|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15030788)
Intermittent.
Millions of people swear up and down that they get fewer colds after taking vitamin C. Controlled experiments show zero effect. These people aren't lying, or necessarily wrong, but they are mistaking a placebo effect for a real one. Just as you're misattributing an intermittent, probably uncorrelated effect to external interference. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15028332)
I mean exactly what I said. Few, if any, of the incidents are investigated further.
As a pilot, I would say that more than half of the avionics write ups that I see in the aircraft logbooks are not reproducible by the mechanics and are subsequently written up multiple times before the mechanics are able to get it fixed. Does that mean that the three, four, etc., previous anomalies were the pilot's imagination? No, it means that these things are unpredictable and very difficult to reproduce. Yet they continue to occur, again, and again, and again. From that you conclude that they do not exist. The only risk of using a cell phone during maintenance work is that an otherwise perfectly good airplane will fail a diagnostic test and the mechanics will waste time trying to find the non-existent problem. Ah, that's the key to why the airplanes aren't crashing. We don't rely on the equipment working properly, we expect it to fail so that we are prepared on the relatively rare occasions that it does. Re-read what I wrote on risk-management. One successful test only shows that everything was working correctly on that airplane, on that flight. One test doesn't tell you anything about what can happen when things aren't working perfectly. If a successful test ensured perfect performance then there would never be any write-ups. Everything always works fine--until it doesn't. Live in the dream world if you must, but your assumptions are using faulty logic. Not unlike many of the pilots I know, you know just enough to make bad assumptions. When it comes to how the systems work in detail the maintenance folks actually do know better. You might be good in a pinch, but you do not see the same level of detail or the testing involved. There are maintenance display pages that you don't look at, and for good reason, you don't have the documents to help you interpret their meaning. There are many well known and well documented nuisance messages that will pop up on your displays that the maintenance manual is aware of, and, as known nuisance messages, are cleared without action. You may feel this is a repeated problem, but it is a repeated write up from pilots who do not know the real issues. Eventually the pilots stop writing it up because they are taught about the nuisance message from the last mechanic who signed it off. Many pilots are very well trained bus drivers, but please don;t claim to be the expert in the details of each system. You know how to fly, not fix or maintain these systems and they are more complicated at the maintenance level than you, as a pilot, will ever know or need to know. |
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15028424)
And if a phenomenon can't be reproduced in a controlled experiment then it's what? Anyone? Bueller?
|
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15031669)
Unsubstantiated.
Interference is certainly possible. I see it personally a couple of time a year. It's there when the phone/device is on, or in a particular mode or activity, and gone when it is off. How many times do I have to repeat the on/off correlation cycle before I can say that the device is causing the interference? The interference that I have seen personally is with the communication radio and cell phones. Mythbusters produced interference with a VOR navigation signal. The ASRS reports describe many different types of interference which comes and goes with the electronic device being switched on and off. How many examples must there be for you to believe that interference is possible?
Originally Posted by planemechanic
(Post 15032356)
Live in the dream world if you must, but your assumptions are using faulty logic.
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15033096)
I am not making assumptions. I am applying established risk-management techniques. You seem to believe that if one test shows no interference then interference is impossible. That is the faulty logic.
Similarly, most new aircraft designs are subjected to only one "real" wing stress test (to 150% of maximum expected stress, continued until the wing breaks). On every flight should we therefore be worried that the wings will snap off, since only one test has been performed? Of course not. A single test in the context of decades of scientific and engineering research is more than sufficient. |
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15033446)
So you're suggesting that only one test of this has been performed in the history of commercial aviation?
Similarly, most new aircraft designs are subjected to only one "real" wing stress test (to 150% of maximum expected stress, continued until the wing breaks). On every flight should we therefore be worried that the wings will snap off, since only one test has been performed? Of course not. A single test in the context of decades of scientific and engineering research is more than sufficient. Or, follow the current rule. The burden of 'proof' here is on the people whining about the rule, not on the airlines, the FAA, or even the device manufacturers. |
Originally Posted by Frozentech
(Post 15033730)
Conduct said test for each and every electronic device you propose to operate. Don't forget to conduct each test on each device in each type of aircraft while you are at it.
You seem to think this is unreasonable, but it's exactly what is done for avionics to be certified. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15033096)
I am not making assumptions. I am applying established risk-management techniques. You seem to believe that if one test shows no interference then interference is impossible. That is the faulty logic.
You are clearly making assumptions, which leads to your faulty logic. This issue is tested on nearly every flight in the world every day. I would venture to say that somewhere between 2-10% of passengers ignore this rule for cell phones, and almost 80-90% of people using computers will most likely fail to turn off their Wi-fi connection when using their computers in-flight. Since the introduction of cell phone more than 20 years ago this issue has been tested 100's of millions of times. Yet there is not one single crash linked to this issue. So, 100's of millions of examples, no crashes. Seems well tested to me. I don't know about anyone else, but I am not whining about this rule, I just ignore it, like many many others. There is no documented negative effect on me as a passenger, so why bother, unless you are one of those anal types that rely on "But, but, it's the RULE!!". Follow it if you wish, but I can guarantee that if I am ever a passenger on your flight my cell phone will be on and we will most assuredly land at the correct airport, maintain communications with the ground and not crash. |
Originally Posted by planemechanic
(Post 15034045)
"But, but, it's the RULE!!"
|
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15033446)
So you're suggesting that only one test of this has been performed in the history of commercial aviation?
Similarly, most new aircraft designs are subjected to only one "real" wing stress test (to 150% of maximum expected stress, continued until the wing breaks). On every flight should we therefore be worried that the wings will snap off, since only one test has been performed?
Originally Posted by planemechanic
(Post 15034045)
This issue is tested on nearly every flight in the world every day.
So, 100's of millions of examples, no crashes. Seems well tested to me. I hope your adherence to the rules and procedures is a bit better with regard to following the procedures in the maintenance manuals while you are performing your job. I'd hate to think that you only comply with the procedures and requirements with which you agree. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15036733)
A burned out gear indicator bulb hasn't caused the crash of a widebody jet until the day that it did.
|
I saw someone mentioned this earlier in the thread too. I never thought about it before, but it's a good point.
Moreso the various safety/security agencies than airlines, I would think If there was any real evidence cells could cause any significant issues they would not allow them on the plane for fear terrorist would use them. Abagail
Originally Posted by pittpanther
(Post 15023071)
If there was a real risk of disruption caused by cell phones/electronics, would the airlines just leave things to chance, hoping that we all comply? I would think they would confiscate all electronics before boarding, if there was a real risk.
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15036733)
No. I'm talking about the one test that planemechanic related on which he participated. His assertion was that one test proves that interference is impossible. It does not.
I made no such claim. I said that in a real test involving much more electronic interference that you would ever expect to see in the real world that the monitoring equipment detected no interference. This is in contrast to your repeated claims of unverified interference by pilots. Your "reports" are all unverifiable and unprovable, while the test I was last involved in (and it has not been the only one) was verifiable and provable, and it showed no interference.
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15036733)
I hope your adherence to the rules and procedures is a bit better with regard to following the procedures in the maintenance manuals while you are performing your job. I'd hate to think that you only comply with the procedures and requirements with which you agree.
For example, here is a list of the last five air crashes attributed to cell phone interference: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Oops, notice the list is blank? |
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 15036873)
Don't know why I bother making this point again, but if they posed even a 1 in 10 million chance of bringing down a plane, they would be banned.
Originally Posted by planemechanic
(Post 15039637)
Your "reports" are all unverifiable and unprovable
You have no evidence that I do anything other than fully comply with all required maintenance rules Oops, notice the list is blank? 1. There is no doubt that interference can, and sometimes does, occur. There are a steady stream of reports of such interference in the industry database that is setup for just that type of report, the mythbusters documented interference in their test, and many pilots, including myself, have seen it first hand. 2. When interference occurs, regardless of its source, it has the potential to cash an incident or accident. 3. Since cell-phone use is not required in flight, the safety action is to prohibit their use. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 15040397)
Their use in-flight is banned.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.