Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Florida Professor Arrested for Having a "Suspicious" Bagel on a Plane
NBC Miami ^ | Mon, Jan 3, 2011 | TODD WRIGHT

Posted on 01/03/2011 8:52:29 PM PST by nickcarraway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: nickcarraway

Makes me thankful that I didn’t have time to go to Greens and get some sausages to bring home to my husband. Could you imagine the panic over that particular package? We barely made it out alive with Grandmas homemade brownies!


61 posted on 01/04/2011 5:52:00 AM PST by linn37 ( "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

lol


62 posted on 01/04/2011 6:33:26 AM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR to pimp your blog!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
A phonecall??? Sorry... he needed to get his sorry @ss off the plane and leave the rest of the passengers alone to go on about their way.

It's a gray area. Flight crew are not sworn peace officers, so they don't automatically have the power to search someone.

Unless federal law expressly gives them that power, it's not automatic because they happen to be in/on the property of the airline. However, it's in the contract of carriage:

http://www.usairways.com/en-UK/travel_information/customers_first/carriage2.html

See item 3 under section 3.1. Note that this is the UK contract, but the US version is in a PDF and I was having trouble getting it to load.

An example in another context: a store doesn't have the automatically have the right to search a person accused of shoplifting. They can detain you on suspicion of theft, but if you demand it, they must call the police to actually search you. And if the police don't find anything amiss, you can file charges against the store personnel for unlawful restraint.

[Note that this is based on Texas law. Your mileage may vary elsewhere]

We don't know what led up to this incident. It sounds like there was plenty of over-reacting on all sides. If it had been a elderly white grandmother, no one would have paid a bit of attention.

63 posted on 01/04/2011 9:04:00 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I am annoyed by folks on cell phones, but the idea that they are some sort of threat to aviation is absurd.

Some of the airlines are still using 60's-era avionics. Cell phones, through design or damage, can emit signals "out-of-band" and right into the aviation navigation and communication bands. The older avionics aren't able to filter it out.

Even more absurd is the idea that my computer, mp3 player, conventional radio receiver, etc. are some sort of threat.

All of those devices (especially the radio receiver) have an oscillator in them, generating a signal or clock at a specific or variable frequency. If the device is not properly shielded, it can radiate in the aircraft navigation/communication bands.

Since you are inside the metal tube, all of the RF is effectively pumped into the aircraft ground.

On the surface, it's generally not an issue. The flight isn't depending on radio navigation aids, and the communication stations are at the airport and so strong that they will overpower any interference.

However, in the air, it can be an issue. It's especially important on approach to the airport. En-route, the pilots have time to recognize and remedy the interference. I've been on a flight where there was an issue and the pilot asked everyone to turn off their electronic devices. My seatmate realized that his cellphone was still on. :-(

But in the end, it's not about controlling people. It's a liability issue. The FAA makes the aircraft operator responsible for prohibiting devices that may cause interference. They are only supposed to allow electronic devices that have been tested and certified as non-interfering.

Beyond that, the FCC prohibits operation of cell-phones in flight... even by private aircraft operators that can certify them as non-interfering. The reason for this is to prevent interference with adjacent cell phone base stations. Cellular system design reuses frequencies in non-adjacent cells, under the assumption that a phone on the ground can be heard in one cell, but not the other. An airborne phone casts a much bigger "shadow", and it's fast moving.

64 posted on 01/04/2011 9:37:53 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Some of the airlines are still using 60's-era avionics. Cell phones, through design or damage, can emit signals "out-of-band" and right into the aviation navigation and communication bands.

Twaddle!

The only instrument I've ever seen suffer from interference of any sort is an ADF which is really just a fancy AM radio. Most of the ILS stuff is just above the FM band. Did you ever have any trouble with your FM radio reception in your car because a passenger decided to use his/her cell phone or listen to an mp3 player.

As for 60's era electronics, I doubt they move the old stacks to new airplanes. The percentage of airplanes in the US commercial fleet that were built before 1980 must be diminishingly low. Here's a picture of planes already out of service:

ML/NJ
65 posted on 01/04/2011 10:10:12 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Of all the possible annoyances with flying... none are so great as what those other @hole passengers do.

<><><><><><

Noise cancelling headphones + iPod + interesting book = “there were other passengers on this plane?”


66 posted on 01/04/2011 10:35:19 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The only instrument I've ever seen suffer from interference of any sort is an ADF which is really just a fancy AM radio.

I'm an instrument-rated pilot. I know what an ADF is.

Most of the ILS stuff is just above the FM band. Did you ever have any trouble with your FM radio reception in your car because a passenger decided to use his/her cell phone or listen to an mp3 player.

ILS and navigation are just above the FM band. But, aircraft communication is AM, not FM. FM is much better at rejecting interference.

Aircraft VOR receivers measure the phase shift between the lagging and leading navigation tones. ILS localizer and glideslope measure the difference in the depth of modulation between two transmitters with different modulation tones.

But, I have indeed heard interference -- from cell phones, computer devices, and even the local oscillator in a scanner. The difference is that I was listening to a VHF AM transceiver in the 144 MHz band (just above the aircraft band). You see, I also have an amateur radio license.

Aircraft navigation radio technologies are still the same as the 1960's. The radios have gotten better, but they still can't reject a signal that is radiated right on top of the carrier. We are in the process of migrating to satellite-based navigation, but that introduces a new problem because those signals are even weaker than ground-based signals, and are near frequencies used by computing devices.

I explained the reasons why the prohibitions are in effect. If you don't believe it, that's your problem... not mine. The FAA makes the rules, and the rules have been in effect for decades, with only minor modifications:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bd96dfddf4fbaaf320e8cae4562b47c5&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.4.11.2.4&idno=14

Note that the regulation says: "Any other portable electronic device". It doesn't say "any other type of portable electronic device". It's an important distinction, because it means that the aircraft operator must test individual devices, rather than testing a sample of a class of devices and allowing those.

67 posted on 01/04/2011 10:51:04 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono; a fool in paradise
SUSPICIUS BAGELS

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I luv you too much bagel...

68 posted on 01/04/2011 11:00:49 AM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Well, your MP3 player would be a threat, if you had ABBA on it.


69 posted on 01/04/2011 11:03:31 AM PST by nickcarraway (You are guilty until proven innocent. And may7be not then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I'm an instrument-rated pilot.

Oooooh, an instrument rated pilot! I probably had my ticket before you were born. It's been a while since I've flown but I have to say I do not recall even hearing interference from lightning on my radios. I certainly saw my share of lightening in the air.

I see you mostly dropped your 1960s BS. I remember when Walkmen (portable cassette tape players) were how we listened to music on airplanes, I was doing a lot of flying from Newark to Orlando. This was in the early 80s. These flights lasted almost exactly as long as the opera Fidelio, which, when I selected it, would end just as we touched down. Somehow my little Walkman never disturbed anything, and nobody cared that I was listening.

ML/NJ

70 posted on 01/04/2011 11:49:16 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Oooooh, an instrument rated pilot! I probably had my ticket before you were born.

I see. Were you also an @sshole before I was born? You seem to have had a lot of practice.

I see you mostly dropped your 1960s BS.

How so? I said that airlines were still using 60's era avionics. You erroneously interpreted that as "manufactured in the 60's". While some of the newer radios have better receivers (they have to, because the channel spacing is being shrunk from 25 kHz to 8.33 kHz), the technology is still the same.

Although, to be completely accurate: VORs actually date back to the 1950's. They were widely deployed in the 60's, replacing the four-course radio navigation stations.

Even glass cockpit aircraft still fly the same airways, using the same navigation facilities. GPS is being used more and more, but it's not yet a requirement. And as I noted earlier, GPS is even more susceptible to interference. Fortunately, the receiver loses lock in an obvious way.

I remember when Walkmen (portable cassette tape players) were how we listened to music on airplanes

Walkman cassette players are old analog technology, and about as advanced as a flashlight. The only way those can cause any interference is to turn it up so loud that it destroys your hearing.

I'll also note that under a reasonable interpretation, the walkman would fall under the "portable voice recorder" exception in the FARs.

71 posted on 01/04/2011 2:19:40 PM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

From my cold greasey hands.......


72 posted on 01/06/2011 3:32:59 PM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The headline is journalistic malpractice...as is most of what is called journalism.

he was escorted off the plane for disorderly conduct following the incident.

73 posted on 01/06/2011 3:42:36 PM PST by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson