On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:31:54 -0900, floyd@
apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>tony cooper
earthlink.net> wrote:>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:00:31 -0900, floyd@
apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>
>>>>I think there are some considerations you haven't thought about.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the air hostess to passenger ratio was, but we
>>>>can't expect the air hostesses to have the time to check out each
>>>>passenger's device to see if it's something that is, or is not, within
>>>>the rules. In that brief time that you were stopped from using your
>>>>device, she had to monitor several passengers and conduct her other
>>>>duties. It makes their job easier to just say "no devices".
>>>
>>>The _rule_ is "no electronic devices", the airline
>>>attendant has no discretion.
>>>
>>>>Also, there's the security consideration of allowing images to be
>>>>taken of ground facilities. Perhaps we're more conscious of this in
>>>>the US, but the idea of people being able to photograph airport ground
>>>>facilities is not acceptable here.
>>>
>>>That is not true.
>>
>>Right as usual, Floyd. The Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport in
>>Barrow, with its one runway, may allow the Barrow Camera and Baculum
>>Carving Club to roam the airport facilities, but that's not the rule
>>for any airport large enough to have more than a windsock for air
>>traffic control.
>
>Photographing an airport is no different than
>photographing any other publicly viewable
>infrastructure. Which is to say that the property owner
>can indeed disallow photography on their premises, but
>cannot disallow photography from a public location.
>
You are not in a public location when you are on airport grounds or in
a commercial aircraft. The airport authority, or the airline
authority, can deny you access to anything they choose to deny you
access to.
>>
>>>The reason for the ban *is* to prevent interference with
>>>aircraft electronics (e.g., radio and other navigation
>>>systems). That is a *very* real potential.
>>
>>I dunno what they fly out of Barrow, but in the airports I've flown
>>out of they fly planes that don't wait until they hit 5,000 feet to
>>turn on the radios and navigation systems. What do you think they use
>>on take-off? Semaphores and Aldus lamps?
>
>That statement lacks any logic at all.
Point out to me the logic of turning off electronic devices during
take-off and landings but allowing them to be on before the aircraft
takes off, during the actual flight, or taxiing to the gate.
The electronics on the aircraft are switched on before any of this
takes place and kept on until the plane shuts down.
There are no delicate electronic systems turned on when the aircraft
reaches a certain altitude and turned off when the aircraft descends
to below that altitude.
If passenger-held devices interfere with aircraft electronics, they
will interfere with the aircraft electronics when the aircraft is
still at the gate.
The lack of logic is on your part.
>>If I'm the pilot, and the fear is that the electronic devices are
>>going to screw up my radio and navigation equipment, I want all the
>>passengers to turn on everything they've got from digital cameras to
>>boom boxes before I'm cleared for take-off.
>
>A smart pilot wants any device that can generate RFI to
>be type certified for the specific aircraft he is
>piloting during critical times such as takeoff and
>landing.
Rubbish. The smart pilot knows that some passengers will have
inadvertently left devices on or will be surreptitiously using devices
at any time. Thus, the smart pilot will want to know, as early as
possible, if any device is in use on board before those critical
times. He will know that altitude does not make the presence of the
device more or less of a danger except for the longer drop if the
device causes a problem.
>
>>If something's gonna go wrong, I want it to go wrong before I get high
>>enough off the ground to bounce.
>
>You're already bouncing off the wall and the ceiling,
>you might as well try the ground too.
The rule about electronic devices being used on take-off and landing
was put into place when passengers first started bring electronic
devices on board and when it was not known if these devices could
affect instrumentation. The rule has been left in place because no
one wants to go out on a limb and declare that there is no possible
danger involved despite the fact that no problems have been
discovered.
The rule is also convenient for the flight passenger crew because it
eliminates passenger distractions during the obligatory return to your
seats, tray tables up, buckle-up, and other take-off and landing
procedures. It means that Pudge, here, is going to follow the air
hostesses' instructions instead of being tempted to get one last shot
out of the opposite side's window or delay conforming to her
instructions because he's on the phone or typing on his laptop.
Instead of saying "Please..." she can say "You must. It's a rule".
It's also left in effect because of security considerations. While
you might not be able to fathom why a digital camera or PDA can be a
security issue, consider that thousands of passengers have had to
remove their shoes in pre-boarding checks because one passenger tried
to light his shoe in flight. We are in a state of paranoia about
security and logic has little to do with the controls we impose.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
