Subject: Re: presentation-prep as safety hazard

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:51:35 +0100

John Stracke <[email-masked]> con fecha 20/03/2001 05:35:15 PM

Destinatarios: [email-masked]
CC:      (cci: Joaquin Rivera Rodriguez/TDC)
Asunto: Re: presentation-prep as safety hazard

<Dave Crocker wrote:
<
<> On the way here, the flight attendant insisted that I turn off my Palm Pilot.
<>
<> Do they make people turn off hearing aids?
<
<And, if they do, how do they tell them it's OK to turn them back on? :-)
<
<The remaining question, of course, is how come the airplane
<manufacturers can't build a plane to resist this interference.

Could it be that IT developments take 6 months and plain developments takes 5 to
10 years.
Who had a wireless device 5 years ago? What about 10 years ago? What about in
1969, when the first 747 started to fly?

Could it be that a bug in your ERP may make you loose money, a bug in a plain
makes you loose your life.

Could it be that if "windows" crashes every couple of days you just reboot it,
if a 747 crashes one single time, +400 persons die. (Who does reboot them)

I agree that plains should be better "shield" but, maybe we (the internet
community) are not the ones to tell other how to do more reliable things and,
fore sure we have a very week point when it comes to liabilities.

Anyway, do we know what a router and a switch are, becouse, everyone on avionics
knows what a transponder or a flap is, with no doubt about its definition or
functions.

Regards,
J.R.

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:31:17 -0800

> if a 747 crashes one single time, +400 persons die. (Who does reboot them)

could it be that the industry don't know the difference between ignorance
and apathy (hint: it's "i don't know and i don't care").

the problem is that, as far as the public knows, all "evidence" about
computers interfering with aircraft systems is anecdotal. we have yet to see
a study reported.

why? probably a lack of money and a fear of liability. it costs serious
bucks to fund a comprehensive study. and if it's wrong, then there's
liability. and all for what, so some business traveller's can get 10 more
minutes of productivity on each flight? (hint: providing a productive
environment for passengers isn't something the industry gets objectively
graded on.) far better to simply mumble about unspecified safety hazards
than having something definitive.

a rationale reason for asking folks to turn the things off is because the
airlines don't want people to be distracted during take-off and landing,
when most things tend to go wrong. if they'd just come out and say this,
most people would probably accept it.

instead, the industry prefers to play this "we know better than you" game,
when in fact there is a lack of publically-available scientific evidence to
support the claims of either side.

this is, of course, just one small part of what's wrong with the industry.
frankly, i'd be happier if they could manage to get the planes to take off
and land on schedule, not lose luggage, etc., etc.

/mtr

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Mar 2001 02:17:03 -0800

Marshall T Rose <[email-masked]> writes:

> a rationale reason for asking folks to turn the things off is because
> the airlines don't want people to be distracted during take-off and
> landing, when most things tend to go wrong. if they'd just come out and
> say this, most people would probably accept it.

Nope.  Way more arguments that way.  See, one's own level of distraction
is something that one feels in control of and able to judge, so people can
then immediately disagree with feeling distracted, or just ignore that
instruction since they know *they* won't be distracted.

If you cite some pseudo-scientific justification, however, particularly
one related to safety, most people will swallow it without a question.

If the goal is to get people to obey without questioning, you want to
pretend to be an expert in a topic they know nothing about and won't
disagree with you on.  There are *way* more amateur psychologists who
think they understand distraction than there are people who are sure they
know what will and will not affect airplane avionics.

This is one of those areas where being believable is a lot more effective
than being accurate.  Don't think of it as a technical issue; think of it
as an exercise in mass psychology.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>