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

51–60 of 301 posts

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

#51

Post by Periodic »

law_of_poe wrote: post #41

> 712 million passengers flew within the United States in 2010. Let’s assume that just 0.01 percent of those passengers... > That would mean seven million people on 11 million flights endangered the lives of their fellow passengers. 0.01% of 712M is 71200.

It looks like the writer meant either 0.01 or 1%, as all the other numbers work out to one one-hundredth. It is a common math mistake to mix the decimal representation and the percentile one. The same thing happens occasionally when people mix cents and fractions of a dollar.

I was immediately suspicious when it was implied that a 737 can hold 20,000 passengers.

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

#52

Post by RandallBrown »

lucasjung wrote: post #37
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 i…

but wouldn't it make sense for Apple to pay to do the testing? Being able to say "The iPhone is the only phone you can use during your whole flight" would be worth quite a bit of money to them.

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

#54

Post by nobody314159265 »

trout wrote: post #20

The wikipedia article is more interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft This sums it up pretty well: "The regulatory agencies and aviation industry take the position that any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable." There's some technical channel sharing problems where phones have access to more towers than designed on land. The FCC can't predict what would happen if phones were a…

"any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable."

And yet 40 years after the first studies recommending them - they still don't fit smoke hoods

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

#55

Post by teraflop »

mgkimsal wrote: post #53
[deleted] wrote: post #46

[deleted]

How do you actually "turn off" a kindle (e-ink)? AFAICT, it's always "on", although you can turn off the radio part (which I rarely have on anyway).

Like most such devices, if you hold down the power switch for several seconds it will turn itself off completely. That said, I'd be surprised if more than a tiny fraction of Kindle owners know this option exists.

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

#56

Post by mgkimsal »

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…

"I recall years ago you were not permitted to use a cellphone on the forecourt of a gas station. No one seems to remember or bother about that now."

Some woman started yelling at me in a gas station forecourt last year (2010) because I was talking on the phone while sitting in my car with the door open. "You're going to blow us all up!" she yelled at me (twice), then sped off far too quickly to have been a safe speed for leaving a gas station parking lot. :/

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

#59

Post by Goladus »

While I don't think the title and point of the article is exactly wrong, it doesn't fairly consider the potential difference between one or two people failing to power down their devices and several hundred people using multiple devices.

Walking across a floor that is a cluttered mess, you might have a small chance of tripping. Cleaning up most of the mess might reduce the risk to negligible, even if you don't get everything.

That's the angle I would have liked to understand better.

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

#60

Post by msbarnett »

estevez wrote: post #23

What are the consequences for simply refusing to obey a crew member's instruction to power down your Kindle? Sort of like willfully ignoring the distinction between the first-class and economy security lines---something I wish more people would do.

> What are the consequences for simply refusing to obey a crew member's instruction to power down your Kindle?

There's two Federal laws at play: one that requires crewmembers to tell you to power off the device (FAR 121.306), and one that requires you to comply with an lawful instruction given by a crewmember (49 USC Sec. 46504) (Since getting you to turn off the device is a crewmember duty spelled out by the FAA, your refusal to comply falls under "lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties". Intimidation seems to be broadly interpreted in courts as meaning anything other than cooperation. It doesn't matter if you refuse politely).

Thus the potential consequences are: you can be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Post reply on HN