Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Couldn't get petrol untill I stopped mobile phonecall

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    gatecrash wrote: »
    The ability to QUESTION laws is fine, that doesn't mean you have a god given right to ignore the ones you don't consider apply to you
    It's not a law I'm ignoring.
    I called you ignorant. Nothing i've seen so far makes me question that opinion.
    Attack the post - not the poster. You are being insulting and rude. It doesn't strengthen your position.
    Because it's one of the safety rules. Rules appear to be a concept that you have difficulty with
    No I understand rules, I just choose to ignore some. I wonder do you understand manners? or do you just choose to ignore them??
    It IS a documented fact that aircraft have experienced interference from mobile cellular devices. That reason enough for you?
    No it is not a documented fact. The linked document was of test executed between 1996 and 2002. Read it and then come back to me - clearly you don't understand either the document or the testing involved.
    i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it
    ...and yet you personally insult me when I express my opinion? :confused:
    You'd die for my right to speak, yet insult and intimidate me when I attempt to speak? Interesting concept you have there.
    Pure speculation it may be, but i'd say it's entirely accurate given what i'm picking up of your personality here.
    Well you are entitled to your opinion, and unfortunately you are also entitle to judge me by 3 to 4 posts on one particular topic if you really want. I would suggest though that you'd be forming an ignorant opinion without further evidence, but if you're happy with that, I guess ignorance really is bliss.


  • Options
    #63
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    It's not a law I'm ignoring.

    Hmm.......interesting concept, considering you admitted to never turning off your phone while flying. Forgetful, possibly so. Deaf, possibly so. After all you'd have to be both to not be able to hear the cabin crew as they go through their pre-flight briefing, and to have an inability to understand symbols on the safety card. But considering your stance on this issue, I'm still going to consider it as you ignoring a law.
    Attack the post - not the poster. You are being insulting and rude. It doesn't strengthen your position.

    Ok, fairy snuff. I apologise for calling you ignorant. And apart from that one time all i have been doing is attacking the post.
    No I understand rules, I just choose to ignore some. I wonder do you understand manners? or do you just choose to ignore them??

    Now who's being insulting and rude?? :D
    No it is not a documented fact. The linked document was of test executed between 1996 and 2002. Read it and then come back to me - clearly you don't understand either the document or the testing involved.

    And clearly you are of the opinion that any aircraft flown between 1996 and 2002 MUST be out of service at this stage......

    ...and yet you personally insult me when I express my opinion? :confused:
    You'd die for my right to speak, yet insult and intimidate me when I attempt to speak? Interesting concept you have there.

    We've both insulted each other, come on back down of that not so high horse you have there. As for intimidate you? I don't think so. Are you quivering in fear of seeing my login with a little green light beside it?? :confused:
    Well you are entitled to your opinion, and unfortunately you are also entitle to judge me by 3 to 4 posts on one particular topic if you really want. I would suggest though that you'd be forming an ignorant opinion without further evidence, but if you're happy with that, I guess ignorance really is bliss.

    Yes, I am entitled to my opinion, and on this matter it's always going to be different from yours, because i don't pick and choose what laws and rules to follow.


  • Options
    #64
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Hmm.......interesting concept, considering you admitted to never turning off your phone while flying. Forgetful...I'm still going to consider it as you ignoring a law.
    none of the above. It's not a legal requirement that I have to turn off the phone.
    Now who's being insulting and rude?? :D
    I was pointing out a fact, it was neither a personal insult or unduly rude.
    And clearly you are of the opinion that any aircraft flown between 1996 and 2002 MUST be out of service at this stage......
    No I read the report. Did you? If so, you'll have noticed the particulars of the testing? So you'll know it doesn't apply.
    We've both insulted each other,
    When did I insult you?
    As for intimidate you?
    Insulting people who attempt to make a point is intimidating, but this is all getting very OT now, and quickly turning into a bitch-fest.
    The point stands: it's another pointless rule, due to be abolished by the airlines. So I guess you'll just have to tollorate myself and all the other "rebels" until it's dropped.
    I wonder will it still bother you then? Actually, never mind.


  • Options
    #65
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Zulu wrote: »
    none of the above. It's not a legal requirement that I have to turn off the phone.
    I think it's covered under EU/aviation law, but I'm not sure.


  • Options
    #66
    CarLover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭CarLover


    Zulu wrote: »
    none of the above. It's not a legal requirement that I have to turn off the phone.

    I think you'll find that it is...and if you choose to openly flout it you could be arrested upon landing. I realise the chances of that happening are slim...but I would suggest that the law is not on your side in this respect. You are legally obliged to follow the rules as laid down by the airline or face prosecution.

    As the rest of it...leave the handbags at home lads...not just you Zulu.

    If there's no evidence to suggest that there's a risk then fair enough. Maybe there is none. But vehemently defending your right to keep your mobile phone on during a flight as some sort of valid argument is a bit silly if you ask me. Regardless of the risks or not...the fact is it's a rule. I don't pretend to be some kind of over zealous rule keeper :D but it just seems a little bit silly to flout that one...or the petrol station one for that matter. People who work on planes or in petrol stations are trained to uphold certain rules. By flouting them you just create a problem which they then have to resolve. The childish aspect in al this relates to those who feel they know better and are justified in so doing...as opposed to looking at the human aspect that these people are just trying to do their jobs.
    Common sense dictates just do as your told for the 3 minutes or so you're in the petrol station and the few hours you're on a plane.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Well, the petrol station one I'd still ignore. For rules (i.e. not laws), common sense would dictate that where the rule is for everyone's benefit - e.g., "Please form an orderly queue" - then you would obey it, for everyone's sake. But where a rule has no benefit to anyone and serves no purpose, - e.g. "Turn off your mobile phone while at the pump" - common sense would dictate that you just ignore it.

    Where a law has no benefit to anyone and serves no purpose, you put up with it and if you care about it that much, you try to get it revoked.


  • Options
    #68
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    CarLover wrote: »
    I think you'll find that it is...and if you choose to openly flout it you could be arrested upon landing. I realise the chances of that happening are slim...but I would suggest that the law is not on your side in this respect. You are legally obliged to follow the rules as laid down by the airline or face prosecution.

    As the rest of it...leave the handbags at home lads...not just you Zulu.

    If there's no evidence to suggest that there's a risk then fair enough. Maybe there is none. But vehemently defending your right to keep your mobile phone on during a flight as some sort of valid argument is a bit silly if you ask me. Regardless of the risks or not...the fact is it's a rule. I don't pretend to be some kind of over zealous rule keeper :D but it just seems a little bit silly to flout that one...or the petrol station one for that matter. People who work on planes or in petrol stations are trained to uphold certain rules. By flouting them you just create a problem which they then have to resolve. The childish aspect in al this relates to those who feel they know better and are justified in so doing...as opposed to looking at the human aspect that these people are just trying to do their jobs.
    Common sense dictates just do as your told for the 3 minutes or so you're in the petrol station and the few hours you're on a plane.


    >>>>Hops up onto High Horse..;)


  • Options
    #69
    CarLover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭CarLover


    gatecrash wrote: »
    >>>>Hops up onto High Horse..;)

    Hey...this horse cost me a lot...I intend to use it as much as I can ;)


  • Options
    #70
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    CarLover wrote: »
    I think you'll find that it is...
    I was never aware of one, but I'll take your word for it.
    But vehemently defending your right to keep your mobile phone on during a flight as some sort of valid argument is a bit silly if you ask me.
    It's not something I make a fuss over, and in the picture you paint I'd agree with you. But if I keep my phone in "flight mode" or powered on, during the flight that's my concern. Naturally I'll defend my position if I'm instantly accused of being arrogant and ignorant.
    People who work on planes or in petrol stations are trained to uphold certain rules.
    I agree, people are only doing there jobs, and I don't intend on making life awkward for them. If I was personally approached, and asked to power it off, I probably would, but I never have been, so it's irrelevant.
    By flouting them you just create a problem which they then have to resolve.
    If I was to jump up and down while making a phone call, or calling attention to the fact it was on perhaps, but evidently I don't do that.
    The childish aspect in al this relates to those who feel they know better and are justified in so doing...
    It's hardly childish. If I was to pick an argument about powering down perhaps, but I wouldn't want to be excorted off the plane... Calling someone arrogant however, is.


  • Options
    #71
    CarLover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭CarLover


    I'm putting my handbag down now as I feel I've said enough...we're all just repeating ourselves now.

    I'm off to NZ friday btw...so I'll be talking on my phone and pumping petrol the whole way over ;) I'll let you know how I get on when I get back!

    :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    CarLover wrote: »
    I'm putting my handbag down now as I feel I've said enough...we're all just repeating ourselves now.

    I'm off to NZ friday btw...so I'll be talking on my phone and pumping petrol the whole way over ;) I'll let you know how I get on when I get back!

    :D

    Jeez.....What type of phone do you have? One of those sooper dooper ultra long life batteries???

    And as for Zulu, you never mentioned anything about leaving it in flight mode! ;)

    The view from this high horse is great!!! :p


  • Options
    #73
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    gatecrash wrote: »
    And as for Zulu, you never mentioned anything about leaving it in flight mode! ;)
    ...but it doesn't make a difference - it's switched on. :eek:


  • Options
    #74
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    mods?? can we get a little stir it up smiley please??


  • Options
    #75
    Occidental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭Occidental


    Zulu wrote: »
    ...but it doesn't make a difference - it's switched on. :eek:

    Many airlines don't recognise flight mode and take the view that if it's on, it's on. I believe Aer Lingus is one of these.


  • Options
    #76
    Snarler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Snarler


    its just an over-reaction on the part of garages. Same with airlines. There is no danger posed by mobile phones in either cases. I hear ryanair are going to allow mobile phones on board soon enough.


  • Options
    #77
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Snarler wrote: »
    I hear ryanair are going to allow mobile phones on board soon enough.
    For only €2.50 if booked in advance, €5.00 without advance booking.


  • Options
    #78
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,400 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    seamus wrote: »
    Indeed, there has never been a single case of a petrol/gas station fire caused by a mobile phone.
    But millions of people hogging the pump because they are on a phone call.
    wil wrote: »
    AFAIK The mobile phone in planes issue was more to do with the providers than the planes. Plane loads of mobiles flying over at speed confused the switching technology on the ground as the network tried to keep up tracking the phones from cell to cell. Probably better at it now.
    A GSM cell can have 512 channels. Aircraft with 200-400 passengers hopping from one cell to the next every 30 seconds is rather unkind to the system.

    However, especially at take off and landing, don't use your phone contrary to safety instructions. In the event of an incident, you and others are distracted.

    [DORT accent]"HI HONEY, I'M ON THE PLANE ..... WHAT I CAN'T HEAR YOU, ITS REALLY LOUD HERE ...."[/DORT accent]


  • Options
    #79
    Type 17
    Registered Users Posts: 2,730 ✭✭✭Type 17


    Official info from the Petroleum Equipment Institute - US-based umbrella organisation for companies who make fuel-handling equipment (like fuel pumps on forecourts).

    STATIC rather than mobiles is the issue - that's why the pins that allow you to pump fuel without holding the trigger are removed in most of Europe - helps prevent you getting back into the car before returning to the filler neck - watch the video to see what happens if you do build up a lot of static by shuffling around on you car seats, etc...

    http://www.pei.org/Index.aspx?p=stop_static


Advertisement