Well, this should answer the whole GPS on a plane question

[+Jhwk]

For some reason, folks have latched onto GPSr's as the next great threat on a plane. It's a reciever - not a transmitter. But try explaining that to Cletus, Cooter, Booger, and Bubba the next time you fly.

 

Happy trails

 

up on Michelle Malkins site too - waiting for the firestorm.

 

on a side note, I'm not real clear why folks want a GPSr on a plane - to see the MPH at 600? It would be cool, maybe once - IMHO.

 

edit to add text - per request. and removed linky (but you can copy and paste just like everyone else, right?) http://www.punditguy.com/2006/08/what_homeland_security.html

 

verbatim from pundit guys page:

 

August 30, 2006

The Terrorists' Next Tool in the Skies - Approved by the FAA!

I have logged over a half million air miles in the past five years. That put's me platinum elite in almost any airline miles program. I'm no noob when it comes to traveling and I never have a problem with TSA taking extra precautions at the security checkpoints and the gate. One airport will tell me to take off my shoes, the next says leave them on...no problem, I comply with a smile.

 

Also, I'm a fairly early adopter when it comes to technology. I had an Apple Newton (a half PDA, half Etch-a-Sketch, half Tricorder type device) before there was a PDA or smartphone category in the marketplace. I have a GPS/DVD headunit in one vehicle and a portable unit that I take when driving in strange new cities.

 

Lastly, I have a curious mind and come from a military family. If my father wanted to lay down new ground rules for my teenager sisters, he'd ask his eight year-old son (me...then) where the loopholes were in his yet-to-be-implemented policy.

 

So it pains me to write this but I feel I have an obligation knowing what I know about technology, aviation, and the deviant mind.

 

WHY ARE GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE DEVICES (GPS) STILL ALLOWED (POST-9/11) ON MOST AIRLINES?

 

I scream this because returning from a cross-country vacation with my family yesterday, I spent five minutes explaining that the 2 oz. Infant Tylenol bottle (with syringe) was allowed under the less-than-four-ounces "essential non-prescription medication" language of the latest TSA-issued security bulletin to an airport employee, then proceeded to fly over multiple targets of opportunity sitting one row in front of the exit row with my wife and infant. The 'gentleman' sitting behind me in the exit row door seat at 31,000 feet was holding a GPS unit in his hand against the window. I'd love to share the seat letter and row number with you all, but since I was flying Southwest and there's no assigned seating, what's the point?

 

As an aside, doesn't the 'no assigned seating' thing strike you as a security risk as well? If some guy with a GPS device is sitting in the exit row next to the door and decides to open it over the greater Chicagoland area, wouldn't having a passenger list and seat map slightly aid in the investigation?

 

Painting this scenario I guess illustrates my point. While some airlines have banned GPS devices on their flights, most list them as APPROVED electronic devices at cruising altitude. And the only issue being discussed by the airlines in approving or banning GPS devices is whether the radio frequency emissions will disrupt the aircraft's systems on takeoff or landing.

 

Excuse me?!

 

Has there been no consideration of using GPS to time a non-cockpit-centric downing of an aircraft in a strategic location? Since airlines are notoriously unpredictable with flight schedules and flying routes, what about GPS devices used as highly accurate 'timers' that aren't limited by flight schedules but rather merely 'sleep' until the plane is over a pinpoint or approximate location?

 

OK, OK, so now you may have pigeonholed me as Uncle Chicken Little. But what about multiple terrorists working together in unison and tracking each other for a massive coordinated strike or missile homing beacon? "Wait ," you say, "aren't GPS units receivers only?" They don't transmit location do they? Anyone with a newly equipped GPS-enabled phone or PDA knows this assumption to be false. But here's the kicker, new GPS 'Buddy' services are popping up every day, allowing friends, family, possessive stalker-types, and even terrorists to see where their buddies are with real-time keyhole accuracy. One GPS manufacturer, TomTom, offers the buddy service for free with some of their compatible devices.

 

Powering on your TomTom shows Bob that his buddy Pete is already at the Country Club on the 5th tee box. Bob instantly knows he can make it across town and can him on the back nine. Mom can see Suzy really did go to the library instead of Jimmy's house (unless Suzy parked there and Jimmy picked her up at the library.) I told you, I have a deviant mind. Last but not least, Osama can see that his freshest faced bio-bomb is passing over Lincoln, Nebraska on a crisp Fall Saturday and a stadium full of Husker faithful will be getting a fiery flyover any minute.

 

How about the missle-toting, ground-based jihadist? Tired of constantly exposing yourself in public with a Stinger on your shoulder? Are you hoarse from cursing the infidels for never running on time and wondering when your Zionist target will be in range? Well, no more with the GPS buddy system! Lay low until you see your buddy's avatar cross the Potomac on your four inch touch screen and Hallalujah Allah! You pop-up like the ground hog from Caddyshack!

 

Sarcasm and black humor aside, this is no laughing matter. Allowing the use of GPS devices on commercial airliners is a major security risk. Banning their use on board affects so few GPS 'enthusiasts' and takes away maybe a few minutes of enjoyment from their flights. Do we really need to raid a flat near Hyde Park in the UK containing 30 empty handheld GPS boxes before the FAA and Homeland Security Department weighs the risk versus inconvenience to GPS owners and acts sensibly to ban the use of these devices on flights?

 

Prologue: I turned around to see the gentleman of unknown ethnic origin pointing his GPS antenna out the wideside exit window of our 737. Semi-alarmed, I stated confidently, "You need to turn that off." He basically told me to take a flying leap. For all I new he was about to do just that. I rang my call button where the flight attendant informed me with a "you interrupted my galley gossip session for this?" tone that it was an approved device. To my horror, I sat and pondered over the next two hours, "I wonder if anyone ever saw someone playing with box-cutters on a flight during the summer of 2001?"

 

There are only two courses of action:

 

-- Lobby those airlines that currently approve a GPS unit's use in flight to ban them.

-- Lobby the FAA, TSA, DHS, to change archaic policy of surrendering the judgement of safety and counter-terrorism pyschology to airlines that can't even figure out how to afford to give me a whole can of Diet Pepsi with all the salted products they offer me to eat.

 

RESOURCES:

 

One citizen's list of airlines allowing/disallowing GPS units here.

 

At TSA.gov, search for GPS, and get four entries on how the TSA is using GPS as a tool, but nothing on their examination of its use on commercial flights.

 

The FAA.gov's online Cabin Safety Advisory Circular on "Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft" (dated 10/02/2000) puts GPS units in the broad category of other devices under the discretion of the airlines to be deemed safe or not. Portable Electronic Devices fall under CFR 91.21 which is listed below:

 

Portable electronic devices

 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

 

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or

 

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

 

( Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

 

(1) Portable voice recorders;

 

(2) Hearing aids;

 

(3)Heart pacemakers;

 

(4) Electric shavers; or

 

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

 

© In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph ((5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

 

Posted by Uncle at August 30, 2006 01:44 PM

Edited August 31, 2006 by Jhwk

[+GreyingJay]

For some reason, folks have latched onto GPSr's as the next great threat on a plane. It's a reciever - not a transmitter. But try explaining that to Cletus, Cooter, Booger, and Bubba the next time you fly.

 

Hahaha.

 

Wow. Well, I never realized GPS was such a potential security risk.

 

Guys, we'd better all pack up and go home. Who knows how many geocachers among us of "unknown ethnic origin" might actually be planning coordinated attacks against government buildings all over the world, just pretending to be searching for that latest urban micro.

 

Well, it's been fun.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sorry, but an extremist - alarmist is not a pundit, in traditional terms.

 

This guy falls under the 'new' negative connotation of the word.

 

From Wikipedia.org:

Pundit in strict contemporary English refers to an individual considered highly knowledgeable in a particular subject area, most typically political analysis and the social sciences. As the term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities lacking special expertise, however, it has taken on negative connotations in current usage. Pundit is also a slang term for politically biased people pretending to be neutral.

(emphasis added)

 

Aircraft flight routes are widely published and available to all. Does he expect us to believe that we don't know when we are approaching what city without a GPS? That even the most illiterate can't do the math to calculate glide path and trajectory, can't snap our fingers (explode a bomb) at the moment when it would rain our remains down upon a stadium, no need for a GPS?

 

Give my fifteen-year-old daughter an established flight route with known cruise speed and altitude and she can time a bomb to go off where she wants it, and she's no Osama.

 

Picky. perhaps, but PunditGuy claims to be an expert but talks about exploding over a stadium. Scary, but it'd be a complete miss! At cruise speed and altitude he'd have to blow up miles before reaching the stadium!

 

If he's gonna scare folks, scare them with reality! In Birmingham, as in most cities, the flight departure path takes aircraft right over downtown. Takeoff being the lowest, slowest most unstable moment in aviation, a fellow can invest $89. in an SKS semi-auto rifle at the local pawn shop (no registration required) or flea market (no need even for ID!), park his van by the end of the runway where folks park to watch the airplanes, and pepper a departing aircraft cabin with 7.62 mm military rounds. Doesn't have to hit anyone, just distract the pilots and that sucker lands on 8th Ave. Shooter drives away and is never caught.

 

Yes, it's that easy.

 

Someone needs to tell this guy's readers that life is risky, not all risk can be avoided, get over it!

 

I don't think there's much chance his blather will get GPS banned from aircraft, so it's pretty safe, in my humble opinion, to ignore him!

 

Ed

Edited August 31, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

What a bone. He tells us over and over again that GPSrs are a safety risk and never gives a reasonable explanation that isn't full of holes. On one of the last transcontinental flights I was on, the TV in the seatback had a channel which told me exactly where we were and how fast we were going; exactly the info that I would get if I was seated at a window seat and was using my GPSr.

 

Incidently, he also has no clue of how difficult it would be to open the emergency exit window in a pressurized plane.

 

His rant isn't rational enough to kick up any dust, I would hope.

Edited August 31, 2006 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

His rant isn't rational enough to kick up any dust, I would hope.

 

Does it have to be rational to get attention? Malkin's site gets lots of attention. I'm sure that by tomorrow it will be talk radio fodder.

Edited August 31, 2006 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

His rant isn't rational enough to kick up any dust, I would hope.

Does it have to be rational to get attention? Malkin's site gets lots of attention. I'm sure that by tomorrow it will be talk radio fodder.

Idiots talking about idiotic things. You may as well not allow cel phones on board. After all, they are the 'real' danger. Oh yeah, airphones should be banned, also. After all, I could still call and tell somebody that I'm in range.

[+Jhwk]

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for the day that we ship our luggage ahead of schedule and all get on the planes naked after passing through a barrage of sensors and detectors.

 

as much as I hate to admit it, osama and his ilk have made a few small victory's on our soil - most americans aren't smart enough to realize it yet. can you remove your shoes please?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

His rant isn't rational enough to kick up any dust, I would hope.

Does it have to be rational to get attention? Malkin's site gets lots of attention. I'm sure that by tomorrow it will be talk radio fodder.

Idiots talking about idiotic things. You may as well not allow cel phones on board. After all, they are the 'real' danger. Oh yeah, airphones should be banned, also. After all, I could still call and tell somebody that I'm in range.

 

"Idiots talking about idiotic things."

 

Hey, I resemble that!

 

Isn't that what these forums are for?

 

Ed

[+sbell111]

"Idiots talking about idiotic things."

 

Hey, I resemble that!

 

Isn't that what these forums are for?

 

Ed

Ha! Before my warn meter spikes, I was specifically referring to talk radio idiots.

[Ghengis Jon]

What a moron. Let them ban cellphones and crackberries if he's concerned about tracking and 'buddy systems'. I take my GPSr on the plane so light fingered TSA personnel don't abscond with it. If you want to make flying a more enjoyable and safer experience, ban all carry-on luggage. As a jaded frequent flyer, the only thing more annoying than 9 rows of collicky, screaming babies are the lobotomized travelers with their roller bags which they use to indiscriminately crush other people's belongings. GPSr's are not the problem.

[+CheshireFrog]

on a side note, I'm not real clear why folks want a GPSr on a plane - to see the MPH at 600? It would be cool, maybe once - IMHO.

 

Agreed, but I also understand Ghengis John's point about not wanting it stolen en route.

 

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for the day that we ship our luggage ahead of schedule and all get on the planes naked after passing through a barrage of sensors and detectors.

 

ME TOO!

[+sbell111]

on a side note, I'm not real clear why folks want a GPSr on a plane - to see the MPH at 600? It would be cool, maybe once - IMHO.

Agreed, but I also understand Ghengis John's point about not wanting it stolen en route.

You also don't have to wait several minutes for it to 'find itself' after you jump into the rental car.

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for the day that we ship our luggage ahead of schedule and all get on the planes naked after passing through a barrage of sensors and detectors.

ME TOO!

When that happens, I'm going to start being more selective of my companions on business trips.

[+adjensen]

Nice to see that he doesn't seem to have a "comment" function to point out his spelling and grammatical errors.

 

Or to ask him how he thinks his "GPS toting terrorist" is going to open the emergency exit door of a pressurized plane by hand. Moron.

[+CheshireFrog]

on a side note, I'm not real clear why folks want a GPSr on a plane - to see the MPH at 600? It would be cool, maybe once - IMHO.

Agreed, but I also understand Ghengis John's point about not wanting it stolen en route.

You also don't have to wait several minutes for it to 'find itself' after you jump into the rental car.

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for the day that we ship our luggage ahead of schedule and all get on the planes naked after passing through a barrage of sensors and detectors.

ME TOO!

When that happens, I'm going to start being more selective of my companions on business trips.

 

Good point. I might find myself back in coach, all alone.

[+sbell111]

Good point. I might find myself back in coach, all alone.

It beats getting packed in like tuna.

[+Kryten]

get on the planes naked

It's already happened. They now have optical scanners which operate at a tiny wavelength smaller than the weave in the fabric of your clothing. Your image comes up naked on their computer screens so they had to develop software to place electronic "figleaves" on the image before they were allowed to deploy it.

[+KBI]

This guys argument seems to hinge on the fact that a GPS would allow a bad guy keep up with the current geographic location of the airplane.

 

Um ... can't you also do that with a window?

 

Are we going to start painting over all the windows now?

 

Captain: <clik> "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome aboard. We're currently passing over the town of ... uh ... well, that's actually classified. We're climbing through an altitude of ... no, that's no good either. At a speed of ... okay, how about: Our estimated arrival time is ... tell you what: nevermind." <clik>

[+9Key]

He aslo talks about TomToms, but who in heck is going to bring their car's GPS on a plane? Seems like his rant was not well thought out.

[bogleman]

What a moron. Let them ban cellphones and crackberries if he's concerned about tracking and 'buddy systems'. I take my GPSr on the plane so light fingered TSA personnel don't abscond with it. If you want to make flying a more enjoyable and safer experience, ban all carry-on luggage. As a jaded frequent flyer, the only thing more annoying than 9 rows of collicky, screaming babies are the lobotomized travelers with their roller bags which they use to indiscriminately crush other people's belongings. GPSr's are not the problem.

- Don't forget about the holidays with the Hefty carry-on sacks

 

I've worked in the aviation industry for almost 17 years. I tried reading the link but closed it after about the 3rd paragraph. I was going to provide some input regarding the link but why should I waste my time.

 

It's up the the airline - don't like it go Greyhound

[+briansnat]

It's a reciever - not a transmitter. But try explaining that to Cletus, Cooter, Booger, and Bubba the next time you fly.

 

Actually a few models do broadcast their location. The Garmin Rinos come to mind. But they have a FCC mandated range limit of 2 miles. As others mentioned, a cell phone would be far more useful for telling someone your location.

[+GPSlug]

Heck, I've been known to pull out a road atlas during a flight and track my progress that way. The shape of a lake or how a divided highway enters/exits a town you're passing tells you where you are. Unfortunately, that limits my nefarious plots to cloud-free days.

[ju66l3r]

Jhwk, you're thinking too domestic.

 

International flights are fun with a GPS. When I cross the Atlantic, I can watch my W change to E at 0.00000 longitude. On the return flight to the U.S., I was able to identify all sorts of land masses along the coast, including getting an atmosphere blurred view of Boston, Long Island, NYC, and the Jersey shore, before landing in Philly.

[+Jhwk]

Jhwk, you're thinking too domestic.

 

International flights are fun with a GPS. When I cross the Atlantic, I can watch my W change to E at 0.00000 longitude. On the return flight to the U.S., I was able to identify all sorts of land masses along the coast, including getting an atmosphere blurred view of Boston, Long Island, NYC, and the Jersey shore, before landing in Philly.

you didn't have that cool map up on the wall that told you where you were, how high, how fast, and when you would arrive? I admit, I did take mine for a ride (on) just to watch the numbers roll, but it quickly became tiresome and I pulled out the palm for mad solitaire action... And yes, I know there are GPSrt's. heck, look at all the new systems springing up all over asia (NOT Garmin/Magellan/Lowrance/etc...) The GPS front is moving very rapidly overseas.

 

"Hey I have a tomtom so I know everything about GPS's and terrorists" Sheesh

 

And I do carry mine on board (never leave home without it). I even wandered into the library of congress and went through the metal detector with the thing on - while hunting an old virt up there. They didn't even blink an eye.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Jhwk

[+two left feet]

Actually he makes some valid points.

 

1. You could use a GPS to detonate a bomb AFTER the plane is over water and eliminate the guess work of take off time and any delays you might have. Are there other ways? Sure, use a cell phone and call it when you want it to detonate or just put a timer on it. But the GPS "might" offer a nice "set and forget" detonator that would allow you to be back in Iran before it went off.

 

2. Radio frequency interference. All radio devices EMIT signals. Very low level but they are there. They are generated by the local oscillator in the receiver section. IF the local oscillator frequency is close to the frequency of say a navigation device you MIGHT have a problem. Slim chance but it is still there. Almost all digital devices produce a ton of RF noise. Just put an FM receiver near your computer or monitor. It is not a transmitter, but it puts out a lot of trash. Switching power supplies that your laptop use for AC power are another source.

 

The guy is not hysterical. It is not likely that the security problems with a GPS are any worse than a cell phone or laptop. But in Mythbusters terms they are "Plausible".

 

Edit; Just thought of an application here; put a Garmin Rhino in your bagage when you travel and leave it on. If it gets lost you can track it down!!!

Edited August 31, 2006 by two left feet

[+GreyingJay]

Your image comes up naked on their computer screens so they had to develop software to place electronic "figleaves" on the image before they were allowed to deploy it.

 

But then all a terrorist has to do is hide his knife or bomb in, uh... in, uh...

 

Nevermind.

[+budd-rdc]

You sure this pundit isn't a shareholder for a major airlines OTHER than Southwest? He seems to think unassigned seating is a security risk, too. (Black eye to the security screeners at airports )

 

I would have preferred a cut and paste text from his link so he doesn't get an ego boost from all the visits.

[+Airmapper]

If some guy with a GPS device is sitting in the exit row next to the door and decides to open it over the greater Chicagoland area

 

I'm no expert on this, but even if you can open the door of a pressurized plane, I don't think it's going to down the bird. What should happen is the dimwit that opens the door will get sucked out it, and maybe a few unlucky passengers next to it if not strapped in.

 

The plane can still fly, pressurized or not, and if the captain gets his mask on can dive the plane at a safe but fast rate, getting below 12,000 Feet ASL to breathable air density. Passengers may pass out and get very cold, and the cabin will have zero gravity during the fast decent, but my point is, opening the door/ window is not a sure fire way of downing a plane.

[+Jhwk]

Actually he makes some valid points.

 

1. You could use a GPS to detonate a bomb AFTER the plane is over water and eliminate the guess work of take off time and any delays you might have. Are there other ways? Sure, use a cell phone and call it when you want it to detonate or just put a timer on it. But the GPS "might" offer a nice "set and forget" detonator that would allow you to be back in Iran before it went off.

 

 

assuming the plane goes to where it is supposed to. I guess you could tell it to alarm within a certain distance of a waypoint, but there is a lot of room for doubt, pilot error, rerouting, etc... These folks seem to like blowing themselves up to get a job done, versus relying the latest tech to do it.

[+sbell111]

Actually he makes some valid points.

 

1. You could use a GPS to detonate a bomb AFTER the plane is over water and eliminate the guess work of take off time and any delays you might have. Are there other ways? Sure, use a cell phone and call it when you want it to detonate or just put a timer on it. But the GPS "might" offer a nice "set and forget" detonator that would allow you to be back in Iran before it went off. ...

I read that in the article and figured it was too ridiculous to respond to. However, here goes...

 

In your scenario, the dangerous device is not the GPSr. It is the bomb. The airlines should ban bombs from their list of acceptable items to use in flight.

Edited August 31, 2006 by sbell111

[+Jhwk]

You sure this pundit isn't a shareholder for a major airlines OTHER than Southwest? He seems to think unassigned seating is a security risk, too. (Black eye to the security screeners at airports )

 

I would have preferred a cut and paste text from his link so he doesn't get an ego boost from all the visits.

Done - just for you buddy!

[+Jhwk]

Actually he makes some valid points.

 

1. You could use a GPS to detonate a bomb AFTER the plane is over water and eliminate the guess work of take off time and any delays you might have. Are there other ways? Sure, use a cell phone and call it when you want it to detonate or just put a timer on it. But the GPS "might" offer a nice "set and forget" detonator that would allow you to be back in Iran before it went off. ...

I read that in the article and figured it was too ridiculous to respond to. However, here goes...

 

In your scenario, the dangerous device is not the GPSr. It is the bomb. The airlines should ban bombs from their list of acceptable items to use in flight.

 

That's where common sense comes in, versus kneejerk reactionism

[+nameless301]

Didn't anyone see Mythbusters when they tried to test the effectiveness of outgoing radio tranmissions from a cell phone. They said it would effect it but that all modern airplanes have a way of blocking the tranmissions cause they actually tried it in a real plane. That guy who wrote that is an idiot

[Clan Riffster]

There are only two courses of action:

Actually, I think whoever wrote that missed a third option: Don't panic everytime you see something with buttons.

[+M-T-P]

I personally like the "go take a flying leap" comment! Give us a break!!!

[+Elde]

Didn't anyone see Mythbusters when they tried to test the effectiveness of outgoing radio tranmissions from a cell phone. They said it would effect it but that all modern airplanes have a way of blocking the tranmissions cause they actually tried it in a real plane. That guy who wrote that is an idiot

 

The Mythbusters are slightly more reliable than Barney The Dinosaur when it comes to science. If you saw the episode you'll note their utterly unscientific testing of a handfull of cellphone models on a single aircraft model. As a test of aircraft vulnerability to EMI from cellphones, thats about as valid as performing the same test on the same aircraft - but replacing the cellphones with candy bars.

 

The reality is - the chance of EMI interference from a personal electronic device is vanishingly small, but it's not (as near as we can tell) zero. The consequences of such interference however are potentially grave. Therefore, there is no reason to take the risk.

[+Lil Devil]

It has been widely reported in the media that on 9/11/01 many people used their cell phones on airplanes to call emergency services or their loved ones. I have not heard of any adverse effects of this cell phone use on those airplanes.

[CO-Zman]

I'm no expert on this, but even if you can open the door of a pressurized plane, I don't think it's going to down the bird. What should happen is the dimwit that opens the door will get sucked out it, and maybe a few unlucky passengers next to it if not strapped in.

 

Here's the tough problem w/ opening a door:

 

4' x 6' (an average size) = 3456 sq "

 

times 8psi (average at altitude pressurization) = over 27,000 lbs of force holding it shut.

 

Overwing exit 2' x 4' = over 9,000 lbs.

 

Just ain't gonna happen.

 

Besides, there is usually a small army of passengers to pound the jerk/jerkette into the floor that even attempts to open one.

 

Guess we'll be able to sound like our grandparents some day and tell our kids/grandkids "Yea, I remeber the days of flying when we got a can of Coke and peanuts on the plane. We could even get our toothpaste and brush out at the end of a 4 hour flight and spuce up a bit. Heck, we even used metal butter knives."

 

Z

[+Waynelipp]

Ya, and would cell phones really mess up a plane's controls, or do they just want to rip you off with the pay phone on board.

[+NatureGuy360]

I completely agree with CO-Zman! Due to the tremendous difference between the air pressure outside of the aircraft and the air pressure inside of the aircraft it would very very difficult for anyone to open a cabin door using human power alone. Most commercial airliners these days are fitted with "plug" type doors which are designed to use the differences in air pressure to keep them tightly sealed. So the only time an emergency exit could possibly be opened is in near the ground where the air pressure is more equalized.

 

Below is a link to a forum topic on airliners.net considering this very subject.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_...ead.main/96230/

[+two left feet]

The reality is - the chance of EMI interference from a personal electronic device is vanishingly small, but it's not (as near as we can tell) zero. The consequences of such interference however are potentially grave. Therefore, there is no reason to take the risk.

 

Well put! For that very reason at the hospital where I work we do not allow cell phones in the ICU. The risk is VERY small but the consequences are not worth even the slightest risk.

 

Also an accurate assessment of Myth Busters. They are entertainers not scientists, but I still love to watch them blow things up.

 

BTW; kind of on the same topic. I have been noticing that since the cell carriers have gone mostly GSM that there is a great deal of interference being caused by them in sound systems, PC speakers, wireless microphones and desktop radios. They make a choppy buzzing sound in the speakers just before they ring. Not sure what is up with that.

Edited September 1, 2006 by two left feet

[+Yellow ants]

I'm no expert on this, but even if you can open the door of a pressurized plane, I don't think it's going to down the bird. What should happen is the dimwit that opens the door will get sucked out it, and maybe a few unlucky passengers next to it if not strapped in.

 

Apart from the pressure problems of actually opening the door, need I remind you of Aloha Flight 243?

[+budd-rdc]

You sure this pundit isn't a shareholder for a major airlines OTHER than Southwest? He seems to think unassigned seating is a security risk, too. (Black eye to the security screeners at airports )

 

I would have preferred a cut and paste text from his link so he doesn't get an ego boost from all the visits.

Done - just for you buddy!

Much thanks!

[+sbell111]

It has been widely reported in the media that on 9/11/01 many people used their cell phones on airplanes to call emergency services or their loved ones. I have not heard of any adverse effects of this cell phone use on those airplanes.

Need I remind you that all of those planes crashed?

[+sbell111]

Apart from the pressure problems of actually opening the door, need I remind you of Aloha Flight 243?

There's two things to remember about that flight. First, the plane didn't crash. (I think that was your point.) Second, the damage was caused by stress fractures that should have been identified during routine maintenance.

[+Jhwk]

Didn't anyone see Mythbusters when they tried to test the effectiveness of outgoing radio tranmissions from a cell phone. They said it would effect it but that all modern airplanes have a way of blocking the tranmissions cause they actually tried it in a real plane. That guy who wrote that is an idiot

 

The Mythbusters are slightly more reliable than Barney The Dinosaur when it comes to science.

 

Yeah - because most scientists I know are just full of common sense...

[+sbell111]

I wonder if many of us haven't yelled at the TV to tell Mythbusters that they are wrong and they should try the experiment my way. I know I have.

[+Yellow ants]

Apart from the pressure problems of actually opening the door, need I remind you of Aloha Flight 243?

There's two things to remember about that flight. First, the plane didn't crash. (I think that was your point.) Second, the damage was caused by stress fractures that should have been identified during routine maintenance.

 

The first was indeed my point. It takes more than you'd think to down a commercial airplane.

 

The second is also a point (though not the one I intended to make ). I suspect there are more aircraft incidents due to sloppy maintenance than terrorist activity, but guess which one get the headlines - a terrorist plot that is nowhere near fruition when "foiled", or a mechanical fault leading to an emergency landing?

Edited September 1, 2006 by Yellow ants

[+sbell111]

I suspect there are more aircraft incidents due to sloppy maintenance than terrorist activity, but guess which one get the headlines - a terrorist plot that is nowhere near fruition when "foiled", or a mechanical fault leading to an emergency landing?

Our news reporting is definitely bent. Just last week, nearly everyone died in a plane crash caused by pilot/ground control error, but the main story was about Jon Benet Ramsey.

 

Don't even get me started on recess appointments.

[+Airmapper]

I'm no expert on this, but even if you can open the door of a pressurized plane, I don't think it's going to down the bird. What should happen is the dimwit that opens the door will get sucked out it, and maybe a few unlucky passengers next to it if not strapped in.

 

Apart from the pressure problems of actually opening the door, need I remind you of Aloha Flight 243?

 

I didn't know about that, I was about 1 year old when that happened. Thanks for the link, that is amazing, I also found two more instances of an airliner door opening in flight, both landed safely:

 

United Airlines Flight 811

American Airlines Flight 96

[+Jhwk]

I'm no expert on this, but even if you can open the door of a pressurized plane, I don't think it's going to down the bird. What should happen is the dimwit that opens the door will get sucked out it, and maybe a few unlucky passengers next to it if not strapped in.

 

Apart from the pressure problems of actually opening the door, need I remind you of Aloha Flight 243?

 

I didn't know about that, I was about 1 year old when that happened. Thanks for the link, that is amazing, I also found two more instances of an airliner door opening in flight, both landed safely:

 

United Airlines Flight 811

American Airlines Flight 96

Which is nice and all, but to travel back OT, I think the problem is not the technology we have, and use, but the people.

 

maybe we should ban people from flights, then the problem would be solved, right?