I doubt there's any validity to this claim, just another TC bad reporting most likely.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
If this is true (and I don't really believe it) then all electronic devices should be banned from the cabin and carried in the checked luggage AND flight critical systems should be designed to be robust against such interference in case there is a terrorist attack using a hidden electronic device designed to operate at many times the power.
> Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers.
Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talking about. We're discussing whether it would be good for regulators to ban devices and anything else distracting during takeoff and landing.
See, thing is, ypur oinion doesn't really matter when it comes to banning electronics during take of and landing, mine doesn't neither. Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Same as with red traffic lights and speed limits, it stops there.
For what it 's worth so, I don't consider people having 20 minutes less screen time to be considered a prize to be paid, let alone one big enough to change reugulations over.
Oh my god. Rolls eyes. I believe that the ban on electronic devices during take off, taxi and landing is completely unnecessary and founded on paranoia. I think the ban should be overturned as much as the next person.
BUT. Do you really have to claim that you're off to buy a STACK of magazines to read in this time? Are you that incapable of sitting unstimulated in your seat for a few minutes each time you fly?
Linkbait. There is nothing specific in this to 787 flights and no airline is actually banning passengers taking laptops etc or even saying they are thinking about it, it's just some airlines looking at not carrying batteries as cargo.
Another reason I've heard argued by a coworker is that they aren't banning electronics for the sake of interference, but for your attention.
If anything were to go wrong during a flight, takeoff and landing are the two times that they want you to be able to react with zero hesitation. If something goes wrong and you have seconds to react, the less things you're fiddling with the more likely you are to survive.
I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose policies that would lead to additional deaths, regardless of the level of inconvenience that this would impose.
If you wanted to give a fermi calculation for the fraction of aircraft traveler deaths that this proposal would prevent I'd be happy to think more about this, and you might convince me. My sense that the tradeoff is not worth it is based on thinking that (a) there aren't that many deaths to be prevented and (b) banning the devices wouldn't increase the chance of survival during an evacuation by very much.
The article noted that people ignore the rules all the time. Even if they didn't, devices would be left on accidentally, and devices in luggage will get left or turned on accidentally.
If there's any measurable risk from consumer electronics, instead of "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off," the announcement should be, "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off, and pray that everyone else does too, pray that no devices are accidentally turned on or left on, and pray that stray rf bursts from ground transmitters don't cause the plane to crash either."
The mandate for everyone to turn off their electronics (and pray) is the equivalent of the industry and the FAA burying their heads in the sand. It reduces the risk, but if that risk was measurable and unacceptable to begin with, it's still measurable and still unacceptable, and the planes' electronic shielding needs to be improved.
Banning all electronic devices on airplanes would be a major headache for everyone involved
I think we've seen that this is not a problem for the Powers that Be. It's not as if the TSA chairman ever has to fly coach.
and would probably be overkill
I'm certain that we've seen that this is not an obstacle for implementation by the government.
but the risk is still non-zero
(Shrug) Zero accidents out of tens of millions of flights in which you can be pretty sure that at least one passenger has left their phone on. Close enough to zero risk for me.
The other irritating thing about the ban is that no distinction is made between devices that transmit RF and those that do not. Granted, there are fewer and fewer devices that one is likely to carry and use on a plane that are not capable of transmitting something (e.g. wifi or bluetooth), but iPods were banned during takeoff even before they had wifi, and AFAIK portable CD players and tape players were never allowed either. It actually makes more sense now to ban everything because enforcing that they were all in airplane mode would be impossible, but 10 years ago the ban was universally applied to electronic devices and not only radio-transmitting devices.
Mostly I just want to be able to use my Kindle during takeoff and landing. Maybe it will happen:
I fly a lot.
I see people using electronics for scrolling through photos, playing candy crush, browsing reddit, etc...
The point is, that allowing these activities for a few more minutes during takeoff/landing, is not providing any benefit that would justify killing even 1 person, let alone hundreds.
It isn't like someone is going to use that extra 5-10 minutes of using their device to cure cancer.
As with any ban, I question if the response is proportional to the threat. Yes we have all these chemical devices with us (hell you're flying on a burning tank of jet fuel, make no mistake), but the actual number of exploding electronics is so low we don't bother thinking about it. Even the Note 7, which was outright banned on flights, had only a couple hundred incidents, in a market that transports millions of phones a day (not to mention other electronics) routinely for _years_.
In fact, let's compare apples-to-apples how likely you are to die from some of these things in a given year [1]:
* Air accident (any cause): 1 in 767,303
* Traffic accident: 1 in 8,938
* Fall from ladder: 1 in 752,688
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding statistics that indicate passenger consumer electronics are a threat at all. Nearly all plane crashes are some form of human error from the flight crew and mechanical failure. Even the Note 7 didn't bring down planes, despite actually exploding on them several times. Even that ban isn't about the lethality, but the inconvenience and delays suffered because they _must_ check for worse problems.
So to reiterate my point: What is the threat you are trying to solve?
I remember reading here during an earlier discussion that the ban on electronic devices had less to do with interference and more about safety in case of emergencies.
During takeoff and landing are when most accidents happen and if people have cables from earphones/laptops, are listening to music or are on their phone, it would be considerable harder for the flight crew to get the attention of the passengers and direct them.
Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack.
Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight, from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've only once actually had to take out my headphones.
My objection isn't that the impact of banning electronics during takeoff and landing is unknowable; that's not the main issue with banning car radios, cars, or bare faces either. Instead it's that the impact is too small to be worth the cost.
Even though you've stated this in a very confident tone and have a lot of upvotes, I don't really see any evidence for your claim. Stowing carry-ons/no drink service during takeoff could as easily be explained by not wanting projectiles flying about the cabin when the plane bounces, the challenge of keeping your feet while the direction of gravity is shifting around you, etc. None of these reasons apply to electronic devices.
And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
reply