5 ms·

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 exp

by 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?
- gnaffle 13y ago
  Yes. This is a trade-off. Do they search your hand luggage for air band radios? No, they don't. That's also a trade-off, even though you could certainly cause interference with one.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    It's also logically inconsistent. Either the threat of interference and danger is great enough to warrant bag checks, or it is not, and this threat is overblown like every other "threat" in air travel nowadays.
    - gnaffle 13y ago
      Of course it's logically inconsistent, but this is the real world and trade-offs like these are made. Same with Lithium batteries, although there have been several confirmed cases of such batteries catching fire in flight they are still allowed. It's just not feasible to ban cell phones and laptops. Likewise, airlines have a "clean cockpit" policy disallowing small talk during landings. Do they monitor the CVRs and fine pilots who break this rule? I don't think so. Will some pilots find the rule exessive and make exceptions? Maybe. But the rule still has an effect, and is in place because of previous accidents where distracted pilots have been a contributing factor. While I think this rule about electronic devices might be too stringent, and that it will eventually change, I don't think the airlines have overblown it. Pilots will handle instrument failures gracefully in 99.99% of all cases, and then there's the fatal accident where some stupid malfunction caused the pilot to screw up (AF447, and many others before). Because they know this is a "numbers game", they try to minimize potential problems, even though they may not be able to eliminate them altogether.

by gnaffle 13y ago

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?

gnaffle 13y ago
Yes. This is a trade-off. Do they search your hand luggage for air band radios? No, they don't. That's also a trade-off, even though you could certainly cause interference with one.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  It's also logically inconsistent. Either the threat of interference and danger is great enough to warrant bag checks, or it is not, and this threat is overblown like every other "threat" in air travel nowadays.
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    Of course it's logically inconsistent, but this is the real world and trade-offs like these are made. Same with Lithium batteries, although there have been several confirmed cases of such batteries catching fire in flight they are still allowed. It's just not feasible to ban cell phones and laptops. Likewise, airlines have a "clean cockpit" policy disallowing small talk during landings. Do they monitor the CVRs and fine pilots who break this rule? I don't think so. Will some pilots find the rule exessive and make exceptions? Maybe. But the rule still has an effect, and is in place because of previous accidents where distracted pilots have been a contributing factor. While I think this rule about electronic devices might be too stringent, and that it will eventually change, I don't think the airlines have overblown it. Pilots will handle instrument failures gracefully in 99.99% of all cases, and then there's the fatal accident where some stupid malfunction caused the pilot to screw up (AF447, and many others before). Because they know this is a "numbers game", they try to minimize potential problems, even though they may not be able to eliminate them altogether.