Originally Posted by
leavingonajetplane
That's not how risk profiling works. You're not separating the inputs from the outputs- we know phones can cause interference, and pilots have reported it before. It hasn't caused an accident yet, but you must accept that it is hypothetically possible for this to lead to distraction and hitting a groundstaff member because they didnt realise stand guidance had failed etc?
By the way, I largely agree with you and think the risk is tiny and acceptable in my view. How many accidents are prevented on the roads by people setting out earlier to meet people because they have more time to get to the airport to pick people up? How many trips/falls are avoided by people knowing their onward travel is delayed, and so on?
There are costs and benefits. I'm not saying it's my job to make such an analysis, but just it's really a case of balancing pros and cons.
The whole discussion is, to me, quite amusing because some people seem to think they're in high mortal danger on taxiing to the gate.
But that's not how we determine risk for plane flights. We don't take the risk of a pilot heart attack, multiply it by the risk for a double-engine failure, and divide by the number of in-range airports.
We look at reality. How many planes have crashed, and how many people have died, and that becomes your risk for death in a plane crash.
Following that same principle, for now, your risk from dying in an airplane with the cause being a cell phone is zero.
I also, find it somewhat hilarious, that people think my booting my self phone on the taxiway is putting their life in danger. No one has asked me to stop yet, crew or passengers, so I suspect we're dealing with the fringe element here.