Visit our Popular Forums

**skipmac** · 02-10-2012, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgriffin

I apologize, my point was not that it was economical, just that the statement that said US companies couldn't offer tours other than for the reasons stated was incorrect.

No, please accept my apology. Did not mean to offend. The ranting was not directed towards you in any way, just ranting about stupid stupid government policies, driven by politics instead of logic and good sense. Probably more annoying to me because over the years I have sailed up and down the coast of Cuba a number of times but haven't been able to go there, at least not legally.

Another rant, the FAA. Just got back from a visit to my daughter and once again have to listen to the required admonitions from the flight attendants about turning off all electronic devices. If a commercial airliner is so sensitive that a cell phone is dangerous then I'm not sure I want to be flying. Plus, if all it took to crash a plane was to turn on a cell phone and an iPod how come the terrorists aren't sending squads of goons to fly around with their cell phones secretly switched on in their pockets?

Sorry, ranting over. Back to boating.

denverd0n · 02-10-2012, 10:10

Getting a bit off topic, but...

The restriction on cell phone use in airplanes is driven by the FCC, not the FAA.

The problem is that cellular phone service is still mostly running on technologies that were developed in the 70s, when they were thinking in terms of car phones, not little phones that everyone carried in their pocket. As such, they never imagined that any one phone could possibly be in range of more than 3-4 cell towers at a time, within a circle of a dozen or so miles. Take a phone up to 35k feet, though, and suddenly you're lighting up thousands of cell towers for hundreds of miles around.

The older systems that are still in place in a lot of areas just do not handle that very well. It actually reduces the available throughput for everyone.

And now back to your regularly scheduled program...

**skipmac** · 02-10-2012, 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Getting a bit off topic, but...

The restriction on cell phone use in airplanes is driven by the FCC, not the FAA.

The problem is that cellular phone service is still mostly running on technologies that were developed in the 70s, when they were thinking in terms of car phones, not little phones that everyone carried in their pocket. As such, they never imagined that any one phone could possibly be in range of more than 3-4 cell towers at a time, within a circle of a dozen or so miles. Take a phone up to 35k feet, though, and suddenly you're lighting up thousands of cell towers for hundreds of miles around.

The older systems that are still in place in a lot of areas just do not handle that very well. It actually reduces the available throughput for everyone.

And now back to your regularly scheduled program...

From my understanding that is correct for cell phones and the overloading the towers, but the little spiel on airplanes is for everything electronic: iPods, iPads, laptops, gameboys, Kindles, or as they say, anything with an on/off switch has to be off. Not in airplane mode, not hibernating but OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FCC has nothing to do with all these other gadgets, that is strictly FAA regs. So like I said, if you can crash a plane by leaving your iPod switched on how come the countryside isn't covered with airplane wreckage?

I have watched plenty of passengers surreptitiously reading, playing or doing something with electronic gadgets during takeoff and landing and I'm still here to tell about it. I must live a charmed life.

bgriffin · 02-10-2012, 11:39

Several years ago I was in Jamaica and ended up spending a day sightseeing with 3 AA Flight attendants. According to them the main reason is that most emergencies occur during takeoff and landing under 10,000 feet. In the case of an emergency, they don't want to have to deal with 300 people talking/texting/ipadding/etc. Basically it takes away distractions so that if there is an emergency they don't have to fight for attention. However, saying, hey, don't use your electronics yet because we wanna be able to communicate with you if we have an emergency doesn't give passengers comfort, so they use the interference bs.

**skipmac** · 02-10-2012, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgriffin

Several years ago I was in Jamaica and ended up spending a day sightseeing with 3 AA Flight attendants. According to them the main reason is that most emergencies occur during takeoff and landing under 10,000 feet. In the case of an emergency, they don't want to have to deal with 300 people talking/texting/ipadding/etc. Basically it takes away distractions so that if there is an emergency they don't have to fight for attention. However, saying, hey, don't use your electronics yet because we wanna be able to communicate with you if we have an emergency doesn't give passengers comfort, so they use the interference bs.

I have certainly considered that this might be part of the reason for the requirement. However I have read articles that most definitely addressed interference with the aircraft's electronics. One link here

Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices

Also heard a sound bite on the news recently that the FAA is retesting PEDs and airplane electronics.

denverd0n · 03-10-2012, 05:50

You also have to consider the fact that if you let ANYONE use an electronic device on the plane, then you have to let EVERYONE use them. That means it's not EMI from one or two or three devices, but from every seat in the airplane--hundreds of them all emitting electro-magnetic radiation at the same time.

I have no doubt that they could mitigate the effects of this EMI if they wanted to spend just a little time and effort on it. My guess is that it is as much the attention thing, as well as simply being cheap about not wanting to spend the money on mitigation, as it is anything else.

It does seem a little bit ridiculous when you get down to it. I expect that the first airline to put in the money and effort, and then advertise "Come fly with us and use your iPad all you want!" is going to make a fortune.

Of course, you can always take the train, if you don't like the airline rules.

**skipmac** · 03-10-2012, 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Of course, you can always take the train, if you don't like the airline rules.

Forget trains. I plan on taking the boat.

**sarafina** · 04-10-2012, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverd0n

It does seem a little bit ridiculous when you get down to it. I expect that the first airline to put in the money and effort, and then advertise "Come fly with us and use your iPad all you want!" is going to make a fortune.

Of course, you can always take the train, if you don't like the airline rules.

Flights from Virgin America | Virgin Flights

Already here!

sailorboy1 · 05-10-2012, 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipmac

Forget trains. I plan on taking the boat.

whose boat would that be

**skipmac** · 05-10-2012, 05:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

whose boat would that be

I'm going to borrow yours since you have to park it for half the year.

sailorboy1 · 05-10-2012, 05:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipmac

I'm going to borrow yours since you have to park it for half the year.

OK, but be warned that your head will be all messed up afterward once your internet forum boat beliefs get rocked

maybe it would safer for you to go back to this plan:
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

how did you learn of such a thing anyway?

**skipmac** · 05-10-2012, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

OK, but be warned that your head will be all messed up afterward once your internet forum boat beliefs get rocked

OK, get ready for the shock of your life. I actually spent a two week charter on a Hunter forty something (42, 45? I forget exactly which model). I really didn't want to take a Hunter but the prior charter party (with a licensed captain even) wrecked the catamaran we had reserved so we had to take the Hunter or give up the vacation. After two weeks I was shocked to find that all my brain cells didn't die, my hair didn't fall out, and my sailing friends would (mostly) still talk to me.

What I concluded.

- The boat sailed quite well.
- It was under powered but blame that on the owner specifying too small an engine, not the boat.
- Sailing dead down wind isn't the best option as even with a vang the main would rub on the aft angled shroud. Nature of the rig or lack of knowledge of the skipper?
- The boat was extremely roomy, comfortable and well laid out for a large group. We had 6 for most of the trip plus forty SCUBA tanks and assorted gear for the whole crowd.
- The boat handled and maneuvered very well including backing into a slip.
- I needed to adjust my sail plan ideas due to the large main and small jib on that particular boat. Not sure if that is standard or typical of all Hunters with the B&R rig or just that one.
- Found no part of the boat failing or falling off into the water. All major pieces stayed attached. The only problem we had was a failure of the shift cable where it attached to the transmission which I fixed at the dock in Bimini.

So I boarded a Hunter once with no long term repercussions so could probably do so again, although repeated exposure might have some cumulative effect that I haven't yet diagnosed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

maybe it would safer for you to go back to this plan:
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

how did you learn of such a thing anyway?

Where else, found it on the internet. From my recollection this "religion" was started as a protest against the political influence of organized ......... Maybe I should stop there. I feel controversy and moderation coming on.