Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Never Say "I Kill White People Like You" When Asked To Turn Off Your Phone Post-Takeoff
the smoking gun ^ | june 3, 2014

Posted on 06/03/2014 9:38:27 AM PDT by lowbridge

Following takeoff from Nashville Sunday afternoon, a United Airlines passenger warned a fellow flyer that, “I kill white people like you” when she wasasked to turn off her cell phone, investigators allege.

The disruption on Flight 4205, which was bound for Houston, resulted in the Embraer 135’s return to Nashville’s airport, where Lashonda Lee Williams was arrested for assault.

The 43-year-old Williams, seen at right, was asked by another female passenger to “turn off her cell phone due to the aircraft being in flight,” according to a court affidavit. In reply, Williams allegedly said, “I kill white people like you.”

Investigators noted that Williams told the other passenger, K. Colleen Coult, 50, that she would follow her upon reaching Houston “and find out where she lived.” The comments “created fear in Coult for her safety,” the affidavit notes.

(Excerpt) Read more at thesmokinggun.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deaththreat; holderspeople; houston; lashondaleewilliams; racism; terroristthreat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: Justa

yeah—that does not convince me as i have read other info on other sites that say it is not unsafe... again, if it were, cell phones would not be allowed... the same way bombs are not allowed...


81 posted on 06/03/2014 6:00:40 PM PDT by latina4dubya (when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf; Justa
cel phones don’t actually interfere with anything. They get people to turn the off for control reasons. One of the many things I learned in the airforce, besides how pansy they were, yuck.

yes, i agree... but some insist they interfere... i am good friends with a couple of aviators, and related to one...

82 posted on 06/03/2014 6:05:19 PM PDT by latina4dubya (when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Also, It’s been about 8 months since I’ve been on a plane.

In the past 8 months, the FAA has changed their guidance. Most airlines are no longer requiring passengers to turn electronic devices completely off. How, they do ask you to put it in airplane mode.

Leaving the cell-phone enabled can interfere with both navigation and communication, as the frequencies are close, depending on harmonics. Depending on where you sit in the plane, you may be right over the antennas on the belly, or interfering with the cockpit audio system.

Plus, you are just running down your battery faster, as your phone boosts the transmitter to maximum power in an attempt to contact the cell phone tower on the ground (which can't hear it anyway).

83 posted on 06/03/2014 7:52:28 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: bicyclerepair
Mythbusters did a show on this and found no problem.

Mythbusters didn't even begin to test all the possible ways a cell phone can interfere with aircraft avionics.

I have a pilot's license (instrument rating) AND an amateur radio license. There are very real technical reasons to turn off a cell-phone transmitter on an airplane.

84 posted on 06/03/2014 7:55:23 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

bttt


85 posted on 06/03/2014 8:08:37 PM PDT by GOPJ (ObamaCare - like buying a pig in a poke...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya
yeah—that does not convince me as i have read other info on other sites that say it is not unsafe... again, if it were, cell phones would not be allowed... the same way bombs are not allowed...

Among every person I have read or heard claim it is not unsafe, not one of them is qualified to make that assessment.

The IEEE article that was provided to you is an authoritative source, written by people that have forgotten more about EMI (electromagnetic interference) than most people have ever learned. You shouldn't discount it so easily, unless you have similar credentials.

EMI from cell phones (and other transmitters) by itself isn't the problem. It's what happens after EMI occurs. Pilots are trained to recognize and compensate for avionics interference. We also have procedures for complete radio failure, and air traffic control knows what to expect if we use them.

Aviation safety is the result of layers: we have backups, and backups for backups. But, whenever you remove a layer, the margin of safety is reduced. And you run the real risk that interference distracts pilots from another problem that poses a real danger to the plane.

86 posted on 06/03/2014 8:09:30 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya

Gee, whom to believe the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ radio frequency spectrum analysis or anonymous postings on an internet chat board? Tough call.


87 posted on 06/04/2014 2:45:28 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Yes, I always put it in airplane mode in the past for the reasons you mentioned. But it was never enough for them, so I just learned to hide it. I really hate rules that are created and enforced out of ignorance.


88 posted on 06/04/2014 4:45:25 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I really hate rules that are created and enforced out of ignorance.

It's not ignorance. Rules about electronic devices were created by the FAA, based on sound technical reasons. Another poster provided a link to an IEEE article that explains the problem very well, although it may not be comprehensible to many people.

It should be noted that the FAA doesn't actually prohibit electronic devices. The rules makes the aircraft operator responsible for determining whether an electronic device interferes, and allowing the device only if they are sure it doesn't. So, in an abundance of caution, the aircraft operators required all devices not under their control to be turned off.

Electronic equipment installed on an airplane is carefully tested to be sure that it doesn't interfere with the avionics. The TSO standards (for aircraft) are much stricter than FCC type acceptance (for your cell phone).

All electronic devices (including your computer, even if it has no wireless capability) are required to have FCC Type acceptance. Do you know why? It's because your computer is transmitting all the time, just by being turned on. Any digital electronic device does this -- it's a law of physics. There's at least one oscillator in the device that generates a "clock" to drive the components of the device, like the microprocessor. The transmission is relatively weak, and the device can reduce transmissions with shielding, but it's impossible to completely eliminate them without putting the device in a metal box, with no holes for a headset, power, etc.

So what changed? There have been significant advances in electronic device design since the rules were first implemented in the 60's (or maybe earlier). Your phone, computer, etc. are better shielded. And aircraft avionics have better selectivity (a term describing a radio's ability to reject other signals). But again, there are laws of physics (and practical cost and weight issues) that prevent a radio from completely rejecting unwanted signals.

Maybe the flight attendant doesn't understand all the issues. But, he/she is required to enforce FAA rules, at the risk of discipline by their employer. And if her employer doesn't instruct her to enforce these rules, the airline can be fined or sanctioned by the FAA. So, if you have a problem with the rules, take it up with the FAA.

89 posted on 06/04/2014 5:31:58 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I’m talking about airplane mode.

Let’s be frank here. If the devices increased the risk the way some argue they do, they would be collected as you enter the plane, turned off, and returned to you when you deplane. The fact that they trust the passenger to turn off their device is proof that the risk is VERY low.


90 posted on 06/04/2014 7:25:37 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Let’s be frank here. If the devices increased the risk the way some argue they do, they would be collected as you enter the plane, turned off, and returned to you when you deplane.

Yes, the risk is low. And, it is much lower than in the past, due to the advances I discussed in my previous posting.

But, as I explained in another posting earlier: even if the interference does occur (and there are multiple cases where it has been observed), it's not fatal. The airplane isn't going to crash.

Pilots are trained to recognize avionics problems, which can be caused by interference on the ground or in the plane, or outright failure on the ground or the plane. We have alternate procedures to compensate for it -- even a complete outage. Air traffic control will respond accordingly.

The real risk is that the problem isn't recognized, and it leads to a conflict that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. Or worse, the problem causes a distraction, which results in a dangerous situation.

The fact that they trust the passenger to turn off their device is proof that the risk is VERY low.

I've had this rock for my entire life. I carry it in my pocket to scare off tigers. I've never been attacked by a tiger, so it must work. Right?

91 posted on 06/04/2014 7:46:57 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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