Giant. Thing. NSFW.

[F22HB]

If airplanes are other planets, then yes. The range is only up to about 200 miles or so.

It's a conspiracy! lol I'm just being an ass, sorry. I think most of us could only wish the government were actually up to something and our lives suddenly turned into a movie full of action and awesomeness.

[owequitit]

It's a conspiracy! lol I'm just being an ass, sorry. I think most of us could only wish the government were actually up to something and our lives suddenly turned into a movie full of action and awesomeness.

LOL. I would totally go John Connor on some terminator bastards.

[quickangel93]

to me it looked like a gps or something that gives out transmissions before i read everyones post.

i think the reason that they want nobody there is if you had some forum of magnet on you, i could set it off.

[crazymikey]

to me it looked like a gps or something that gives out transmissions before i read everyones post.

i think the reason that they want nobody there is if you had some forum of magnet on you, i could set it off.

God forbid you were on a plane using your laptop with your ipod on and your cell phone rang....

[owequitit]

to me it looked like a gps or something that gives out transmissions before i read everyones post.

i think the reason that they want nobody there is if you had some forum of magnet on you, i could set it off.

There is nothing to set off...

[MikeW]

God forbid you were on a plane using your laptop with your ipod on and your cell phone rang....

You can do that now??

There is nothing to set off...

Then why do they make such a big fucking deal about it? Most phones have an airplane mode now, so... Im not sure about laptops or iPods. If there's nothing to set off and interference wont bring the plane down, why do they not allow that shit?

And this is what I dont understand. Say im on plane. The chances of this being that pilot's very first day, let alone first time ever flying an airplane, are pretty fucking slim. So the guy has a little bit of knowledge about what he's doing. If what you say is true, Scott, then getting the plane off the ground, and, essentially, landing it, shouldnt require THAT much instrumentation(is that a word??).
What they will need instruments for are when we're at 30,000 feet. So they know they're heading, and all that jazz. It is then, that they tell us it's ok to use our electronics. Shouldnt it be the other way around?

If--and thats a BIG "IF", interference is going to come from some douchebags cell phone or laptop, id want it to happen upon take-off or landing. NOT while I was 30,000 feet in the air, traveling 500mph. [Off-topic, but did everyone know your average 747 reaches its take-off speed of about 175 in like 35 seconds? Awesome].

Anyway, I dont think it makes sense. Of course, Im not as knowledgeable about enough things to know the exact reason why it's ok to use your electronics at 30k, but not upon take-off/landing.

[Macaqueistrong]

It just looked like a giant nipple to me, but then again I'm a perv.

[owequitit]

You can do that now??


Then why do they make such a big fucking deal about it? Most phones have an airplane mode now, so... Im not sure about laptops or iPods. If there's nothing to set off and interference wont bring the plane down, why do they not allow that shit?

And this is what I dont understand. Say im on plane. The chances of this being that pilot's very first day, let alone first time ever flying an airplane, are pretty fucking slim. So the guy has a little bit of knowledge about what he's doing. If what you say is true, Scott, then getting the plane off the ground, and, essentially, landing it, shouldnt require THAT much instrumentation(is that a word??).
What they will need instruments for are when we're at 30,000 feet. So they know they're heading, and all that jazz. It is then, that they tell us it's ok to use our electronics. Shouldnt it be the other way around?

If--and thats a BIG "IF", interference is going to come from some douchebags cell phone or laptop, id want it to happen upon take-off or landing. NOT while I was 30,000 feet in the air, traveling 500mph. [Off-topic, but did everyone know your average 747 reaches its take-off speed of about 175 in like 35 seconds? Awesome].

Anyway, I dont think it makes sense. Of course, Im not as knowledgeable about enough things to know the exact reason why it's ok to use your electronics at 30k, but not upon take-off/landing.

First of all, calm down.

1) He was speaking of being near the VOR station with a giant magnet. Not on the airplane, so I am not sure how you got to this tirade about electronics on an airplane, but we will run with it.

2) There are EXTREMELY specific reasons why they don't allow you to use electronics below a certain point (it is actually usually below 10,000, not 30,000). It doesn't seem intuitive because you have to have a lot of systems knowledge to understand it.

First, they don't care if you shut your phone off, or put it in airplane mode, as long as it isn't transmitting/receiving. The primary reason for this is actually because of the FCC. They don't want thousands of phones at high altitude locking onto hundreds or thousands of cell phone towers and overwhelming the system. Since cell phone waves are line of sight capable only, you have a MUCH broader "line of sight" range when you are airborne. This can lead to reduced performance and overwhelming of the cell networks, as well as causing inteference with other phones operating on the same frequencies. Turning the antenna off solves this. "Line of sight" simply means that if you can see the station, you can transmit to and receive from it. The higher the frequency used, the more line of sight it is. This is why you can often receive AM radio stations from a long distance. They are LOW frequency, and thus the waves are more able to contour around stuff and travel beyond the visible horizon, while FM can't. It is also why you don't get cell phone coverage in some remote areas, because there is probably not a tower within line of sight distance from your position.

Second, because the cell phone uses specific frequency ranges, it may cause interference with the flight equipment/critical radio signals being sent and received by the airplane. It CAN and HAS happened before. Although unlikely, it only takes 1 incident at just the right time to lead to an accident, so why take the chance?

The policy on other electronics (such as laptops) is for similar reasons. They CAN and HAVE also caused interference issues. Anytime you create any kind of magnetic field, you are running the risk of interfering with the aircraft systems. The problem with electronic devices on the whole is the issues are usually unexpected, intermittent and impossible to replicate. Boeing and Airbus have spent millions trying to figure out what causes the problems, but they are anomolous at best, and thus, the ONLY safe policy is to shut them off completely when you are in a "critical phase of flight." "Critical phase of flight" simply means when aircraft safety is paramount because the chances of an accident are higher and include engine start to 10,000 feet on the climb, and during approach and landing (usually, the "critical phase" starts at about 10,000 feet on the way back down too). These two phases of flight count for by far the majority of accident statistics, hence why they are considered "critical." The workload during these times is much higher, the chance of error greater and the conditions more difficult/dangerous. The reason these are "critical" is because you are getting close to the ground, traffic is increasing due to converging proximity of the airport, and they are often navigating on an instrument approach which requires extremely precise accuracy on the part of the aircraft's navigation systems (which is what your electronics are most likely to interfere with). Even the crew's behavior changes, and there is no talking about anything other than the flying of the airplane, the FA's are belted in and the cabin is already secure with the seats and tray tables up and belts fastened. So they just have you turn everything off prior to this point, so they don't have to worry about it.

The fact is that if I encounter electronic interference at 30K feet, I have TIME to deal with it. At 10,000 and below I may not, hence the policy. The error is also likely to be much more critical below 10K. Does that answer your question? And also, just because they CAN fly below 10K without instruments doesn't mean they are. They can do either.

Now, here is why they do it the way they do it. They do not have the time or resources to explain why they are doing what they are doing to every person who doesn't know squat. They also can't be inconsistent in the execution of policy and change it from flight to flight. So they create "hardpoints" where the policy goes into effect to protect the worst case scenario situation. Such as shutting the electronic devices off at 10,000 feet so you don't interfere with the aircraft's ability to fly the approach below that.

You probably also have noticed that we have talked about that to a degree you can fly an airplane without the instruments, so what is the big deal on a clear day? The PROBLEM goes back to my last statement. They can't explain to passengers that they have to turn their lap tops off on a bad weather day because the flight crew can't see the runway, and might crash if they don't. Not only is it inconsistent and scary, but they aren't going to understand. So it is easier to always just turn them off, regardless, that way it doesn't matter if they NEED the accuracy or not. They have it if they do.

Also, for the record, I am greatly simplifying things here so they are more understandable, but basically larger aircraft rely on their instruments more than small ones. Although they can fly without them, they rely more heavily on them for precise control of the airplane because they are VERY high performance, VERY fast, and have somewhat limited visibility out the window compared to most light airplanes.

One of the reasons this is so important is that most people have no idea how many electrical systems run through the airplane. There are litterally hundreds (if not thousands) of miles of wiring in each and every airplane, and it goes to all corners of the aircraft, for sensors, systems, antennas, electrical generation etc. Couple that with the specific conditions of the atmosphere, your specific electronic device and the devices around you, and that is probably one reason it is so hard to duplicate.

3) Another example of a policy they don't explain to you, but serves a functional purpose, is the dimming of the cabin lights as soon as they finish the safety briefing.

The REAL purpose of this is to help adjust your night vision acuity when it is dark out, so if there were an emergency and you needed to evacuate, you would be able to better see where you are going. They have also discovered the secondary benefit that it keeps passengers happier and calmer, so they just do it all the time, since it is more consistent and always serves a positive purpose.

4) The point to all of this is that flying (like any other very complex profession) requires a lot of skill, training, and knowledge about the craft. It is not a lot different from being a doctor or attorney (in fact many pilots do double duty). It takes literally years and hundreds of hours to learn the trade and then hundreds more to perfect it. The people on the aircraft (and making decisions on the ground) are highly trained, highly professional, and highly knowledgable about their area of expertise. Running airplanes around is a VERY complex and tedious pursuit. For every 1 airplane that an airline flies, there are on average about 70-100 people required to run that airplane, only about 20% of which are flight crew members.

So no, you will never see a guy who is new on the job. It might be his first flight with that particular airline, but even by that point, he has been in training for months, even if he had previously been flying for years, and even then, he is under the supervision of a training Captain.

You aren't going to find a pilot on an airliner in this day and age that doesn't have AT LEAST 10 years experience flying and a couple thousand hours. On the big airliners (100+ seats) it is likely to exceed that value by a comfortable margin. That is one of the benefits of the job market sucking, is that everyone who is employeed is VERY experienced, because either the more junior guys got furloughed, or that company has just not been hiring for a long time, leaving the FNG even being very experienced.

In fact, to even get an interview at an airline, you typically have to have AT LEAST 1,000 hours (1500+ is usually preferred), with certain amounts of instrument time, Pilot in Command time, cross country time, etc etc etc, and that is just for the Regional airlines (the ones who typically fly 50-100 seat jets and turboprops, and operate as say "Delta Express").

Usually, it ends up being a stepping stone process. You learn to fly in small airplanes and get your ratings that way (of which there are about 7 to even have what you need to move onto the airlines). Then you build time in small airplanes by either flight instructing, or doing commercial flying in small airplanes (air mail and small cargo, crop dusting, surveying, aerial tours, etc), so you can gain the experience you need to move to the regionals. Once you get to the regionals, you spend time there getting experience in turbine aircraft, and probably getting upgraded to Captain to build more PIC turbine time, and THEN you move onto the majors, and start over as a First Officer again.

Corporate flying works the same way, but you would replace regional with whatever jet you would be flying. The military is also similar in that you make steps up from one simpler aircraft to a more complex one, but it is all internal and much quicker.

Even if you board an airplane and the pilot looks 12, I can assure you he is probably older than he looks (legally must be at least 18, although it is rare to find one below 21-25, and even that is pretty rare), and he still had to meet the experience requirements and proficiency checks.

Contrary to popular myth, you don't just walk onto an airplane and get hired, it is NOT like driving a bus, and not just anyone can do it.

[MikeW]

I am not sure how you got to this tirade about electronics on an airplane

God forbid you were on a plane using your laptop with your ipod on and your cell phone rang....

That's where.

Scott, Ive said it before and Ill say it again, your wealth of knowledge is astonishing. Might not seem like alot to some, but to me it is. Im not sure if that makes me seem unintelligent but it's true, lol.

I wasnt freaking out, lol, I just didnt know. Now I know. And it all makes sense. I knew about the amount of wiring and systems and all that. I guess what I meant to say was that if a system were to fail, to the point that the plane were going to crash, I'd rather that happen as close to ground as possible, lol.

[4CYLPOWER92]

I guess what I meant to say was that if a system were to fail, to the point that the plane were going to crash, I'd rather that happen as close to ground as possible, lol.

That is not what you want, unless what you mean is close to a runway. Because if something were to fail, you want to have as much altitude as possible in order to find the best place to land the plane and still be able to glide there. More altitude also gives the pilots more time to troubleshoot the problem, and complete all the required checklists prior to making an emergency landing.

IMO, commercial airline pilots don't make nearly enough money to make all the years of training and associated costs worth it. A couple years ago, there was a newspaper article which interviewed a former Captain for Frontier Airlines. Due to company cutbacks, he was demoted to copilot and half of his salery (a measly 60,000 per year) was cut by 50%. So here is a guy with all of those years of experience and responsibility, only making 30,000 a year as copilot for a major commercial airline.

[owequitit]

That's where.

Scott, Ive said it before and Ill say it again, your wealth of knowledge is astonishing. Might not seem like alot to some, but to me it is. Im not sure if that makes me seem unintelligent but it's true, lol.

I wasnt freaking out, lol, I just didnt know. Now I know. And it all makes sense. I knew about the amount of wiring and systems and all that. I guess what I meant to say was that if a system were to fail, to the point that the plane were going to crash, I'd rather that happen as close to ground as possible, lol.

Ah, I see.

Actually, as the post below me says, you want MORE altitude because it gives you time. Time to think, react, and try to fix something. Ultimately, and airplane is perfectly capable of gliding. It WILL land, but the higher you are, the more options you have. We practice that too.

If a situation were to occur where you lose everything and have no way out, you feel your way down to the ground, trying to get to where you think the best place is and then hope for the best.

The only real exception to this rule is when you are on fire, because fire and aluminum don't get along and thus you are very time limited. This is about the only place where you might consider wanting less altitude so you can get on the ground quicker. Usually, you have about a 2-3 minute window to be on the ground. However, ironically, very few accidents involve fire and of those, many are not fatal. Pilots are much more likely to lose situational awareness, or make a bad choice, and fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground.

Also, I should note that there is a MAJOR distinction between General Aviation (privately flown airplanes that are generally your small piston powered ones) and air transport category operations (pretty much every airline you fly on). The level of required safety, training, competancy, medical performance, experience is much, much higher in transport category airplanes which is the primary reason they are much safer. Small airplanes can be flown pretty much as safely, but it requires different motivations, a lot of recurrent training etc, which unfortunately, a lot of GA pilots either don't adopt, or don't get.

That is not what you want, unless what you mean is close to a runway. Because if something were to fail, you want to have as much altitude as possible in order to find the best place to land the plane and still be able to glide there. More altitude also gives the pilots more time to troubleshoot the problem, and complete all the required checklists prior to making an emergency landing.

IMO, commercial airline pilots don't make nearly enough money to make all the years of training and associated costs worth it. A couple years ago, there was a newspaper article which interviewed a former Captain for Frontier Airlines. Due to company cutbacks, he was demoted to copilot and half of his salery (a measly 60,000 per year) was cut by 50%. So here is a guy with all of those years of experience and responsibility, only making 30,000 a year as copilot for a major commercial airline.

I agree. Take some of the regional guys. In most cases, starting pay for a co-pilot at a regional airline is on the order of $20-22K a year. It is simply retarded for the level of professionalism and responsibility. The ONLY reason they get away with it is because we all usually would rather fly than work for a living. You certainly don't pay bills that way! For instance, if I were to leave my job now, I would end up about even to a slight pay cut...

However, I believe the wages will recover. They have too. One of the reasons they are so low is because the airlines have been able to cut them knowing that either A) more people would get furloughed, or b) for every pilot not willing to work for that much, there were 10 younger ones in line that were. The airlines litterally haven't had a net hiring since just prior to 9/11. They are just now getting most of the furloughs from 9/11 recalled and are finally starting to go into hire mode again.

Here is why it must change though. The helicopter guys did this about 10-15 years ago. It is all supply and demand. When you have 10,000+ pilots that want jobs and don't have one (more supply than demand), it drives the market value down, and the companies can pay less. This is what we are going through now. However, forecasts state that the US is going to need something like 30,000 commercial pilots in the next 10-15 years because most of the baby boomers who flooded the market are getting to retirement age. This is good for people like me because it will be easy to get a job and move up fairly quickly. The shortage of pilots will also help ensure job security, which hasn't existed since the late 90's. This is all similar to the helo guys because after Vietnam, there were shit tons of helicopter pilots and very few civilian helicopter jobs. It was impossible to get a job in that side of the house for decades, and when you did, it didn't pay shit because there were 15-20 guys lined up behind you. So nobody did helicopter training. Then, as the Vietnam guys got to retirement age, suddenly, there is this huge vacuum and no pilots. So the pilots that were there, saw their pay go way up. It is still a lot higher today. The average helicopter instructor is probably making somehwere between 30-100% more than the average fixed wing instructor right now.

The secondary problem though, is that many younger kids who would have otherwise been interested in a flying career were most likely deterred into something else because of the high cost and low pay. That is unfortunate, because there is about a 5 year delay from when they start and when they can think about getting hired. If they don't start until the boom happens, then there will be a huge delay where the airlines are going to be short of pilots. One of the things that has been a challenge for the entire industry in the last couple years is trying to pry younger kids away from their cell phones and ipods and get them to try stuff like flying to see if they are interested. Flying is one of those things where once you do it, you either get the bug or you don't. I would say MAYBE 1 out of every 100 people is indifferent about it. We need to figure out ways to get women involved too. We know they are there, but they are a little harder to engage than the males. Usually, they need a female mentor to show them it is OK. Although I have to admit that female participation has gone up markedly in the last ten years to nearly 20% (it was around 3-5%) when I started.

It is definitely something I encourage people to try at least once.

[owequitit]

As you can tell, this is the one subject I like more than cars.

[wed3k]

yea and apparently noboday cares anymore.

[ric3rboi23]

the cb7tuner clock is now further off than it used to be.

i blame these giant alien telecommunication stations.

[deevergote]

You Americans are way too Paranoid about, practically EVERYTHING

This.