
Despite the on-again, off-again worries about in-flight calling interfering with an airliner's many navigational gizmos, we have to admit, there's a part of us that really loves to hear a story about what happens when someone actually has the stones to ignore federal law and breaks out the phone. That's exactly what Texan Joe David Jones did on a flight from Austin to Dallas last week, receiving a message on his cell -- which he'd forgotten to turn off -- about his father's health and felt compelled to return the call immediately. He ignored flight attendants' requests to hang up, spending some 20-odd minutes chatting away, apparently with no ill effect on the plane's ability to fly without exploding, barrel rolling uncontrollably, or falling out of the sky. We'd expected that such a blatant disregard for ignoring crew instructions would result in some jail time, but apparently the gentleman simply got slapped with a disorderly conduct ticket that carries up to $500 in fines. If we'd been in the seat next to him, we'd have probably hogtied him with his seatbelt and thrown his phone down the scary vacuum-powered lavatory toilet, but at least we know exactly what happens now when someone says "screw you" to the in-flight phone ban.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave @ May 18th 2008 6:40PM
actually we dont know exactly what happens, because the interference is especially important when the plane is taking off and landing.
Mweb586 @ May 18th 2008 7:21PM
I think that those UHF tv things make the compass and altimeter freak out, I read some article in a magazine about it.
kurosu @ May 18th 2008 7:48PM
THAT'S a guy??? MY GOODNESS what has this world come to.. seriously he looks so messed up. thank goodness he owes 500..i was hoping more but that'll do. i hate idiots who ignores laws.
Anthony @ May 18th 2008 8:02PM
I think that's just a generic shot.
However- if you get a call that your dad's dead/dying or anything else really important I think people would understand a 2 minute call on a plane.
20 minutes? Someone should've punched him in the face.
backbeat @ May 18th 2008 9:58PM
Anthony said: "20 minutes? Someone should've punched him in the face."
Punched him in the face? For what? Being 'rude' to the stewardess? Giving the finger to a draconian and errant law? Phucking Sheeple!
Derek @ May 18th 2008 9:59PM
No, they use that picture for every article involving cell phones and planes.
Darren @ May 18th 2008 8:18PM
Actually, I don't give a crap what happened to him and I probably would have been more amused than upset since I sincerely doubt anything bad would ever happen (how many mobiles are accidentally left on and continue to try sync email the whole flight without incident?).
I just want to know which operator's network is so good that he could go for 20 minutes at without dropping a call!! Not sure how fast or high those commuter planes fly, but I often can't go 20 minutes without losing the call going 70mph.
Dave @ May 18th 2008 8:48PM
look, we all know that there is a minute chance that cell phones will actually make something go wrong on an airplane, but it is a great deterrent to keep kids and a-holes who think the rules don't apply to them from using their phone on the plane. in regards to that cell phone carrier question, i will have to agree with you, even though the flight from austin to dallas is very short so they dont usually go above 20,000 feet, that is still quite impressive.
Jay @ May 18th 2008 8:50PM
I've spoke to many people involved in air traffic control, pilots, etc. Bottom line is that it's the biggest myth to have to keep cellphones off during flight. The real fear is that they can be used as a remote trigger for a bomb..other than that there is no problem
Steven @ May 18th 2008 9:10PM
I think the real issue with cell phones on airplanes is that since its such a small space with all those people, imagine if they all were using their phones chatting away. It would be extremely noisy to say the least.
That, or like Jay said, they could be used as possible detonators for terrorism.
Either way, using your cell phone would most likely not result in a fatal crash killing hundreds of people. But its at least nice to have some peace and quiet while on the plane.
wako @ May 18th 2008 9:49PM
What I dont understand is how he can be chatting away a few thousand feet in the air. How is his phone getting any signal?!
If you really wanted to make this newsworthy, you should have told us what phone he had. I know for sure mine wont get any signal a few thousand feet in the air....
zargon @ May 18th 2008 10:25PM
Cells are apparently suppose to be able to get reception 30,000 to 50,000 feet.
I have been on our company jet we have been able to send and receive phone calls while at cruising altitude.
zargon @ May 18th 2008 10:23PM
I have flown on our company jet and have talker to our pilots about cell phones and electronic devices. They said it doesn't do anything and we are not bothered when them requesting to turn stuff off and in fact can get calls while at cruising speeds.
I don't know if commercial airliners are any different, I haven't bothered to try nor cared to tango and see where it gets me. In fact, for commercial airliners, I hope they keep cell phones off them all together. We already have to deal with annoying people, another thing we don't need is someone who things they are so important that they cannot shut their cell phone off for 2 to 4 hours. It is bad enough that people think it is ok to yammer in public places and share their phone conversation when everyone around them, we don't need it in the confined space of an airline.
backbeat @ May 18th 2008 10:45PM
If I'm in-flight for 2 to 4 hours, while awaiting word on the possible death of my spouse, etc, you can deal with being "inconvenienced". No apologies offered.
zargon @ May 18th 2008 11:12PM
I doesn't matter, it is still a inconvenience.
People have done it for many of years before cell phones, you and others can manage a mere 2 to 4 hours (or god forbid more...) of not having access to a cell phone, no one is that important.
backbeat @ May 18th 2008 11:27PM
You don't seem to be comprehending my post terribly well. I neither seek your permission, nor offer any apologies under conditions such as that which I previously mentioned. The call would be made and let the chips fall where they may.
To clarify, I agree that cell use for chit-chat about what movie to see or how bad Sprint sucks is better left for on-ground activity for the sake of propriety. Certain circumstances would not prevent me from dialing or accepting a call, period.
youngcalihottie @ May 19th 2008 7:53PM
let me ask you this: once you ignored the law and bothered the rest of the passengers, what would you do with the information???
it is rather pointless to find out in-flight because there is nothing you can do about it. the plane is not going to turn around for you. you are going to have to wait until you land to do anything about it. so you may as well have waited until you landed to discuss it.
so if it ever does happen, enjoy your $500 police ticket (which could have been better spent on a $500 plane ticket to see your loved one). and...
...here's your sign.
Cash @ May 19th 2008 3:59AM
If you care so little, why do you feel the need to continue proclaiming how little you care anytime someone challenges you?
It's almost as if you... care... or something....
backbeat @ May 20th 2008 10:08AM
@youngcalhottie - Most life-saving measures require informed consent by the relative with the closest *legal* relationship [child, parent, or spouse]. There are times when our nation's laws conflict with each other, and this is one of those occasions. If you would not avail yourself to preserve the life of your loved one, that is your choice. In that case, you've saved yourself $500. Congrats! In my case, by my own choice, I stand a better chance at saving my loved one's life.
Your 'sign' is a mirror. Use it.
Chris McDowell @ May 18th 2008 11:51PM
I keep my phone on but silenced for ever single flight ever. On purpose. It is a bunch of bs that it makes the airplane crash. Sends texts and everything fine from altitude.
Roger Alford @ May 18th 2008 11:54PM
TDMA/GSM phones make the interferance. ALL airlines flown commercially with passengers have their Avionics "electronics" shielded from small amounts of this. Larger amounts may cause issues, however, even if EVERYONE on a flight of 250 got on their phones, and ALL used GSM phones I doubt the interference would do anything - GSM is the ONLY technology they have in Europe and airlines have lifted their ban, so it CANT be doing that bad.
CDMA - does NOT produce interference, and is likely able to hold a greater signal higher in elevation then GSM.
Also, GSM towers are not designed to be long haul signal carriers, CDMA however is. Thus, this person either had Sprint, Verizon, or to get such great coverage that high up, he MAY have had AT&T (being an SBC territory and having many base stations). Regardless.....
20 minutes is excessive, but once the ban is lifted, Id use my phone ALMOST the whole way from SF to Seattle - why? Cause I need to keep in contact with the people picking me up on my flight. But mainly for data and texts (which I keep SILENT).
There have been times when I kept my phone on, on a plane by mistake, or hit the button in my pocket when sitting that turned it on. Ive received texts ALL the time BELOW 10,000 feet, 1/2 the time above up to 25,000 and NEVER above that. Then again, California, Oregon, Washington do NOT have the massive overlay that Texas does.
johdaxx @ May 19th 2008 12:48AM
I had a friend that was a corporate pilot that used to call me all the time. They said there was a problem with billing, since the phone would contact too many cell towers. Interference = complete BS.
Martin @ May 19th 2008 3:02AM
You clearly have not been on any middle east flights guys.Many of the locals just refuse to turn there phones off, You get texts and calls throughout the flight. On a recent flight from Doha to Abu Dhabi it was like a call centre up there and we did not crash.
brux2dc @ May 19th 2008 3:31AM
I wish that they would just admit that the ban is because Brittany would yap on about her prized shitzu for hours to her friend Brandi if not for the current in flight ban. I say keep the ban, just be up front about why.
Oh and the grammer nazis can just back-off of this post! Yeah spelling sucks, and I'm sure there is an errant comma. So F'n what! This is the internet. Not ENGL362.
superklye @ May 19th 2008 9:12PM
This might be the worst post I've ever read on this site. Bravo.
slamEVIL @ May 19th 2008 5:27PM
i voted for it (+)
:)
Cash @ May 19th 2008 4:06AM
I've never taken or placed a voice call inflight, but I've carried on a 4 hour text conversation that was updated everytime the plane flew over a city and got coverage. This was after I had a 2 hour conversation with one of Boeing's higher level engineers at the Alaska Airlines lounge in the Minneapolis airport, and he told me all the reasons why the no cellphone use in flight rule is pretty much crap from a technical standpoint. I'm not gonna go into specifics, but he told me that a mechanical failure was thousands of times more likely to bring down a plane then cell phone call. That didn't make me feel much safer about air travel in general, but I don't turn off my cell when the cabin door closes anymore.
Tommy @ May 19th 2008 4:18AM
Having received a degree in aviation and logged many flight hours, I can say it's a well known fact that cell phones do not do anything to an airplane's avionics. The majority of airplanes are remarkably simple creations, many people expect much more complication than really exists. Only the really cutting edge even have controls that are not mechanically connected to the pilot's inputs, and those fly-by-wires have backups in triplicate. And the airspeed, altimeter, etc. do not have any electonic input at all. :x
There's more concern over some issue with cell phones accessing towers due to increased line of sight than avionic complications.
Tommy @ May 19th 2008 4:18AM
Oh, and the comments on that Texas newspaper coverage of the event are laughable. Bunch of rednecks commenting on something they do not understand. Irate he "put everyone's lives in danger." Ludicrous.
Jeremy @ May 19th 2008 4:47AM
I travel almost every week on business. I think that the ban on phones is a good thing. I dont want to have some 14 year old girl yapping down her phone for 4 hours next to me going " and I was like... and then she was like...."
or some up himself a****hole yelling down his phone at his co workers. Flights are a time I like to relax during a stressful week. I think one of the best reasons for the ban is to stop this. I know its legistrating agains rudeness but some people have no manners.And I cant believe these people who wip out there phones just before landing and as soon ( and i mean the microsecond" the wheels touch the ground they turn thier phone on. Now I understand that people want to let the people they are meeting know that they have landed. but cant you wait until all the wheels are on the ground.... come on......
jeremy @ May 19th 2008 4:56AM
Adding a bit more here.
Actually I would not mind though if they allowed texting and emailing on planes its less intrusive.
Also some times these flights actually have a in flight movie I might want to see ( very unlikely I know) but its like a movie theatre having some rude arse talking next to you while your trying to watch a movie.
drt @ May 19th 2008 5:55AM
Take a step back in time when cell phones first came out, there was no ban on using them on a plane. The carriers however could not figure out how to bill the user, at the time everything was billable, time, distance ect. So when you used your phone on a plane and the thing switched from tower to tower that was a problem. They lobbied congress to ban usage on planes with the argument that it could cause interference and our incredibly bright representative took the cash and banned the phones. Now it's conventional wisdom, cell phone cause planes to crash with zero evidence to back that up. My question, what type of phone do you have that works on a plane? I loose my signal just after takeoff.
brux2dc @ May 19th 2008 2:47PM
You must have Sprint!
Chris @ May 19th 2008 7:21AM
@ Backbeat... you would deserve to get your back beat with that attitude! I hope you dont mind my foot.
So many people would forget the privileges of technology and disregard the safety of others just for the sake of a phone call?? You can wait till the flights landed, this guy has no patience or respect for others, the fine should be double or triple.
I understand, the plane might not have any issues, but why take a chance?? Its like all the stupid drivers out there doing 90+ MPH on the thruway that haven't been in an accident YET... Once you have been in one you look at driving a lot differently.
backbeat @ May 19th 2008 4:38PM
Chris said "I understand, the plane might not have any issues, but why take a chance?"
I don't expect you to recognize, nor admit, the stupendous lack of logic in your statement, but suffice it to say that many readers shook their heads while reading it. Flat-earth loves the comfortably stupid.
As for "minding your foot", only an inconsequential internet troll who has run out of targets to piss on would offer up such a scenario while I'm speaking to the surgeons who are attempting to save my spouse's/parent's life. Your spouse can die on the table since her surgeons can't locate you nor obtain consent only her spouse is able to legally provide. Not mine, however. Deal with it.
Sam @ May 19th 2008 10:38AM
To be frank, and a bit crude (if you'll pardon me), if the life of one of my loved ones is at stake, the FAA and the FCC can bite me.
That said, while I do not have a firm opinion on whether or not in-flight calling should be allowed, this does open up a can of worms - where do we make exceptions?
Chris @ May 19th 2008 11:23AM
"but at least we know exactly what happens now when someone says "screw you" to the in-flight phone ban."
Yes, that one phone call should be used as the only source of information about in-flight cell phone usage going forward. Hi, I'm an Engadget writer and I make absolute statements.
Chris Ziegler @ May 19th 2008 11:30AM
No sense of humor whatsoever, eh? I can think of a few better places for you to get your tech news in that case.
Chris
slamEVIL @ May 19th 2008 5:28PM
burn!
Dr. Roland E. Kehr, Jr. @ May 19th 2008 11:43AM
I watched a MythBusters episode a few months ago where they did everything possible to interfere with airline electronics via cellphone useage. There was absolutely no effect on the electronics. Oh well, we all know the earth is flat!! Aside from the "interference" issue, privacy and quietness would be seriously compromised if cell phones were allowed to be used while in flight.
dockehr
Michael @ May 19th 2008 2:01PM
I don't care what reason they give as long as the airlines keep the cell phone ban in place. And self-indulgent, arrogant dinks like Cash are reason numero uno. People like Cash think they should get to do what they want because they think their reason is good enough, but they are the first to tell someone else that person's reason is not good enough. "I don't turn off my cell when the cabin door closes anymore." Well good for you, Cash, you little rebel you. Just make sure you keep talkin' loud and proud and you'll show the rest of us, won't you? Jacka55.
TurboFool @ May 19th 2008 3:17PM
The law is an FCC law, not an FAA law. It has nothing to do with the safety of the airplane itself, and everything to do with the ill effects a phone accessing and hopping hundreds of towers a minute has on the service of people on the ground. Of course it did no harm to the plane. It was never expected to.
slamEVIL @ May 19th 2008 5:31PM
isn't that only like a one hour flight, and couldn't he have just waited said hour? i think he was just using his dads health as a scape goat.
Monika @ May 19th 2008 6:42PM
The real crime is that guys hair and glasses. Good lord can you say major fashion faux paux!!!!
j12997967 @ May 22nd 2008 2:32AM
To all of the self-styled experts who have commented that the in-flight use of cellphones is safe, please take a look at the paper published in the IEEE Xplore:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1053019&isnumber=22473
The abstract:
The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) database was reviewed for incident reports involving interference to avionics from portable electronic devices (PEDs). There were 125 incident reports identified. Examination of these reports revealed a wide variety of affected avionics, predominately navigation. A diverse group of passenger electronics is mentioned, primarily cellular phones and laptop computers. Relationships between categories of PEDs and avionics were shown to exist statistically. Many aircraft models were involved in the incidents, but preliminary analysis showed that no specific model was more vulnerable than any other. There were safety critical avionics involved and events occurred at critical flight phases. Some incident reports clearly demonstrated the potential for catastrophe. This paper, the first published review of the ASRS data in close to a decade, serves as a reminder that attention to this topic is important and timely due to technology advances, proliferation of consumer electronic devices and aging aircraft.
Take particular note of the passage "There were safety critical avionics involved and events occurred at critical flight phases. Some incident reports clearly demonstrated the potential for catastrophe."
I understand the inborn trait to find a rationalization for doing whatever you want whenever you want, but try to resist the urge when the consequences could affect hundreds of passengers in the air and untold thousands on the ground.
Brandon @ May 22nd 2008 9:41AM
Whats even better is that I read this article from about 30,000 feet while in an airplane. I laughed. I tried to post the comment but the connection was bad.
Angela Hamon @ Jun 30th 2008 5:24AM
I would think the real risk is someone on a plane contacting someone on the ground (or in another plane) for dangerous intent. Banning cell phone use prevents coordinate activity that endangers every life aboard and many on the ground.