CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight

In article <[email protected]>,
"JR Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Thanatos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Silly or not, the regulation exists.

I never claimed it didn't. It's just one more stupid thing the
government burdens the people with.

---

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jim Davis" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "JR Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Thanatos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Silly or not, the regulation exists.
>
> Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a
> problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it.

Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha.

In article <[email protected]>,
James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, some get away with it, but I wouldn't call their use "extensive".
> Most private pilots I know don't use their cell phones when flying.

Perhaps not, but their passengers do.

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

> James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Nope.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
>
>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
>
>> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight.
>
> Its much more complicated than that.

Not really. This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow
the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower frequencies
will bend as they propagate, which is why communication with submarines
was historically made with very low frequencies, (now satellite) and why
high frequencies are used for short terrestrial distances. Under this
principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight.

>> There is some bouncing,
>
> So its clearly not line of sight.

They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about
that fact. Signal reflection does not change that physical principle.

>> which can give coverage inside buildings.
>
> That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings.

Yes it is. There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings,
particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas. The
reason you can recieve a signal at all in some cases is that it comes
through the windows, often reflected off of other objects.

>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>
>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are
>>> extensively used in those.
>
>> No they aren't.
>
> Yes they are.

They are not "extensively" used.

James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> Nope.

>>>> Yep.

>>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.

>>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.

>>> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight.

>> Its much more complicated than that.

> Not really.

Yes, really.

> This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow
> the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower
> frequencies will bend as they propagate, which is why communication
> with submarines was historically made with very low frequencies,

Nope, that works because those very low frequencys
penetrate the water, different effect entirely.

> (now satellite) and why high frequencies
> are used for short terrestrial distances.

Wrong again.

> Under this principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight.

Only by pig ignorant fools like you.

I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.

>>> There is some bouncing,

>> So its clearly not line of sight.

> They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact.

It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.

> Signal reflection does not change that physical principle.

It does mean that its not line of sight tho.

>>> which can give coverage inside buildings.

>> That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings.

> Yes it is.

No it isnt.

> There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings,
> particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas.

Pity those arent usually line of sight of the base
and it doesnt work due to the reflections either.

> The reason you can recieve a signal at all in
> some cases is that it comes through the windows,

Wrong again with most buildings.

> often reflected off of other objects.

That aint how it gets inside the windows.

>>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.

>>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.

>>> No they aren't.

>> Yes they are.

> They are not "extensively" used.

Yes they are.

H.C.E <[email protected]> wrote:

> On , , 15 May 2008 02:29:38 GMT, Re: CEO charged for refusing to
> get off cellphone during Southwest flight, James Robinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
>>>
>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
>>
>>At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight. There
>>is some bouncing, which can give coverage inside buildings.
>>
>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>>>
>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are
>>> extensively used in those.
>>
>>No they aren't.
>
> It is pointless arguing with Speed, he is a well known australian
> kook.
> I have one hard and fast rule, when I see Speed has joined in the
> discussion I immediately ignore the thread.
> Arguing with Speed is like repeatedly smashing your head against
> a brick wall, you feel really fantastic when you stop doing it.
> You must have seen his debating tactics, surely?

I only do it lest anyone not familiar with the subject thinks he is
credible.

Rod Speed writes:

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

They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers.

JohnT writes:

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

The work I do requires me to meet a great many people, alas!

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it
> works fine anyway.

Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most
certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.


> It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.

Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less
of a contributor to good performance than is commonly
thought; they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see
"multipath interference" for more).

And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for
how long, exactly?

Bob M.

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.

> They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers.

No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem.

Bob Myers <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote

>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.

> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.

Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.

>>>>> There is some bouncing,

>>>> So its clearly not line of sight.

>>> They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact.

>> It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.

> Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less of a contributor to good performance than is commonly thought;

Irrelevant to his stupid claim that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

> they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see "multipath interference" for more).

Wrong with cellphones.

> And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for how long, exactly?

Since before you were even born most likely.

James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
> H.C.E <[email protected]> wrote
>> James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> Nope.

>>>> Yep.

>>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.

>>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.

>>> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight.
>>> There is some bouncing, which can give coverage inside buildings.

>>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.

>>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.

>>> No they aren't.

>> It is pointless arguing with Speed, he is a well known australian
>> kook. I have one hard and fast rule, when I see Speed has
>> joined in the discussion I immediately ignore the thread.

You clearly did nothing like that.

>> Arguing with Speed is like repeatedly smashing your head
>> against a brick wall, you feel really fantastic when you stop
>> doing it. You must have seen his debating tactics, surely?

> I only do it lest anyone not familiar with the subject thinks he is credible.

And all you manage to do is blow whatever little credibility you might have had completely out of the water.

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

>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is
>> "line of sight" in this sense.
>
> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.

Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
believe that the signals are getting from you to
your base at the house, in the above scenario?

Bob M.

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

> JohnT writes:
>
>> But then, you don't meet many people and, by your own recent
>> admission, you don't like travelling.
>
> The work I do requires me to meet a great many people, alas!

And you alienate every one of them.

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

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jim Davis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "JR Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Thanatos" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > Silly or not, the regulation exists.
>>
>> Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a
>> problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it.
>
> Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha.

So, you would have no problem with someone turning on a PED which could
cause a full scale change in the glideslope indication (full up to full
down) while the aircraft is doing an approach to minimums?

I've actually observed this when I did a simple experiment using parked
aircraft. Some aircraft, there was no effect. In others there was. Worst
case was the full scale reversal on the glideslope indicator. Another case
the localizer went from full scale left to two dots right.

Care to tell us what the effect of either would be on an approach to
minimums. What would the effect be of the errant down glideslope
indication on an ILS CAT IIIB approach to 28R at KSFO?