5 ms·
If they were really dangerous, I suspect they wouldn't let you have them in the cabin at all. "Everyone turn off your phone" isn't the level of safety complian
by spokey 16y ago
If they were really dangerous, I suspect they wouldn't let you have them in the cabin at all. "Everyone turn off your phone" isn't the level of safety compliance major airlines typically rely on.
- rakkhi 16y agoMy point exactly.
- SpikeGronim 16y agoIf they were really dangerous, Al Qaeda would be using them to bring down planes.
- notahacker 16y agoThat would be like al-Qaeda operatives trying to cause road accidents by not recalling their Toyotas. [Theoretically] increased risk != an effective weapon.
- rmc 16y agoThey take bottles of water or cans of coke off you because you might be able to crash a plane with one. They don't take your mobile phone off you, ergo they can't be that dangerous.
- byrneseyeview 16y agoYour unspoken premise is that the FAA 1) Cares about safety (more than they care about appearing to care), and 2) That they know what they're doing.
- Volscio 16y agoIf you want to be cynical about it, then the FAA also wants to stay out of the public eye any way possible, so it has less paperwork, less scrutiny, and less overhead to deal with.
- borism 16y agoIf you don't feel safe enough flying in US under FAA you can try some more liberal on safety places like Africa or Indonesia. Your survival chances decline can be calculated quite precisely though.
- illumin8 16y agoExactly. There have been several years in the last decade where there were absolutely zero fatalities on US airlines. Say what you want about idiotic security rules, but strict safety measures seem to be working pretty well for us.
- mipnix 16y agoFWIW. I never met someone, who worked for the FAA, who couldn't end my career because they were having a bad day. Pilots feel about FAA officials the way they feel about doctors. That said, the FAA is the best and safest organization in the world, when it comes to doing what they do. It is bureaucratic, bloated and byzantine and I would take them over any other institution on this side of the Milky Way, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Part of the problem is, everyone wants cheap tickets AND the best service. One of my advisors had a sign outside his door. It read: Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two.
- byrneseyeview 16y agoGood. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two. That's a big part of it. The other part is the picking. How can I, or the average person, judge the efficacy of safety protocols? I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning people who invest enormous effort into precautions that are completely invisible to me. But I also know that the cheapest form of employment insurance is being visibly indispensable, which would tend to subsidize highly visible actions regardless of efficacy. Then you can factor in moral hazard; people take more risks if they feel more safe. This means that if something increases safety, but less than you'd imagine, mandating it can increase danger. e.g. if drivers thought that seatblets made them 99% less likely to die, when the real number was 10%, you'd naturally expect more fatal accidents with more people driving as if their risk of death had dropped by two orders of magnitude.
- mipnix 16y agoThe beauty of it, as far as the FAA goes, lies in the fact the public is not involved in the safety standards. There is plenty of window dressing in what the travel industry does. A large part of it is because people want to see something being done. It makes them feel better. No matter how small or inconvenient. The real safety measures are what we don't see or hear about. Every accident that doesn't happen is not JUST luck. It is the end result of a well thought out and executed process. Is there room for improvement? Of course. But it beats anything else out there by open lengths.
- ultrasaurus 16y agoI flew a plane for the first time yesterday, it was only a tiny two seater, but with modern electronics. My instructor was using his iPhone during the flight and he didn't seem worried.
- jeebusroxors 16y agoFlying a C172 G1000 is not the same as flying a 737-600. You're not shooting RNAV approaches, CAT I ILS, or low alt routes. You shouldn't even be looking at the instruments (I'm sure the CFI has told you). How about that annoying click/buzz in your headset from the phones TX? It's easy for you to ask your friend/CFI/passenger to turn off their phone but how about a cabin of ~100 people...while flying your approach?
- tvbuzz 16y agoExactly -- big difference between a 2-seater flying VFR vs. IFR conditions.
- artmageddon 16y agoEveryone in this sub-thread is right, including you. I've done RNAV and CAT I ILS in a C172(albeit no all-glass cockpit) with no interference from my iPhone(my instructor's phone was also on). I do agree that getting that many people people to turn off their phones(and complying) especially at a critical time would be rather difficult.