Nice idea (seriously). But only if everyone had wireless devices. Until then either the FA's or a general broadcast video will still have to do the safety speech, and those with wireless devices will get stuck sitting thru it twice.
I didn't mean in lieu of the flight attendant's demonstration of the cabin' video presentation, I simply meant as a required, redundant measure. Even if you have a WiFi capable device that doesn't mean you'll use it.
I am waiting for airlines to have iPads available for anyone on the plane with in flight entertainment provided via an internal LAN. Think of the sales of iPads if that took off, no pun intended ...
Let's hope iPad are required to be stowed during takeoffs and landings. I've got one of the new iPads, and it's heavy and has a sharp edge. I wouldn't want one of them flying around a cabin if something went wrong during those critical phases of a flight.
Climbing to cruising altitude and the approach to the airport are fine. But not in those first or last couple of minutes.
Let's hope iPad are required to be stowed during takeoffs and landings. I've got one of the new iPads, and it's heavy and has a sharp edge. I wouldn't want one of them flying around a cabin if something went wrong during those critical phases of a flight.
Climbing to cruising altitude and the approach to the airport are fine. But not in those first or last couple of minutes.
There's a business opportunity for you, start selling iPad covers with built in mini airbags that deploy on impact.
Once there is an emergency there is no time for instructions and demonstrations. They want you to pay attention to the precautions and safety instructions. Also as a courtesy to others who would appreciate that you paid attention to the drill in case their own safety depended on your preparedness for follow instructions. Also they want to eliminate the potential for flying projectiles in an emergency so put away your small metallic devices.
Some people around here, once evacuated might go back into a burning airplane to rescue their Apple device.
That sorta makes sense until you realize that they do not make people put away their books or magazines for the instructions
the FAA is taking a fresh look at the use of personal electronic devices, other than cellphones, on aircraft," said Laura J. Brown,
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
That sorta makes sense until you realize that they do not make people put away their books or magazines for the instructions
Most book readers are thoughtful people who usually follow instructions and pay attention unlike many mobile device users who often disregard rules of when not to use their phones and tend to exhibit obsessive behavior toward their devices such as using hand held phones, texting while driving, etc., even though they clearly know it is against the law.
Although, a couple weeks ago I did see a lady actually reading a book while driving. She was mostly reading it at the stop lights but would accelerate on the green light while still finishing up a paragraph. I watched her do it several times. Pretty crazy. I guess that blows my theory....
Most book readers are thoughtful people who usually follow instructions and pay attention unlike many mobile device users who often disregard rules of when not to use their phones and tend to exhibit obsessive behavior toward their devices such as using hand held phones, texting while driving, etc., even though they clearly know it is against the law.
Although, a couple weeks ago I did see a lady actually reading a book while driving. She was mostly reading it at the stop lights but would accelerate on the green light while still finishing up a paragraph. I watched her do it several times. Pretty crazy. I guess that blows my theory....
Reading or looking for something at a stop light makes the light change faster.
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
The iPhone is a mobile-phone, NOT a cell-phone!
Your being pedantic. There are plenty of words we use every day without thinking twice about their etymology or how the original definition no longer applies.
The fallacy is believing other cultures actively altered colloquial terms because it no longer fit the original definition. Language simply doesn't work that way.
What if the plane's WiFi had a splash screen that required you to watch an H.264 embedded video of the safety proceeders before it would let you get access to the internet. Now this wouldn't affect those those that don't connect to the plane's WiFi but the interest is growing so I imagine more and more people will be accessing in-flight internet. The on-board system can simply wipe your MAC address from its system once every 24 hours so you don't get it again for that flight.
That would eliminate the mind control element of regulation. We are thinking too much for our own good as it is.
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
The iPhone is a mobile-phone, NOT a cell-phone!
It is called a cell phone based on the 'cellular technology' which relates to how it works using a three sided directional antenna that is located in hexagonal relationship to the other towers. When you are inside that hexagon you are considered in a cell and each of the towers on the vertices of the cell actively handle your connection. When you travel into the neighboring cell the system hands you off to the towers managing that cell. The operative word in the definition of how it works is 'cell'.
Now if only there were actually enough cell towers to properly form the hexagon we would all have a lot better signal.
Interference is real, especially on older aircraft whose flight electronics have not been shielded for internal transmission devices. All aircraft are shielded from external transmissions, which is why the receive (and transmit) antennae are on the outside of the hull, not inside. As older aircraft are retired and properly shielded newer aircraft come into service, I think we will see the ?electronics? (transmit) ban completely lifted.
Until then, please comply with any crew member?s request to turn OFF electronic devices as they probably know more about the capabilities and electronic hardening of their particular aircraft than you do.
With all do respect, 99% of all avionic wire bundles are not shielded. All of the communication/navigation wire bundles consist of twisted pairs for both power (electricity) and data (to include voice). And no, not all aircraft are shielded from external transmissions.
The reason the antenna is on the outside of the aircraft is basic RF theory. Why would you mount an antenna inside the METAL fuselage (not hull) and induce loss?
And the FAA rule is unbelievable stupid! Google "cell phone tower map" and lookup any airport. Every aircraft in or near that airport is being bathed in hundreds of watts of RF energy. If cell phones were so dangerous, I imagine 100W transmitters external to the fuselage would be much more dangerous than 0.6W transmitters internal to the aircraft (excluding the fact that you're on a completely different RF band/freq).
I thought the main reason for disallowing gadgets at take off and landing is to have passengers (full) attention at these relative critical phases of a flight. The interference question seems mostly to be mythical.
I totally agree. Too many morons already are blabbing on their phones during taxing to and from the runway.
With all do respect, 99% of all avionic wire bundles are not shielded. All of the communication/navigation wire bundles consist of twisted pairs for both power (electricity) and data (to include voice). And no, not all aircraft are shielded from external transmissions.
The reason the antenna is on the outside of the aircraft is basic RF theory. Why would you mount an antenna inside the METAL fuselage (not hull) and induce loss?
And the FAA rule is unbelievable stupid! Google "cell phone tower map" and lookup any airport. Every aircraft in or near that airport is being bathed in hundreds of watts of RF energy. If cell phones were so dangerous, I imagine 100W transmitters external to the fuselage would be much more dangerous than 0.6W transmitters internal to the aircraft (excluding the fact that you're on a completely different RF band/freq).
Finally!... an intelligent post!
Now... I know a Steve Jacobson... I can't help but wonder... does the name J--f S----k (rhymes with "smallsack") mean anything to you? ... make you throw up in your mouth just a little?
Pilots are using iPads as their flight manuals. If FAA doesn't approve it, it will become a huge issue.
"Ahhhhh~, everyone, this is your captain speaking? Ahhhhh~, we're gonna have to make an emergency landing wherever the heck we are right now, because I'm sorta lost and they won't let me use my flight manual, ahhhh~?"
I would find that more persuasive if every flight on every commercial airline didn't tell you to turn off electronic devices.. I've never been on a plane where they announced that the electronic shielding was current and robust so we were free to keep our devices on, the indiscriminateness of which is kind of the point.
Excellent point.
If half the flights said "you can use electronic devices as this plane has been shielded and is safe", it'd make everyone think a little harder on the other half of flights.
I do wonder what they'll do though when they find that every device they ever test is fine. It's one thing to find that 1 in 20 of devices tested are problematic.... It justifies the precaution. But if none are found problematic it'll seem a more stupid rule for all.
Comments
Nice idea (seriously). But only if everyone had wireless devices. Until then either the FA's or a general broadcast video will still have to do the safety speech, and those with wireless devices will get stuck sitting thru it twice.
I didn't mean in lieu of the flight attendant's demonstration of the cabin' video presentation, I simply meant as a required, redundant measure. Even if you have a WiFi capable device that doesn't mean you'll use it.
Oh, that makes sense. But it could be solved by louder attention sounds and more prominent lights to grab attention for real emergencies.
Flash grenades spring to mind ... oh .. perhaps not ...
Climbing to cruising altitude and the approach to the airport are fine. But not in those first or last couple of minutes.
Let's hope iPad are required to be stowed during takeoffs and landings. I've got one of the new iPads, and it's heavy and has a sharp edge. I wouldn't want one of them flying around a cabin if something went wrong during those critical phases of a flight.
Climbing to cruising altitude and the approach to the airport are fine. But not in those first or last couple of minutes.
There's a business opportunity for you, start selling iPad covers with built in mini airbags that deploy on impact.
Once there is an emergency there is no time for instructions and demonstrations. They want you to pay attention to the precautions and safety instructions. Also as a courtesy to others who would appreciate that you paid attention to the drill in case their own safety depended on your preparedness for follow instructions. Also they want to eliminate the potential for flying projectiles in an emergency so put away your small metallic devices.
Some people around here, once evacuated might go back into a burning airplane to rescue their Apple device.
That sorta makes sense until you realize that they do not make people put away their books or magazines for the instructions
the FAA is taking a fresh look at the use of personal electronic devices, other than cellphones, on aircraft," said Laura J. Brown,
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
The iPhone is a mobile-phone, NOT a cell-phone!
That sorta makes sense until you realize that they do not make people put away their books or magazines for the instructions
Most book readers are thoughtful people who usually follow instructions and pay attention unlike many mobile device users who often disregard rules of when not to use their phones and tend to exhibit obsessive behavior toward their devices such as using hand held phones, texting while driving, etc., even though they clearly know it is against the law.
Although, a couple weeks ago I did see a lady actually reading a book while driving. She was mostly reading it at the stop lights but would accelerate on the green light while still finishing up a paragraph. I watched her do it several times. Pretty crazy. I guess that blows my theory....
Most book readers are thoughtful people who usually follow instructions and pay attention unlike many mobile device users who often disregard rules of when not to use their phones and tend to exhibit obsessive behavior toward their devices such as using hand held phones, texting while driving, etc., even though they clearly know it is against the law.
Although, a couple weeks ago I did see a lady actually reading a book while driving. She was mostly reading it at the stop lights but would accelerate on the green light while still finishing up a paragraph. I watched her do it several times. Pretty crazy. I guess that blows my theory....
Reading or looking for something at a stop light makes the light change faster.
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
The iPhone is a mobile-phone, NOT a cell-phone!
Your being pedantic. There are plenty of words we use every day without thinking twice about their etymology or how the original definition no longer applies.
The fallacy is believing other cultures actively altered colloquial terms because it no longer fit the original definition. Language simply doesn't work that way.
What if the plane's WiFi had a splash screen that required you to watch an H.264 embedded video of the safety proceeders before it would let you get access to the internet. Now this wouldn't affect those those that don't connect to the plane's WiFi but the interest is growing so I imagine more and more people will be accessing in-flight internet. The on-board system can simply wipe your MAC address from its system once every 24 hours so you don't get it again for that flight.
That would eliminate the mind control element of regulation. We are thinking too much for our own good as it is.
Why do we as Americans insist on being the only English speaking nation to use the term "cellphones" for 'mobile' phones? Cell technology has not been used in mobile phones since the 80's.
The iPhone is a mobile-phone, NOT a cell-phone!
It is called a cell phone based on the 'cellular technology' which relates to how it works using a three sided directional antenna that is located in hexagonal relationship to the other towers. When you are inside that hexagon you are considered in a cell and each of the towers on the vertices of the cell actively handle your connection. When you travel into the neighboring cell the system hands you off to the towers managing that cell. The operative word in the definition of how it works is 'cell'.
Now if only there were actually enough cell towers to properly form the hexagon we would all have a lot better signal.
INow if only there were actually enough cell towers to properly form the hexagon we would all have a lot better signal.
...to go along with our toasted brains.
Interference is real, especially on older aircraft whose flight electronics have not been shielded for internal transmission devices. All aircraft are shielded from external transmissions, which is why the receive (and transmit) antennae are on the outside of the hull, not inside. As older aircraft are retired and properly shielded newer aircraft come into service, I think we will see the ?electronics? (transmit) ban completely lifted.
Until then, please comply with any crew member?s request to turn OFF electronic devices as they probably know more about the capabilities and electronic hardening of their particular aircraft than you do.
With all do respect, 99% of all avionic wire bundles are not shielded. All of the communication/navigation wire bundles consist of twisted pairs for both power (electricity) and data (to include voice). And no, not all aircraft are shielded from external transmissions.
The reason the antenna is on the outside of the aircraft is basic RF theory. Why would you mount an antenna inside the METAL fuselage (not hull) and induce loss?
And the FAA rule is unbelievable stupid! Google "cell phone tower map" and lookup any airport. Every aircraft in or near that airport is being bathed in hundreds of watts of RF energy. If cell phones were so dangerous, I imagine 100W transmitters external to the fuselage would be much more dangerous than 0.6W transmitters internal to the aircraft (excluding the fact that you're on a completely different RF band/freq).
I thought the main reason for disallowing gadgets at take off and landing is to have passengers (full) attention at these relative critical phases of a flight. The interference question seems mostly to be mythical.
I totally agree. Too many morons already are blabbing on their phones during taxing to and from the runway.
With all do respect, 99% of all avionic wire bundles are not shielded. All of the communication/navigation wire bundles consist of twisted pairs for both power (electricity) and data (to include voice). And no, not all aircraft are shielded from external transmissions.
The reason the antenna is on the outside of the aircraft is basic RF theory. Why would you mount an antenna inside the METAL fuselage (not hull) and induce loss?
And the FAA rule is unbelievable stupid! Google "cell phone tower map" and lookup any airport. Every aircraft in or near that airport is being bathed in hundreds of watts of RF energy. If cell phones were so dangerous, I imagine 100W transmitters external to the fuselage would be much more dangerous than 0.6W transmitters internal to the aircraft (excluding the fact that you're on a completely different RF band/freq).
Finally!... an intelligent post!
Now... I know a Steve Jacobson... I can't help but wonder... does the name J--f S----k (rhymes with "smallsack") mean anything to you? ... make you throw up in your mouth just a little?
Oh, that makes sense. But it could be solved by louder attention sounds and more prominent lights to grab attention for real emergencies.
Or an app
Pilots are using iPads as their flight manuals. If FAA doesn't approve it, it will become a huge issue.
"Ahhhhh~, everyone, this is your captain speaking? Ahhhhh~, we're gonna have to make an emergency landing wherever the heck we are right now, because I'm sorta lost and they won't let me use my flight manual, ahhhh~?"
I would find that more persuasive if every flight on every commercial airline didn't tell you to turn off electronic devices.. I've never been on a plane where they announced that the electronic shielding was current and robust so we were free to keep our devices on, the indiscriminateness of which is kind of the point.
Excellent point.
If half the flights said "you can use electronic devices as this plane has been shielded and is safe", it'd make everyone think a little harder on the other half of flights.
I do wonder what they'll do though when they find that every device they ever test is fine. It's one thing to find that 1 in 20 of devices tested are problematic.... It justifies the precaution. But if none are found problematic it'll seem a more stupid rule for all.