You must log in or register to comment.

ObfuscatedAnswers t1_ixqyyhb wrote

If a cellphone could cause a plane to crash I'd be seriously worried about the design.


clickwir t1_ixqzn6j wrote

That's not why the rule is there.

In the US, the rule comes from the FCC, not the FAA.

It's not about the plane. It's about having hundreds of devices rapidly switching towers as a plane takes off or lands. Causing lots of needless work for the cell system, waste of resources and loads of interference and congestion on the RF spectrum.

Has nothing to do with the plane.


newtosf2016 t1_ixr3rgq wrote

True, but airlines for years lied their asses off and claimed this anyway. And they wonder why we don’t trust them.


matjoeman t1_ixric3z wrote

Didn't the rule used to be "No electronic devices on at all during takeoff and landing"?


tooclosetocall82 t1_ixs7a83 wrote

Yeah this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I remember having to be discreet with my mp3 player back when those were common so the flight attendant didn’t yell at me.


APeacefulWarrior t1_ixtj5ga wrote

I remember in the 90s being told I had to turn off my Gameboy during takeoff/landing, which was ridiculous on every conceivable level.


LastPlaceStar t1_ixtk1yj wrote

I think that was because it was too hard to determine what electronic devices had any sort of radio communication in them for the flight attendants, so they just made everyone turn everything off.


tire-fire t1_ixry3oe wrote

Yeah, if I remember right the FAA had a regulation that below 10,000 ft personal electronics had to be off (so during take off and landing) until that got changed a number of years back.


zap_p25 t1_ixr7j12 wrote

Aside from the issues having a 25,000+ foot elevation difference in terms of line of sight caused with roaming back when roaming was a big deal with carriers.


BusbyBusby t1_ixsv5ce wrote

Why was roaming a big deal with carriers?


zap_p25 t1_ixtbkt0 wrote

Charge you money for roaming outside of you standard coverage plan. If you can beat the roaming charges by maintaining an in-area tower longer...they feel cheated.


BusbyBusby t1_ixtlbk4 wrote

That's ridiculous. You should be able to go from one of their towers to the next from one end of the country to the other.


zap_p25 t1_ixxf6q4 wrote

That's how it is today. It's not how it is used to be though. For example, in the early 2000's Verizon, Cingular (pre-merger with AT&T) and AT&T all used to offer varying coverage plans...local, statewide and nationwide. If you roamed outside of your coverage would incur roaming fees. Today though, the coverage is simply assumed at the national level.


9-11GaveMe5G t1_ixtngnb wrote

Much like data caps of now, they were an invented problem and they charged for the "solution". In reality when you went on someone else's network "roaming" the telecoms charged each other less than your carrier charged you for borrowing that usage.


japanb t1_ixrvdux wrote

Yes it did have to do with the plane. They didn't know what would happen with radio interference at the time. Heck even the 777-200 was grounded because of on the ground signals not even in the aircraft

LAX, Jeju Korea grounded the 777-200. Recently after putting a fence under the flight path to stop instagram-ers at Jeju airport, they then re-allowed the 777-200 to fly here again


trentgibbo t1_ixsj8t2 wrote

That sounds like BS. How is it any different when everyone suddenly turns their phones back on after landing?

Spoiler: it's not


idkwthtotypehere t1_ixrd0w6 wrote

That feels like a hella weak argument…


mihirmusprime t1_ixrya3e wrote

Right? I feel like that aspect should have been accounted for as part of the cell network design...


simple_mech t1_ixrkmh6 wrote

Where does the “seat up, tray up, everything put away” rule come from? I could understand the last 5 minutes, but my last flight in June they did it like 30-40 mins in advance. Still mad I didn’t get to finish my movie!


liftingline27 t1_ixrnq99 wrote

That’s an egress thing. Takeoff and landing is the most dangerous part of the flight. Want to make sure there isn’t shit blocking people from getting out or projectiles flying around.

If your flight crew didn’t get landing clearance as early as they thought they would or had a particularly long approach you could end up with an extended period of that.


ugohome t1_ixt1gvo wrote

Yup. "We'll be landing in 45 minutes, so, welcome to BOREDOM"


whyNadorp t1_ixsphgm wrote

so now cell phones don’t do this anymore? doesn’t make much sense.


mitsuhachi t1_ixtizqk wrote

Interesting. I love learning about this stuff; I was definitely told as a kid it would mess with the plane’s systems and cause problems. I wonder where that myth got started?


smogop t1_ixtnqyb wrote

Really ? I though it was jamming serval approach and takeoff systems which not only do not operate on the same frequency but are also now digital.

Unless you are landing at an old airport like Miegs Field, which literally no longer exists, you don’t need to worry about being jammed.


IsildursBane20 t1_ixu7kli wrote

Yeah because millions of drivers don’t cause the same thing…


wewbull t1_ixu5qw0 wrote

Had a pan-european flight recently where I'd left my phone in my bag and forgot to enable flight mode.

At the end of the flight I checked my phone and had 5 or 6 "Welcome to Romania/ Hungary/ Austria/ Germany / etc." messages as my phone had registered with the various networks from 30,000 ft.


bdsee t1_ixxwiyv wrote

/r/confidentlyincorrect and so many upvotes


bihari_baller t1_ixra12k wrote

Yeah, I learned about this in my 400-level Engineering Electromagnetics class. Cool stuff.


tommygunz007 t1_ixryrxc wrote

I was led to believe that the reason we have people in airplane mode was there was a fear of detonating devices remotely with a cell phone after someone rigged a bomb to get this, a cell phone. Also people live-streaming on Facebook with their terrorist activities onboard.

-Flight attendant


OB1_error t1_ixsqz1d wrote

If they’re already going to blow up a plane, asking them politely to turn off their phone isn’t going to stop them. After all, it’s all on the honor system anyway.


[deleted] t1_ixrsmte wrote



Splatter1842 t1_ixs0wel wrote

It's not one cellphone they're worried about, its the 400+ from all the passengers on the one 747 taking off.


[deleted] t1_ixsepjo wrote



kinky-proton t1_ixshe9h wrote

And in the same spot not changing towers at the same time


ShameNap t1_ixt3uku wrote

Cars on highways change towers all the time, and last I checked, there’s a lot more than 400 cars on a very short span of freeway.


captainloverman t1_ixtnlx0 wrote

Analogue cellphones would interfere with the ILS back in the day. Planes are complicated. No one could guarantee that any kind of radio transmotting device would 100% not interfere. So out of an abundance of caution it was banned for a longtime.

There is an actual air ambulance accident in North Carolina where the flight nurse turned on the cell to contact the ground ambulance on short final in nasty weather. The radar track showthe aircraftveering off at the moment the cell was turned on and hitting a hangar next to the runway. Probably caused by cell unterference making the ILS needles veer off.

Digital cell phones with narrow band transmitters and airplane mode have mostly eliminated that threat, but the FCC still has rules.

However the new 5G cell towers interfere. This is because manufacturers of avionics were lazy, and didnt make their recievers discrete enough, so they get intereference from frequency bands adjacent to the ones use by 5G towers. As a result we have to comply with reduced minima at a lot of airports with 5G towers nearby.

This is all greatly simplified. Here are some links.

Ill tryto find the crash report for the one, but Its the only actual crash I know of and it was a speculative cause as there were no flight data recorders.

Aviation regulation moves slow because of safety implications.


mikemacman t1_ixu3eay wrote

What crash? I’m not finding it on google.


captainloverman t1_ixw3pay wrote

Its not on google, you need to dig through all the NTSB accident reports for air ambulances in the carolinas. I read it years ago. Its there, its just obscure. Im still looking for it too.


mikemacman t1_ixwdak7 wrote

I find that hard to believe. If that happened, it would be all over click-bait news stories. "Cell phone crashes plane!!!"


captainloverman t1_ixwvxtf wrote

Only if its an airliner full of people, little planes crash every day and no one gives a shit.

This happened more than 15 years ago too. I was reading NTSB accident reports for a project for an airline I worked at when I ran across the report. That was 15 years ago, and the accident happened even further back in time than that.


One-Appointment-3107 t1_ixup0zx wrote

Yeah. I was picking my mother up from the airport when she texted me ahead of schedule. The message said, I’ll be landing in 5 minutes. Lol. I chewed her out a little. Her cellphone could have interfered with messages from the tower but I doubt it’s risky mid flight when they’re not in a high stress situation and need to hear last minute messages from traffic control


DancesWithElectrons t1_ixpyey1 wrote

Great. Welcome to the seatmate who spends the flight yammering on their phone.


LouisdeRouvroy t1_ixpzq2m wrote

Noone is talking on their phone anymore.... That's at least gen x folks...


themiracy t1_ixq2ira wrote

Young Gen X here, we do not talk on our phones.


SlyJackFox t1_ixq4l1h wrote

Older GenX here, same. Parents though ….


Karazhan t1_ixrkrlp wrote

God I can already imagine it. Flying to Turkey with my mum. She'll be on her phone, she has no voice volume.... -

"Yeah, yeah we'll be landing in an hour I'll call you then -"



SlyJackFox t1_ixsc26m wrote

Yes! I mean, we like to talk but to people, not devices. I feel like the modern equivalent of “get off my lawn!” When people are talking over transportation noise and using speaker phones or walky talkie features in crowded confined places. I live in Japan and they pleasantly yet consistently remind everybody to NOT do that. Polite people here.


themiracy t1_ixq5121 wrote

My parents talk on the phone, sure. They were also born during WWII…. :)


Lucky-Load2637 t1_ixqlvnq wrote

Another Gen Xer with parents from the quiet generation. They don't talk on their phones, either, it's texting only for those octogenarians.


Jynx2501 t1_ixr1px2 wrote

Odd, my kids talk on the phone all the time... they're 9, 9 and 11. They text too.


themiracy t1_ixr1d52 wrote

My mother uses Whatsapp, to my chagrin, because I hate that app (I prefer Apple's messaging or SMS, I wish I could get people to stop sending me Facebook messages also - Whatsapp is more secure but it's just a terrible app).


CindyFromWork t1_ixq4cow wrote

Thank you for saying this. We definitely aren’t talking on the phone. And, to add, I despise texts that can’t be resolved in three messages.


freefoodisgood t1_ixr32he wrote

Voice calls are already possible on airplanes due to many flights providing wifi + whatsapp/etc and it's not a problem. Most, if not all, airlines already ban any sort of voice call on planes to avoid disruption to other passengers.


youreblockingmyshot t1_ixpzhj7 wrote

Planes are pretty loud. Plus it’s not like they can stop you from being just as rude and having a 1 way conversation with them.


samz22 t1_ixrvhjk wrote

I’m on one rn, got kids in front of me and behind me. They should have a airplane mode for kids, or some sound proof designated area just for kids


youreblockingmyshot t1_ixsetzn wrote

I believe they call it the cargo hold /s


samz22 t1_ixsfyzw wrote

Honestly I don’t travel via planes that much prob like 4-5 times a year. And this year I saw so many people with babies or kids. I think during Covid people just popped out kids.


PeanutButterChicken t1_ixtft0i wrote

>Honestly I don’t travel via planes that much prob like 4-5 times a year.

That's significantly more than most people. "Not that much" my ass, lol


youreblockingmyshot t1_ixsh060 wrote

I’ve been lucky enough that any noisy passengers have been far enough away that my noise canceling headphones have been able to take care of them.


jjdmol t1_ixquood wrote

Do calls even work from planes? They have lines of sight with towers, sure. But with many of them, far away, and moving fast...


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixqz7dy wrote

Yes, if the tower is moving with you. First line of the article: “Within the European Union, airlines will be able to install the latest 5G technology on their aircraft, allowing passengers to use their smartphones and other connected devices just as they do on the ground.”


UsrHpns4rctct t1_ixqqliq wrote

That person will get a bill the size of the planes cruising height after that call.


hclpfan t1_ixr575q wrote

Why would it cost anything different than while on the ground?


UsrHpns4rctct t1_ixr9iqi wrote

The phone don’t connect to the towers on the ground, but are linked through a hub at the plane which (here I’m a bit fuzzy about the tech, but) cost a loooot to traffic data and calls through.


_WhoisMrBilly_ t1_ixq9v97 wrote

How are your phones able to connect with Cell towers for 30k feet reliably without an antenna booster?


JaggedMetalOs t1_ixqctnv wrote

The phones connect to a cell repeater in the aircraft, not to cell towers on the ground.


Tinmania t1_ixqo6gn wrote

It’s not a “repeater” by any stretch of the imagination.


JaggedMetalOs t1_ixqq35g wrote

That's the best quick summary of what those "pico-cells" are doing I can come up with, open to suggestions on a better one.


Tinmania t1_ixqqvwg wrote

You do realize they do not connect to terrestrial cell towers, right? Ergo, they are not repeaters. They connect to satellites (as some remote cell towers do). It doesn’t need to be called anything other than what it is: pico cell.


mitsuhachi t1_ixqrfp8 wrote

I didn’t know what a pico cell was. Thank you for explaining it. I do know vaguely what a repeater is, and found that terminology, though perhaps less specific, useful to getting his point.


garbans t1_ixqsaly wrote

"Router" would be a more suiteable word, you make a small coverage area connected by "lan/satellite" to the main network...


Tinmania t1_ixqrueh wrote

To be clear, a pico cell is simply a cell site with limited range. It doesn’t need to connect to a satellite. Most connect via fiber, like most cell sites.


dudeedud4 t1_ixqssay wrote

Right.. the pico cell on a fucking airplane is gonna be connected via fiber...


s133zy t1_ixqyqxn wrote

All new commercial airplanes will be fly-by-wire in 2023!


Tinmania t1_ixqswrr wrote

Are you usually this challenged by reading comprehension?


mattblau t1_ixqu4cs wrote

You’re saying interesting things but you’re coming across as a dick, not sure if it’s intentional. Just so you know


Tinmania t1_ixqu85j wrote

Let’s just say I didn’t expect this level of ignorance in a technology sub. Not intentional.


lucimon97 t1_ixrb7xu wrote

>didn’t expect this level of ignorance


>Not intentional

If that isn't intentional, you need to work on your communcation skills bro


Phighters t1_ixrpsz0 wrote

Good fuckin lord bro, go jack off or something.


mitsuhachi t1_ixtj66u wrote

I’ll freely admit there’s lots I don’t know about technology. Its a big field after all. But Im interested in it and like to learn more, so that’s why I’m here. I imagine there are a number of people who are here for reasons other than wanting to feel superior.


dudeedud4 t1_ixqz0lr wrote

Are you? You contradicted yourself immedietly after..


IlIIlllIIlllllI t1_ixtk5de wrote

pretty obvious he meant most on a plane connect to sat, most in general connect to fiber


Nose-Nuggets t1_ixr0xe4 wrote

He does? Pico's on planes connect to sats, terrestrial pico's can use fiber?


garbans t1_ixqrsi1 wrote

Its more or less the same technology used in the cruise ships during navigation, so if for any chance you use some data or call somebody using their "signal" they will charge you "extra" (extra can be understood as 1 kidney)


Tinmania t1_ixqs8ag wrote

Yes, similar. Of course a bit more challenging when you are traveling at 550 MPH vs 25 MPH.


garbans t1_ixqsfbi wrote

yep, thats why I said "more or less the same technology" :P


Tinmania t1_ixqsi92 wrote

So nice of you to tell me my job.


ExtraVeganTaco t1_ixr3qyh wrote

Is your job being a dick? Because you're on track to be employee of the month.


garbans t1_ixqswza wrote

Excuse me, where have I been rude to you? it is also part of my job and I though we were having a nice conversation...


ExtraVeganTaco t1_ixr3lx3 wrote

Does it connect to the same internet as when you're on the ground?

Sounds like a repeater to me.


li_314 t1_ixsn490 wrote

4G internet I'd think.

I took a networking class that focused a lot on telephone networks, and it's really interesting. Pretty amazing how the telephone network was able to be adapted to accommodate internet, and vice versa with VoIP.


end_of_time_squid t1_ixsjs3h wrote

You must be real fun at parties with all your smart lil cellphone facts


zap_p25 t1_ixr794m wrote

The primary limitation to the frequencies used by cell phones is that they are line of sight, power isn’t really as relevant. A 25,000+ foot elevation difference between phones and towers allows for some pretty awesome line of sight.


FriendlyDespot t1_ixs4kjz wrote

Sure, but antennas on cell towers don't point up, they point towards the horizon, sometimes with a slight downward angle depending on the height of the tower relative to the subscribers. The part of the beam pattern that points above the horizon is typically pretty weak.


MickeyElephant t1_ixt8g6h wrote

In LTE, the antennas have a fairly significant downward angle since every cell uses the same set of channels as every other cell. Before LTE, there would be a frequency reuse pattern, so another cell a few miles away would be using the same spectrum. So even then they are aimed somewhat down rather than at the horizon, as you said. But with LTE it's much more significant.


zap_p25 t1_ixscjm1 wrote

Yes but the higher you are, the further the distance to horizon. And like you stated depending on the tower’s location and the engineered coverage it needs to provide, it could be configured for mechanical down tilt, no tilt, or up tilt.


leto78 t1_ixqdwus wrote

While the EU bans roaming between member states, this does not include airlines and cruise ships. People will be forced to turn airplane mode in order not to pay ridiculous prices for roaming.


Bumwax t1_ixqoig6 wrote

Am I misunderstanding you here, the EU doesnt ban roaming among its member states. In fact it has quite strict regulations on roaming within the EU, currently valid until 2032, that severely limits roaming charges.

The cell operator Im a customer of has no extra roaming charges at all up until a very high monthly cap (higher than I reach in 6 months easily) and as far as Im aware, this is pretty much standard. Ive been to Germany, Poland, Romania and Portugal quite recently and incurred no extra charges for any of these trips.


Karmakazee t1_ixqzgdm wrote

I read their post to mean the same thing you’re describing—that the EU restricts fees on roaming between member states. Their point was that these restrictions won’t necessarily apply in the context of calls made while in flight (why they wouldn’t, I have no idea).


ubiquitous_uk t1_ixr0fx4 wrote

What he is saying is that roaming only covers ground charges, there will be chaarges for using the airlines system to make calls, so if you don't turn airplane mode, chances are you will have an enormous data bill from the network running in the background.


_DeanRiding t1_ixqp823 wrote

I used to work for Vodafone and once had a call from someone who got the ferry over from Dover to Calais (pre-brexit). Apparently he didn't realise his phone was on in his pocket and used like 5mb of data (just through weather/ambient apps or whatever I guess). They charged him about £30 for it. They literally charged £6 per mb. When I spoke to general customer services to see if this was a mistake, they said the charges were totally legitimate and that he wouldn't be refunded for it.

Absolutely ludicrous.


tartare4562 t1_ixqm75c wrote

You can disable data roaming, you know.


leto78 t1_ixqsvpl wrote

I never have it disabled because every country that I travel to in Europe does not charge me for roaming. My operator also does not charge me for Norway, UK, Switzerland, and some other countries outside the EU.


Askduds t1_ixtxiw6 wrote

The exception about cruise ships is important though, if you end up connected to a maritime network you absolutely will be charged.


dataphile t1_ixqmr1g wrote

I knew this would eventually change once I heard that pilots use tablets in the cockpit years ago. The idea that phones or tablets generate unsafe conditions for technical reasons doesn’t make sense (although the question of creating social conflicts is another issue).


AreTheseMyFeet t1_ixrjwx3 wrote

Anecdotal for sure but I had it explained to me that it was so people didn't have their faces in their phones/devices during take off and landing, those being the most dangerous periods of a flight. The claim was that they want to ensure the passengers are attentive and able to hear any emergency announcements in case there are any issues.

I got in to this conversation with a flight attendant who insisted during take off that I turned off my mp3 player (quite a few years ago). The device had no wireless capabilities at all so there was never any chance of it causing any RF interference which I explained. I was in a seat next to the emergency door at one of the wings and they said they typically don't bother enforcing the rule for most seats except those directly at an exit. Again, anecdotal but it sounds a reasonable enough explanation and a fair request for those seats at emergency exits.


IceFire2050 t1_ixqk4nw wrote

Can you even maintain a call signal on a plane?


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixqz31s wrote

First line of the article: “Within the European Union, airlines will be able to install the latest 5G technology on their aircraft, allowing passengers to use their smartphones and other connected devices just as they do on the ground.”


Downtown_Conflict_53 t1_ixr0epl wrote

What article, I just read headlines and comments.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixr5yhk wrote

If you click on that headline, you will discover that there are several sentences that go with each of those headlines giving more details! You may have to hunt for them hiding behind, under, and between video ads though. So I understand why no one would go to the trouble.


Downtown_Conflict_53 t1_ixr6k0d wrote

I won’t change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I’m dug in and I’ll never change.


PiracyIsCaring t1_ixr3o47 wrote

Some flights have WI-FI you can pay for. So WiFi calls are possible on flights.


zap_p25 t1_ixr7uja wrote

Depends on the cellular technology in use and the configuration of the tower antenna systems.


happyscrappy t1_ixr04lp wrote

What will happen if you have a non-5G phone? One that does only 4G, etc. Will it try to reach the ground since the pico-cell doesn't serve it?

Also, how is this better than WiFi we have? Seems like just a way more companies to get in the way and charge us money.


tommygunz007 t1_ixrym87 wrote

As a result, 5G coverage can also be made available on aircraft.

It's ridiculously expensive for many airlines and airports to switch over. There are old Boeings out there that still load software from floppy disk.

The reason we have people in airplane mode was there was a fear of detonating devices remotely with a cell phone after someone rigged a bomb to get this, a cell phone. Also people live-streaming on Facebook with their terrorist activities onboard.

Lastly, some of the older planes do have interference from some older cellular devices.

Some risks and costs will just be very slow to adopt, at least in the USA. There is too much money fighting any kind of upgrade.


malastare- t1_ixt5dwx wrote

>The reason we have people in airplane mode was there was a fear of detonating devices remotely with a cell phone after someone rigged a bomb to get this, a cell phone

Citation, please.

This is repeatedly quoted, but there's no official source, or... to be honest... any vaguely reasonable logic behind it. You think a terrorist is going to be at home building a bomb and getting really disappointed when United announces that they're going to ask you to use airplane mode or they'll threaten to have you arrested after the flight they intend to blow up lands? How TF does that make sense?


nikkyninja t1_ixracij wrote

Honestly haven't used it on planes in forever. Forgot to turn on airplane mode once a long time ago, noticed we didn't crash and just left it from then on lol


DrSendy t1_ixreatl wrote

Choice. Now I get some inconsiderate knob talking right next to my ear for 2 hours straight.


TechTalkf t1_ixrm4hb wrote

great, here come all the noisy phone-talkers.


newdeli t1_ixs65qb wrote

It would be nice if the would approve GPS in smartphones during flights as well


malastare- t1_ixt6hx4 wrote

Most GPS receivers are receive-only. Seems that some use very low power transmitters to clean up/convert signals, but those are seriously weak. A decent number of airlines already allow them.

The issue may be that there's a difference between "GPS" which is technically a strictly-receiver service (your phone never talks to the satellites, only maybe mumbles to itself) and "Location Services" that frequently mixes GPS with cell-based location estimates (which are at least trying to actively talk to cell towers).


Queeg_500 t1_ixtphv8 wrote

I'm not trusted with over 100ml of liquid incase I try and hijack the plane, but they trust us to take our phones on board... What does that tell ya.


Askduds t1_ixtxl51 wrote

For the uk at least, that is also changing next year.


Askduds t1_ixtxg6x wrote

As the great cabin pressure once pointed out, if they were actually a problem, they wouldn’t let you keep them.


peaceornothing t1_ixtz5yc wrote

Here comes the tiktok brigade making flights an even worse experience than they already are.


jo45678 t1_ixumi59 wrote

US airlines will fight this. They make revenue off selling crappy wifi. This isn’t Europe. Corporations come first.


[deleted] t1_ixpwscn wrote



isntitbionic t1_ixpxkcu wrote

way to go in true reddit style - not reading the article.

"The 5G coverage will be made possible by installing a so-called "pico-cell" in the aircraft. Via that network station, telephone calls, text messages and data traffic can be sent via a satellite network to a mobile network on the ground."


MinogameTurt t1_ixr7zcs wrote

Yep. I needed EU’s permission. Suuuuure.


hillsons t1_ixs52vm wrote

I was just on a flight in Europe yesterday and instead of no smoking signs in every row, there was no-phones light. That was a poor choice.


Marvele10 t1_ixu5gjj wrote

Is this sarcasm? I'm not understanding it


hillsons t1_ixv6e5x wrote

Instead of a seatbelt light and no-smoking light above every passenger row, there was a seatbelt light and no-cellphone light above every passenger row.


Marvele10 t1_ixvln79 wrote

But why would there be a no smoking light? Smoking indoors is forbidden in most of the EU already 🤔


hillsons t1_ixvucpy wrote

I don't know, I don't live in Europe, I was just visiting. Here in the states, every commercial airliner still has no-smoking lights because it's a federal requirement, and it's not because "you can't smoke indoors because of health and stuff" it's a safety issue.


RPL79 t1_ixt3bjj wrote

I’ve never put my phone on airplane mode on a flight.

No plane or cell tower has ever been destroyed from my negligence


MurrayHillBro t1_ixtd81u wrote

Does anyone even switch their phone to airplane mode? I don't remember the last time I did that - must be over a decade lol.


Chemical_Director_25 t1_ixqqndk wrote

Who’s going to tel them that none of us use airplane mode anyways?


FriendlyDespot t1_ixqrsbb wrote

Kinda silly to not use airplane mode. Your phone's gonna waste a ton of battery looking for signals and jumping between towers for a connection that you aren't going to use anyway.


LoadCapacity t1_ixu2kpg wrote

I'd rather not have to worry about airplane mode. Also, if you're that worried about your phone's battery life, maybe get a better battery


Juliuscesear1990 t1_ixqtntk wrote

So many people are going to use this as an excuse to argue with a stewardess/steward. "Well they allow it in the EU so what's the big deal"


Tarquin_McBeard t1_ixsbcel wrote

If that were true, people would've started arguing a lot time ago. This technology is already in use on hundreds of planes throughout the world. It's even installed on planes that fly in the EU. They just don't turn it on until they're out of EU airspace.

The reality is that if someone wants to turn their phone off airplane mode, they're not going to argue about it. They're just going to do it.


JudasHungHimself t1_ixqf6ip wrote

But.. but.. think about all the radiation we will be exposed to when flying now..



[deleted] t1_ixr9oum wrote

We already get elevated levels of radiation exposure due to thinner atmosphere at higher altitudes.

More dangerous than 5G will ever be. (AFAWK)


Cool_83 t1_ixq10zb wrote

Just wait til you see the per minute charges. VOIP is a better solution.