A troubling conversation
Posted by Rich...! under Uncategorized on February 23 2006 at 9:46 PMEarlier, on an SAA flight from Durban to Jo’burg:
So, let me just get this straight. Here’s an industry that will confiscate your nail scissors before you’re allowed to board an aircraft, but they have no problem letting you get on with a device that, “may interfere with the navigation systems.”
WTF?
Conscientious travellers have been advised to be on the lookout for angry, cartoon wielding, middle-eastern passengers carrying iPods…!
February 24th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Remember the days of Walkman’s? No? A lowly battery-operated device that winds tape from one reel of a reel to another in a distcinctly simple fashion, and whilst doing so, allows the listener to hear the smooth 90s sounds of The Urban Cookie Collection?
I had an argument with a Malaysian air hostess about how this could possibly interfere with a navigation system so advanced, so computerised, all while I was sitting 30 metres down from the cockpit. Do they tell old men to turn off their pacemakers too?
I think it’s all just a killjoy conspiracy, I really do.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
A little while ago, I met a very cute little girl who also happens to be a Boeing 737 pilot for BMI…
She reckons that there are 2 big reasons for them wanting mobile phones and other hand-held gadgets turned off – especially at take off and landing:-
1.) The gadgets contain batteries, and other heavy bits inside them. When the plane lands, it hits the brakes, and if you’re not holding onto it properly, and it comes out of your hands, it will still be going at the speed of the plane (when it landed) as it hits the head of the guy that is now doing the slow speed of the plane as it looks for somewhere to park.
2.) If you have an iPod playing in your ears, you may not hear them announce that you need to take the brace position for a crash, and your iPod could hit somebody else in the head if there is a crash. Both things that could theoretically add to the death-toll from a non-serious crash.
Of course, if you are going to insist on disobeying, and fighting for your right to iPod, I strongly recommend doing this on a Swissair flight. Those thoughtful Swiss gave their air-hostesses the right to handcuff and physically restrain unruly passengers last year. Something I plan to test the next chance I get.
On a final – slightly pedantic – point. You’re = You are.
your = something belonging to you.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
That sounds like a load of bollocks so it could be true. Next time I am on a plane I will hold my ipod out in front of me and see what happens when we land. I bet it will probably just fall out of my hand.(into my other hand, damn things expensive.)
As for the Swiss Air Hostesses handcuffing and physically restraining the passengers. Oh behave! I wonder do you still get meals and movies while you are restrained? I suppose it will give you and your newly aquired friend next to you something to talk about.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Swiss Air Hostesses hmmmmm…
February 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Trust Wez to get completely side-tracked.
Oh…during a recent trip back to JHB from Cape Town the (ever so friendly) security in CT decided to confiscate the compressed air canister I had with my video equipment. They (the JHB) security, had no problems letting me fly down with it, but CT decided it could be used as a possible weapon/self destruct if we hit an air pocket/blah blah and duly instructed me to leave it behind.
The irony…my boss had mace in her handbag, which they didn’t have a problem with.
HUH?
February 25th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hehe, well spotted big-guy, I’m shamed. Good points, but I cant really go with the flying ipod story, I always just keep mine on my lap anyway, noone ever moans. What’s plausible is the brace command story, but then why not just tell the passengers that?
On a final – slightly pedantic – point. Swissair – bankrupt 4 years ago.
Swiss International Airlines – still flying high…!
February 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
D-Oh!… I hate being wrong about something when I’m in correction mode!
Turns out I was even more wrong than I though – it’s SAS (Scandanavian). I’ve flown SAS before, and Oh-momma… them Viking hotties are the business…
March 8th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
OK, so I tested out the flying i-Pod theory on Friday (on a flight to Vienna).
To provide the lowest possiblity of cranial injury, I placed my iPod on my right palm, next to my right leg, so that it would hopefully hit the seat in-front of me rather than anybody’s head.
At landing time, the iPod dissapeared out of my hand faster than I could catch it (I’m no exactly Mr Fast Reactions though), and there is now a very angry little Austrian man.
perfectly plausible
My verdict is that the flying iPod theory is perfectly plausible, and I have to say that, once I’d managed to get the Austrian calm enough to give me my iPod back and talk to me, he agreed with the theory completely. He did, however, threaten me with some criminal charges when he heard that he had been hobbled as part of a scientific experiment, so if you see any wanted posters in Vienna looking for a guy called Dean, from Knysna – on assault charges – remember that you don’t know who I am…
March 8th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Hehehe
February 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Here’s an update for you on the interference with flight systems. You’ll like this one.
Last week, I was called into a meeting to design a new mobile telephony thingy that was all very hush-hush. Turns out that what I was designing was a way to use your cell-phone opn planes. The aircraft in essence becomes a roaming network, and so they charge you more than you would have been charged to phone from your home country, with the airline pocketing the extra cash. Sounds great, doesn’t it?
I sat down with some of the airline guys afterwards, and guess what changes they are making to the planes to ensure that there is no danger? My guesses were extra insulation on the wiring, or at least comprehensive testing of a number of phones.
The real answer – nothing. The electronics on the planes are already so well sheilded that there are no changes needed. Turns out all that was needed was for there to be some money in it for the airlines…