5 ms·

How many flights take off or land with all passengers and crew members in full compliance with the current rules? Close to none. Say commercial planes have 60

by flexie 13y ago

How many flights take off or land with all passengers and crew members in full compliance with the current rules? Close to none. Say commercial planes have 60 passengers/crew member in average. 5 don't have any devices (small kids). Of the 55 passengers that have one or more devices, maybe 30 turn off their devices as they are told, 15 put them on airplane mode and 10 don't give a shit or just forget it. If there are 20 million flights per year there have been some 400 million flights in the 20 years where cell phones have been common. 400 million flights of which 99 percent have flown with some passengers' phones turned on. Has there ever been a single flight accident due to cell phones? Just one?

gizzlon 13y ago
I don't know anything about this, but it could be that the risk was higher the more devices where on.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  Yep, if you read the FAA position, that's the idea. The risk wasn't seen as huge, but since there was a possibility of interference the trade-off seemed reasonable. Just one of the many small things done to improve safety.
steeve 13y ago
My understanding was that it hasn't to do with phones being turned on per se, but rather one's attention at the moment the flight is the riskiest: at take off and landing. The rationale was that when you're playing on your device, you're paying less attention to the crew and what's around you, which can be problematic in case something bad happens and you need to react. EDIT: I'm just the messenger, guys ;)
- arethuza 13y ago
  I quite often get early morning flights (e.g. I got a 05:50 on Monday) - usually by the time the flight takes off I am already sleeping. Nobody has every tried to wake me up so that I pay attention to take off or landing.
- Sambdala 13y ago
  My understanding is that's the common ex post rationalization that arose to try to come up with a plausible-sounding reason for this idiotic rule.
  - JonnieCache 13y ago
    My favourite theory was that cellphones above the clouds could connect to too many cell towers at once, making triangulating your location impossible. Conveniently forgetting that they have a live update of your exact position from NORAD/FAA/etc...
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      The "too many handovers too fast" thing might have been a problem in the '80s, and I have never heard of a documented case of that.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        My understanding is that the problem isn't with the speed of the handovers, but rather with the fact that the horizon is a major block to radio signals, and the horizon is much farther away when you're at altitude. Older networks were designed around the fairly reasonable assumption that a cell phone would only ever be able to talk to adjacent cells, because anything farther away would be over the horizon. So you might be able to talk to both A and B at the same time, but you couldn't talk to C without first losing contact with A. Raise the phone a few thousand feet in the air and this assumption goes out the window, confusing the network. There's an amusing story of a pilot who called up his family to let them know he was almost home and ended up getting billed for the call (at expensive 80s rates) a bunch of times because several different towers all thought they were running the call. There's certainly no problem today, anyway.
        Zigurd 13y ago
        > Older networks were designed around the fairly reasonable assumption that a cell phone would only ever be able to talk to adjacent cells, because anything farther away would be over the horizon That can't possibly be true. Spectrum re-use in distant sites could in theory have some effect on the call but differences in signal strength would make significant effects unlikely. Also, that story about the pilot must also be apocryphal. A handover is a handover, and there is only one "winning" decision. Not to mention that CDRs don't work that way. Lots of civil aviation pilots use mobile devices in the air without problems for the user or network.
- rlpb 13y ago
  On the other hand, you're permitted to be absorbed in a book or newspaper.
  - agilebyte 13y ago
    Or your friendly in-flight magazine showing a special selection of...
- masklinn 13y ago
  Books don't have to be "turned off" during takeoff and landing. You don't have to wake up either if you're sleeping.
- wepple 13y ago
  this seems valid to me - they put just as much emphasis on ensuring your window shade is up (for post-crash hazard identification) to electronics being switched off. It's likely due to attentiveness should you need to evac
  - saraid216 13y ago
    AFAICT, they tell you to put the window shade up during landing in order to wake people up and thus to get out of the seat and off the plane as soon as possible. I've never had them ask to open window shades at night (possibly because they're not closed). Which is perfectly fine with me.
hackerboos 13y ago
I've never switched off my devices during take-off or landing because if it actually risked any damage then they'd be screening people before they board.
- dalore 13y ago
  I picture it now. Terrorists boarding flight after flight with their mobiles on thinking, this time it will work.
  - fluidcruft 13y ago
    That would have made a pretty funny punchline to a sketch. Suspicious looking guy (better band of suspicious looking guys) getting the full TSA workup/cavity search etc. Finally gets on board, everyone watching him suspiciously etc. Some sort of minor tussle with obvious plain clothes security who's reseated next to him by a concerned stewardess. Etc. When it's time to take of he fakes turning on airplane mode/powering down when placing it into the seat pocket. He smirks knowingly, closes his eyes and dreams about his field of virgins.
- danik 13y ago
  That's a very weird view of things. Do you really think this rule exists without a reason? Why not just follow the rules and turn your devices off, it's not going to hurt you, but a crash could.
  - noarchy 13y ago
    Some might find, on the other hand, that it is a very weird view to not question rules before obeying them. For many readers here, there has no doubt been some awareness of the questions surrounding these flight rules, since this sort of topic (it's about our gizmos!) is going to be front-and-centre for many of us.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Do you really think this rule exists without a reason? Yes, which is why we're getting rid of it now.
gnaffle 13y ago
There haven't been any accidents AFAIK, but there have been several reported incidents: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf - see page 54 for one example. As newer airplanes are better shielded and old ones are taken out of service, the number of reported incidents have dropped in recent years down to 1-2 per year, which isn't much given the massive increase in PEDs and number of flights. The report that the FAA published actually has a lot of interesting info about this: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final_report.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final...
- Zigurd 13y ago
  For the same reason the above message cites as reasons to think the rules were always bunk, the "reported incidents" are also likely to be bunk. It is very unlikely that any one passenger's electronics are the only electronics left on, and therefore very unlikely that the guy who gets berated for leaving his iPod on is causing any problems.
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    So you think that all the reports dating back to the 60s when superhet transistor radios appered, are likely bunk? Wouldn't that imply a worldwide, secret pilot conspiracy, especially with incidents where the pilot has been able to reproduce the interference by asking the passengers to turn the device back on? It's certainly very unlikely that an iPod will cause any problems. That doesn't mean it's physically impossible, as many people seem to think. Which is why I recommend reading the FAA report, which goes into a lot of detail on exactly what considerations they've taken, the risk analysis and why they are changing the rules now.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      > Wouldn't that imply a worldwide, secret pilot conspiracy No, it would only require similar delusions. That happens all the time.
      - 13y ago

by flexie 13y ago

gizzlon 13y ago

I don't know anything about this, but it could be that the risk was higher the more devices where on.

gnaffle 13y ago
Yep, if you read the FAA position, that's the idea. The risk wasn't seen as huge, but since there was a possibility of interference the trade-off seemed reasonable. Just one of the many small things done to improve safety.

steeve 13y ago

My understanding was that it hasn't to do with phones being turned on per se, but rather one's attention at the moment the flight is the riskiest: at take off and landing. The rationale was that when you're playing on your device, you're paying less attention to the crew and what's around you, which can be problematic in case something bad happens and you need to react. EDIT: I'm just the messenger, guys ;)

arethuza 13y ago
I quite often get early morning flights (e.g. I got a 05:50 on Monday) - usually by the time the flight takes off I am already sleeping. Nobody has every tried to wake me up so that I pay attention to take off or landing.
Sambdala 13y ago
My understanding is that's the common ex post rationalization that arose to try to come up with a plausible-sounding reason for this idiotic rule.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  My favourite theory was that cellphones above the clouds could connect to too many cell towers at once, making triangulating your location impossible. Conveniently forgetting that they have a live update of your exact position from NORAD/FAA/etc...
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    The "too many handovers too fast" thing might have been a problem in the '80s, and I have never heard of a documented case of that.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      My understanding is that the problem isn't with the speed of the handovers, but rather with the fact that the horizon is a major block to radio signals, and the horizon is much farther away when you're at altitude. Older networks were designed around the fairly reasonable assumption that a cell phone would only ever be able to talk to adjacent cells, because anything farther away would be over the horizon. So you might be able to talk to both A and B at the same time, but you couldn't talk to C without first losing contact with A. Raise the phone a few thousand feet in the air and this assumption goes out the window, confusing the network. There's an amusing story of a pilot who called up his family to let them know he was almost home and ended up getting billed for the call (at expensive 80s rates) a bunch of times because several different towers all thought they were running the call. There's certainly no problem today, anyway.
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        > Older networks were designed around the fairly reasonable assumption that a cell phone would only ever be able to talk to adjacent cells, because anything farther away would be over the horizon That can't possibly be true. Spectrum re-use in distant sites could in theory have some effect on the call but differences in signal strength would make significant effects unlikely. Also, that story about the pilot must also be apocryphal. A handover is a handover, and there is only one "winning" decision. Not to mention that CDRs don't work that way. Lots of civil aviation pilots use mobile devices in the air without problems for the user or network.
rlpb 13y ago
On the other hand, you're permitted to be absorbed in a book or newspaper.
- agilebyte 13y ago
  Or your friendly in-flight magazine showing a special selection of...
masklinn 13y ago
Books don't have to be "turned off" during takeoff and landing. You don't have to wake up either if you're sleeping.
wepple 13y ago
this seems valid to me - they put just as much emphasis on ensuring your window shade is up (for post-crash hazard identification) to electronics being switched off. It's likely due to attentiveness should you need to evac
- saraid216 13y ago
  AFAICT, they tell you to put the window shade up during landing in order to wake people up and thus to get out of the seat and off the plane as soon as possible. I've never had them ask to open window shades at night (possibly because they're not closed). Which is perfectly fine with me.

hackerboos 13y ago

I've never switched off my devices during take-off or landing because if it actually risked any damage then they'd be screening people before they board.

dalore 13y ago
I picture it now. Terrorists boarding flight after flight with their mobiles on thinking, this time it will work.
- fluidcruft 13y ago
  That would have made a pretty funny punchline to a sketch. Suspicious looking guy (better band of suspicious looking guys) getting the full TSA workup/cavity search etc. Finally gets on board, everyone watching him suspiciously etc. Some sort of minor tussle with obvious plain clothes security who's reseated next to him by a concerned stewardess. Etc. When it's time to take of he fakes turning on airplane mode/powering down when placing it into the seat pocket. He smirks knowingly, closes his eyes and dreams about his field of virgins.
danik 13y ago
That's a very weird view of things. Do you really think this rule exists without a reason? Why not just follow the rules and turn your devices off, it's not going to hurt you, but a crash could.
- noarchy 13y ago
  Some might find, on the other hand, that it is a very weird view to not question rules before obeying them. For many readers here, there has no doubt been some awareness of the questions surrounding these flight rules, since this sort of topic (it's about our gizmos!) is going to be front-and-centre for many of us.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Do you really think this rule exists without a reason? Yes, which is why we're getting rid of it now.

gnaffle 13y ago

There haven't been any accidents AFAIK, but there have been several reported incidents: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf - see page 54 for one example. As newer airplanes are better shielded and old ones are taken out of service, the number of reported incidents have dropped in recent years down to 1-2 per year, which isn't much given the massive increase in PEDs and number of flights. The report that the FAA published actually has a lot of interesting info about this: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final_report.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final...

Zigurd 13y ago
For the same reason the above message cites as reasons to think the rules were always bunk, the "reported incidents" are also likely to be bunk. It is very unlikely that any one passenger's electronics are the only electronics left on, and therefore very unlikely that the guy who gets berated for leaving his iPod on is causing any problems.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  So you think that all the reports dating back to the 60s when superhet transistor radios appered, are likely bunk? Wouldn't that imply a worldwide, secret pilot conspiracy, especially with incidents where the pilot has been able to reproduce the interference by asking the passengers to turn the device back on? It's certainly very unlikely that an iPod will cause any problems. That doesn't mean it's physically impossible, as many people seem to think. Which is why I recommend reading the FAA report, which goes into a lot of detail on exactly what considerations they've taken, the risk analysis and why they are changing the rules now.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    > Wouldn't that imply a worldwide, secret pilot conspiracy No, it would only require similar delusions. That happens all the time.
    - 13y ago