4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoAgreed. 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.