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

121–130 of 301 posts

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

#121

Post by dfox »

pyre wrote: post #109
dfox wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't use this justification exactly because they mostly don't care about that. It's interesting that there probably is no regulation that forbids usage of cell phones at high speeds and high altitudes (as opposed to "on board of a plane"). At least ETSI specifications seems to imply that it's perfectly legal to operate whole GSM network on board of plane, while hinting at fact that direct communication with bas…

> So conclusion might be something along the lines of > "it's not designed to do that", which seems like > pretty good justification when you are talking about > airplane safety. I'm not sure the reasoning follows: 1. "it's not designed to do that" refers to cell-to-ground communication, nothing to do with the safety of the plane. 2. cell-to-ground communications issues only apply to cellphones, but the FAA policy ap…

I intended the second paragraph as my though on why telecommunications related organizations don't exactly discuss whether cellphones works on board of a plane and this intention was then probably lost by inserting that paragraph break :)

FAA's and related regulations are probably motivated by fact that it's essentially impossible to test that aircraft's systems work as intended even in presence of random consumer devices on board. EMC issues can be caused by almost any electronic device not only devices containing radio transmitters (eg. EU regulations require EMC certification for anything that, possibly internally, produces or uses signals >=1kHz).

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

#122

Post by ceejayoz »

politician wrote: post #115
ceejayoz wrote: post #89

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? 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…

I don't buy it. Ostensibly, this is a commercial flight where lives are at stake, so I strongly doubt that absent FAA direction the pilot requested this test. 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 b…

You can feel the story is a myth, but it remains hard to argue that it'd "seriously endanger the aircraft" by doing what was described in the story.

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

#123

Post by jeffreymcmanus »

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…

If the elimination of risk were really the objective, they'd require passengers to travel in paper gowns with no carry-ons or luggage. But the fact of the matter is that they make the rules they think they can get away with, not the rules that will increase safety. And one way or another, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone's life is going to be in danger from ten people playing game boys immediately prior to an air emergency.

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

#124

Post by bascule »

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…

Sorry, but this is bullshit. What makes electronic distractions worse than non-electronic ones? Why does the medium of a dead tree versus an e-reader when the activity is the same: reading a book.

If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention

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

#125

Post by ShabbyDoo »

marshray wrote: post #117
ShabbyDoo wrote: post #110

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…

No. There's still a human pilot flying the plane. Even an arc welder (probably) won't magically make it go in to a nosedive. 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 al…

Hmmm.....could the terrorists cryptographically encode their flight schedules along with techniques, drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people? This way, they could prove their involvement.

Your point about the compound nature of risk is valid, but doesn't it also suggest that the actual risk of allowing electronics during takeoff/landing is quite low as well?

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

#126

Post by bascule »

Bud wrote: post #66
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.

Hi Nick: Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either. I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer. Also, you're frankly wrong…

If headphones are the problem, ban wearing headphones during takeoff and landing. Why the slippery slope towards all electronic devices?

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

#127

Post by ghshephard »

lucasjung wrote: post #79
RandallBrown wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They would have to test every model of iphone against not only every model of commercial airliner in operation in the U.S. (including puddle-jumpers), but against every major variation in avionics suite among each model. This testing is not cheap. Even for Apple, it would be prohibitively expensive.

There's probably only 80 different commercial airplane models. This testing probably costs around $1000/hr - figure 5 days testing @ 8 hours a day = 3200 hours = 3.2 million dollars. Seems to be a reasonable price to pay.

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

#128

Post by MatthewPhillips »

mikeash wrote: post #106
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them allow you to take the battery out if it comes to that.

But nobody actually does, so clearly we're content to trust the software on that matter.

They do if the power button malfunctions. Are you aware of any devices that cannot be turned off because of a software error?

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

#129

Post by artursapek »

DaniFong wrote: post #113
artursapek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous way to look at it.

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ridiculous? Stolen time is stolen time, no?

All you do your entire life is what you're confined to doing on an iPad in an airplane? It's not that huge of a loss. You're not dead for half an hour on each flight.
Post reply on HN