Originally Posted by LakeLoon
Proponents of keeping the current rules in place have some legitimate points, but they are often justified poorly. That's frustrating to many of us.
I suspect that most knowledgeable engineers/operators can come up with theoretical risks and failure modes for virtually any complex system. What we really want to know, what is interesting in practice, is the LIKELIHOOD of such failures. It may be that even the best experts cannot quantify the likelihood, but I for one would appreciate a better explanation of which variables can be quantified and which can't, and why. From the experts, not from rubberneckers like myself.
The mantra that "any avoidable risk is too much" is not consistent with our everyday experience. People are often willing to exchange small risks for tangible benefits in many aspects of our lives, from what we choose to eat to the speed limits we impose on highways. Now, people are often very bad at estimating risks, especially small ones, and experts are probably better suited to quantify risks and benefits. But it seems unsatisfying to leave it at "the risk is nonzero and avoidable, so we will place the entire burden of proving lack of risk on proponents of change." That sounds a lot like "it's hard and we're subject to criticism if we get it wrong, so we'll punt."
To a lay observer, the evidence--based on firsthand experience and formal studies--of widespread use of PEDs during all phases of flight, with few reports of serious consequences, seems substantial enough to merit analysis. It might help us estimate at least an upper statistical limit on the risks. If that's not true, we'd like to know why, and whether there is at least some subcategory of conduct (e.g. using Kindles with wireless off) that appears safe. I'd also like to see the experiences from noncommercial flight, where the restrictions on PEDs are less stringent, taken into account.
Regulators can't measure every little thing, and some assessments may be too complex or expensive to undertake. But I believe the cumulative impact of the current rules is frequently underestimated. The period of "no electronics use" on flights can be quite long--an hour or more--and the restrictions often meaningful. Consider, for example, the professional who could be reading emails or writing documents. Consider also that many people place a high value on engaging in their distraction of choice, even if you're not one of them. And even if the negative impact in an individual case is small, when multiplied over all the passengers on all of the flights, it might be much larger than you expect.
My provisional "rubbernecker" conclusion, undoubtedly based on imperfect evidence and analysis, is that using an ereader with wireless off during taxi, ascent, and descent poses negligible risk of interfering with the plane's critical systems. If the risk is negligible, I think I should be allowed to do it. Regulators who say "no" should show their work; after all, my taxes pay their salaries.
|