undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdalyons1y ago0 comments

See: many airlines that still warn to put your phones in airplane mode, despite that being known nonsense for decades

0 comments

It's not "known nonsense", but not for the reason you think. There's a small risk of your phone connecting to some random carrier located in whatever country you're currently flying over. For some smaller / third-world countries, this can be quite expensive, cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.

avar1y ago

Every time this is brought up people come out of the woodworks with post-hoc rationale for this rule that has no basis in historical fact. This comment is good example.

Why would the FAA and other aviation regulatory agencies care about your phone bill?

lxgr1y ago

I completely agree on GPs statement being absurd post-hoc rationale, but interestingly, this rule is actually coming from the FCC, not the FAA [1], with the FAA only indicating support for it [2].

The motivation is supposedly cellphones at high altitudes interfering with far-away cell towers that are reusing the same frequency at a distance that would normally make interference very unlikely, given the radio horizon and everything.

I highly doubt that that would still be an issue modern networks couldn't handle (also given that most other countries don't have a corresponding law on their books, as far as I know), yet here we are.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/22.925

[2] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

miki1232111y ago

It's not the reason the rule was implemented, it's not something the FAA cares about, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still a good idea in some cases, rule or no rule.

1 more reply

lxgr1y ago

If that were the motivation, airlines should also display a "no credit cards" icon to protect you from overspending on the in-flight drinks service.

> cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.

If only! Double-digit dollars per 100 kilobyte aren't unheard of.

ghaff1y ago

It may still be a good idea because of battery but basically no one cares. Contra early days of smartphones when there near altercations with passengers responding to one last email after the doors closed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

miki1232111y ago

avar1y ago

Every time this is brought up people come out of the woodworks with post-hoc rationale for this rule that has no basis in historical fact. This comment is good example.

Why would the FAA and other aviation regulatory agencies care about your phone bill?

lxgr1y ago

I completely agree on GPs statement being absurd post-hoc rationale, but interestingly, this rule is actually coming from the FCC, not the FAA [1], with the FAA only indicating support for it [2].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/22.925

[2] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

miki1232111y ago

It's not the reason the rule was implemented, it's not something the FAA cares about, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still a good idea in some cases, rule or no rule.

1 more reply

lxgr1y ago

If that were the motivation, airlines should also display a "no credit cards" icon to protect you from overspending on the in-flight drinks service.

> cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.

If only! Double-digit dollars per 100 kilobyte aren't unheard of.

ghaff1y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse