Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[LakeLoon]

Originally Posted by cklls

Then there's this comment from a pilot in an article published first in Reader's Digest and excerpted on HuffingtonPost

Excellent point, absolutely valid. (Which is the reason I talked about "devices no larger than x" in my seat-of-the-pants suggestion.) I would be very disappointed in any analysis that did not consider these types of risks.

It is very easy to believe that a laptop is simply too massive and hard to hold onto to be safe. However, certain things are deemed "okay" to hold in the hands, such as books and magazines. Kindles? I'm honestly not sure. We tend to hold on to them, not just keep them in our laps, and they're definitely smaller/lighter--maybe no more dangerous than a hardback book. The experts are the ones who can properly analyze the risks.

[mldavis2]

A flying sharp-edge or corner of a Kindle could be a knife. But then they allow mothers to hold infants....

I see both sides here. But until the ban is lifted or the rules changed, I'll abide by the request.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by LakeLoon

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.

I wrote this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=188 on page 13 of this very discussion, followed by this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...290#post887290

It's not exactly what you ask, but could give you a start

[dayowl]

flight attendants

[dayowl]

The planes are owned by private companies (and don't talk to me about subsidies... lots more than airlines get those)

Their planes. Their rules. It isn't that difficult to wait until the plane is airborne. And some of the readers have the capability to surf the web (Nook) and/or access cell phone transmitters. (Nook and Kindle, that I know of.)

Who knows what their real reasons are...

[mldavis2]

A recent article on the use of cell phones (and similar wireless devices) was on topic. When cruising at 38,000 ft., you are in 'sight' of perhaps hundreds of cell phone towers. When those devices attempt to pick one, they pick all. The bandwidth load is tremendous trying to deal with such chaos. It's not all about RF within the aircraft itself.

[LakeLoon]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

A recent article on the use of cell phones (and similar wireless devices) was on topic. When cruising at 38,000 ft., you are in 'sight' of perhaps hundreds of cell phone towers. When those devices attempt to pick one, they pick all. The bandwidth load is tremendous trying to deal with such chaos. It's not all about RF within the aircraft itself.

Actually, I am fully in support of maintaining the ban on cell phone conversations throughout the flight! The technical case may or may not be compelling, but for me it's all about the impact on other passengers. Modern air travel is unpleasant enough; the thought of being trapped in a tiny seat next to someone yakking away on their cell phone on a long flight makes me cringe . . .

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

I wrote this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=188 on page 13 of this very discussion, followed by this: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...290#post887290

It's not exactly what you ask, but could give you a start

Thanks for that; they are helpful posts. I did read the entire thread (and lots of supplemental material from elsewhere) before posting. As I think you recognize, my point was that listing possible risks only gets you so far. At a certain point, you want to "quantify" the risks, i.e., assign some numbers to them, or at least ranges/orders of magnitude. When you're considering taking a medication and one of the possible side effects is "death," I assume you are interested in how frequently the medication causes death! My frustration with the FAA is they seem unwilling to bring the discussion into the realm of numbers.

On the topic of using wifi in-flight, it is definitely here in the US; I've flown on planes offering the service. One such service is Gogo. Their site claims the service is installed on 1028 aircraft so far.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by LakeLoon

Actually, I am fully in support of maintaining the ban on cell phone conversations throughout the flight! The technical case may or may not be compelling, but for me it's all about the impact on other passengers. Modern air travel is unpleasant enough; the thought of being trapped in a tiny seat next to someone yakking away on their cell phone on a long flight makes me cringe...

Not to mention banning them in restaurants, etc. They are already banned in most doctors' offices and in theaters (although it's amazing how many people will ignore it).

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by cklls

“We don’t make you stow your laptop because we’re worried about electronic interference. It’s about having a projectile on your lap. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to get hit in the head by a MacBook going 200 miles per hour.” -Patrick Smith

If this is the reason then my 8 oz Kindle should be allowed before the 2 lb. hardcover being read in the seat next to me.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by LakeLoon

As I think you recognize, my point was that listing possible risks only gets you so far. At a certain point, you want to "quantify" the risks, i.e., assign some numbers to them, or at least ranges/orders of magnitude. When you're considering taking a medication and one of the possible side effects is "death," I assume you are interested in how frequently the medication causes death! My frustration with the FAA is they seem unwilling to bring the discussion into the realm of numbers.

The trouble is, it's staggeringly hard to quantify the risk. You could try and calculate it from the theory, but that is intractable. Alternatively, you could do what the drug companies do with the medications you mention and conduct trials. Hands up anyone who wants to fly on one of the "let's see if this much EMI will crash the plane" flights!

While we're still at the stage where the risk is unquantifiable, but can be theoretically shown to be present, the safest option seems to me to be to obey the rules!

/JB

[LakeLoon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

The trouble is, it's staggeringly hard to quantify the risk.

Possibly--probably--right. However, approximations may go a long way towards furthering the conversation, and may be much easier to calculate.

Again, there is existing empirical data from people using PEDs in flight over many years. Surely we can estimate the extent and types of usage (I know of at least one study that has done so). This data provides at least one way to quantify the risk in an approximate fashion, and doesn't strike me as "staggeringly hard."

I strongly suspect that regulators and businesses rely on approximations of similarly "staggeringly hard" problems all the time. Will releasing X product or feature subject us to crippling legal liability? Is Y safety regulation worth the burdens of oversight and compliance?

Another perspective: we now have wifi available on many flights. I am sure the wifi router devices had to undergo very thorough safety tests, but I am also sure they could not and did not test every possible wifi-enabled PED that could use the service. Yet this was deemed "safe enough" by the airlines and/or the regulators. Well, how did they go about measuring "safe enough"? Was this based on numbers, or something fuzzier? You could argue that the safety of wifi is also a "staggeringly hard" problem, yet they found a way to cut the Gordian knot.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by LakeLoon

I strongly suspect that regulators and businesses rely on approximations of similarly "staggeringly hard" problems all the time. Will releasing X product or feature subject us to crippling legal liability? Is Y safety regulation worth the burdens of oversight

And in this case, the businesses in question have used their judgement and decided that you should turn off your devices during take off and landing. What evidence do you have that justifies overruling them?

/JB

[LakeLoon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

And in this case, the businesses in question have used their judgement and decided that you should turn off your devices during take off and landing. What evidence do you have that justifies overruling them?

/JB

Just so we don't start going back and forth over a non-issue, let me clarify something. If you have read anything I have written so far as stating affirmatively that the rules SHOULD be changed, either I haven't been clear or you have misinterpreted me.

My position is that the safety risks involved should be more thoroughly analyzed and quantified, and the evidence and analysis should be transparent to the public. As a taxpayer and airline customer, I have every right to ask for this. A lot of people feel similarly; it's not for nothing that these types of threads pop up in fora all over the internet. And discussing issues with fellow taxpayers/customers is absolutely one of the best ways to encourage pressure for change.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by jbjb

And in this case, the businesses in question have used their judgement and decided that you should turn off your devices during take off and landing. What evidence do you have that justifies overruling them?

It's hypothetical the degree to which these transmissions affect the super secret systems inside our aluminum cans. We can't judge one way or the other unless a study is published publicly. This arguement seems to stem from a difference in trust.

Some people trust their neighbors to be good and just people, who will always do the right thing. Others do not.

Some people trust their local government/police to be good and just, and will always do right thing. Others have been jaded by life.

Some people trust corporations to be comprised of inherently good people, who are just trying to pay their mortgage without screwing anyone too hard. Others look around at root kit fiascos and chemicals in the water, and think vigilance is the best policy.

Some people trust their government to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Others remember McCarthyism, separate but equal, and other atrocities.

My time in school has convinced me that everyone should have to show their work.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by LakeLoon

Just so we don't start going back and forth over a non-issue, let me clarify something. If you have read anything I have written so far as stating affirmatively that the rules SHOULD be changed, either I haven't been clear or you have misinterpreted me.

My position is that the safety risks involved should be more thoroughly analyzed and quantified, and the evidence and analysis should be transparent to the public. As a taxpayer and airline customer, I have every right to ask for this. A lot of people feel similarly; it's not for nothing that these types of threads pop up in fora all over the internet. And discussing issues with fellow taxpayers/customers is absolutely one of the best ways to encourage pressure for change.

That's perfectly fair,and your position is entirely reasonable and well argued. I didn't mean to imply that you thought the rules should be changed - sorry if it came across that way.

My real disagreement is with those people who seem to feel that, despite a complete lack of technical understanding, their lay opinion trumps that of those who have actual expertise in that area.

/JB