Abusive pax

[perkin]

Anyone (perhaps cabin crew?) got any advice on this - I was on a flight this evening and the 2 chaps next to me were asked by CC to turn off mp3 players for approach/landing, which they did momentarily and then straight back on again as soon as CC had disappeared down the back. I politely pointed out that they should be switched off and got a 'what the f&*k's it got to do with you? tw@t, pr!ck' and so on...Is there any real way of reporting people like this as it was a perfectly reasonable thing to point out as it potentially affects my safey in an evac and I also don't see why I should accept that kind of behaviour inside a 12ft diameter aluminium tube...! I know what seats they were in so could make a complaint to the airline who seem to have a strict policy against disruptive pax. One guy also had his phone switched on throughout the flight, as it rang shortly after touchdown... :ugh:

[sir.pratt]

you've answered your own question.

file the incident report - it's there to protect you.

[SXB]

Perkin
I'm not really sure that an airline would be able (or willing) to take any action after the event.

If you find yourself in the same situation again I believe the correct course of action would be to immediately contact the CC who would take appropriate action to ensure that said passengers turned off their MP3 players and , especially, their mobile telephones. If they were unable to ensure this they would contact the Captain, inform him of the situation and he would then decide the next course of action. If this were to happen the passengers in question would almost certainly be met by the Police on arrival and arrested.

As for their ,less than civilised, behaviour towards yourself I would think the airline wouldn't take any action against them unless one of the crew also heard the abuse, even then they would probably just give them a warning to begin with. Sometimes we do come across people who are clearly moronic and possess the manners of a gutter rat and in normal circumstances, when they aren't endangering your safety, they are just best ignored.

[Final 3 Greens]

I agree with SXB - it is a CC matter.

Before pressing the call button, though, I would scan around and see if there is another seat to move to, as you may not wish to stay after your action.

I got attacked on another thread for saying that sometimes the CC could do more and I re-iterate it in this context.

Pax should not be allowed to get away with this type of behaviour and other pax should not have to act as Sheriff's deputies.

A few years ago, I reported a similar incident to an AZ captain after landing (mobile phone use during the approach, which was in gin clear VMC, but that is not the point) and he left the aircraft and went through into immigration to try and apprehend the culprit, with no luck. Pretty good response though.

My final sight was of him tearing a strip off the senior cabin crew member, presumably for not enforcing the rules.

[PAXboy]

I agree with F3G about finding another seat. If none available - then simply stand in the aisle one or two rows behind yours. This makes the cabin insecure and will ensure that the CC rapidly join you!!

If the situation is very bad you may be allocated a seat elsewhere on the a/c for landing. There may well be open seats that you cannot see with a quick heads up. But my guess is that, reporting on the spot is the only route. The advantage of writing is that you may get a clear statement of policy from the carrier, which can use if there is a next time.

Given human behaviour, there will be a next time. :sad:

[gorgeous spotter]

And sadly these morons can afford to fly.:ugh: However you look at it they make it damned unpleasant for the rest of us normal civilized people who just want to get on a plane, have a hopefully pleasant journey and get off again. Times are changing and certain standards are slipping and good examples are not always being set I'm afraid.:(

[apaddyinuk]

Sounds like another case of the Rise of the Chavs!!! This country (and most of the western world) is going to the dogs!!!

[flybywire]

Perkin, I agree entirely with F3G. If it happened again, do not feel ashamed or scared to call the CC again.
I for once do not take any of this and I have been known to frighten people with go-arounds, diversions, etc etc. if they do not comply there & then.:= Once a Skipper asked me to take the mobile phone off the offending pax and I did it. The whole aircraft is watching in a situation like this and chances are they comply without creating further problems.

In my present airline and role it's much easier to be assertive, but where I worked before was another story. Maybe because of the colour of the uniform that made us look like stupid Barbies, maybe because of the holiday nature of the flights,maybe because people were occasional flyers, I do not know what but it was a constant challenge. I learnt to be tough there.

Do not worry, if there are no spare seats chances are the CC would move you to a spare crew seat, if necessary. You should not be treated like that regardless, nobody should be sworn at on a plane, whatever the reason.

Safety is everyone's responsibility and I always make sure that my pax know that this means it's theirs too and not just mine, that they can count on me for anything anytime but that I might need their help too at times!!

Glad it all went well for you in the end anyway....

FBW:)

[BaronChotzinoff]

I had my first experience of pax using itty-gritty headphone sets on a plane the other week - I'll rue the day when it gets as common as on every other mode of transport.

[PaperTiger]

Before pressing the call button, though, I would scan around and see if there is another seat to move to, as you may not wish to stay after your action.Bu99er that; press the button and stay to ensure the FA makes it quite clear to the little scrotes what they will do and what will happen if they don't. In 15 minutes they'll be out of your life. If you really are scared of them, tell the FA that too and ask if the Captain can call ahead for the police.
My bet is they would fold very quickly in the face of a resolute refusal to be intimidated.
Stand up, people; make a scene; whatever it takes.

[daedalus]

One assumes they were British.

:*

[perkin]

Thanks for all your supportive messages, I appreciate hearing the opinions of some professional flyers too...Yes they were indeed British, no they were not chavs/neds - they were people similar to myself travelling home for a weekend from work. In the last 2 years of 'commuting' I've found that so called professional people are by far the worst offenders on all counts (ignorning instructions from CC, taking the p!ss out of hand luggage restrictions and so on) than an excited bunch of lads/ladies off to AMS for a stag/hen weekend etc...This has gladly been the exception, its the first time in almost 2 years of doing AMS to MAN/LHR/LGW roughly fortnightly, that I've been irritated enough by someone to ask them to stop what they're doing. The call button may well get pressed next time...I'd quite fancy a jump seat next to a nice hostie too...maybe I should've thought about that one first!!

On my way back to AMS today, I had a chat to the airline customer service desk, who took details of the incident and asked me to write to the customer service department who will decide if they wish to take further action - possibilites ranged from placing a note on the customers file in case of further complaints, to the extreme of banning them outright. I must say I had some trepidation at voicing my complaints, but the airline staff were most helpful, understanding and supportive and in no way did I feel like I was just a good old British moaner. Good on you Jet2, letter winging its way to you shortly!

[Final 3 Greens]

Bu99er that; press the button and stay to ensure the FA makes it quite clear to the little scrotes what they will do and what will happen if they don't. In 15 minutes they'll be out of your life.

PaperTiger, you are welcome to your view, but, as someone who travels once a week on average, I have found it better to leave these situations to the CC to deal with. They have the authority and training to deal with such situations.

Otherwise you tend to become part of the problem and potentially make the conflict worse.

[cessna l plate]

F3G
Fair point. However, I for one would not wish to die of someone else's arrogance!

Speak up and tell them. When asked "what's it got to do with you?" the answer should be along the lines of "ok, you ignore the crew, you wont mind if I stamp and trample all over your head to get out whilst the rest of the plane is on fire will you?"

Should do the trick

[Final 3 Greens]

cessna

I really don't think that is smart.

Your words are quite inflammatory and offensive, a bit like pouring petrol onto flames.

If a conflict develops, it's your word against theirs about who said and did what and you all might face subsequent action.

Follow FBW's advice (she is CC for a major airline) press the call button again and let the crew sort it out.

[flyingborneoman]

On my flight the other day I have the FO radio ahead to operations for airport security and the police waiting for us at the bay, as we had a very rude pax kept on talking on his cell when we were boarding and even after 3 warnings from the CC, he pretended to turned his cell off and even refused to show his phone to the CC when asked to prove that it was off. and through out the flight was harrasing the all female cabin crew that we have for that flight. When we approached our parking bay, u can see squad cars, and maybe 6 to 10 security and police just waiting to escort the B*st*rd off the plane. U guys should have seen the guy's face when he saw the party that was waiting for him :} :E

these kinda people should not been allowed on planes!

[PaperTiger]

Bu99er that; press the button and stay to ensure the FA makes it quite clear to the little scrotes what they will do and what will happen if they don't. In 15 minutes they'll be out of your life.
PaperTiger, you are welcome to your view, but, as someone who travels once a week on average, I have found it better to leave these situations to the CC to deal with.Which, if you read it again - slowly - is precisely what I said. It was the suggestion to "move seats" that I was bu99ering ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Papertiger

By staying after you have involved the CC, you effectively becoming a part of the problem system.

However, that's your choice.

[PaperTiger]

you effectively becoming a part of the problem system.Huh ? :confused:

[Final 3 Greens]

Before you press the call button, there is a potential conflict between the offending pax and the crew.

As soon as you "shop" them (notwithstanding their actions being wrong), you create a conflict between them and you.

You are now part of the problem system.

Much better to get out of the way and leave the fallout to the crew to deal with.

Much better than that for the crew to maintain situational awareness of what's happening in the cabin and sort it out, rather than saying something and not following through.

[perkin]

Letter sent off to Jet2...will let all you kind replyees know of the outcome... :)

[wildweeble]

But what happens in that limbo world between the aircraft steps and the armed coppers hanging about on the public side of immigration?

Landing at Stansted recently, I joined the usual multiple lines queueing to present passports to immigration. In the next queue over were half a dozen beer-drinking football hooligans (Glasgow Rangers, apparently). One of them shouted something and I looked round. This, it seems, was enough to mark me out as a target. Now, before you jump to any conclusions, I'm a 41-year old woman travelling with my children, aged 3 and 7.
The smallest yob (why is it always the smallest ones?) had a look of pathological malevolence and began shouting and swearing and making threats at me and - astonishingly - at the children. The others joined in.

Can you guess what the hundreds of other passengers in the hall did as, without any kind of provocation, they set about abusing and threatening a mother and her children?

Yes, that's right - absolutely nothing. Look away... nothing to do with me guv... gosh is that the time?

Actually, it's not that I expected a man - or men - to intervene. I know you're mostly all big wusses really. It was the silence of the hundreds of other women that upset me most.

I was, as anyone might be, very frightened. But I was damned if I was going to let them see it. So in best 'mummy says' voice I confronted the tiny psycho (it may have helped that I was considerably taller than him) and told him that he could not talk to us in that way and I'd find a policeman to prove it.

To my absolute amazement, it worked! (Thank you Jo Frost!!)

Our blessing, too, on the immigration guy who, when I told him what had happened, pointed out the culprits (their queue was slower - there is justice!) and asked if we could be kept clear of them, acted straight away. I presume the yobs were 'delayed' somehow as we collected our bags without seeing any more of them.

Two morals:

Don't rely on fellow pax to do anything to help if you are set upon.

Don't be like me and scuttle off afterwards because the children are exhausted and your lift is waiting. Stay and see that they are arrested and charged! Wish now that I had.

[Final 3 Greens]

I know you're mostly all big wusses really.

No we are not, but there is little incentive to "have a go", as people who do that often get regarded as perps by the authorities.

You should ask yourself why there were no police around to deal with the problem immediately.

[wildweeble]

I know you're mostly all big wusses really.

No we are not, but there is little incentive to "have a go", as people who do that often get regarded as perps by the authorities.

You should ask yourself why there were no police around to deal with the problem immediately.

Oh, I'm only teasing! I wasn't suggesting that a have-a-go hero was required. Just someone - anyone - to acknowledge what was happening. How many here would have stood by while a woman and her children were told for no reason at all that they needed - and would get - a slapping?

I did wonder why the police were not visible. Is it anything to do with jurisdiction within 'international' areas - ie, air side of the immigration desk? Only guessing - anyone here know?

[SXB]

I know you're mostly all big wusses really

That may or may not be true but you took a risk confronting this guy like you did. Most drunken idiots may be harmless but you don't ever know how they will react. I have no idea who Jo Frost actually is but if he/she advises confronting drunken football fans they he/she is wrong. If I'd been in a immigration hall when such an incident took place I would have gone straight to the nearest booth and told the guy that some idiot was threatening a woman and two children. The Police would have attended within 30 seconds.

The police are paid to deal with such situations and they can do it a lot better than a fare paying passenger. Also, an experience with two police officers carrying machine guns accompanied by a large German Shepherd would probably be an interesting learning experience for the thug in question.

[SXB]

I did wonder why the police were not visible. Is it anything to do with jurisdiction within 'international' areas - ie, air side of the immigration desk? Only guessing - anyone here know?

No, if you commit a crime airside you will prosecuted in a local Court, with some exceptions.

As for the police not being visible, the immigration hall is probably one of the most observed areas in an airport.

[wildweeble]

If I'd been in a immigration hall when such an incident took place I would have gone straight to the nearest booth and told the guy that some idiot was threatening a woman and two children. The Police would have attended within 30 seconds.

Well, I do wish someone like you had been there as none of the several hundred people in the hall lifted a finger. So I had to do it myself. When the yobbos saw that I would not be intimidated, they backed down.

Of course it was a risk - and I was petrified - but saying or doing nothing was a greater risk, because it would have failed to set a boundary before physical assault. I didn't think they'd risk striking me there and then because of the potential witnesses and lack of escape route - I was more worried about what might happen later in the scrum of the baggage hall if it was not nipped in the bud.

In my professional life I have now and again found myself in some deeply unsavoury situations and, yes, I've sweet-talked or bluffed a few angry gorrillas (of the human variety). I may be a bit out of practice, but what I did learn from all of my past life is that the key is to dominate the situation quickly, making the other person believe there may be more or greater consequences than they had anticipated - and from an authority more substantial than me!

Jo Frost, btw, is 'supernanny' - famous for her no-nonsense discipline with toddlers. My little joke.

In retrospect, I should have said nothing and immediately walked away with the children to the head of the queue at the immigration box and asked them to call the cops there and then.

However, the moral remains: don't rely on other pax helping you, because they won't.

[SXB]

I'm glad the incident had a satisfactory ending. In many ways it's a sad indictment of society in the United Kingdom, a woman and two children threatened in a queue in a secured area within an airport.

I'm a UK citizen but I've lived elsewhere for a very long time, there are very few occasions where I feel I've made the wrong decision.

[Barkly1992]

Without wanting to get involve in the issues management discussion, I am surprised that an MP3 player cannot be used at any satge during flight - including takeoff and landing.

Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.

Gee - next we will be asking people to switch off their pacemakers!

:p

[Globaliser]

Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.You obviously have no idea why there may be a problem with electronic devices, and hence why a precautionary approach is taken. MP3 players have clocks and radiate at RF. So they fall into they same category as everything else modern and electronic.

[svw8700]

You should not be allowed to use any of this type of equipment on takeoff and landing. It is one of our SOP's that all headphones are removed for this stage of flight so that you would be able to hear any emegency anouncements, ie Brace or evacuate.

[flybywire]

am surprised that an MP3 player cannot be used at any satge during flight - including takeoff and landing. Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.


I hope you mean interfere...


You should not be allowed to use any of this type of equipment on takeoff and landing. It is one of our SOP's that all headphones are removed for this stage of flight so that you would be able to hear any emegency anouncements, ie Brace or evacuate.

Correct!!! And for everybody's info MP3 players are indeed allowed after the seatbelt signs go off after take off up until it's time to prepare the cabin for landing.

When passengers refuse to remove their headsets for landing/take off and become stroppy I do tend to dramatise the event of an evacuation a bit. It usually works and when it doesn't.........well, I call that Natural Selection...:hmm:

FBW

[Barkly1992]

OK - I acknowldge my typos - get over it. Its not the point.

I understand the need to hear briefings and emergency announcements and accept this in itself is a very important reason to ban the use of MP3 players during takeoff and landing - I hadn't thought of this. However, what happens during an emergency in cruise when they are permitted?

Also in every aircraft I have flown in as SLF the crew announcements overide the entertainment channels so headsets are not a problem.

But please forgive - MP3 players transmit RF!

To those who think or implied I know nothing - I have a very good idea about it - I used to be the manager of the safety promotion unit in the Oz CAA back in the dark ages 1980s and 1990s and spent a lot of time with technical and safety representatives of Qantas (and the then TAA) and Ansett trying to establish why the over reaction to such devices being used in the cabin years ago. The records do not show a problem. I suspect this requirement has been deemed neccessary by company lawyers.

In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.

I am aware that pilots have reported erratic cockpit nav and control indications from time to time - and when cabin crew have been asked whether anyone in the cabin is using an electronic device often the answer is yes - of course when you have 250 people behind you some kid will be playing with his gameboy - or nowadays his PSP2 - but what is cause and what is effect.

Maybe there was something in the wiring or in the hold - or the pilots fingers and/or attitude.

I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.

Its like saying are there any blondes in the cabin - yes. Then blondes guys cause intrument deviation.

I of course stand to be corrected - but MP3 players will not cause your aircraft to crash.

This will be caused by a human factor - usually by the pilot - but also could be engineering; ATC or company policy.

:sad:

[Globaliser]

In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.
...
I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.You should read the UK CAA's research, then.

There are broadly two schools of thought about this: A. There's a theoretical possibility, but it hasn't happened, so let's allow these devices to be used unless there is an accident that makes us change our minds. B. There's a theoretical possibility, and even though it hasn't happened we should take the precautionary approach to make sure there is never an accident.

You may fall into one of these camps rather than the other. But if you really were in the field, surely you must recognise the philosophy behind the rule, and that it is still a controversial subject? Your original question suggested that this took you by surprise.

[manintheback]

To underline Globalisers points, NASA started out following point B for the Space Shuttle and over the years ended up following point A (well reported reasons and failures as to how they got there). Then one day it crashed.

[SXB]

In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.

I am aware that pilots have reported erratic cockpit nav and control indications from time to time - and when cabin crew have been asked whether anyone in the cabin is using an electronic device often the answer is yes - of course when you have 250 people behind you some kid will be playing with his gameboy - or nowadays his PSP2 - but what is cause and what is effect.

Maybe there was something in the wiring or in the hold - or the pilots fingers and/or attitude.

I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.

Its like saying are there any blondes in the cabin - yes. Then blondes guys cause intrument deviation.

I of course stand to be corrected - but MP3 players will not cause your aircraft to crash

Barkly

I think you fail to understand the basis of airline safety policy. Aircraft safety concepts are built on removing every conceivable factor that might have an influence, of some type, on the normal operation of a plane. It's probably true that MP3 players don't cause accidents, no-one really knows what effect an MP3 player has on aircraft(s) (remember there are hundreds of different types) on every conceivable landing situation. Furthermore, no-one knows what effect an electrical device being used in row 1a may have on elctrical device in 17b in a particular landing situation, say in an electrical storm, and no-one really knows if said devices would have an effect on instrumentation being used by the crew flying the plane. Remember, most accidents are caused by a chain of events and not one particular and obvious thing.

Your points about an emergency during cruise could be answered by saying that when at 11000m it would be probable that the crew may have more time to identify a problem, if they are 20m from the ground and about to land they may have less than a second to arrive at the correct conclusion and take decisive action.

[TBirdFrank]

On the point of civilised behaviour in cabin I would refer back to safety training we once had, which basically boiled down to consider the safest course first and then do it!

Some people are a bit boisterous, but will accept a caution.

Some are downright unreasonable and often are also the best dressed, and apparently the last people from whom you would expect it.

As a pax - leave it to the crew. hopefully their training and authority will have the desired effect - if it doesnt the presence of some dark blue uniforms at their destination hopefully will.

[radeng]

Barkly,
I'm a radio engineer by profession (thus the title) - and have been for over 40 years. I've also been involved in the production of EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatibility) standards for radio comms equipment, and I am chairman of an international standards committee on certain types of radio. So I claim a certain amount of professional knowledge, and I will say that MP3 players (amongst other things) can radiate on all sorts of frequencies.
It's interesting that they never call for hearing aids to be switched off, though, and some of the more modern ones of those use radio. Admittedly the power level is so low and the frequencies so well defined that I have an email from the CAA on file in which they say they're OK.

[Bangkokeasy]

There would seem to be various categories of "abusive" being discussed here.

If an individual, or group, wish to behave like tossers, then in a free society, they should be able to do so, as long as their behaviour doesn't physically encroach on, or harm others. It is impossible to legislate against some people being unpleasant idiots, they can only be shown up for what they are. In the case of Wildweeble's unfortunate incident, then I think it is perfectly reasonable for the other pax to ignore her plight, as long as it remains only verbal. The best course of action has always been to ignore such outbursts and I would do the same thing. However, if she, or her children, came under physical attack, then it is a different matter and I am sure many people would feel constrained to intervene, myself included. There is a huge difference between verbal and physical assault.

As for someone who refuses to obey the instructions of cabin crew, then it is down to the cabin crew. Again, IMHO, it is unreasonable and indeed, undesirable, for other pax to get involved. If the cabin crew are unable to contain the situation and feel the need to ask for assistance, they can always ask either the police, or in extreme circumstances, other pax for assistance. I would be happy to assist cabin crew if requested by them, but I would feel very incomfortable getting involved unilaterally. As F3G pointed out, you then become part of the problem.

[Barkly1992]

Thanks Radeng

Is the letter from the CAA saying OK to MP3 players or hearing aids?

I agree that one shouldn't wait for the accident before discovering a problem I suppose I was trying to get some informed discussion going. I am amazed how each airline differs in the way they make the announcments.

I always pay attention to cabin crew briefings - always turn off any electronic devices before I even go anywhere near an aircraft and follow instuctions.

I am just wondering where this will stop - like you say hearing aids. I have read all of the rports produced by Oz ATSB (BASI)/CAA - UK CAA - US FAA on the test that have been done. It always seems that there is no definitive answer.

Be that as it may - I will continue to follow instructions and value the good job that the cabin crew do in 'herding' us SLF on and off and looking after us in flight.

Cheers

:D

[flybywire]

Barkly1992 I am passing a message from Mr FBW, he is asking if you please clarify which part of the circuitry of an MP3 player emitts RF and what frequency and what magnitude.
He's very interested as he's a skipper himself and none of our manuals say anything about it.

And something from me just out of curiosity....did you really have MP3 players in Oz back in the 80's?

Thank you :)

FBW

[radeng]

The usual radiating sources are the internal clocks. These can be anywhere, but there are advantages in having them in the 10 to 25MHz region - cost of crystals, power consumption. They produce harmonics at multiples of the clock frequency, and get divided down to lower frequencies, which also get radiated, and the lower frequencies can get into NDB receivers. The higher frequencies get modulated by the lower ones, so it's not a nice clean frequency, but a whole slew of them. In order to met the few standards there are, one trick is to 'dither' the frequencies, which effectively spreads them out but raises the whole noise level. An analogy is having a pile of manure in one corner of a field that stinks out that area as opposed to spreading it over the whole field and stinking out the larger area at lower intensity.....
You may well find that some MP3 players don't emit, and others do. That makes it very hard to draw a general conclusion. Add to that the susceptability of aircraft systems, especially as aircraft age and the effectiveness of ground connections on shields and so on decreases, and abrasion gets at cables and so on.
The CAA comments to me were related only to hearing aids operating in the 800 -900 MHz region, with output powers below 10 nanowatts, by the way.

[Barkly1992]

With a callsign like "Flybywire" I would have thought that you knew all about this subject.

However, it was not ME that said that MP3 players caused difficulties with airline nav and control systems. It was others - if you looked at what I had to say I was questioning that MP3 players were an issue - laptops - mobile phones - pacemakers as well. I was saying that lawyers were the problem.

I love skippers BTW - they are captains that are actually older than me.

And also BTW - in the 1980s and 1990s we had many devices which generated RF - not MP3 players I agree - many other devices which emitted lots of RF - including vibrators.

:cool:

[flybywire]

With a callsign like "Flybywire" I would have thought that you knew all about this subject.

I take the banter, believe it or not I am indeed a musician, I know all about other frequencies (Acoustics is my field) but know little about RF and their applications nowadays.

However, it was not ME that said that MP3 players caused difficulties with airline nav and control systems. It was others - if you looked at what I had to say I was questioning that MP3 players were an issue - laptops - mobile phones - pacemakers as well. I was saying that lawyers were the problem.

forgive me, I read this...

But please forgive - MP3 players transmit RF!

...and I didn't take the sarcastic tone. Sorry!

I did think that MP3 players indeed transmit some sort of RF but these are minimal. Even our bodies have some kind of low electrical activity (eg. brain and indeed the heart, I used to hate ECGs!!).
In my humble knowledge of this subject I have always thought that MP3 players were somehow safe as the RF transmitting part should indeed be protected by some sort of "cage" anyway.

I love skippers BTW - they are captains that are actually older than me. hahahaha! I won't tell him that then!!! He'll be first-time daddy in a few months and he would be gutted to be told that he's THAT old ;)

And also BTW - in the 1980s and 1990s we had many devices which generated RF - not MP3 players I agree - many other devices which emitted lots of RF - including vibrators.

:E reminds me of an incident....having to tell one of my passengers if she could switch off her vibrating bag in the overhead locker for take-off please......embarassing? Not at all, the funny part was actually witnessing the businessmen sitting next to her starting to sweat uncontrollably!!! :E

FBW

[flybywire]

Radeng thank youvery much for taking the time to reply to me, I really appreciate that :)