CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight

In article <[email protected]>,
>The question is what constitutes determination.

What do you think constitutes determination?

>You are confusing "decision" and "determination."

No, I am not confusing anything. "Determination" is the decision by the
aircraft operator whether a given electronic device will interfere with
the navigation and communication equipment. FAR 91.21 gives operators
the sole authority to make this determination. In the absence of such
determination made by Southwest Airlines for cell phones, operating a
cell phone on board a Southwest aircraft violates FAR 91.21. There is
nothing more to discuss.

---

› See More: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Dave writes:
>
>> Oh, and theoretically at least, it shouldn't matter how long a cell
>> phone battery lasts. You can carry spare batteries, and spare
>> (battery powered) cell phone chargers. They sell those now.
>
> An increasing number of small electronic devices have built-in
> batteries that cannot be replaced on the fly.
>

Spoken like a true moron, Anthony.

What's your problem, no cell phone simulation add on to MSFS?

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave writes:
>>
>>> Oh, and theoretically at least, it shouldn't matter how long a cell
>>> phone battery lasts. You can carry spare batteries, and spare
>>> (battery powered)
>>> cell phone chargers. They sell those now.
>>
>> An increasing number of small electronic devices have built-in
>> batteries that
>> cannot be replaced on the fly.
>
> And for those, external battery packs, "emergency chargers" that run
> on AA batteries, USB port chargers, etc. exist.
>
> For long flights I carry several to keep my PDAs and the kids' Zunes,
> iPods, etc. charged.
>
> Don't think you can stop a "chatty Cathy" with something as simple as
> a dead battery! If cellphone use on planes were allowed, they'd be
> selling portable external chargers at kiosks in the airport!
>
>
>
>
>
>

What I've found very effective in shutting up "chatty Cathy" is to visibly
place a voice recorder in front of me. It works real well when the "chatty
Cathy" is seated next to you on a flight. The moment they see the red
record light and realize what you are doing, they shut up.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Allcock writes:
>
>> Don't think you can stop a "chatty Cathy" with something as simple as a
>> dead
>> battery! If cellphone use on planes were allowed, they'd be selling
>> portable external chargers at kiosks in the airport!
>
> Well, hopefully it will not become the norm. I haven't met too many
> people
> who are in favor of the idea.


But then, you don't meet many people and, by your own recent admission, you
don't like travelling.
--
JohnT

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> James Robinson writes:
>
>> No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the
>> FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control
>> the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was
>> referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation.
>
> Which regulation is that, exactly?
>

That's the FAR which you've already been told about, you moron.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > JohnT writes:
> >
> >> You can find it at www.google.com
> >
> > No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
>
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that
> the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke
> when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a
> regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in
> particular).
>
> The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell
> phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue
> than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne
> cell phone use.

Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
argument that it would disrupt the network.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (SMS) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> JohnT writes:
> >>
> >>> You can find it at www.google.com
> >>
> >> No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
> >
> > The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said
> > that the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further
> > mis-spoke when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in
> > fact it's a regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless
> > networks (GSM in particular).
> >
>
> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related.
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr91.21.htm
>
> It applies to "any portable electronic device", not just cell phones.

Which is silly. Before cell phones became ubiquitous, people used those
Sony Walkman cassette players and CD players all the time. I had one
myself when I was a kid and I used it constantly, all during the flight,
from the moment I got on the plane, till I got off. No one told me turn
it off and there was no concern that my CD player might crash the plane.

It was only after cell phones (and to a lesser extent laptops) became
popular that suddenly every device with an on/off switch had to be shut
down and put away, when in reality my iPod isn't any more a danger to
flight integrity than my old cassette player was.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

> No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device,
> and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be
> safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So
> technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs

As is anyone with a pacemaker in his/her heart.

In article <[email protected]>,
Thanatos <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
> planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
> their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
> argument that it would disrupt the network.

You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let
alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in
one place is what concerns the FCC.

In article <[email protected]>,
Thanatos <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device,
> > and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be
> > safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So
> > technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs
>
> As is anyone with a pacemaker in his/her heart.

Pacemakers were specifically exempted.

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bert Hyman writes:

>> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have
>> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation
>> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."

> And how do they do that?

By noticing that the plane works fine with those electronic watches worn by most of the passengers.

Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Thanatos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
>> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
>> planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
>> their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
>> argument that it would disrupt the network.
>
> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let
> alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in
> one place is what concerns the FCC.

Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont.

Big sports events in spades.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Thanatos <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if
>>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands
>>> of private planes in the air every day and you know the people in
>>> them are using their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't
>>> buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt the network.
>>
>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let
>> alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people
>> in one place is what concerns the FCC.
>
> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains
> too, and they dont.
>
> Big sports events in spades.
>
>
>

Trains and busses aren't traveling at 150 or more MPH and you won't get
nearly the cell switching as you would in an airplane.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and
> they dont.

Nope. Cell phones are essentially line of sight. You get higher up, you
get more towers in the line of sight. The theory used by the FCC (which
I am not even remotely qualified to comment on the reality) was that the
phones in airplanes would "see" too many extra ground stations than the
terestrial ones causing all sorts of confusion, problems, dogs and cats
living together.
>
> Big sports events in spades.

At 14 May 2008 16:56:52 -0400 Kurt Ullman wrote:

> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let
> alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in
> one place is what concerns the FCC.


Perhaps the FCC isn't really concerned at all, but just in the pocket of
the all-powerful "Airfone" lobby... ;-)