9 ms·
Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? (I expect
by jefftk 3y ago
Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent?
(I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's a terrible trade off.)
- throw0101d 3y ago> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? As of today: 379.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jefftk 3y agoWhere's that number coming from?
- throw0101d 3y agoThe number of souls on board for JL516. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516
- jefftk 3y agoBut all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?
- throw0101d 3y agoAF358 was engulfed in flames with-in three minutes (180s): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 The FAA mandates that aircraft are able to be evacuated with-in 90s: * https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.803-1A.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... Even for something as big as an A380 in its 800+ passenger configuration: * https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-full-report-everyone-off-in-time/66584.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-fu... * https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-90-second-evacuation/ https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-90-second-evacuation/ The difference between 180s and 90s is 90s: if (e.g.) ~30 people out of ~350 passengers (<10%) take an extra 3 seconds each because they are not aware of their surroundings, that time is eaten up. Seconds matter.
- jefftk 3y agoI think maybe you're under the impression that: 1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing. 2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones. 3. If we did that then all 379 passengers would have died [1] because evacuation would have taken longer than the time before the plane was engulfed in flames [2] Except #1 isn't the case: passengers were allowed to be on their phones and were doing so. And so #2 isn't the case either: I'm proposing maintaining the status quo. And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: people don't leave in a single batch determined by the speed of the slowest person. There are multiple parallel exits, and each exit operates serially. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440
- throw0101d 3y ago> And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: You are right that it does not necessarily follow that 100% would be dead. AC 797 had a flash fire after 90 seconds, and only about half the people died. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y agoPeople keep pointing out to you that passengers were in fact using their phones to record footage of the interior of the plane (eg to let their friends/relatives know what was going on in case they didn't make it). Of course people are easily distracted by phones when they should be paying attention to other things, but virtually all people already in an emergency situation are fully present unless they're injured or caring for an injured person. I think you're underestimating people's ability to multitask when they know it matters.
- filleduchaos 3y agoPassengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.
- ceejayoz 3y agoYou're allowed to use phones during landing; they don't present much of a challenge for evacuation. You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down.
- jefftk 3y agoThis thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe idea of putting down your phone for an hour in total being "too inconvenient" as people seemingly willingly sign over their dignity for a $10 cheaper flight ticket is.... uninspiring.
- jefftk 3y agoIt sounds like people vary a lot in their preferences? For example, I wouldn't take a $10 cheaper flight which prohibited using my phone, but I probably would take one that gave me a 1" narrower seat.
- filleduchaos 3y agoYou're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down because those are active physical hazards even in fairly routine landings not because of some nebulous idea of you being "distracted".
- JohnBooty 3y agoYou seem really certain that passengers would be so wrapped up in their phones that they would be too distracted to promptly realize... there was a collision with another plane, causing their plane to split open and burst into flames. OK.
- serf 3y agoThat 'prompt realization' takes actual time from an escape when it doesn't necessarily need to. I have no problem with the idea that humans can re-prioritize; but I do have a problem that people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly. We don't work that way as humans.
- JohnBooty 3y agoThere's phone footage from inside the burning plane, so apparently your theories don't correspond with reality. Always quite annoying when that happens. Been the death of many a theory. people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly Here are the two biggest flaws in your thinking: 1. You seem to be assuming the alternative to "using one's phone during a landing" is some sort of highly aware ready state. In reality it's probably bored snoozing or half-snoozing. It's a red-eye flight after all. 2. You seem to be assuming that "evacuating a burning plane" is some kind of split-second thing, like a quicktime event in a video game. In reality, at least for this incident, there was a span of a significant number of seconds between "impact" and "plane slows down enough for emergency slides to extend and evacuation to begin." 30, maybe 60 seconds.... I'm not sure, but there was no real positive action for a passenger to take during that time. Shifting attention away from one's phone certainly has a nonzero time cost, but not remotely comparable to the time it took for the plane to come to a full stop. Again, you're dealing in hypotheticals, while the actual reality of this incident (phones in use, orderly exit achieved, all lives saved) contradicts whatever it is you are imagining.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago[flagged]
- jefftk 3y agoThere are huge numbers of opportunities to trade off inconvenience against reduced death. For example, we could prohibit radios in cars because the music and adjustment can be distracting and lead to collisions. Or ban cars entirely since they're much more dangerous than walking and public transport. We could require everyone to wear an N95 all winter. Ban phones for the entirety of the flight, and prohibit books as well. Happy to give more examples of similarly bad tradeoffs! If you make policy with a principle of being unwilling to trade off deaths against inconvenience in any circumstance you'll have somewhat fewer deaths and unbearable levels of inconvenience.
- Retric 3y agoThe inconvenience vs risk threshold here is similar to bucking a seatbelt which is hard to argue is a poor investment. Aircraft may be very safe on a per mile basis, but those risks are extremely concentrated around takeoff and landing. Which are fast events, so the risk per second is relatively high even though flying is generally much safer than driving.
- jefftk 3y agoI agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose policies that would lead to additional deaths, regardless of the level of inconvenience that this would impose. If you wanted to give a fermi calculation for the fraction of aircraft traveler deaths that this proposal would prevent I'd be happy to think more about this, and you might convince me. My sense that the tradeoff is not worth it is based on thinking that (a) there aren't that many deaths to be prevented and (b) banning the devices wouldn't increase the chance of survival during an evacuation by very much.
- Dalewyn 3y agoI once heard a wise doctor say that even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation. Likewise, the chance of someone being in an aviation accident is close to nil (you're more likely to be in a car accident), but you are either going to be in an aviation accident or not (a 50% chance) and you're going to be either dead or alive from it (a 50% chance). So you might as well at least not have your epitaph be "Killed by some bozo in the aisle TikToking" if you do end up dying.
- jefftk 3y ago> even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation I think this is rarely a productive way to think about it. For example, the chance that I might die in the next year is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and actuarial tables put it somewhere around 0.3%. [1] Should I refrain from having a kid because I'd have a "50% chance" of leaving them without a dad before they turned 1? [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
- ant6n 3y agoWell, using this logic, every day you have a 50% chance of dying, since you either die or you don't. Or perhaps every second you have a 50% chance of dying. ...obviously this "math" doesn't quite work out.
- jefftk 3y agoI mean, it clearly doesn't work if taken to be literal probabilities. But I think it also doesn't work as a more metaphorical guide to life?
- kergonath 3y agoIt clearly does not work in any circumstances. We over-emphasise the likelihood of rare events already, saying that something has even odds just because it is conceivable that it could happen is completely useless. Which is not to say that you should not plan for extremely rare events, but you certainly should not make decisions assuming they are likely to happen.
- tinco 3y ago[flagged]
- morsch 3y agoThe number of fatalities and injuries seems minuscule because it's normalised over distance traveled. This makes sense, because air travel is the only way to make voyages over this distance. But it also doesn't make sense for the same reason -- it's stupid to compare a 6000 mile holiday flight with a 6000 mile holiday road trip, because people don't routinely make those. You're still more likely to get injured on an eight hour car ride than on an eight hour flight, but the difference isn't a factor 600. In much the same way, air travel is also arguably moderately efficient in terms of CO2 per mile, except that it's also a super easy way -- in fact, practically the only way -- to accrue tens of thousands of miles every year, so the efficiency is kind of irrelevant.
- sokoloff 3y agoI know people who are already at the "if driving takes less than 8 hours, I'd rather drive than fly" level. Every additional inconvenience (or psychological impediment) added to the safest mode of long-distance travel has a risk of decreasing overall safety. It's not particularly relevant to an international flight into Japan, but the extent to which increasing annoyance/instilling fear of airline passengers causing people to drive instead must be weighed against the small safety benefit resulting from a policy of telling passengers "we think this phase of flight contains the most highly concentrated risk, so for the next 15 minutes, please put away all of your distractions, prepare for a possible crash, and try not to think about the fact that we could turn this aircraft into a tumbling, burning ball of wreckage at any moment." Something similar was the primary justification to support the continuation of "infant in arms" travel by passengers under the age of 2, with an expected 60:1 ratio of lives that would be lost if infants were required to occupy ticketed seats vs being carried in arms. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/child_safety-Claussen.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/child_safety-Clau...
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoI once traveled for business from Salt Lake City to Fort Collins, Colorado. 1/2 hour to the airport + get to the airport 2 hours before flight + 1 hour direct flight to Denver + 1/2 hour to deplane + 1/2 hour to get bags + 1/2 hour to get rental car + 1 hour drive to Fort Collins. Total 6 hours. Seems like it actually totalled 7 but I don't remember where the extra time was. Versus 7 hours drive time from Salt Lake to Fort Collins. And if two people are going, you only drive one car, but you buy two plane tickets. And my car has more legroom than a coach seat. So, yes, flying is safer per mile, but the "under 8 hours" crowd also have a point...
- avidphantasm 3y ago[flagged]
- jefftk 3y agoIf you want to make the case for adding additional safety procedures (no distractions during take-offs and landings) then you have to actually make the case. It's not enough to just assert that they seem minor if the benefit would also be minor. How much do you think this policy would reduce deaths?
- avidphantasm 3y agoTaking simple steps to be more aware of your surroundings when something dangerous is happening seems self-evident to me. Please let me know what flights are you taking and when so that I can make sure I'm not on the same plane.
- jefftk 3y agoMy next flights are B6 1191 on 2024-01-25 and B6 1192 on 2024-01-28.
- jtc331 3y agoMost people don’t read the safety card or pay attention to the safety briefing either.
- wlonkly 3y agoMy rule of thumb is "know where the exits are", and "know where the life jackets are" if flying over water. Those are the bits that differ the most plane to plane -- seatbelts are consistent, clear paths during takeoff and landing are consistent, oxygen masks are consistent, but I want to know where the exits are and how to float.
- ghaff 3y agoAnd for anyone who remembers the electronics during takeoff and landing ban once cell phones became common it was a massive hassle for flight attendants as many passengers routinely ignored instructions.
- ryandrake 3y agoNever really understood this "we can't enforce the rules because people routinely ignore the rules" attitude. This should be dead simple on an airplane, where the airline knows who each passenger is by seat. So have one flight attendant make one pass down the aisle warning everyone to put away their phones, then have another one follow a minute or so later just making note of which seats are still using their phones. No-fly-list them all later. After this policy became known, people would be strongly incentivized to get with the program.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> No-fly-list them all later Then the airline lays off those people because nobody wants to fly.
- ghshephard 3y agoEven when there was a rule that cell-phones were supposed to be turned off, studies showed that 20-25% of cell phones were still active (Possibly forgotten in pockets) - wasting time, energy, traveler patience, on something that was entirely theater (I don't believe there was ever a single incident associated with an active cell phone - which makes sense given the 10s of thousands per day that were powered on during takeoff) - seems like the worst possible tradeoff ever. The "No cell phone use during takeoff" or "No mobile phone use during flight" (China Air used to do that - very, very annoying) - bureaucracy flex just because the could.
- ryandrake 3y agoI think the "no cellphones" rule is about minimizing distractions during critical phases of flight, not because a phone's radio is going to do damage to the aircraft. So a phone on but sitting in someone's bag is not the end of the world.