Chilly Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 But no, the iphone, or ipod, or blackberry in airplane mode, will not cause the plane to crash. Not one by itself, but we don't know a whole lot about the combined effects of a large number of electronic devices being on, over time, emitting RF signals and the affect on airplane controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 How many of you do not fasten your seat belt, put up your tray table, put your seat back in the upright position during take off and landing? Sometimes, I unbuckle my seat belt just after the plane lands, but before it gets to it's final stop at the gate. I probably deserve to be punched by a stupid old man with a hall monitor complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) Those of you applauding the old man (and I don't necessarily disagree with you ), I have a question. Would you feel the same way if it was a 15 year old kid punching a 68 year old man? How about the old man punching a 15 year old girl? If it's all a matter of public safety, then you shouldn't feel any differently about the alternate situations. I suspect many people just relish seeing a punk get his. Edited December 30, 2010 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 If it's all a matter of public safety... Of course it was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 This thread brings up a technical question. Assuming the Iphone is in Airplane mode which shuts off the cell and bluetooth technology, what EMF are generated? How does the Iphone affect anything on the plane? I suspect this rule was created when cell phones were the size of cinder blocks and transmitted 10,000 times stronger than todays phones. Any techies out there with the answer? I guess it is the same with cell phones giving off static discharge at the gas pump... It is highly unlikely... But possible. IMO, all this is about people wanting to modify behavior and have respect granted. Yeah, "respect"... In this society that we created! Safety is a scapegoat. I've seen a Mythbusters (or possibly some other History channel show) about this. They spoke with the technical and safety people for an airline, and what they said was basically this: There are too many portable devices out there for the airlines to test each and every one's safety or compatibility with flying. So, to err on the side of safety, they just say that NO devices can be used because they ALL can cause problems. Even though that isn't true. I understand the airlines' stance, it's easier to just ban everything than spend (waste) all that time and money testing devices that wont even be used in another 18 months. Plus, god forbid they ok a certain device and then it causes some freak accident and they are on the hook for it. But no, the iphone, or ipod, or blackberry in airplane mode, will not cause the plane to crash. Bingo! The younger guy should have just kept the ear buds in and shut the phone off (without telling the old dude)... Just to eff with the grumpy dude... The when the old fart hauls off, he can document that he had the device off all the while. Of course this totally effed up... But hey... What a good way to stir the pot. Sometimes, I unbuckle my seat belt just after the plane lands, but before it gets to it's final stop at the gate. I probably deserve to be punched by a stupid old man with a hall monitor complex. :lol: :worthy: @ the very least shived! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 (edited) I suspect many people just relish seeing a punk get his. Is that wrong? Of course this totally effed up... But hey... What a good way to stir the pot. Seems to me the old man is the one who stirred the pot in this situation....shouldn't you be on his side? And speaking of grumpy old men, where the is stuckincincy to wiegh in on this topic? Or any topic for that matter, he seems to have disappeared. Edited December 31, 2010 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard. So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks. PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard. So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks. PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip? You also understand that assault is against the law, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 (edited) Seems to me the old man is the one who stirred the pot in this situation....shouldn't you be on his side? Touche! To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard. So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks. PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM You also understand that assault is against the law, right? Edited December 31, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right? Forget it, they're rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right? He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right? Forget it they're rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Is that wrong? No, but it's largely irrelevant to the conversation that folks were having about air safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too? to-may-to, to-mah-to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too? Conversely, putting a senior citizen in prison for hitting a teenager in the arm is a proportionate response, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Meh, old guy doesnt understand technology or that there is an "Airplane" mode setting on the iPhone (and on most smartphones) which disables all wireless and cell communication. Not sure what got the old guy so upset. Listening to the ipod isnt going to crash the plane. True but FAA regs say it has to be completely powered off below 10K feet. Hypothetically it could interfere with the avionics so hypothetically this kid was risking everyone's safety. I'm not sure punching the kid was the best move but the kid should actually be charged for the failure to follow flight crew instructions - I believe this can be a federal misdemeanor. You can argue that the risk of this act is minimal but I have to believe the FAA requests the actions in the interest of safety. I don't want to be a passenger on the first plane that crash lands because in a bizzare set of circumstances the electronic devices left powered on actually do cause a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too? I think beat up is a tad strong for the assault that you're describing. I think that the boy scout hit Tony Randall harder for helping the old lady across the street than this kid's beating. And to reiterate, the kid broke the law, but the old timers are more miffed at the lack of respect that's proliferating across the young culture, which many love to defend as an expression of their individuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Conversely, putting a senior citizen in prison for hitting a teenager in the arm is a proportionate response, huh? I think beat up is a tad strong for the assault that you're describing. I think that the boy scout hit Tony Randall harder for helping the old lady across the street than this kid's beating. And to reiterate, the kid broke the law, but the old timers are more miffed at the lack of respect that's proliferating across the young culture, which many love to defend as an expression of their individuality. I have no problem with the kid getting his comeuppance, as long as no violence is involved. And, GG you are correct. Some here seem to excuse any stupid reaction by an older person if they don't like the actions of a younger "punk". I would posit youngsters might have more respect for their elders if those elders weren't such douchebags. Clearly a man who has to resort to physical abuse for some perceived violation is not someone who should be respected. I would guess grandpa here probably is the kind of guy who's idea of an explanation is "Because I said so!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 (edited) Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right? Yes. Well at least I did, I can't peak for Dean. What is your point? GG was still rolling. Stop picking on poor Barney! I have no problem with the kid getting his comeuppance, as long as no violence is involved. And, GG you are correct. Some here seem to excuse any stupid reaction by an older person if they don't like the actions of a younger "punk". I would posit youngsters might have more respect for their elders if those elders weren't such douchebags. Clearly a man who has to resort to physical abuse for some perceived violation is not someone who should be respected. I would guess grandpa here probably is the kind of guy who's idea of an explanation is "Because I said so!" Bingo! I touched on that point earlier about how those barriers were shattered years ago. When talking about the aged, we are know dealing with one of the most hyppocritical generations of all time. Don't they remember: "Don't trust anyone over 30." Now they want the cake and eat it too... Too bad. Bottom line, the older fella took the law into his own hands and went more than overboard... He physically assualted another person over something silly. That is the bigger problem than breaking a silly rule. I betcha this guy is "Mr. Perfect." The funny thing is... I can possibly see myself doing something physical... YET, I would at least admit that I was wrong after thinking about it afterwards. Betcha the old guy sees nothing wrong in what he did. Even worse... Two total strangers, not saying knowing each other would have made it better. How the hell does anyone of the two know where each is coming from? The bigger crime here is the assualt... We can't just go around assaulting people (as much as I would love to!) because they may not be following simple rules. Edited December 31, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts