4 ms·
> effectively "taking" airplane owners property by preventing its use. ...its use for transporting OTHER people/stuff in air over OTHER people's property (and
by ergothus 8y ago
> effectively "taking" airplane owners property by preventing its use.
...its use for transporting OTHER people/stuff in air over OTHER people's property (and lives). I'd be surprised if the FAA licenses didn't have clauses that basically allowed explicitly this.
Regardless, I don't find your arguments persuasive. The FAA didn't wait for "evidence" before banning cellphones, e-readers, etc on flights; they've grounded planes before investigations were complete before...which was why I asked my initial question: What was different this time.
- lutorm 8y agoI agree that the definition of "evidence" they use isn't obvious, and I'm not at all familiar with where the rules for cabin electronics come from. I'm not saying they can't do it, they obviously can (and just did.) All I'm saying is that there has to be some evidence that the crash is for a reason that implies other aircraft are affected. And obviously the standard for transport category aircraft is higher than for smaller airplanes. But it can't just be "we gotta be sure", because then you can't let anything fly at any time. Imagine if every time someone had an accident in the same model car you own, the DOT prohibited that model car on the roads "out of an abundance of caution" until it was proven that it was not a design fault in the car. While there arguably would be an improvement in safety, it would also be incredibly disruptive. What standard of risk would you apply? Because you have to draw the line somewhere.
- ergothus 8y ago> What standard of risk would you apply? Separate question - and your arguments are all logical. My question was "given the standard of risk that HAS been applied, why was this time different?" The safety record of car travel in the US is dramatically different than the safety record in air travel.