Police: Traveler won't shut off iPhone, gets socked

[KD in CA]

He took it upon himself to hit someone for his perception of their disobedience of the guidelines.

 

Yes, except his perception was factual reality. And he was justified because on an airplane, adherence to rules isn't just 'my business' but a responsibility to the safety of other people on the plane. In a restaurant or supermarket checkout line, it's just discourteous and might not warrant a similar response. On an airplane, it's a matter of public safety.

 

If there is an emergency, those who are clueless put the lives of everyone in greater danger because they don't know what to do.

 

It's like talking on a cell phone in your car; it's wrong because you put other people in greater danger for no valid reason.

Edited December 29, 2010 by KD in CT

[Beerball]

Oh I'm sorry, I guess we should all roll around doling out "street justice" to ensure that nobody thinks we're weak. You guys are hilarious. Just be careful who you go around hitting, some hit back.

Street justice? If that's street justice then you grew up in Candyland.

[Dr. Fong]

Street justice? If that's street justice then you grew up in Candyland.

 

I love all of you Internet tough guys.

 

Yes, except his perception was factual reality. And he was justified because on an airplane, adherence to rules isn't just 'my business' but a responsibility to the safety of other people on the plane. In a restaurant or supermarket checkout line, it's just discourteous and might not warrant a similar response. On an airplane, it's a matter of public safety.

 

If there is an emergency, those who are clueless put the lives of everyone in greater danger because they don't know what to do.

 

It's like talking on a cell phone in your car; it's wrong because you put other people in greater danger for no valid reason.

 

 

Settle down. If you really believe one kid with an Iphone can bring down a jet you must go through life terrified.

[The Dean]

I'm not even reading the responses in this thread.

 

Someone should teach this boy to pay attention when he is a plane.

 

If the flight attendants had already come by and not done anything, they should be reprimanded.

 

The old man should go to jail, regardless of the circumstances. If he wants to be a hall monitor, he should apply for the job. There are people who are paid to handle this situation and he isn't one of them. In any event, violence simply can't be tolerated in a situation like this.

 

Go to anger management before you are allowed to fly again, you old POS.

[IDBillzFan]

I can't believe you're all falling hook, line and sinker for the straw man in this story.

 

You're all focused on the old guy, or the teenager he punched, but NO ONE is paying attention to the real reason behind this story: The atttitude of the mainstream media to do whatever it can to take down the iPhone. If this kid was listening to music on a Droid or Blackberry, do you think this story would have ever made it out there? Of course not.

 

This has nothing to do with an old man hitting a kid and everything to do with the media trying to keep the iPhone down, dude.

[The Dean]

I can't believe you're all falling hook, line and sinker for the straw man in this story.

 

You're all focused on the old guy, or the teenager he punched, but NO ONE is paying attention to the real reason behind this story: The atttitude of the mainstream media to do whatever it can to take down the iPhone. If this kid was listening to music on a Droid or Blackberry, do you think this story would have ever made it out there? Of course not.

 

This has nothing to do with an old man hitting a kid and everything to do with the media trying to keep the iPhone down, dude.

 

 

 

Well I'm glad I waited to read any responses.

[Booster4324]

Yes, except his perception was factual reality. And he was justified because on an airplane, adherence to rules isn't just 'my business' but a responsibility to the safety of other people on the plane. In a restaurant or supermarket checkout line, it's just discourteous and might not warrant a similar response. On an airplane, it's a matter of public safety.

 

I assume no reading of any sorts then. And might not?

[Beerball]

Settle down. If you really believe one kid with an Iphone can bring down a jet you must go through life terrified.

I love all of you Internet tough guys.

[thebug]

I love all of you Internet tough guys.

 

 

I like all of you Internet tough guys. (not love, I have Internet commitment issues)

[KD in CA]

I love all of you Internet tough guys.

 

 

 

 

Settle down. If you really believe one kid with an Iphone can bring down a jet you must go through life terrified.

 

 

Thanks, I'm very settled. And if you continue to think the issue is an iphone "bringing down a jet", you must go through life painfully stupid.

[stevestojan]

Would now be a bad time to upload the picture I took out the airplane window while descending into Buffalo this past week and then posted it on my Facebook the second we were low enough to catch the signal of a cell tower? I'm assuming that yes, yes it would be a bad time. Side note, it was an iPhone 4 and the picture was beautiful - minus the Buffalo part.

[The Dean]

Would now be a bad time to upload the picture I took out the airplane window while descending into Buffalo this past week

 

 

And the plane didn't crash? I'm SHOCKED!

[stevestojan]

And the plane didn't crash? I'm SHOCKED!

 

Oh no. It did. Caused by my iPhone's antenna. But I listened to the stewardess on the way up - the bag didn't inflate, but oxygen was still flowing - so we were all good.

 

And yes, my iPhone became a flying missile, but I was in the bulkhead seat, so lives were spared.

 

And I sincerely realized just how important the stewardess' instructions were and how vital paying attention was, after she handed me my 4th bloody mary.

[Dr. Fong]

Would now be a bad time to upload the picture I took out the airplane window while descending into Buffalo this past week and then posted it on my Facebook the second we were low enough to catch the signal of a cell tower? I'm assuming that yes, yes it would be a bad time. Side note, it was an iPhone 4 and the picture was beautiful - minus the Buffalo part.

 

 

Somebody should have been there to waylay you for your impudence. You're lucky tough guys like these guys in this thread weren't around to straighten you out and make you follow the rules.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's not about hitting. It's more about pointing out when someone is doing something wrong. We've become afraid of each other. I've picked litter up that people have thrown on the ground, chased them down and handed it to them and told them they dropped something. I got off a train in SF one night and a drunk guy threw a banana peel at the train. I said "what are you, a !@#$ing monkey?" The people looked at me like I was crazy. The wife and I were coming home Christmas night and a couple of homeless guys wished us Merry Christmas. I said "it would be a hell of a lot merrier if you'd cleaned up your !@#$ing mess." I may go down one day but at least I'm not a chicken ****.

 

Yeah... But would you help dig a car/SUV out of the snow soas it not get destroyed by a NYC towtruck and articulated earth mover?

 

 

If you say yes... I will actually give you credit for jumping in and doing a little hard work... ACTUALLY LEAD. It is so much easier to just "call the shots." The real chicken ***** are weeded out when some back busting work is called for.

 

"Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind"

 

Maybe we should have listened to Douglas MacArthur, we would NOT be in such a mess that we are today.

 

Anyway... I am kinda torn on the issue at hand... Yet, I fall more on the side of civil disobedience. One side tends to agree that these are arcane rules aimed at nothing more than social engineering while using "safety" as a scapegoat/lazy out. One can always cling to "safety" when all else fails.

 

 

In the end, the old grumpy guy should have just blown it off... Knowing the kid was harming nobody... Yet, he did his best Barney Fife act... Go figure... Pick and choose your empowerment battles.

 

And no... Just because you are old, doesn't give you the "right." You, along with everybody else (including myself eventually) does not have any age-given rights... That barrier was shattered a ton of years ago when your generation was young and in its prime. Now you lay in the bed that your fellow boomer generation members destroyed. Though, I do agree that this is a sad fact. The rules were shattered years ago, not by this youngen on the plane.

 

Oh no. It did. Caused by my iPhone's antenna. But I listened to the stewardess on the way up - the bag didn't inflate, but oxygen was still flowing - so we were all good.

 

And yes, my iPhone became a flying missile, but I was in the bulkhead seat, so lives were spared.

 

And I sincerely realized just how important the stewardess' instructions were and how vital paying attention was, after she handed me my 4th bloody mary.

 

Edited December 30, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois

[EC-Bills]

I can't believe you're all falling hook, line and sinker for the straw man in this story.

 

You're all focused on the old guy, or the teenager he punched, but NO ONE is paying attention to the real reason behind this story: The atttitude of the mainstream media to do whatever it can to take down the iPhone. If this kid was listening to music on a Droid or Blackberry, do you think this story would have ever made it out there? Of course not.

 

This has nothing to do with an old man hitting a kid and everything to do with the media trying to keep the iPhone down, dude.

That's effin great!

[Chef Jim]

How many of you do not fasten your seat belt, put up your tray table, put your seat back in the upright position during take off and landing?

[Fan in San Diego]

This thread brings up a technical question. Assuming the Iphone is in Airplane mode which shuts off the cell and bluetooth technology, what EMF are generated? How does the Iphone affect anything on the plane?

I suspect this rule was created when cell phones were the size of cinder blocks and transmitted 10,000 times stronger than todays phones. Any techies out there with the answer?

[Chilly]

This thread brings up a technical question. Assuming the Iphone is in Airplane mode which shuts off the cell and bluetooth technology, what EMF are generated? How does the Iphone affect anything on the plane?

I suspect this rule was created when cell phones were the size of cinder blocks and transmitted 10,000 times stronger than todays phones. Any techies out there with the answer?

 

I've done some reading on this a year or so ago when it came up as a topic of interest. There's a couple different reasons for the different rules:

 

1.) The under 10,000 feet rule: This one seems to be related to electronic devices giving out RF signals. There are some anecdotal stories floating around for various airlines that old electronic devices interfered with airplane gauges. There's also been some research done by NASA with various devices and their affect on airplane landings. Overall, it seems like there's the possibility that if a large number of devices giving off RF signals could interfere with older, less shielded airplane electronics needed for takeoff and landing, but it's hard to find hard proof of anything. It seems like it shouldn't really affect new airplanes with better shielded equipment, but everyone seems to air on the side of caution, and agrees that it's better to keep the rule instead of getting rid of it. The old "better safe than sorry" line of thinking. I don't really have a problem with it. This specific rule is regulated by the FAA.

 

Like I said, there is some evidence that it could interfere. NASA lets pilots report problems on board aircraft anonymously, and keeps a big database of flight issues. There have been around 50 instances where PEDs were involved (or at least the crew thought it was the reason). They're generally all related to having instruments being off, and then getting corrected when the crew found & had people turn off PEDs.

 

It seems like it would be easy to do a study with this (turn on a bunch of PEDs, see if it messes up the controls during takeoff and landing), so I'm not sure why there isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other.

 

2.) The "no cell phones" rule: This rule is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. This one has to do with the way cell phones connect to cell towers. Cell phones talk to the closest tower over a channel specific to that individual cell phone. The same channel on another tower will be used for a different cell phone. When planes are up in the air, there will be times when multiple cell towers are equidistant to the phone, and the phone will connect to all of them over the same channel. This can cause interference with current calls on the ground, and start to fill up channels on cell towers (150+ people on a plane, all connected to 5 different cell towers at the same time, for example). Pretty soon Airlines might have the option of installing a microcell ont he plane, which mobile phones on the plane would connect to, allowing cell use while avoiding the multiple tower problem.

Edited December 30, 2010 by BlueFire

[DrDawkinstein]

This thread brings up a technical question. Assuming the Iphone is in Airplane mode which shuts off the cell and bluetooth technology, what EMF are generated? How does the Iphone affect anything on the plane?

I suspect this rule was created when cell phones were the size of cinder blocks and transmitted 10,000 times stronger than todays phones. Any techies out there with the answer?

 

I've seen a Mythbusters (or possibly some other History channel show) about this. They spoke with the technical and safety people for an airline, and what they said was basically this:

 

There are too many portable devices out there for the airlines to test each and every one's safety or compatibility with flying. So, to err on the side of safety, they just say that NO devices can be used because they ALL can cause problems. Even though that isn't true.

 

I understand the airlines' stance, it's easier to just ban everything than spend (waste) all that time and money testing devices that wont even be used in another 18 months. Plus, god forbid they ok a certain device and then it causes some freak accident and they are on the hook for it.

 

But no, the iphone, or ipod, or blackberry in airplane mode, will not cause the plane to crash.

[Chilly]

But no, the iphone, or ipod, or blackberry in airplane mode, will not cause the plane to crash.

 

Not one by itself, but we don't know a whole lot about the combined effects of a large number of electronic devices being on, over time, emitting RF signals and the affect on airplane controls.

[The Dean]

How many of you do not fasten your seat belt, put up your tray table, put your seat back in the upright position during take off and landing?

 

 

Sometimes, I unbuckle my seat belt just after the plane lands, but before it gets to it's final stop at the gate. I probably deserve to be punched by a stupid old man with a hall monitor complex.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Those of you applauding the old man (and I don't necessarily disagree with you ), I have a question. Would you feel the same way if it was a 15 year old kid punching a 68 year old man? How about the old man punching a 15 year old girl?

 

If it's all a matter of public safety, then you shouldn't feel any differently about the alternate situations. I suspect many people just relish seeing a punk get his.

Edited December 30, 2010 by SageAgainstTheMachine

[The Dean]

 

If it's all a matter of public safety...

 

 

Of course it was not.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This thread brings up a technical question. Assuming the Iphone is in Airplane mode which shuts off the cell and bluetooth technology, what EMF are generated? How does the Iphone affect anything on the plane?

I suspect this rule was created when cell phones were the size of cinder blocks and transmitted 10,000 times stronger than todays phones. Any techies out there with the answer?

 

I guess it is the same with cell phones giving off static discharge at the gas pump... It is highly unlikely... But possible. IMO, all this is about people wanting to modify behavior and have respect granted. Yeah, "respect"... In this society that we created!

 

Safety is a scapegoat.

 

I've seen a Mythbusters (or possibly some other History channel show) about this. They spoke with the technical and safety people for an airline, and what they said was basically this:

 

There are too many portable devices out there for the airlines to test each and every one's safety or compatibility with flying. So, to err on the side of safety, they just say that NO devices can be used because they ALL can cause problems. Even though that isn't true.

 

I understand the airlines' stance, it's easier to just ban everything than spend (waste) all that time and money testing devices that wont even be used in another 18 months. Plus, god forbid they ok a certain device and then it causes some freak accident and they are on the hook for it.

But no, the iphone, or ipod, or blackberry in airplane mode, will not cause the plane to crash.

 

Bingo!

 

The younger guy should have just kept the ear buds in and shut the phone off (without telling the old dude)... Just to eff with the grumpy dude... The when the old fart hauls off, he can document that he had the device off all the while.

 

Of course this totally effed up... But hey... What a good way to stir the pot.

 

Sometimes, I unbuckle my seat belt just after the plane lands, but before it gets to it's final stop at the gate. I probably deserve to be punched by a stupid old man with a hall monitor complex.

 

:lol: :worthy:

 

@ the very least shived!

[KD in CA]

I suspect many people just relish seeing a punk get his.

Is that wrong?

 

 

Of course this totally effed up... But hey... What a good way to stir the pot.

Seems to me the old man is the one who stirred the pot in this situation....shouldn't you be on his side?

 

 

 

And speaking of grumpy old men, where the is stuckincincy to wiegh in on this topic? Or any topic for that matter, he seems to have disappeared.

Edited December 31, 2010 by KD in CT

[GG]

To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard.

 

So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks.

 

PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip?

[The Dean]

To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard.

 

So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks.

 

PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip?

 

 

You also understand that assault is against the law, right?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Seems to me the old man is the one who stirred the pot in this situation....shouldn't you be on his side?

 

Touche!

 

To get back on topic, the point is not that Mythbusters "proved" that no personal electronic device can bring down a plane, but that there is a real federal law that mandates that ALL electronic devices must be shut off at take offs & landings. It's that simple. The kid was breaking the law. The old man felt obliged to instruct the kid of the law and went overboard.

 

So go back and slam the internet tough guys for reminding you that there are still laws that need to be adhered to, even for 15 yr old punks.

 

PS - where's Cincy been to tell us how in the good ol' days the kid wouldn't even last one lash from thew horse whip?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM

 

You also understand that assault is against the law, right?

 

Edited December 31, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois

[Chilly]

Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right?

[KD in CA]

Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right?

 

Forget it, they're rolling.

[The Dean]

Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right?

 

 

He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too?

[GG]

Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right?

Forget it they're rolling.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Is that wrong?

 

 

 

 

No, but it's largely irrelevant to the conversation that folks were having about air safety.

[Chilly]

He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too?

 

to-may-to, to-mah-to

[KD in CA]

He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too?

 

Conversely, putting a senior citizen in prison for hitting a teenager in the arm is a proportionate response, huh?

[BuffaloBill]

Meh, old guy doesnt understand technology or that there is an "Airplane" mode setting on the iPhone (and on most smartphones) which disables all wireless and cell communication.

 

Not sure what got the old guy so upset. Listening to the ipod isnt going to crash the plane.

 

 

True but FAA regs say it has to be completely powered off below 10K feet. Hypothetically it could interfere with the avionics so hypothetically this kid was risking everyone's safety. I'm not sure punching the kid was the best move but the kid should actually be charged for the failure to follow flight crew instructions - I believe this can be a federal misdemeanor.

 

You can argue that the risk of this act is minimal but I have to believe the FAA requests the actions in the interest of safety. I don't want to be a passenger on the first plane that crash lands because in a bizzare set of circumstances the electronic devices left powered on actually do cause a problem.

[GG]

He didn't simply go "overboard", he physically assaulted a person when he has absolutely no right or reason to do so. Jaywalking is against the law too. Is this moron going to beat them up, too?

 

I think beat up is a tad strong for the assault that you're describing. I think that the boy scout hit Tony Randall harder for helping the old lady across the street than this kid's beating. And to reiterate, the kid broke the law, but the old timers are more miffed at the lack of respect that's proliferating across the young culture, which many love to defend as an expression of their individuality.

[The Dean]

Conversely, putting a senior citizen in prison for hitting a teenager in the arm is a proportionate response, huh?

 

 

I think beat up is a tad strong for the assault that you're describing. I think that the boy scout hit Tony Randall harder for helping the old lady across the street than this kid's beating. And to reiterate, the kid broke the law, but the old timers are more miffed at the lack of respect that's proliferating across the young culture, which many love to defend as an expression of their individuality.

 

 

I have no problem with the kid getting his comeuppance, as long as no violence is involved.

 

And, GG you are correct. Some here seem to excuse any stupid reaction by an older person if they don't like the actions of a younger "punk". I would posit youngsters might have more respect for their elders if those elders weren't such douchebags. Clearly a man who has to resort to physical abuse for some perceived violation is not someone who should be respected. I would guess grandpa here probably is the kind of guy who's idea of an explanation is "Because I said so!"

[ExiledInIllinois]

Both Dean & EIL know that GG said "he went overboard", right?

 

Yes. Well at least I did, I can't peak for Dean. What is your point? GG was still rolling. Stop picking on poor Barney!

 

I have no problem with the kid getting his comeuppance, as long as no violence is involved.

 

And, GG you are correct. Some here seem to excuse any stupid reaction by an older person if they don't like the actions of a younger "punk". I would posit youngsters might have more respect for their elders if those elders weren't such douchebags. Clearly a man who has to resort to physical abuse for some perceived violation is not someone who should be respected. I would guess grandpa here probably is the kind of guy who's idea of an explanation is "Because I said so!"

 

Bingo!

 

I touched on that point earlier about how those barriers were shattered years ago. When talking about the aged, we are know dealing with one of the most hyppocritical generations of all time.

 

Don't they remember:

 

"Don't trust anyone over 30."

 

Now they want the cake and eat it too... Too bad.

 

Bottom line, the older fella took the law into his own hands and went more than overboard... He physically assualted another person over something silly. That is the bigger problem than breaking a silly rule. I betcha this guy is "Mr. Perfect."

 

The funny thing is... I can possibly see myself doing something physical... YET, I would at least admit that I was wrong after thinking about it afterwards. Betcha the old guy sees nothing wrong in what he did. Even worse... Two total strangers, not saying knowing each other would have made it better. How the hell does anyone of the two know where each is coming from?

 

The bigger crime here is the assualt... We can't just go around assaulting people (as much as I would love to!) because they may not be following simple rules.

Edited December 31, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois