Phone usage during flight
Oct 28, 2010 | 1:01 pm
#61
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
BZZZZ. Wrong! The correct answer is: Unsubstantiated.
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.
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.
Oct 28, 2010 | 2:49 pm
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,439
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.
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.
Oct 28, 2010 | 3:07 pm
#63
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: PA, AK, or FL 350
Programs: Delta Ham Sammich, SPG, Hertz #1 Gold, Chalet Suites Matterhorn
Posts: 950
Oct 28, 2010 | 4:55 pm
#64
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver. (Former UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat)
Posts: 9,545
In aviation we don't allow potential risks until proven to be unsafe, we disallow potential risks until proven to be safe.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Oct 28, 2010 | 6:16 pm
#65
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
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.
Oct 28, 2010 | 7:11 pm
#66
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: PA, AK, or FL 350
Programs: Delta Ham Sammich, SPG, Hertz #1 Gold, Chalet Suites Matterhorn
Posts: 950
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.
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.
Oct 28, 2010 | 7:12 pm
#67
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
You seem to think this is unreasonable, but it's exactly what is done for avionics to be certified.
Oct 28, 2010 | 8:15 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,439
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.
Last edited by planemechanic; Oct 29, 2010 at 12:41 am
Oct 28, 2010 | 9:58 pm
#69
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: EAT
Programs: AS MVP (qualified MVP for 2011), DL, AA
Posts: 1,000
Rules are meant to be broken, while laws can only be bent
. Another member mentioned this earlier, but if it was a serious threat to the lives of the passengers and crew (not to mention a multi-million dollar airplane) phones and all electronic devices would not be allowed on the plane. But i'm sure most airlines would prefer we not bring anything with us anyway.
. Another member mentioned this earlier, but if it was a serious threat to the lives of the passengers and crew (not to mention a multi-million dollar airplane) phones and all electronic devices would not be allowed on the plane. But i'm sure most airlines would prefer we not bring anything with us anyway.
Last edited by AlphaDelta; Oct 29, 2010 at 12:19 am
Oct 29, 2010 | 9:06 am
#70
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver. (Former UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat)
Posts: 9,545
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?
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.
Oct 29, 2010 | 9:29 am
#71
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Gear indicator bulbs don't burn out on every single flight around the world each day, whereas I'd wager that activated cell phones are on board nearly every flight. 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. For all your condescension about risk analysis (to a group which includes at least one risk analysis expert, incidentally), this simple point seems to be lost on you.
Oct 29, 2010 | 11:24 am
#72
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PHX
Programs: US, DL, BA FF Progs
Posts: 126
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
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
Oct 29, 2010 | 4:51 pm
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,439
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.
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?
Oct 29, 2010 | 8:10 pm
#74
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver. (Former UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat)
Posts: 9,545
And from that you conclude that they are all wrong. That is an unreasonable conclusion based on the data. It is clear that the possibility of interference exists.
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.