3 ms·

Another reason I've heard argued by a coworker is that they aren't banning electronics for the sake of interference, but for your attention. If anything were t

Another reason I've heard argued by a coworker is that they aren't banning electronics for the sake of interference, but for your attention. If anything were to go wrong during a flight, takeoff and landing are the two times that they want you to be able to react with zero hesitation. If something goes wrong and you have seconds to react, the less things you're fiddling with the more likely you are to survive.

irons 16y ago
That's not a compelling explanation, considering that you're free to keep your head in a John Grisham potboiler (as long as it's not a Kindle edition), or remain fully asleep at takeoff and/or landing.
- Marticus 16y ago
  Well actually I think it's better than jamming the newest (insert band here) album and not be able to hear much other than that and a very dim amount of engine noise. I think it is safe to say it's likely a combination of many things - this coupled with statistics (as mentioned before, very small % failure rate + very large flight volume = enough dead people to warrant having them turned off) seems the most plausible. Not to mention that someone linked that it could very well be a problem with the cellular networks - if (hypothetically) you could bugger up an entire major tower with enough "hop" volume, I can see why the FAA or other organization would just want to have this as a cover-our-ass precaution, too.
darklajid 16y ago
This (and other explanations in this thread, like "might fly around") seems to tackle the question from the wrong side, imo. It seems these reasons are made up by rational minds, trying to understand the ban. Like results from "Why the heck is this prohibited again?" pondering, but completely based on speculation. So unless we can get some facts to back up these claims, I doubt that these replies help the OP. It sounds more like "Been there, thought about it, this is what I/my coworkers could come up with to explain this mistery"?

irons 16y ago

That's not a compelling explanation, considering that you're free to keep your head in a John Grisham potboiler (as long as it's not a Kindle edition), or remain fully asleep at takeoff and/or landing.

Marticus 16y ago
Well actually I think it's better than jamming the newest (insert band here) album and not be able to hear much other than that and a very dim amount of engine noise. I think it is safe to say it's likely a combination of many things - this coupled with statistics (as mentioned before, very small % failure rate + very large flight volume = enough dead people to warrant having them turned off) seems the most plausible. Not to mention that someone linked that it could very well be a problem with the cellular networks - if (hypothetically) you could bugger up an entire major tower with enough "hop" volume, I can see why the FAA or other organization would just want to have this as a cover-our-ass precaution, too.

darklajid 16y ago

This (and other explanations in this thread, like "might fly around") seems to tackle the question from the wrong side, imo. It seems these reasons are made up by rational minds, trying to understand the ban. Like results from "Why the heck is this prohibited again?" pondering, but completely based on speculation. So unless we can get some facts to back up these claims, I doubt that these replies help the OP. It sounds more like "Been there, thought about it, this is what I/my coworkers could come up with to explain this mistery"?