111–120 of 301 posts
Yes, absolutely turn off all devices. We know with certainty that ANY transmitter can cause terrible havoc with the plane's electronics. Unless you're paying the ripoff $10 fee for in-flight Wifi, then the dangers are magically avoided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
That's a ridiculous way to look at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
That's a ridiculous way to look at it.
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.
Did you come across anything like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a 30-degree navigation error was corrected by turning off a DVD player, would the pilot seriously endanger the aircraft by asking the passenger to turn it on again to test? Anecdotal, and probably completely false.
> After a 30-degree navigation error was corrected by turning off a DVD player, would the pilot seriously endanger the aircraft by asking the passenger to turn it on again to test? No? 1. It was already demonstrated that turning it off fixed it. If you see the instruments goof up again, you tell the guy to turn the player back off. 2. Pilots are extensively trained to deal with equipment failures, including total los…
It was already demonstrated that turning it off fixed it. If you see the instruments goof up again, you tell the guy to turn the player back off.
It's unclear from the account whether this was an instrument error or an actual flight path deviation. The latter being a more serious and unpredictable error. Who in their right mind would want to repro this given the unknowns?
Pilots are extensively trained to deal with equipment failures, including total loss of power and instruments.
Pilots also operate in an environment of substantial regulation where I'm sure a policy exists for investigation of operational interference. I suspect this policy is in line with the FAA's stance that "avoidable interference is unacceptable" and certainly this incident describes an avoidable interference.
I don't see any reason to retract my position that this story is likely a myth.
EDIT: My position depends on a number of assumptions that may be faulty: that this incident took place in the USA, within the last decade, on a plane operated by a significant carrier.
Let's presume for a moment that some sort of interference which could be generated by a box the size of a laptop might have a non-trivial risk to passenger safety. Now, think as a terrorist might. How about sending your minions onto planes with devices which look like standard consumer electronics devices but are capable of generating high levels of interference? Around the holidays in the US, someone checking or car…
What could happen however is that certain navigation systems become unreliable during landing. Add that to bad weather, bad information, human error, and bad luck and you have a potential disaster.
But it doesn't seem likely that a terrorist would find such a plan worthwhile to pursue. After all, they want to be the star of the show right? Would they martyr themselves so some pilot gets the blame for landing on the wrong runway during a thunderstorm?
There were 769.6 Million passengers carried in 2009 in the USA (domestic and international). If each loses 30 mins of productive time on a plane because they can't use e-books or devices below 10,000 ft, that's 384,800,000 hours per year lost. Not everyone is working or learning something on a plane, but it puts things into perspective. http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity. Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year. Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, rang…
In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.