View Single Post
Old 04-01-2013, 12:44 AM   #34
caleb72
Indie Advocate
caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.caleb72 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
caleb72's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,709
Karma: 14627223
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: Kindle
If a plane can be so sensitive to the emissions of a transmitting device (in a phone or ereader for example), wouldn't it be a fairly easy matter for the attendants to carry receivers to alert them to people with devices not in a non-transmitting mode?

We're all talking about these transmitters being more powerful than we understand, but doesn't that make it much simpler to detect and with detection rectify?

I'm very happy to put my Kindle in non-transmitting mode at the drop of a hat if it makes flying safer - in fact I do at all times I'm using it during a flight. So I'm not fighting for my right to transmit at all. But if the problem is about whether you're transmitting or not rather than some other notion, wouldn't there be a reasonably simple way to detect that - especially in flight when the device is maximising the power of the transmitter?

I'm not really a techy in this particular area, so I'm just looking at it from a logical perspective. Is it that hard to detect transmissions that could be powerful enough to interfere with crucial controls?
caleb72 is offline   Reply With Quote