Reader on the airplain - is it electronic device or not;) - Page 4

Shemp65 · 07-25-2007, 07:22 PM

I agree that the rule is weird... and this from the same industry that's "considering" allowing cell phone usage on the plane.

FYI-I'm trying out the new Virgin America Airlines next month on a quick SFO to LAX trip. They tout regular electrical plugs at your seat, along with USB and ethernet connections... no xtra charge! Now, THAT's the way it should be.

RWood · 07-25-2007, 09:32 PM

I have always wondered about the use of cell phones on planes. I understand it while you are on the ground, nothing out of the ordinary there. But I question using them in flight.

First, the signals are generally compressed to the horizon (like FM radio) to boost the effective radiated power (ERP) thus not expending it where there are no people. Second, the signal, even if broadcast upwards, doesn't travel that far. Finally, the switching between towers is bad enough at 65 mph, how can it handle 500 mph? Just my thoughts. I've been wrong before.

NatCh · 07-25-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribble

Can happen to people who deal a bit with statistics

I once heard a statistician say that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWood

First, the signals are generally compressed to the horizon (like FM radio) to boost the effective radiated power (ERP) thus not expending it where there are no people. Second, the signal, even if broadcast upwards, doesn't travel that far. Finally, the switching between towers is bad enough at 65 mph, how can it handle 500 mph? Just my thoughts. I've been wrong before.

RF signals travel near the speed of light in atmosphere, if I remember my physics classes correctly ... anyway, 65 mph or 500 mph isn't much compared to .99c. And planes don't normally fly too much more than a few miles up, cell signals ought to travel that far, anyway -- it's not like there's much to interfere with them.

Whatever the case, one of the things we learned conclusively from September 11th, is that you can successfully use a cell phone on a plane under at least some conditions, and flight #93 didn't crash due to cell phone interference.

tribble · 07-26-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatCh

I once heard a statistician say that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I heard this quote: Never trust a statistic that you haven't forged yourself.

But the math behind the idea is quite amazing. And it just prooves, that you should not always blindly believe what other people tell you.

nekokami · 07-26-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatCh

RF signals travel near the speed of light in atmosphere, if I remember my physics classes correctly ... anyway, 65 mph or 500 mph isn't much compared to .99c. And planes don't normally fly too much more than a few miles up, cell signals ought to travel that far, anyway -- it's not like there's much to interfere with them.

Switching speed isn't the same as transmission speed, though. Yes, the signals are certainly fast enough to reach the phone, but having to switch towers so rapidly may be more than some phones or networks can handle. It's possible that the airlines are considering adding a repeater per plane with a stronger broadcast/receiver system to avoid this problem... I don't know.

I read an article in the IEEE journal a few years ago that covered the issue of electronics on the plane during takeoff and landing. IIRC, their position was not that interference could somehow bring down the plane, but that the static generated by even low-level interference could interfere with pilot-tower communications. As I said before, I think pilot-tower communications are difficult enough as it is. I'd rather not do anything that would add any static to the mix.

NatCh · 07-26-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

... the static generated by even low-level interference could interfere with pilot-tower communications. As I said before, I think pilot-tower communications are difficult enough as it is. I'd rather not do anything that would add any static to the mix.

Amen to that!

alex_d · 07-26-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

You buy a ticket - you abide by the airline's rules.

That's bullshit, because I don't have a choice.

I'm with bill maher on this one... FlyAtYourOwnRisk Air. You show up five minutes early, pay in cash, take with you a two-liter of sprite, and stand for an hour. And pay as much as for the subway.

If that's not your style, fine by me. But f**k the FAA. I think the frequent travelers, esp. the commuters, will know what I mean.

alex_d · 07-26-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekomai

... the static generated by even low-level interference could interfere with pilot-tower communications. As I said before, I think pilot-tower communications are difficult enough as it is. I'd rather not do anything that would add any static to the mix.

how come a thousand cell phones can talk next to eachother but pilots listen to static?

is this the faa again preventing progress? also i should mention the fcc for wasting our bandwidth on inept government agencies who are still using 60s technology. (and lastly, why is the unlicensed band (for wifi, etc) still pathetically tiny?)

I'm no libertarian, but sometimes government regulation really goes too far.

AndiR · 07-26-2007, 01:41 PM

i.e. here

so what about readers?

AndiR

alex_d · 07-26-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

IIRC, their position was not that interference could somehow bring down the plane, but that the static generated by even low-level interference could interfere with pilot-tower communications. As I said before, I think pilot-tower communications are difficult enough as it is. I'd rather not do anything that would add any static to the mix.

lastly, landing accidents are not caused by an occasional crackle, but by tower operators giving the wrong instructions. these ieee and faa apologists have no perspective, thinking molehills can justify anything, as long as it's tradition.

alex_d · 07-26-2007, 01:58 PM

anir, I'm glad huge corporations with millions in revenue at stake can pressure Europe's version of the faa to give up the insanity that the America faa pressured it into.

now, we just need to gather the bottled water cartel

edit: "[onair ceo] added that charges are expected to be similar to the roaming rates for international calls."

... exactly

HarryT · 07-29-2007, 03:25 AM

Speaking as a former (amateur) pilot, the reason that it's illegal to use cell phones in flight has nothing to do with interference with the aircraft's systems. The reason it's banned is because the cellular phone system is designed to handle the situation where your phone is in "line of sight" of a small number of phone masts. If your phone is suddently visible to hundreds of masts, as could be the case from a plane flying at 10,000m, it causes the networks major problems and could "crash" the system.

HarryT · 07-29-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shemp65

FYI-I'm trying out the new Virgin America Airlines next month on a quick SFO to LAX trip.

Why don't you get the train? It's a beautiful journey along the coast and - by the time you have all the hassle of checking in at the airport, etc, pretty much the same journey time. And a lot more environmentally friendly.

BCCISProf · 07-29-2007, 08:42 AM

FWIW - I flew on El AL Airlines this week to Israel, and used the Reader even during takeoff and landing, and no one said anything.

dmikov · 07-30-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Please don't ever fly on a plane I might be on. I don't want to go on a plane with someone who really cares so little for his life and the lives of those around him.

There are rules and there are people who enforce them without understanding them. Or scared without understanding them.
EM emittion of Sony ereader I would imagine is not much more then a digital watch.
Please don't be scaring us comparing caring for lives with rationally analizing stupid rules and laws. To change them you have to start somewhere and raising the question is a first step.
But if you insist; I'll post my flight plans here so you can rebook your tickets.

07-26-2007, 01:41 PM	#54
AndiR Rather interested Posts: 104 Karma: 677 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Maidenhead Device: Kindle, Sony Ereader, Ipad & iPhone	Phones on planes very soon i.e. here so what about readers? AndiR

07-26-2007, 01:58 PM	#56
alex_d Addict Posts: 303 Karma: 187 Join Date: Dec 2006 Device: Sony Reader	anir, I'm glad huge corporations with millions in revenue at stake can pressure Europe's version of the faa to give up the insanity that the America faa pressured it into. now, we just need to gather the bottled water cartel edit: "[onair ceo] added that charges are expected to be similar to the roaming rates for international calls." ... exactly Last edited by alex_d; 07-26-2007 at 02:16 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Electronic ebook reader or tablet PC?	zetareticuli	Which one should I buy?	25	01-20-2010 11:27 PM
Create your own 6" EBOOK reader device with Electronic paper display!!!	JessicaTung	News	16	03-04-2009 04:32 PM
NYT: Electronic Device Stirs Unease at Book Fair	chrissy	News	48	06-10-2008 10:23 AM
Electronic Reader Etiquette	Barcey	News	69	04-01-2008 03:34 PM
Smoking with Electronic Reader	Barcey	Lounge	8	11-14-2007 06:05 PM

07-25-2007, 07:22 PM	#46
Shemp65 Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jul 2007 Device: PRS-500, 505, and Amazon Kindle	I agree that the rule is weird... and this from the same industry that's "considering" allowing cell phone usage on the plane. FYI-I'm trying out the new Virgin America Airlines next month on a quick SFO to LAX trip. They tout regular electrical plugs at your seat, along with USB and ethernet connections... no xtra charge! Now, THAT's the way it should be.

07-25-2007, 09:32 PM	#47
RWood Technogeezer Posts: 7,233 Karma: 1601464 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Device: Sony PRS-500	I have always wondered about the use of cell phones on planes. I understand it while you are on the ground, nothing out of the ordinary there. But I question using them in flight. First, the signals are generally compressed to the horizon (like FM radio) to boost the effective radiated power (ERP) thus not expending it where there are no people. Second, the signal, even if broadcast upwards, doesn't travel that far. Finally, the switching between towers is bad enough at 65 mph, how can it handle 500 mph? Just my thoughts. I've been wrong before.

07-29-2007, 03:25 AM	#57
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Speaking as a former (amateur) pilot, the reason that it's illegal to use cell phones in flight has nothing to do with interference with the aircraft's systems. The reason it's banned is because the cellular phone system is designed to handle the situation where your phone is in "line of sight" of a small number of phone masts. If your phone is suddently visible to hundreds of masts, as could be the case from a plane flying at 10,000m, it causes the networks major problems and could "crash" the system.

07-29-2007, 08:42 AM	#59
BCCISProf Enthusiast Posts: 47 Karma: 24 Join Date: Mar 2007 Device: Sony PRS500, Nook	FWIW - I flew on El AL Airlines this week to Israel, and used the Reader even during takeoff and landing, and no one said anything.