|
You don't think maybe counts for anything when there are 250 people on board? Is it really that much of an inconvenience for you to click off your phone for 10 minutes, or can you really not stand the horror of being unable to read text messages for a few minutes? I'm also glad to see you think you're smarter than a Boeing engineer, this confirms what I've always thought about people who complain about things like this 
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
So, how many airplanes have crashed because of mobiles? because you can bet your rear end atleast one mobile is turned on, at the majority of flights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
the chic in psychic posted:So, how many airplanes have crashed because of mobiles? because you can bet your rear end atleast one mobile is turned on, at the majority of flights. What's sad is that the same people who go "bah, there's no risk!" when insisting on using their electronics are often the very same people to flip out over imagined threats of nuclear power. It's a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
the chic in psychic posted:So, how many airplanes have crashed because of mobiles? because you can bet your rear end atleast one mobile is turned on, at the majority of flights. You're missing the point...is it really worth keeping your drat phone on even if there is the slightest of chances that it could kill hundreds of people? Why are you willing to dismiss the fears of the engineers who built the plane because you don't want to be moderately inconvenienced? The answer of course is selfishness, arrogance, and stupidity. Turn off your drat phone, the FAA knows more about airplanes than you do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
It's air travel. It's chock full of utterly absurd and useless rules and regulations. While I find it incredibly unlikely that a low power cell(s) could have a negative impact on instruments (if they were that easy to jam I think we'd have bigger problems), if nothing else I always turn my phone off as a courtesy to other passengers. And it's a rule that the airline that I am voluntarily flying on asks me to follow.
slidebite fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Mar 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
Did anyone think that it's using gps. It's RECEIVING ONLY. :-) I'd be a lot more worried on approach. But on takeoff, the plane is going to get off the ground, where it gets up, doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Did anyone think that it's using gps. It's RECEIVING ONLY. :-) I'd be a lot more worried on approach. But on takeoff, the plane is going to get off the ground, where it gets up, doesn't really matter. Receive-only radios still emit on certain frequencies. Radar detectors can be detected that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Did anyone think that it's using gps. It's RECEIVING ONLY. :-) I'd be a lot more worried on approach. But on takeoff, the plane is going to get off the ground, where it gets up, doesn't really matter.  See all those little wires on there? Even in receive-only mode (or on an mp3 player or kindle or whatever), there is current moving up and down at kHz, MHz and GHz (radio) frequencies on all electronic devices. The technical term for oscillating current levels in a length of conductor is antenna, and the result is spurious emissions across the entire RF spectrum. FCC (in theory) tests all devices to ensure they don't cause excessive cross-spectrum interferences, but when you walk onboard an aircraft and enclose all these dozens or hundreds of individual devices inside an aluminum faraday cage, you trap the majority of those emissions within the shell of the aircraft, and dramatically increase the likelihood of an issue. Cell phones are especially bad due to the higher power levels, but even smaller electronics cause problems. 2nd worse are devices designed with receive antennas, because those antennas tend to resonate and re-radiate at the same harmonic frequencies as critical aircraft GPS, VHF radio, etc. (As BonzoESC pointed out, this is how radar detector-detectors work.) grover fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Cellphones, of all devices, are fairly well shielded. By necessity; as they are trying to receive some stupidly weak signals, and when transmitting, their a very noisy place to be. They are also very low power. The tv screens on the back of seats are going to generate more electrical noise. Especially from the inverters to drive the CCFL backlights. Most cellphones are using led backlights now. Now if you are talking having the cell radio on, it's a completely different story. And again, for the given example, we're talking takeoff. It's not like you can miss the SKY. If you want to talk trouble, insulin pumps still use EL backlights. EL backlights are frighteningly noisy electrically. You're not required to turn them off, and they are blatantly non shielded. (most current models are sold in clear cases..)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:And again, for the given example, we're talking takeoff. It's not like you can miss the SKY. I don't necessarily want to weigh in on the proven/estimated impact of cell phones. But departure is not as simple as you make it sound. These days, especially out of busy airports, there are all sorts of precise navigation requirements to fly prescribed departure routes and remain clear of simultaneously departing traffic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
seven or eight years ago when everyone had those cheap nokia phones, every day i went flying i would hear some interference over the local CTAF every time someone flying in the area was about to get a phone call. it got to the point where people would just call out, "turn off your phone" over the radio. i'm not going to go so far as say it would have caused a crash or whatever, though. it was just an annoyance, but a noticeable one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:I'm also glad to see you think you're smarter than a Boeing engineer, this confirms what I've always thought about people who complain about things like this I never said that I was, I said that my father that has worked on these systems, designed hardware and extensively tested them does, someone who is in fact vastly more knowledgeable than some engineer that works at Boeing. And I have no problem turning my cellphone off, I always do despite the sillyness of it because I hate when people talk loudly on phones on flights. grover posted:At least 1, in 2003 in Christchurch. I've heard slews of other anecdotes where pilots will have some sort of interference (nav device with erroneus data, static in the headphones, etc) and have that interference go away when cell phones or other electronics are turned off. Damned near impossible to prove, but happens every day. Something severe enough to cause a crash is a freak tiny-% chance, but the consequences are incredibly severe and the FAA has deemed NOT worth the risk. I believe this is the article of the crash? quote:A fatal plane crash in New Zealand has been cited in a report stating that the use of cellphones and other devices in midair may create a "perfect storm" of conditions that can have disastrous consequences. Which at no point has any concrete evidence of that being the cause. There is simply no proof that cell phones can or do cause plane crashes, whatsoever, which is why every single one of these articles uses 'maybe' and 'could be.' Your argument is akin to 'I'm not ever going outside again because a meteor may slam into me.' It's also funny that you link it to something like nuclear energy and its imagined threats, which, hey, is the same thing you're trying to propagate here with cell phone usage on plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
This thread was way cooler when it had pictures of airplanes in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
brains posted:seven or eight years ago when everyone had those cheap nokia phones, every day i went flying i would hear some interference over the local CTAF every time someone flying in the area was about to get a phone call. it got to the point where people would just call out, "turn off your phone" over the radio. That's great. But unrelated. GSM makes some signals that make even just bare speakers twitch. That's intentionally pumping out as much as 500mw through a tuned antenna. But we're not talking an intentional transmitter. We're talking about a pocket computer with no intentional transmitters transmitting. With a design that is designed to be electrically quiet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:This thread was way cooler when it had pictures of airplanes in it. Ahh. The beechcraft duke. My dad had one of the last ones built. Got me all excited about airplanes when I was a little kid, I was small enough to fit my hands in the gear door to clean it. Hands smelled like 409 for 5 years. God drat do I miss that plane. This one was at Oshkosh, I think it was a slightly earlier build but it had a turboprop conversion. My dad almost had a stroke when he saw it. What a great airplane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
I just bought the RealAir Duke Turbine and I'm obsessed with it (hence the picture). Thing climbs like a motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
The first production F-35A Lightning II made its first flight last week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
grover posted:The first production F-35A Lightning II made its first flight last week. God I hope they leave it painted just like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
It certainly looks like an operational paint scheme. I'm curious why it took four years for that jet to fly. It was delivered in 07.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It certainly looks like an operational paint scheme.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
the Avalon Airshow just outside of Melbourne, Australia kicks off this weekend. the RAAF did their photo ops yesterday over the city and port phillip bay. Waffleimages is down so click for larger images. Above the suburb of Port Melbourne  Over part of the Docklands and Etihad Stadium  Suburbs somewhere  Flying over the bay with the skyline in the background  I'm sure after the weekend there'll be a lot of good high res images from the airshow. Sadly the RAAF flyover for the Melbourne Grand Prix next weekend has been cancled (I think) so no low flying jets over the racetrack 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Anyone going to Sun N' Fun this year?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:This thread was way cooler when it had pictures of airplanes in it. Ok then, my favourite piston single: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 12:01
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Cellphones, of all devices, are fairly well shielded. By necessity; as they are trying to receive some stupidly weak signals, and when transmitting, their a very noisy place to be. They are also very low power. The tv screens on the back of seats are going to generate more electrical noise. Especially from the inverters to drive the CCFL backlights. Most cellphones are using led backlights now. I don't get why people get so up in arms about it, it's not a hardship, pretty sure we can all agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Yes, I know every time I travel I can barely make my way down the aisle for all the people hooked up to life support systems  
Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 09:13
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Now if you are talking having the cell radio on, it's a completely different story. Got it in one. Do you honestly expect the hostie to check each and every one of the 190+ phones on board to see that they are in flight mode? Much easier and safer to just insist they are all turned off. fun fact: mobile phones work in a burst mode. Some friends in the plasma physics lab used their specialised high speed rf gear to measure the power output during the microseconds it was transmitting. It output more power than the microwave in the kitchen. The manufacturers publish the time average power output which is much lower due to the burst-y nature of the communication. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Microwave ovens are not intentional radiators. I would expect a a child's walkie-talkie to put out more energy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
I'd like to think he managed to expose the magnetron before the test and didn't just point a homemade geiger counter at the closed microwave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'd like to think he managed to expose the magnetron before the test and didn't just point a homemade geiger counter at the closed microwave. Were that the case, his test would be flawed. Microwaves use 900-1500 watts AC input and directly convert that into wide band microwave noise. The 120v gets stepped up, way up, into the tens of thousands of volts, so amperage drops concordantly. It's still going to be more than the 2.5 watts a cell phone puts out with a 3.6vdc battery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
grover posted:You're probably thinking of one of the other pre-production F-35s in the test fleet. This aircraft (AF6) is the first production F-35A. It's in low-rate initial production (LRIP) right now, one step of many in the progression from X-35 to full production. Tail # 07-0744. Edit: Unless they're loving with the numbering scheme. Edit2: Weird, tail numbers don't mean exactly what I was taught they mean. That jet was ordered in 07, not delivered. Several of our jets were apparently ordered and delivered in the same year. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Tail # 07-0744.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
The fact that the FAA just approved use of the iPad as a chart substitute proves the electronic device interference is bupkis. The Foreflight app with the new geo-referenced plates is very appealing to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
grover posted:I couldn't find a delivery date for this aircraft, either. Has it even been turned over to USAF yet? It was flown by a Lockheed test pilot, so I'm assuming not. AF-1, 2 and 3 were delivered NOV09, APR10 and JUL10 respectively. No, not delivered yet. Sometime this spring, supposedly. Blackdawgg posted:The fact that the FAA just approved use of the iPad as a chart substitute proves the electronic device interference is bupkis. The Foreflight app with the new geo-referenced plates is very appealing to me. Yup, one item being turned on will surely have the same effect as 250 of them. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Blackdawgg posted:The fact that the FAA just approved use of the iPad as a chart substitute proves the electronic device interference is bupkis. The Foreflight app with the new geo-referenced plates is very appealing to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
An iPad may also be shielded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
grover posted:There is considerable variation in eminations from piece to piece, even if they're of identical design and came off the same assembly line. One ipad might be harmless, another might cause dangerous interference. Equipment provided as part of the aircraft undergoes considerable testing to prove that it's safe. Ask anyone what ISO 9001 is for and they'll tell you, "bullshit". There is no reason to calibrate an $8 tape measure from Lowe's, but companies will pay $60 for a calibration to stay ISO 9001 compliant. Same thing with aircraft electronic certification. Responsibly made electronics do not radiate out of band or they don't get FCC part 15 certification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:Ask anyone what ISO 9001 is for and they'll tell you, "bullshit". There is no reason to calibrate an $8 tape measure from Lowe's, but companies will pay $60 for a calibration to stay ISO 9001 compliant. Same thing with aircraft electronic certification. Responsibly made electronics do not radiate out of band or they don't get FCC part 15 certification. Oh thank gently caress, I was beginning to think I was the only person who thought this. Seriously, just reading the 9001 requirements as an intern, all I could think was "this is the vaguest, most useless 'no duh' bullshit I've ever read, are we seriously spending millions of dollars just to get certified for having common sense?" Of course the answer was that companies don't have any loving common sense, that's why horribly vague rear end-covering requirements and certifications exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Oh thank gently caress, I was beginning to think I was the only person who thought this. Seriously, just reading the 9001 requirements as an intern, all I could think was "this is the vaguest, most useless 'no duh' bullshit I've ever read, are we seriously spending millions of dollars just to get certified for having common sense?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Absolutely agree ISO 9001 is a procedural paper trail. Nothing is saying the trail is even necessarily correct, that's beside the point. Edit: I firmly believe it was an insanely clever make work project for the planet by the swedes or finns or whomever the gently caress it was that came up with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:39
|
|