6 ms·
What a load of shit. There have been studies made that show electronic devices disturbing airplane systems. There are many recorded incidents of interference. T
by hristov 14y ago
What a load of shit. There have been studies made that show electronic devices disturbing airplane systems. There are many recorded incidents of interference. The WSJ call these "anecdotal evidence" but they happened, and they were documented by the FAA.
Just think for a second about the term "anecdotal evidence." What really is the problem with "anecdotal evidence?" Well the term is an example of a logical fallacy only when one seeks to deduce broad all encompassing conclusions from such evidence. Thus, for example, if you see one drunken irish person it does not follow that irish are drunks. It is anecdotal evidence. But does the same logic follow for plane crashes? I suppose if you have one recorded event of a device interfering with flight instrumentation, you could call that "anecdotal evidence." But what if the plane crashes and it kills 300 people? Well that would still be a rare occurrance, and you could still call this an anecdote. But it would also be a terrible tragedy.
You see, rare occurrences are not sufficient to create an overall rule about the majority of cases, but they are sufficient to create tragedies. I am willing to bet that even most drunk drivers end up getting home safely. Then why ban drunk driving? Because the danger of death even if relatively rare is still unacceptable. Because we value life in this country. So my point is that the usual rule against anecdotal evidence does not apply when dealing with airline safety. In airline safety even things that happen very rarely can be a problem. Because, again, we value our lives.
Their other point is also rather dumb. They say that they did a survey that showed that many people do not turn off their devices completely and few people (2%) even use them blatantly. The thinking here goes a little bit like this: "since some people broke the rules and no disaster happened then it must be ok for more people to break the rule". This is train of logic is similar to the one used in the Peter Principle. This kind of thinking is basically guaranteed to result in a disaster. Because, every time they would say "well nothing bad has happened thus far, so we might as well increase the sources interference", and this will go on until something bad happens.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoCould you cite said studies? I studied aerospace engineering in college and was taught that there is no evidence of this beyond a pilot and some air hostesses, at some point a few decades ago, hypothesising that some avionics error was caused by passenger electronics.
- anovikov 14y agoThere is a comprehensive database of civil air traffic accident, compiled with IATA, on http://planecrashinfo.com/database.htm http://planecrashinfo.com/database.htm. I have yet to see anything cell phone-related.
- taligent 14y agoI found this study and at the end is an interesting summary from the RTCA: "Those findings indicated that the probability of interference to installed aircraft systems from PED, singly or in multiples, is extremely slight. However, the slight possibility of interference to aircraft navigation and information systems during critical phases of flight, e.g., takeoff and landing, should be viewed as potentially hazardous and an unacceptable risk for aircraft involved in passenger carrying operations. Therefore, the committee recommends that the use of PEDs be restricted during certain critical phases of flight." http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html#Ber97.3 http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/...
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoThis study says we cannot be sure that PEDs are safe. The original comment, that "there are many recorded incidents of interference [which] happened, and were documented by the FAA", is false. There is a slight potential for interference and we hypothesise that this interference could be unsafe.
- Anechoic 14y agoA couple: http://class.ee.iastate.edu/mmina/ee314x/homework/portable-electronics-flights.pdf http://class.ee.iastate.edu/mmina/ee314x/homework/portable-e... http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2001006...
- snom380 14y agoA quick google search reveals a study including a case where the pilot in cooperation with the passenger identified his laptop as causing interference on navigation instruments. Is it really too much to ask to do a quick Google search?
- atirip 14y agoIt's that simple - if any customer electronic devicea disturbance is messing with some airplane systems, then taht airplane should be grounded forever. Full stop.
- craigmccaskill 14y agoCitation? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think anyone is against doing something that could potentially save lives -- but I've never seen any evidence to support the current status quo and the number of these types of articles is growing. If there were credible proof of disturbance why isn't it being brought out to counter this debate? This is too big a potential PR problem for the FAA to not try to convince us they're just looking out for our best interests.
- anu_gupta 14y agoLook at how metal forks are treated. Compare that with your laptop or smartphone. Spot the difference? If there was even the slightest chance that electronic devices could materially interfere with commercial flights, taking electronic devices onto a plane and using them would be forbidden. Pretty simple really.
- harshreality 14y agoThe article noted that people ignore the rules all the time. Even if they didn't, devices would be left on accidentally, and devices in luggage will get left or turned on accidentally. If there's any measurable risk from consumer electronics, instead of "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off," the announcement should be, "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off, and pray that everyone else does too, pray that no devices are accidentally turned on or left on, and pray that stray rf bursts from ground transmitters don't cause the plane to crash either." The mandate for everyone to turn off their electronics (and pray) is the equivalent of the industry and the FAA burying their heads in the sand. It reduces the risk, but if that risk was measurable and unacceptable to begin with, it's still measurable and still unacceptable, and the planes' electronic shielding needs to be improved.