Posted by Fletche
Hi, does anyone know whether it is safe to use Bluetooth on aeroplanes e.g. does it cause interference with aircraft equipment?
Also what is the policy of the airlines?
I got into trouble on a BA flight to New Delhi a while back using bluetooth! I was bluetoothing a document to a fellow passenger.
I didn’t help myself though. Just before, I'd asked the cabin staff what would happen if I had a cigarette in the toilet. They said that they would arrest me.
So I had a cigarette and yes the captain asked to have a conversation with me and issued me with a ‘bad boy’ certificate (I’ve framed it!) and explained that if he chose he could have me thrown in jail upon arriving in New Delhi (it was a Friday) to appear in front of a magistrate on the Monday morning. This scenario had a certain wallet appeal (reduced hotel bills) but on balance I decided to behave.
BA are a great carrier. Upon my return I was bumped up to first class (£2500 ticket versus my £600 I paid) so some sexy chick (sorry, cabin person) could keep an eye on me and ply me with copious amounts of free booze.
Anyway back to the question.
Bluetooth OK or not OK.
[ This Message was edited by: Fletche on 2003-09-24 20:25 ]
Posted by o44wen
what were you using the bluetooth on?
if it was you mobile phone then ALL mobile phones should be switched off even if there is no recept in the just incase fact it may affect the planes computers.
edit>> infact, i do not think you are allowed to used ANY electronic equipment on a plane
edit2> sorry i didn't notice this was in the P800 section. Stupid me
_________________
PiGsY
Carol Vorderman Online
Check out my eBay auctions.
[ This Message was edited by: o44wen on 2003-09-24 20:27 ]
[ This Message was edited by: o44wen on 2003-09-24 20:28 ]
Posted by Sage
dont forget about flight mode...
Posted by Fletche
I was trying to use my P800 in the flight mode to bluetooth, which didn't work, it's disabled.
We used laptops in the end.
I did not turn my mobile on, though this took some convincing the cabin staff of.
Fletche
Posted by o44wen
perhaps the P800 is new to them and they never heard of anything like flight mode before
Posted by Fletche
Oh, I think it would help if there was something on the display showing clearly that the phone is in PDA (flight) mode.
If you try to dial it is obvious that it is in flight mode, a message appears 'you must turn phone on....'
I got into a right fraca with the cabin staff.
Fletche
Posted by wapchimp
It doesn't matter. Mobiles are a big no-no.
It interfers with the pilots headsets (my missus is cabin crew).
U can use laptops & minidisc players etc
Posted by Fletche
Thanks Orangeman, I know that having a mobile phone turned on is not allowed on a plane!
Is what you are saying that you may not use a piece of kit that looks like a mobile phone but is in fact an MP3 player or organiser, which happens to have Bluetooth capability?
Does anyone know what the flight mode really does?
Why would SE build in a flight mode function?
Fletche
Posted by dantec
But how did they know that you sent a file over bluetooth ?
Posted by Jools
[ This Message was edited by: JoolsG3 on 2003-09-24 21:07 ]
Posted by Fletche
@dantec
Hi, I'm not sure that they did know.
All they saw was the bad boy (hard to break smoking in the toilets habit) using what appeared to be a mobile phone!
Perhaps this is an idea for a new product, a case that makes our P800 look like a blow up doll, so that when we are fiddling with it on aeroplanes, no one will think anything of it!
Fletche
Posted by santa
I don't know about bluetooth, but I know Wi-Fi messes with the plane's systems. The US air marshalls started using palms with wi-fi to communicate with each other inside a plane, and they had to stop using it because it was it was messing up one of the plane's systems.
Posted by Fletche
@o44wen
Sorry about the delay. I've been busy getting abuse thrown at me at 'Howard Blue Spoon Forum'.
I wonder what consultation and acceptance process SE went through when developing the flight mode?
I bounce this off SE!
Fletche
Posted by jevel
@ Fletche
Flight mode turns off all radio emitters in the phone. That kills both the GSM and the BT part, as both are based on radio waves.
And, yes, _all_ radio emitters are banned on commercial flights.
-KJ
_________________
-------
-As if!
[ This Message was edited by: jevel on 2003-09-24 21:38 ]
Posted by thirionremi
http://www.newswireless.net/articles/030430-pinkerton.html
this is an article about bluetooth and airplanes
[ This Message was edited by: thirionremi on 2003-09-24 22:00 ]
Posted by Fletche
Thanks Santa and Jevel.
So what we are saying is no WiFi, no Bluetooth!
Without wishing to split hairs, is IR OK?
This is enabled in flight mode!
Fletche
Posted by jevel
IR is based on light, and is safe. (At least we have no restrictions on it yet...)
-KJ
Posted by fabrizio
OK, I know that:
1. Electronics can't be on when landing and taking off, and
2. Phones or two-way pagers have to always be off or in flight mode during flight
But I thought there was an exception for 802.11b. I have read reports of Lufthansa and I believe United were offering or planning to offer broadband on intercontinental flights using 802.11b.
Posted by plevyadophy
Pardon the language folks
But....
The idea that.....
"It doesn't matter. Mobiles are a big no-no.
It interfers with the pilots headsets "
is a MASSIVE load of BOLLLOX!! Period.
The mobile in itself is NOT a problem.
If it was then how comes to qoute " U can use laptops & minidisc players etc".
When the P800 is in Flight Mode it is in effect a laptop and minidisc player. In Flight Mode the radio frequency (RF) signals are disabled. The P800 is no longer a phone in Flight Mode; it's a PDA/multimedia device.
That kinda nonsense (i.e. mobiles interefere with pilot's headsets) is told my management to staff (who are more often than not ignorant of simple technology) and they then repeat it parrot fashion to passengers/customers.
To give an example. The Home Office here in the UK (Interior Ministry in other countries) bans the use of mobiles in many of its buildings. When I queried this, I was told by a security gaurd/toy cop that it's a security issue, mobiles play havoc with their alarm system.
It was only when I looked him in the eye and suggested that he must be some sort of idiot if he believes that to be the real reason (I mean the idea that a new alarm installation, installed in a government building is so shyte that it is susceptible to interference by mobiles is laughable) that he then admitted that what he told me is simply what he gets told!!!!
The other urban myth regarding mobiles is that you shouldnt use them in petrol stations as they may cause a fire. RUBBISH. A recent research paper that I saw debunks that myth.
Bluetooth is a difficult one really. SE have disabled it on their phone. Laptop manuafacturers give no warnings (that I am aware of, correct me if I am wrong) regarding the use of BT whilst in flight, and there is the fact that BT is not really a powerful signal compared with mobile RF or WiFi.
I have asked a friend of mine who chairs a mobile phone industry body to get back to me on this BT on flights thing. I will let you all know what he says.
@ Fabrizio
Yeah, you are right.
Some airlines are indeed offering WiFi inflight. But that is only after having made various alterations to the aircraft and after extensive safety checks.
And you will find that some airlines will offer this service on some aircraft only, namely the ones that have been suitably adapted.
[ This Message was edited by: plevyadophy on 2003-09-24 22:29 ]
Posted by skabbe
last time i used it we crached
Posted by ainamrev
few points i'd like to make firstly the guy above me good post
secondly the guy asking whats flight mode your a dumb twat mate sorry but you are.
Any one know why Air Emiarates have a fat stress at people for using camcoders and Game boy's on flight?
Furthermore why can cabin staff be handed technology updates so they know what a p800 is and not upset passangers. spent 30 mins arguing with a cabin crew bitch about why the p800 is ok on flight as it is on flight mode obvioulsy the bitch won with her i will have to throw you of bull shit.
And after all this why the hell do they have NO problems with laptops!
Posted by malcs
OK two things to sort out here::
1st of all, WiFi is OK for aeroplanes, as is mobile phone RF. the problem with both occurs when there is no signal detected by the device, and it starts to ramp up the power, in order to find a base station.. as it does not, the device just stays on full power-- this is inevitably bound to F**** something up.
Lufthansa do offer an 802.11b WiFi broadband internet service for laptops on board their aeroplanes this is because they have a base station every 1 or 2 meters along the cabin, meaning that signal strength for the device is always at a maximum. This also means that the device operates at a low power, thus not F***ng up any of the aircraft systems.
To the best of my knowledge, marconi are seeking approval for small mobile phone base stations to be concealed in each seat.. thus allowing people to use their mobile phones on the aeroplane, as signal is always kept to an absolute minimum, therefore not F***ng anything up..
hope this has been F***ng helpful..
-malcs
Posted by chazz
The risks of anything happening happening due to a mobile phone in an airplane or petrol station are really low. The main problem is that the electro magnetic waves (radio etc...) can induce shocks between parallel metal rods if they are pointing towards the phone. You would need to be in a very badly designed plane or petrol station, but still, if it does then you probably won't be aruonf to worry about it. Mind you, anyone ever heard of a mobile phone blowing stuff up??
...actually, that would be kind of cool...
Posted by Fletche
If RF emitted by mobile phones is ‘so’ dangerous to the functioning of an aircraft (particularly so when the phone is transmitting at full power because no base station is detected – trying to follow your aurgument Malcs but challenging this one part), why do the airlines not use simple low cost equipment to check and enforce that people turn their phones off?
I can’t be the only 1 who’s accidently left their phone on in the overhead locker to find the battery flat after only 8 hours.
I use simple, low cost devices on a day to day basis to ensure my personal privacy which can detect and block all kinds of RF bands.
Why doesn’t some chick (sorry, cabin staff) walk down the aisle with a ‘wand’ in her hand detecting and spanking the ‘bad boys’ who have left their mobiles’ on?
Fletche
P.S. Yes I am paranoid, but doen’t you feel we all have a small right to be!
@chazz
Actually chazz yes I have heard of and people do use phones as devices to trigger explosions, and we're not just talking 'accidentilly' using high power RF tranmitters near armed explosives. You can very easily use your phone as a remote detinator. SMS Scheduler can be an ideal tool if you are the forgetful sort!
P.P.S. @chazz doing what I mentioned is easily available to any internet user or reasonably well trained terrorist. The analogy I would like to use is that you use your phone to blow up your neighbour. This is anti-social and destructive and really hurts. Your neighbour's neighbours will find you and really hurt you because they do want to be the next explosion on your list. Let's leave the blowing people up thing to games boss!
[ This Message was edited by: Fletche on 2003-09-25 00:02 ]
Posted by P800_Zen_master
@plevyadophy
about the mobiles at petorl stations. The real reason why it is not alloud is because the battery in the mobile can explode! I know this sounds quite stupid as we all hold the things next to our head but it can happen. So by having a potientional bomb at a petorl station is not always a good thing!
I have been using my P800 on airplanes twice and been seen. I ahve explained it to the ladies and had no drama!
Question:
Why is there a difference between using computer during flight is OK but not during take off and landing??
Posted by plevyadophy
Well there is an old English saying: "it's not what you know, but who you know that counts"
Earlier I said that " I have asked a friend of mine who chairs a mobile phone industry body to get back to me on this BT on flights thing. I will let you all know what he says." Well, the guy got back to me already!!!
Here is his answer, I dont think you can get much better than this:
-------------- copy email answer ----------------
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) its European equivalent, the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), and the airline community, worldwide are currently reviewing the use of Bluetooth products on private and commercial aircraft.
The current situation in the most aviation aware country, the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration states in the section of its regulations covering portable electronic devices (FAR 91.21)[1] that:
a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) portable voice recorders;
(2) hearing aids;
(3) heart pacemakers;
(4) electric shavers; or
(5) any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft."
To paraphrase: it is up to the airlines to decide whether Bluetooth or WiFi devices can be operated on their aircraft. I know that the Bluetooth SIG has been running tests with many of the major airlines with the intent of proving that Bluetooth devices are safe for use on board aircraft. Although these tests are going well, not all airlines will necessarily approve Bluetooth technology.
To avoid the situation where airlines would consider banning the use of notebooks because they could contain Bluetooth technology, the industry has driven a strategy of having a mobile phone-like on/off mechanism with a positive indication of when the Bluetooth device is powered or not. This provides the user an easy mechanism for preventing the operation of the radio such as is possible on the Nokia 9210 or the O2 XDA – does your P800 do this too?.
There are, however, still some conflicts between the Bluetooth strategy of devices talking to each other automatically without user interaction, and the requirement to prevent operation of personal electronic devices below 10,000 feet.
One indication of the way the Airline industry will move is the recent approval in Germany of an 802.11 wireless network for use on board Lufthansa aircraft. The approval was granted to a system that allows cabin crews to communicate with an on-board server while they are moving around the aircraft. The most interesting part of this approval is that it was granted for all altitudes — not just above 10,000 feet (as one would assume)!
I can put some feelers out to my friends at TDK Systems to see how things are going in detail, but then we start to get into the realms of me giving a professional answer – if you know what I mean.
Regards,
Peter
--------------- end copy email answer ------
So there you have it. An answer from an expert in the field of mobile telephony.
I hope that helps
Posted by scotsboyuk
This will probably sound really snobby, but quite frankly I don't care. I usually fly British Airwys and I have noticed a decided difference in attitudes between the different cabin classes.
I make a point of flying First whenever I can (I generally don't like planes, so I try to make myself as comfortable as possible, basically I just get drunk and try to get myself unconcious for the flight) and the air crew have always been very sympathetic towards FlightMode on my P800 in so far as I have been able to keep it switched on and have used it for various tasks not related to it's phone functions.
However, on a recent flight I found myself in economy class, the company flying me in for the meeting werecheapskates
and I found the cabin crew most hostile towards Plucky 800 in Flight Mode. I had to turn it off.
Sorry if this seems terribley snobby, its really not meant to be. I'm just making a point about the perceived difference in attitudes between cabin classes.
Posted by abraham_aiza
hi everybody:
I dont know where everybody gets that stupid stuff about RF let me teach u:
I was a pilot for air france and i am now for aeromexico, let me get things straight, radio frequencies are used in almost anything that i comunicates to another devoce wirelessly, including tnt trigger activation, thats why u cant use in a explotion site a cell phone, in petrol stations... that has been removed that was because of the metal atraction some said and mailnly and comes in all instructives, is cause some old cell phones where not electronically safe as the battery was a new type and beta testings showed that it might throw a spark or two jajajja but in petrol stations that has been long removed, at least here in mexico, as of aircrafts, we have 2 types of navigation sistem, the main one called VOR, which is made from a stron RF signal and GPS a global positioning system, the VOR can interfere with the cell phones, this at the same time taking all the information on the position and coordinates and trying to send them to the cell phone which is looking for signal, boeing has an answer to that, as you can see aircrafts have air phones, they are suppose to be satellite instead of RF but what it is is a special ericsson antena planted in the nose of the aircraft that routes the RF directly to the rf antenas down there, in 3 years more less u are gonna be able to use ur cell phone with carge to use the antena mounted on the aircraft what the antena does is amplificate the signal to support the speed of the aircraft, the antena is a nice baby and it is ericsson!
Posted by Fletche
@abraham_aiza
Boss, forgive me if I'm not quite with the program (I am at your disadvantage)
Is what you are saying that the VOR tries to communicate with the phone rather than it's master/slave confusing it?
I guess this is not good news if GPS packs up.
But hopefully the skies are a bit clearer in Mexico.
P.S. J'avais une tres vieux maison en France blisko (Polish) pret de Dinan. La France etait vraiment une tres belle pay! Mexico?
Posted by Dj Boyi
The owner of my local petrol station says you cant make calls there but the phone is ok if it is switched on
Posted by Fingers
Yes you can use bluetooth on an aircraft, it's legal but it's up to the airline when you use it, some say not at all(electronics) and some say only once the seat belt sign is off.
Virgin atlantic use bluetooth for their in flight entertainment so it's not a problem, gameboys and some laser equipment can interfer with navigational system, Boeing has written lots of letters to airlines about it. Boeing usually buy the equipment off the person and try and reproduce the effects them selves.
Now I'm sure some are asking how I know, I've worked on planes as an engineer for about 15 years, and have worked for about 11 airlines, all in technical roles and dealing with Boeing and Airbus on a daily basis, the real problems with gsm is like that article said, the speed that they're travelling. I've sat in the cockpit of lots of planes and run functional tests of all the systems and had no trouble, trust me I've seen it first hand.
Posted by Ru
Basically it comes down to the fact that the aircraft systems are either designed poorly so they may be adversely affected by RF signals, or that the affect of RF interference could be so catastrpohic that no-one wants to take the chance.
For some years now, all electronic products (at least in Europe) need to be 'CE' marked, which means that they are tested for both RF emmissions and the effects of RF interference.
If eveything is tested and approved by this, there should be no problems.
I just don't think anyone has the guts to say BT or whatever is okay on planes just in case there's one chance it may fall from the sky.
Posted by Fingers
Bluetooth is not banned on all flights. Why did you not read my post? And the interference from a gsm mobile on an aircraft is no worse than the noise you hear through your radio when your mobile is searching. Yes it can interfere with the VOR(Very high frequency Omnidirectional Range) nav systems but not to the extent that is dangerous. Most of the aircraft in the skys these days can withstand minor interference and with something like a 737-300 that has up to 5 different communications or navigations signals coming in at any one time, the plane is smart enough to know what it's supposed to be receiving
Posted by Hosko
I work for a tv station and we are banned from having phones turned on when near the studios because they can interfer with the zoom servos they just zoom in and out uncontrollably, so possibly the same could happen with the servos in the wings if they started moving uncontrollably the plane is in some trouble.
Posted by __spc__
Hmmmm.... smoking in the toilets, that's really bad, m'kay?!
Posted by Fingers
No servos in the wings, the flight controls are all hydraulic. There are some electric actuators to move part of flight controls but they are all shielded and the entire aircraft is electrically at the same potential, you could put a continuity tester on any 2 points of any airplane and get a circuit.
Posted by malcs
really?? that means i could put a continuity meter point on on of the wings, and another on a chair-- and i would have a circuit?? scary thought if the aeroplane gets hit by lightning
Posted by shaggyhog
as for working near TV studios isn't there a more logical reason why they should be turned off...
(maybe to eliminate potentially embarrassing noise?)
Posted by P800_Zen_master
@malcs - I think airplanes have a special point on them just incase they do get hit by lighting it takes the huge current or something.
can someone confirm this??
Posted by tsujie
| Quote: |
|
Posted by axoia2
yeah, I used to charge my phone plugging the batery charger on the lightning-antena of the plane. It charges faster if a bird smashes on it. (are we all druged?)
Posted by MumboJumbo
| Quote: |
|
Well, if you had the door open and extremely long arms you could but I doubt that would happen at 30,000 feet so not scary at all really is it?
Posted by Little Jon
Mobile phones will not cause fires at petrol/gas stations. This is an urban myth/legend (god, this bi-lingual English thing does your head in!).
See this link: http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
Most refueling fires are caused by static generated by people getting in and out of their car while. In the US, pumps have a little latch that allows you to leave it pumping while you go off and do something else. This latch disengages when the pump detects that the tank is full. I've never seen these in Europe.
This latch is probably the biggest safety hazard at gas stations (other than people smoking, or doing something equally as stupid), as it encourages people to get back in their car and build up a charge on their seats. When they then get out (with insulating rubber soles on their shoes) and touch the pump handle, a spark can occur.
The important message is not to get back in your car while refuelling and if you do, you should touch your car to discharge yourself before touching the pump handle.
Also, never fill a container in the back of a pick-up truck, or similarly insulated from the ground. There was a fire in LA recently caused by someone doing that. If I remember correctly, the guy was standing on the truck bed filling a can.
Posted by MumboJumbo
@plevyadophy
You may fool younger people in these forums but you won't fool me. Grow up dude and stop pretending you know people "in the know"...your friend "Peter" is a figment of your imagination. This article (you have basically copied a section from page 5 and added a line about the Nokia 9210 and P800) was written by Graham Kirby of the Intel Mobile Computing Group and not your imaginary buddy!
Here is where you dug up your supposed "in the know" reply...
http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/q22000/articles/art_4.htm
Can't wait to read what Peter's friends at TDK will tell him!!!!!!
Talk about your cover (and any credibility) being blown! Hahaha
[ This Message was edited by: MumboJumbo on 2003-09-25 20:02 ]
Posted by plevyadophy
@ MumboJumbo
Hmmm.
Let me tell you this. I DID NOT invent anything.
I do have a friend called Peter. And he is a leading member of the mobile telephony world.
And it may well be that he "lifted" the contents of his email from the place you just posted. But then if he is an industry insider it is obvious he would have have access to various periodicals/journals etc. And if he copied the article to help us out so what?!!!!
Now, if you care to PM me I will provide proof that he does exist and what I posted was a verbatim copy of his email.
After providing the proof I hope you then have the decency to post on here a public apology. As you seem very keen to try and publicly undermine me, I hope you are as keen to publicly admit you are wrong.
Furthermore, I suggest you look at all my posts here, on HowardsForums, and My-Symbian (I use the same username on all Forums). Looking at my posts you will see that I am not the kinda character who deals in hoaxes.
I will be looking forward to your PM.
@everyone else
Today my friend sent me another email.
This is what he said:
----------------- copy email -------------------------
Hi,
I have read the Thread. I am not interested in joining the Forum to contribute, but here are couple of other thoughts…..
The main reason UK petrol stations will not allow the use of Mobile Phones (or any transmitting equipment for that matter) is that in the good ol’ days of Citizen’s Band radio (remember that?) it was found that the powerful radio signals being transmitted by some of the unlicensed AM based devices had the effect of slowing down the flow meter readings on the (then unshielded) new digital petrol pumps. The effect was exacerbated if the CB radio output was being amplified above 4 Watts and the trend at the time was to install transmit stage amps as big as 100 Watts so the Good Buddies in Watford could talk to their mates in Warrington! Word soon got round and lots of Herberts were driving into their local filling station, keying the mike button at the same time as the filling nozzle and then driving away with a full tank for 50p! The result was a total ban on the use of CB while at a filling station and a couple of small companies got big selling CB detectors to the petrochemical industry.
When mobile phones first were introduced in the mid 80’s, this knowledge was still fresh in minds of the petrol industry executives and so they effectively extended their ban to cover mobile phones too.
Of course today’s petrol pumps are appropriately shielded so they are no longer affected by RF, particularly not by the meagre 4 Watts to which mobile phones are limited. WiFi will soon become a standard at petrol stations as many companies open a Public Access Location (aka Hotspot) so that travelling execs and chip heads can fill up their email inbox at the same time as they fill their tank, stomach, mistress and whatever else.
On the Mobile Phones on in flight topic. I was doing some work with one of the Chief Scientists from the Boeing Connexions team earlier this year and he told me that a few years ago they had a funded and FAA sanctioned project to test the effect of MoFos on their aircraft. They loaded up a 747 with 200 mobile phones of all types, (GSM, CDMA, TACS, ETACS, PDC and even Mobitex which is used by US Blackberries), took the plane upto a safe altitude (around 20,000 ft) over a desert area and switched all the phones on. Since they were out of the reach of any base station, and the aircraft is effectively a Faraday Cage all the phones ramped up to full power pretty quickly and guess what happened.
Nothing, not an electronic sausage!
The conclusion is that the shielding which exists around all cabling and vital electronic compononets to protect them from the effect of a lightning stike, something that happens rather often to planes, also had the effect of screening out any possible interference from low power RF devices.
One problem which the airlines do see though (particularly in the example of Virgin who are already using Bluetooth for their entertainment systems) is that lots of passenger WiFi and Bluetooth devices being used in an enclosed space will begin to interfere with each other and degrade the quality of websurfing and entertainment experience being enjoyed by passengers. A good example of this was seen at CeBIT this spring when most of the WiFi demo’s crashed because there were over 700 of them in a single hall all trying to use the same bandwidth and there was so much freq hopping going on that the data never actually got through.
As I said in my earlier answer, much of this will in the end depend on Airline policy and the staff are in a postion where they can and must enforce that policy, no matter how wrong it may seem to the technically enlightened. In the end passengers/consumers have a choice. If you want to use your Bluetooth device on an aircraft, choose an airline that has a relaxed and informed policy on their use. Once Whiteknucle Airlines starts loosing business passenger revenues because they have a draconian policy banning BT and WiFi use on the aircraft, the economics will force them to review their stance.
One final thought! Never piss-off the cabin crew. They are the people who give you your food and drink and who knows what happens in the Galley when the seatbelt signs are on?!
Regards,
Peter
------------------------ end copy -----------------------
I hope you all find the info above useful
Posted by Fletche
@MumboJumbo & plevyadophy
Men, if I may attempt to mediate here:
MumboJumbo your allegation appears to be that plevyadophy is inventing ‘imaginary contacts’ to increase his credibility, persuade others of his arguments….. who knows what his personal motives may be?
Clearly some of plevyadophy’s friend’s, Peter, email contained identical content to that in the article by Grahem Kirby, as you pointed out. Plagiarism is rife and anyway you would expect an ‘expert’ to refer to other ‘experts’ views.
What exactly is your allegation?
What is your motive for making an attack on plevyadophy?
You may have a very good reason!
My view is that while the majority of people ‘hide’ behind personas, it is even more difficult to get at the ‘truth’. People have very good reasons to ‘hide’ behind these personas. It may or may not make their contribution more or less constructive, it’s a tough one.
I currently don’t hide (Slicy and UdayandQusay are on holiday), my name is Fletche, if you look at my homepage you can even phone me. Spent my whole life with some people thinking I’m nuts, some think I’m a genius, I’m past giving a f**k.
My judgement would be, is the person constructively contributing and what are your views on their contribution?
If you guys have got a personal thing going, PM each other, meet in a car park, knock 10 bells out of each other, buy us all a beer to celebrate and chill.
Fletche
[ This Message was edited by: Fletche on 2003-09-25 21:45 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Fletche on 2003-09-25 21:58 ]
Posted by fijbert
:lol:Cebit crashed
Posted by MumboJumbo
You PM me the details of "your friend" and I will do my own research. It won't take me 5 minutes to confirm the veracity of your info....name, company, name of the body and an email address will be more than enough. I'll put it through my "process" and we will see what we get! I have no problem apologising so long as your "expert" friend does the same to the author of the article he stole without giving due credit (credible experts do NOT do this!!). I await your PM then....
PS I have nothing against you per se but I have seen so many bullshitters in my time that I have grown tired of it. I am making a stand. As I said, if I am wrong I will apologise and leave this forum, in shame, never to return.
Posted by Fletche
@MumboJumbo & plevyadophy
Please don’t ‘lock horns’.
I’m sure most of us don’t want either of you to go away.
There is no ‘shame’ in saying anything. The only shame is if we tear ourselves apart for the past.
Trying to lighten things up a bit:
I’ll tell you about shame, I defended an American friend in Poland, driving around in a flash car, charged for drink driving. I attempted to represent his ‘rights’. Anyway he was released without charge 12 hours later, he’d got a history of being a bad boy!
A few weeks later I’m coming out of a strip club and end up in a fraca with a mafia type taxi driver. When the police arrived, guess who was 1 of them, the same copper who’d arrested my American friend. To cut a long story short, I end up disappearing for a few days without trial. The accommodation was great, cozy 20 to a cell numbers. Occasional exercise of our groans with a truncheon.
I was eventually released, my suit trashed, my wallet empty and my phone blocked. I tried to take action against these ‘people’ for kidnapping me! However their was no evidence that it happened at all, except for my bruised groin.
The ‘shame’ of this story is that my wife (at the time – good Polish catholic girl – she’s now living in the South of France with a 2nd rate sit com writer) divorced me for amongst other things bringing ‘shame’ on her family. (I should add that, to defend her position, I do seem to get involved in a lot of trouble and always have).
Now that’s a shame!
But what the f**k, life moves on!
Fletche
LET'S GET BACK TO THE THREAD:
MOBLIE PHONES, BLUETOOTH, WIFI, IR ARE THEY OK TO USE ON AEROPLANES AND WHAT IS THE VIEW OFF THE CARRIERS?
IS BLUE JACKING A BAD THING ON AN AEROPLANE?
Fletche
[ This Message was edited by: Fletche on 2003-09-26 00:28 ]
Posted by Dj Boyi
Nice one fletche,it's your thread,you tell em!!!
Btw,if they stuck all the passengers at the back of the plane the bluetooth would'nt reach the cockpit