. How easy is it to switch from "Flight mode" to "online mode"? 2 button operations maybe?
Most south african airlines are not as trusting as their european counterparts... when a typical rulebook german tourist steps onto his/her flight and the blonde airwench says "Poot ze cell-fawns on flaaight mode pleez", guess what! They do it! and they leave it there for the duration of the flight!
But our public knows better! They know that our retrofitted 727 fleet will suffer no electronic interference on the kilometers of unshielded cable that might cause one small malfunction at a critical time during the flight.

90% of all crashes, by the way senor Rouxenator, occur during take off or landing... unfortunately, you can't get around these, even on a "straight 2 hour flight".
Remember the concord's last flight? lasted 14 mins... but they landed in a building.

Airliners are becoming more sophisticated, and eventually, we'll be able to use our cell phones for data and text during flights by linking with satalite networks while in flight, but this will only be available in the most modern of airliners... you know, the one's who's TV's don't go funny when your phone goes off.

I think Rouxenator is so glad that his head isn't a TV! Gee Wizz!

 

[d0b33]

I think there are 2 reasons why they do this...

1: Easier to have everyone switch of their phone than have a noob on each flight ask "what is flight mode?"

2: Any suspicious person(terrorist) with a cellphone could easily switch to normal mode and enable a detonator.

Sensationalist headline though...

 

[vodacom3g]

Same reason I drive 200km/h+ on an open strech of road when it does not pose a risk to anyone

The sadest is that you are envious for not thinking of it first !

I am living proof of it.

Listen, wodakomfreegee, around here a lot of people absolutely hate my guts and you know what, I'm kewl with that . The stance you take in your post is pretty much the same stance they take when they tell people to switch their phones off but they my use their RF-device-laden laptops. In short, it equals to pretty good laughing stock.

In this case it's the same as driving 200Km/h on a open stretch of road WITH 200 other people in the car, including babies and children. By all means put your own life at risk, that's your personal choice. But not others. That's just criminally insane.

Have you ever thought that the reason why mobile transmitters are not affecting avionics is because most of them are turned off in the first place??

Sure, a few people forget their mobiles on and one or two retards intentionally leave it on to get off on how 'cool' they are. But, as Ajax pointed out, what's the effect going to be of a few hundred mobile devices trying to connect to the network when the plane is still a few thousand feet up?

I, for one, don't 'hate your guts'. But I do pity your ignorance.

 

[gregmcc]

cell phone can cause problems with older aircraft with analogue equipment. Not so much with the new digital stuff on the major airlines but you can't take any risks.

don't you watch mythbusters - its plausable

 

[SDM]

Aeroplanes generally don't crash because the industry is so heavily regulated. Maybe some of the rules such as not using a phone in flight mode on board seem heavy handed, but the planes rarely crash. When they do, it is often because the rules were broken.

To those of you who so cleverly use their phones, wifi on laptops etc on board, think about the logical conclusion to that. Eventually the CAA and the like will rule that no electronic devices will be able to be used on board at all. That will make it much easier for the overstretched cabin staff to control and spoil it for all of us.

I eventually gave in and bought an ipod. The thought of a couple of hundred phones on and trying to phone home near landing is very scary. The majority of passengers wouldn't know how to put a phone in flight mode, so it is simply safer to switch them off.

After all, it is a radio beacon that a very sensitive receiver uses to guide the plane home, sometimes all the way down to the runway on autopilot...

 

[ScrnScrm]

Here are some pointers from a mate of mine that is a Capt at one of the local airlines :

1. Don't argue with the hosty. They are just enforcing CAA regulations. If you do, you may find your phone confiscated, or worse, you will get offloaded before take off or arrested on landing. Contrary to what many people have stated here, this has happened numerous times in SA (tee hee, me included ).

2. Some mobile phones DO interfere with the electronics. The biggest recorded interference problem at the CAA is with the fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold. Cell phones can trigger false alarms during the most critical phases of flight (take off/landing). The flight deck crew are not allowed to ignore this - and it will delay the flight. On landing, flight deck crew frequently complain about cellphone interference in their headsets - kind of like when you hold your phone up to a speaker. If the flight deck crew cant hear ATC instructions, or miss critical TACAS (Traffic avoidance/Collision avoidance) instructions, an accident may happen.

3. Rules exist to protect people. Obey them or go live in a society that allows what you want to do. Flagrantly disobeying them puts you in the same class as the average rapist or hijacker...

4. The Captain on a flight may just allow you to use flight mode, especially on the older planes like the 737-300/400 (BA/Kulula) and MD80 (1time). The older systems are basically immune because they dont use Fly by Wire controls, and have far more rudimentary peripheral control systems. In other words - get the Hosty to go ask... The above mentioned Captain allows it on his flights.

 

[astrauss]

I've been on a helicopter flight some 2 months ago where the pilot answered his phone in flight.

He commented later that radio communication interference is the only problem.

 

[slayerza]

I agree with the fact that the flight mode can be used, but then again considering the general population the use of flight mode might confuse some people.

The interference experienced by electronic systems can be severe. Don't just think that digital is not affected - high speed digital design becomes a major headache very quickly and a signal (digital or analog) that is delayed can have disastrous concequences.

Just stay within the rules in that way all of us are safer - sure it is a pain in the @ss but rather safe than dead.

 

[Rouxenator]

I would feel uncomfortable knowing there are 200x 2W transmitters ready to pump signal while we're getting ready to land.

On what frequency, Kenneth ? There is a good reason the spectrum is divided...

Its pretty simple. Put your phone next to a TV and see what the interference does to the TV picture... Now aren't you glad there aren't any TV's on board planes that control anything important.

A TV could cost anything from 1k to maybe 20k. I would not set foot on a plane that is built with the same standards and budget as a TV. So in short - nice try, but no fly.

In this case it's the same as driving 200Km/h on a open stretch of road WITH 200 other people in the car, including babies and children. By all means put your own life at risk, that's your personal choice. But not others. That's just criminally insane.

It would be criminally insane IF phones caused problems on planes. But they do not, so its just me doing 200km/h.

Why is it so hard for people to shake off urban myths ? I have done this many times - nothing happened. If something did happen then it would have made news and you would all know about the idiot with the phones switched on. But it did not happen - there is your proof.

What we need here is better aircraft telemetry requirements - not more useless rules that hassle the consumer.

Anything you say against this basically means you do believe in urban myths and you would rather see relaxed aircraft telemetry requirements and more rules. Which side are you on ? And for the sake of vark try to look past the fact that I am Mr Perfect and therefore you have to disagree with me just because .

 

[vodacom3g]

Why is it so hard for people to shake off urban myths ? I have done this many times - nothing happened. If something did happen then it would have made news and you would all know about the idiot with the phones switched on. But it did not happen - there is your proof.

What we need here is better aircraft telemetry requirements - not more useless rules that hassle the consumer.

Anything you say against this basically means you do believe in urban myths and you would rather see relaxed aircraft telemetry requirements and more rules. Which side are you on ? And for the sake of vark try to look past the fact that I am Mr Perfect and therefore you have to disagree with me just because .

No, you're completely missing the point. The fact that you've done it many times does not mean it can't happen. Maybe you should get a six-shooter and start playing Russian Roulette?

If you want to debunk an urban legend, do so by all means. The world will owe you. We need more facts and less myths.

But you don't test your personal theories on an airplane full of people!! Who have no idea what you're up to. As already stated, your actions border on the criminally insane.

I suggest you get a couple of the more common airliners and set up a proper test environment and then run your tests while monitoring the plane avionics.

Once you've disproven that all airliners can be affected by ERP from mobile transmitters, and the laws have been changed, by all means SMS yourself on a plane.

But until such time you're just a petty criminal with an ego problem.

As before, please state your credentials in this space so we can understand how you, all by yourself, have decided you know better than everybody else.

And are quite willing to potentially put other's lives at risk so you can get your little "I SMS myself, ain't it cool" kicks.....

/added

Note, I'm not saying that phones do cause interference (although it's feasible that they can). I'm saying your method of trying to prove that they don't is crazy.

 

[DOOMIE61]

They told us last time to switch off all mobile devices, and then they added "do not switch to flight mode, switch it off please".

And I would just rather switch it off than g down in a ball of fire

myth busters busted that myth of using your phone in airplane!!?? the planes not going to crash its doesnt interfere with anything, when in flight mode .. wtf over here you can use flight mode with no problems?? strange airlines just shows you the lack of knowledge they have.

 

[Tns]

i mostly set my phone on silent, most of the times just about as the plane land you can hear the sms's

o they don't like/allow gps devices too.

 

[Drunkard #1]

V3G, you dont get it. The fact that a plane hasn't been crashed by a mobile phone DOES mean that it's not going to happen. To use your analagy, it's like playing russian roulette with a six-billion-shooter, rather than a six shooter. I'll take those odds, and so would anyone that understands anything about odds.

If there was a risk to people using their phones on-board, then the airlines should store all phones in a RF secure case and scan everyone for RF before they board, otherwise they're criminally negligent.

As for being in the same class as a rapist or hijacker. What kind of backwards, incoherent logic do you use to arrive at that conclusion. It makes the rest of your post seem dubious as well. If all laws were created equal, why do murderers get 25 years while speeding on the N3 gets a small fine. By your logic all "criminals" should be punished equally.

And I've used a GPS on board as well (while landing), got a "Max Speed" record of 291 km/h on my nuvi 200.

 

[<moLe>]

I'll stick with my old British Airways thank u..not that I really care, got my laptop, or 1 of three ipods for entertainment purposes, but just dont trust anything relating directly to South Africa while in the sky, and SAA is one of those unfortunately.

 

[Rouxenator]

And I've used a GPS on board as well (while landing), got a "Max Speed" record of 291 km/h on my nuvi 200.

Respect man I haven't been on a plane since I got my N82 with gpsed.com tracker on. Next time I fly I am most definitely gonna record a gpsed track with it ;-)

Also - your point about the six billion shooter revolver is spot on. In SA with all the experienced people quitting from the aircraft maintenance companies because they can no longer live with the risk I would say maintenance issues on aircrafts is more of the traditional six shooter odds.

Wou daar kom should try playing Russian roulette with a pistol or something semi-automatic Really, you can try to portray me as an 455h0l3, ego maniac, criminally insane, self petty fool, etc.... but that still does not remove mah big 455 ba4ll5 'oh 5t33l

 

[OverKill69]

On what frequency, Kenneth ? There is a good reason the spectrum is divided...

Who has a wireless keyboard/mouse? Put your phone in between your keyboard and the receiver and see what happens when you try type! And they're separated by entire segments of the EMS. One is radio band and the other is in the microwave band.
But what do I know... I didn't study this kinda stuff for 3 years.

A TV could cost anything from 1k to maybe 20k. I would not set foot on a plane that is built with the same standards and budget as a TV. So in short - nice try, but no fly.

You know a $5 o-ring was responsible for destroying the space shuttle in 1984... But hey, you're right... I'm so glad that Airplanes only use expensive TV's for in flight movies. hahahahaha

It would be criminally insane IF phones caused problems on planes. But they do not, so its just me doing 200km/h.

Incorrect,
You're doing more like 300km/h as the pilot approaches the runway. Aren't you the slightest bit concerned that all he's hearing is cellphone interference? It's like you doing 200km/h in your car and your wife is screaming in your ear about her yeast infection.

Why is it so hard for people to shake off urban myths ? I have done this many times - nothing happened. If something did happen then it would have made news and you would all know about the idiot with the phones switched on. But it did not happen - there is your proof.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that concept is?
An urban myth? That cellphone interference is dangerous on an aircraft?
have you ever been to a recording studio? you have to have your cellphone off completely because the sensitive RECORDING equipment records the interference.
So when the plane you're traveling in crashes, and they sift through all the body parts to find the black box (which is actually yellow)... all they'll hear is your silly cell phone hunting for signal! And that's just one system.

What we need here is better aircraft telemetry requirements - not more useless rules that hassle the consumer.

OMS! You see... this is exactly what is being developed, but it's not implemented yet!
Cell phones cause electronic interference. PERIOD!
When they've developed and tested the means to shield all flight systems from electronic interference then you will be allowed to use your phone on board a plane. What can't you understand about this?
Do you realise that you're placing hundreds of lives at risk by leaving a phone
on?

As a consumer I'd also like to use my phone on board a plane. But as an engineer, I know when its wiser to listen to the rules. Especially when you're hurtling down a 4km long concrete runway at 350km/h in an aluminium tube filled with fuel with 2 or more 1000KN candels all connected with string.
If the dude driving the thing tells you to turn your phone off so he can concentrate, then TURN YOUR FRIGGIN PHONE OFF!

Anything you say against this basically means you do believe in urban myths and you would rather see relaxed aircraft telemetry requirements and more rules.

I believe in the laws of physics and science.
So does the captain of the plane. And he's the only thing keeping you and your dumb ass alive in the air. What he says, goes... end of story.
He's not the "pilot"... not the "guy who plays with the dials"... He's the CAPTAIN.

 

[charlie_82]

In this case it's the same as driving 200Km/h on a open stretch of road WITH 200 other people in the car, including babies and children. By all means put your own life at risk, that's your personal choice. But not others. That's just criminally insane.

Well said! I for one get quite annoyed having turn off my PDA and not having any in-flight entertainment. On occasion I think I might just not listen cos what are the chances my cellphone will crash the plane?? But then I look around and realise that while I may be willing to take that chance, I can't make that decision for the other passengers.

Two hours of boredom won't kill me but being irresponbile might...
I love my gadgets but I don't need to be entertained by one every minute of the day... What happened to books? Magazines? Taking a nap??

Rouxenator is an inconsiderate someone who'd rather risk someone else's life (however slim the chances may be) than be bored for 2 hours

 

[macPhallus]

No, you're completely missing the point.

Leave it there, Vodacom3G - the problem arguing with idiots like rouxaflater and the pisscat is (as the old saying goes) that they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I do not normally post, but his actions, so defies logic, that it leaves one gob-smacked.

To truly understand what you are dealing with, see - http://vlottenburg.co.za/paul/

 

[macPhallus]

It's like you doing 200km/h in your car and your wife is screaming in your ear about her yeast infection.

Owned!

ROTFLMAO!!!

OverKill69 - thanks for turning a crappy Friday morning into a truly great one!

mac

 

[vodacom3g]

V3G, you dont get it. The fact that a plane hasn't been crashed by a mobile phone DOES mean that it's not going to happen.

All it means is that it's not happened yet. If you follow air crashes you'll see that they're all caused by events that often occur on other planes but did not lead to a crash. Can you categorically state that rogue RF transmissions have NOT affected planes in the past?

But that's not the point here. There is a law, and it's being broken for no apparent reason other than the fact that it's 'cool' to do so. It's not even that you get some functionality leaving your mobile on, you can't make a call can you?

As for being in the same class as a rapist or hijacker. What kind of backwards, incoherent logic do you use to arrive at that conclusion. It makes the rest of your post seem dubious as well. If all laws were created equal, why do murderers get 25 years while speeding on the N3 gets a small fine. By your logic all "criminals" should be punished equally.

The fact is, a law is being broken because the criminal thinks it's 'cool'. And he's trying to justify it by saying he's not crashed a plane yet. So,the day he kills himself and a lot of other people, he'll say 'sorry'?

And I've used a GPS on board as well (while landing), got a "Max Speed" record of 291 km/h on my nuvi 200.

Does your GPS contain a transmitter? Think about it.