

F.A.A. Panel Backs Easing of Device Rules - tsumnia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/business/faa-panel-would-ease-policy-on-electronic-devices-aloft.html?_r=0

======
jws
It's worth remembering this didn't occur in a vacuum. From Senator McCaskill's
open letter to the head of the FAA last December¹:

 _…I urge the agency to embrace the expanded use of PEDs…_

 _…the public is growing increasingly skeptical of prohibitions on the use of
many electronic devices…_

 _…such anachronistic policies undermine the public 's confidence in the FAA…_

 _…absurdity of the current situation…_

 _…It is my hope that the FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal
agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously as possible to implement common
sense changes…_

 _…I am prepared to pursue legislative solutions should progress be made too
slowly._

␄

¹
[http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1757](http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1757)

Contemporaneous HN posting:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4914344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4914344)

------
msandford
Only took them, what, a decade? Maybe longer?

Things like this breed distrust in the government. If they had reacted in a
couple of years after wifi became prevalent you could easily argue the "we
need more testing" angle and people would buy it. But after 10+ years there's
no good excuse.

What other stuff is happening right now that the government says is "unsafe"
(and thus banned) which is actually safe, and what is "safe" (and thus not
banned) which is not?

The only way for a government to have a believable claim to legitimacy is to
work ruthlessly to minimize false positives and false negatives and if/when
they happen to root out the source of the problem and ensure it'll never
happen again. Sadly we rarely see much or any of this.

~~~
breadbox
Meh. I can't get too upset about overconservative flight safety regulations.
Yes, the risk was utterly minuscule from the get-go, but the cost of an
accident in-flight is being weighed against the cost of your fellow citizens
not being allowed to log into Facebook.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Meh. I can't get too upset about overconservative flight safety regulations.

No. No no no no.

Logic like this is often used by the government to justify the existence of
things like the TSA. "We need to be overconservative to prevent terrorist
attacks." Except it doesn't work when the measures are of questionable benefit
whereas the costs are astronomical.

~~~
mikeash
A major difference is that the TSA is largely protecting against a fictional
threat, while the FAA's safety regulations are, overall, acting on proven
dangers and are demonstrably successful.

Airline travel used to be pretty dangerous. Today, in the US, it's about as
safe as any human endeavor has ever been. The danger is close enough to zero
that the delta cannot be properly measured. Even in the past decade or so,
airline travel has become _much_ safer.

This particular policy was almost certainly not useful. But the overall regime
of "better safe than sorry" has proven to be highly effective _in this
particular context_.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>This particular policy was almost certainly not useful. But the overall
regime of "better safe than sorry" has proven to be highly effective in this
particular context.

The context here is this particular policy, not FAA's approach to airline
travel as a whole.

~~~
mbreese
You have to consider the agency and their mandates. What is it that is the
FAA's number one priority: to make air travel safe. This means all of their
policies are made from that perspective. They are a technical/regulatory
agency, they don't really interact with the public. They interact with the
airplane industry. As such, it's not really helpful to paint them with the
same brush as the TSA or NSA. The FAA maybe slow to adjust their rules, but
that doesn't mean it's with malice.

The TSA, on the other hand, is all about interacting with the public to try
and make us feel safer about travel in general. Generally, interacting with
the public is rarely a strong point for any government agency.

------
sgustard
The restrictions predate wifi; they are based on supposed risk from EMF
interference. You can't listen to your iPod during takeoff either ("please
shut off all portable electronic devices").

------
bitsweet
Good news for humanity, bad news for the print industry. For the last few
years, the only time my wife and I bought magazines was at the airport before
a flight so we had something to read for the departure and arrival when we had
to "shut off all the devices with an on/off switch"

~~~
jacalata
I don't know what percentage of overall print volume is covered by airport
purchases, but I bet this spells bad news for the newsagents and bookshops at
an airport. I wouldn't like to own one of them right now.

~~~
dingaling
In the UK the airport 'news'agents now have entire walls of refrigerated
bottled water.

There is no law in the UK requiring airports to provide free potable water to
the public, so at around $3 per bottle this is an extremely lucrative
consequence of security regulations.

Compared to that revenue, selling magazine is old hat!

* I am always delighted at the provision of water fountains in US airports. O'Hare even has ones specifically designed for filling bottles!

------
aolol
I still believe the issue is more deeply rooted in passenger safety than in
actual electrical interference. Take-off and landing are generally regarded as
the most risk-prone activities for an aircraft. Having passengers at least
slightly less disengaged likely benefits everyone. Not to mention it is
arguably unpleasant to have 200 tablets flying about.

~~~
jsmeaton
"Sir, please shut off your electronics device as it may interfere with the
navigational systems."

"Um, no. Did you SEE that episode of myth busters?"

"Oh. Well.. um.. the real reason is so you pay attention".

You can't just change the reason because your original reason has been proven
wrong. If this was the real reason, then they should have been upfront about
it.

But like a sibling commenter states - reading a book (as opposed to a kindle),
or being deaf (as opposed to wearing earphones - this one's probably a bad
comparison..) carry the same 'risks' and neither are banned.

------
larrik
If you think these rules are absurd, you should see the FAA regulations on
equipment you can install into private planes. NASA allows new tech into space
WAY faster.

------
ck2
So you can talk over wifi.

Let's see how that goes over when 50+ people in a small space start yammering.

~~~
mbreese
You could _try_ , but the latency with the satellite or terrestrial towers is
going to be significant. Unless you mean talking from one seat to another...
in which case, yes, that would be annoying. :)

