Description.. Our flight attendant insisted multiple times that my son "turn off his device.".. maybe the flight attendant was referring to the phone you took the picture with? Description Our flight attendant insisted multiple times that my son "turn off his device " maybe the was referring to phone you took picture with?
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (60)
[ 60 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #5 - listerthepessimist
Reply +120 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
maybe the flight attendant was referring to the phone you took the picture with?
#9 to #5 - anon id: 936624a5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
It specificly said "my son"
User avatar #14 to #9 - merkdox
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
What if he has 2 sons?
User avatar #22 to #14 - thepunchedface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
What if the guy that's drawing is actually the dad?
User avatar #23 to #22 - merkdox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
What if actually they´re not related and the one who took the photo is a magic-board bully harassing the old guy in a boy´s body and the flight attendant is and undercover agent after the molester..... dun dun dun

i should not eat and write
User avatar #34 to #23 - baaltomekk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Or... he had a camera and his phone was turned off...
User avatar #54 to #34 - listerthepessimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
a what?
User avatar #59 to #54 - baaltomekk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
You know like... a phone without the possibility to call someone or use apps
User avatar #60 to #59 - listerthepessimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
like the soul-thieves from the old days?
User avatar #61 to #60 - baaltomekk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
You are right. That's why they are bought even today. To steal the souls of your enemys and put them in a frame on your sideboard
#13 - Pink Floyd
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
You are a gigantic faggot for stealing this and claiming it to be yours.
User avatar #36 to #13 - archonlb
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Everything off of Reddit front-page ends up on here. The only thing this site is decent for now is the porn.
#51 to #36 - anon id: 86a84c77
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Yeah but he claimed it was his own. Which I assume is what he was talking about.
User avatar #1 - colcrockett
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Come on, this is still on the front page of Reddit. I'd bet my mothers virginity that you don't even have a son.
www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1lfb47/our_flight_attendant_insisted_multiple_times_that/
User avatar #2 to #1 - combatmonkey
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Because everyone goes on reddit. right?
#3 to #2 - metis
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
I dont think his problem is that its a repost. His problem is that OP claims that he made this foto, and that this is his son
User avatar #6 to #3 - combatmonkey
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
How does he claim he made it, yes he copied the what I would assume the person who posted it said and he didn't give credit but the way he worded it makes it seem like because it's on the front page of reddit it shouldn't be on FJ. Honestly I think it's a bit silly to assume anyone has made anything on this site unless they actually claim to have made it or claim it as OC.
#21 to #6 - metis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
because OP wrote "OUR flight attendant insisted multiple times that MY son "turn off his device." something like "hey fj look what I found, THEIR flight attendant insistet ultiple times that HIS son..." would made the difference
User avatar #32 to #21 - combatmonkey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Yeah you're right. I still think that the comment I responded to made it seem like anything on reddit can't be on FJ and I do apologize for my ignorance in my previous statement regarding whether this op claimed this as his or not.
#58 to #32 - metis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
what the **** oO you must be new here, you can't just apologize on the internet, you're gonna break it!
User avatar #7 to #6 - listerthepessimist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
and we're a dying breed it seems
User avatar #11 to #6 - egosumproxi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Sometimes it is still silly to assume OP made some OC even if they claim to have made it or claim it as OC.
#10 to #2 - Woodlock
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Its just the fact that this OP is acting like the real OP on reddit
User avatar #15 to #10 - combatmonkey
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
It seems to me that the comment I responded to is saying because it's on the front page of reddit it shouldn't be on FJ.
#18 to #2 - polaryzz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Yeah I know! this is the only site I use for funny I have no problem with people uploading stuff from other sites
User avatar #4 to #2 - listerthepessimist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
only to find **** to post on FJ
#35 - animedudej
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
you might not have heard this over the sound of how awesome your mYpad is, but she might have been telling you to stow it away for takeoff...
#24 - sweetishfish
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
This looks familiar...
This looks familiar...
#16 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
It's about time they stopped all the "JUR ELECTROONICS WILL BLOW UP TEH PLANE" **** on flights. It was a rule born of a lack of understanding of technology and was implemented incase of 'unknown radiation not currently found in the EM spectrum.'

You might as well say that you have to close your left eye on takeoff or darth vader might get angry and smite the plane with his cock.
#20 to #16 - thenewneone
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Theres a small chance that phones can interfere, i rather be 100% safe then 99% safe.
can't you just turn it off for while? Does it really matter.
#31 to #20 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
No. There is absolutely no chance at all that a cell phone will interfere. Nothing is emitted from any of the electronics that they tell you to turn off emits anything within the known EM spectrum thatcould cause a danger to the planes systems.

We engineers build this **** specifically so that they don't just drop out the sky because you wanted to listen to an ipod during the dullest part of the flight. It's pure ignorence that keeps those rules in check, and it's facilitators like you that lap up the 'but theres a SMALL chance right?!?!' - There's as much a chance of a cloud changing into concrete as the plane passes through it, thats how rediculous it is to say that theres still a chance.
User avatar #37 to #31 - aahrg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
obviously your ipod won't cause the plane to crash, but it is possible for something with a wireless transmitter/reciever to interfere with the plane's communications. would you rather take a call or be 100% safe from a crash while taking off/landing?
#42 to #37 - rideal
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Do you honestly believe that everyone actually turns off their phones at all during a flight? I've yet to read of a single aircraft failure attributed to "electronic interference", but if you could point to one that has occurred in the last few decades that cell phones have existed, that would be awesome.
User avatar #44 to #43 - aahrg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
they haven't caused a crash but they have caused "anomalous events while in flight"
#53 to #44 - rideal
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
"Though many cases of EMI have been reported over the years, with PEDs suspected as the cause, it has proven almost impossible to duplicate these events."

"Boeing also performed an airplane test on the ground with the same 16 phones. The airplane was placed in a flight mode and the flight deck instruments, control surfaces, and communication/navigation systems were monitored. No susceptibility was observed."

This is pretty old, too. 1998, to be exact. A lot has changed.
Ultimately this changes little, though. Buying a ticket is like signing a contract that says you will abide by the rules of the operator. And if the operator says turn it off, then it's best to follow the rules. However, many flight attendants are dicks about it, because they've been lead to believe that cellphones = fatality.
#50 to #44 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
"it has proven almost impossible to duplicate these events."

AKA Boeing is covering it's ass from idiots trying to sue because of 'dem magic raydioo waves from teh demon box' and when glitches appear in systems it's easier to just say 'whelp, must be those new-fangled darned tootin mobies!' They aren't a risk, they don't cause crashes. Like so much to do with air travel the turning off procedure is an artificial nuisance that brings no inherant value.
User avatar #52 to #50 - aahrg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
some of them were proven to be false calls, some of them were replicated successfully multiple times.

read the whole article.
#55 to #52 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I have, and it clearly shows you're a layman when it comes to the technology involved.
Lab emissions being higher than their rated limits doesn't matter. Their limits are intentionally lower and have large safety margins built in. For example, a bench with an upper limit of 125kg is actually built to withstand 150-200kg or more. In electronics the safety margins are usually 2+

Whats more, it speaks volumes that they couldn't reproduce any of the problems in controlled situations - flight crews are not reliable when diagnosing technical problems, as any flight tech will tell you.

Oh, and the small fact that in the past 15 years things have moved on greatly. As I said, if you're worried about rampant signals from electronics you might as well be worried about toilet leakage, or a cargo of killer snakes being enraged by pheromones. "Coming this Summer! Phones On A Plane!"
#40 to #37 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
Yeh, neither do phones. The only way for a plane to be 100% safe is not to exist. You know whats as dangerous as the imaginary danger caused by phones? LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE YOU DO ON THE FLIGHT. Better not go for a piss on that 8 hour flight, it might leak somewhere and blow up the engines. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY right?!

God you idiots piss me off.
#19 to #16 - reaperboy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
it's not about that anymore. they just tell stupid people that so they will listen. flight attendants tell you the incase of emergency procedures before takeoff and it is hard to listen when you are on instagram laughing at cats
#38 - micekill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
i once was listening to music, after take-off, literally in the middle of the trip. there comes this stupid flight attendant and tells me "shut off your phone", i was like "ok" so i pull out my phone and show her that it is off. she then gets angry and points at my headset and says "no, that phone" i said "you mean my ipod?, it doesn't have any signal, so i don't think it might..." she says then while i am mid sentence "shut it off anyways" with a really angry look on her face. so i "turn it off" and show her that the screen is off, then continue to listen to music after she leaves. she then comes back and gets angrier, do the same proces until we land, tell my sisters, we all agreed she was a dumb bitch.
User avatar #39 to #38 - generaljosh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
It's the flight attendant's job to make sure everyone has their electronic devises off. Not just phones, ALL electronic devices. There have been documented occurrences of unexplained in-flight malfunctions, with electronic devices being the most probable cause. Even if there's a 1 / 1,000,000,000 that your Ipod somehow causes a glitch in the airplane's electronics, is 5 minutes of music worth that risk?
User avatar #49 to #39 - guanyu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
You're right, we should never set foot outside without a steel umbrella. What if a meteorite hits us?
#57 to #39 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
5 minutes? Try 40 for some of the dumbasses that make you turn them off the moment descent starts.

And yes, it is worth the risk because the risk is as close to 0 as statistics can be. It's more likely that you'll cause failure by moving around the plane during flight as that leads to a shift in weight distribution - but you're not concerned about that when you go to the toilet because it's an absurdly improbably thing to worry about. Electronics are apparently still magic entities to some people and standard logic and pohysics doesn't apply.
#41 to #39 - micekill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
a phone in airplane mode is accepted because it will not seek out signals, thus not interfeering with the radio systems (i assume, cus the radio signals for cellphones and **** should not affect protected equipment which is designed to travel between places with high cellphone activity). the ipod was an ipod nano, the old one, not the touch, the one from 2007 around. this **** had close to zero electromagnetic radiation (except for the light coming from the screen) this did not affect a plane at all. a guy also posted a comment some time before me about a site where they talked about how mobile devices did not affect a plane.
User avatar #45 to #41 - generaljosh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
With all the overlap in devices, you can't expect a flight attendant to keep track of exactly what devices can or cannot emit radio signals. If it has a screen, they ask you to turn it off. And no, on any plane I've ever been on, they do not allow devices that you say are in airplane mode during takeoff and landing. The reasoning behind this should be obvious, as it would be incredibly easy to lie about it.

While airplane systems are shielded from outside interference, again, there have been documented cases of freak malfunctions. The causes remain unknown, but radio emmisions are a probable cause. Airlines don't make you turn things off for no reason. If the evidence behind it really was so weak, some airlines wouldn't make you turn off devices, giving themselves a competitive edge.

I'm pretty sure that the legal and engineering teams of multi billion dollar organizations are a more reliable source than "a guy in a comment some time before you"
#56 to #45 - anon id: 7b6e37c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No credible occurences of everyday devices interfereing with aircraft sensors has ever been documented or replicated by technicians. Every case has been some glitch happening on a plane and the flight staff (who are NOT qualified to diagnose problems) attributing it to some unknown emission from a device.

All aircraft systems are shielded and protected and TESTED to make sure that they don't **** their pants because someone has a mobile on board.

The precautions were put in place because 'meh well it might do something someday.' You might as well be concerned every time someone goes for a piss incase the tank leaks and gets into the electronics, its an equally credible threat.
#48 to #45 - micekill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
he posted a link to a reliable source, where is your reliable source? in which part of my comment did i say that i was listening music during take off and landing, i specified directly that i was listening to music after take off and before landing. before commenting about what i said read my comments, in case you mixed something up. can happen to anyone.
#47 - deadmuerto
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
#46 - anon id: d1d16b54
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Turn off all electronic devices, so we can use ours to show an in flight movie.
User avatar #8 - icanpaintyay
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/31/2013) [-]
bitches be stupid
[ 60 comments ]
Leave a comment