digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Clueless flight attendant to passenger: "Turn off that iPhone movie NOW!"

blogs.zdnet.com — ...n ATA Airlines flight attendant tried to get a passengerto turn off his iPhone because, well, cell phones are not allowed to be used in flight and he was watching a movie on his iPhone. The passenger, who we know as Casey, tried to explain to the flight attendant that the iPhone was in Airplane mode. The passenger was briefly detained in Hawaii

show profanity settings
expand all
  • wisedude, on 10/27/2007, -7/+371this isn't uncommon.. All the time I'm told to put away my phone even when I try to explain it's in "airplane mode"
    • gllopc, on 10/20/2007, -1/+68I had this exact problem the other day. After which point I decided to hide the phone as much as possible. Airplane mode isn't new to phones, though.
      • potp, on 10/20/2007, -28/+80after this story apple fanatics will think they invented it.
      • Micktion, on 10/20/2007, -4/+84Same here, I told the flight attendent it was in flight mode, he asked me to turn it off anyway. Strange... 2 seats away someone happily kept on typing on their laptop, probably with their WIFI ON, madly roaming and searching for a network to connect to, bombarding the planes avionics and radio systems.

        Trying to have technical conversations with a flight attendant, is a bit like talking politics with your dog.
        • turpenine, on 10/15/2007, -2/+50modern airliners have no problem with the radio frequencies dealt out by phones and laptops. If you are on a small aircraft it might interfere maybe... It really is stupid how they ban them.
          • offwithyourtv, on 10/15/2007, -2/+23I agree, but at the same time, if people were allowed to talk on their cell phones on a plane, I'd imagine the flight experience would become even less enjoyable than it already is. Imagine a flight from Seattle to Atlanta (a miserable flight I have to make soon) sitting next to some sixteen year old girl who "Like, ohmahgod, no way!" for six hours straight.

            If wi-fi were allowed for laptops, however, it might lead to more antisocial (quiet) behavior. At least I hope so.
          • TejInLA, on 10/16/2007, -1/+21"If wi-fi were allowed for laptops, however, it might lead to more antisocial (quiet) behavior. At least I hope so."
            I can already see some 13year old turning around and yelling "Pwonage"
          • GawtMilk, on 10/16/2007, -2/+17They don't interfere with any kind of equipment on planes. We have the FCC for a reason...

            Boeing doesn't say, "Hmm, we've got this $39.99 radio receiver in charge of communications on our $170,000,000 plane. Lets allocate it to the cell phone frequency, despite federal regulations! That won't cause any problems down the line!"

            The reason you turn off cell phones is that your cell phone, if transmitting / receiving during a flight, would be zipping past cell towers at six hundred miles an hour. This would mean those towers would be constantly trying to interact with your device, aka it's expensive for the user and expensive for the phone companies.
          • dclowd9901, on 10/16/2007, -1/+16Actually, Mythbusters tackled this one. In some avionics, it *does* indeed interfere at certain extreme levels.

            The gyst is, a bout ten years ago, airline flying in America wasn't nearly as safe as it is now. There was a decision then to start doing whatever was necessary to get safety on airplanes way the hell up. Nowadays, I heard a report on NPR say, you could take a flight every single day for 330,000 years before the odds shifted in favor of your airliner crashing.

            Frankly, I don't mind cellphone quiet time for a few hours out of my life, especially if it means unparalleled safety. If this presents a problem to those of you with smart devices, I recommend using all that extra money you have and buying dedicated devices to handle your entertainment needs.
          • Fordi, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4@GawtMilk:
            Shockingly stupid.
            1) at 30,000 feet in the air, you're a bit out of range of *any* cell towers
            2) the last few flights I've been on, they only asked the phones were off during takeoff and landing - in between, there was an AT&T network with incredible roaming rates that I can only assume was hooked up to the plane's satellite phone system. There was also AT&T wifi that was the nominal $3/hour. So I used that and skyped a couple of calls.
          • thall, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Radio interference is a fuzzy definition, FCC sets the RF leak limit for each class, and the airlines have set the limit much lower. So just because FCC is says the device is within their limits, it may or may not also be within the airline's limits. So the airline is assuming the worst, that the FCC compliant devices will interfere with the plane's communication.
        • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6I recall seeing a report on TV which said that the real reason for the electronics "bans" on airlines are in the interest of physical safety, i.e. to prevent a flying laptop in the cabin when the plane needs to accelerate.
        • Davekcon, on 10/20/2007, -5/+2maybe your dog doesn't talk politics because hes a dog.
    • pifko123, on 11/03/2007, -11/+534"I have had it with these ***** iPhones on this ***** plane!"
    • ufia, on 10/16/2007, -2/+44Hide the iphone behind a book, will look like you're reading. I mean, do not modify the book, customs will suspect you're trying smuggle some *****. Just flip the page over it when the flight attandent walk by.
      • BryanJK, on 10/17/2007, -0/+47It's like school all over again...
      • Davekcon, on 10/16/2007, -4/+48i wouldn't do anything secretive on an airplane, especially with an electronic device
        • shinynew, on 10/30/2007, -1/+12and god help you if you are seen with a light brite over Boston.
      • parsap, on 10/16/2007, -1/+16Because a book with headphones is not suspicious at all.
    • newAccount, on 10/18/2007, -90/+3Apple ***** have little regard for public safety. I think we should put icrap on the "do not fly" list, along with explosives, guns and knives.


    • earlycj5, on 10/18/2007, -4/+61When I was on a flight about two weeks ago the flight attendant announced that cell phones were to be turned off and added "yes, even if it has airplane mode you must turn it off."

      I think that was pretty clear in that case.
      • bmdt2000, on 10/15/2007, -5/+8I've heard this too. My old Nextel phone would sometimes actually receive calls while in airplane mode, so I'm not sure if this is what they're afraid of.
      • Davekcon, on 10/15/2007, -3/+16not being able to use cell phones on an airplane relates to possible interference between your phone and the airplanes avionics. With new cell phones coming out every few weeks, it is very difficult to test all the new phones with all the avionics systems to check for interference. So the FAA plays it safe and doesn't let you use your phone while in flight. The banning of phones that are in 'airplane mode' is just a continuation of playing it safe.
        • TheGuruStud, on 10/15/2007, -2/+12There's nothing to check. The wires are shielded. Now, if the dummies don't do regular maintenance and let the airplane go to pot (splicing wires/stripped shielding, etc), then you *might* have a problem (but definitely not major) if a lot of people are using high powered devices.
          • Davekcon, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3i didnt realize you were an expert. read the link below plz.
        • insomniac8400, on 10/16/2007, -4/+14Too bad your ignoring the fact that cellphones were only banned because the cell companies didn't think the towers could handle switching between towers fast enough for plane travel. It has nothing to do with flight avionics. Nice try though. The notion that the plane is going to be hurt by this, is so incredibly stupid it's laughable. It makes it extremely sad when an idiot flight attendant believes in such fud and tries to have someone arrested over it. If their was any evidence of cellphones harming planes, ie any risk to the plane, they would force people to pull out the batteries of their devices and make it a felony to do otherwise. Think of how many people right now on planes that have cellphones in pockets or luggage left on.
        • g3r4, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4I think you mean that if there was any evidence of cell phones interfering with airplanes and endangering the passengers one or the other (planes or cellphones) would have been redesigned by now, as both are incredibly common.
          • nogami, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3When I was flying back from Vegas a couple months ago, I forgot to turn off my cell phone in the overhead storage bin. Oddly enough, the plane didn't crash, and I'm still here. Go figure.

            I've also heard other peoples' phones ringing in the overhead bin. Doesn't seem to have killed us either. More knee-jerk pseudo-science. If all it took was a cell phone to take down a plane, you better bet that terrorists would have some calling to do..
        • iamr00t, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Cell phones are NOT a danger to the avionics... I can't bring a damn pair of nail clippers on a plane. If cell phones were really a danger they wouldn't be allowed to be carried on and would need to be checked. Also, if someone wanted to take down an aircraft, all they would have to do is make a call?? Come on, use some common sense....
    • stgeorge, on 10/15/2007, -7/+33"Pretty clear" but stupid... what's the point of Airplane mode if you can't use it on an Airplane? It's just clueless idiocy (and in some cases, a power rush) to force people to turn off cell phones. Cell phones on full blast don't have ANY effect on a plane (proven numerous times) and they don't blow up gas stations.
      • bdorry, on 10/15/2007, -1/+21Because Airplane mode and what is implied to happen when it is enabled was not something that was defined by airlines.

        Even though cell phones and wifi make no tangible difference, until the airlines themselves make a universal specification for Airplane mode then I can't see devices like iphones and other such devices being permitted on flights.
        • insomniac8400, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6Southwest mentions turning off wireless functions on any device that has them. So yes, it was in the plan defined by the airlines.
      • sinrtb, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1Actually older cellphones add ghosts over the headphones of the pilots. Not sure if the new ones do but the older ones you could hear random conversations over the headset.
        • Tenoq, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1We've been digital for a while now. :p
      • ballsanya, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1dude, saying your cousin's friend totally flew the whole time with his phone on and nothing happened does not count as one of these "numerous tests"
    • brundlefly76, on 10/15/2007, -21/+14If the flight attendant didnt feel comfortable with that passenger doing what he was doing (and is the case with *every* consumerist article, we only get *one* side of the story - passenger assholes outnumber ***** flight attendants about 50:1) - then the guy needed to shut it off and shut his mouth, and make his case on the ground.
      • jessicass, on 10/14/2007, -6/+33Thats sort of a slippery slope to go down. Giving flight attendants carte blanche to be irrational every time they "don't feel comfortable" will only serve to perpetuate this trend of overreacting by people in positions of "authority."
        • dancantone, on 10/15/2007, -3/+7Well said!
        • bflfab, on 10/15/2007, -11/+4You do know that flying is a privilege and not a right don't you?
        • waspbr, on 10/15/2007, -2/+10it's a freaking service, you paid for it, and thus you have a contract. As long as you don't breach that contract, which specifies conduct and behaviour inside of the aircraft, you may do as you damn well please. The flight attendant was just being daft.
          • Tenoq, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Fairly sure said contract would stipulate obeying FCC, terminal and airline staff requests to the letter. So regardless of how daft their requests seem, you're required to obey them.
            But I agree - it's pretty retarded in this situation. But who knows? Perhaps the passenger was being a complete ass and annoying other passengers. It's not like we have the full story here.
        • brundlefly76, on 10/15/2007, -4/+4jessicass - this is exactly why we give flight attendants absolute authority on an aircraft - so that they do not have to be restricted in the measures or requests they make in order to insure passenger safety.

          'Overreacting' is hogtieing a passenger to their seat with zip ties because they are middle eastern.

          Telling someone to shut off as specific electronic device, whether it is in airplane mode or not, is far within the right of a flight attendant to do what they need to do to feel comfortable about passenger safety.

          So he cant watch his crappy b-movie - well boo-***** hoo.
          • williamdyer, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2Giving bitter old women and swishy ageing men "absolute authority" makes for a really great customer experience.

            I recently switched from United to Jet Blue because Jet Blue doesn't have loud announcements over an overdriven PA system, and their attendants are respectful. Any who gets on their high horse and hassles me is going to going to get an earful.

            Airlines, the TSA, and the whole air travel business better shape up, or they will be gone. I never travel a US carrier foroverseas travel as it is, and open skies is coming.
        • TheSabre, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Flight attendants and their authority sucks. ***** rules. I'm a non-conformist.... that's why I have to buy every Apple gadget the day it comes out. Question authority! Vote for Ron Paul! Ron Paul would let you use an iPhone on a plane. In fact, Ron Paul is going to do away with the FCC. It's all Bush's fault that there even IS an FCC.

          There, I just summed up Digg in 3 seconds...
      • Davekcon, on 10/15/2007, -9/+5Don't let flight attendants take away you right to be american!! /sarcasm
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/14/2007, -9/+5Airplane Mode means Horrible cellphone bomb to ditz attendant...
    • signal15, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6NWA flight attendants that are stuck on small planes are the worst. I think they are pissed that they are flying to places like Iowa, and try to take it out on the passengers.
    • Eallan, on 10/14/2007, -0/+6Southwest always mentions to "turn phones off or in airplane mode" for my flights lately.
    • Dongvid, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Always carry a small faraday cage when you travel.
    • energyblue, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2There is no rules for what "airplane mode" must be. Some device may still send a weak signal, some may still be able to use emergency numbers. So unless some universal device guideline come out for what "airplane mode" is, you will still be asked to switch off the phone.
      • nogami, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Really? I haven't seen any phone yet that doesn't disable all transmitters in "Airplane mode". Can you quote some sources, or are you just making this up?
    • k3vinmartian, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Well, I suppose if your going to be detained, Hawaii ain't a bad place to get stuck. It could have been worse, like El Paso.
  • fanboydcs, on 10/30/2007, -8/+525I flew with mine, and had no issues. Just tell the crew that its an iPod Touch... they will have no idea...
    • ufia, on 10/30/2007, -8/+240Tell them it's an Xbox, just for effect.
    • Ireland, on 10/27/2007, -9/+145I told them mine was a Zune but they laughed at me.
      • insomniac8400, on 10/27/2007, -16/+4Then the plane proceeded to nose dive from evil deadly wifi signals being emanated by your zune and you got the last laugh!
      • jballer, on 10/27/2007, -6/+23they laughed because they believed you...
        • Ireland, on 10/27/2007, -6/+1Yeah, and it was a made up joke by the way. The iPhone didn't come to Ireland yet.
        • whistlerpro, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4He knew it was a joke...
          • Tenoq, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2So why did he need to ***** it up by stating the obvious?
        • Ireland, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2@ Whilster, old friends eh? You'd be surprised what people know, and what you think they know.
      • n0t0kayipr0mis3, on 10/27/2007, -8/+2They laughed because they pitied you for buying a zune. j/k
      • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1this comment made me smile :)
    • sodoh, on 10/27/2007, -38/+14If the flight attendent asks you to switch off the device, then switch the dam thing off. I'd much prefer to land safely then have someone being a dick over if it is a phone or not.

      • limpits, on 10/27/2007, -1/+26i think we would all choose landing safely to having someone being a dick but you don't have to make that choice. you are going to land the same whether or not it is on or off, its in AIRPLANE MODE. It is safe to use on a plane, no different from a low powered laptop.
      • jessicass, on 10/27/2007, -7/+42You'll safely land either way. I'd prefer to NOT blindly follow arbitrary orders, but hey.. that's just me.
        • Jawsh91, on 10/27/2007, -22/+4Yes. Orders. Everyone's out to get you. I'm tired of this anti-whatever-I-can-think-of *****.
          • jessicass, on 10/27/2007, -2/+15You'll get over it.
          • dancantone, on 10/27/2007, -1/+12No he won't...he's the kind who allow this foolishness to perpetuate.

            What do you want to bet he voted for Bush...TWICE!

            lmao
          • MisterNetHead, on 10/27/2007, -0/+12It's not anti-whatever, it's informed people not taking ***** orders from retards. Come on, they're flight attendants, people. They're good at serving drinks and smiling.
        • Davekcon, on 10/27/2007, -0/+9make me a sammich!!
      • Bonekhan, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3You obviously are one of the people who haven't blown five hundred dollars on one.
      • Chandon, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2If a piece of common electronics is going to make the plane crash, the plane is broken. Luckily, planes aren't actually that broken in practice.
  • Spetz, on 10/15/2007, -73/+59I'm sure you can understand her anxiety though.
    • DaSuHouSe, on 10/14/2007, -4/+14You mean the guy screaming to have him arrested?
    • rebotfc, on 10/15/2007, -13/+86No I can't because mobiles are perfectly safe on planes, as well as in hospitals its just FUD that prevents their use.
      • ufia, on 10/14/2007, -21/+8I don't know, but put your cell phone near a computer monitor or speakers while it rings, you will notice it may not be that safe in an hospital.
        • mescad, on 10/14/2007, -3/+37Any hospital equipment that matters should be shielded from stray RF signals.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7Older hospital equipment is effected by cell phones, and older cell phones effect modern equipment. It's not "FUD", it's been proven that they effect with heart monitors.
        • xkorbin, on 10/14/2007, -2/+14You sure wouldn't want those aliens to beam into the hospital and kill everyone, would you?
      • grumpyrain, on 10/14/2007, -8/+43Sure, but not understanding the technology behind mobile networks and data cable shielding standards doesn't automatically make them a 'clueless flight attendant'. If they have been told that certain devices must be switched off, why would they question it? Being a dick about it doesn't really help your cause either.

        Despite my reasonable level of phone use, I am actually glad phones are banned on flights. The last thing I want is yet another place the office can disturb me, or to sit next to some tool who thinks the world needs to hear their life story of 'no, you hang up first' drag out.
        • hex2bush, on 10/14/2007, -8/+13"Despite my reasonable level of phone use, I am actually glad phones are banned on flights. "

          Amen to that!
        • perral1, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1From my experience, cell phones don't work from air planes anyway.

          Okay, I had it on when I wasn't supposed to. But my last phone (pocket pc phone) didn't actually go off without removing the battery. I normally put it in flight mode, but i have forgotten a few times. I've never gotten any more than a few-second useless blip of signal from the air. I'm not sure if there are any lower, shorter flights where phone signal does work though.

          I do wish we could get wifi for internet access though. That way talking is...not impossible, but with the latencies i've heard you get from the air, really painful, so people wouldn't do it. But you could still browse digg (;P) or check email or w/e. I hate to say it (I'd rather it be free, of course ;D), but it could also be a way for airlines to make a bit more money too.
      • hex2bush, on 10/14/2007, -3/+16My wife's in medical and they do allow cell phones now. The old ones from earlier than the mid-90s or so would mess with the telemetry equipment. So, what would happen is that the nurses station would see on their monitor the patient's vitals going nuts. It didn't cause any harm to the patient - just caused the hospital staff to go to a code.
        There still may be bans at other hospitals for whatever reason.
        • elsagacious, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5Some of the older phones actually could harm people by interfering with medication infusion pump settings. That could kill someone.
      • Ireland, on 10/14/2007, -10/+2Cellular signals on planes do effect the cockpit, but certainly not in Airplane mode.
      • pdbailey, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11You may want to read this article
        http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069
        from IEEE on how they can cause problems.
        • TheGuruStud, on 10/14/2007, -3/+4on unshielded cable...
          • pdbailey, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2What would you propose for a GPS antenna. It can't be shielded--it wouldn't receive any signal. Also, if a cable has insufficient shielding on a plane (nothing's perfect) then why take the chance of messing with the throttle (as mentioned in the article as happening in one instance)?
      • earthceltic, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4When I worked at a hospital one of the doc's told me that there was never any problem with interference from cellphones. They kept the rule in place so idiot patients and families wouldn't be talking constantly, annoying people and preventing the whole hospital from doing their work. "Excuse me.. miss.....excuse me.. HEY YOU GET OFF THE PHONE"
        • insomniac8400, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4While airlines do it to force you to use their in-flight phone and gaming crap.
    • SteveMax, on 10/14/2007, -7/+13There is some truth to that. If the plane is passing by a tower and for some reason your phone receives a signal, it will try to answer that. However, by the reception's power, it will know that it is far away from the originating tower, so it will need to use a very strong signal. This could mess up with non-essential systems on the plane, or in a very unlucky event even with essential systems (if there is something very wrong with the shielding).
      • BrK1, on 10/14/2007, -7/+8"This could mess up with non-essential systems on the plane,"

        It *could*. But in reality it doesn't.
        • AuroraAlpha, on 10/14/2007, -3/+8It doesn't matter; the airline industry is very strong on its safety practices. Part of the issue is that while the FCC has found that cell phones are generally safe their current policy would require every cell phone to be individually tested and allowed. That would cost A LOT of money, not to mention time for testing alone. Then you will really have a problem when the flight attendants have to pull out a 30 page list a phone allowed or not allowed. Since the iPhone is newer then a year it still probably wouldn't have been accepted and the same thing would happen.

          Also, don't forget that when they were testing out allowing phones on the planes there was a huge outcry against them. In reality, do you REALLY need to be able to bitch to your friend for the 2-8 hours your on the plane? If you do you need to get a better life where you can handle being alone/with strangers for a few hours at a time. I know that babies are more than enough to keep me on edge, I couldn’t take inconsiderate cell phone users like you find on the trains. (Who would likely be screaming as loud as they can to overcome the engine noise.
          • elsagacious, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3The OP wanted to use the NONPHONE features of the iPhone on the plane, not make a call.
          • insomniac8400, on 10/14/2007, -1/+230 page list? Have you heard of a computer?
        • SteveMax, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2If there is a 0.001% chance of something causing a disaster, it is banned. Think of the water bottles...
          • williamdyer, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1There is a ZERO percent chance of the rules on liquids preventing anything. They will, however, cause some preventable medical emergencies.
      • pdbailey, on 10/14/2007, -5/+13According to a report in IEEE spectrum, there are about 23 incidents/year of cell phones interfering with critical systems (they give the examples of throttle control and navigation). This is pre-2001, so it's probably much higher now.
        http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069/4
        • Davekcon, on 10/14/2007, -2/+6why are people digging you down? they must think they are already experts on the subject.
          • pdbailey, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2There is an odd "facts be damned" / "I saw it on mythbusters so it must be true" here on digg. They can't even figure out what everyone already knows--when you yawn others yawn too. They do okay when they can get something to work, but if they can't--that says nothing about weather or not it's possible or works.
        • dancantone, on 10/14/2007, -3/+5Technology advances guys....cell phones are 100% safe now and have been for some time....PROVEN ALREADY!

          Watch MYTHBUSTERS, you're no doubt a TV head.

          http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-501431.html
          • pdbailey, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Except that the link you gave me is 5 years older than the one that I gave. In addition, the one I gave names a specific phone that was tested in labs and shown to be able to (a) pass FCC tests and (b) interfere with GPS systems (and had on several occasions).
    • DangerCollie, on 10/16/2007, -6/+37"I'm sure you can understand her anxiety though."
      I suppose being an ignorant twit is very stressful. When you are clueless and tense the world would have to look like a very dangerous place. It would be easy to imagine all manner of threats in every day objects.

      Ignorance is the only growth industry in America.
      • ASD64, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1She was just doing her job, if no phones are allowed then he should not have had the phone turned on.
        Ok so its in 'airplane mode', what is to stop him from taking it out of airplane mode...
        • TopherT, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4Whats to stop him from turning it back on?
      • shig, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2The private prison industry is one of the only growing sectors in the economy. The Ignorance of that fact is slowly decreasing, but they still attempted to put the guy in one.
  • Snoods, on 11/03/2007, -34/+721The cell phone signals don't even interfere with the plane. They just made that rule so people don't have to sit next to assholes talking on the phone the entire flight.
    • casual7y, on 10/27/2007, -8/+75i thought cellpyhones dont work on airplanes?

      i've tried using mine and i dont get service
      • geminitojanus, on 10/16/2007, -2/+50Ever think that might be due to the fact you're 35,000 feet over (not to count the distance away from) your nearest cell tower? There have been some tests with planes carrying signal repeaters and satellite-based IP connectivity, but nothing much has come of it, and the FAA still doesn't like cellphones.
        • mgrest, on 10/16/2007, -15/+36Wait, so how did the passengers of Flight 93 make those calls whilst their plane was cruising at full speed?

          Oh, I get it...
          • AnotherBrian, on 10/16/2007, -6/+24They could have gotten reception after the plane descended to a few thousand feet because they where about to run it into something on the ground.
          • Pilot85, on 10/14/2007, -1/+14cellphones work at a few thousand feet up. Ask GA pilots. :p
          • PhireN, on 10/14/2007, -4/+9I thought they had back of the seat phones, which can be used with a credit card.
          • doctorfungi, on 10/14/2007, -5/+6The work, they're just not reliable. That's why transcripts and records indicate that so many of the calls dropped out on the planes on 9/11.
          • actorboy, on 10/15/2007, -2/+7So *that's* why the terrorists never reached their target.
          • wakananda, on 10/16/2007, -10/+16We all heard those crystal clear calls from 30,000 feet (including tha man that identified himself to his mother using his last name). None of those calls had any noticable distortion at all - they sounded better than my service. So other calls were dropped, according to the records? Then I guess these crystal clear calls were because lord Jesus wanted the American people to hear them and be inspired by them to fight the Islamo-terror-fascist badguys. That's the only explanation that I can think of. Chalk one up for God, you naughty digg atheists.
          • Godpigeon, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0forgot one thing.. it isn't the FAA it's the FCC that bans the cell phone usage.
        • ufia, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Not sure how true this is but apparently the old analog phones in a plane made the signal hand shake with multiple towers at the same time and this would ***** ***** up. Now it does not matter anymore with digital cell phones, because the computers can sort it out.
      • doctorfungi, on 10/14/2007, -3/+4They work, just not the "reliable" kind of working.
    • CaviMike, on 10/15/2007, -33/+8Actually, it's to keep you detached from what's happening on the ground. A plane full of panicking people is very dangerous and pointless. There is nothing anyone can do until the plane has landed so there's no need for anyone to know there is an emergency.
      • SuitCase874, on 10/14/2007, -1/+20Uhh, is that why some planes carry live TV news?
        • unreg, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5The crew can always chose to turn the news off.

          This is a lot to do with nothing. Flight attendants have better things to do then to be fully versed on every geek toy. If they ask you to turn something off, be a grown up and do it. If you have an issue, take it up when you arrive at your destination.
          • Murdats, on 10/14/2007, -2/+6right, so I am on a 8 hour flight and have been asked to turn off my movies music and books. shall just agree and watch the scenery, oh look that cloud looks like that cloud from 2 hours ago.
          • Giga, on 10/14/2007, -5/+3You are on the plane to get from point A to point B, not to enjoy your movie. If they let you watch the movie, that's just an added bonus. Eight hours isn't that long.

            And why would they ask you to "turn off your books"?
          • Murdats, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3all of those things I listed are on my PDA, by asking me to turn it off they are asking me to disable all the following, and 8 hours was an exampe (and is a full work day at that)flights can quite easily be longer. staring at the back of a chair interupted by the occasonal meal.
          • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4I agree with Giga. When did being bored stop being acceptable? I remember being painfully bored at times as a kid in the 70s. The only electronic entertainment I had was a TV with 3 channels and a radio. As a result, I learned to use my imagination more by reading, writing, drawing, building tree houses, experimenting with things (dry ice was a favorite), taking things apart and putting them back together -- or even just daydreaming. When I hear an adult complaining about having to be still and relatively quiet for 8 hours, it reminds me of some kid whining "I'm boooooooored!" or "Are we there yet!?" and it's pretty sad. There's nothing wrong with disciplining yourself to sit still, breathe and perhaps even daydream a while. In fact, a lot of people pay to learn those skills in meditation classes. Personally, I think time for self-reflection would do us good. Information is fed to us faster than we can process it, and giving it time to settle is a good thing. I think we could all use a bit of forced boredom in our lives.

            And if you can't handle that, there's always Sky Mall.
          • Bootes, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Maybe you should try to bring some dry ice on a plane.... You're much moe limited in what you can do if you're stuck in a single seat and not allowed to move for 8 hours then if you're bored and can go all around a house/street/town full of stuff.
      • stacky, on 10/14/2007, -1/+8Read Let's Roll. You'll discover that people on a plane can do a hell of a lot.
      • hmunkey, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1If you were seriously scared, why would you keep your phone off and away? I'd pull it out and call everyone.
    • subhuman, on 11/13/2007, -9/+376As a pilot I think i am in a better situation to answer this.
      Cellphone antennas only have a max range of around 2-3 miles.(12k-18k ft) so theoretically you can pick up signal on some short haul flights, you can always get signal at like 4000ft.
      However, you cannot rule out interference. Things like swinging the compass and quadrantal error correction all assume that no other radio devices will be onboard. Allowing mobiles is another unknown to add into the works.

      And yes - 100 people all on their phone would prob piss alot of people off :D
      • kidd3ckz, on 10/18/2007, -64/+7GO FLY A KITE
      • abrooks, on 10/18/2007, -10/+69So when you're flying through all those phone antennas that are covering the skies in signals, how come that doesn't cause interference?
        • boredzo, on 10/20/2007, -6/+20As he said: “Cellphone antennas only have a max range of around 2-3 miles.(12k-18k ft)”

          Commercial aircraft fly at 30,000 feet or higher. They're out of range of the cell towers. Not to mention that the airplane is a giant faraday cage, so you'll be hard-pressed to get a signal even on the ground unless you hold your phone up to the window.
          • grumpyrain, on 10/20/2007, -3/+18Not to mention that when at cruising speed, you are going through the entire broadcast range of a GSM cell every 20 seconds. Imagine all the tower hand overs going on behind the scene. If they fit the plane as a mobile cell tower, it would work and the pilots could shut off phone calls if anything untoward started happening or if they needed passengers attention in an emergency, but just for the added annoyance I can understand why they haven't.
          • screensnot, on 10/20/2007, -2/+4I've made lots of calls from inside an airplane.

            After you land, and have cleared the runway, they let you turn your phones back on. In the several minutes that it takes to taxi to the gate, you can call your ride to let them know you've landed.
        • yabos, on 10/20/2007, -1/+22The antennas aren't designed to broadcast signal up into the air. They broadcast it close to the ground because there's no reason in wasting power where no one is going to use it.
        • jballer, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6why does my radio only buzz when my phone is right next to it, and not all the time?
      • blueface, on 10/20/2007, -2/+14I thought that cell phones could connect to antennas on the ground (think expanding bubble of radio waves around masts, on the ground buildings get in the way, in the air there is no interference) it's just that your operator wouldn't be able to triangulate you or route your call as you may be over a great many masts at once.

        Not having ringing phones is one of the nice things about planes, i don't want to be stuck next to some idiot blabbering to his friend on the next flight about how many "chicks they're gonna bang" when they reach prague...
        • actorboy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Wish I could digg you up more for your last statement. If it comes down to not being able to phone someone or having to listen to other people on the phone, I'd prefer not phoning someone.

          I am reminded of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JAXb3TByTA
      • dubloe7, on 10/16/2007, -2/+28it was explained to me, by another pilot, that while phone/wifi/bluetooth signals don't interfere with anything, they're worried about multiple phone/wifi/bluetooth/etc signals converging (constructive interference) to make a signal that would actually interfere with something.
        i lol'd at the minuscule odds of such an occurrence.
        • TheColonel, on 10/16/2007, -2/+58it's usually minuscule odds that are involved in most air crashes...
        • Zarokima, on 10/16/2007, -0/+7More people are killed every year by donkeys than in airplane crashes.
        • clothmonkey, on 10/14/2007, -0/+6Should there be a ban on donkeys on airplanes? ^_^
        • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1ah *****, theres another phobia you've just added to me ever growing list :(
      • hex2bush, on 10/16/2007, -1/+9To add:
        From Jeppesen's "Commercial and Instrument" manual, they said it's the FCC & FAA who banned the phones on flights.
        FAA because of what you said - I had an instructor take a call on the ground when I was listening to ground and everything just went to static. But then again, she was sitting right seat.
        FCC: When you're in the air, the phone tries to connect to every cell tower in range. So, to make a long story short, it takes up a lot more resources than it should.
        I'm not an engineer, I'm just regurgitating my flight training.
      • mabhatter, on 10/14/2007, -1/+10most airplanes use 30-yearl-old tech... even the "modern" ones. It's easier to "blame the passenger" and ban portable electronics than to try to keep up equipment with the gadget makers. You'd think a multi-million dollar aircraft would be immune to such interference.. after all, the same signals come from the TOWERS all over the country (or a 1 mile pringle-can yagi), but the FCC and FAA especially are heavily in favor of the status quo. If we can't prove it will be 100% ok (and not effect somebody's profit model) then we'll ban it just to be "safe".
        • mcduckov, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2I often forget to turn off my phone when I'm on a flight or when I put it in my luggage. I doubt I'm alone. I know that the power output isn't very high when the phone isn't actually being used but they do send out signals. Honestly if a cell phone(s) could take down a plane I think it would have happened by now.
      • ellecon, on 10/14/2007, -3/+2Overhead luggage compartments are more dangerous. You may survive a crash, but it makes it more difficult when hundreds of kilos worth of carry-on is flying through the cabin at high speed and then blocking the emergency exits. If the computer systems fail, might as well kiss your ass goodbye anyways, as it would take a powerlifter to actually fly a commercial jet manually.
        • Tokkii, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Why are you comparing flying heavy objects and a cellphone?
        • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Vote 1: Muscle men as pilot backups.
      • Micktion, on 10/15/2007, -2/+11That's quite a logical argument you have there. Seeing you're an expert, are you able to give me any rational explanation for why (excpet for takeoff and landing) use of laptops is permitted on a plane? Considering that nearly every lap top sold in the past 2 years comes with not one but two sources of radio waves namely blue tooth and 801.11b/g wifi. Unless they are switched off both of these will roam attempting to find and create connections. I would bet only a small percentage of people with laptops know how to switch off the wifi, and an even smaller percentage from that small percentage would bother switching it off.

        So if on board radio signals really were such a danger wouldn't an accident have occurred by now?
        • SarhoshAmiral, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0On all flights the announcement clearly specified that laptops can be used if the radio equipment is turned off meaning wireless and bluetooth must be turned off.
        • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1dude, that like "turn of wifi" button turns it off. i'm sure more then a small percentage of people can work that bit out.
    • jonbeckett73, on 10/17/2007, -6/+44This argument continues to amaze me. There have been countless "unexplained" problems with navigation systems that went away after all electronic devices were switched off. It amazes me that people (in general) are still so ignorant to the fact that phones and wifi devices pump out *massive* amounts of radio interference.
      • NnyCW, on 10/14/2007, -2/+17I agree. I also want to point out that while let's say for arguments sake, 99 out of every 100 phones doesn't interfere with anything on the plane. All it takes is one, and it's not horribly cost effective to test every, single, cellphone made and train all of your airlines employees to make sure no one uses any of those phones.
        Also, while they do overcharge for the on flight phone, it is still slightly a more complex setup than your standard phone.
        • perogi21, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4Looks like someone watched MythBusters...
      • mollibesnering, on 10/16/2007, -2/+14So, why just don't terrorist turn their mobile phones on secretly... ;)
      • insomniac8400, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3So by your logic, all the unturned off cellphones in pockets and luggage should have taken a few planes out? Even despite the fact that all plane equipment is shielded from interference. Honestly, the only reason people like you are a problem, is because despite knowingly being 100% wrong, you will still have someone arrested over it, just to try to use that as evidence to support your wrong case.
      • Trollmaster, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7don't tell that to diggers... they wanna keep thinking that they're scientists and know everything about every possible subject
        • ASD64, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4they do, its all available via google ;)
    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -45/+5or sit next to assholes who brag about their 600 dollar iphones and watch annoying ass movies on it. who gives a *****, flight attendant should have ripped it out of his hand and dropped it on the floor. the fragile 600 dollar hunk of ***** would have shattered because the geniuses at apple decided to cover it in glass so it cannot withstand any kind of shock whatsoever.
      • unreg, on 10/14/2007, -2/+10Actually the glass is chemically strengthened and can withstand quite a shock.
      • MacParrot, on 10/15/2007, -3/+12Speaking of assholes hcaulfield, looked in the mirror lately? What the hell makes you so angry that you'd rant like this? You should find a less destructive hobby that hating technology that you don't use and obviously know little about.
        It doesn't say in the article exactly what happened between the Flight Attendant and the passenger, but when requested to turn off portable electronics by anyone in the flight crew, you should do so. They have to smile and deal with 20 to 250 people at high altitude, some of which are probably jerks. Instead of arguing, why not just comply? If you are unhappy with the service received, pick another airline next time.
        • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -7/+2ummm what? im in agreement to turn off all cells and electronic devices while on a flight...........im not arguing, and i didnt receive any service to be unhappy about...wtf are you talking about?
      • tdhurst, on 10/15/2007, -3/+7I'd say someone's jealous they didn't get an iPhone for their birthday.
      • Tokkii, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2What does breaking the guy's phone have to do with cellphone interference?
        I can't afford expensive gadgets either like that, but I don't demand that other peoples things be broken. Jealously brings out the worst in people, sheesh.
    • gothicx00, on 10/18/2007, -7/+86Snood, you apparently don't watch Mythbusters. The FAA (who could honestly give a flying ***** if sitting next to somebody talking on their phone annoys you) has those rules in place for a reason. Although the range of frequencies between cellphones doesn't necessarily differ too much, the transceivers power and general behavior can differ from model to model. Couple that with the fact that, just like sound waves, radio waves can interact with each other. Combinations different frequencies can cause additive and subtractive child frequencies, thus in effect creating frequencies that are not in the normal range of said device. Therefore, to the FAA, this makes cellphones an X-Factor.

      The only possible way that the FAA would allow certain cell phones is if they were to test every single model from every single provider. That is near impossible to do, considering the money and man hours that would have to go into it. On top of that, what if some cell phones were safe and some weren't for whatever reason? You gonna post a list of banned cell phones? Who is going to make sure that phones from this list either don't get turned on or don't make it on the plane at all? Are you going to train all airline personnel to identify every phone on said list? Even more simple than that, if you don't create a all or nothing policy, jealousy ensues and you will have alot more outraged airline customers.

      If none of this sinks in, consider where the FAA's roots are. If it weren't for the Air Force, the FAA wouldn't exist. The FAA carries a similar mindset as the USAF. You way the severity of the consequences. If the end result is dangerous (say like equipment on an airliner failing, potentially causing the deaths of everone one on board), no matter how often it might happen, you don't allow it. At all. Period. End of discussion.
      • krackajap, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7There actually was talk about allowing cell phone usage on planes. And there have been a few airlines that tried having wifi available on planes also. Maybe it's just a matter of them not having a way to make money off of it.
      • mentor972, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Mythbusters did talk about an incident where a text message was the "cause" of a minor crash. But maybe the pilot was trying to text his wife and wasn't paying attention.
      • jsebrech, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7Common sense dicates that safety has nothing to do with the airplane-ban on cell phones. In the age of nail clippers being on the forbidden items list you can be sure that if there was a genuine security risk involved with cell phones, you would not be allowed to carry them on to the plane with you.
        • pbostley, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Not a security risk, a navigation equipment failure risk. I've seen GSM cellphones that are actually capable of CRASHING a nearby computer. I can hear incoming calls on my computer speakers BEFORE the phone rings. I don't want to be in an airplane, dependent on some fancy electronics for my life, and die because some arrogant, tin-foil hat wearing jackass can't unplug for 45 minutes.
      • skilless, on 10/14/2007, -3/+13"The only possible way that the FAA would allow certain cell phones is if they were to test every single model from every single provider."

        Ya, if only there was a way in place to test devices before they're release... oh wait, they are, by the FCC, for any number of potential safety problems.
        • Tokkii, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1But why should they? I mean this in all seriousness. There is a chance it could interfere, so no cell phones on planes. Honestly, I could give a ***** if you want to have a conversation with your pussy de jour, shut up and turn off the phone until the flight is over. You don't need to talk to her every 15 minutes.
      • samcrut, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5So the FAA comes out of the Air Force eh? Is that the same Air Force that misplaced a half dozen nuclear warheads the other day? Yeah, they're just wreaking with credibility these days.

        I've yet to see any study that proves that cell phone radio waves have interfered with any airplanes ever.
      • insomniac8400, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2Luckily cellphones are standardized, so testing each one is not needed. And airplane equipment is shielded, so no electronic device will harm it. And even luckier still, cellphones were only banned because they switch between towers too fast while on a plane, not due to interference. The ban only continues so the airlines can reserve the right to offer in-flight entertainment and phones.
        • pbostley, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0Not!!! The air interface spec is standardized. The manufacture of cell phones is not. The electronics in the airplane are NOT shielded as they are mostly concerned with the navigation receivers that have antenna's that CAN'T be shielded.

          There are 2 ban's in place for using a cell phone on an airplane: 1 by the FCC because of what you mention, and 1 by the pilot in command (not the FAA) because your cellphone represents a potential risk to flight safety.

          Take your tin-foil hat off..
          • insomniac8400, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1"1 by the pilot in command" You serious? Pilots instill personal bans based on zero evidence? Hilarious. Are these officially documented? A list of dumbass pilots posted on the internet would do a lot to get them all fired for being stupid.
    • thetango, on 10/15/2007, -7/+2Sorry for the comment abuse but: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,110576-page,1/ar ...

      ... OTOH the article is a few years old. Cell phones have come a long way, and I'm sure that Airlines are doing more and more testing.

      And, IIRC, it's NOT the FAA that has a ban. It's the _FCC_.

    • cJeremy, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2i doubt you're right.
    • sodoh, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5IEEE did a research paper on this a year or so ago. They found that all electronical devices can screw with the plane. The only reason stuff has to be switched off on take off/landing is your less likely to die if your avionics drops you a few thousand feet.
    • samcrut, on 10/15/2007, -4/+3Cell phones don't work at altitude. Think about it. Do you really think you'll be able to get a cell tower that's 30,000 feet below your seat? That said, if cellular radio frequencies are able to interfere with a plane, that plane needs to be grounded and major changes need to fix that design flaw!
      • silentwhipsers, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1It still releases a signal that can interfere.
    • k3vinmartian, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2When my phone is sitting next to my computer, TV or radio I get severe interference. I have at&t and a Sliver, both of which are pretty popular, so it's not a fluke. I would bet that if my TV can get jacked up by my phone, it could easily mess up the com. system on a plane.
    • bemenaker, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1The main reason they don't allow phones is fear of it being used as a remote bomb trigger. They have proved they do not interfere. and if they did, they could put antennas on the plane to keep them in lowest power transmit.

      This last week, they asked you too put your phone in airplane mode before we took off.
      • HerbSolo, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1so they're afraid of someone who remotely triggers a bomb on ground while on a plain?
        c'mon - they're worried about bombs, not triggers, and i really doubt terrorists give a ***** about "turn off your cellphones" - announcements.
    • tre11is, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Dugg for comedy, but one of the reasons cell phones continue to be outlawed on planes is the the cell companies actually prefer it. A cell phone tries constantly to discover which towers are nearby and which one is has the best connection to. The problem with being 30 000 ft in the air, is that the signal (if you can get one) might be best from a tower in Texas one minute, then the next minute the best one might come from Florida. This plays havoc with the network.
  • MBHoy, on 10/15/2007, -33/+7Remember Palm Pilots? You either had to sync everything from your computer, in which case, you ended up reading it on there, or fiddle on with infra-red, trying to get your mobile to connect to costly, slower than dialup "WAP" before trying to download email like that.

    How did that ever sell? WiFi is a truly awesome invention.
    • therearenorules, on 10/14/2007, -1/+22what is the point of your comment in relation to the article at hand?
      • MBHoy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3You didn't read it, did you? At the bottom, it said the flight attendant had said Palm Pilots were OK, but iPhones, evidently were not.
      • MBHoy, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1You didn't read it, did you? At the bottom, it said the flight attendant had said Palm Pilots were OK, but iPhones, evidently were not.
    • SteveMax, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5It may amaze you, but there are more things you can do with a PDA than reading email. Yes, I know, it's hard to imagine that, but to some people, keeping a centralized calendar (which could be synchronized with their computer's) with them was important. To some people, having a quick way to take notes (which could be sent easily to their computer's) was important. To some people, running custom applications, such as maps, games, medical tools, simple data analysis tools, etc. was important. It's hard to imagine, I know, but there *was* life before the Internet.
  • NeoSporin, on 10/15/2007, -22/+5I would half-expect a flight attendant to remain up-to-date on the latest technological fads. I mean, come on, don't they have internet 15,000 feet in the air?
  • DAC1138, on 10/29/2007, -30/+257Not everyone is a tech guru. So is this person really clueless, or are the tech/blog writers just being pompous zealous jackasses?
    • mkns, on 10/16/2007, -17/+26I totally agree. It's not the job of the airline stewards to keep up to date with all mobile device technology. If they don't want you using it, then you must switch it off. The writer of the article needs to take a step back and look at the situation from both sides.
      • louiedog, on 10/15/2007, -9/+19If someone's job is to enforce the ban on cellphones they need to at least be aware that some phones have an airplane mode. No, they don't need to know the specs of every model, but being ignorant of a fact such as that is a problem.
        • actorboy, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3Because everyone can be trusted when they say "my phone is airplane mode"? The only way a fight attendant can be certain a phone is in airplane mode from distance is if that phone is off.
      • BRODEL, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9Great logic, my enjoyment of the flight now depends on the knowledge level of the flight attendant.. thanks.
      • vertinox, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6@"It's not the job of the airline stewards to keep up to date with all mobile device technology."

        Then its not their job to have the person in question arrested. Because the cops saw the device in airplane mode and went... "AARRRRGH! Why did you call us! Let this guy go!"

        Seriously, it is like saying that a TSA security guard doesn't have to know the difference between a bomb and a laptop because if it isn't their job. If your job entails you to tell people to turn off interfering devices then it is part of your job description to know what those devices are. Heck... I've played DS infront of an airline attendant and they never said anything and it has about the same features as the iPhone in airplane mode.
    • r3zonance, on 10/15/2007, -12/+4So if a steward doesn't want me using my ipod (assuming the volume is quiet enough) then I have to turn that off too?

      Fcuk that!
      • unreg, on 10/14/2007, -5/+18Yep.

        See, it's their airplane and their rules.
        • StyngerSmash, on 10/14/2007, -5/+0Oh boy, are you guys for real?!? Mobile phones are asked to be turned off because of possible interference as they are signal transmitters as well as /receivers. Unless your IPOD has an FM receiver, you don't need to turn it off. That's why notebooks, PSPs, digicams, and MP3 players are allowed to be used onboard.
          • dacheetah, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3Recievers are passive, and can be left on, it's ONLY transmitters that have to be turned off, and even that's only because they are paranoid, and most flights I've been on have only had the no phones/wifi during takeoff and landing, mid flight you could use whatever you want, but over the middle of the pacific ocean you won't get a signal on you phone.
          • reddikilowatt, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3@dacheetah

            The superheterodyne receiver has a local oscillator that is radiating a signal at a multiple of the received carrier. Most (but not all) modern receivers use this design for at least some of their circuitry.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_recei ...
      • natchiketa, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Buried comment for spelling '*****' that way.
    • scheming, on 10/14/2007, -13/+5*****, if you work on an airplane, as customer service or stewardess or whatever, where you are going to be asking people to turn off their cell phones, it should be part of the training for that person to understand what airplane mode is. is that a lot to ask for?
      • mlostracco, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5As long as every single customer that has an iPhone knows what airplane mode is and remembers/knows to turn it off. Which is not bloody likely either.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6Why should you expect a flight attendant who is serving you 1/3 a can of warm diet coke on a dirty, cramped plane to have a through understanding of consumer electronics?
        How about all the cattle you are traveling with? The last time I flew I asked the flight attendant if she would ask the captain if I could use my GPS (SOP at the time. I don't think they can be used at all anymore). The lady in the row behind me went into a panic attack and couldn't believe I would waste the time of the unsung hero (aka bus driver with a checklist) up front. I then realized that any sort of excitement I used to have for flying was gone, and I'd avoid it at all costs. Of course I still heard cell phones ringing during our accent.
      • Angostura, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3So Scheming, does the Kokey-Hokey 3452e/x - launcjhed last month have an airplane mode? Is it effective? Have you tested it?
    • LethalGeek, on 10/14/2007, -14/+9Yeah the geeks made this news because damn it iPhones are their portable Apple alters and their religion requires they interact with it every hour or they have sinned to Jobs
      • actorboy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2I spoke earlier about the merits of boredom. Your comment helps.
    • brownsmurf, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1That is so wrong, how is watching a movie on your iphone different from bringing a portable dvd player? Also i would just venture to guess that somewhere in the employee handbook it talks about "airplane mode" I think the steward should of handled that differently.
    • revenz, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1i totally agree, the iphone is a new device, and the flight attendant seem to just err on the side of caution. if this is still happening in a year or so time, then yes, catch up with technology, but until it becomes common knowledge that there is a "airplane mode" and what that actually does, i side with the flight attendant.
    • lukas88, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3You are absolutely right. So what if apple included a "airplane mode?" The flight attendant has no obligation to allow usage because of it. I know iphone owners think they are special because they can afford such an expensive, crippled, trendy piece of hardware, but the rest of the world has a different opinion.
  • kingborel, on 10/15/2007, -3/+40Last flight I went on I was told to ensure my phone was either off or on flight mode
    • badave, on 10/15/2007, -3/+3But then I didn't and we were still fine.
  • Misinformant, on 10/20/2007, -43/+277Harsh to call them clueless. You expect them to know the features of every phone on the market?
    • dubloe7, on 10/15/2007, -2/+52well, I guess 'Airplane mode' is an ambiguous name...
      plus there haven't been hundreds of phones before it with this feature.
      also, since where in bizarro world, if the plane loses control we can always count on Superman to save us!
      • pintomp3, on 10/14/2007, -0/+11actually, in bizarro world "airplane mode" turn the signal super high so it can reach the towers from 35k feet up.
    • bart5986, on 10/16/2007, -6/+25Why is he being dugg up?
      I don't know any phones that show its running its aircraft mode when they really aren't. The only thing flight attendant's need to know is how to read.
      • Angostura, on 10/16/2007, -5/+3That's right. Yo don't know of any.

        ... and your point was again?
    • xkorbin, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7It was an iPod touch! I swear to you!
      • Kazbaeden, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Haha, I would have actually tried to convince him of that; he was so clueless it might have worked.
    • Typhoon2009, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Bart, my old LG phone would have a big "Airplane Mode" banner at the top when you turned that mode on. Along with a small airplane at the very top where the signal strength icons are.
    • vertinox, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3I don't have an iPhone nor every planning on owning on, but most of my older phones had airplane mode way back from 2003.
      • getsk3wled, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1oh my god proofread what you right for goodness sakes!
    • KozmoTKramer, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4I guess showing them the AIRPLANE mode button could not possibly prove anything. I am sorry but if he proved it they are clueless. You don't have to know jack about anything to see a clear function on the phone, airplane mode "on" or "off".
      • thenome, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I'ld agree you just have to know how to read!
    • bemenaker, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Then why do they ask you too use airplane mode, douche
  • MBHoy, on 10/16/2007, -17/+42Flight Attendant's knowledge of the technology world does seem more outdated than anyone elses.

    Poor guy had to put his airplane safe iPhone away, yet you always see kids connecting up their Nintendo DSs and playing multiplayer to waste away the hours. You also usually hear them shouting about it the whole journey, a lot louder than the average phone call.
    • mlostracco, on 10/14/2007, -5/+10I'm sure if you poll most people who own cell phones, almost all of them wouldn't know what "airplane mode" means. Not everyone who flies is a Digg geek.
      • redfan, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6The average person wouldn't know how to use a defibrillator or evacuate a 747 in 45 minutes either.

        Flight attendants should know these things though.
      • Rsulliv1, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2The words "Airplane Mode" pretty much give away what it means.
    • BNash577, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2But you can assume that they would understand it's purpose is for something on an airplane. I mean, if you tell someone who's never heard of airplane mode that your phone is in it, they wouldn't ask you if your phone can fly. Most people aren't idiots, a lot of people are ignorant though.
    • melance, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1Until I read this article, I had no idea that iPhone had an airplane mode. Frankly I have no interest in owning one and therefore don't keep up with the news about them. I don't see how we can expect a stewardess to. Besides, she was simply trying to avoid being fined by the FAA since using cell phones on a plane is currently illegal.
      • Rsulliv1, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Airplane Mode isn't an Apple-only feature. It's a standard feature on most phones for some time now.
    • lord2800, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1The DS wifi has a range of appx. 50ft. In fact, 50ft is being quite generous, I haven't managed to get a clear signal with mine past ~30ft.
      • sparced, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0if you watch a fox news report on youtube about sexual predators using the nintendo ds, they demonstrate that our children are at risk far beyond 50ft.
        • Atomic1fire, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1are you just doing this to attack fox news?
      • falcontch, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0dugg for awesomely bad news report
  • Thomaschaaf, on 10/15/2007, -19/+10Just dont flash the flight attendent with your phone ;) I always keep my phone turned on during the flight.. never had a problem.. and the new Lufthansa Airplanes allow you to use Wifi for 20 Bucks.. which is pretty nice if your on a flight from San Fran to Munich.
    • frostw, on 10/15/2007, -6/+21I bet you get up before the seatbelt light is extinguished upon landing too. *****.
    • DoscoJones, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1
      Yeah, you know better than everyone else. Asswipe.
  • wstrucke, on 10/17/2007, -9/+113the author of the article points out that apple tells you it's okay to use airplane mode *if the airline allows it*. if the flight attendant tells you to turn off something harmless you should probably argue a little bit and then comply. complain later to the airline, the press, etc. it's just idiotic to be stubborn enough to be detained, unless you have time to kill i guess... and you REALLY want to make a point...
    • OrangeTide, on 10/15/2007, -8/+10exactly! the flight attendant is not the person you should have a battle with, you ought to discuss the issue with someone who is actually allowed to make decisions and set policy for the company. Write a letter, demand to speak to a manager when you are on the ground, whatever. Making a big stink up in the air with an employee who has so much liability removed from her that she can no longer make rational decisions is completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time.
      I would have confiscated the iPhone. And tossed it out onto the tarmac.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 10/15/2007, -5/+14Airline passengers aren't children. 'Confiscation' of an adult's property by a corporate employee is called theft.
        • xkorbin, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4Confiscation of any non-illegal property without willingness is called theft... depending on the circumstance.
        • Angostura, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4.... and that's why you never hand over your gun when boarding, right?
    • grumpyrain, on 10/15/2007, -1/+11... and what point did they make exactly?

      Is the flight attendant now going to turn around and say, well I know I have been given procedures that say all devices off under these conditions, but hey, that random guy over there assures me it is perfectly safe? Of course not. He is just some other stupid customer who doesn't follow directions. They got on a plane the next day and enforced the same rule on someone else. By all means point out the phone has a mode designed for safe use in planes, but if you are told to turn if off anyway, follow their instructions. Write to the airline and if you don't like their response, fly with someone else. Simple.
      • dacheetah, on 10/15/2007, -3/+3Are you sure that the flight attendant was actually enforcing a policy the airline had, or was the policy that all tranmitters must be turned off, and she was simply being a clueless flight attendant? This guy may have checked with the airline in advance to make sure he could use the device, and when someone else goes and tells him, incorrectly, that he can't, then he has every right to argue. I'd argue until I was shown the rule that non-transmitting devices had to be switched off, in writing. (With the exception of take-off and landing, when there is actually a small, yet almost negligable risk of something going wrong if a device did transmit something.)
        • reddikilowatt, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1The main reason for take off and landing bans is because that the the most likely time for a crash and you need to be able to hear any announcements.
        • grumpyrain, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Of course I am not sure and neither are you. Even if the company does happen to allow the use of mobile phones in 'flight mode', they would still allow the flight crew to decide at the time what they felt appropriate according to the flying conditions. But no, he does NOT have the right to argue, nor do you have the right to demand a response there and then in writing. Like it or not, it is a US Federal offense to argue with the directions of the cabin crew, even if they are wrong in your mind. You have the right to politely tell them that you their website states that phones with a flight mode are permissible and show them the flight mode icon, but if they insist, you still need to follow their directions. If you are not happy with the way the cabin crew treat you, fly with someone else.
    • mcduckov, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6Generally I think you should comply with any reasonable request when you're on an airplane. Asking you to turn off all non-essential electronics is very reasonable even if an extended discussion might show you to be correct in your assertion that it is safe.
      • MinorLemming, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Why do you think that is a reasonable request ?
        • mcduckov, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Because we're not all electrical engineers and may not have all the available (or needed) facts regarding all the various consumer electronics in the world and how they may impact all the old/new flight systems.
    • hpfreak26, on 10/16/2007, -7/+2I do not respect the flight attendant as the airline's authority. If the pilot or a representative of the airline tells me to turn it off, I would very certainly do so. Until that happens, I'm not going to be forced around by a controlling bitch who doesn't even know what she's talking about.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/15/2007, -1/+10Arguing with something a flight attendant tells you to do is a Federal Offense in the US. I don't recommend it.
      • Travelsonic, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Actually, that is not entirely true.

        If it has nothing to do with safety/well being, diverting from the main topic for a moment, you do NOT have to comply with it.
    • Rsulliv1, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1the stewardess's lack of knowledge doesn't directly translate into the corporate policy. If this airline has on their T&C that they do not allow devices in airplane mode, then it's a different story.

      It's the same story as a police officer abusing their power with disregard to the law, but not nearly as drastic of course.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1except you can guarantee that even airlines with such permissive policies in their T&C will still leave the final power of veto to the cabin crew for safety reasons. Right or wrong, abusing it or not, the airline will support their cabin crew every time.
  • Thorin, on 10/16/2007, -16/+58The whole mobile phone issue on plane's is absolutely ridiculous. So I can't have 105ml of liquid in a bottle in case it's a bomb, or nail clippers in case I murder people with them, but I can have a mobile phone, even though you insist on telling me that just by turning it on I could crash the plane? Riiiiiiiight....
    • JoEBlack982, on 10/15/2007, -5/+7they don't ban cellphone usage because of tech dangers, they ban them for social control. they need to keep the passengers generally calm and that can't happen if everyone is yapping on their phones all day.
      • actorboy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4I don't know if that's true, but it makes sense and I would agree with the thinking behind it. Imagine being in the middle of a 6 hour flight with someone in hysterics over some bad news they just received. There is nothing the passenger can do, there is nothing the flight crew can do, and there is nothing you else can do, and that inability to act can only make the hysterics worse. I prefer being in trapped in an peaceful information blackout to being trapped in a loud, uncomfortable and emotionally-charged environment any day.
        • JoEBlack982, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2I was referring more to the fact that people get extremely bothered when others around them are talking on their phone, especially if they're being loud. Mix that in with being on a flight with then, in extremely close vicinity, and you get the picture. Hell, I get annoyed when people from across the room are being loud on their phone, imagine if they were sitting next to me.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/15/2007, -4/+2I know it's crazy, trusting people to not do dangerous things instead of just restricting them from owning devices that can be dangerous.

      What an absurdity, counting on people to do the right thing, when people like you show you really can't be trusted to even listen to what they have to say!

      We'll teach the stupid government to rely on people to act responsibility.
    • Olain, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2Didn't think you could get Cell signal at 30,000 feet. So talking on the phone isn't an issue.
    • TennisElbow, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2If the ban were just for social control because they think it would be unpleasant to have passengers talking on the phone during flight, why do so many planes I fly on have telephones built into the seatbacks?
    • ericdano, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1You know, it's not your RIGHT to fly. They can deny you service. You could drive, take the bus, the train, or a ship if you wanted.
      • Thor, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Ya. God forbid that you might show up outside of an airport wearing a T-shirt with a PICTURE of electronics on it and be accused of wearing a fake bomb.

        ***** dummies.
    • Rsulliv1, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Don't forget that you can bring screwdrivers less than 7" in length onto the plane without any problem...
  • CCmachined, on 10/15/2007, -24/+3this is one of the reasons i don't want a multi-purpose phone... especially an iPhone.
    or even an iPod Touch for that matter, what were apple thinking?
    • imikedaman, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11You don't want an iPhone because that flight attendant told the guy to turn off his phone?
      • MacParrot, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1Hey! Those Flight Attendants are tough! If I don't get an iPhone do you think they'll stop stalking me?
  • Jumboto, on 10/27/2007, -3/+280When I was a kid the flight attendant told me to turn off my Gameboy.
    Where was digg back then??
  • deanau, on 10/15/2007, -4/+35How many planes have crashed due to someone having their phone on?
    • jonbeckett73, on 10/16/2007, -5/+17Planes haven't crashed, but the flight crew have had to force everybody to switch off anything electronic after their navigation systems lost it. In every case I've ever read or heard about (I know a pilot it happened to), everything righted itself when the passengers complied. Apparently it's *very* hard to simulate because of the chaotic nature of what's going on in the plane and around it in terms of radio signals.
      • vertinox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4You'd think the FAA could take a airplane and put it up with a hundred cellphones activated to test it out in a scientific investigation to know for sure.

        Or maybe not...

        According to Mythbusters test (with a grain of salt) http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cell ...

        All parts were electronically shielded well enough to have any interference from any device. After all... It would suck to have a sunspot knock planes out of the sky.
    • 99Casimir, on 10/16/2007, -1/+12No one has crashed yet but here is a good article on the dangers.
      http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3069
      • Thor, on 10/21/2007, -2/+1Sorry but a MAYBE is hardly the indication of a GOOD article.
    • pukufek, on 10/15/2007, -8/+16There has not been a single reported case of passenger electronics causing a plane crash. The Mythbusters team put it to the test using an array of mobile phones and signal generators in a cockpit to try and disrupt equipment and failed.

      Infact all reports of phones interfering with equipment are anecdotal! The equipment in a plane has to put up with increased radiation from space at altitude along with buffeting and vibration and strong radio signals eminating from other equipment. On top of this, most large airliners have multiple redundant autopilots and other navigation systems - if the computers detects that a particular value or signal is not normal "normal" the system will turn itself off and warn the pilot. Although during some types of landing things can get critical there are literally dozens of proceadures in place to handle it.

      The reason electronic devices need to be turned off is because there have been no good studies on their effects and because they change every year - you could test one type of phone and find it completely different from another. Therefore the FAA and other organisations take absolutely no risk.
      • gothicx00, on 10/15/2007, -6/+9Nice touch with the Mythbusters cameo there, but you fail to mention that they ruled that one inconclusive because.... TA DA!!! The FAA wouldn't let them test it in flight. So until you either go into the military for Guidance and Control Maintenance, or start working for Boeing and actually have an understanding of how the equipment can behave differently inflight, shut your damn pie hole.

        Although I do agree with you on your last paragraph, you come dangerously close to contradicting yourself. In your 2nd paragraph you mention that all reports are anecdotal. Yet you go on to say later that there hasn't been conclusive testing, because of all the variables. You can't rule various events anecdotal until the scientific method has been applied. You apparently watch enough Mythbusters.... one would think you'd have that down by now.
        • pukufek, on 10/15/2007, -2/+10WTF you dont "rule" events anecdotal, they are automatically anecdotal until they are investigated. Saying that the FAA wouldnt let the Mythbusters test in flight and therefore they are wrong is circular logic! If they FAA wont let you test it because they dont know if its safe to test is like saying Newton couldnt test out gravity because the law deemed falling apples too dangerous. And what exactly goes on in a steel tube in flight that cant be replicated on the ground as far as radio waves are concerned?

          The fact is, whenever a pilot says "my instruments went crazy, then I told the passengers to turn their phones off and everything was fine" that is completely anecdotal - what instruments? what happend to them exactly? and how do you know the passengers even listened to you?

          If you really want some anecdotal evidence then how about 9/11 when half the passengers were on their phones?

          I'll give you one thing - if someone took a radio with them, tuned it to the frequency of a navigation aid and then pushed transmit then yes, it would very likely do something.

          My point is that while there is no evidence AT ALL that passengers have ever disrupted equipment on a plane the FAA chooses to take the safe option precisely because it is safest thing to do when no scientific evidence exists.
          • Phyltre, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2I have to agree here. Anecdotal is obviously anecdotal on its face, we don't need it to be "ruled" as such. If it's not scientifically gathered it's automatically anecdotal (or worse.)
        • reddikilowatt, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1the terrorists on 9/11 were likely flying VFR. I doubt they had any idea what their instruments did.
          The Mythbusters piece was interesting, but not very through. There are plenty of ham radio operators who use 2 way radios that are not FAA certified on their private planes without incident. Of course, they know when they are transmitting and, again, are likely flying VFR. Typically they transmit at frequencies much closer to the aircraft band, and at much higher power (5+ Watts) than a cell phone (100-300mW). I was really hoping they could get a ham involved, but I doubt they are geeky enough to know any.
          • pukufek, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2It doesnt matter if your on VFR you still need some kind of navigation system to find your way (especially if your way is a sky scraper miles and miles away). Private pilots would easily be able to test this theory with basic VOR, ADF or even GPS instruments that they would likely have.
        • vertinox, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2So why hasn't the FAA ran a test flight to prove one way or another? They spend millions in tax payer's money for more useless things.
    • amneosis, on 10/14/2007, -8/+2"Let's roll"
    • agimat, on 10/14/2007, -7/+2Really would rather not be on the first one that does just because some iphone ***** bastard can't keep off it for a few hours.
    • HeaveN, on 10/15/2007, -4/+26
    • wtfpwned98, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5The real danger of using phones on planes is that the airlines could miss out on the revenue stream associated with routing the calls themselves. Same thing goes for movies...pay per view is a viable future business model, so they're not about to let you start using your own players if there's a chance in hell that they can stop you.
  • tgoose, on 10/20/2007, -32/+46What an idiot (the passenger, not the flight attendant.) The flight attendant tells you what do do for your own safety, just because he or she is wrong doesn't mean you should kick up a fuss. Just comply and write a letter to the airline explaining this function.

    And is it really that big a deal to miss out on watching a film for a couple of hours while you're on on aeroplane?
    • neiltc13, on 10/16/2007, -9/+21Thumbs up for correct spelling of aeroplane.
      • arcticblue, on 10/14/2007, -9/+3I hate the English language. Why the hell is there an 'O' in 'Aeroplane' (airplane) if it's completely silent? Why the hell is the 'E' in a weird place in 'Centre' (center) or 'Programme' (program)? No wonder it's hard as ***** to learn when people who speak the language natively (myself included) can't even agree on a standard way of spelling words. 'Aeroplane' or 'Airplane': pick one and stick with it. I prefer 'Airplane' myself.
        • SharkyTech, on 10/14/2007, -2/+6Well, I've always pronounced the 'o'. Besides, I'm pretty sure 'aeroplane' has a more correct derivation that 'airplane'...
        • djgreedo, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7The 'o' isn't silent outside of North America. 'Centre' and 'programme' are words from French, and thus their spelling is French inspired.

          While it's a difficult language to learnm it wasn't conceived as such. English has an extremely complex history that is responsible for its complex nature.
          • MacParrot, on 10/14/2007, -8/+1Fuocke the Freonche!
          • nolesshabitual, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4mostly the British spelling doesn't bother me, but the silent m in learnm is too much
          • 808kick, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Aeroplane in Canada too, so it's just the states.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5In the UK the 'o' isn't silent. That's why it's included.
        • dacheetah, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5The 'o' isn't silent at all, the American's spell it "airplane" and the rest of the world spells it "aeroplane" (pronounced like Air-o-plane).
        • Nothlit, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4Then why isn't it also "aeroline"? :-P
        • mcduckov, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1There are movements here and there to move to phonetic spelling to the extent possible. However, as spell-checkers become more and more ubiquitous I think it is unlikely anything will change. The funny thing is what happens when you read the handwritten notes of people.
    • grimw, on 10/20/2007, -11/+9For $200+ bucks? Hell yes we expect our attendants to be educated or be open to being educated about something when told it has a mode that turns off the cell phone function.
    • nunofgs, on 10/20/2007, -7/+6YES. Give in to your government now, and complain about it when a new one is elected.

      It makes absolutely no sense. Stand up for what you believe in!
      • Robbothehood, on 10/15/2007, -2/+0Elect Ron Paul for president of Airline rules!
    • DangerCollie, on 10/20/2007, -9/+7Yes, let's all be limited to the level of the least intelligent and most neurotic member of the flight crew.
    • ka2err, on 10/15/2007, -5/+4> what do do for your own safety,
      > // just because he or she is wrong //

      Then what will this drone be wrong about that I don't have a better understanding off to recognize his/her mistake?
      Any flight attendant should be educated enough to ask the passenger to "make sure that the device is turned on flight mode so it does not send any RF". If they have not been educated that electronic devices usually have a switch to turn of the RF what else of the development in the last 20 years did they miss?