6 ms·

Leave your phone near a CRT screen or loudspeaker, observe the noise right before you recieve a call. The rest is statistics and probability. What's the probab

by hcho 16y ago

Leave your phone near a CRT screen or loudspeaker, observe the noise right before you recieve a call. The rest is statistics and probability. What's the probability of interference causing a fatal misreading in aircraft's sensor? Too small. What's the number of flights world wide? Too big. We would see a number of accidents if everyone kept their phones on all the time. As a death is one too many, it warrants the ban.

rakkhi 16y ago
Ok how about on airplane mode only so I can still read but not recieve any calls? Also ban is a bit strong with how it actually works - I mean how do you really enforce that? The air hostesses go around do a quick look but they can miss things, also phones in hand luggage cannot be checked and people can forget it is on, the terrorist scenario I paint above... I mean I design controls for a living and this just does not seem that effective to me if the risk as you say is very low liklihood, very high impact. Surely a real study needs to be done and if it is really a risk a more effective control like a jammer or electronic tool to detect when a phone is no be put in place. Or are you arguing that most people turn them off because they get told to and that is enough to mitigate the risk?
- hcho 16y ago
  Airplane mode is safe but it is problamatic when it comes to enforcing. There's no way for a flight attendant to tell whether idevice is in flight mode. >Or are you arguing that most people turn them off because they get told to and that is enough to mitigate the risk? Yes, that's what I meant.
cryptoz 16y ago
I disagree. The airlines claim the risk of death from my water bottle is too high to allow me to bring the water on the plane. Fine. However, I'm allowed to bring 100 cellphones in a backpack. They don't care about that, except to politely ask me to turn them off. If there was a remote chance of a cellphone causing a crash - more chance than a bottle with water in it - then they would ban cellphones in flight. It's very clear that there is no actual risk of interference at all.
- hcho 16y ago
  The water bottle thing is not airlines' doing as far as I know. It's to do with your countries national security authority. Emirates allows mobile phones on some of their flights.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    > The water bottle thing is not airlines' doing as far as I know. Neither is the cell phone thing in the US. It's both the FAA and FCC: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275 http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=62...
- notahacker 16y ago
  Liquids are banned because there were rumours of terrorist plots involving liquid explosives and it was important that something was seen to be done about it. Carrying 100 mobile phones in a switched on state that have a small probability of interfering with navigation and communication systems would be a ludicrously impractical way of attempting an attack, so airline regulators funnily enough haven't accounted for that possibility.
WillyF 16y ago
The "a death is one too many" argument is completely fallacious. If anyone actually believed it, we would all drive our cars at 10 MPH and never fly in planes. Every day we sacrifice human lives for small (or big) conveniences. It's not nice to think about, but it's the way our world works.
- philwelch 16y ago
  1,000 car crashes is not news at all. 1 plane crash or terrorist attack or school shooting is national news and bad PR. Society isn't rational about this. If it was it would disregard school shootings and build more light rail.

by hcho 16y ago

rakkhi 16y ago

Ok how about on airplane mode only so I can still read but not recieve any calls? Also ban is a bit strong with how it actually works - I mean how do you really enforce that? The air hostesses go around do a quick look but they can miss things, also phones in hand luggage cannot be checked and people can forget it is on, the terrorist scenario I paint above... I mean I design controls for a living and this just does not seem that effective to me if the risk as you say is very low liklihood, very high impact. Surely a real study needs to be done and if it is really a risk a more effective control like a jammer or electronic tool to detect when a phone is no be put in place. Or are you arguing that most people turn them off because they get told to and that is enough to mitigate the risk?

hcho 16y ago
Airplane mode is safe but it is problamatic when it comes to enforcing. There's no way for a flight attendant to tell whether idevice is in flight mode. >Or are you arguing that most people turn them off because they get told to and that is enough to mitigate the risk? Yes, that's what I meant.

cryptoz 16y ago

I disagree. The airlines claim the risk of death from my water bottle is too high to allow me to bring the water on the plane. Fine. However, I'm allowed to bring 100 cellphones in a backpack. They don't care about that, except to politely ask me to turn them off. If there was a remote chance of a cellphone causing a crash - more chance than a bottle with water in it - then they would ban cellphones in flight. It's very clear that there is no actual risk of interference at all.

hcho 16y ago
The water bottle thing is not airlines' doing as far as I know. It's to do with your countries national security authority. Emirates allows mobile phones on some of their flights.
- jonknee 16y ago
  > The water bottle thing is not airlines' doing as far as I know. Neither is the cell phone thing in the US. It's both the FAA and FCC: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275 http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=62...
notahacker 16y ago
Liquids are banned because there were rumours of terrorist plots involving liquid explosives and it was important that something was seen to be done about it. Carrying 100 mobile phones in a switched on state that have a small probability of interfering with navigation and communication systems would be a ludicrously impractical way of attempting an attack, so airline regulators funnily enough haven't accounted for that possibility.

WillyF 16y ago

The "a death is one too many" argument is completely fallacious. If anyone actually believed it, we would all drive our cars at 10 MPH and never fly in planes. Every day we sacrifice human lives for small (or big) conveniences. It's not nice to think about, but it's the way our world works.

philwelch 16y ago
1,000 car crashes is not news at all. 1 plane crash or terrorist attack or school shooting is national news and bad PR. Society isn't rational about this. If it was it would disregard school shootings and build more light rail.