Since electronic devices supposedly can cause a plane to crash, all the suicide bomber have to do is to keep their hp or iPad or whatever electronic devices they have on.... Easier than smuggling bombs onboard. Why don't suicide bombers just do that??

If electronic devices were really so dangerous, why do we still allow them to be brought onboard? Since we can stop passengers from carrying life sustaining water onboard, why can't we stop passengers from carrying their electronic devices onboard??

[...merged/edited by mod...]
Maybe I should rephrase it, what electronic devices are truly dangerous to a plane? I've tried switching on my iPhone, iPad, camera and kindle. Apparently didn't crash my plane.... So I'm just wondering, if it is truly dangerous, why don't terrorist use it? And if it is not dangerous at all, why the fuss about switching off your electronic devices during take off and landings?

Maybe there's an electronic device that is really dangerous to the plane and that is why the FCC refuses to let passengers use electronic devices during take off..... So my point is not to offend anybody but was just to make a point.

I apologize to whoever whom thinks that my post was offensive..

So lets get this straight, you have deliberately ignored FAA requirements and flight crew instructions?

I'm very glad I don't fly on the same routes as you.

<mod>
I've updated the thread title and slightly changed the first post to beter reflect the topic under discussion here. Let's try to stay on-topic, folks. And remember that the red triangle alert button is your friend.


For some historical perspective on the discussion see:

• http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...-avionics.html
• http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...es-being.html?
• http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...-landing.html?

I'm sure there are others but that's what search found for me so far.
</mod>

It's not that electronic devices are dangerous, but that combined effect of an unspecified number of such devices at arbitrary locations within the aircraft has not been studied, nor has it been deemed to be non-interfering.
The concern is the lack of information about how much EMI those devices would cause.
Heck I would rather complain about toothpaste, gel etc.

GSM phones make annoying noises on headphones and radios, electronics distract passengers at crucial times, and nobody wants to get hit by a notebook computer gone airborne during an emergency stop.

Thread over, cut here.

Planes falling out of the sky from electronic device use is a bit melodramatic, the concerns are really interference with navigational and communication equipment.

The Aviation Safety Reporting System is a database that contains a wide variety of entries, including many that pertain to Personal Electronic Devices. A PDF containing a sample of 50 of those is available here. This is just a sample set, the entire database can be searched if desired.

While many of these cases are just incidents of pax not turning off devices when requested, there are a few where interference with radios, ILS, and TCAS systems are at least suspected to have been caused by passenger electronics devices. ILS = Instrument landing system, TCAS = traffic collision avoidance system.

Some say there's no risk. Some say it's one in a billion or more.

A terrorist is not going to plan an attack based on something that will happen one in a billion times.

The FAA will ban their use when it statistically projects to take down three flights a year.


Do you also not use seat belts in your car because there are only 40,000 deaths a year in 500 Billion passenger miles? If you made it safely does that prove that seatbelts are useless?

Do you drink and drive because the odds of being caught each time are less than 1 in 100? If you weren't caught does that prove that no one ever gets caught for DUI?


You violating the law by switching on those devices accounts for, what, 5 attempts at something that happens one in a billion attempts. You think that proves the point? Were you hoping to crash to prove you were wrong?

You may want to rethink your entire approach to probability, experiment design, cause-effect, etc.

Electronics devices on airplanes MAY NOT be dangerous on SOME aircraft, but

not being able to use the SEARCH function is VERY dangerous. User beware.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ces-being.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/conti...i-takeoff.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...-too-much.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/milea...y-landing.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...mouse-sir.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...r-devices.html

None of those reports contain evidence that consumer electronics caused any problems. They are full of assumptions by flight crews, nothing more.

Real world experience has shown over the past 20-30 years is that consumer electronics have been the root cause of deaths, injuries or crashes in 0 out of 200-300 million commercial flights.

Based on your numbers the devices should not be banned.

Cell phones - and their users
 

The problem with cell phones isn't RF interference, as modern phones put out so little and modern airline computers are well shielded enough as to make that not really an issue.

The problem with cell phones on the plane is that the towers and switches on the ground can keep up with a phone that is, say, on the freeway, where it is handing off the device every few minutes. Multiply the speed of the airplane by 8-10x, and those handoffs become that much more frequent. At that frequency, they do more than just drop a signal - they cause substantial load increases on the hardware and software that control them. That leads to outages for those on the ground. That's on top of the problem they have just getting - and holding - a signal TO your phone 7 miles up in the air.

During TO/LD, having everything turned off and put away means the crew will be able to get your attention during the riskiest part of the flight. So don't be a dick about it - just do what you're told. I WILL rat you out. I don't want to have my safe egress from a crippled aircraft (assuming we aren't a large fireball) dependent on someone who won't follow simple crew instructions, and neither does anyone else. So grow up.