You are insisting on the a proof of a negative hypothesis. This is a dangerous methodology to be following where public safety is at stake. A thing is not necessarily true because it can't be proven to be untrue, or vice versa.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FAA Advisory Committee Recommends Relaxation of Electronic Device Restrictions on Commercial Aircraft
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are insisting on the a proof of a negative hypothesis. This is a dangerous methodology to be following where public safety is at stake. A thing is not necessarily true because it can't be proven to be untrue, or vice versa.
I think we're just wasting our time arguing with forum ' s heroes whose experience is "provided by Wikipedia" ....
When "devices" are designed to support something bringing 200 people at 400 knots and 30.000 ft in the air, you don't want to take ANY chance.
----------
Is not the first time I tell you: you clearly have no idea of what are you speaking of, regarding aircraft and aviation regulations ...
People will never ever comply with rules just because there are too many smartass like you, believe they are smarter than regulators, speaking about aircraft just because they can play flight simulator on the iPad ....
I am not asking for proof of my hypothesis as I am not stating that an accident is impossible (in fact I have stated numerous times that I am concerned about the practical effect), I am asking for you to reject it with specific data. We have an astronomical sample size, yet we do not have even a single example with which to justify its rejection. We hold NOTHING else in personal safety in any other aspect of our lives to anywhere near this standard.
----------
Yet every other element of flying involves some element of calculated risk, many of which are demonstrably more dangerous than personal electronic devices. Why is the standard suddenly so much more rigorous here?
Your ignorance is driving me crazy ....
It takes JUST ONE SINGLE radio communication jammed by your beloved iPhone (or ten iPhones left on during an ifr takeoff) to cause the pilot misunderstanding of a clearance and crash an aircraft with YOUR WIFE AND YOUR CHILD into another departing aircraft !
Are you willing to make their life at stake just to play angry birds for 5 minutes more !?!?!?
It's just an example, but far from being impossible to happen.
----------
What do you really know about aviation standards, procedures, training ?
How can you say what is more rigorous and what is less ?
I'm going through a lot of redundancies and check lists every single day for my AND YOURS safety, and you are the expert who can decide what is safe and what is not just because your last google research said so ?
Yes, you are wasting your time, and worrying about things you can't control. I'm concerned that you're so worried about this that you won't get your required sleep prior to flight, which could be the real reason you actually make an error that results in a crash... not that you heard some interference on VHF.
It's like worrying about a killer meteorite. You'll never get everyone to shut off their phones, so if you're a pilot, just fly the plane like you've been trained. Follow the protocols and procedures, and be the professional you're underpaid to be. If both you and your CAPT/FO can't figure a problem out... you, the crew and PAX will all most likely die. Do your best, and we'll review the data/voice recorders later. Maybe you'll have been right, and it was all because someone was texting during take-off/landing, so be sure to mention it as the plane is going down... "I hear the familiar sound of cellphone interference in my headset, and all avionics are unresponsive. Brace, brace br..."
How's that for motivation to be the best pilot you can be? The smart pilot counts on the fact that there are some cellphones on in the cabin. It's ignorant to assume people listen to instructions, nevermind obey them. Some don't even know any English!
Please get enough sleep prior to putting on that uniform. I know a lot of pilots that use Ambien from time to time, but don't get addicted... dangerous stuff!
You are effectively demanding proof of a null hypothesis. If I can't prove that PEDs do interfere with navigational equipment, then they don't interfere.
It is far from ignorance. It is an educated assessment calculating risk. That assessment indicates that the risk is near zero. If this is your primary worry when flying, I maintain you have no business leaving the ground in the first place, let alone driving in a car to get to your plane. If you think my comments have been made primarily on Google research, I suggest you re-read the thread more closely.
----------
I am explicitly not demanding proof. I am looking for someone to provide data to reject it. That's a monumental difference. This is the basic statistical testing here.
Yes. Yes you do. The same legion of doom that won't let my 1" pocket knife on the plane would be all over this if a phone was actually a risk.
I've been told by a high placed VZW employee that the actual reason has much more to do with cell tower loading near large airports than anything to do with aircraft.
DFW is a great example with at least 4 active runways, you've got a dozen aircraft low enough to have 100s of phones tower hopping on approach/departure tracks at any given time.
Nothing less than proof they do interfere is proof that they don't interfere. You are just restating this case differently to make the burden of evidence sound less onerous, and less completely impossible for anyone posting to these boards to make with a straight face.
To reiterate a position I have stated several times thus far: I don't have any position on this issue. I don't claim special knowledge or to know the answers. What I do know with certainty is that nobody who ever sets foot on a commercial flight should want this decision to be made by politicians or by the companies who make the products. This is totally the wrong way to make a public safety decision. I would have thought everyone would heartily agree with this statement, but apparently I thought wrongly.
Ask any actual, active, rational commercial airline pilot today about cellphone interference. They will tell you that in the 'old days' of early cellphones, they could hear some interference, but not enough to cause a problem. Today, the only way they hear any interference is if they put their active phone right next to their headset.
One pilot I know likes to play the "SELCAL, SELCAL" Barking Bob audio (which has nothing to do with mobile phones, but sounds like "Cell call") with the cockpit door open, and then announce over the PA that they cannot push back from the gate until all phones are turned off. He thinks it's the funniest joke going, but then again, he's a real pilot, and knows that phones in the cabin are fine during all phases of flight as far as flying the plane is concerned.
Pilots that say different just don't know any better, but you can't fault them for erring on the side of safety. It's stressful to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, so it's understandable that they would try to eliminate even the slightest chance of nosediving.
Fine, I guess, but though they have the authority, I'm not in favor of asking pilots to decide. I don't know that anybody else wants or expects the pilots to decide, including the pilots.
Not that the rules on cell phones will change, given that those rules come from the FCC not the FAA, and have more to do with telecommunications than air transport safety.
You both keep repeating this like it means anything. You're simply imagining some grand test plan in your head and assuming it meets some criterion for rigor. This does not constitute testing of any kind. It simply has no relevance.
I don't understand this "if they didn't want me to break the law they'd just take my toy away from me" at all.
I have my issues with the effectiveness of preflight security too, but by the time you board the assumption is that everyone on that plane has the best interest of the aircraft in mind. They aren't letting you carry the phone on because it doesn't pose a risk, they're letting you carry it on because they trust you to act responsibly. Obviously the occasional device left on isn't a guaranteed disaster-- but that's a far cry from everyone always and everywhere keeping them on and then deciding that the next level of restriction is bogus because they now find it inconvenient.
They don't allow you to carry a firearm on board an aircraft because there is no time you can safely use it. Your electronics can safely be used throughout most of the flight.
You're like children who's parents need to say "if you can't follow the rules and turn it off when I ask you, I'll have to take it it away!"
What gives me the feeling you think you're one of the better ones?
You are simply pulling that assumption out of thin air. I know you think your "millions of cosmic rays coming from space" argument supports this, but it simply shows how little you understand what you're talking about.
That is not engineering pragmatism. Engineering pragmatism is "we can reduce or eliminate this risk through 15 minutes of inconvenience".
Last edited:
It means an enormous amount because it has been the equivalent of a massive real-world test on a scale which is orders of magnitude beyond the capability of any formal study. We can infer information of great value from such a test, even if it does not meet the criteria of a rigorous study. You may want to believe that a formal study is the be-all-end-all. I don't. Those studies suffer from many issues, the primary one being that they are necessarily limited in scope and sample size. When we have volumes of data that are virtually unlimited in scope and sample size, we need to pay attention to what that data tells us.
The relevance is that, despite what you might cook up in a lab test, the real-world, practical result is that the use of consumer electronics during flight poses no statistically significant risk.
This, I have come to believe, is what is actually at the heart of the argument against this potential change. You think that we actually feel some sense of entitlement here and you're mad about it. Well, it's time to pull your knickers up and leave the school yard.
This has nothing at all to do with what I personally do. I follow the rules as they are asked on every flight I ever take. On-board is not the appropriate forum to enact change. Our arguments here are simply that, as the rules stand, there is nothing other than a simple request between people turning their devices off, or not. Again, the practical result is that without more rigorous enforcement, a large percentage of devices will just be left on, whether by accident, with intention, because people don't know any better or they just don't care. THAT is the reality of what will happen. Again, don't let the fact that your panties are all bunched up about this issue let you alter the arguments as they are being presented to better suit your own insecurities.
Engineering pragmatism is exactly what this is. I suggest you consult a dictionary if you believe otherwise. Your statement might be true if we had one iota of data suggesting it was an actual concern. As it stands, there is nothing pragmatic about continuing to enforce this rule.
Last edited:
Way to be a douche, bro. Very classy.
For some it's not about entertainment, it's getting things done for work.You are so angry about this... it isn't a matter of people wanting their toys. I value the precious little time I have with my family. If I can read through emails, review documents and write emails (get them into the outbox until they can be sent) for an additional 30+ minutes (because that's the realistic amount of time we are talking about with taxi time) on the beginning and end of each leg of my flight, that translates directly into more time with my family when I get home from a trip.
Also, you seem pretty knowledgable about this, so maybe you can answer this question for me. How many people literally power down their phones and tablets (or even switch them to airplane mode) during take off and landing? I haven't performed a formal poll, but through simple observation it certainly isn't 100%.
I'm hoping you can share some factual data vs. the emotionally charged lashing out from your previous posts.
The problem here is that while you say the data is virtually unlimited in scope and sample size, you actually have essentially zero data. You can't tell me anything about how many of what devices were doing what things on which aircraft during what phase of the flight. You have a lot of assumptions that it must have been "all kinds" doing "everything" without any meaningful data.
Economics, for example, relies on the use of natural experiments where they rely on existing data to draw conclusions-- but they do rely on having data to draw conclusions, while you have none. Even when the data is available it is notoriously difficult to separate variables and draw reliable conclusions. You don't even have data to start teasing apart.
And your statement that these tests are "unlimited" in scope is clearly wrong. For example: Of the devices you assume are being left on and in active use, how many are laptops? My own observations suggest virtually none. Asleep instead of off, maybe, but people don't keep their laptop open during takeoff because they're too obvious. Even if the sample size is big, which you have no way of actually knowing, the scope is very narrow.
And to narrow the scope further your "tests" have, by definition, only tested equipment that has actually been made. What about everything else that hasn't yet? You're talking about letting people carry anything they want on board and then turning them all on at once and that's going to be a very difficult door to close once you've opened it (especially when you've opened it by saying "we knew better than the authorities all along"). How do you know that a future iPhone with a future firmware bug won't emit something the aircraft can't handle? I know it can be emitted, but how do you know it won't be a problem?
Maybe disease is a good example. You know you've been exposed to millions of viruses and bacteria and you're still alive, but that doesn't mean you won't get sick tomorrow. Having survived chickenpox as a child doesn't mean you can survive pneumonia as an aging adult. Having survived a Gameboy as an aircraft fresh off the line in the 90's doesn't mean you can survive a half dozen Chinese knock off laptops after 20 years of deterioration.
If we're going to make this change, I'd like someone to look at the designs, do a failure point analysis, test the aircraft against a range of signals that may be encountered now and in the future, and establish a maintenance plan to ensure the aircraft remains hardened to these signals. Not just decide we've already run an illegal underground test of "unlimited scope and sample size" and everything will probably be ok.
Then you're not reading what people are saying. I don't detect a sense of entitlement, I detect technical illiteracy and I don't think technical rules should be changed because of non-technical arguments.
Be sure to look at who I'm quoting when I respond if you think I'm misrepresenting you.
I'm glad to see we're in agreement on the first part. The rules exist for a reason whether you agree with them or not, and disregarding them isn't the way to resolve this.
As to the second part, I'm not sure why you're agreeing with me in a tone that suggests you're not. If the big echo chamber keeps repeating that these rules are stupid and without basis, then you're right-- people will loose respect for them and continue to disobey. If it starts to become a safety concern, they will need you to check your electronics just like your stiletto. That's my point-- if you can't use them responsibly, they'll need to enforce it more rigorously.
The same will happen if someone tries to wire their laptop batteries to detonate, or brings in an intentional jammer disguised as a phone.
So far, everything has remained reasonably under control and the pragmatic solution is to ask people to behave responsibly. You seem to think we should expect that everyone will behave like petulant children (referring to my panties might give some insight into why), while the current rules are based on the assumption that people can behave more maturely.
We have plenty of data suggesting this is a concern, but you choose to write off the data you don't like in favor of data you imagine must exist. You have no faith in lab testing. You don't like theory. You're happy running uncontrolled tests with unrecorded "data", but won't consider anything a negative result other than burning wreckage after the pilot traced the source of a flight system failure to a particular device in the cabin and radioed the make, model and serial number back to the tower before impact.
I love when people use dictionaries as a form of argument... As you wish:
- Engineering: the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
- Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations
A pragmatic engineer would either devise a simple set of tests, which I think will be difficult in this case, or avoid the whole problem entirely by simply turning everything off.
While I'm at it:
- Data: facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
I haven't heard that sound since I had a Blackberry 6 years ago...
A funny thing is me and my friend have the exact same speakers, use all the same cables to hook them up, we both owned all the same iPhones, (1, 3G, 4, 4S, 5) and he has to keep his phone far away or his speakers go haywire. While I can happily keep mine sat on top of the speaker.
And, as others have pointed out, if that were actually the concern the rule was addressing, the rule would relate to *stowing* loose objects, not *turning off* consumer electronics. Instead, you have to turn off your 5oz cell phone, but you can keep your 2lb hard cover novel out.
So, a rule which does not address the issue you claim to be concerned about, but attempts to address an issue with no evidence to support the idea that the issue actually *exists* is a good rule? In what alternate universe does that make sense?
----------
You're close. One doesn't have to be an expert to notice that two events appear to have occurred at roughly the same time. It may, however, require an expert to determine whether those events, which have no visible, physical connection, are actually correlated. It almost certainly *does* require an expert to determine whether one of those events *caused* the other.
Coincidental action != correlated actions != cause & effect.
I think I agree with kdarling here.
Unless I misunderstand what you're after, I think that events occurring at roughly the same time are (roughly) correlated, but not necessarily causal.
Correlated events may be either coincidental (aka spurious) or causal. Causal events are correlated, but correlated events need not be causal. Coincidental events may be correlated for small sample sets but that correlation may weaken as the the sample size increases to the level of statistical significance unless the correlation is due to a hidden variable (which, depending on what you mean by coincidence, may not fit your definition-- the events "coincide" but not by random chance).
Not sure this is adding anything to the discussion though...
I think I agree with kdarling here.
Unless I misunderstand what you're after, I think that events occurring at roughly the same time are (roughly) correlated, but not necessarily causal.
Correlated events may be either coincidental (aka spurious) or causal. Causal events are correlated, but correlated events need not be causal. Coincidental events may be correlated for small sample sets but that correlation may weaken as the the sample size increases to the level of statistical significance unless the correlation is due to a hidden variable (which, depending on what you mean by coincidence, may not fit your definition-- the events "coincide" but not by random chance).
Not sure this is adding anything to the discussion though...
And the huge sample size available on this issue indicates that, though certain events may coincide in space and time (aka: are coincidental), there is no evidence to support the idea that they are related to one another (aka: are correlated), and without evidence that they are related to one another, it boggles the mind that people who don't actually understand the subject matter are busy claiming that the two events are causally related (aka: one event causes the other).
For an example, let's assume the following known facts:
- We're in a room together.
- My cell phone rings.
- Moments later, your desk phone rings.
- I answer my cell phone.
- Moments later, your desk phone stops ringing.
These events coincide, both in time and space. No argument there.
However, from the fact that those events coincide, you cannot (without further evidence) reasonably claim that those events are related to one another.
And to claim that my phone ringing caused your phone to ring, or that my phone *stopping ringing* cause your phone to stop ringing is even more absurd. Especially when further tests are done, and no interaction between our phones can be found.
The more likely explanation, is that I received a phone call at about the same time you did, but that, for whatever reason, the person who dialed your phone didn't stay on the line.
We already have a massive body of evidence to the contrary, built up over decades of air traffic with a multitude of consumer electronic devices fully active during all phases of flight and controlled tests by experts. If someone wants to make a credible claim that consumer electronics are a threat to air traffic, the burden of evidence is on *them* to prove the claim. Claiming to have seen two events which coincide on the order of a few seconds or minutes, is insufficient in the face of this body of evidence when the event can't be reproduced.
Again, coincidence != correlation != causation.
They are related to each other because they coincide in space and time-- that's all correlation means.
To use your notation:
coincidence == correlation != causation
Think of it this way-- if correlation does not imply causation (and I think we agree that it doesn't), what else can it mean? It can mean coincidence.
What you're suggesting is that weak correlation implies lack of causation, which is also not true.
See my statements in an earlier post regarding how we don't have a huge body of evidence to the contrary. We do have massive evidence that radios in general can interfere with each other, and that radio waves can disrupt other electronic systems. We have massive evidence that radio can interfere with GPS and other navigation systems. We have less conclusive evidence that electronics on board an in-service aircraft has caused anomalies in that aircraft's functioning. We may have flimsy anecdotal evidence that it doesn't happen often. We have no evidence that personal electronics can not interfere with aircraft systems.
We have a set of rules in place that are designed to minimize inconvenience while maximizing safety in an uncertain environment of great consequence. Why exactly is the burden of proof on those who seek no change, rather than on those who do?
Why exactly do you not agree with what I think would be the correct course of action of we choose to change these rules:
Well, that question actually has a simple answer. Correlation can be any of the following: Causation (one event caused the other), Coincidence (no relationship between the two events), or Correlated (some shared factor influences both events).
No, what I'm suggesting is that a complete and utter lack of any *actual* data which even *suggests* correlation, and a huge body of evidence which shows *no* indications of correlation, much less a cause and effect relationship, is a stronger indicator of the *actual* state of affairs than someone with no EMI knowledge, qualifications, or experience saying they saw two events happen at roughly the same time in roughly the same place. Especially since later testing could not replicate the described events.
Are you claiming that every consumer electronic device has been turned off on every plane ever since their respective inventions? Existing data indicates that we have had millions of flights over the past decades with dozens to hundreds of *active* consumer electronic devices of virtually every kind in every stage of flight. Despite this, and multiple rounds of the FAA requesting, and the airlines running, tests in an attempt to reproduce *any* of the incidents described by flight crews, there has not been even a single reproducible scenario.
Yes, radio waves *can* disrupt electronic systems. If the radio waves are tuned for some part of those electronic systems to act as an antenna for those radio waves. However, if that were the case, then the significantly more powerful antennas on the towers would cause the same interference. However, there's no evidence to suggest that *that* happens either.
Believe it or not, the folks who test to try to reproduce the 'observed events' are actually groups consisting of qualified EMI, airframe, and airliner systems experts.
It has nothing to do with who is seeking a change or who isn't. The burden of proof is on those who are making a claim of an effect. Without evidence to support that claim, it has no more bearing on reality than the claims by umpteen different religions that theirs is the 'one true way', and their particular deity of choice is the 'only true god'.
Bring evidence to support the claims of an effect, and you'll have the start of a real debate. Keep showing up with, "But someone says they saw something. No, nobody could reproduce it, but he *must* be right!" and you'll be rightly ignored. That's not even up to the standards of proof used to document when a statue of Mary or Jesus starts crying or bleeding. Even then, someone provides some hard documentation of the event.
Strangely enough, when those statues are debunked, people stop clinging to the initial reports. When your standard of proof is lower than than that of religious belief in an all powerful, unknowable deity, perhaps you need to re-evaluate something?
Ok, here's the thing. Actual experts already *have* looked at the designs, done failure point analysis, and tested aircraft against a range of signals. And they're suggesting that the rule is unneccessary as a result of those tests.
Then what are you arguing about? Why keep going on and on about this massive, mythical body of evidence if we have rigorous testing results?
If we're in agreement that this is something that should be handled by experts, not people yammering on about millions of devices left on in spite of the rules proving something-er-other, or Claire McCaskil passing a law because it suits her, why don't you just lead with that and be done?
I haven't seen the results linked into this thread yet, but if you know where they are I'd love to look at how the tests were performed.
Excellent, we have agreement:
coincidence == correlation != causation
with the bonus tautology:
correlation == correlation
We can stop debating this now.
Where does someone with no EMI knowledge going on and on about massive bodies of evidence that do not, in fact, exist fit in your list of credible indicators?
You're just repeating the same mantra over and over despite the fact that it's provably wrong just by reading this thread. There are plenty of examples above of data suggesting correlation. kdarling was has been giving a steady stream of them that you rejected because you confused correlation and causation.
People forgetting to turn their devices off does not constitute data unless you can point me to where I might find said body of evidence tabulated.
No, I'm not. Please refer to post #293 to see what I'm claiming.
Correct.
Incorrect.
As they should be. Do they have a repository of this massive body of evidence you're describing? I suspect the reason they're testing is because they don't trust your dataset either...
The reason they say "can't be reproduced" rather than the more substantial "proven incorrect" is because they're well aware that those statements are not equivalent. Nothing bothers an engineer more than when something can't be reproduced-- because that means it can't be fixed, not because it means it didn't happen.
You've acknowledged that electronic devices can interfere with each other's operation via radio. The claim of effect is thus proven.
Now the burden is on those changing the rule to prove why this well known effect won't impair the operation of the aircraft.