[snom380]

That's the problem though. You don't fly thousands of passengers each day and have seen several of your peers bankrupted or seriously financially wounded by a single high profile accident, so you might have a different view on the risks compared to the ones running the airline.

By definition I take far more risk when flying a single-prop light aircraft, and I'm fine with that. What I don't expect is to be able to force that risk level on other people.

[CamperBob2]

But you haven't shown that there is any risk, and neither has anyone else. Which (again) is why we're still allowed to bring electronic devices up to and including cell phones onboard passenger aircraft.

You can't run a civilization on the Precautionary Principle. You understand that, right? Most people understand that, but the TSA and (until now) FAA don't seem to.

[snom380]

It's trivially easy to show that there is a risk of interference, the question is just how big the risk is, and whether turning devices off during takeoffs and landings is worth the inconvenience.

And as mentioned elsewhere there had been reproducible incidents of interference reported, which was the initial reason for the ban.

While I have long maintained that the ban is most likely not necessary, I'd much rather have he FAA make that decision and wait a few years until they have done enough studies and collected enough data.

I agree that we can't run the entire civilization on a precautionary principle, but then again that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about 10-20 minutes of inconvenience during critical flight phases. And believe me I hate the beurocracy and often overreaching rules of the FAA (or EASA in my case), but again I appreciate that we would not have he current air safety record without it. In fact, the FAA is usually reactionary in that they usually only act when fatal accidents have happened. (Pilot and crew rest hour limits is one very recent example).

[dkersten]

But you haven't shown that there is any risk, and neither has anyone else.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the onus be on proving that there is no risk, not that there is?

[CamperBob2]

That's called the Precautionary Principle.

It would have kept us confined to the caves, if not the trees.

[snom380]

And it's the reason why flying is no longer only for the adventurous willing to risk their lives. Too bad you don't appreciate that and seem to take it for granted.

[CamperBob2]

Here's an example of the kind of logical trap you are falling into: http://boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html

[snom380]

And I could point to lots of counterexamples like Deepwater Horizon. What's your point, that you would be happier with a riskier aviation industry? As I said, get a PPL, or better yet start an airline and start lobbying against FAA rulings.

[dkersten]

I should have said "acceptable risk" not "no risk".