JetBlue and American Airlines Giving iPad Electronic Flight Bags to All Pilots

[adamneer]

I'm just curious how you know you're right, and why you're confident enough in your knowledge to possibly risk the safety of a plane full of people for your own convenience.

Common sense is just what it says: the sense of common people. This is not a substitute for the knowledge of experts. Thinking the gun is empty because you've spun the chamber 3 times and it hasn't gone off is what gets people killed.

This trend towards intuition over science, and "I don't understand it so it must be a conspiracy", is going to be the ruin of a nation.

i dont know how you could really argue that its intuition over science when there have been countless studies that indicate the risk of electronics use during takeoff and landing is so minimal that it's difficult to discern it from coincidence. but of course, being that no test, scientific or otherwise, ever concludes in a 100% confirmation, the old argument of "the odds of electronics causing a malfunction may be 1 in a million, but the odds of malfunction if its banned are zero!". and this is course is both hurtful to progress and a very naive mindset that surely there are no people leaving their phones on during takeoff and landing because everyone always does exactly as theyre told. you make an analogy of spinning the barrel of a gun 3 times for confirmation beyond doubt, but it would be more like spinning the barrel of a gun that may or may not have even been loaded in the first place, 1 million times, while recording the results meticulously each time.

more on point - my uncle is a captain for United (originally Continental) and they were issued iPad's for flight book use when the ipad 2 was the most current model. i lived with him at the time and every month, he would receive a package in the mail with enough paper to print a JRR Tolkien novel, all of which would be equivalent to the amount of paper each month he would have to discard from his existing manual. this is one person in thousands, doing the same thing each month. regardless of the costs the companies save in paper and gas, the planet will surely benefit from the insanely antiquated wastefulness that is prevented by the marvels of technology. i would care to wager the "positive" (read: less terrible) impact on the environment far outweighs the potential for saving a plane full of hypothetical people that are taken down by a text message.

 

[Analog Kid]

Please tell me you aren't referring to the FAA as experts.

This suggests that you have an idealogical position rather than an informed one.

I also love how you bring up science -- because you'll also notice that throughout all the hubbub surrounding this issue, scientific evidence is precisely what has been absent in supporting the current policy and restrictions. The current policy is a function of overly conservative bureaucrats combined with a "Why risk it?" approach to policymaking. While that's not an inherently bad way to develop policy, when it's taken to the extreme -- i.e., when there is no evidence to support the probability of those risks -- it is.

No, there hasn't been any scientific evidence supporting the hubbub. There is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the restrictions. If you've ever designed and built sensitive navigation or communication devices, you've seen it most days of your career.

Rather than explain why this is a problem again, I'll link to an earlier post in an earlier thread.

i dont know how you could really argue that its intuition over science when there have been countless studies that indicate the risk of electronics use during takeoff and landing is so minimal that it's difficult to discern it from coincidence. but of course, being that no test, scientific or otherwise, ever concludes in a 100% confirmation, the old argument of "the odds of electronics causing a malfunction may be 1 in a million, but the odds of malfunction if its banned are zero!". and this is course is both hurtful to progress and a very naive mindset that surely there are no people leaving their phones on during takeoff and landing because everyone always does exactly as theyre told. you make an analogy of spinning the barrel of a gun 3 times for confirmation beyond doubt, but it would be more like spinning the barrel of a gun that may or may not have even been loaded in the first place, 1 million times, while recording the results meticulously each time.

You do realize that a one in a million chance would bring down something like 700 commercial aircraft a year in the US alone, right? The risk factor can be orders of magnitude smaller than that and still be significant.

And saying that making you turn off your electronics for 15 minutes during take off and landing is holding up progress is kind of over stating it, don't you think?

more on point - my uncle is a captain for United (originally Continental) and they were issued iPad's for flight book use when the ipad 2 was the most current model. i lived with him at the time and every month, he would receive a package in the mail with enough paper to print a JRR Tolkien novel, all of which would be equivalent to the amount of paper each month he would have to discard from his existing manual. this is one person in thousands, doing the same thing each month. regardless of the costs the companies save in paper and gas, the planet will surely benefit from the insanely antiquated wastefulness that is prevented by the marvels of technology. i would care to wager the "positive" (read: less terrible) impact on the environment far outweighs the potential for saving a plane full of hypothetical people that are taken down by a text message.

You're mixing the cockpit and the cabin. The cockpit is a controlled environment, with tested equipment, maintained by the airline and within easy reach of the pilot in the event of trouble. The cabin is chaos.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Here's the reason why airliners issuing iPads: no more lugging 40 to 70 pounds of navigational charts for longer flights.

For example, just to fly from San Francisco to Tokyo on a 777-300ER used to require 60+ pounds of navigational charts bound into volumes. Now, all that information can be stored on a single iPad--and finding the right information is now a lot faster.

 

[canyonblue737]

1. The ease of finding information outweighs any marginal loss in being able to have multiple charts out at once. The apps that show us the charts are really tailored for quick use.

2. The iPads are very reliable and no matter what we will have at least 2 working iPads on each flight deck. The odds of BOTH failing at the same time are extremely low. Further the airplane itself has procedural data (what the charts want us to do) in the Flight Management System computers and we could in a pinch use those without the charts.

3. Finally in the event you have no iPads working AND no FMS backup, Air Traffic Control itself can tell you the procedures verbally, it is really no big deal (but again there is no way it gets to #3.)

The charts and manuals are important but I think the pubic somehow thinks the paper itself keeps the airplane flying and that simply isn't true. If something bad happens to the iPads in the air I promise the plane keeps flying just fine.

;-)

PS: You can't IMAGINE how much paper we carry or is in the planes. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pages in the cockpit (I suspect 10,000+ easy) and 20% of that gets removed and replaced nearly every 2 weeks. The iPad holds it all.

 

[TyPod]

Glad this finally became a reality! The less luggage them pilots have to carry around the better!

 

[hjkl]

I'm just curious how you know you're right, and why you're confident enough in your knowledge to possibly risk the safety of a plane full of people for your own convenience.

Common sense is just what it says: the sense of common people. This is not a substitute for the knowledge of experts. Thinking the gun is empty because you've spun the chamber 3 times and it hasn't gone off is what gets people killed.

This trend towards intuition over science, and "I don't understand it so it must be a conspiracy", is going to be the ruin of a nation.

Exactly!

Every time this subject comes up, I'm amazed at how many people feel that complete absence of technical understanding and education in such a deeply technical area is no barrier whatsoever to asserting an opinion (and in fact are willing to gamble other people's lives on their unfounded gut-feel).

I've spent 30 years designing electronic systems (including avionics and consumer electronics) and I'm still frequently surprised by the results we get in EMC test chambers.

As it happens, I do suspect that we will be able to relax the rules to some extent, once sufficient study has been done. The key, however, is the "sufficient study" bit - they certainly shouldn't be changed just because Joe Public's uninformed intuition says it's safe.

-- HJKL

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Makes sense. What happens if the iPad fails in flight though?

They still have the emergency manuals in paper onboard if necessary and a spare iPad or something. I forgot when but in an earlier report last year I asked the very same question and a pilot told me.

 

[sorinc03]

I recently flew domestic First on AA and they were offering Galaxy Tabs for free. I don't know if they were offering them to Economy passengers as well and if they were for how much, but does anyone know why they offer Androids to passengers when clearly they have a deal with Apple for iPads in the flight deck? Do Androids offer them more flexibility in terms of movies and music they can put on rather than going through iTunes or such?

 

[dilbert99]

By this logic, since they let pilots steer the plane they should let the passengers do it to? There's a difference between having a piece of equipment under airline and pilot control and a piece of equipment under passenger control.

I don't get your logic. If its unsafe to have an electronic device operating during takeoff or landing such as an iPad, why would you give one to a pilot?

 

[Tiger8]

Makes sense. What happens if the iPad fails in flight though?

by theory printed maps and manuals can also get damaged or lost, there are certain protocols around that. Most licensed pilots (especially commercial pilots) can function without any of those aids

 

[kdarling]

I recently flew domestic First on AA and they were offering Galaxy Tabs for free. I don't know if they were offering them to Economy passengers as well and if they were for how much, but does anyone know why they offer Androids to passengers when clearly they have a deal with Apple for iPads in the flight deck?

Of course, they don't have a deal with Apple itself for the flight deck. They have an an internal or external systems provider who is responsible for supplying and maintaining the iPads or whatever tablet they choose.

Do Androids offer them more flexibility in terms of movies and music they can put on rather than going through iTunes or such?

A lot more tablets are needed for passengers, so price could be a factor.

American Airlines bought 17,000 Galaxy Notes for its flight attendants based partly on size. (Probably before the iPad mini came out.)

 

[litmag01]

Most pilots that aren't over retirement age like to use them anyway.

 

[caesarp]

This suggests that you have an idealogical position rather than an informed one.

No, there hasn't been any scientific evidence supporting the hubbub. There is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the restrictions. If you've ever designed and built sensitive navigation or communication devices, you've seen it most days of your career.

Rather than explain why this is a problem again, I'll link to an earlier post in an earlier thread.

You do realize that a one in a million chance would bring down something like 700 commercial aircraft a year in the US alone, right? The risk factor can be orders of magnitude smaller than that and still be significant.

And saying that making you turn off your electronics for 15 minutes during take off and landing is holding up progress is kind of over stating it, don't you think?

You're mixing the cockpit and the cabin. The cockpit is a controlled environment, with tested equipment, maintained by the airline and within easy reach of the pilot in the event of trouble. The cabin is chaos.

We resolved this argument here a while ago, and my last post in that thread is the definitive word (been tested by the masses, been done, and electronic devices ON from gate to gate will likely be approved by the FAA shortly). Read this thread, including last post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1582666/



Thanks for playing.

----------

Exactly!

Every time this subject comes up, I'm amazed at how many people feel that complete absence of technical understanding and education in such a deeply technical area is no barrier whatsoever to asserting an opinion (and in fact are willing to gamble other people's lives on their unfounded gut-feel).

I've spent 30 years designing electronic systems (including avionics and consumer electronics) and I'm still frequently surprised by the results we get in EMC test chambers.

As it happens, I do suspect that we will be able to relax the rules to some extent, once sufficient study has been done. The key, however, is the "sufficient study" bit - they certainly shouldn't be changed just because Joe Public's uninformed intuition says it's safe.

-- HJKL

Mass testing is done on every flight these days (whether on purpose or not). This has been tested to death. The FAA will certainly allow gate to gate devices on in the near future. See my above post and links.

----------

i dont know how you could really argue that its intuition over science when there have been countless studies that indicate the risk of electronics use during takeoff and landing is so minimal that it's difficult to discern it from coincidence. but of course, being that no test, scientific or otherwise, ever concludes in a 100% confirmation, the old argument of "the odds of electronics causing a malfunction may be 1 in a million, but the odds of malfunction if its banned are zero!". .

This is incorrect. Many people simply put their device away (left on) or simply blank the screen (but it is still on). Since the flight attendants do not check each device by hand to determine if a device is actually "off", banning does nothing but create cabin power plays and force most people to either purposefully or innocently break the rule.

I certainly never fully turn off my devices (be it Kindle, iPad or iPhone). Yet I tuck it in the seat pocket. Or continue to use if the flight attendants don't pay attention.

I am one of millions. So brother, your theory is wrong and this has been tested plenty.

 

[PracticalMac]

I wonder if there will be two per flight... If not, I'm sure they could borrow one from someone in the cabin

yes, 2, Pilot and Co-Yesman

But true. if both break, just ask passenger to borrow and 15 min later be all set.


And I am sure all the passengers would happily let them borrow theirs.

 

[hjkl]

Mass testing is done on every flight these days (whether on purpose or not). This has been tested to death. The FAA will certainly allow gate to gate devices on in the near future. See my above post and links.

As was explained to you on the earlier thread, but you seemed not to understand, the current experience does not test the situation under discussion.

Specifically, current experience gives us (some) evidence of what will happen given the level of device usage which occurs when devices are banned. This usage is admittedly non-zero, but it's entirely plausible that it's not as high as it would be if devices were allowed.

In order to view the evidence of current experience as conclusive you need to demonstrate that either device usage will not increase if the rules are changed, or that the increased usage will not increase the risk.

As I've said, it's entirely possible that study will show it to be safe within certain limits (and I suspect it will, perhaps even very soon) - something more substantial than ignorant assertion is required, however.

My disagreement isn't so much with the conclusion, it's with the invalid approach people are taking to get there - there are plausible mechanisms for risk, and it (rightly) takes more than the gut feel of the ignorant (in this field) masses to convince that it is safe.

-- HJKL

 

[PracticalMac]

American says it is the first major commercial carrier to deploy Electronic Flight Bags (EFB) throughout their entire fleet, and the airline has decided to discontinue paper revisions of pilot flight manuals.

That's the big news.

iPad is no longer an option, its a fact.
All the fence sitting airlines will jump on EFB's now

(if some other airline did not do already)

 

[PracticalMac]

Trading functionality for convenience is a piss-poor trade when we're talking about the safety of 100+ people's lives.

Having outdated paper is an equal problem

AND

If one cant retrieve (or find!) the correct paper in urgency.


With iPad you gain benefits, and loose some, but with software those looses can be compensated for.

 

[litmag01]

One step closer to doing away with the asinine "10,000 feet" rule.

This rule has a LOT of other reasons besides electronic devices. It also happens to be the max altitude you can fly unpressurized without oxygen masks to remain conscious; along with a whole slew of other linked reasons that help to keep people alive.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't get your logic. If its unsafe to have an electronic device operating during takeoff or landing such as an iPad, why would you give one to a pilot?

Not all devices are equal, nor are all operators. An individual device can be tested for compliance, and an individual user (the pilot) can be more aware of the devices impact and faster to respond in the event of difficulty.

We resolved this argument here a while ago, and my last post in that thread is the definitive word (been tested by the masses, been done, and electronic devices ON from gate to gate will likely be approved by the FAA shortly). Read this thread, including last post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1582666/

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for snarking. I guess saying you're the "definitive word" is as clear an indication of the hubris in the argument as any.

Who are the 28 members of this panel? What testing have they done? To the extent that those articles have any information in them (unattributed leaks are very often an attempt to sway public opinion before publication and pressure dissenters to comply), the "science" seems to be circumstantial rather than empirical.

It all sounds like an agency bending to social pressure rather than sound reasoning. The whole argument presented is "electronics have gotten better, and nobody listens anyways, so we can't enforce the rule". The parallel would be "cars have gotten better, and people continue to speed, so lets eliminate speed limits." If the changes are based on testing, then I'll be much more comfortable, but it's still irresponsible to take a Gizmodo leak about unclear changes to rules in the future and use it to justify changes to behavior today.

Besides, which electronics? Read my post linked above, if you haven't, but the FCC barely tests anything in the US. How do they know what will be developed in the future? Electronics coming in on flights from overseas are even more of a wild card-- if they're selling things that look like iPhones but aren't iPhones, what makes you think they're doing emissions testing on them?

Will the public react to the argument that it is "untenable" to maintain this restriction as harshly as they reacted to the argument that it's untenable to confiscate every small pocket knife? Probably not-- you can see a knife, but you can't see a radio wave.

Mass testing is done on every flight these days (whether on purpose or not). This has been tested to death. The FAA will certainly allow gate to gate devices on in the near future. See my above post and links.

This is incorrect. Many people simply put their device away (left on) or simply blank the screen (but it is still on). Since the flight attendants do not check each device by hand to determine if a device is actually "off", banning does nothing but create cabin power plays and force most people to either purposefully or innocently break the rule.

I certainly never fully turn off my devices (be it Kindle, iPad or iPhone). Yet I tuck it in the seat pocket. Or continue to use if the flight attendants don't pay attention.

I am one of millions. So brother, your theory is wrong and this has been tested plenty.

That isn't mass testing, it's noise. This is precisely the type of uneducated argument I'm talking about.

Your certainty is unfounded. If you read the WSJ article that you referred to above, even that industry panel isn't suggesting that all devices are fine on all flights-- more devices may be permitted on more aircraft that have been more carefully tested. All of those articles are written as "may change" when the report is finished and released.

The safety in the regulations does rely, in part, on people taking personal responsibility for their actions. Being a member of a tribe hardly gives you cover for disregarding the safety of your fellow passengers.

----------

As I've said, it's entirely possible that study will show it to be safe within certain limits (and I suspect it will, perhaps even very soon) - something more substantial than ignorant assertion is required, however.

My disagreement isn't so much with the conclusion, it's with the invalid approach people are taking to get there - there are plausible mechanisms for risk, and it (rightly) takes more than the gut feel of the ignorant (in this field) masses to convince that it is safe.

-- HJKL

Exactly. That, and the ignorant belief that rumors of possible but unexplained changes in the future justify devil-may-care behavior today.

 

[john123]

This suggests that you have an idealogical position rather than an informed one.

No, I have intimate familiarity with the FAA and its operations. If I do have "ideology" (spelling corrected), it is a function of that knowledge and experience, not the other way around.

No, there hasn't been any scientific evidence supporting the hubbub. There is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the restrictions. If you've ever designed and built sensitive navigation or communication devices, you've seen it most days of your career.

Actually, there isn't. The amount of potential interference is negligible, and the instrumentation on all commercial aviation equipment is designed with much higher standards than the token types of devices you are mentioning.

You do realize that a one in a million chance would bring down something like 700 commercial aircraft a year in the US alone, right? The risk factor can be orders of magnitude smaller than that and still be significant.

I'm going to say this again: there is no quantitative basis for your 1:1,000,000 probability estimate. None at all. Blindly applying an expected value calculation using subjective probability estimates isn't science. It's a joke.

And saying that making you turn off your electronics for 15 minutes during take off and landing is holding up progress is kind of over stating it, don't you think?

I didn't say anything of the kind. Perhaps you should re-read what people type, rather than clumping everyone who doesn't agree with you (and based on what I've read so far, there will be a LOT of us) into a single bucket.

You're mixing the cockpit and the cabin. The cockpit is a controlled environment, with tested equipment, maintained by the airline and within easy reach of the pilot in the event of trouble. The cabin is chaos.

Um, no? Yeah, no.

----------

Having outdated paper is an equal problem

AND

If one cant retrieve (or find!) the correct paper in urgency.


With iPad you gain benefits, and loose some, but with software those looses can be compensated for.

Commercial pilots don't have outdated paper. They are required to keep their manuals up to date, and I've never known a commercial pilot who didn't take this responsibility seriously. Keep in mind that FAA agents are frequently on passenger flights, and they almost without exception check in with the pilots and verify various procedural items.

And again, my issue is that the crappy software plus the limitation of the small screen create a situation that simply cannot be compensated for. It's just an unwieldy system -- especially for older pilots who, unlike their kids' and grandkids' generation -- simply are less adept and swift when it comes to dealing with technology.

 

[caesarp]

Not all devices are equal, nor are all operators. An individual device can be tested for compliance, and an individual user (the pilot) can be more aware of the devices impact and faster to respond in the event of difficulty.

Thanks for snarking. I guess saying you're the "definitive word" is as clear an indication of the hubris in the argument as any.

Who are the 28 members of this panel? What testing have they done? To the extent that those articles have any information in them (unattributed leaks are very often an attempt to sway public opinion before publication and pressure dissenters to comply), the "science" seems to be circumstantial rather than empirical.

It all sounds like an agency bending to social pressure rather than sound reasoning. The whole argument presented is "electronics have gotten better, and nobody listens anyways, so we can't enforce the rule". The parallel would be "cars have gotten better, and people continue to speed, so lets eliminate speed limits." If the changes are based on testing, then I'll be much more comfortable, but it's still irresponsible to take a Gizmodo leak about unclear changes to rules in the future and use it to justify changes to behavior today.

Besides, which electronics? Read my post linked above, if you haven't, but the FCC barely tests anything in the US. How do they know what will be developed in the future? Electronics coming in on flights from overseas are even more of a wild card-- if they're selling things that look like iPhones but aren't iPhones, what makes you think they're doing emissions testing on them?

Will the public react to the argument that it is "untenable" to maintain this restriction as harshly as they reacted to the argument that it's untenable to confiscate every small pocket knife? Probably not-- you can see a knife, but you can't see a radio wave.

That isn't mass testing, it's noise. This is precisely the type of uneducated argument I'm talking about.

Your certainty is unfounded. If you read the WSJ article that you referred to above, even that industry panel isn't suggesting that all devices are fine on all flights-- more devices may be permitted on more aircraft that have been more carefully tested. All of those articles are written as "may change" when the report is finished and released.

The safety in the regulations does rely, in part, on people taking personal responsibility for their actions. Being a member of a tribe hardly gives you cover for disregarding the safety of your fellow passengers.

----------


Exactly. That, and the ignorant belief that rumors of possible but unexplained changes in the future justify devil-may-care behavior today.

You can't prove a negative. So you will never have the definitive proof you seek. There will never be 100% proof that electronic reading devices do NOT perhaps sometimes somewhere cause some type of glitch. I'm not worried about it. If you are -- don't fly then.

In fact, don't drive, as 40,000 people in the U.S. die each year from car accidents. Why risk it. Much riskier than flying.

Also, you should always wear a lightning rod attached to your head. Better safe than sorry.

 

[linuxcooldude]

We resolved this argument here a while ago, and my last post in that thread is the definitive word (been tested by the masses, been done, and electronic devices ON from gate to gate will likely be approved by the FAA shortly). Read this thread, including last post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1582666/



Thanks for playing.

----------



Mass testing is done on every flight these days (whether on purpose or not). This has been tested to death. The FAA will certainly allow gate to gate devices on in the near future. See my above post and links.

----------



This is incorrect. Many people simply put their device away (left on) or simply blank the screen (but it is still on). Since the flight attendants do not check each device by hand to determine if a device is actually "off", banning does nothing but create cabin power plays and force most people to either purposefully or innocently break the rule.

I certainly never fully turn off my devices (be it Kindle, iPad or iPhone). Yet I tuck it in the seat pocket. Or continue to use if the flight attendants don't pay attention.

I am one of millions. So brother, your theory is wrong and this has been tested plenty.

Interestingly enough, it appears you did not read thoroughly the articles you linked about the FAA.

The FAA said EASE some of the restrictions for SOME of the electronic devices.

Cellular phones are still expected to be turned off since the panel was not allowed to discuss the use of cell phones on planes at that time.

been tested by the masses, been done, and electronic devices ON from gate to gate

I don't think the "MASSES" are scientifically qualified to test all the different models of electronics on all the different models of planes in all the different scenarios that may be required.

I certainly not going to put my life or anyone else's on the line for such unauthorized testing.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm going to say this again: there is no quantitative basis for your 1:1,000,000 probability estimate. None at all. Blindly applying an expected value calculation using subjective probability estimates isn't science. It's a joke.

Stop and the read context of the comment. One in a million isn't my number, it was his. My point is that to many people, one in a million sounds like a small risk, but with 700 million passenger embarkments in a year and each person probably carrying something, his comment that one in a million causes a problem is an enormous risk. One in a billion is significant.

I didn't say anything of the kind. Perhaps you should re-read what people type, rather than clumping everyone who doesn't agree with you (and based on what I've read so far, there will be a LOT of us) into a single bucket.

Um, no? Yeah, no.

It would probably ease your mind about me lumping you in with other people if you looked to see that I wasn't responding to you...

You can't prove a negative. So you will never have the definitive proof you seek. There will never be 100% proof that electronic reading devices do NOT perhaps sometimes somewhere cause some type of glitch. I'm not worried about it. If you are -- don't fly then.

In fact, don't drive, as 40,000 people in the U.S. die each year from car accidents. Why risk it. Much riskier than flying.

Also, you should always wear a lightning rod attached to your head. Better safe than sorry.

Ok, so first: you can prove a negative. If you couldn't, then saying "you can't prove a negative" would be an unprovable statement anyway.

Second, I agree that its infeasible to prove that every device made in every country in all states of repair pose no risk to the flight. That's why we're asked to turn them off. They don't strip them from us at security like a gun, they let us carry them on the flight and politely ask us to be responsible for 15 freakin' minutes.

Look at it this way. These are very complex systems that interact in ways that are impossible to fully predict. Let's say that that more lax rules cost us 1000 lives every 10 years. I travel once a month or so. The current regulations inconvenience me for about 30 minutes a flight, or maybe an hour round trip, for about 12 hours a year. 12 hours of inconvenience potentially saving 100 lives.

Pick what numbers you'd like, I don't know what they actually are (which is kind of the point of my argument), but this is what the calculation comes down to. What is the risk, and how much are we willing to sacrifice to mitigate that risk.

Or we could, as you suggest, make everything in the world as dangerous as driving and relax regulations until we lose 40,000 people a year in air travel.

However we chose to set our priorities, it should be knowingly, not because we just guess at an answer.

 

[hjkl]

You can't prove a negative.

Oh dear - not that old fallacy.

Some negatives are provable, some aren't (just like "positive" statements). In fact, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative ... go figure.

I'm not worried about it.

I'm sure you're not worried about it - what many of us would like to know is what technical expertise underlies your lack of worry, and why you're sufficiently confident in that expertise to risk our lives based on it.

-- HJKL

 

[caesarp]

Oh dear - not that old fallacy.

Some negatives are provable, some aren't (just like "positive" statements). In fact, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative ... go figure.



I'm sure you're not worried about it - what many of us would like to know is what technical expertise underlies your lack of worry, and why you're sufficiently confident in that expertise to risk our lives based on it.

-- HJKL

Stop it. We've all flown dozens of times. And on each of those flights dozens of devices were on. We're still here duh. There is no problem. Your hyper technical concerns are simply annoying and bizarre. It has already been tested numerous times by people not knowing they were testing. If there was an issue we would know about it by now. And they certainly wouldn't leave it to the volunteer system we essentially have now. Yes it has not been tested to the ultimate extreme by peer reviewed Nobel prize winners. So what? Strap your big boy pants on and live a little scaredy cat. Scared people make the worst rules and the worst laws. Hence the patriot act. Are you really that worried. If so you should not fly.

----------

Interestingly enough, it appears you did not read thoroughly the articles you linked about the FAA.

The FAA said EASE some of the restrictions for SOME of the electronic devices.

Cellular phones are still expected to be turned off since the panel was not allowed to discuss the use of cell phones on planes at that time.



I don't think the "MASSES" are scientifically qualified to test all the different models of electronics on all the different models of planes in all the different scenarios that may be required.

I certainly not going to put my life or anyone else's on the line for such unauthorized testing.

You misunderstand. All the masses need do is keep their devices on. No qualifications required. If planes crashed we would know or pilots would have reported severe and ongoing problems. Since we don't have that, test completed. With the number of flights and people with devices all testing has occurred on all flights. Be real.