|
Scratch Monkey posted:Holy poo poo turn off your phone YOU'LL KILL US ALL!!! My friend got very worried that she'd forgotten to put her phone on airplane mode.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
if i was multibillionaire I think that would be my personal pet project, gently caress magnet trains and poo poo, gonna fly around the world in a Concorde
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:My friend got very worried that she'd forgotten to put her phone on airplane mode. I get signal at 10,000 feet. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I get signal at 10,000 feet. Lol. I managed to get a GPS fix at FL350 last time I was flying commercial. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I get signal at 10,000 feet. Lol. So two miles from a tower. Congratulations. I had a handheld GPS on a Germany-US C-17 flight. It was mildly entertaining for a few seconds every couple of hours, but I had to stick it in a window to get any signal at all. And gently caress the haters, I want the Concorde back so I can fly on one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Few months back I got to fly in a C-47 from Pennsylvania to Michigan. Most of the flight I couldn't get a signal, but I did get a solid 4G connection over Youngstown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
rscott posted:if i was multibillionaire I think that would be my personal pet project, gently caress magnet trains and poo poo, gonna fly around the world in a Concorde Nah, ticket to space for me, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
You could have caused the plane to crash guys, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
When someone next to me hasn't just left their cellular network on but is continuing some mindless chat conversation on the takeoff roll I do get pretty pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
I had GPS signal on all the most recent commercial flights I've been on. windows phone has terrible app support but glorious hardware.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:You could have caused the plane to crash guys, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Jealous Cow posted:When someone next to me hasn't just left their cellular network on but is continuing some mindless chat conversation on the takeoff roll I do get pretty pissed off. gently caress that, I don't trust any passenger to determine for themselves which electronics are safe to use in flight. Turn your bullshit off and do as you're told, you entitled plebes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:gently caress that, I don't trust any passenger to determine for themselves which electronics are safe to use in flight. Turn your bullshit off and do as you're told, you entitled plebes. .....but it doesn't DO anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....but it doesn't DO anything. Except piss people around you off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....but it doesn't DO anything. Really? Did the passengers all take their cell phones and get them flight certified? The only reason we know it probably doesn't do anything is because a bunch of babies who couldn't wait until they got to the terminal to check Facebook have been flight testing it without permission. I guarantee that when someone brings their electric back massager or microwave gun or DJI Phantom or whatever finally does cause a Problem, the first words out of their mouth will be "I thought it was fine" followed shortly by "but everyone uses their cellphones." Obey all crew member instructions and lighted placards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Really? Did the passengers all take their cell phones and get them flight certified? Aircraft have to deal with bigger sources of interference than cell phones. Consumer stuff usually doesn't work in the frequency range of aircraft comms. The rules aren't there due to interference, its an issue of passenger attentiveness in the case that they need to follow instructions, and not having loose objects become projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
If cell phones and other consumer electronics could gently caress up airplanes that easily, terrorists would've done it long ago and/or we wouldn't be allowed to even have them on the plane at all outside of checked luggage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:we wouldn't be allowed to even have them on the plane at all outside of checked luggage. God willing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Really? Did the passengers all take their cell phones and get them flight certified? Can't tell if joking or insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Leather Bear posted:Once again, the USAF is the world's dominant air power not because of our weaponry, aircraft, or personnel, although those certainly do play a significant role. Logistics and planning is our strength. Which, when you consider our planning abilities as executed, is really less a compliment on us and more a comment on everyone else. Delivery McGee posted:Edit: do the F-35 and F-22 have "affectionate" nicknames yet? Along the lines of Stinkbug, Mudhen, Hog, Viper, etc.? Craptor Godholio posted:As far the airshow, it was called the Air Force Firepower Demo 2007. It was somewhere between Nellis and Creech. Probably somewhere in the lower 60-series on the NTTR, there's a couple of live fire ranges up there. How far off 95 did you have to drive to get to the viewing stands? Leather Bear posted:That's an insane amount of money to burn on a single use drone. We did use a bunch of ate-up Preds in a similar fashion at the start of Operation Desert Storm Part II: Electric Boogaloo But those were like barely a million a pop since we pulled the balls off of them. My favorite part of these pictures is the quarter-century old AIM-9Ms on the AF's newest air dominance fighter, because that's the highest tech WVR dogfight missile that it's capable of carrying. Spiral development: not even once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
hey I wrecked a whooooooooole lot of dudes with AIM-9Ms in Falcon 3.0, thank you the alternative was a -9P? Something rear-aspect only.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:KF-117, for refueling the drones in secret. Reminded me of that stupid, 'Russia are building a stealth transport plane!!11!!' article from a while back, which led my train of thought to: AC-117 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Reminded me of that stupid, 'Russia are building a stealth transport plane!!11!!' article from a while back, which led my train of thought to: AC-117 Oh yeah, the beautiful ginormous skywhale that's somehow stealth and hypersonic despite every single part of its design making it impossible to be stealthy or to cross Mach 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Probably somewhere in the lower 60-series on the NTTR, there's a couple of live fire ranges up there. How far off 95 did you have to drive to get to the viewing stands? It was closer than I'd have expected. Of course, that was the trip where our van lost all steering as we entered the parking lot of the hotel on the way back after the event. And of course Nellis tried to blame us.  Yeah, no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Really? Did the passengers all take their cell phones and get them flight certified? As someone who actually deals with Avionics: It. Doesn't. Do. Anything. At all. Even the FAA has admitted as much. Your cell phone is not going to overpower any of the receivers or transcievers. It's not even on the same frequencies. And landing guidance systems are not that sensitive. Stop watching loving Die Hard. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
It's an FCC rule anyway, not an FAA rule, which clues you in to how pertinent it is to flight operations. It's explained here: https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes quote:Q: Why are you doing this now? It is not about protecting aircraft systems. It never has been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Haha the very idea of people getting mad about cell phone useage on planes. Dude these airplanes are so well shielded you need an intense solar flare to disrupt the electronics on most modern airplanes. Unless the shielding on the important wire harness are cracked or deteriorating then welp makes you think .
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
someone please quote that at him the next time he complains about laptops on awacs or some other random af rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:It's an FCC rule anyway, not an FAA rule, which clues you in to how pertinent it is to flight operations. I knew about the FCC rule, but I thought he was referring to the FAA
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Haha the very idea of people getting mad about cell phone useage on planes. On the other hand, it would be pretty annoying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I knew about the FCC rule, but I thought he was referring to the FAA I question whether it would have been made an FAA rule if the FCC hadn't created theirs. I'll confess I don't know the chronology of the rule making. It's all just so stupid and unecessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Haha the very idea of people getting mad about cell phone useage on planes. Dude these airplanes are so well shielded you need an intense solar flare to disrupt the electronics on most modern airplanes. Unless the shielding on the important wire harness are cracked or deteriorating then welp makes you think . Some trainer we had was saying that if you drive a big block without insulated ignition wires around an airport the noise they would create would gently caress with avionics. Any truth to this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Some trainer we had was saying that if you drive a big block without insulated ignition wires around an airport the noise they would create would gently caress with avionics. Any truth to this? Might make noise on the VHF/HF band, but I doubt it'll really 'interfere'
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Non shielded wires to throw out RF noise for sure, but it's quite short ranged and being a big block would have nothing to do with it. Also, if cell phones/electronic device interference caused real issues we would have had problems for years. That said, obey flight crew instructions, even if you see them on them texting on their own cell after they said to turn off your phones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Haha the very idea of people getting mad about cell phone useage on planes. Dude these airplanes are so well shielded you need an intense solar flare to disrupt the electronics on most modern airplanes. Unless the shielding on the important wire harness are cracked or deteriorating then welp makes you think . Gamma rays will do it too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Can someone explain how exactly it makes sense that cellphones have to be turned off so that they don't interfere with cellphone networks?  Maybe the airplane's speed or altitude or ??? affects the signal somehow and this is the source of the problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Mostly because early cell networks weren't designed to cell-switch at mach .8
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Phoneposting, so the short version is that the assumption in cell networks is that your phone can only see or be seen by a few towers at a time. Things can go wrong if this assumption turns out to be false. I don't think it really matters in the era of digital networks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Several hundred aircraft per hour, with several hundred people on board each, constantly polling multiple cell towers during low altitude flight segments (line of sight for 100 miles), near a busy metropolitan airport, can cause issues for phone providers. That is the reason I've been told. I'd believe it if you told me it was an obsolete concern, but I don't know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Some trainer we had was saying that if you drive a big block without insulated ignition wires around an airport the noise they would create would gently caress with avionics. Any truth to this? Sort of. Spark plugs are really good at creating broadband RF interference - the first radio transmitters were just a spark gap in open air used to send Morse code. The spark gap in an engine is pretty well shielded inside the engine block, but the high-frequency noise can easily run back up the plug wires. Since aviation is almost all AM, if somebody's broadcasting interference, you're likely to hear it. This is true whether you're talking about a big block or a moped engine, and the insulation on the wires has nothing to do with it. Every vaguely modern ignition system (even points-based stuff!) will counteract this noise. Older cars with a distributor and single coil typically just used a capacitor connected between the ignition coil's low side positive terminal and ground, and carbon plug wires with fairly high resistance values. That's not perfect, but it's enough that an AM radio in the car can receive something other than engine noise. If some guy had a homebuilt big block hot rod, he might have run low-resistance solid copper plug wires and not bothered with buying or hooking up the suppression capacitor - if he's not listening to the radio, or running interference-prone electronics, he doesn't have much reason to care. But, if he runs that car up and down the flight line, everybody else will hear his engine in their headset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
All praise Google, I found this article that explains cellular tech really well: http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~g.legrady/academic/courses/03w200a/projects/wireless/cell_technology.htm From that you can extrapolate that, using older technology, seeing multiple cells with limited users and frequencies can actually be a problem. On the ground you can use the same frequency as a cell one grid space removed from you and it wouldn't be an issue, but in the air where you can see both cells equidistant, and you can only have 56 simultaneous users, you can see how it could lead to poo poo that AT&T didn't want to have to deal with at the time. Now (and for a while) it probably doesn't matter, and in typical fashion, the regulatory agencies are only just catching up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 22:00
|
|