FAA to allow electronics to remain on during take-off and landing??

[polly]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

To try to bring this a bit back on topic, I have also heard this as reasoning for why your ereader should be put away: it could be a projectile in... some kind of situation. Setting aside the fact that a pbook weighs the same or more than an ereader, what are the statistics on "projectile accidents" on a plane?

eP

Why are you setting aside pbooks? My reader weighs a few ounces. A hardback weighs a few pounds and never has to be put away. I know. They need to strap our hands to our knees and immobilize us in our seats. Then there's no chance that we might spill hot coffee, trip over each others feet, or have heavy books in our hands that could become projectiles.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by polly

Why are you setting aside pbooks? My reader weighs a few ounces. A hardback weighs a few pounds and never has to be put away. I know. They need to strap our hands to our knees and immobilize us in our seats. Then there's no chance that we might spill hot coffee, trip over each others feet, or have heavy books in our hands that could become projectiles.

don't give them any ideas. We have enough security theater as it is.

[Boston]

If leaving devices on presents a real risk - they should be scanning for those and require them to be shut off and checked in before boarding.

And although I do comply with the request to shut devices off, if I thought my life counted on others doing the same then I don't think you could get me to board a place. Common sense tells you that devices are left on whether it be by oversight or intent.

[Rockbobster]

I run my GPSr at times during a flight to check location and flight altitude, speed and other data. Some airlines prohibit it, but that is nonsensical because a modern plane uses these devices as part of the navigation gear. It is apparent that airlines cast a wide net to prohibit as many devices as possible, with no consideration of actual danger.

[Pinecone]

So, if you text one time while driving, that means it is safe for everyone to text while driving all the time?

So one phone on was OK, so 300 phones on is also OK?

BIG extrapolations.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

So, if you text one time while driving, that means it is safe for everyone to text while driving all the time?

So one phone on was OK, so 300 phones on is also OK?

BIG extrapolations.

Yes, 300 phones would be ok. They have made repeated tests, which is why they are even thinking about loosening the restrictions.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, 300 phones would be ok. They have made repeated tests, which is why they are even thinking about loosening the restrictions.

You've made this claim repeatedly, but you've yet to provide a source.

Again - citation, please.

/JB

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

So one phone on was OK, so 300 phones on is also OK?

1x0=0
300x0=0

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

1x0=0
300x0=0

The zeros in your premise 1x0=0 are not proven. Thresholds are important.

While I doubt any combination of standard electronic devices would significantly interfere with airline electronics, I have enough of an understanding of electromagnetic theory to know that insignificant interference will exist. I really don't understand all the particulars of the risks for every combination of use, especially those that involve non-'standard' devices. Therefore, I can only safely say that I'd rather leave it to those that have a better understanding of all the particulars involved.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

The zeros in your premise 1x0=0 are not proven. Thresholds are important.

What value is proven (as fraction of the threshold)?

[Penforhire]

To me the value that is proven is we've had no crashes that were attributed to personal electronic devices. None.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

Morbid question, but are airline accidents always fatal? Where are the stats for non-fatal accidents? For example, there are two schools of thought with regards to paying for a seat for your under-two child and strapping him in the car seat. One school of thought: a car seat is not going to help if the plane goes down. Other school of thought: there could be a turbulence accident, a taxiing accident, or another kind of accident where the car seat would save your child's life. But what are the stats about this?

To try to bring this a bit back on topic, I have also heard this as reasoning for why your ereader should be put away: it could be a projectile in... some kind of situation. Setting aside the fact that a pbook weighs the same or more than an ereader, what are the statistics on "projectile accidents" on a plane?

eP

No, plane crashes are not always fatal. Most are not, it is just that the ones that get a lot of news coverage are the ones were all or most of the passengers are killed. Having a child properly strapped in can save the child's life or prevent injury in a crash or in turbulence. I suppose an e-reader could be a projectile hazard, but no more than any other object.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

To me the value that is proven is we've had no crashes that were attributed to personal electronic devices. None.

which proves nothing except they haven't yet caused a crash, as far as we know, with the current policies in place.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What value is proven (as fraction of the threshold)?

we do not know the threshold, which makes deferring to the experts all the more important.

[Penforhire]

We've had enough flights and air miles with enough personal electronics on during them for it to support my "no crashes" more than your "it might crash." It comes down to statistics and convenience. Your threshold of risk is different than mine. The so-called experts are going to err on the side of lowest-risk.