5 ms·

From a safety standpoint, isn't the right thing to do to test flight equipment against interference from consumer devices? Simply assuming that everyone on the

From a safety standpoint, isn't the right thing to do to test flight equipment against interference from consumer devices? Simply assuming that everyone on the plane will turn off their cell phone seems like a cop-out. Having flight safety depend on the (unverified) compliance of consumers is ridiculous. There are only two cases here: 1. Consumer electronics represent a real threat to air safety. They should be banned from planes or disabled (i.e. the battery removed and turned over until the flight ends.) There should be real penalties for non-compliance. 2. Consumer electronics are not really a threat to air safety. We should stop wasting everyone's time and adding unnecessary stress to the travel process.

gnaffle 15y ago
3. Consumer electronics are not a big threat to air safety, but they can (and have, see Wikipedia article / NASA study) interfered with airplane navigation instruments. Since it's much more likely that 1 out of 100 or 300 active devices will cause interference during takeoffs and landings than 1 out of 4-5 that are turned on by accident or ignorance, it's better to err on the side of safety and tell everyone to turn them off.
- tomkarlo 15y ago
  I'm not sure that's valid case... the number of devices per person, and therefore per plane, has been rising rapidly over time (I carried at least 5 "electronic devices" (kindle, laptop, 2 phones, camera) onto my flight home last night.) A plane with 200+ people could soon have 400-500 devices versus 50 a decade ago - at one end or the other of that range they're either not a threat (and we needn't turn them off) or they're a real threat and need more than voluntary shutdown. (BTW, I watched the folks in my row on the plane, and not one person besides me actually shut down their phone or Kindle. They all just either put them in airplane mode or standby by tapping the off key. So I'm guessing that the reality is that most devices are not actually shut off by non-technical users. Even typing this I realize my Kindle wasn't actually shut off, its 3G was still active.) I find it hard to believe we exist exactly in the statistical sweet spot where voluntary compliance results in a materially safer outcome than broad non-compliance.
  - gnaffle 15y ago
    I agree that it probably would not make a big difference, but since there _have_ been reports of interference, the FAA errs on the side of safety, IMO for good reason. My main point was that it's not an either-or thing that so many commenters make it out to be. It's possible to want to mitigate the potential effects of interference even though this interference is not very likely to cause accidents. As aircraft are being more thoroughly tested (for instance with WiFi networks and picocells) more and more devices will be allowed, and maybe one day we'll be able to use electronic devices during takeoffs and landings as well. But, like all things in the aviation world, it will take time.

gnaffle 15y ago

3. Consumer electronics are not a big threat to air safety, but they can (and have, see Wikipedia article / NASA study) interfered with airplane navigation instruments. Since it's much more likely that 1 out of 100 or 300 active devices will cause interference during takeoffs and landings than 1 out of 4-5 that are turned on by accident or ignorance, it's better to err on the side of safety and tell everyone to turn them off.

tomkarlo 15y ago
I'm not sure that's valid case... the number of devices per person, and therefore per plane, has been rising rapidly over time (I carried at least 5 "electronic devices" (kindle, laptop, 2 phones, camera) onto my flight home last night.) A plane with 200+ people could soon have 400-500 devices versus 50 a decade ago - at one end or the other of that range they're either not a threat (and we needn't turn them off) or they're a real threat and need more than voluntary shutdown. (BTW, I watched the folks in my row on the plane, and not one person besides me actually shut down their phone or Kindle. They all just either put them in airplane mode or standby by tapping the off key. So I'm guessing that the reality is that most devices are not actually shut off by non-technical users. Even typing this I realize my Kindle wasn't actually shut off, its 3G was still active.) I find it hard to believe we exist exactly in the statistical sweet spot where voluntary compliance results in a materially safer outcome than broad non-compliance.
- gnaffle 15y ago
  I agree that it probably would not make a big difference, but since there _have_ been reports of interference, the FAA errs on the side of safety, IMO for good reason. My main point was that it's not an either-or thing that so many commenters make it out to be. It's possible to want to mitigate the potential effects of interference even though this interference is not very likely to cause accidents. As aircraft are being more thoroughly tested (for instance with WiFi networks and picocells) more and more devices will be allowed, and maybe one day we'll be able to use electronic devices during takeoffs and landings as well. But, like all things in the aviation world, it will take time.