5 ms·

So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not turn off t

So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not turn off their devices. The probability that something happens is minuscule, but above zero. Other examples where the trade off between security and convenience has to be made is the driving of cars and liquids on a plane. I'm really curious in which direction this debate will swing. (FTR: I'm all for convenience ;) )

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. The reports are for suspected interference. It has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure I read at least on of the NASA reports where the pilot in cooperation with the passenger positively identified that the interference stopped when the laptop was turned off, and started again when it was turned on.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    That's what we call anecdotal evidence. They hold virtually zero weight in scientific discourse, for obvious reasons.
    - gnaffle 13y ago
      Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. And it's not like it's easy to get any other kind of evidence from actual flights.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. No. This is about security theater and nothing more. Beyond a few anecdotes, we have zero evidence that the practice of making people turn off their devices actually makes flights safer.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    The article only states that it went away when the device was turned off. Unless you got this report from some other source, the "started again when it was turned on" part was not the claim.
astrodust 13y ago
The probability that the problem was cleared up coincidentally rather than as the result of one passenger turning off their phone is very low. I'm pretty sure that only 30% of people admit to not turning off their devices. How many won't admit it? I'm pretty sure if they did a scan for Bluetooth devices during take-off the number would always be non-zero.
- omni 13y ago
  > The probability that the problem was cleared up coincidentally rather than as the result of one passenger turning off their phone is very low. If I understand your first sentence correctly, you're saying that there is a high probability that the resolution of the problem was non-coincidental, i.e. turning off the phone solved the problem. This doesn't really gel with your second paragraph, though. Can you clarify?
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Ah, I mis-worded that. I mean that the chance it was the passenger's phone is very low.
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure that only 30% of people admit to not turning off their devices On my recent flights, I've observed that very few of my neighbors completely powered off their devices and at least one did not turn on airplane mode (he told me so). I would think that the 30% number is much higher, and probably rising as the years go on and more people forget or care less.
- Uhhrrr 13y ago
  >How many won't admit it? And how many don't even know?
  - astrodust 13y ago
    The people who let their phones ring in movie theatres.
tallanvor 13y ago
I'll admit to being in the 30%. I put my phone and Kindle in airplane mode to save battery power, but otherwise I leave my devices in their normal state. Is it 100% certain that none of my devices could possibly interfere with critical systems on the plane? Well, no, but 99.99% is good enough for me. And for what it's worth, I made my decision based on the available research plus what I learned based on my EE courses in school (my degree is in Computer Engineering, but I still took quite a few electrical engineering courses, including one on traveling waves).
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Airplane mode should be 100% acceptable. The suspected interference is supposed to be caused by devices that broadcast "powerful" radio waves. Since airplane mode disables with the WiFi and the cellular antenna, it is impossible for the device to cause interference. At that point it becomes a completely self-contained mini-computer - probably much less harmful than, say, onboard television screens.
- kbutler 13y ago
  > 99.99% is good enough for me 99.99% is 1::10,000. Multiply that by 643 million passengers per year (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ http://www.transtats.bts.gov/), and you get a lot of interference (64,300 passengers whose devices interfere...). I believe that the chance of any typical passenger device interfering with critical plane systems is much less that 0.01%, but we need to be careful with seemingly unlikely events multiplied by large numbers.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    30% of all airplane passengers never turn off their devices during flights. Now THAT is a large number of devices. How many of them interfered with critical plane systems, and what percentage of that interference caused an accident? This is a situation where we need to move beyond platitudes and run some actual experiments, preferably random controlled trials. Load a couple of planes with several hundred smartphones and tablets each. Have the devices on one plane turned off and the devices on the other turned on. Fly a third plane completely empty as a control group. Measure the interference on all three planes and then compare the numbers.
hristov 13y ago
I guess I have to keep pointing out the obvious, but for airline safety a miniscule probability is often too high. I do not want a minuscule probability of death just so some moron cannot handle 5 min with a turned off cell-phone.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. The reports are for suspected interference. It has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

gnaffle 13y ago
I'm pretty sure I read at least on of the NASA reports where the pilot in cooperation with the passenger positively identified that the interference stopped when the laptop was turned off, and started again when it was turned on.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  That's what we call anecdotal evidence. They hold virtually zero weight in scientific discourse, for obvious reasons.
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. And it's not like it's easy to get any other kind of evidence from actual flights.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      >>Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. No. This is about security theater and nothing more. Beyond a few anecdotes, we have zero evidence that the practice of making people turn off their devices actually makes flights safer.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  The article only states that it went away when the device was turned off. Unless you got this report from some other source, the "started again when it was turned on" part was not the claim.

astrodust 13y ago

The probability that the problem was cleared up coincidentally rather than as the result of one passenger turning off their phone is very low. I'm pretty sure that only 30% of people admit to not turning off their devices. How many won't admit it? I'm pretty sure if they did a scan for Bluetooth devices during take-off the number would always be non-zero.

omni 13y ago
> The probability that the problem was cleared up coincidentally rather than as the result of one passenger turning off their phone is very low. If I understand your first sentence correctly, you're saying that there is a high probability that the resolution of the problem was non-coincidental, i.e. turning off the phone solved the problem. This doesn't really gel with your second paragraph, though. Can you clarify?
- astrodust 13y ago
  Ah, I mis-worded that. I mean that the chance it was the passenger's phone is very low.
epoxyhockey 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that only 30% of people admit to not turning off their devices On my recent flights, I've observed that very few of my neighbors completely powered off their devices and at least one did not turn on airplane mode (he told me so). I would think that the 30% number is much higher, and probably rising as the years go on and more people forget or care less.
Uhhrrr 13y ago
>How many won't admit it? And how many don't even know?
- astrodust 13y ago
  The people who let their phones ring in movie theatres.

tallanvor 13y ago

I'll admit to being in the 30%. I put my phone and Kindle in airplane mode to save battery power, but otherwise I leave my devices in their normal state. Is it 100% certain that none of my devices could possibly interfere with critical systems on the plane? Well, no, but 99.99% is good enough for me. And for what it's worth, I made my decision based on the available research plus what I learned based on my EE courses in school (my degree is in Computer Engineering, but I still took quite a few electrical engineering courses, including one on traveling waves).

enraged_camel 13y ago
Airplane mode should be 100% acceptable. The suspected interference is supposed to be caused by devices that broadcast "powerful" radio waves. Since airplane mode disables with the WiFi and the cellular antenna, it is impossible for the device to cause interference. At that point it becomes a completely self-contained mini-computer - probably much less harmful than, say, onboard television screens.
kbutler 13y ago
> 99.99% is good enough for me 99.99% is 1::10,000. Multiply that by 643 million passengers per year (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ http://www.transtats.bts.gov/), and you get a lot of interference (64,300 passengers whose devices interfere...). I believe that the chance of any typical passenger device interfering with critical plane systems is much less that 0.01%, but we need to be careful with seemingly unlikely events multiplied by large numbers.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  30% of all airplane passengers never turn off their devices during flights. Now THAT is a large number of devices. How many of them interfered with critical plane systems, and what percentage of that interference caused an accident? This is a situation where we need to move beyond platitudes and run some actual experiments, preferably random controlled trials. Load a couple of planes with several hundred smartphones and tablets each. Have the devices on one plane turned off and the devices on the other turned on. Fly a third plane completely empty as a control group. Measure the interference on all three planes and then compare the numbers.

hristov 13y ago

I guess I have to keep pointing out the obvious, but for airline safety a miniscule probability is often too high. I do not want a minuscule probability of death just so some moron cannot handle 5 min with a turned off cell-phone.