Went on a few flights this past week. Every time, after boarding, I heard something like the following message:

Went on a few flights this past week. Every time, after boarding, I heard something like the following message:

>"We are now taking off. Please put away laptop computers and other large devices. You may use phones or tablets as long as they are in airplane mode."

What is the fundamental difference between laptops and phones/tablets that requires the former category to be put away but the latter category to be allowed during takeoff and landing? Why is it "required", not just suggested, that phones and tablets be used in airplane mode? (isn't the only advantage of airplane mode to the user - i.e. it turns off the radios so you get more battery life?)

Attached: airplane seats.jpg (850x563, 115K)

Because airlines don't want to having clunky laptops out turning take off or landing.

haha good one

>What is the fundamental difference between laptops and phones/tablets that requires the former category to be put away but the latter category to be allowed during takeoff and landing?
Starts and landings can get a little shaky, and while there are large and heavy tablets and small and light laptops generally you'd rather want to be hit in the head by a tablet than a laptop.

>Why is it "required", not just suggested, that phones and tablets be used in airplane mode?
Afaik radio transmitters can interfere with measuring systems of the plane, don't know if thats still up to date or the ban is just some legacy safety rule.

It was a serious remark. They don't want people having large plastic / metal bricks when there's a lot of movement going on.

in an emergency a laptop flying around the cabin could easily kill someone

I've read several places that while the comms systems are not usually affected by radio interference from devices in the passenger compartment, people bring weird shit on planes and it's kind of a catch-all. Theoretically you could have a laptop with an SDR and intentionally interfere with the crew radio, less likely a phone or tablet could equip the hardware to do that.

I don't think they're seriously considered SDRs... That's a relatively new discovery.

It's because cell phones have to register to the nearest tower cell. While the plane is close to the ground and moving this would result in lots of cell phones registering to several cell towers in a short period, thus causing a kind of denial of service attack.
So it's to protect cell towers. Nothing to do with anything inside the plane. This is common knowledge.

It never was the case. If they really did interfere the FAA would have banned them from flights. It's because the takeoffs and landings are the most likely times for a plane to malfunction and crash. Airlines don't want people to be aware of how horrific plane crashes are so they tell people to turn on airplane mode so you can't record and upload a video or have your phone call recorded.

Thats a bit of a stretch, I'll go with what said, sounds plausible.

But tablets and phones are lighter, and can fly faster. If someone gets hit in the head with a tablet at high speed, that could still hurt. If that's the argument, why not request both to be put away?

>tablets and phones are lighter, and can fly faster
the state of Jow Forums education

>and can fly faster
...you never took physics huh?

Or if you did, you must not have passed.

This doesn't make sense. Cell towers are able to handle requests far greater than ~300 people at a time. I don't see why a sudden and brief increase in connections would damage the cell towers.

--t. skipped the chapter on angular momentum

Would you rather be hit by a laptop or a phone?
There's your answer.

In a large open space, maybe that'd matter.

In the 10-14 foot wide cabin, filled with people and chairs, you're generally going to be more worried about heavier objects since they'll have a greater force to begin with and can cause more damage with less momentum.

>lemme post something completely unrelated to sound like I know what the fuck I'm talking about
really nigga?

Because the laptop is heavier, it will take more force to move it, so it will fly slower. Vice versa with the lighter objects, they will fly faster.

I would rather touch a laptop than get hit by a phone that someone threw at me like a baseball. Both incidents are collisions, but the object with less mass hurt more because its velocity was higher.

If you want an actual answer it's because airline lawyers see it as a liability issue. No, nothing to do with interference with the plane comms or anything like that, it's because while the stewardess is giving her emergency instructions on how to use the exits and inflate the slide while the plane is prepping for takeoff if some guy on his laptop isnt paying attention and then breaks his leg trying to get out of an emergency exit because he didn't listen to the instructions he might sue and say it wasn't his fault.

Notice how things like in-flight wifi exist with no complications for pilot comms.

>Because the laptop is heavier, it will take more force to move it, so it will fly slower. Vice versa with the lighter objects, they will fly faster.
Get this man a Nobel prize, he's just proven that a bowling ball falls faster than a feather in vacuum!

By putting your devices in airplane mode the company won't have to pay for them if they fall out of the window, since they'll just fly to safety

Do you really believe the object flying towards you will be doing so due to some passenger applying force to it, as opposed to inertia?
Mate get your head checked, yer mental simulation circuits are shite.
What's the 99% scenario is either a laptop or a phone flying toward your temple at the same speed. With mv^2, that's a 10x worse scenario if it were a laptop.
Thank fuck the people making the regulations aren't as retarded as you.

Alright, I admit I was wrong. I didn't realize that since the plane was flying at velocity, if the plane suddenly stopped all the objects would fly at the previous velocity, so the laptop and phone would be travelling at the same speed.

Attached: 1494243687299.png (658x662, 44K)

Yup, was what I was getting at.
You're correct given a fixed amount of force, but the plane scenario's much more likely to fuck your shit up via the inertia route.

Tough shit for them then, I record all my takeoffs and landings just for the hope that if some shit does go wrong, I can sell it.

Only if it's a ThinkPad

Airlines like to play it safe. GSM phone can be as powerful, as 2W transmitter if coverage is bad. Now imagine 100+ phones.

I always thought it was because of the same reason they don't allow you phones/laptops in hospitals: because incoming calls/signals cause a signal spike that can be powerful enough to disrupt intrinsic equipment in the area. And as many pointed out, now imagine 100-200 phones going off at once.

Do you people really think that technology on a plane is really foolproof? Planes are literally plastic covered in a think metal sheet.

>What is the fundamental difference between laptops and phones/tablets that requires the former category to be put away but the latter category to be allowed during takeoff and landing?
Smaller objects are easier to handle in a way which prevents them from becoming projectiles.

>Why is it "required", not just suggested, that phones and tablets be used in airplane mode?
Since a detailed profile of RF interference can't be made in a practical manner for all devices, it's safer to require that they all be switched to airplane mode.

>(isn't the only advantage of airplane mode to the user - i.e. it turns off the radios so you get more battery life?)
The advantage of reduced RF transmission is also an advantage to safety-concerned aviation authorities.

fpbp

rekt