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

251–260 of 301 posts

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

#251

Post by sc00ter »

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…

Okay, so I have to put it away - your argument is logical and compelling. But why do I have to turn it off?

(And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))

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

#252

Post by sneak »

pathdependent wrote: post #32
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."

During emergency evacuations of aircraft, the number one problem is people attempting to bring their carry-on luggage with them. True story.

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

#253

Post by sneak »

tlrobinson wrote: post #160
marshray wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Couldn't an EMP disrupt the fly-by-wire systems used in all the big commercial jets these days? I'm not sure how big the EMP would need to be though. Probably too big to make it past security.

To generate that kind of pulse in a small package, explosives are generally required (to propel the magnet through the coil). I've looked into building an EMP before.

Those who can get explosives on planes don't need to bother with EMPs.

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

#254

Post by dev_jim »

lucasjung wrote: post #240
dev_jim wrote: post #116

I haven't turned off a cell phone while flying for almost ten years now. I refuse to be part of any safety or security charade.

I have a BS in EE, a masters in Aeronautical Engineering, and fly for a living. I currently work in developmental flight test. Allow me to explain a couple of reasons why you should turn off your cell phone when flying: 1: It is not a "safety charade." See my other posts about EMC in this topic. 2: Even if you don't care about anybody else's safety, or even your own for that matter, it's still in your own best intere…

1. I have a masters in EE, but more importantly I have common sense that tells me that millions of flights have been conducted in the cell phone era without an issue. Please stop the fear mongering on this.

2. I put it into WiFi only mode about 10 minutes after takeoff when I can't get a signal anymore and just turn it back on when we are a half hour within landing. It allows me at least a half hour of emails and texts to come in at each end of the flight. That's a lot of productivity saved.

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

#255

Post by ceejayoz »

qdot76367 wrote: post #147
ceejayoz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The audiences at many concerts I've been to lately would speak to the opposite of this.

That's like saying no one notices blood on a slaughterhouse floor so a puddle of blood at a school wouldn't be noticed.

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

#256

Post by onemoreact »

steve-howard wrote: post #207
justincormack wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other parts of the world their are trains, which are faster than cars and provide tables and often electricity and wifi, making them a pretty compelling substitute.

There's a lot of empty space in between the West and the East, which is where plane travel is the most compelling, and train travel would still likely not be.

There is a lot more travel North-South in the USA than there is East-West. Just look at the way the US highway system is setup. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1926us.jp...

Note: Number of lanes paints a much stronger picture, but I can't find a good map of that.

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

#257

Post by JoeAltmaier »

eps wrote: post #213
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe they didn't try hard enough LOL. If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission. If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path. The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use…

Why not put the passenger cabin in a Faraday cage? Shouldn't be that hard or costly to do, compared.

The fuselage IS a Faraday cage. Only the division between passenger/pilot probably needs attention. A good idea.

But some of the electronics are not in the cockpit.

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

#258

Post by ceol »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #217
beernutz wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think it's EXACTLY the point. Events leading up to the "situation" are likely to grab attention no matter WHAT device you are or are not using. Engines falling off planes and such are VERY hard to miss. And devices really don't affect people blocking exit rows, etc.

No, but a device dropped on the floor during an evacuation could mean some steps on it an slips. With a human pileup as a result, when seconds matter to save lives. That said, maybe the should ban magazines and books too then. Lean back for ten minutes and think deep and meaningful thoughts. :) Edit: spelling, hardcopy thought added

Don't you think if they haven't banned magazines and books, these rules are not about people being distracted?

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

#259

Post by darklajid »

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 think it's disappointing that we react to weird rules by inventing reasons to defend them.

You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.

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

#260

Post by RockyMcNuts »

zig wrote: post #247
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an effective way to bring down a plane. The pilot would just switch to another instrument or frequency. You could land the plane without any radios or navigation. But it would raise some pulses.

In visual conditions it would be a total non-issue - GPS/VOR/IRS guidance to the airport (or radar vectors or pilotage), with a visual landing. For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, f…

You think it would be a problem if the ILS was sketchy in Cat 3 auto-land with ceiling/visibility at minimums ?

But the checklist should check that the ILS is alive... and if it's centered horizontally and vertically the pilots should notice.

OTOH a crafty terrorist could wait for a bad weather day, unplug the airport ILS, and set up an alternate one in a nearby building. Still, the tower would probably notice something was amiss and just say 'go around'.

Post reply on HN