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

[PineappleSkip]

electronic device has the potential to cause electrical problems on a half a billion dollar aircraft, one would have to say that there are serious design flaws in the avionics systems on aircraft!

IIRC I heard steady eddie making similar comments on the On Q smile high channel not so long ago. The idea that his $59 tandy mobile phone could send a multi million dollar aircraft into a spin didn't enhance his confidence in flying. So don't fly with Steady Eddie either

Cheers skip

 

[Fantic125]

Interesting topic, and obviously one that has heated response.
I'll put my 2 cents in.
Unless you are a qualified commercial pilot, are you qualified to respond?
Unless you are a qualified electronics/electrical/signals person, are you qualified to respond?
EMI is a very interesting area. It's one that I would not want to play russian roulette with.

 

[danmancs]

Interesting topic, and obviously one that has heated response.
I'll put my 2 cents in.
Unless you are a qualified commercial pilot, are you qualified to respond?
Unless you are a qualified electronics/electrical/signals person, are you qualified to respond?
EMI is a very interesting area. It's one that I would not want to play russian roulette with.

Jeez, if people only commented on things they are bonafide experts on, it would make for a very sparse forum... I think we are allowed opinions on things aren't we? I don't imagine that the CASA is going to read anyone's comments and make changes to the rules solely based upon them.

 

[Fantic125]

Jeez, if people only commented on things they are bonafide experts on, it would make for a very sparse forum... I think we are allowed opinions on things aren't we? I don't imagine that the CASA is going to read anyone's comments and make changes to the rules solely based upon them.

I agree, It would be a very boring topic. Personally, I cannot see how my individual comment would cause a change to the rules. Thanks for that.
BTW, worked for a company that was involved in a $500m upgrade of defence vehicles that included drive train and electrical emission radiation analysis and reduction. As a result of that, I do now know when to remove my earbuds.....

 

[nlagalle]

Interesting topic, and obviously one that has heated response.
I'll put my 2 cents in.
Unless you are a qualified commercial pilot, are you qualified to respond?
Unless you are a qualified electronics/electrical/signals person, are you qualified to respond?
EMI is a very interesting area. It's one that I would not want to play russian roulette with.

If there was an issue with NC headphones on a technical level, they wouldn't be in planes full stop. yet a good set of Bose ones will set you back about 1500 from the pilot shop.

 

[medhead]

Unless the guy in 29J was compromising your safety, can someone please explain why you would even get upset?

Did you miss the bit were the rules say that the guy in 29J is compromising safety. That is the point we are told to stop using these things because it is a safety requirement. Does not matter if you agree with that or not, those are the safety rules.

Unless you are a qualified electronics/electrical/signals person, are you qualified to respond?

I'm a qualified physicist. I know a little bit about maxwell and his equations and all that. Am I qualified to respond? (based on some of the army sigs that I've meet, I'd say more qualified)

 

[SeaWolf]

You think that you are above the law

I'm going to kick the hornets nest here. If he does think that, he's right. After all he got away with it, didn't he? There was no consquence for doing it other than maybe an awkward moment with the FA.

I do find the outrage here to be quite interesting though. We've got this weird reverance for rules and authority figures (even if that figure is just an FA) that we often get very worked up over what's really a very trivial infraction. I'll freely admit that there have been times when I've been rushing towards a budget international flight and I've decided to break the rules and have a go at getting my water bottle (with water) through security. I do it because I know the extent of the consquences for failing will be a glower from someone in a dark coloured uniform and an instruction to toss it out. So who cares? I know it's not explosive and they know it as well otherwise they'd handle it much more carefully than simply ditching it into the nearest bin. But there's this weird idea that since those are the rules we should all bow down in compliance and reverence to them.

I really don't think anyone here believes that those NC headphones were a danger to the flight. If there really was some imminent danger then the airlines would take electronics on planes far more seriously than they do and we'd be seeing al Qaeda operatives trying to sneak onto flights with vests strapped with mobile phones. We're not seeing any of that, so I'm inclined here to simply look at the reality of the situation as it exists and say that getting worked up about this is really a waste of time. He's going to go on doing what he's done and the airlines are going to continue to follow habit put up totally symbolic resistance to it and that's really all there is to it.

 

[medhead]

I'm going to kick the hornets nest here. If he does think that, he's right. After all he got away with it, didn't he? There was no consquence for doing it other than maybe an awkward moment with the FA.

I do find the outrage here to be quite interesting though. We've got this weird reverance for rules and authority figures (even if that figure is just an FA) that we often get very worked up over what's really a very trivial infraction. I'll freely admit that there have been times when I've been rushing towards a budget international flight and I've decided to break the rules and have a go at getting my water bottle (with water) through security. I do it because I know the extent of the consquences for failing will be a glower from someone in a dark coloured uniform and an instruction to toss it out. So who cares? I know it's not explosive and they know it as well otherwise they'd handle it much more carefully than simply ditching it into the nearest bin. But there's this weird idea that since those are the rules we should all bow down in compliance and reverence to them.

I really don't think anyone here believes that those NC headphones were a danger to the flight. If there really was some imminent danger then the airlines would take electronics on planes far more seriously than they do and we'd be seeing al Qaeda operatives trying to sneak onto flights with vests strapped with mobile phones. We're not seeing any of that, so I'm inclined here to simply look at the reality of the situation as it exists and say that getting worked up about this is really a waste of time. He's going to go on doing what he's done and the airlines are going to continue to follow habit put up totally symbolic resistance to it and that's really all there is to it.

You mixing up ideas with this. I do not "bow down in compliance" with the rules and I certainly do not believe most electronic devices are a problem, besides transmitters. In fact I would argue long and hard that electronic devices are mostly harmless. But whenever I get on a plane and I am told that the safe operation of the aircraft requires certain things to be done, then I will do those things and I will expect everyone else to do them. This is not weird reverance, it is my desire to arrive at my destination.

It is exactly the same situation with following FA instructions. Those people are there for my safety and following their instruction just might save my life in an emergency. I don't want some recalcitrant DH on a flight, who has practiced not following FA instructions, to start arguing during an emergency.

This is an issue about conditioning that just might save lifes

 

[MEL_Traveller]

medhead - I stated that unless the guy in 29J was compromising YOUR safety then I can't understand why people are getting upset.

If I was in 29K and either (a) the cord of the headphones was in the way (so could tangle me up in an emergency evac) or (b) the passenger not hearing an emergency instruction could impede MY exit, then sure, I'd say something to the guy.

The same thing would apply if the guy was seated at an exit row. In that case it could impede my safety and I'd say something (I have done this before when a guy was asleep at an overwing exit right through the safety demo - I reported that to the crew ad they moved him).

However - outside of that - if I'm not sitting at 29K - why is it my business?

Do you report someone doing 5km over the speed limit? They're compromising yur safety too. Do you report the driver eating while driving? Maybe not technically illegal - but it certainly affects response times in an emergency.

And as I said - I find it difficult to draw the distinction between people actually getting upset about it being a safety issue vs getting stroppy becuase people just 'aren't following the rules'. I think it is a case of the latter.

I know it's annoying when people don't follow the rules, but why is it your business? (I'm using the term 'your' in a very general sense )

As I also said - if it were a GENUINE saftey concern, then you'd also be lecturing obese people because they're going to get stuck in the aisle when you're trying to get out past them. Why do you not say anything to an obese person? Just because the rules don't say so? Come on, they're likely to be a lot more of an issue than a guy sitting with headphones on (unless he is obese as well!).

My post is based on the assumption that noise cancelling headhones, unlike mobile phones and other high powered transmitting devices, are unlikely to interfere with aircraft navigation. And even if they supposedly could, then unless it was a night-time flight, or bad weather, I too would be seriously concerned that if all it took was one pair of NC headphones to disable a jet then we really do have bigger problems to worry about.

 

[medhead]

medhead - I stated that unless the guy in 29J was compromising YOUR safety then I can't understand why people are getting upset.

And regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it has been determined that the guy is compromising the safety of the entire aircraft by using electronic equipment during the descent. That includes everyone on the aircraft including the person in 29K. So while your statement is true, it is irrelevant, the safety is being compromised (as determined by the authorities).

I stated that in my last post and I've now stated it twice more. I don't see why you think you need to keep repeating your statement - I got it the first time. Just that it is is based on a false premise.

However - outside of that - if I'm not sitting at 29K - why is it my business?

would you consider it your business if the aircarft fell from the sky?

Do you report someone doing 5km over the speed limit? They're compromising yur safety too. Do you report the driver eating while driving? Maybe not technically illegal - but it certainly affects response times in an emergency.

Sorry that is wrong, someone over the speed limit does not compromise my safety at all. They comnpromise their safety. I can maintain my safety by avoiding those drivers. I have control, unlike in an aircraft where I stuck next to someone. Again this is a poor analogy, besides this is not about what is illegal.

And in South Australia there is a hot line to report dangereous drivers and I would certainly do so. (NB I don't find speeding dangerous, but I do find driving too fast for the road conditions to be dangerous)

And as I said - I find it difficult to draw the distinction between people actually getting upset about it being a safety issue vs getting stroppy becuase people just 'aren't following the rules'. I think it is a case of the latter.

I know it's annoying when people don't follow the rules, but why is it your business? (I'm using the term 'your' in a very general sense )

I don't agree, I see this is entirely about safety and it is not about people getting stroppy about following the rules.

As I also said - if it were a GENUINE saftey concern, then you'd also be lecturing obese people because they're going to get stuck in the aisle when you're trying to get out past them. Why do you not say anything to an obese person? Just because the rules don't say so? Come on, they're likely to be a lot more of an issue than a guy sitting with headphones on (unless he is obese as well!).

My post is based on the assumption that noise cancelling headhones, unlike mobile phones and other high powered transmitting devices, are unlikely to interfere with aircraft navigation. And even if they supposedly could, then unless it was a night-time flight, or bad weather, I too would be seriously concerned that if all it took was one pair of NC headphones to disable a jet then we really do have bigger problems to worry about.

Well unless you work for the people who test electronic equipment in aircraft environments, I'll totally ignore your assumption. I would even say it is a totally wrong assumption. I used to make the same assumption about mobile phones in hospitals, until I saw first hand the results of testing mobile phones in a hospital environment.

The fact is people have tested electronic equipment and it has been determined that they are a safety risk and are banned. When obese people are similar banned I'll lecture them as well. (well maybe not as according to my BMI I'm obese)

 

[SeaWolf]

would you consider it your business if the aircarft fell from the sky?

But you already said previously that you've got no reason to think that would happen and that you don't believe that it would happen. So for the purposes of this discussion, why should anyone take it as a realistic possibility if not even you do?

 

[Aikicoops]

On the BNE-SYD flight last night, I saw someone asked to turn his NC Headphones off, and there was announcement over the PA about this, first time I had ever heard this.

I was wearing my in-ear sound-isolating ear phones, Shure 530's. I normally use it with a iPod or Creative Zen. When the announcement is given to "turn off all electronic equipment" I plug these into the IFE. I have never been asked to take these out or anything. Even when the FA could clearly see I was wearing them as she had to lean over me to the guy next to me to get him to turn his NC headphones off.

When they are serving meals or going through the cabin, which you can see by the increased activity, I normally remove one speaker from my ear so I can hear what is going on.

I believe, and this is only my opinion, is that the soul reason for turning off the NC headphones is they are electronic devices.

It can't be because of the fear of missing announcements, as on take off and landings you are not to have said ipods etc on anyway, so if you are wearing NC headphones you must have them plunged into the IFE and will be able to hear ALL announcements.

Coops

 

[blue_bug]

While I would like to use my NC headphones during take off and landing, if they are deemed to be a risk to safety or have reasons for airlines to stop their usage during that time, I would follow it.

Off topic question, how many of you would make sure your Wifi/Bluetooth before you turn on your laptop during the flight? Those are classed by FCC as transmitting devices.

 

[munitalP]

While I would like to use my NC headphones during take off and landing, if they are deemed to be a risk to safety or have reasons for airlines to stop their usage during that time, I would follow it.

Off topic question, how many of you would make sure your Wifi/Bluetooth before you turn on your laptop during the flight? Those are classed by FCC as transmitting devices.

Thats a good question.

When using my laptop (lenovo X301) the wifi button on the back is first to go off for battery saving. My iPhone by default switches blue tooth off in flight mode

I used to have a Twinhead laptop which turning the wifi on and off was a mission, I guess I used to turn it off again for battery stretch but I cant guarantee I turned it off every flight!

Mr!

 

[medhead]

But you already said previously that you've got no reason to think that would happen and that you don't believe that it would happen. So for the purposes of this discussion, why should anyone take it as a realistic possibility if not even you do?

This is not about realistic possiblity. This is about the basis for the rules. Despite what I, or anyone else thinks. We get on a plane and we are told to do something for the safety of the aircraft. I'm trapped on the plane and there is a guy not doing the something he has been told to do. He is threatening my safety as determined by the authorities and that is enough of a reason for me to expect him to do what he is told. What i think is realistic is an entirely separate matter, but the thing is I don't have a way to know if I'm right or wrong about my opinions

Speeding is another example. I don't agree that speed kills. I do follow the speed limits, but sometimes, (flat straight road surrounded by flat gibber plane at midday, it hasn't rained for months and I have another 500 kms of driving = 150+kph) I do speed. But in these cases I can use my driving experience to judge the conditions and decide that it is "safe". I'm also not going to kill anyone else in these situations, because if there are others around I slow do to the speed limit again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Speeding is another example. I don't agree that speed kills. I do follow the speed limits, but sometimes, (flat straight road surrounded by flat gibber plane at midday, it hasn't rained for months and I have another 500 kms of driving = 150+kph) I do speed. But in these cases I can use my driving experience to judge the conditions and decide that it is "safe". I'm also not going to kill anyone else in these situations, because if there are others around I slow do to the speed limit again.

But speeding is clearly a case where the authorities have determined what the rules are and what is determined to be safe. Just like on the plane. And while speeding on an isolated road may not kill anyone else, there are people that have to come and cut you out of the car, see the disfigured body, battle to save life, and clean up the mess. So there is an impact.

Now unless I was (a) travelling on the road with you or (b) an emergency worker having to clean up, then perhaps I would not be giving you a lecture for speeding. (Although (c) being a taxpayer having to pay for the clean up does come into play!)

Maybe 29J works in aviation safety and determined in his experience that under the conditions his NC headphones were safe to use, just like people who think it is safe to speed.

I don't know the operating specifications of the headphones belonging to 29J, but some airlines, notably Cathay Pacific have inbuilt NC headphones which can be used right up until the gate. Maybe they're different because they're powered directly by in seat power. I dunno. But they wouldn't allow them to be there if they contravened FAA regulations for example.

For those of you who haven't already seen it - there is an interesting experience written up here:

I reported a safety issue on a Qantas flight and the customer service manager threatened to have me arrested - fitzroyalty

 

[SeaWolf]

This is not about realistic possiblity.

On the contrary, I think it's entirely about realistic possibility. The guy with NC headphones knew that the realistic possiblity of getting into actual trouble for breaking the rules was pretty much zero. So that's probably why he didn't care. Same as the speeding really, you've decided the realistic possiblity of getting a fine is almost zero so you've broken the rules. Pretty much the same.

 

[medhead]

But speeding is clearly a case where the authorities have determined what the rules are and what is determined to be safe. Just like on the plane. And while speeding on an isolated road may not kill anyone else, there are people that have to come and cut you out of the car, see the disfigured body, battle to save life, and clean up the mess. So there is an impact.

Now unless I was (a) travelling on the road with you or (b) an emergency worker having to clean up, then perhaps I would not be giving you a lecture for speeding. (Although (c) being a taxpayer having to pay for the clean up does come into play!)

The authorities have only determined what the speed limit will be, that is not related to safety. First example we are told to drive to the road conditions meaning that if it is raining, dark etc. then we should drive slower than the speed limit = speed limit is not safe depending on conditions. Second about 10 years ago, a large number of speed limits were changed from 60 to 50 This was purportedly done because of the effects of a crash, it doesn't make the road any more safe to drive on.

As for point (a) Travelling with me? What exactly like someone travelling with 29J in a plane?

Maybe 29J works in aviation safety and determined in his experience that under the conditions his NC headphones were safe to use, just like people who think it is safe to speed.

I don't know the operating specifications of the headphones belonging to 29J, but some airlines, notably Cathay Pacific have inbuilt NC headphones which can be used right up until the gate. Maybe they're different because they're powered directly by in seat power. I dunno. But they wouldn't allow them to be there if they contravened FAA regulations for example.

If 29J worked in aviation safety then he should have used his experience and position to have the rules changed. He didn't and therefore the reason for the rule stands.
As previously mentioned in the thread QF also have NC headphones that can continue to be used. No doubt because of something related to that model and that Qantas has control over the particular model. Unlike third party NC headphones.

On the contrary, I think it's entirely about realistic possibility. The guy with NC headphones knew that the realistic possiblity of getting into actual trouble for breaking the rules was pretty much zero. So that's probably why he didn't care. Same as the speeding really, you've decided the realistic possiblity of getting a fine is almost zero so you've broken the rules. Pretty much the same.

Fair point well made

 

[mannej]

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.

 

[JohnK]

Do you report someone doing 5km over the speed limit? They're compromising yur safety too. Do you report the driver eating while driving? Maybe not technically illegal - but it certainly affects response times in an emergency.

Apologies for taking thread Off-Topic but I did ensure that the self-centered selfish people with no disability sticker did not use the disability pick-up at SYD T3 last night. The first person was asked to move and complied but the second person decided to do a pick-up anyway and should hopefully be receiving a infringement notice in the next few days. Do I feel bad? No.