Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 301 posts

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#31

Post by mafro »

Craiggybear wrote: post #4

I think its because that if there were an accident involving the spill of aviation fuel (even in an aborted takeoff situation, I can see that happening) then the danger of ignition would be that much greater if everyone's phones, tablets, laptops, etc were all in a powered-on or RF transmit mode. It makes good sense to minimise that risk. I recall years ago you were not permitted to use a cellphone on the forecourt o…

FACT: the risk of my mobile phone igniting vapourised fuel in a gas station forecourt is almost exactly equivalent to the probability that my ipod nano will tangle with an airplane's cockpit electronics.

It's all myth and fud spread by a) people with ulterior motives (see above) b) people who are too uneducated or too stupid to make their own judgement. Like air hostesses, petrol attendants.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#32

Post by pathdependent »

Bud wrote: post #8

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…

I don't find this plausible. Is there any evidence to suggest that, during an emergency condition requiring cooperation, people continue to text and make calls? To quote Mitch Hedberg, "If you're flammable and have legs, you're never blocking a fire exit."

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#33

Post by Tichy »

Next up in the app store: "Terror" - the app that crashes your jumbo jet. This app creates a magic pattern of radio waves that has a 84% chance of crashing the plane you are currently on.

If you plan to use this app for actual terror, be advised to buy an Android phone and not an iPhone, because there is no way this app will be accepted into the Apple app store.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#34

Post by cal5k »

nickbilton wrote: post #19
Bud wrote: post #8

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#35

Post by swdunlop »

There is zero risk to a regulator in maintaining a pointless yet harmless regulation. There is nonzero risk to a regulator in revoking a regulation that may be blamed in the future by a crash investigator.

Even if the risk is absolutely 0.0001% -- fear and CYA wins. Our system of regulation and collective transfer of responsibility to regulators ensures that like a federal subsidy, nonsensical regulations are forever.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#36

Post by wglb »

mafro wrote: post #31
Craiggybear wrote: post #4

I think its because that if there were an accident involving the spill of aviation fuel (even in an aborted takeoff situation, I can see that happening) then the danger of ignition would be that much greater if everyone's phones, tablets, laptops, etc were all in a powered-on or RF transmit mode. It makes good sense to minimise that risk. I recall years ago you were not permitted to use a cellphone on the forecourt o…

FACT: the risk of my mobile phone igniting vapourised fuel in a gas station forecourt is almost exactly equivalent to the probability that my ipod nano will tangle with an airplane's cockpit electronics. It's all myth and fud spread by a) people with ulterior motives (see above) b) people who are too uneducated or too stupid to make their own judgement. Like air hostesses, petrol attendants.

Inside your iPod nano, or any other device with a computer chip is a radio transmitter. Inside the cockpit are many radio receivers, some of which are pretty critical to the proper flight of the airplane. Your radio transmitter, and radio transmitters being run by other passengers, mix and mingle their signals, producing an unpredictable effect on these key cockpit receivers.

The probability that this happens is not zero or low, but very high.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#37

Post by lucasjung »

arn wrote: post #30

Here's what I don't understand, and admittedly I have very little knowledge of the industry. There seems to be some sort of approval process for electronics to be vetted during takeoff and landing. Several in-chair entertainment systems seem to have this rating/designation and are allowed during takeoff/landing. So, is there no dollar amount that could be paid to properly test a particular product? Let's say the Kind…

I currently work in developmental flight test. Any time we add a new piece of electronics to an aircraft (or replace an existing piece with a new version), be it a radio, a computer, or test instrumentation, we have to conduct an Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Safety of Flight Test (SOFT) to make sure that the new equipment does not interfere in any way with avionics that are critical to safety of flight. Even if it's something that's not being installed per se (e.g. a laptop for collecting test data), it has to be tested. Sometimes there are exceptions, such as very minor upgrades, especially minor software updates.

Generally everything is designed so as to not interfere, but every once in a while something causes unexpected interference. Sometimes it's because the designers screwed up, sometimes it's because a bespoke item wasn't manufactured to the correct spec, and sometimes it's because of something nobody anticipated.

The problem with consumer electronics is that they haven't gone through this process. None of them should cause interference, but we can't be sure because they were never subjected to comprehensive EMC SOFT. Nor would it really make sense to spend that kind of time and money when we can just mitigate the risk of interference by having everyone turn everything off during critical phases of flight.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#38

Post by nobody314159265 »

3 possibilities:

1, Everybody on every flight for the last 20 years has always complied with the order perfectly

2, People haven't complied and caused numerous crashes but they are all covered up by the government

3, Consumer devices have no effect on aircraft

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#39

Post by alanh »

cal5k wrote: post #34
nickbilton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)

Oh, but going by usernames, he didn’t!

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#40

Post by _delirium »

cal5k wrote: post #34
nickbilton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)

It was actually submitted by a different HN user, whose profile, oddly enough, identifies him/her as working for Forbes.
Post reply on HN