3 ms·

From what I've heard, it's more to try to keep distractions to a minimum during high risk parts of flight - namely, take off and landing. But still being able t

by bdunn 14y ago

From what I've heard, it's more to try to keep distractions to a minimum during high risk parts of flight - namely, take off and landing. But still being able to read a magazine but not a Kindle negates this whole arguments. Trust me: if there was a technical risk from iPhones, they wouldn't be allowed onboard.

frisco 14y ago
If by "high risk" you mean, "orders of magnitude safer than any other common mode of transportation". (Flying having ~3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, with driving at ~1.6 deaths per hundred million passenger miles.) Early on, EM radiation could have interfered with old-school VOR navigation. However, today everyone uses GPS navigation, and planes are huge flying EM-emitting computers anyway, so this is no longer a real issue. Communications are interference tolerant for the kinds of emissions we're talking about. The explanation I'd heard for why the no-phones-in-flight rule is still around is that passengers really dislike people having cell phone conversations next to them. Thus, the airlines can provide a better customer experience by keeping phones off. This obviously doesn't extend to no electronics at take-off or landing, of course, which should just be allowed.
- bdunn 14y ago
  Agreed. As a (private) pilot, and I understand why getting the passengers and crew focused for take off and landing is important. Compared to normal flight, those are the riskiest times - though as you said, still extremely safe compared to driving. I understand the no-phones rule. I actually love that cell phones being used to TALK ON aren't allowed in flight. What I take issue with is that having electronics on is a safety hazard to the aircraft. If that was true, my Kindle would be confiscated along with my > 3.1oz bottle of shampoo at the checkpoint.
munin 14y ago
these are the same air carriers that flew planes into the ground until the FAA mandated they have GPWS[1], so I don't think the "if they honestly posed a risk we would do something about it". people have taken bigger risks with life-safety technology that has demonstrated to cause crashes or take hundreds of lives before... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_system#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_syste...

by bdunn 14y ago

frisco 14y ago

If by "high risk" you mean, "orders of magnitude safer than any other common mode of transportation". (Flying having ~3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, with driving at ~1.6 deaths per hundred million passenger miles.) Early on, EM radiation could have interfered with old-school VOR navigation. However, today everyone uses GPS navigation, and planes are huge flying EM-emitting computers anyway, so this is no longer a real issue. Communications are interference tolerant for the kinds of emissions we're talking about. The explanation I'd heard for why the no-phones-in-flight rule is still around is that passengers really dislike people having cell phone conversations next to them. Thus, the airlines can provide a better customer experience by keeping phones off. This obviously doesn't extend to no electronics at take-off or landing, of course, which should just be allowed.

bdunn 14y ago
Agreed. As a (private) pilot, and I understand why getting the passengers and crew focused for take off and landing is important. Compared to normal flight, those are the riskiest times - though as you said, still extremely safe compared to driving. I understand the no-phones rule. I actually love that cell phones being used to TALK ON aren't allowed in flight. What I take issue with is that having electronics on is a safety hazard to the aircraft. If that was true, my Kindle would be confiscated along with my > 3.1oz bottle of shampoo at the checkpoint.

munin 14y ago

these are the same air carriers that flew planes into the ground until the FAA mandated they have GPWS[1], so I don't think the "if they honestly posed a risk we would do something about it". people have taken bigger risks with life-safety technology that has demonstrated to cause crashes or take hundreds of lives before... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_system#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_syste...