If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Using electronic devices during take-off and landing (was: idiotic"CyberFlying")
mag3 wrote:
I think even the TSA knows that it's impossible to ban all electronics in this "electronic age." At minimum, Fob keys for your car, For a while in the UK a few years ago they were banning pretty much ALL carry-ons. People were getting screwed because they couldn't even take their car keys on the plane with them. cell phones/blackberries, laptops, all must all be allowed, During the year or two after 9/11, I remember that a lot of people were getting screwed over by airport security because they were forcing people to turn on their electronic **** to prove that they worked and were not bombs. A lot of people don't necessarily have their electronics ready to be able to be turned on like that. They may not have all the necessary cables, or have their batteries charged up. Eventually they stopped doing this. Why sadly? They have real issues to worry about, non-safety related rules aren't worth their effort at this point in the flight. Say that the next time Al Qaeda gets an IED made like a camcorder or cell/blackberry through and is able to detonate it. It's a big joke, all this fretting over carry-on dangerous stuff. Here's the biggest joke: All during 2006 there were media reports that come January 2007, all checked bags would be scanned and most of them opened somewhere during the check-in process. You were told not to lock your checked bags. So if there really are bad people with plans to bring something on a plane - don't you think they'd do it with a bomb in the luggage? It's trivial to have a short-distance transmitter-receiver (garage door opener, or toy R/C controller) to rig up so that you can press a button while seated on the plane and your luggage sitting maybe 50 feet from you in the cargo hold blows up. So if you're planning such an attack, don't you want to do it before all this luggage-scanning bull**** starts? You know it's going to start January 2007, so if you're going to blow up a plane using a bomb in the luggage, you've got 6 months in the clear to do it. Well? Did anyone notice any plane getting blown up with a luggage bomb in 2006? I rest my case (or - I rest my luggage). All the security bull**** since 9/11 has cost people and our economy far more than even losing a few planes a year to terrorism. More people die in car accidents every year than died on 9/11. More people have died in plane crashes related to maintainence negligence, bad equipment-design or operational practice, and human error than died on 9/11. The financial cost and numerous cases of personal grief and inconveinence and lack of constitutional legal recourse (getting screwed by no fly lists, having stuff stolen from unlocked checked bags and even during gate-screening) caused by this ever increasing airport security mania is unconscionable. I have no doubt that one perhaps not-so-small reason for our economy tanking during the past 5-6 years is the reduction in business travel caused by this needless security mania and associated costs and hassles which severely reduces the attractiveness or desirability of air travel for people that used to be frequent fliers. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:45:41 +0100, William Black wrote:
On 22/10/11 12:33, mag3 wrote: I have no issue with things that can fit in one's pockets. In fact, it's why I always kept my windbreaker jacket with me and stuffed down and away from view. In an emergency egress, they may tell me I can't take my carry ons, but they can't stop me from taking my jacket. Actually they can, but they won't because they'll see you're messing about putting on a jacket and and so ignore you because you're suicidal. Suicidal? Really? What's suicidal about putting on a jacket (about 5 seconds of activity), compared to the 30-50 seconds or so I'd be waiting until it's my turn to get into the aisle? And why can't I already have it on in anticipation of the evacuation order? ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
I guess my question is, how is it even possible to acquire such footage from inside the aircraft given the prohibition on "portable electronic devices" below 10,000ft? During takeoff and landing, everyone is strapped in, even the crew, so anyone making video recordings is unlikely to be noticed by the flight attendants. Perhaps, it may have been "overlooked" in the earlier days of "heightened security awareness," but I'm really wondering how anyone could get away with it today? See above. There is no security risk in video or photography aboard an aircraft. Even if permission were to be granted by the captain or crew ... For Part 121 operators such as airlines, the captain or crew cannot give permission, the determination must be made by the operator (the airline). ... the passengers wouldn't necessarily know that and might raise a ruckus on their own... leaving the crew to clean up. The passengers would have to be obsevant, anal-retentive, stupid, and violent. That combination rarely arises aboard airline flights, fortunately. "Unofficially," I thank those who take such good footage, as it's all the flying I do these days (Cyberflying), but I just wonder how it's even possible... It's very easy, which is why there are so many such videos. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
Tom P writes:
Cell phones do generate a lot of electronic RFC noise, so I can understand why they are not allowed. That's not why they are prohibited. They are prohibited because the FCC has a regulation that forbids the use of cell phones in flight (47 CFR § 22.925). The FCC's original concern was not interference with avionics, but simply the risk of overlading base stations on the ground. In fact, that situation did not materialize, but the regulation is still on the books, and airline crews cannot override it. The FAA has a regulation (14 CFR § 121.306, for airlines) that prohibits the use of electronic portable devices unless the operator (airline) has determined them to be safe. The regulation is only partly obeyed by airlines, in part because of an Advisory Circular issued by the FAA (AC 91-21-1B). Cell phones fall under this regulation, but since they are completely forbidden in flight by the FCC regulation already, the FAA regulation is moot. What annoys me is being forbidden to turn on a GPS receiver in flight. This is a totally passive electronic device. Many flight attendants are stupid; sometimes their employers are stupid as well. Stupid people often incorrectly believe that GPS units are transmitters. AFA not being a threat, the question is, are devices certified as not being a threat? As long as there is no certification, that's the end of the story. The regulations require that airlines determine devices to be safe. Airlines generally don't want to spend time or money doing this, so they treat all devices as unsafe, and under the regulations that means that their use must be forbidden throughout the flight. However, the FAA's Advisory Circular suggests that its own regulation can be ignored at certain times for many devices, a tacit recognition of the fact that these devices really cause no problems at all. Airlines may or may not follow the suggestions in the circular. The regulation itself provides no wiggle room--a strict interpretation would even require that batteries be removed from wris****ches during flight. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
DevilsPGD writes:
Then why are you allowed to use many electronic devices during the flight, including those that transmit and receive (on some flights)? Do all onboard electronics suddenly become certified? Technically, all portable devices are prohibited for the entire flight. However, the FAA has admitted that this is overkill in its Advisory Circular, but it hasn't actually changed the law. The AC gives airlines a wedge to partially ignore the law, and some may go even further than that. Electronic gadgets have never really been a threat to aircraft, and they definitely aren't today. If there was even a chance cell phones, laptops, cameras, etc could cause operational or safety issues with the flight, do you think they'd focus on finding water and hand lotion or dangerous electronics? Two different agencies. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
tim.... writes:
The reason that you are not allowed to use "electronic devices" during TO/Landing has got nothing at all to do with their electrical characteristics. It's because that is the part of the flight where there is the largest chance of their being some emergency that requires passengers to react immediately and they want to be sure that you aren't doing anything which is going to distract you from performing this immediate action False. The real reason is that it's against regulations, period. Nobody is going to continue playing his GameBoy after a crash, and even if someone does, that's his problem, not the problem of everyone else on board. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
Besides, many of these videos include pushback and engine starting, when the FAs are *not* strapped in and are still checking the aisles. Perhaps the FAs have been told not to bother, or have reached that conclusion themselves. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
I'm not saying anyone did, but given what I've read recently in people being thrown off of flights for far less severe infractions, and what with newfound "IED awareness," it would seem something both crew and pax. would take a lot more seriously. You don't need to hold an IED up and point it out the window in order to detonate it. In fact, making it obvious in that way would not be a good idea. But I am a little disappointed, both from a security standpoint, and also, one of "fairness." As silly as the regulation may be (and I agree it is), it's still a reg, and must be obeyed by all. The FAA itself has encouraged airlines to ignore this regulation in many circumstances. General Safety, for one... Not that cameras/camcorders would be a huge deal, but other devices and gear (ie. laptops etc.), should not be allowed below 10,00ft, in order to maintain emergency egress for all and the paths clear (at a time when the probability for an emergency egress is greatest). A hand-held video camera isn't going to stop evacuation; even a laptop will be quickly trampled upon. I wouldn't be real happy if someone is futzing around with their laptop (or other devices) and blocking my exit when the "evacuate" order is given. Then you push them out of the way. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
Say that the next time Al Qaeda gets an IED made like a camcorder or cell/blackberry through and is able to detonate it. Since IEDs can be made to look like anything, the only way to exclude them is to board passengers naked after a CAT scan and cavity search. There's nothing special about the shape of a camera or Blackberry that makes it more suitable for this purpose. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
CyberFlying???
mag3 writes:
Suicidal? Really? What's suicidal about putting on a jacket (about 5 seconds of activity), compared to the 30-50 seconds or so I'd be waiting until it's my turn to get into the aisle? It's suicidal because others may trample you if they see that you are preventing them from surviving by your dawdling. And why can't I already have it on in anticipation of the evacuation order? You can. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|