6 ms·

Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? Even in the absence of h

by bsg75 13y ago

Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? Even in the absence of hard data, I would prefer to ensure all cockpit instruments work with minimal interference, than read another email or send another tweet. Then when data is available to make a conclusion as to the effect or lack thereof, informed decisions can be used to create procedures. People are so attached to their devices that they take any inconvenience towards using them as some sort of rights violation.

omni 13y ago
Because those devices help distract us from how awful the entire experience of flying is.
- bsg75 13y ago
  Not well enough in my experience. Nothing will make those half-human sized seats bearable. And I would reiterate, this is during the brief period of takeoff and landing.
  - omni 13y ago
    I've had a few "brief" takeoffs lasting more than 2 hours. I'm sure other people here have as well.
- adamio 13y ago
  Maybe the book publishing lobby is behind it
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Because it isn't safer and the rule doesn't make sense. I don't like to follow arbitrary rules created by uninformed people, especially when they don't make sense and are inconvenient.
- bsg75 13y ago
  Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? I have been in tech for 29 years, and I am a licensed commercial pilot in both fixed wing and rotorcraft (but I don't work as a professional pilot.) I don't know what effect my iPhone would have on aircraft instruments, so I turn it off. Pre-flight and in-flight procedures are based on what is known, and what helps to prevent problems from the unknown. The safety of flight is in part about not taking unnecessary risks. For example, if I have to visibility into a cloud (radar, instruments) I do not fly through a cloud. I apply this logic to during the critical periods of takeoff and landing, if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk.
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    > Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? CpE here. The vast majority of communications links on planes use twisted-pair differential signaling [1], which is extremely resistant to RF interference. I've also worked on test procedures for avionics equipment, and assure you that RF interference testing is a part of all test plans for such equipment. The types of interference we tested against were far more aggressive than those that any consumer electronics can emit. Keep in mind that the FCC also aggressively regulates RF emissions from all consumer electronics devices. Testing against FCC regulations is an involved and expensive affair, and the vast majority of devices are forbidden from any powerful RF emissions. > if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk. If phones or other complex electronic devices truly can interfere with avionics, their presence should be forbidden in the passenger cabin. It wouldn't be hard to detect them during security screening. I conjecture the reason that this hasn't happened is because the risk of such interference is a practical impossibility for the reasons stated above. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling
cantos 13y ago
If airlines really believed that use of electronics could bring down an aircraft then they would ban passengers from using them entirely. Allowing passengers to take them on the plane and simultaneously claiming they are extremely dangerous is simply confusing. The passengers guess that the risk is being exaggerated as a way to control them so they resist on principle rather than because they care very much about using the devices.
adamio 13y ago
Maybe everyone on the plane should pray that the equipment works properly, because it can't hurt! The best argument I've heard is that its about distraction (EDIT: and in-cabin projectiles), and takeoff/landing are more prone to harsh landing situations.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  That one is great. But books are fine, even if they weigh more than an ipad.
smiddereens 13y ago
Why are people resistant to obeying arbitrary rules based on unsubstantiated speculation? You got me there.
auctiontheory 13y ago
Some people like to leave their device on precisely because "an authority" is telling them to turn it off.
- DigitalTurk 13y ago
  Reminds me of how, as soon as a plane touches ground, people jump out of their seats and take their luggage… and then they stand around uncomfortably for ten minutes until they get to leave.
epoxyhockey 13y ago
Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? The argument is similar to subjecting yourself to radiation in the off chance that it (scanner) might detect yourself as a terrorist.
- bsg75 13y ago
  And you are given an option to skip the scanner, in trade for a fondling. Also this is not a security issue (one of persons with malicious intent). It is a safety issue, one of incompletely studied electronic effects.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Well, no, you're wrong about that. If there really were anything other than superstition supporting the thesis that personal electronics could realistically and predictably have a deleterious effect on avionics, then that would indeed be a security issue. >incompletely studied electronic effects. Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine whether the EMI testing that's been done is incomplete?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - BrianEatWorld 13y ago
    Refusal to turn off electronics during takeoff and landing - the most passive aggressive form of terrorism ever.
Karunamon 13y ago
Seriously, how hard would it be to set up a rigorous test in an average airliner, noting what interference was detected, how much, and its objective effect on avionics? That's why people are so resistant; the whole thing has the stench of unsubstantiated BS about it. Kinda like the TSA.
- interurban 13y ago
  Well, it wouldn't necessarily be so hard to test a few devices on a plane. But there are thousands of models of phones, tablets, wifi cards, 3g cards, bluetooth accessories, LTE/WiMax cards, gps devices, etc., etc., etc. Then we get into the wide variety of planes in the air with varying amounts and types of avionics, radios, etc. And those systems are in different places in different planes. And don't forget aftermarket alterations both in software and hardware (i.e. custom firmware, different batteries) to those devices. So your test wouldn't be too hard, but the result it seems you want (i.e. a definitive answer on the safety of electronics use by passengers on aircraft) takes a hell of a lot more legwork.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future electronics devices. Likewise, you can test your database server for all known exploits and it might come up clean, but if you open your firewall you can still be hacked if someone later on finds a new exploit. A security minded person would ask you: "Was it _really_ necessary to open that port, of could you have inconvenienced your developers a little bit and made them use a VPN instead?" Trust me, this isn't the only rule in aviation that seems stupid, but the mindset that results in rules like this has had a positive effect on aviation safety.
  - Goronmon 13y ago
    They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future electronics devices. So, our defense against potentially dangerous future electronics devices is a generic safety announcement at the beginning of the flight with only cursory verification that it was followed?
pornel 13y ago
Because I think it's bullshit (either superstition or a lie). "Might sometimes interfere in an undefined way with an unspecified device" is a non-falsifiable claim. If somebody told me not to fart during takeoff and landing (because it might change trajectory of the plane — you never know…), then I'd still protest even though it _might_ be safer not to fart. Phones are supposed to pass FCC EMI tests and I expect planes' electronics to be properly hardened/shielded from EMI even stronger than tiny consumer devices can produce.
duaneb 13y ago
Because there are far more electronics in the plane than in any of my devices, and it's ridiculously easy to disable radio communication. Until they force me to turn off my device or provide me with a compelling reason that it could interfere with anything, I'm just going to write this request off as irrational luddism. Flying on a plane is already far and away the most miserable way for me to travel, don't take away my goddamn ipod.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Because this is faith based "safety" and if there really is an issue, then it's a huge safety & security problem with avionics, not with personal portable electronics. A problem that ought to be addressed, rather than naively hoping for the best.
cmccabe 13y ago
I think a better question is why are you so resistant to making a sacrifice to Zeus, god of lightning, on the off chance it __might__ be helpful? There's a lot more evidence for Zeus than there is for iPods bringing down airplanes. (Lightning bolts are real, but there has never been a documented incident of the latter thing.)

by bsg75 13y ago

omni 13y ago

Because those devices help distract us from how awful the entire experience of flying is.

bsg75 13y ago
Not well enough in my experience. Nothing will make those half-human sized seats bearable. And I would reiterate, this is during the brief period of takeoff and landing.
- omni 13y ago
  I've had a few "brief" takeoffs lasting more than 2 hours. I'm sure other people here have as well.
adamio 13y ago
Maybe the book publishing lobby is behind it

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

Because it isn't safer and the rule doesn't make sense. I don't like to follow arbitrary rules created by uninformed people, especially when they don't make sense and are inconvenient.

bsg75 13y ago
Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? I have been in tech for 29 years, and I am a licensed commercial pilot in both fixed wing and rotorcraft (but I don't work as a professional pilot.) I don't know what effect my iPhone would have on aircraft instruments, so I turn it off. Pre-flight and in-flight procedures are based on what is known, and what helps to prevent problems from the unknown. The safety of flight is in part about not taking unnecessary risks. For example, if I have to visibility into a cloud (radar, instruments) I do not fly through a cloud. I apply this logic to during the critical periods of takeoff and landing, if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  > Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? CpE here. The vast majority of communications links on planes use twisted-pair differential signaling [1], which is extremely resistant to RF interference. I've also worked on test procedures for avionics equipment, and assure you that RF interference testing is a part of all test plans for such equipment. The types of interference we tested against were far more aggressive than those that any consumer electronics can emit. Keep in mind that the FCC also aggressively regulates RF emissions from all consumer electronics devices. Testing against FCC regulations is an involved and expensive affair, and the vast majority of devices are forbidden from any powerful RF emissions. > if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk. If phones or other complex electronic devices truly can interfere with avionics, their presence should be forbidden in the passenger cabin. It wouldn't be hard to detect them during security screening. I conjecture the reason that this hasn't happened is because the risk of such interference is a practical impossibility for the reasons stated above. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling

cantos 13y ago

If airlines really believed that use of electronics could bring down an aircraft then they would ban passengers from using them entirely. Allowing passengers to take them on the plane and simultaneously claiming they are extremely dangerous is simply confusing. The passengers guess that the risk is being exaggerated as a way to control them so they resist on principle rather than because they care very much about using the devices.

adamio 13y ago

Maybe everyone on the plane should pray that the equipment works properly, because it can't hurt! The best argument I've heard is that its about distraction (EDIT: and in-cabin projectiles), and takeoff/landing are more prone to harsh landing situations.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
That one is great. But books are fine, even if they weigh more than an ipad.

smiddereens 13y ago

Why are people resistant to obeying arbitrary rules based on unsubstantiated speculation? You got me there.

auctiontheory 13y ago

Some people like to leave their device on precisely because "an authority" is telling them to turn it off.

DigitalTurk 13y ago
Reminds me of how, as soon as a plane touches ground, people jump out of their seats and take their luggage… and then they stand around uncomfortably for ten minutes until they get to leave.

epoxyhockey 13y ago

Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? The argument is similar to subjecting yourself to radiation in the off chance that it (scanner) might detect yourself as a terrorist.

bsg75 13y ago
And you are given an option to skip the scanner, in trade for a fondling. Also this is not a security issue (one of persons with malicious intent). It is a safety issue, one of incompletely studied electronic effects.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Well, no, you're wrong about that. If there really were anything other than superstition supporting the thesis that personal electronics could realistically and predictably have a deleterious effect on avionics, then that would indeed be a security issue. >incompletely studied electronic effects. Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine whether the EMI testing that's been done is incomplete?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- BrianEatWorld 13y ago
  Refusal to turn off electronics during takeoff and landing - the most passive aggressive form of terrorism ever.

Karunamon 13y ago

Seriously, how hard would it be to set up a rigorous test in an average airliner, noting what interference was detected, how much, and its objective effect on avionics? That's why people are so resistant; the whole thing has the stench of unsubstantiated BS about it. Kinda like the TSA.

interurban 13y ago
Well, it wouldn't necessarily be so hard to test a few devices on a plane. But there are thousands of models of phones, tablets, wifi cards, 3g cards, bluetooth accessories, LTE/WiMax cards, gps devices, etc., etc., etc. Then we get into the wide variety of planes in the air with varying amounts and types of avionics, radios, etc. And those systems are in different places in different planes. And don't forget aftermarket alterations both in software and hardware (i.e. custom firmware, different batteries) to those devices. So your test wouldn't be too hard, but the result it seems you want (i.e. a definitive answer on the safety of electronics use by passengers on aircraft) takes a hell of a lot more legwork.
gnaffle 13y ago
They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future electronics devices. Likewise, you can test your database server for all known exploits and it might come up clean, but if you open your firewall you can still be hacked if someone later on finds a new exploit. A security minded person would ask you: "Was it _really_ necessary to open that port, of could you have inconvenienced your developers a little bit and made them use a VPN instead?" Trust me, this isn't the only rule in aviation that seems stupid, but the mindset that results in rules like this has had a positive effect on aviation safety.
- Goronmon 13y ago
  They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future electronics devices. So, our defense against potentially dangerous future electronics devices is a generic safety announcement at the beginning of the flight with only cursory verification that it was followed?

pornel 13y ago

Because I think it's bullshit (either superstition or a lie). "Might sometimes interfere in an undefined way with an unspecified device" is a non-falsifiable claim. If somebody told me not to fart during takeoff and landing (because it might change trajectory of the plane — you never know…), then I'd still protest even though it _might_ be safer not to fart. Phones are supposed to pass FCC EMI tests and I expect planes' electronics to be properly hardened/shielded from EMI even stronger than tiny consumer devices can produce.

duaneb 13y ago

Because there are far more electronics in the plane than in any of my devices, and it's ridiculously easy to disable radio communication. Until they force me to turn off my device or provide me with a compelling reason that it could interfere with anything, I'm just going to write this request off as irrational luddism. Flying on a plane is already far and away the most miserable way for me to travel, don't take away my goddamn ipod.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Because this is faith based "safety" and if there really is an issue, then it's a huge safety & security problem with avionics, not with personal portable electronics. A problem that ought to be addressed, rather than naively hoping for the best.

cmccabe 13y ago

I think a better question is why are you so resistant to making a sacrifice to Zeus, god of lightning, on the off chance it __might__ be helpful? There's a lot more evidence for Zeus than there is for iPods bringing down airplanes. (Lightning bolts are real, but there has never been a documented incident of the latter thing.)