The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from CC?

[DL8698]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

All those who know with 100% certainty that using transmitting devices interfere with aircraft equipment have either died in the ensuing crash or survived but you can bet your last bottom cent they are not going to say 'yes they were right'

 

[JWelsh]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

As explained on ABC radio this week, the only problem with iP stuff & mobile phones is that the user is travelling above the best height of a normal mobile tower, at a speed of 500 to 600kms per hour and this tends to overload the networks as the flyer jumps from cell to cell in seconds, causing congestion for all users.

 

[ozonslo]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

I don't think higher status has validity, everyone whatever status is capable of this action. Yesterday I was on Perth to Sydney.Guy across from me was talking on phone as we were pushing off. He was asked by flight attendant to turn it off, once, then he was reading his mail, he was asked again, still carried on, then as the crew started the safety demonstration, he was asked again and the crew member stood over him until it was off and put away. Happens very frequently, particularly in business ... I did think it was laughable that he ignored the crew member three times. But I must say they were very patient and just kept asking, with a smile. I think it can be done pleasantly and with little fuss, but it does depend on both parties and how far one would go to flaunt the 'rules'. I would say though the guy didn't hide what he was doing..... I am not one to say he should be dobbed in because him being in seat 1 it was clear to the crew member what he was doing.

 

[russ]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

As explained on ABC radio this week...

Just because someone said it on the ABC doesn't mean it's true

A quick google of CASA material lists some incidents attributed to mobile phone use
mobile phone site:.casa.gov.au - Google Search

One CASA article states that "More than 100 air safety incidents related to interference from portable electronic devices have been reported in Australia in the last ten years."

However, I note that all the CASA articles are quite old. Perhaps more modern phones are less of an issue? I used to hear mobile phone buzz through my aviation headset when flying the chopper, but come to think of it, I can't recall hearing it for years.

 

[JWelsh]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Yes, it was a problem with the original mobiles, and the network upgrades are 3 & 4G have eliminated many problems, but the congestion seems to be the main concern with the network owners, and you can see the situation of leaping from one cell to another.
The ABC per se did not say it, but an Australian Telecommunications professional (whose name escapes me!) was being interviewed by them.

 

[JohnCarrWestwood]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

I just wanted to make an observation and put it out there for feedback.

Every week I fly between Sydney and Melbourne, usually returning on the same day, over the past few weeks at least on one of those flights the passenger seated next to me will not turn off their ipad and phone.

yesterday it happened in both directions, both times they had an iPhone and iPad, crew asked for devices to be switched to flight mode, then off. I don't want to get into a debate about safety or whether the radio waves can interfere with navigation equipment, my point is so often now I see non compliance with this request.

like yesterday, when asked, both gentlemen just put their phones in their pocket whilst still on, and the guy last night once the seatbelt sign came on, opened up the cover and continued watching breaking bad whilst we landed as he knew the crew had to remain seated for landing.



Keen to hear thoughts/experiences of what you have done, as well as how often you see this behaviour.

Prat are prats are prats . Probably the same folk who abuse the overhead luggage /carry on quotas. Id have to ask WTF are they texting /reading/"researching" that cant wait until clear of the plane and security? The regs are there like it or not .If you dont like them then complain to HO dont abuse the situation . Ill dob ya in a loud voice!!!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Just because someone said it on the ABC doesn't mean it's true

A quick google of CASA material lists some incidents attributed to mobile phone use
mobile phone site:.casa.gov.au - Google Search

One CASA article states that "More than 100 air safety incidents related to interference from portable electronic devices have been reported in Australia in the last ten years."

However, I note that all the CASA articles are quite old. Perhaps more modern phones are less of an issue? I used to hear mobile phone buzz through my aviation headset when flying the chopper, but come to think of it, I can't recall hearing it for years.

is that the same list as used by the FAA? (I can't seem to find the document on the CASA site.)

the FAA list included a lot of incidents where the FA asked a pax to turn off their device but the passenger refused and became 'unruly'. so many nothing to do with actual electronic interference. other in indents were 'suspected' phone interference.

and that's 100 incidents out of ten years? and how many tens of thousands of flights? and not a single accident attributed in all that time.

not saying that is an excuse to disobey a lawful crew instruction.

still confused how some AFFers are so upset by pax refusing to obey a crew order (on safety grounds) but are more than happy for gate to gate entertainment.... with two recent instances showing how dangerous that can potentially be. we really should be focussing on actual rather than (mostly) hypothetical safety issues. (it's much safer to have the guy next to me using his [flight mode] device than to have a person hooked into the IFE system!)

 

[here2go]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Devices annoy me, although now there is evidence suggesting they have little impact, I am not so stressed. What annoys me is people talking over the top of the safety demo, especially a drunk AJ on the last JQ flight I was on in April (not by choice, but timing) The staff did nothing. I wish I had, the drunk sleeper was fondling my hair at 3am in the morning while I was trying to sleep.

 

[sphericaltravel]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

If it is a serious issue - radio waves interfering with control of the airplane - then this should be a serious part of the safety routine that every flight presents. Perhaps if there were onscreen animations showing what the problem is, treating the passengers as intelligent folk, ready to be educated and only too pleased to get a break from the repetitive seat belt demonstrations.
Currently there is disbelief that there is an issue, and it probably falls into the "mobiles give you cancer, mobiles can blow up service stations" category of doubt that would warrant an episode of Mythbusters. Education is the key.

 

[MartinMemo]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Devices annoy me, although now there is evidence suggesting they have little impact, I am not so stressed. What annoys me is people talking over the top of the safety demo, especially a drunk AJ on the last JQ flight I was on in April (not by choice, but timing) The staff did nothing. I wish I had, the drunk sleeper was fondling my hair at 3am in the morning while I was trying to sleep.

This drives me crazy. It's so rude to the FAs and rude of other passengers, especially not so frequent flyer. It's a few mins out of a flight and as far as I am concerned everyone should zip their lips and pay attention like you did in school when something important was being said.

 

[JohnCarrWestwood]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

This drives me crazy. It's so rude to the FAs and rude of other passengers, especially not so frequent flyer. It's a few mins out of a flight and as far as I am concerned everyone should zip their lips and pay attention like you did in school when something important was being said.

Its as bad as those ingorant prats who launch there seats backwards without a thought of who is behind them and whether there is a coffee thats likely to drop in someones lap or some knnes that willbe trapped.Ignorance is rife . Too many folk think about their rights and SFA about manners and their responsibilities

 

[Rhode]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Oh quite agree Mal. I was sitting next to someone in Row 4 last week afternoon tea run. Must have been a Platinum + as he was plied with wine whilst the rest of us got tea and coffee. The more wine he had the more he thought he could have my seat as well. Although my elbows were by my side, he wanted the whole arm rest to himself and kept looking down because his elbow touched mine as if to say move your arms ! The prat didn't even move his legs when I got into the seat (row 4 is more roomy than most but not that roomy). When the hosties asked everyone to remain seated once home as there were some passengers at the back who had 15 mins to catch their flight, guess who was up ! Taking his bags out from the overhead across the aisle, virtually knocking me out with his laptop bag on his back and left immediately after the others before business class had a chance to stand up. Mate, you were flying economy like the rest of us !!! GRR !!

 

[ethernet]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

There IS something they can do.
Hack their phones and computers with a 'sniffer' or IMEI logger, then give the list of IMEI numbers to the local carriers to blacklist on landing or give a stiff fine to to get unblocked. Radio resource location services protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is also a security protocol, can can be sent to disable phones and such. They play too nicely, rather than use it for revenue enhancement. Phones yes, mobiles - maybe - dedicated non wireless, no.

They could also walk up the isle with a frequency counter (also works well as a mobile phone detector) and hit it quickly with a small hammer before they can react.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Personally I think status makes some people arrogant and the rules do not apply to them.

I understand those that fly regularly can remember the safety demonstration. But just because you know it doesn't mean you can conduct a conversation with your seat buddy. Have some respect for those presenting the safety demonstration and those that have not heard the safety announcement or if they have heard it they want to hear it again in case something has changed.

As for gadgets. Lets not start that debate again. If I see you using it or not switching it off then I will let someone know. I don't care that you believe it is OK to use whenever you feel like using it. I do not subscribe to your self-centred beliefs.

 

[scooby]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

I think people would take these types of directions more seriously if the Airlines were not blatantly LYING to them. "Electronic devices need to be turned off for take off and landing as they interfere with the aircraft's navigation instruments"

This is nothing short of an absolute lie and people ignore it because they know that.

I am sure many more people would take it seriously if the airlines just told them the truth instead of assuming they are ignorant and will believe their BS.

 

[DL8698]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

Let's not lose sight of what this thread is all about. It is not about whether using phones during flight cause accidents or not. Let the experts debate about that. It's about "People who refuse to follow rules as set down by the governing authorities". The rules say "Transmitting devices are to be switched off" as and when the captain says so. No Ifs or Buts!

As an analogy, if someone drives a Ferrari sports car, fully capable of driving absolutely safely at 200 mph, it does not mean he can do so on a road where the posted speed limit is 50 mph!

"Oh,, but, but, officer, my car can be driven safely at 200 mph and even more. Today I decided to slow down cos I was using my hand phone while driving. So the speed limit does not apply to me"

Go tell that to the judge!

 

[scooby]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

last month i was on a SIN-MFM flight on Tiger (yes i probably shouldnt expect much more from them) seated in 1A.

I was told by the lovely stewardess to turn my phone off for taxi & take off. Both cabin crew then closed the curtain to the galley and proceeded to stand next to each other on their phones whilst we taxied down the runway. this would have only been visible to those seated in 1A and 1F.

I also have the photos to prove it.....

This is not the first time i have watched cabin crew behave like this and its not limited to the budget carriers..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

There IS something they can do.
Hack their phones and computers with a 'sniffer' or IMEI logger, then give the list of IMEI numbers to the local carriers to blacklist on landing or give a stiff fine to to get unblocked. Radio resource location services protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is also a security protocol, can can be sent to disable phones and such. They play too nicely, rather than use it for revenue enhancement. Phones yes, mobiles - maybe - dedicated non wireless, no.

They could also walk up the isle with a frequency counter (also works well as a mobile phone detector) and hit it quickly with a small hammer before they can react.

exactly! and if there was a real danger then they would use such a device.

no airline would risk their brand new $300 million planes crashing left right and centre when a simple device could prevent that. no airline would be able to get insurance unless they had such a device if that was the case. law suits from injured passengers would be phenomenal if that was the case.

as it is, they don't seem to be needed.

the only danger we've heard of recently was the pilot who left his phone on and it interfered his concentration and subsequent ability to land in Singapore.

 

[marki]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

There are many Toxic people out there believing that the world owes them heaps. The DYKWIA types seem to be seen at higher concentrations with increasing status. Are CL's full of such fodder Who knows ? Has anybody seen them at Qantas Business lounges ?

Toxic Teddy Bears (TTB)

not cute and cuddly (NCC)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from C

As for gadgets. Lets not start that debate again. If I see you using it or not switching it off then I will let someone know. I don't care that you believe it is OK to use whenever you feel like using it. I do not subscribe to your self-centred beliefs.

but do you mind the self-centred beliefs of people who don't know any better than to sit hooked into inflight IFE that could actually be endangering your safety?

would you say anything to them?