3 ms·

Uh, I refuse to believe for a single second that any sane engineer would design an airplane that could be brought down by a cell phone in "bad conditions". It'

Uh, I refuse to believe for a single second that any sane engineer would design an airplane that could be brought down by a cell phone in "bad conditions". It's like building a house that can't stand rain.

snom380 13y ago
Most of today's airplanes were designed in the 70s at a time when the only small electronic devices were wristwatches and calculators. They've added shielding afterwards, but an airplane needs antennas and has to receive RF signals, so there will always be a possibility of interference. I exactly the same way that there will always be the possibility if a security hole in a computer connected to the internet, unless you mathematically prove every piece of code.
- wfunction 13y ago
  > there will always be the possibility [...] unless you mathematically prove When people say "X is possible", they mean "X has a non-negligible chance of happening in practice", and is therefore worth worrying about. They do NOT mean "Prob(X) > 0". You're already on the wrong track if you're talking about mathematical proofs of "possibility" in engineering.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Unfortunately aviation safety is concerned with those 0.001% probabilities, because many of them tend to gang together and cause fatal accidents. Just like the sterile cockpit environment rule. What is the chance of some random thing being missed because the pilots were talking about an upcoming football game during landing, and moreover what is the chance of that oversight causing a real accident? It's really, really, really small, with millions of successful flights done without problems. Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place. I was using mathematical proofs as an example of why in IT security, often times since you can't be sure, you do the proactive thing and don't run services exposed to the internet. If you have a database with credit card numbers, you don't let the DB listen for connections on a public IP, not because you think there is a security hole in the DB, but because you can't be sure there isn't.
    - wfunction 13y ago
      Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place. Links please?
      - snom380 13y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212
        wfunction 13y ago
        Uh what? I thought we were talking about accidents caused by portable electronic devices. The rule you point to was put in place because evidence strongly supported the fact that distracted pilots are a hazard. No such evidence (that I know of) exists for portable electronic devices, and I don't believe for a single second that Boeing would make an airplane susceptible to harm by cell phones.
        snom380 13y ago
        I mentioned specific example of how very low probability events still caused accidents, you asked for links and I provided them. If you want links to examples of PED interference, I've posted them elsewhere on this thread. All anecdotal of course, but there are enough examples that to say there's no chance if interference would imply a secret conspiracy amongst pilots to file false reports. And again, you are misunderstanding the concern. It's not whether a cell phone can stop the airplane from working and make it fall out if the sky. It's whether, at a critical time such as during landing and takeoff, it may cause interference that can increase the pilots workload and contribute to an accident.
        wfunction 13y ago
        Wow, thanks. Narrative 1 on the 55th page [1] is quite intriguing. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf

snom380 13y ago

Most of today's airplanes were designed in the 70s at a time when the only small electronic devices were wristwatches and calculators. They've added shielding afterwards, but an airplane needs antennas and has to receive RF signals, so there will always be a possibility of interference. I exactly the same way that there will always be the possibility if a security hole in a computer connected to the internet, unless you mathematically prove every piece of code.

wfunction 13y ago
> there will always be the possibility [...] unless you mathematically prove When people say "X is possible", they mean "X has a non-negligible chance of happening in practice", and is therefore worth worrying about. They do NOT mean "Prob(X) > 0". You're already on the wrong track if you're talking about mathematical proofs of "possibility" in engineering.
- snom380 13y ago
  Unfortunately aviation safety is concerned with those 0.001% probabilities, because many of them tend to gang together and cause fatal accidents. Just like the sterile cockpit environment rule. What is the chance of some random thing being missed because the pilots were talking about an upcoming football game during landing, and moreover what is the chance of that oversight causing a real accident? It's really, really, really small, with millions of successful flights done without problems. Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place. I was using mathematical proofs as an example of why in IT security, often times since you can't be sure, you do the proactive thing and don't run services exposed to the internet. If you have a database with credit card numbers, you don't let the DB listen for connections on a public IP, not because you think there is a security hole in the DB, but because you can't be sure there isn't.
  - wfunction 13y ago
    Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place. Links please?
    - snom380 13y ago
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212
      - wfunction 13y ago
        Uh what? I thought we were talking about accidents caused by portable electronic devices. The rule you point to was put in place because evidence strongly supported the fact that distracted pilots are a hazard. No such evidence (that I know of) exists for portable electronic devices, and I don't believe for a single second that Boeing would make an airplane susceptible to harm by cell phones.
        snom380 13y ago
        I mentioned specific example of how very low probability events still caused accidents, you asked for links and I provided them. If you want links to examples of PED interference, I've posted them elsewhere on this thread. All anecdotal of course, but there are enough examples that to say there's no chance if interference would imply a secret conspiracy amongst pilots to file false reports. And again, you are misunderstanding the concern. It's not whether a cell phone can stop the airplane from working and make it fall out if the sky. It's whether, at a critical time such as during landing and takeoff, it may cause interference that can increase the pilots workload and contribute to an accident.
        wfunction 13y ago
        Wow, thanks. Narrative 1 on the 55th page [1] is quite intriguing. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf