3 ms·

I think the FAA is acting like an idiot, here, but it'd be good to look at this from their side. This falls under the "stuff that might make me look bad" categ

I think the FAA is acting like an idiot, here, but it'd be good to look at this from their side. This falls under the "stuff that might make me look bad" category. You can be the guy who prevents electronic devices on planes for 50 years and it doesn't matter. But if you're the guy that approves them and then there's a crash? Better get your Senate suit out of the cleaners, because all of those politicians writing you letters to "do something" will be the first ones asking you the tough questions on national TV. They'll be first in line to take credit if the result is good, but it's all on you if the result is bad. It's very difficult to set up a politically-derived organization that can deal with risk effectively. Instead on manageable risk, it's much safer and easier to push for situations with no risk at all -- take the TSA, for instance. No bureaucrat gets fired for being too careful. This is an issue that might very well end up requiring legislation to fix. ADD: One more note. Every day there are millions of passenger miles flown on airlines. Surely the law of large numbers says that we're already performing an experiment on electronic device radiation and the cockpit. There's no way you can get 100% of the devices off. Somebody left their phone in the carry-on. Somebody's PC refuses to shut down. Somebody forgets to turn his kindle off. Dozens, if not hundreds of times each day, planes are flying in difficult weather with all kinds of electronic devices transmitting all kinds of garbage. Yet we've never seen a flight failure due to electronic interference. And of course the pilots are up front using all sorts of consumer devices as well. We've already done the experiment, at least in smaller numbers. Whether or not there's a problem when hundreds of devices are on is certainly an open question, but whether or not a few of them are going to take down a plane is already settled.

bradleyland 14y ago
> One more note. Every day there are millions of passenger miles flown on airlines. Surely the law of large numbers says that we're already performing an experiment on electronic device radiation and the cockpit. I couldn't agree with this more. At one point, I was flying very frequently for work, and I used to make a hobby out of watching to see what people did with their electronics when prepping for take-off. Laptops usually got turned off, but rarely did I see someone turn their phone off completely. I'd see a lot of people switch to airplane mode, then put their phone to sleep (a short press on a button). I'd even see a lot of people who simply put their phones on silent (usually when I'm sitting next to them; this is difficult to observe from a distance). Behavior on landing is pretty telling as well. When you see people texting and making calls immediately after landing, you know that their phones weren't off completely. When you watch the person next to you take out their phone and begin texting immediately, you know that the phone wasn't even put in to airplane mode. These scenarios were far more common than observing someone actually power down/up a device. I'd imagine that it is possible to get an estimate of the number of RF emitting devices within range. I really wish the FAA would do a study of what actually happens on planes, rather than what the rules say should happen on planes, because I suspect the results will be much different than they expect.
yread 14y ago
> Yet we've never seen a flight failure due to electronic interference. How do you know? There are plenty of unexplained failures traced to electronics or on board computers. And stuff like electronics acting weird and after reset they're ok again is even more common. If these things happen more frequently it could lead to trouble. How would you even expect to prove after an incident that it was due to interference?

bradleyland 14y ago

> One more note. Every day there are millions of passenger miles flown on airlines. Surely the law of large numbers says that we're already performing an experiment on electronic device radiation and the cockpit. I couldn't agree with this more. At one point, I was flying very frequently for work, and I used to make a hobby out of watching to see what people did with their electronics when prepping for take-off. Laptops usually got turned off, but rarely did I see someone turn their phone off completely. I'd see a lot of people switch to airplane mode, then put their phone to sleep (a short press on a button). I'd even see a lot of people who simply put their phones on silent (usually when I'm sitting next to them; this is difficult to observe from a distance). Behavior on landing is pretty telling as well. When you see people texting and making calls immediately after landing, you know that their phones weren't off completely. When you watch the person next to you take out their phone and begin texting immediately, you know that the phone wasn't even put in to airplane mode. These scenarios were far more common than observing someone actually power down/up a device. I'd imagine that it is possible to get an estimate of the number of RF emitting devices within range. I really wish the FAA would do a study of what actually happens on planes, rather than what the rules say should happen on planes, because I suspect the results will be much different than they expect.

yread 14y ago

> Yet we've never seen a flight failure due to electronic interference. How do you know? There are plenty of unexplained failures traced to electronics or on board computers. And stuff like electronics acting weird and after reset they're ok again is even more common. If these things happen more frequently it could lead to trouble. How would you even expect to prove after an incident that it was due to interference?