Quote:
Originally Posted by DianNC
I think I'd be more apt to take the threat of a potential incident seriously if the airlines weren't so casual in the enforcement of their 'rule'.
|
Why? What expertise do airlines have here? The whole idea of having national aviation regulators like the FAA in the US, and the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK, is because it isn't practical for each airline to self-regulate.
It's obvious why the airlines are casual in enforcing the device rules. This is one of the most likely areas for conflict with customers.
It even causes conflict between crew members. If they enforced it more stringently, it would create in-flight confrontations that themselves could be dangerous. Enforcement with a light hand greatly reduces device use without creating a lot of conflict.
Safety isn't yes or no. You could always be more safe if you, say, inspected engines more frequently. Or you could be safer if you demanded that the aircraft is in perfect physical condition before flying. A plane is too complex for such a perfection requirement. So you can have minor safety related items that are missing or inoperable. This is all balanced by a point system against other, actually more important safety-related factors, like flight crew experience and time of day. Here is a flight risk document used in the US, with equipment risks covered in item 37 ("MEL/CDL") of the checklist:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info07015.pdf