NO CELL PHONES ON PLANES...congress at...work?

[bcjammerx]

This is the most stupid thing I've heard...what a waste of our legislation...

btw...cell phones are not dangerous on planes, they no longer interfere with instruments...due to increased shielding...and other stuff...
also a cell phone will not start a fire while you are filling up your gas tank either.


http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8769337
Members of Congress are making the case that cell phone calls on airplanes can be both unsafe and annoying and should be permanently banned.

The House Transportation committee today approved a measure to do that by voice vote, after members traded horror stories about their own worst in-flight experiences.

One lawmaker said his wife sat next to a woman who loudly discussed her sex life on the phone.

Another told of a passenger sitting behind him who got a call just before take-off from either his wife or girlfriend who apparently wanted to end the relationship. He said the man's begging and pleading was terrible to hear and a flight attendant finally had to threaten to have U.S. Marshals put the man off the plane to get him to put the phone away.

The committee's action comes as the European Union is moving in the other direction, allowing airline passengers to talk on their cell phones during flight.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

[foamypirate]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be sitting next to 150 tards chatting on their cell phones when I'm on a plane...

[Accord R33]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be sitting next to 150 tards chatting on their cell phones when I'm on a plane...

werd.

[MikeW]

Haters.

[texasvtak]

werd.

ecks too.

psniceOGsig

[lokuputha]

this is similar to places like Japan...I think it is not customary to speak on the cell phone when riding on the train; thats what I observed from watching Top Gear's Nissan GTR episode.

[owequitit]

This is the most stupid thing I've heard...what a waste of our legislation...

btw...cell phones are not dangerous on planes, they no longer interfere with instruments...due to increased shielding...and other stuff...
also a cell phone will not start a fire while you are filling up your gas tank either.


http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8769337
Members of Congress are making the case that cell phone calls on airplanes can be both unsafe and annoying and should be permanently banned.

The House Transportation committee today approved a measure to do that by voice vote, after members traded horror stories about their own worst in-flight experiences.

One lawmaker said his wife sat next to a woman who loudly discussed her sex life on the phone.

Another told of a passenger sitting behind him who got a call just before take-off from either his wife or girlfriend who apparently wanted to end the relationship. He said the man's begging and pleading was terrible to hear and a flight attendant finally had to threaten to have U.S. Marshals put the man off the plane to get him to put the phone away.

The committee's action comes as the European Union is moving in the other direction, allowing airline passengers to talk on their cell phones during flight.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

1) There is already an open ended FAA regulation in place prohibiting the use of such electronic devices on the airplane.

2) Whoever told you that transmitters can't interfere with the electronics on modern airplanes was WRONG. They can and have interfered with new and modern electronically equipped airplanes, so this is a bunch of crap. Especially if you have 150+ of these things transmitting away.

The biggest safety risk comes from their use during IFR (instrument flight rule) conditions, but how do you explain to people that it is OK to use them sometimes, and not others? You don't. You just make them shut them off. Wouldn't it suck to assume they don't cause issues, and when you are on approach in bad weather, to find out you were wrong, and then the airplane crashes because of it? Leave the technical decisions to the people in the know please. The fact of the matter is that the interference caused is intermittent and spotty at best, and thus the ONLY safe course of action is to restrict their use always.

They have spent millions of dollars trying to recreate the problems, but they are unable to duplicate the exact situations where interference occurred, sometime even using the exact same airplane, the exact same electronic device and the exact same flight conditions.

Honestly, you are not qualified to make a decision about what is or isn't a safe way to operate on, around, or in an airplane, because you do not have the background knowledge required to do so.

And lest you get pissed off, and think I am attacking you, I should forewarn you that my Master's thesis is on this very topic, so I have already read a lot of the technical information that companies like Boeing have. Hopefully, I will be getting funding to do a study of my own, to try and gather further data on the subject.

Personally, this is a waste of a law because there is already one in place. Let's wisely spend our tax dollars by not making two laws that do the same thing.

[Accord R33]

just because the "mythbusters" said the interference is a myth, doesn't necessarily mean its true. It's a TV show, if they did "science" by the book, it would be boring as hell.

Note: I love mythbusters, I just don't think their word is the "final word". and they have even said so themselves. There are many things they have to do to keep the show entertaining. Blow something up on every show is one of them.

I think they should figure out a way to have wifi/satalite internet on flights though. That would keep people connected without disturbing the other passengers. I haven't flown in years, so they probably already do, what do I know

[bcjammerx]

Thanks for the info guys and I stand corrected...guess it isn't such a bad idea then at all.

oh, I don't get upset if someone legitimately proves me wrong

I think they should make their focus on the issue of safety and not on the issue of annoyance. They would win over more people, and avoid a knee jerk response of "quit whining". Could just be how the article was written but it seems their focus was on how they didn't like hearing conversations and not on..."hey this stuff can screw up flight instrument read outs"

[owequitit]

Thanks for the info guys and I stand corrected...guess it isn't such a bad idea then at all.

oh, I don't get upset if someone legitimately proves me wrong

I think they should make their focus on the issue of safety and not on the issue of annoyance. They would win over more people, and avoid a knee jerk response of "quit whining". Could just be how the article was written but it seems their focus was on how they didn't like hearing conversations and not on..."hey this stuff can screw up flight instrument read outs"

I totally agree with you on the law. The problem is that it is pretty much already taken care of, so the law is pointless. And yes I agree. Who is to say that what they do isn't annoying? I think we should try to keep lawmaking to legitimate related issues, and not EMO crap that is impossible to interpret, enforce, or takes other's rights away because you don't want YOUR rights infringed upon. There is a balancing act, but this piece of legislation isn't real legitimate.

[owequitit]

just because the "mythbusters" said the interference is a myth, doesn't necessarily mean its true. It's a TV show, if they did "science" by the book, it would be boring as hell.

Note: I love mythbusters, I just don't think their word is the "final word". and they have even said so themselves. There are many things they have to do to keep the show entertaining. Blow something up on every show is one of them.

I think they should figure out a way to have wifi/satalite internet on flights though. That would keep people connected without disturbing the other passengers. I haven't flown in years, so they probably already do, what do I know

The technology is there. Bizjets have had such capability for years. Since the airlines are responsible for equipping their own planes, it comes down to personal choice, and these systems are VERY expensive. So most airlines don't do it. It costs alot, they are almost all losing money, and it takes away from the payload, and increases relative fuel burn.

[bcjammerx]

of course even if they mandated that they upgrade wiring etc etc to make cell phones use in flight safe (I'm unfamiliar with airline tech and what all that would take) it would still be a up to them to do it...and how long did it take american to do that (I flew RIGHT after their issue was finished...on THE planes they were working on ), they can't do it RIGHT away... And how much business did they lose though during that time...obviously no cell phones in flight is a much simpler, faster, cheaper, and safer way...imo

[JoshM]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be sitting next to 150 tards chatting on their cell phones when I'm on a plane...

What?
Phones work on planes?

Mine had no service last time I was on a plane....

[93twodoorLX]

i dont think they should ban them, they should just fine you lol, if you disturb a passenger and they report it. you get one warning to keep it to a reasonable level and if they have to tell you again they fine you like $500 for each repeat offense (just tack it on their flight bill lol) failure to pay would result in prosecution or something. Its like the new age way to teach adults to act like adults and conduct themselves as consciencious (sp?) human beings. funny thing is, they'll let terrorists on planes but you can't take a tube of toothpaste with a battery near it on LOL

freedom is never free. the terroists have already won by taking away the one thing that make america well.....america. Freedom. Now we police each other and imply bogus paranoid charges to other americans like the next joe schmuck is a baby unibomber. <end rant>

does anyone see that this is why i have never flown and probably never will

-sean

[bcjammerx]

now i remember that mythbusters episode...while they couldn't test in flight...they tested that pretty extensively on the ground but to no avail in the cabin, using cell phone frequencies...not just ANY transmitter...that's two different things...well not really but frequency wise that could be, but just using cell phone frequencies they didn't get anything

I think they ended up saying better safe then sorry because they got some blips with their makeshift cockpit on top of a car...

owequitit...I'm assuming that since the "test" was done with the plane on the ground and not even moving, that might have had something to do with this...since you've got the know-how, could you elaborate?