I smell Fifth Element. Big Bada Boom!
It does look like a concern people must have, but if they say its not possible, who should we trust'
I support with the aircraft people on this and should restrict users from accessing thier cell phones and wifi in fight as it disturbs the other gps navigations which captain use
That's silly ... all the terrorists would have to do is replace the cell phone for a barometer. The cabins, of course, are pressurized, but there are very noticeable fluctuations (i.e. the point at which many people experience a popping sound in their ears.)
So don't ban cell phones. Use this design flaw to our advantage and scan for the SIM chips much like warehouses bounce low radio frequencies off of small data chips attached to shipping crates to read what the chip says is in there. Iran uses this same concept on a much larger scale to hunt down the rebel factions near the Iraqi border, forcing them to abandon cell phone use near their camps.
Yeah, cuz that happens so often.
Well that makes sense, more strict in-flight rules for everyone!
But seriously, I guess any line of wireless connectivity could be used to trigger, including radio for example.
Why cant they just scan the luggage better to detect bombs and triggers? Wasnt that the whole point to start with. Now theyre outlawing what you can take on to be preventative. Like my toothpaste!
I can't even use my sony ebook reader (no wireless) during takeoff because it's "electronic" as if that tiny e-ink screen can somehow irreparably mangle the plane's navigation systems. It's high time that the airlines got a good look at what's actually causing the problem (people) and addressing that (israeli airports have a great system) instead of just trying to ban everything that might be used by these people. Ban something, they'll just come up with something new. Learn how to get the threatening individual identified, and you cut to the root of the problem. Just more of the grand american way of treat the symptoms, not the root cause.
OK remind me not to take my cell phone with me on my next trip i dont really feel like getting it consfiscated
Why is it that good guys always loose functionality due to bad guys. Look at software pirating. It is easier to install pirated content than installing legal things due to all the security requirements one has to fillow to make sure software is limited. Music is becoming less accessible so that it is harder to make copies but pirates don't suffer from that...
Tempest in a Teapot!
The cell detonator trigger in the checked bag is discoverable by currently used methods.
The wifi detonator trigger in the carry-on is one of the more difficult means of making a triggering system.
I won't suggest any of the easier ones.
If you think about it, this could bring about a new cottage industry at resorts and airports everywhere, rental cell phones!
On the flights where you can get on the internet its stupidly expensive. Its not worth it most airports have free wifi now. (and thats where you end up spending most yer time!)
I just can't help but laugh at all the people getting upset. I joked in my last comment, but let's be serious here. We are a spoiled society where if we don't get to use our phones or laptops, life as we know it is ending. Trust me, you're not going to die because you can't use your phone or laptop on a long flight. You see, they make these things called "books" and "magazines".
Umm, people, you do realize they're talking about eliminating the in-flight USE of cell phones and wi-fi in flight, not that you can't even bring the equipment on. If they banned the mere carrying of cells and laptops onto a plane, they would kill the airline industry, which relies heavily on business travelers who have to keep that stuff with them (for layovers, to avoid lost items, etc).
I don't think it would. Nobody is going to sail from England to New York just because they can't take a laptop or mobile phone onboard with them when they travel on a plane.
The airlines will do whatever they like to ensure safety - You as a customer don't have a choice, you can suck eggs, or not travel by plane. They'll still have plenty of passengers either way. lol.
I don'r agree with it myself, but then I also accept there is much I can do about it - So not much point letting it bother me.
Ummm ... when was the last time you tried to find a wifi hotspot at 35000ft?
If you ever did find one, momentarily, ... ooops... out of range again... again... again...
Neither of these devices work like "walkie talkies"!
And currently , you may NOT use cell phones... except after you are back on the ground.
And currently , while in flight, you may not use devices (wifi/bluetooth) that could possibly interfere with the airplane electronics.
So, as I said... Tempest in a teapot!
Heh, you must not travel much B00k. Quite a few airlines now offer wi-fi internet connections in-flight, and a few are playing around with in-flight cell phone connection systems (they both usually use satellite connection to provide the link). I've had the wi-fi option on at least 1 leg of each of the last 10 flights I've taken recently. So, the technology is out there, and spreading. THAT is what the investigators are looking into, whether to quell those in-flight connection systems. Not banning wi-fi and cell phone equipment from even being carried on (as some readers are obviously assuming, based on their comments).
Oh, I agree there... Long distances, you have no choice, really. But for short distance jaunts, it could become an issue. You'd be amazed at how many high end business executives and lawyers would scream and cry if you took away their toys. Or techs who rely on their equipment for their jobs. And, if you make them stow them in the cargo area, and lose the luggage on the way, imagine the lawsuits involved in lost/damaged equipment, and potential losses (like if you fail to make a presentation because the airline lost your laptop enroute). Charter and private planes, as well as trains and other transportation, could become much more attractive, adding to the struggle the big airlines are already having just trying to keep their heads above water. Not saying it would put a bullet in the brainpan of the airlines, but it has the potential to kick them in the crotch, at least.
I am not the most frequent of frequent flyers, but I still get around.
Availability of services may depend in part on airline and in part on the route.
In the last 20 of my flights NONE of them had either option.
And every flight was insistent upon "No Wifi or Bluetooth" from before the plan left the gate until its docking at the desitination gate.
Though a few had the VERY pricey "in flight" phone system.
(Handset in the back of the seat in front of you, with credit card scanner to take your payment).
IMO The frills currently available on a few flights will not be missed on the majority,
simply because, they were never there to begin with.
SO... "my sampling" vs "your sampling"... For MY typical flights - no net effect,
UNLESS they want to ban the cellphone or laptop on the plane;
Which is really (as I see it) the only way to control it on the flights of which I have been speaking.
(Any jamming process would have a spillover effect upon other needed flight systems!)
Anyone have a definitive study of the percentage of flights that could be affected by loss of these "frivolous" - erm - "frill/luxury" - erm - "needed business" services?
I guess it will affect you Americans more than it will us Brits, because our island is relatively small, and driving from top to bottom isn't really even a full 24hr drive. From where I am, I can be in Wales within two and half hours, and thats the opposite side of the country (Well Wales is another country) to me. Going up North, I can be in another country (Scotland) in around 4 hours with a heavy right foot.
I'd imagine (but ignorance is bliss!) the state of California end to end is bigger than our entire Island two fold, if not more.
With the exception of people like my mum (who don't drive), nobody really flies unless they're going to Europe or further afield. Most people even drive to France via the Eurotunnel train, and to further in Europe rather than fly. I've driven across Europe plenty of times in the past myself.
EDIT: It would appear I'm on to something in regards to our Island to California:
Landmass of UK: 94,526 sq mi
Landmass of CA: 163,696 sq mi
Assuming Yahoo answers can be believed of course.
Nice with the sarcasim. That really gets your point across...
In any case. I am not against the banning of phones on planes. I completely understand the reasons behind remote detonation. Never in my comment did I say I was against that. What I implied, although now I can see from your lack of understaning that I should have stated bluntly, was that I was against the government intervening with laws to block people from brining these phones. There is a difference, although a subtle one. When the governement gets involved with blocking freedoms, it causes a chain reaction that, although started with planes, may lead to people not being able to stand in their own house and talk on a phone. Yes this is a drastic jump, but than so was Nazi Germany.
So yes, phones on planes are bad. But your cursing, and snide remarks have not helped in any way with furthering this topic. I was not "crying" as you have stated. I was pointing out the inherient troubles involved with the government blocking its citizens freedoms.
Well... To put the whole in-flight wi-fi thing into perspective (as far as how much it is spreading)... Southwest Airlines, the most widespread bargain airline in the US, has started offering it for $5 (it was free when they introduced it). There are entire companies built around and dedicated to providing wi-fi internet on commercial airliners. Often, the option is there and you don't even know it, unless you look for it. It's becoming more of an "always connected" society, for sure.
Banning wi-fi will have huge financial consequences on the airlines (not to mention the companies that do nothing BUT in-flight connections). Considering the huge amount of investment airlines have put into equipping and launching the services for their customers, there stands to be some substantially upset shareholders.
Theyre probably talking about this / these imminent dangers so that they can add on a taxation for "extra securities provided" or something of the like.
Wow, +1 to you friend.