Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] in flight broadband wireless

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] in flight broadband wireless
  • Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:03:24 -0400

What's wrong with better safe than dead is that some morons don't listen and
dead could be the option they pick while I'm on board. I'm all for the
rule. It's just I see people all the time ignoring it. If it's an issue at
all, then enforce it. If a laptop, pda, cell phone, or anything could
possibly interfere with flight operations, it shouldn't be allowed on board
at all. And the reason for that is the same reason Twinkie's have a warning
label that says the wrapper is not edible. There are people out there that
don't listen, don't think, don't pay attention, etc.

So my point is, don't let the stuff on board at all. Or, make it so that
stuff can't interfere. Because I trust the pilot to a great extent, the
airplane makers, the airline, the tower and ground crews, etc. It's the
Phd. beside me that didn't hear to turn off their phone that worries me. Or
the Phd. in the seat two rows up and across the aisle with his pda, laptop,
bluetooth phone and wireless headset. Because he's pretty sure he knows
everything, he's more important than you, me or the pilot, and he's working
on a stock deal to take over worldcom or some third world country and he's
just gonna do it all on the phone during this flight. And he'll keep doing
it until a stewardess comes up and forcibly removes the headset from his
cranium. And even then he'll try to explain how important his call is and
how important he is.

So, yes, better safe than dead - Don't let the stuff on the plane!

As far as your example of communicating with the plane, it has been done
before. But the pilots are pretty good at knowing who they are talking to
and knowing what they should be doing, what they shouldn't and at what
times. But that is a possibility. And even towers have given faulty
information that resulted in a crashes - even mid-air crashes.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Cox" <glcox AT pobox.com>
To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/";
<internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] in flight broadband wireless


> > What I really like is the whole implication behind the "extinguish
> > all electronic devices" command.
> >
> > Basically, they are telling you that any moron with cell phone,
> > PDA, gameboy or any other electronic device can cause the plane
> > to crash.
>
> It's not really an "if you hit 'send' on your phone then the plane
> will do a half roll on short final" thing. Though it'd make a
> good cartoon. The flight systems are pretty hardened. If they
> weren't, you wouldn't get to use anything, ever.
>
> It's more a combination of
> "no, really, your laptop and cellphone, though they may be an
> extension of you, put them under the frickin' seat,"
> and
> "the FCC regulates the radio interference electronic devices may
> put out, but we can't account for other countries' regulation.
> Besides, whoever manufactured it, we can't account for glitches
> that end up screwing with the radio."
>
> It's not really a big deal in the enroute portion of a commercial
> flight: you're on a flight plan that clears you to a certain
> point (usually your destination, though it could be to a point
> along the way where you'll hold awaiting further clearance),
> and you have ways of getting there: dead reckoning by map,
> watch, and slide rule. Calls to the ground, if missed, aren't
> critical, and no-radio/lost-communications procedures would
> cover you nicely.
>
> In towered airspace, the ground wants more explicit control of
> your movements because there's so many planes around. Once
> you've gone a reasonable way out, you'll get a call to "resume
> own navigation," meaning that Departure isn't telling you what
> heading to fly anymore, so make a turn for your first waypoint.
> Coming in, same thing: you'll get altitude, heading, and speed
> assignments from Approach, and missing those is pretty ungood.
>
> > Not exactly a move for building confidence in the safety of air
travel...
>
> What's wrong with 'better safe than dead?'
>
>
> p.s.: I know the Ground, Tower, and Approach frequencies for RDU;
> I can find them for any U.S. airport (where applicable). I also
> have a transmitter, and I know the phraseology of air traffic
> controllers. While it's not likely they'd follow an instruction
> of "descend and maintain 3000" when they should be at 5000 (odd
> voice, lots of background noise, and I'd have to stay stuck-mike
> to not let Approach fix the false instruction), do you really
> want to take the chance that they can sort it out in time?
>
> -G "say intentions" C
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page