Jump to content

Kindle scrambled?


woolybanana
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I had an interesting event this morning which might suggest that interference can occur. I was talking to someone on the fone (an internet one) and switched off the Kindle as we were speaking. The fone was immediately cut off.

Now, in the context of a plane, I just wonder what might be let loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

AnOther wrote : (amongst other things!) ''....As a frequent flyer you become adept as spotting first timers or novices and despite them being the ones who may pay full attention to the brief it is they who could well present the greatest danger in an evacuation by prevaricating and panicking.....''

What absolute tosh!

Those who pay the most attention to inflight safety briefings are generally frequent flyers and off duty aircrew! Novice flyers are generally more concerned with seating, stowage and fiddling with their surroundings :-)

The ones who present the greatest danger and obstacle, are the ones who think they know it all, have been there before, done that etc.....arrogant / complacent - be they passengers or crew.

Noboby, NOBODY - not even sid (!) , knows how they will behave in any emergency situation and it's arrogant and misguided to believe otherwise.

The issue about phones / electronic devices being switched off is not about the odd one being left on - it's about the possible effects of 100, 200, 300 400 being left switched on! Therefore it's simply easier to ask everyone to turn them off! No Orwellian plot I'm afraid....

In any case, my view, as a pilot (with a high opinion of myself!!) is firmly that prevention is much more preferable to cure! I wouldn't be that keen to operate on the test flight along with a 100 odd electronic devices switched on.

Things have come on quite significantly since they days of the Wright Brothers (and BAC 1-11's!) - in no small measure because people (some) have chosen to learn from their mistakes and experiences.

Chiefluvvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="sid"]. I can't remember the last time a plane landed in the ocean and everyone climbed out onto the wings and inflated their lifejackets and then got into the rafts. .[/quote]It's not so long ago that a plane ditched in the Hudson River and everyone survived so perhaps the briefing helped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, Rabbie! I've already admitted that. It was an exceptional set of circumstances in that the plane had just taken off, there was a bird strike leading to engine failure, but there was a convenient large area of water close by and water taxis and other boats were alongside immediately. Thanks to the skillful action of the pilot 155 people on board virtually stepped into the waiting boats. Have there been others? If so, I can't find them. I can find many crashes where there were no survivors. Since this discussion started I've checked loads of accident reports and it is unusual for passengers (and crew) to survive such emergencies as most failures appear to happen while the plane is at cruising height, ie not taking off or landing. Parachutes are not an option! Many long-haul routes fly over the Arctic; even if the plane could crash land no safety lectures could help the survivors in the extreme cold.

I still believe that flying is statistically safer than other forms of transport and I put the idea of having an accident firmly to the back of my mind as being an unreasonable worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]Just as a matter of interest Chiefluvvie, and to change subject yet again (sorry), what aircraft do you fly and what 'type' licence do you hold and from whom?[/quote]

[quote user="Chiefluvvie"]777 First Officer actually and guess what, brace yourself NickP - female! Imagine that.....

Chiefluvvie[/quote]

Regards

Pickles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Chiefluvvie"]Those who pay the most attention to inflight safety briefings are generally frequent flyers and off duty aircrew![/quote]As I probably spend as much, if not more time in the cabin as passenger than you (min 45 flights PA) my experience does not bear out the first part. As to the second, are you seriously expecting people to believe that off duty aircrew all sit in rapt attention to safety briefs because I know they don't and even those who do will be doing it out of a sense of duty in setting an example rather than to actually learn anything. What exactly is a 90 second brief going to teach them when they themselves are trained and qualified to give the briefing in the first place !

I'm afraid the Hudson river incident is a very poor example as the fact everybody survived was down to the skill (and great fortune) of the pilot in making an almost controlled landing on the water in which the plane remained completely intact and with little or no chance of fire breaking out allowing for a near textbook controlled evacuation, hardly your typical crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I am truly amazed at some of these responses. It's almost as if some 'posters' are actively trying to 'rubbish' flight safety briefings - quite extraordinary. Even comparing putting on a car seat belt to putting on an aircraft one.

For info - the reason cabin crew show (those interested) how to buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt is that, during evacuations, passengers, in their panic, forget to unbuckle their belts before trying to leave their seats! The hope is that, having recently been reminded, they may just get out of their seats more quickly.....

It's nothing to do with how much you fly or how 'qualified' you are - it's about having your brain engaged in the hope (vague in some cases!) that you retain at least some 'useful' safety information at the front of it during the essential phases of flight. It's about the most recent time you heard the info.

Anyway - you've had my input - do with it as you will. After all it's YOUR safety, just don't endanger anyone else's! I'm beginning to feel I'm pushing the proverbial uphill so I'll bow out.

Happy flying!

Chiefluvvie

ICAO/ATPL (CAA/JAA issued) - B777 200/300 no B787 endorsement (yet!) with current TRE - for what it worth :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Well, I had an interesting event this morning which might suggest that interference can occur. I was talking to someone on the fone (an internet one) and switched off the Kindle as we were speaking. The fone was immediately cut off.

Now, in the context of a plane, I just wonder what might be let loose.

[/quote]

if it can turn a phone of when itself  is being turned of, what does it do to people whilst it's turned on? We're constantly being told the human brain is a very delicate thing...does anyone know if there will be long term effects? or is it the same as the WIMAX argument

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="HoneySuckleDreams"][quote user="woolybanana"]

Well, I had an interesting event this morning which might suggest that interference can occur. I was talking to someone on the fone (an internet one) and switched off the Kindle as we were speaking. The fone was immediately cut off.

Now, in the context of a plane, I just wonder what might be let loose.

[/quote]

if it can turn a phone of when itself  is being turned of, what does it do to people whilst it's turned on? We're constantly being told the human brain is a very delicate thing...does anyone know if there will be long term effects? or is it the same as the WIMAX argument

 [/quote]

HSD I share your concern. I have it on good authority that a Kindle will scramble the brain if used excessivley, just as it will bring down an aircraft if used on takeoff. I have almost 30 years experience in electronics and interferance technology both with companies here and in the UK.

The brain in particularly suseptical to the invisible radiation from the Kindle, more particularly if it has the 3G or WiFi enabled. Experiments conducted at the University of Pool suggest that the Kindle is only safe to use at a distance of no less that 1.5326 m (5.02821 feet) from your face. It was also found that by using the skullcap (designed and tested in Tokyo) and connected to a computer running a reverse interferance program can negate the problems with the Kindle. LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 [quote]

HSD I share your concern. I have it on good authority that a Kindle will scramble the brain if used excessivley, just as it will bring down an aircraft if used on takeoff. I have almost 30 years experience in electronics and interferance technology both with companies here and in the UK.

The brain in particularly suseptical to the invisible radiation from the Kindle, more particularly if it has the 3G or WiFi enabled. Experiments conducted at the University of Pool suggest that the Kindle is only safe to use at a distance of no less that 1.5326 m (5.02821 feet) from your face. It was also found that by using the skullcap (designed and tested in Tokyo) and connected to a computer running a reverse interferance program can negate the problems with the Kindle. LINK

[/quote]

Wow, someone finally knows what they're talking about! University of pool no less.

It's a good job then I don't own a Kindle as my arms are only 4.94428 ft long and I would be in danger of having my brain melted by invisible radiation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have to agree Chiefluvvie some pretty poor misinformed and sad responses regarding air safety but please BAC 1-11 ancient history! I flew them with Dan in the ‘80s.

As for you Q, starting a RR Spey with a big rubber mallet, what an insult to British engineering. It was a truly great and reliable engine in its day.

Chiefluvvie, are you BA or AF?

Regards,

A330-200 rtd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still of the thinking that there is no stats for people paying more attention to passenger safety having a better survial chance than those that don't. The first question is how do you know because for a start they are dead. I and others can't find stats on this, in fairness one way or the other, so I for one would be interested to see some so perhaps a pointer to them, like an Internet link?

The other thing is phones etc on aircraft. If mobile phones upset navigation equipement, which they don't, then what with all the 'base stations' especially around airports etc planes would be dropping out of the sky like flies. It's a bit like not using them in petrol stations, an urban myth I am afraid. Myth Busters years ago (about 10 years) put a load of petrol in a mobile home then put thousands of mobile phones in as well then called them, nothing happened.

As said the Hudson River incident was unique (it's a river not the sea by the way and the person who mentioned crash's in to the sea should not have the p*ss taken out of them because it was a valid remark) very few aircraft that crash in to the sea have surviving passengers.

I am disapointed to see what could possibly be construde as sexist comments about pilots. Women ferry pilots have been around since the 1940's often flying many different 'types' in one day, not an easy task. Personally I don't care about the colour, age, sex, religion, sexual orientation of the person 'up front', what I do care about is them not falling asleep on the job [;-)] and getting me to my destination safely.

Re BAC 1-11 and engine starting, it was the 'dog clutch' (I beleive thats what it was called but I was never a Sooty) on the APU that used to get stuck which ground crew use to hit with a mallet not the main engine. It's is a documented fact certainly in the RAF (Wing Commander Spry for those that remember him).

There are some other things that were wrong but I am typing this on my mobile phone (hence spelling mistakes) as I am away at present and it takes me an age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="sid"]Wow! [8-|] Where are the life jackets? [:D]  But they could just do that on planes, and only that, and in fact they do refer you to the leaflet or (Ryanair) sticker![/quote]

Sid you should always listen to the Ryanair briefings in case they have moved the coin slots for the life jackets [:D]

Cannot think why frequent passengers take more notice than first time fliers - if you have heard it a few times then there is nothing new and you can say it along with the cabin crew so why listen?

It is also so generic - what is the point of telling people how to put on a life jacket if they are flying from Heathrow to Birmingham unless the pilot intends crash landing in a village pond.

In any emergency people will react in differing ways and some will react in totally unexpected ways.

The safety briefings are only carried out because it is a requirement. Sometimes the cabin crew treat it as a huge joke. In a real emergency people will not think 'now how did they say tie this lifejacket' they will be in panic mode and tie any sort of knot.

Those wonderful tests whereby they evacuate a plane in under 90 seconds - no problem doing it. However, when you have the situation of a real emergency and of self-preservation and an 'I am going to get out before anyone else' attitude 'so I will climb over anyone and everyone'. Perhaps the 'after you', 'no after you' attitude does not come in to play.

Something is also stirring in my brain - was there not an aircraft evacuation whereby the cabin crew said  's*d the passengers we are off first'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q I already asked for such links but they were not forthcoming.

The problem with mobile phones at petrol stations is not to do with their actual use but their potential to produce a spark if dropped. Petrol vapours are heavier than air so if present, as they almost certainly will be in some concentration, could be ignited by a mobile phone disintegrating as it hit's the ground.

Albeit on a whole different scale of stupidity and Darwin award seeking, it's essentially the same for a cigarette where the danger is not so much the having it in your mouth but if you drop it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="AnOther"]

Q I already asked for such links but they were not forthcoming.

The problem with mobile phones at petrol stations is not to do with their actual use but their potential to produce a spark if dropped. Petrol vapours are heavier than air so if present, as they almost certainly will be in some concentration, could be ignited by a mobile phone disintegrating as it hit's the ground.

Albeit on a whole different scale of stupidity and Darwin award seeking, it's essentially the same for a cigarette where the danger is not so much the having it in your mouth but if you drop it.

[/quote]

No personal disrespect but honestly a poor excuse by whoever came up with this one. What about key's and other objects and why not 'ground' cars like aircraft before attempting a refuel?

I did try a Google on this and some of the answers, whilst very slightly in line with yours, were the speaker in the phone emits sparks (wondered why my hair was burnt), microwave emmisions (so thats what frizzled my brain - no cheeky comments please) and the battery gets hot when you use it. Personally I think using your phone whilst driving is probably a trillion billion more times dangerous. I asked Mrs 'Q' and there is no law that prohibits the use of mobile phones in petrol stations in the UK (can't speak about other countries), it is only the company that asks you not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="AnOther"]Q I already asked for such links but they were not forthcoming.

The problem with mobile phones at petrol stations is not to do with their actual use but their potential to produce a spark if dropped. Petrol vapours are heavier than air so if present, as they almost certainly will be in some concentration, could be ignited by a mobile phone disintegrating as it hit's the ground.

Albeit on a whole different scale of stupidity and Darwin award seeking, it's essentially the same for a cigarette where the danger is not so much the having it in your mouth but if you drop it.[/quote]

No personal disrespect but honestly a poor excuse by whoever came up with this one. What about key's and other objects and why not 'ground' cars like aircraft before attempting a refuel?

I did try a Google on this and some of the answers, whilst very slightly in line with yours, were the speaker in the phone emits sparks (wondered why my hair was burnt), microwave emmisions (so thats what frizzled my brain - no cheeky comments please) and the battery gets hot when you use it. Personally I think using your phone whilst driving is probably a trillion billion more times dangerous. I asked Mrs 'Q' and there is no law that prohibits the use of mobile phones in petrol stations in the UK (can't speak about other countries), it is only the company that asks you not to.[/quote]

I was always under the impression that the "switch off mobile phones on the forecourt" was rather more to do with the rather higher output of early mobiles and the possibility of them interfering with the metering electronics, which I was told were not initially well screened.

Regards

Pickles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, people actually worry about their phone causing an explosion in a petrol station while they refill their car! The car that has a turbocharger that may be glowing cherry red hot after a motorway run, half a dozen filament bulbs lit, an ignition system that is designed to produce sparks and a radio transmitter in their key fob......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="dave21478"]Ha, people actually worry about their phone causing an explosion in a petrol station while they refill their car! The car that has a turbocharger that may be glowing cherry red hot after a motorway run, half a dozen filament bulbs lit, an ignition system that is designed to produce sparks and a radio transmitter in their key fob......[/quote]

..... but obviously all those items are designed as being intrinsically safe for use in an explosive atmosphere.[;-)]

Of course it is unsafe to use a mobile phone at the pumps, especially if you drop your cigarette while using your phone at the same time! [:)] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think the reason for banning the use of mobiles in petrol stations is simply because they can or, even when something is patently nonsense, so-called safety regimes become an act of faith untouchable by fact or truth.  I rather suspect that the demand to switch off a kindle on an aircraft is again one of those things that are done simply to empower the crew and validate the notion that we are part of some technically delicate operation - if it's that labile then maybe we should travel by ship!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just joined this forum so that I could comment on this post.

I can barely believe what I'm reading and, before I go any further, Chiefluvvie has my full support! I guess she's probably thrown in the towel by now in utter disbelief.

What a bizzare and scary world some of you live in - full of plot, sub plot, manipulation, big brother et al. Quite sad where safety is concerned - it's mostly just common sense - nothing more sinister than that.

As for the data, statistics and 'proof' that some of you require - IF you really need it, go find it yourself - although I suspect it won't change your point of view anyway!

Madness.....and I hope I'm never stuck inside of a metal tube, hurtling down a runway at 150mph, with some of you.....

canasta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...