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

131–140 of 301 posts

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

#131

Post by orthecreedence »

For me it's great. The last thing I want is to hear someone's boisterous 4 hour conversation with an excited family member while I'm sandwiched between said conversationalist and some 300-pound whale who keeps leaning on me as (s)he repeatedly drifts in and out of consciousness.

Everyone's phone plays movies now anyway. Isn't that good enough? Do we really have to be plugged in every second of the day? Americans are too spoiled. OMG I can't jabber on my phone while flying? waa waaa ='[

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

#132

Post by mikeash »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #128
mikeash wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How could you even tell if you had one?

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

#133

Post by CamperBob »

jser wrote: post #80
FaceKicker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they actually aren't willing to test whether cell phones interfere with their equipment, they shouldn't be allowing cell phones on the plane at all. Relying on people's compliance (or even just their attention) to ensure the plane doesn't explode is absurd.

Tests are performed when inflight connectivity is added to a plane -- and it has resulted in finding interference issues, such as WiFi blanking avionics screens ( http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference... ). For cellphones, there have been many reported incidents of interference when pilots had them on (search Google). I'd assume testing on cell phones would officially commence with installs of…

Tests are performed when inflight connectivity is added to a plane -- and it has resulted in finding interference issues, such as WiFi blanking avionics screens (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference...).

The degree of engineering incompetence that would be required to make that happen is nothing short of jaw-dropping.

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

#134

Post by tomkarlo »

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #118
mmaunder wrote: post #98

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...

I have used this sort of reasoning when arguing against low speed limits implemented in the name of safety. Surely, for each 10 MPH decrease in highway speed limits, we will observe a decrease in the number of deaths per year? Presuming both this fact and the presumed political validity of speed limit reduction to decrease death rates, shouldn't our vehicles be limited to walking speeds? The reality is that most peop…

"The reality is that most people implicitly choose an overall level of risk in their lives and optimize the apportionment of that risk among activities in a way which maximizes their happiness."

Do you have anything to support this? Most economic theories say that people make tradeoffs of time and money, but not risk. Risk is generally too nebulous a concept for an individual to make any kind of rational decisions about its allocation - we have no real concept of the risk we're incurring when driving a car or stepping on a plane (and generally, our gut feeling is wrong.)

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

#135

Post by lancewiggs »

artursapek wrote: post #105
DaniFong wrote: post #96

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.

The economic term is deadweight loss. Not so ridiculous, as that is product capacity lost to society.

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

#136

Post by tomkarlo »

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…

From a safety standpoint, isn't the right thing to do to test flight equipment against interference from consumer devices? Simply assuming that everyone on the plane will turn off their cell phone seems like a cop-out.

Having flight safety depend on the (unverified) compliance of consumers is ridiculous. There are only two cases here:

1. Consumer electronics represent a real threat to air safety. They should be banned from planes or disabled (i.e. the battery removed and turned over until the flight ends.) There should be real penalties for non-compliance.

2. Consumer electronics are not really a threat to air safety. We should stop wasting everyone's time and adding unnecessary stress to the travel process.

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

#137

Post by lubujackson »

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…

Then why can you read a book, magazine, feed a baby, etc.? Honestly, I feel like everyone keeps backing into these ridiculously vague "well... safety" answers with no justification. The FAA clearly told the reporter HOW the rule came to be, through a hypothetical concern that was not supported by evidence. Just like this one.

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

#139

Post by lubujackson »

bdonlan wrote: post #64
brk wrote: post #27

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.

There's a big difference in power levels between wifi (that only has to go a few hundred feet to the on-plane transceiver) and cell phone radio (that has to go possibly several miles to a ground tower). Additionally, GSM has a transmission pattern that can cause noise in radio receivers and other audio devices - just try holding an active GSM phone up against a poorly shielded speaker sometime!

Again, the issue is that ALL electronics must be turned off, signal or not.

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

#140

Post by BrianLy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #86
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 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 attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible. I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. > It's the s…

> I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.

That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome.

> None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.

This is a side benefit for flight attendants and other passengers. Having people and carts moving in the cabin at these times, and in the event of a situation on board makes for a much worse situation than would otherwise be the case. The additional blockages of exit rows, and obstacle of tables being down creates additional confusion. In addition having tables down will result in injuries to seated passengers who are slammed into them.

Post reply on HN