Noise cancelling headphones, flight attendants and travelers who are tools...

[medhead]

Speed does not DIRECTLY kill, but is directly related to the amount of energy you need to dissipate at point of impact.

Then again the way Road Safety Council's/State Government's go about getting this message across is totally wrong, hence the strong dissent shown.

No sorry speeding does not kill. Running into something kills. Racing proves that speed doesn't kill. Obviously we can't drive at race speed on the road because it is not controlled the same as a race track, making it much more likely that there is something to run into on the road.

As for the road safety mesage, well if we have to slow down in bad conditions why can't we go faster in good conditions? Because it doesn't suit the road safety message.

 

[11sjw]

As for the road safety mesage, well if we have to slow down in bad conditions why can't we go faster in good conditions? Because it doesn't suit the road safety message.

Because some roads are literally only designed to handle slower speeds due to visibility/reaction time restrictions. Hence you're allowed to do 100 on a Freeway but 50 in neighbourhoods.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No sorry speeding does not kill. Running into something kills. Racing proves that speed doesn't kill. Obviously we can't drive at race speed on the road because it is not controlled the same as a race track, making it much more likely that there is something to run into on the road.

As for the road safety mesage, well if we have to slow down in bad conditions why can't we go faster in good conditions? Because it doesn't suit the road safety message.

Medhead - your argument here is kind of the same as what the guy in 29J could have been thinking. Maybe he too thought that the government safety messages were not valid - just as you seem to be saying with regard to speed.

You say speeding does not kill. But the authorities say it does. Therefore applying the same argument as people have made out for the NC heaphones - you shouldn't speed no matter how good the conditions or how good you feel you are as a driver.

As other have pointed out regarding 'only experts being able to make comments about the safety of NC headphones' - the same has to apply to the argument on speed? Unless you are a recognised road safety expert, then we cannot argue the validity of messages about road safety and speed.

This is exactly my argument. All of us make judgements about what we feel is safe to do. Some speed a little, the guy in 29J decided to have NC headphones. Unless I am directly affected, no matter how much it irks me, I can't really be in a position to make a comment.

 

[pootle]

i wear large over ear headphones on the plane for landing & taking off as i have issues with my ears & they help. I have been asked if they are plugged in & once i have shown they are not that is fine, I have seen many people still have in ear or NC headphones on & they have not been asked , i suppose it depends on the crew

 

[straitman]

It seems to me that there are a few people here who are arguing for the sake of arguing and not to the benefit of the topic :!:

 

[mannej]

No sorry speeding does not kill. Running into something kills. Racing proves that speed doesn't kill. Obviously we can't drive at race speed on the road because it is not controlled the same as a race track, making it much more likely that there is something to run into on the road.

As for the road safety mesage, well if we have to slow down in bad conditions why can't we go faster in good conditions? Because it doesn't suit the road safety message.

OT hat on...
Point to where I said speed kills? I did not say it kills. Racing does not prove anything about speed and every day driving (There have been fatalities in racing aswell). Racing cars are highly modified to counteract the effects of speed, so can't be used in this argument.

Speed is directly related to the force your body has to dissipate when you hit an object. The faster you move the less time your body has to dissipate the energy in, the greater the impact. You can not argue that.

The reason there are speed limits is to control the environment and make it easier for people to predict what cars are doing around each other. You may be a competent driver but that will mean zilch if someone around you does something stupid. The speeds are set at the lowest common denominator and thats how things are.

Point is (and back on topic), when people get an idea stuck in their head that they believe is right, the mind will exclude all other evidence from the thought process and will not budge. That person in 29J may ignore the instruction given to him by the FA because he feels that he is an expert on the subject, but for all we know he may be basing his views on what he saw on Mythbusters regarding the subject. Great show yes, scientific validity sadly lacking.

It doesn't hurt to listen to the FA, after all up in the air is not the place to make a stance about what 29J perceives to be a poor policy. If you want to make a stance, call up the airline when you get back home, or take it up with the ground staff, because atleast there are no consequence on the ground if your expert opinions happen to be wrong.

 

[haydensydney]

What an interesting thread! I read the first page when the thread was started but never checked back - now that I am up to speed as to the thoughts etc of those whose have posted, I must say....

WOW.... reminds me of a "filming takeoffs and ladings" thread I started some time ago. It really is a "rules" vs "possibilities" scenario. After my train of thought was discussed and argued, I am much more cautious as to the rules and processes put in place by the authorities.

Thanks to straitman, I am fully aware of the dire circumstances that can take place "IF" things go wrong. Am I prepared to take responsibility should I bring down a jet? No. Do I agree with the staunch rules put in place by the authorities regarding electronics during critical phases of flight? No.

But..... if my flight crashed on landing and I was filming, do I want the paranoia on my conscience that I "could" have caused the crash? No.

So.... do I still film my landings and takeoffs? Yes..... if I have the approval of crew. Therefore, anything is OK if you get approval - just a simple question, with a simple answer from someone with authority is all that is required.

 

[medhead]

Edit: I've just realised my mistake. Sorry for causing confusion. I'm not advocating ignoring speed limits or anything. I simply believe that speed limits are a poor analogy for using electronics on aircraft. All I'm doing is presenting the reasons I believe that they are completely different situations. To take on Straitman's point I've edited what I originally posted here.

Because some roads are literally only designed to handle slower speeds due to visibility/reaction time restrictions. Hence you're allowed to do 100 on a Freeway but 50 in neighbourhoods.

You missed my point entirely. It was a comment about the roa conditions not the posted speed limit. A speed limit can be set as you say, but then the road conditions change ever day adn noght. This is the fundamental failure of the road safety message.

Medhead - your argument here is kind of the same as what the guy in 29J could have been thinking. Maybe he too thought that the government safety messages were not valid - just as you seem to be saying with regard to speed.

You say speeding does not kill. But the authorities say it does. Therefore applying the same argument as people have made out for the NC heaphones - you shouldn't speed no matter how good the conditions or how good you feel you are as a driver.

As other have pointed out regarding 'only experts being able to make comments about the safety of NC headphones' - the same has to apply to the argument on speed? Unless you are a recognised road safety expert, then we cannot argue the validity of messages about road safety and speed.

This is exactly my argument. All of us make judgements about what we feel is safe to do. Some speed a little, the guy in 29J decided to have NC headphones. Unless I am directly affected, no matter how much it irks me, I can't really be in a position to make a comment.

I think your confusing the road safety message with the road rules. These are not the same thing. I follow the speed limit, but that doesn't mean that I accept the road safety message - all those stupid ads. As for being a road safety expert, I only have 21 years of experience driving judging road conditions and adopting appropriate driving for those conditions everyday. (driving is a practical activity that lots of people do and lots of people can be experienced about, unlike testing electrical device effects on aircraft).

If we adopt your agruement about never speeding no matter how good the conditions, then the reverse must be true that it is perfectly acceptable for me to continue driving at the speed limit at night in the middle of a tropical downpour. Clearly this is a stupid proposition and it shows the speed limit , by and of itself, is not about safety. Unlike electronics on an aircraft that have been tested and have been determined as conpromising the safety of an aircraft.

Finally we get to the question about being directly effected. Everyone on that aircraft may be directly affected by the actions of 29J and that is a situation that is not removed by making statements with the word "unless".

OT hat on...
Point to where I said speed kills?

Speed does not DIRECTLY kill, but is directly related to the amount of energy you need to dissipate at point of impact.

I did not say it kills. Racing does not prove anything about speed and every day driving (There have been fatalities in racing aswell). Racing cars are highly modified to counteract the effects of speed, so can't be used in this argument.

Speed is directly related to the force your body has to dissipate when you hit an object. The faster you move the less time your body has to dissipate the energy in, the greater the impact. You can not argue that.

Looks like you did imply that speed kills. Racing proves exactly that speed does not kill. An aircraft proves that speed does not kill.

What did I say? Hitting something kills, which is your point about dissipating energy. But this is my point, we can travel at any speed as long as we don't run into something. (i.e. acceleration kills, negative or positive)

As for the idea of controlling the environment, I can give you plenty of examples where the environment is such that it is safe to drive faster than the speed limit. There are also times when I would drive half the speed limit on the exact same road.

It doesn't hurt to listen to the FA, after all up in the air is not the place to make a stance about what 29J perceives to be a poor policy. If you want to make a stance, call up the airline when you get back home, or take it up with the ground staff, because atleast there are no consequence on the ground if your expert opinions happen to be wrong.

Exactly.

 

[winfred]

Firstly, if you are going to be rude and offensive to me in your reply, please have the courtesy to use at least reasonable spelling and grammer in your post, and at least read what has actually been written, and not what you think I may mean.

Secondly, I made no mention of not complying with FA requests to do anything. I am a very courteous traveller and always follow the rules, regardless of whether I happen to think they are pointless.

My post was purely regarding the reasons for such rules, not a comment on whether we should obey them. And as I am actually an Engineer, I do have some understanding of electronics, thus I do find it rather unlikely that, particularly, non transmitting, low voltage, self-contained electronic devices, such as ipods, headphones, games, PDA's, etc.. have the potential to cause issues with aircraft systems. Moreover, I find it even more unlikely that aircraft systems would not be insulated/isolated from any possible interference.

Thanks.

This forum is for "frequent flyers". By making the comment "I don't believe for one second that any electronic device could cause interference on a modern airliner, and I'd include phones and radio devices too, unless of course you are transmitting on an aviation frequency...", people who read you post may ignore the rule to turn off electronic devices because it is OK according to an "engineer" who posted a comment on the forum for frequent flyers.


Where in your post did you mention the fact that you would follow the rule? If you forgot what you have written, please go back to you post and have another read to refresh you memory. No, I did not check my grammar as I typed the reply in a rush and obviously my english is not as good as yours. May be you have a Phd in english literature as well.

Now what type of engineer are you to qualify you to make such an opinion?

 

[drron]

Gee we have got a long way past headphones haven't we.
Speed-doesn't it depend on the known unknowns-500K of straight road through a gibber plain suggests to me the possibility of a marsupial suddenly appearing in front of your projectile-sure not a great chance during the day but definitely a chance.Of course there are also unknown unknowns-certainly what D*ck Johnson thought at Mt. panorama.
My favourite time was going through my early life crisis.Had a silver Ford Cougar.The Nambour Highway Patrol got exactly the same model and colour as an unmarked car-boy was I ever treated with respect-hardly ever overtaken-I guess I helped out by generally wearing a blue shirt with epaulette type attachments.

 

[Voyages]

QF738 ADL-SYD today....

FAs did not say anything about turning off the noise cancelling headphones during take off nor in prep for landing. Despite this, 5C (me) and 6D only used the headphones when we're *up there*.

If 6D is reading this, hi

 

[CthulhuDreams]

Whilst most aircrew I know tell me they think the rules are extreme and the devices concerned cause very little interference (happy to be corrected here) including phones I think the following instructions has to be the governing rule for behaviour on any mode of mass transport.

It is possible that SMSing caused a plane to crash in Switzerland, the plane made two unexpected course changes leading to a crash that were linked to SMS transmission times sent by a PAX. However, it is likely for most low power devices (NC headphones for example) that it's irrelevant, but radio transmitters (like mobile phones) are definately a hazard.

Aircraft instrumentation systems are supposed to be insulated against inteference, but the safety mantra is such that in cause that interference does occur anyway, switch of radio transmitters.

 

[taswegian77]

It is possible that SMSing caused a plane to crash in Switzerland, the plane made two unexpected course changes leading to a crash that were linked to SMS transmission times sent by a PAX. However, it is likely for most low power devices (NC headphones for example) that it's irrelevant, but radio transmitters (like mobile phones) are definately a hazard.

Aircraft instrumentation systems are supposed to be insulated against inteference, but the safety mantra is such that in cause that interference does occur anyway, switch of radio transmitters.

i think the point of this post is that the passenger failed to follow an instruction from a crew member. This is also my issue as well. all passengers shoudl follow crew instructions that relate to the operational requirements of the aircraft. Too often I see peopel just ignore FA's when they ask for mobiles to be switched off, same with laptops. Turning it off now please sir, means now not in 5 minutes or at your leisure. I personally would like to see those passengers reported back to QF and given a stern warning.
Regardless of whether peopel think items might/might not affect aircraft if they say off, they mean off.

 

[markis10]

Most electronic circuits have the capacity to emit RF, and I agree that its a case of doing what you are told, the reasons behind the request are irrelevant.

 

[djfuzz]

CBR-SYD last night on a 734, FA made the announcement about NC headphones. Flight's too short to enjoy them in any case.

On my next flight, SYD-MEL on a 763, no such announcement.

 

[markis10]

I only heard it on the 738 flight BNE-MEL last week, not on the 763 MEL_SYD_BNE

 

[CthulhuDreams]

i think the point of this post is that the passenger failed to follow an instruction from a crew member. This is also my issue as well. all passengers shoudl follow crew instructions that relate to the operational requirements of the aircraft. Too often I see peopel just ignore FA's when they ask for mobiles to be switched off, same with laptops. Turning it off now please sir, means now not in 5 minutes or at your leisure. I personally would like to see those passengers reported back to QF and given a stern warning.
Regardless of whether peopel think items might/might not affect aircraft if they say off, they mean off.

There was discussion of if the rules are extreme. They are not

 

[markis10]

Maybe we should just go to a China Airlines model of past years where not even safety briefings/instructions are done, someone was heard asking a crew member what the safety instructions were, the reply was "we crash you die" :shock:

 

[medhead]

Speed-doesn't it depend on the known unknowns-500K of straight road through a gibber plain suggests to me the possibility of a marsupial suddenly appearing in front of your projectile-sure not a great chance during the day but definitely a chance.Of course there are also unknown unknowns-certainly what D*ck Johnson thought at Mt. panorama.

Did I say 500 km of gibber? Must have been exaggerating a bit. But in the right conditions you can see the marsupials and large flightless birds from enough distance to allow you to slow down and/ or stop before they jump in front of the car.

At night you slow down. Or there was that one time that some idiot from the NT in a BMW flew past me doing about 160 at night in low scrub land. Good for me as I tailed him for a while to take advantage of his headlights. But then I realised I didn't really want to be first on the scene. That's an unknown known, and they're the ones the really get ya.

 

[david870mdg]

My travellers who are tools award goes to the guy on a recent DJ MELSYD flight who decided that the offerings on DJ trolley service didnt quite meet his tastes in alcoholic beverages so decided to BYO.
Yes, byo cans. Half way through his (first??) it was confiscated by the FA and told no BYO alcohol is allowed. Clearly this guy didn't care as five minutes later he cracks open number two. As the FAs had passed he enjoyed another can. I don't know how he got these on the flight? And obviously the pax next to him were either family or just simply couldn't give a ****. Well done for $7 sir..