Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   re: Just put a Cellular Tower in the plane

   

   Roger Madden, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 12:48pm

   
   

   AirCell, Inc. holds a patent to do just that. See www.aircell.com

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   dorpus, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 12:58pm

   
   

   So where are the "systematic" arguments you speak of? Your link only talks about straw man examples of having a pet wasp in the cockpit, or of Persian rugs.
   
   In this and other techie forums, I notice a tendency to ignore the evidence presented in actual cases where cell phone signals did cause problems for planes.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Mike (profile), Apr 21st, 2004 @ 1:15pm

   
   

   Where is that evidence? We've been asking for evidence of the dangers for years, and no one ever seems to show it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Which service?

   

   Nate, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 1:53pm

   
   

   Which cell service would it handle? What are the chances that you could get the different standards companies to agree? What about international flights and their standards?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Just Put A Cellular Tower In The Plane

   

   dudeluna, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 1:54pm

   
   

   but do we really want a plane full of people talking on their cell phones? think about it! it would be awful!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Just Put A Cellular Tower In The Plane

   

   beck, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 3:35pm

   
   

   Would it be any more awful than the people on the plane talking to each other? Why is it OK if the person behind you is yakking away to the person next to her, but not OK if she's yakking away on her phone?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Which service?

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 4:45pm

   
   

   If the US (and Japan) carriers would just follow the rest of the world that particular issue wouldn't be a problem... but I guess you would still have the issue of new generations etc.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   dorpus, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 7:12pm

   
   

   I've posted links on here before showing the evidence. It's your blog, go find it.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   dorpus, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 7:39pm

   
   

   But, knowing that Mike will be too lazy to look up his own blog, accuse me of posturing or what not, I'll post the evidence again.
   
   e.g.
   
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2992973.stm
   
   "...Since 1996, pilots have reported 35 mobile phone-related safety incidents, including false warnings in the cockpit, distractions causing aircraft to stray accidentally onto runways or fly at the wrong altitude, interrupted radio communications and multiple safety systems malfunctions. "
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: No Subject Given

    

    Mike (profile), Apr 21st, 2004 @ 10:07pm

    
    

    No, I have no problem looking it up. I did post it after all. However, as was pointed out at the time, those were anecdotal stories of problems that were blamed on the phones - with no evidence that it was actually phones that caused it. If the phones really presented such a threat to life, wouldn't we have heard about a real safety incident already? I've been on enough planes where I've seen people using mobile phones to know that there's a pretty good chance someone's got their's on on just about every large flight. Also, if it presented such a danger, wouldn't the airlines be a lot more strict about making sure the phones were off?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    This is evidence? Of what?

    

    Rick Colosimo, Apr 21st, 2004 @ 11:00pm

    
    

    "And in October, Russian businessman Sergey Lebedev was fined £2,500 after forcing a British Airways jet to abort a landing at Manchester Airport.
    
    Cabin crew spent so long arguing with him about whether he would turn off his mobile they were unable to prepare the plane."
    
    That's pretty weak evidence that cell phones are a legitimate electronic threat to aircraft. Heck, it could be just as disruptive if I refused to put my tray table up!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: No Subject Given

    

    dorpus, Apr 22nd, 2004 @ 5:08am

    
    

    So let's see, "interrupted radio communications" was only the result of space aliens having conversations? Couldn't possibly have come from cell phones? I've been on enough planes where I've seen people failing to fasten seat belts, but they did not die. There are only anecdotal tales of plane crashes. So how many planes should crash before cell phones are banned? 10? 100?
    

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    It only takes one

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2004 @ 7:43am

    
    

    
    Only the plane you are on dorpus.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Re: Just Put A Cellular Tower In The Plane

    

    thecaptain, Apr 22nd, 2004 @ 12:45pm

    
    

    Because usually the person yakking away to the one next to him or her has a certain sense of decorum (USUALLY I say, this is not always the case).
    
    However, a MUCH HIGHER percentage of people who chat on cellphones do so at top volume, much more likely to annoy the crap out of everybody else.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    ASRS reports

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2004 @ 4:11pm

    
    

    http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf
    has several incidents, some of which do seem very like passengers' widgets screwing up nav systems.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment