|
As much as has been said before, I don't really understand why airlines are still so adamant on providing IFE to their passengers. Most people travel with laptops, tablets or smartphones/iDevices these days; why not skip the expensive, heavy and unreliable integrated systems and just provide power at each seat (or seat group) and invest in inflight WiFi instead? Or here's a concept, how about you open the window blind and watch the world go by and marvel, if only for a second, just how amazing it is to be doing what you're doing? Having watched the world go by like that for the last decade or so, I can tell you it's never boring or uninteresting.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
MrChips posted:
People must think I'm a little kid because when I fly I almost always have my face plastered against the window looking out. It loses a lot of its appeal though over the ocean though and at night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
MrChips posted:As much as has been said before, I don't really understand why airlines are still so adamant on providing IFE to their passengers. Most people travel with laptops, tablets or smartphones/iDevices these days; why not skip the expensive, heavy and unreliable integrated systems and just provide power at each seat (or seat group) and invest in inflight WiFi instead? For this to happen the FAA would have to drop its absurd and utterly irrational stance on the use of electronic devices by passengers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Doesn't the private air refueling company only do it as contract work to the military? Looking them up (Omega Aerial Refueling Services) it sure doesn't look like they have the best track record for not crashing. I think they also occasionally support contractors flying ex-military aircraft in support of the military (the Navy in particular outsources a fair amount of their red air flying to contractors; also they tend to use Omega for their grey tails a lot more frequently than the USAF, which makes sense). But yeah, the only people Omega is supporting are either the military or tied to the military in some way. Also that tanker crash was kind of darkly funny for my unit at the time because it was like the icing on the cake for how literally everything that could've gone wrong had gone wrong in the planning for this major exercise...we were supposed to have F-22s, they got grounded; we were supposed to have a carrier, it dropped out/broke 2 weeks before the exercise (so a portion of the Air Wing was now operating from our base when we were already past capacity without adding another 16 jets and 400 people); we lost some of our planned lodging; and then the tanker crashed so no Navy specific tanking. At that point we were expecting Godzilla to rise out of the water and start destroying the base or something. slidebite posted:People must think I'm a little kid because when I fly I almost always have my face plastered against the window looking out. It loses a lot of its appeal though over the ocean though and at night. And even then, it depends on where you're located when flying at night...flying out of ICN on a clear day right after sunset was pretty cool:  But yeah, the ocean not so much. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
I thought a plane in Russia crashed because of a cell phone once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:For this to happen the FAA would have to drop its absurd and utterly irrational stance on the use of electronic devices by passengers. PEDs are allowed whenever the crew says they are (which even now is most of your typical flight); what's so onerous about turning them off for takeoff and landing. As much as you or others might argue for a complete reversal of the ban, there are noticeable effects to PED use in-flight, especially cellphones. The "BZZZZZT-BR-BR-BR-BR-BR" of any GSM-based (including the newer 3G/4G types) cellphone comes through loud and clear in both the comm radios and the crew intercom circuit; not only is it distracting, but it can cause you to miss a radio call from ATC, or cause your call to go out garbled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Just to reemphasize, this is so beyond what most people ever experience in an airliner, particularly in the summer. It's hot and stuffy, there's basically no airflow, the jet makes strange motions you're not used to, and it's just weird. HB I don't know if you've ever been in the back for it, but it's totally different than sitting up front. I've only seen like 3 people puke, but several green faces. A lot of this is probably due to the fact that's a 60-year old aircraft design. This surprises me, even though it's a really old design. You'd think somebody would have done a study showing that people who are properly ventilated with fresh air work better longer than people that don't have it. MrChips posted:Or here's a concept, how about you open the window blind and watch the world go by and marvel, if only for a second, just how amazing it is to be doing what you're doing? Having watched the world go by like that for the last decade or so, I can tell you it's never boring or uninteresting. I'm with you, although 1) you have to be next to a window seat for that and 2) you usually can't see poo poo at night, anyway. Also, who has rowlfed on a plane and is obsessed with airships? This guy. I was flying from school home for Christmas, and was flying through Atlantic Canada in a blizzard. I had not slept at all the previous night, (the flight was departing at 6:30 AM and I just finished exams and couldn't sleep) and we spent a fair bit of our time on the ground. Even before we took off we were delayed an hour as the de-icing truck broke down. So we are flying on a Dash 8 into Halifax, The entire flight so far has been alright as far as trips-during-Christmas-in-a-commuter-aircraft-over-the-Maritimes go. I've forgotten my gravol and have just gotten some coffee from the stewardess to settle my stomach and the pilot says we're going to 'attempt' to land there as the winds are 'high'. (They were in fact blowing a full gale or possibly whatever is above a gale.) When this announcement is done, the stewardess takes the coffee back from me, which indicated to me it was going to be rough. On the approach we're in a boxing match, bobbing and weaving in a way that makes my fellow travels gasp. I start to feel ill, and look for the air-sickness bag. My seat doesn't have one, and I have to ask the lady in the seat next to me for *her* airsickness bag. This goes on for awhile, and just when I think this is getting to be too much, the landing gear comes down. Now old man winter is connecting with those punches, and I can see scraps of snowy land and trees through the clouds before I hurl. After that it's still very unpleasant but the post-vomit euphoria smooths it out until the landing gear retracts...and then we're definitely climbing under full power. I groggily sit with the warm bag of vomit on my knee. We've been diverted to Moncton. They let everybody off the plane at Moncton and as we deplane at the front, the flight Crew are wishing everyone Merry Christmas. I ask one of the pilots "Sorry to be be a bother, but, er, what do I do with this" as I motion to my airsickness bag. The pilot immediately says "oh, I'll take that" with a chipper enthusiasm you'd never think would go along with bags of vomit. In Moncton (where the storm is lots of snow but no wind at all) they give us a choice: 1. A bus making the 5 hour trip to Halifax 2. You get back on the plane and try again At least 50% of the people opt for the bus. Past caring about pretty much anything, I take the plane and wake up on the touchdown bump at Halifax, to the cheers and applause of my fellow passengers. But yeah, bad day to travel. I was supposed to be home by 12:30 PM, and made it there 12:30 AM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Last 3 times I flew cattle class (Westjet, AC and United) my IFE screen didn't even work at all. I was on MIA-LHR and my IFE screen crashed about an hour into the overnight flight, while I had the overhead light on. Fortunately, it wasn't coupled to the seat controls, but it sucked trying to sleep with the super-bright light bearing down on me, and none of the FAs had the ability to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
707 AC packs are worth about as much as a cum fart. Work wonderfully at altitude. Everywhere else? Yea no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:PEDs are allowed whenever the crew says they are (which even now is most of your typical flight); what's so onerous about turning them off for takeoff and landing. Because it's loving retarded. My Kindle's doing exactly the same thing with its cover closed stuck into the seatback in front of me as it is when I'm looking at a page, but if I do the second thing I get yelled by a flight attendant enforcing a retarded loving rule. quote:As much as you or others might argue for a complete reversal of the ban, there are noticeable effects to PED use in-flight, especially cellphones. The "BZZZZZT-BR-BR-BR-BR-BR" of any GSM-based (including the newer 3G/4G types) cellphone comes through loud and clear in both the comm radios and the crew intercom circuit; not only is it distracting, but it can cause you to miss a radio call from ATC, or cause your call to go out garbled. Then keep the rule that says "turn off cellphones until we're at the gate."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
I'm open to persuasion on other electronic devices, but the day someone can have a cell phone conversation in the seat next to me midflight is the day I go postal and have to be marched out of the aircraft in handcuffs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm open to persuasion on other electronic devices, but the day someone can have a cell phone conversation in the seat next to me midflight is the day I go postal and have to be marched out of the aircraft in handcuffs. What do you think its going to do? Affect avionics? Doubtful. Cause damage to something in the controls? How does a cell phone affect hydraulic systems or fly by wire system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:flying on a Dash 8 I think I've spotted your problem.  CommieGIR posted:What do you think its going to do? Affect avionics? Doubtful. Cause damage to something in the controls? How does a cell phone affect hydraulic systems or fly by wire system? I dunno about any of that, but being stuck with someone in the literal seat next to me conducting (loud, obnoxious) cell phone conversations the entire 6 hours of an JFK-LAX flight is going to have a severely detrimental effect on my mental well being.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm open to persuasion on other electronic devices, but the day someone can have a cell phone conversation in the seat next to me midflight is the day I go postal and have to be marched out of the aircraft in handcuffs. There are real actual reasons to limit cellphone use in planes. The phone's going to have LOS to a shitload of towers, get a shitload of channels allocated to it and tie them up needlessly. Cell companies could design around that but they're probably happy enough just to let FAA regs solve the problem for them. There are no good reasons to ban the use of kindles, PDAs, iPads, etc, or at least none that don't apply just as well to books or magazines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
I don't really have an issue with turning stuff off for takeoff and landing, and having it in flight mode the rest of the time. Can't really see why people get so wound up about it, it's maybe half an hour at the most at either end of the flight. I'm pretty sure there's unlikely to be a serious problem caused by someone having their electronics turned on at takeoff/landing, but aerospace doesn't run on "pretty sure", so I can't see the rule going away any time soon. Even leaving aside the possibility of interference, I've heard a few other reasons for it, such as wanting passengers paying attention to safety information rather than their phone. The whole thing remains a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned. What's so bad about being without a kindle or whatever for a little while?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There are real actual reasons to limit cellphone use in planes. The phone's going to have LOS to a shitload of towers, get a shitload of channels allocated to it and tie them up needlessly. Cell companies could design around that but they're probably happy enough just to let FAA regs solve the problem for them. There are no good reasons to ban the use of kindles, PDAs, iPads, etc, or at least none that don't apply just as well to books or magazines. In most cases the towers are actually programmed to ignore signals that appear and then drop repeatedly, so its not even much of an issue because the phone might get signal but rarely enough connectivity to actually connect a call. Pass a text message maybe, but not a conversation. iyaayas01 posted:I dunno about any of that, but being stuck with someone in the literal seat next to me conducting (loud, obnoxious) cell phone conversations the entire 6 hours of an JFK-LAX flight is going to have a severely detrimental effect on my mental well being. Thankfully, unless they start re-broadcasting cell signals to the interior of the cabin and connecting them to satellite, you will never have to worry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I was on MIA-LHR and my IFE screen crashed about an hour into the overnight flight, while I had the overhead light on. Fortunately, it wasn't coupled to the seat controls, but it sucked trying to sleep with the super-bright light bearing down on me, and none of the FAs had the ability to fix it. I had one bootlooping for the entire flight once, but at least the drat light was off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Honestly I would put most IFE issues on crappy software rather than the hardware. Is the software sourced by the carriers or do Boeing / Airbus do it to order?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Powercube posted:JFK-DXB with just the right winds might be close. Either way, I am pretty sure it is more marketing than anything... reality is probably more like 14 hours- but that doesn't look as good on a poster. Phanatic posted:There are real actual reasons to limit cellphone use in planes. The phone's going to have LOS to a shitload of towers, get a shitload of channels allocated to it and tie them up needlessly. Cell companies could design around that but they're probably happy enough just to let FAA regs solve the problem for them. There are no good reasons to ban the use of kindles, PDAs, iPads, etc, or at least none that don't apply just as well to books or magazines.  CommieGIR posted:In most cases the towers are actually programmed to ignore signals that appear and then drop repeatedly, so its not even much of an issue because the phone might get signal but rarely enough connectivity to actually connect a call. Pass a text message maybe, but not a conversation. grover fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Honestly I would put most IFE issues on crappy software rather than the hardware. Is the software sourced by the carriers or do Boeing / Airbus do it to order? I believe both can happen, depending on the order. "Buyer furnished equipment" or installed by Boeing. I know little about the software, but I believe IFE stuff is treated like an LRU... If an airline wanted to redo their IFE software, that would require some level of re-certification, correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
grover posted:Not to mention, most cell tower antennas are designed to project power sideways, not up, and even then only have a range of about 5 miles. You lose signal really fast as you gain altitude. And aircraft are generally pretty effective faraday cages, which lead to high attenuation. Even if you were allowed to use cell phones, they wouldn't work well, if at all. Exactly, so its really a non-issue, and I don't know of many avionics systems that work in the range cell phones do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Exactly, so its really a non-issue, and I don't know of many avionics systems that work in the range cell phones do. An unplugged clock radio seems too...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Exactly, so its really a non-issue, and I don't know of many avionics systems that work in the range cell phones do. See what I wrote above about cellphones. MrChips posted:The "BZZZZZT-BR-BR-BR-BR-BR" of any GSM-based (including the newer 3G/4G types) cellphone comes through loud and clear in both the comm radios and the crew intercom circuit; not only is it distracting, but it can cause you to miss a radio call from ATC, or cause your call to go out garbled. Phanatic posted:Because it's loving retarded. My Kindle's doing exactly the same thing with its cover closed stuck into the seatback in front of me as it is when I'm looking at a page, but if I do the second thing I get yelled by a flight attendant enforcing a retarded loving rule. Sadly, the only way a book is going to interfere with flight safety these days is if it's called "The Quran". As for how much of a chance that a PED will cause interference, it's not for me to say, but it certainly isn't zero. My question is this; are you willing to bet your life on it the chance it won't cause a problem? Are you willing to bet your fellow passenger's lives on it? Besides, as I and others have mentioned above, it's for 15 minutes at the start and the end of your flight. If you're inconvenienced by that to the point that it's a serious issue, then congratulations you lead a pretty trouble-free existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
slidebite posted:People must think I'm a little kid because when I fly I almost always have my face plastered against the window looking out. It loses a lot of its appeal though over the ocean though and at night. Likewise. I usually alternate between staring out the window, and sleeping when there's nothing to see. I absolutely love the last twenty minutes, seeing everything go from "satellite photo" to "city advertising photo" to "museum diorama" to "model railroad" to right on the ground. I often end up with my camera glued against the window too, filming the flaps going in and out and the heat ripples from the engines distorting the cars on the freeway below and the sun reflecting off the skyscrapers...everything's magical from far above. And I've got some sweet videos of takeoff and landing too (gently caress da police) e: cell phone goes in airplane mode from takeoff to landing; it's not like it's going to get any usable signal anyway. I do like having the GPS with some offline maps, though, so when I see something neat on the ground I can tag it for later inspection. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Groda posted:An unplugged clock radio seems too... Cell phones that use TDMA signaling (GSM 2G and iDEN) emit power in bursts due to the timeslot-based frequency sharing in use. Timeslots come up at a rate of about 216 Hz (for GSM at least, not sure about iDEN) so when transmitting it can induce a 216Hz audio frequency signal in to unshielded wiring. Computer speakers, headphone wires, and phone handset cords are some of the best at picking this up. So yes, if there are unshielded analog audio lines within 1-3 feet of your cell phone it can put a signal in that you'll notice. This doesn't mean anything for other radio devices though, and your phone in the cabin isn't going to mess with anything in the cockpit unless for some reason the radio is in the back with analog audio runs to the front. The cockpit crew would probably want to turn theirs off though. wolrah fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The cockpit crew would probably want to turn theirs off though. I've heard that it's quite common for the pilots on long, boring flights to screw around with laptops or iPads or whatever, even to the point of watching movies and playing video games. I've even heard some suggestions that Warcraft III (or some other game) was what caused NWA 188 to overfly its destination by a full hour. True or false?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that it's quite common for the pilots on long, boring flights to screw around with laptops or iPads or whatever, even to the point of watching movies and playing video games. I've even heard some suggestions that Warcraft III (or some other game) was what caused NWA 188 to overfly its destination by a full hour. True or false? False; they were trying to figure out their new airline's crew scheduling system; it didn't go well, as we all know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that it's quite common for the pilots on long, boring flights to screw around with laptops or iPads or whatever, even to the point of watching movies and playing video games. I've even heard some suggestions that Warcraft III (or some other game) was what caused NWA 188 to overfly its destination by a full hour. True or false? Airlines are working on getting iPads qualified for use in-flight for charts and manuals and such, because they're orders of magnitude cheaper than something as good and built into the plane, orders of magnitude lighter than paper equivalents, and easier to update too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that it's quite common for the pilots on long, boring flights to screw around with laptops or iPads or whatever, even to the point of watching movies and playing video games. I've even heard some suggestions that Warcraft III (or some other game) was what caused NWA 188 to overfly its destination by a full hour. True or false? Personal electronics use definitely occurs behind closed doors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:False; they were trying to figure out their new airline's crew scheduling system; it didn't go well, as we all know. Actually its True. We've made adapters for flight crews in the air force to plug in mp3 players and laptops into the interphone. And the sound they were hearing over interphone did nothing to the avionics, that is not how the interphone works CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Airlines are working on getting iPads qualified for use in-flight for charts and manuals and such, because they're orders of magnitude cheaper than something as good and built into the plane, orders of magnitude lighter than paper equivalents, and easier to update too. Some USAF communities are currently starting to use iPads for that purpose, for pretty much those reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Gullous posted:I believe both can happen, depending on the order. "Buyer furnished equipment" or installed by Boeing. I know little about the software, but I believe IFE stuff is treated like an LRU... You are right about it being an LRU. I have never heard any airline writing their entire IFE program from the ground up. I know there was a big amount hype over VX's system running on a LINUX backend- but a lot of the current generation of Panasonic systems do. I want to say that the most the airlines might do is putting the skins on the user interface so branding is always up to date, but I would not rule out some form of SLA where the provider issues airline specific patches to cover that sort of thing. Regardless, I think whether or not software has to be rectified is dependent on the country of register's civil aviation authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Some USAF communities are currently starting to use iPads for that purpose, for pretty much those reasons. Ive actually seen the too. The pilots like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In most cases the towers are actually programmed to ignore signals that appear and then drop repeatedly, so its not even much of an issue because the phone might get signal but rarely enough connectivity to actually connect a call. Pass a text message maybe, but not a conversation. How did the 9/11 Pennsylvania plane people make cell phone calls? Analog signals work better for that? I guess only 2 were able to do so; the rest were those seat phones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
I've gotten FM signals on a flight before which I thought was crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
MrChips posted:See what I wrote above about cellphones. It's actually about 100%. quote:My question is this; are you willing to bet your life on it the chance it won't cause a problem? Are you willing to bet your fellow passenger's lives on it? Yes (I work in flight testing and have some experience testing for EMI with fligt control systems). Yes, I am willing to do that. There's this general misconception, propagated in no small part by the FAA, that you can't allow things that cause interference with aircraft systems onto the plane. This is trivially false for a couple of reasons. First, if these things were capable of causing harmful/unexpected flight control responses, etc, then they wouldn't be allowed on at any time of the flight, not just during takeoff and landing. It's not like the flight controls doing uncommanded stuff is fine at cruising altitude. And even as far as takeoff and landing goes, the pilots have iPads in the cockpits now that they use instead of their old kneeboards. Second, these things absolutely cause interference. The dirty secret is that so does everything else on an airplane. The microwave oven causes interference, the radios cause interference, every single piece of electronic hardware on the airplane interferes with all the rest (slight exaggeration but not a big one), all the time. So where it's important, that equipment is designed to tell the difference between interference and actual meaningful input. Any flight control system that, say, moves control surfaces because some weak EMI told it to is defective and shouldn't be on an airplane. And good luck getting such a signal to convince any aircraft system it represents valid navaid data. And again, I'm not talking about a cellphone, or something that's designed to be a transmitter, I'm talking about devices that radiate simply by virtue of being electronic devices. Here's how absurd this is. Know what's a great source of high-power broadband interference, with field strengths that dwarf what your Nintendo DS is outputting? Lightning. It's everywhere. Fly in the atmosphere, it's a good bet that there's lightning somewhere close enough to cause interference. Planes are *required to be able to cope with being directly struck by lightning*. quote:Besides, as I and others have mentioned above, it's for 15 minutes at the start and the end of your flight. If you're inconvenienced by that to the point that it's a serious issue, then congratulations you lead a pretty trouble-free existence. Stupid inconvenience for the sake of *nothing* is loving retarded. Yes, yes, I'm part of the wealthy segment of the world population that can actually afford to buy a plane ticket and fly off to Vegas or Orlando or Brussels if I want to, that doesn't mean that the TSA isn't completely loving retarded and I'm not allowed to point that out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 10:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:PEDs are allowed whenever the crew says they are (which even now is most of your typical flight); what's so onerous about turning them off for takeoff and landing. As much as you or others might argue for a complete reversal of the ban, there are noticeable effects to PED use in-flight, especially cellphones. The "BZZZZZT-BR-BR-BR-BR-BR" of any GSM-based (including the newer 3G/4G types) cellphone comes through loud and clear in both the comm radios and the crew intercom circuit; not only is it distracting, but it can cause you to miss a radio call from ATC, or cause your call to go out garbled. The real problem isn't the act of turning off or on electronics, the real problem is the reaction that paranoid people have. The 'personal electronic devices may disrupt flight equipment' myth has caused many many cases of air-rage and other negative passenger-passenger or passenger-crew interactions. Because paranoid people see some other person using a phone on the taxiway and start ranting/shouting about how 'you're going to kill us all, turn it off, turn it off, turn it off'. That's the reason why most flight crews and airlines want the ban rescinded, because it sends a signal that the whole thing is paranoia and please stop punching our attendants in the face because you're frightened you're going to die because little timmy is playing on his 3ds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 10:23
|
|
|
There must be hundreds of people who accidentally (or not) leave their electronic devices on on aircraft every day. If it was truly a serious issue I'd doubt they'd laptops and similar in the cabin at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
Here's the real reason you can't use your poo poo at takeoff/landing: some loving self-important prick is going to be using his laptop and BBMing and so zoned into his own Very Important Business that he's going to miss the BRACE BRACE BRACE command and his 1kg device is going to fly through the cabin at 200mph killing several children enroute, and while everyone else is trying to get to the emergency exits, he's blocking the way while trying to send that last email to reschedule his tee time. Put it away, sit down, shut up, watch the safety demo you've seen 1000 times, flip through the inflight magazine, and twiddle your thumbs. Whatever it is you're doing, it can wait. Re: IFE, the back end stuff is coded by the manufacturer, the front end interface is designed by the airline (at least in the case of Thales).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Eh, that whole thing isn't very convincing either. I've seen plenty of business travelers asleep before take off. Not to mention all the people who take sleeping pills on long flights. Attendants just have to deal with that and it's way more out of it than someone on a laptop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 14:00
|
|