A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CyberFlying???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 02:50 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 02:53 PM posted to rec.travel.air
mag3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:04 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:12 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:14 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:15 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:19 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:22 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:25 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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  
Old October 22nd, 2011, 06:26 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.