i guess i read the link different than you.. it says the FAA took the position of being much more involved in the tests by overseeing/organizing a collaborative effort between all involved parties as opposed to requiring each individual airline to perform the tests on each of the types of planes in their fleet.
The purpose of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is outlined in this document.
"The ARC will submit a report detailing recommendations by 7/3112013, on the technical, policy and procedural guidance that the aircraft operators need to safely expand the use of various types of PEDs throughout the entire flight."
It's not about the FAA getting involved in testing. They don't do that now, and it's the last thing they would ever want to do. Instead, as you noted, such testing is left up to each airline.
The trouble is, complete testing is simply impossible. This is an important point. Impossible.
So what was hoped for, was a blanket approval that did not require any testing.
you may also be missing the part about these test are actually being conducted. i don't have the actual numbers but i assume we're talking about hundreds of devices tested separately on hundreds of planes.
There are no such tests. That's a fantasy of the reporter.
if i were to believe everything you say, at some point i'd have to conclude the FAA will knowingly be putting millions of lives in danger if they change their rules..
The FAA has knowingly put millions of lives in danger for years. A lot of people mistake their purpose with that of the NTSB, who really are about safety.
i mean, what are you going to say if next year, you board a flight ...
Let me be clear. My main thrust here is that a debate must be based on facts, not back-of-plane passenger experience, and wildly incorrect flight or electronic misconceptions. Which is why I really do appreciate your attempts to bring in logic and references.
My objection to encouraging PEDs during critical phases of flight is that it's an unnecessary extra risk at this time. Yes, with newer planes, the worry is far less. The trouble is, the average age of the US fleet is what, like 14 years? That's long before devices became popular, and many aircraft still have older avionics.
--
However, when I get on a commercial flight, my personal worry is not the electronic devices. Nor is it mechanical problems. Nor even battery fires, although we really should be worried about those. (I think it's just a matter of time before an airliner has a battery fire in someone's stored luggage, and then we're going to see more strict rules implemented. This is the trouble with the FAA. They're reactive, not proactive.)
If I worry about anything, it's how much sleep the pilots got, and how well they've actually been flight tested. Especially the latter.
The biggest recent accidents have been because of almost unbelievably rookie pilot mistakes. (Colgan Buffalo crash, and the Air France crash.)
The very FIRST thing you're taught as a pilot, is to NOT pull back the yoke when you're stalling. The Colgan pilot (who had had little sleep and had failed some testing) held the yoke back all the way to the ground, instead of simply pushing forward and regaining flying speed. Likewise, the Air France copilot held his sidestick back all the way down to the ocean, which the pilot (who'd only had an hour's sleep before the flight) did not notice until it was too late (because the sticks aren't mechanically interconnected).
Conversely, the greatest aviation saves (the Hudson River landing, the Sioux City crash-landing, the Gimli Glider, the Heathrow landing) have been with well rested, extremely experienced captains who often had glider training.
Last edited: