3 ms·
Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place. Links please?
by wfunction 13y ago
Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place.
Links please?
- snom380 13y agohttp://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 agoUh 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 agoI 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 agoWow, 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