[mturmon]

I think the safety culture is, if you can't prove it is safe, you may not assume that it is. This places the burden of proof on the other side. I don't see any more quantitative arguments from you.

This conservative approach is a pain, it's slow, it's expensive. But it's hard to have such a safe environment for commercial aviation without a similar culture.

[fnordfnordfnord]

That's a fine sounding slogan but back in reality, your safety culture turns out to be a farce. Compliance is impossible to ensure, and this will only get worse. Continued insistence upon this farce erodes confidence and respect in the competence of the authorities, and in the flight crews carrying out the policies. It's also hard to have a safe environment where the authorities are widely regarded as buffoons.

>I don't see any more quantitative arguments from you.

You don't see, or you don't care to see?

[mturmon]

You're arguing pretty hard here. I'm not with the FAA, so it's not "my" safety culture you're arguing against. I actually don't have a strong opinion on this matter (I'm an EE PhD, but without particular expertise in RF; I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion on RF effects across all commercial airliners).

OTOH, I do have some insight into aeronautical safety, and I'm trying to present that viewpoint, which is clearly lacking in this comment thread.