I mostly agree that many of the regulations are ridiculous, but I'm going to stand up for requiring tray tables to be stowed for takeoff and landing. I'm perhaps somewhat colored on the issue as a former airline pilot, but as you've hinted, the purpose of the regulation is to allow a quick evacuation. A survivable incident on takeoff or landing is often followed by an ugly fire that burns fast and hot. The FAA quite sensibly requires that aircraft manufacturers demonstrate that their aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds and this affects the design of everything from the seatbelts to the seats and the aisles.
Note that unless you're in a window seat, this isn't just a matter of your safety, but those in your row as well. If you're sitting in an aisle seat with your tray table down and your carry-on bag blocking my exit, you've needlessly endangered my life. The cost-benefit calculation is worthwhile but tricky: it costs you almost nothing to put up your tray table for a very small possibility of other people on the plane not dying a horrible death in a fire. I have no idea how to run such a calculation, but I'm sure you as an economist do. I'd love to see an impartial attempt at such an analysis.
Note that even in today's quite safe environment, fires do happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 I'm not sure they happen often enough for market forces to result in (a) aircraft that are designed to be evacuated in a reasonable amount of time, or (b) airlines to adopt a range of safety protocols that enable customers to make informed purchasing decisions on the basis of safety.
Airline travel is incredibly safe, but I attribute this almost exclusively to the harsh regulatory environment in which they operate. I don't have a lot of data here, but I do have some anecdotal data from my own career. I worked for a regional airline that constantly tried to cut corners in every department from crew training, to crew scheduling to maintenance. On multiple occasions I had to take a stance about not operating a flight in such a way that would violate FAA regulations. If I didn't have the backing of federal regulations (that in fact held me personally accountable as well as my employer), it's clear that I would have been fired. A typical instance is crew rest and my obligation to refuse flight assignments in violation of regulations which were *regularly* attempted by my airline in response to delays.
Random other notes: stowing your items for takeoff is also about more than evacuation safety. The laptop you'd like to have on your lap is going to depart violently for the front of the plane when a rejected takeoff results in maximum braking at 140mph. Chances are good it's going to hit someone when it does. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how quickly an aircraft going 140mph can decelerate, but the answer is fast.
Leaving your window shades open for takeoff and landing is about being able to see outside in order to know that you don't want to evacuate into a wing that's full of jet fuel and on fire.
That said, the TSA's regulations are absurd and clearly fail the most obvious cost/benefit analysis. The 9/11 hijacking problem was solved in half an hour with simple education. The impenetrable kevlar cockpit doors were a fantastic investment and finished solving the problem. Subjecting passengers to ionizing radiation, making them remove their shoes, taking away their shampoo and making them show proof of identification is all nonsense that should be stopped immediately.
Electronic devices: The FAA failed to do due diligence here in a timely manner. There was never a chance that your Kindle posed a problem. Cell phones on the other hand can be quite a nuisance!
As an airline pilot, I regularly experienced interference from mobile phones! It was mostly GSM band phones, and it was usually either the other pilot's or the flight attendants. Sometimes it was a passenger near the front of the plane. The interference manifests itself as a terrible intermittent noise over the radio that could and DID obfuscate audio enough that transmissions needed to be repeated. Modern mobile phones do not seem to be as prone to this interference. Note that your phone is also not going to work very well over about 10,000 feet anyway--so just put it in airplane mode to save the battery.
I think if they gave this justification people wouldn't be so annoyed by it. If the pilot says "we are getting some feedback on the radio which makes it hard to hear, can you please turn your phones off" almost everyone would be happy to help. But there was this implication that the plane was going to crash directly due to the phones being on which wasn't true.
Certainly the FAA (and the airlines) do a terrible job of communicating. And yes, in the rare cases where I made a PA asking passengers to double-check that their phones were off because we were experiencing some interference, the interference stopped.
The early fear was that devices with active transmitters might bleed over and interfere with ILS navigation signals. When you consider that an aircraft in fog is hurtling toward a runway in the blind with nothing but a pair of needles to indicate that you're headed in the right direction, it's terrifying to think what might happen if they did interfere. Just the right false signal in the right time and place causing a plane to be just a little off course would absolutely result in a crash. That's probably where the messaging came from, but I think at this point it's pretty clear that if mobile phones interfered with ILS we'd absolutely know about it by now.
Of course, we do know that 5G interferes with radio altimeters, but we've gone ahead and deployed it anyway!
I've long wanted to see a calculation of the number of person hours wasted per year during the safety presentation of flights. Something like: 150 passengers * 5 minutes * X flights. The number must be enormous and the benefits of the presentation have got to be close to zero, right?
What the FAA never acknowledged is that a large percentage of passengers never turned off their cell phones during takeoff and landing, meaning there were on the order of 3 million opportunities each year for an incident, and none occurred.
Also, as of yesterday, masks are optional and it doesn't seem like TSA will appear the ruling.
About 10 years back, I sat next to an off-duty pilot who getting a free ride because there was an otherwise empty seat. He didn't turn his phone off or on airplane mode, and was checking it as soon as we came back in range, during final descent and landing. That was pretty telling, to me.
Incidentally, my understanding is that sometime around 2010 the airlines and FAA had determined that cell phones were safe to use on flights, and the advent of onboard wifi meant that it was actually technically possible for people to take calls on flights (like they do on trains). So they did some focus groups, and on net customers were pretty confident that allowing calls would make their experience much worse, and they were happier with the whole plane being the 'quiet car' of the train, rather than being able to take calls and having to put up with their neighbors taking calls.
[I do think the 'no devices for takeoff and landing' rule probably doesn't pass a CBA at the moment, and agree it would thus make sense to retire.]
The no devices for takeoff and landing has little to do with the electronics, but everything to do with the fact that the laptop on your lap can become a missile in the event of a rejected takeoff or maximum effort braking on landing.
Totally agree. Another factor in the stickiness of the regulations is the fear of lawsuits. Not that that's a good reason, but I'm sure it's partly why the do (and will) persist.
It mostly hurts you by draining your battery. But note that while you're unlikely to cause an incident, if you're either near the front of the airplane or sitting close to an antenna, it's possible that you're causing obnoxious noise on the radio.
I mostly agree that many of the regulations are ridiculous, but I'm going to stand up for requiring tray tables to be stowed for takeoff and landing. I'm perhaps somewhat colored on the issue as a former airline pilot, but as you've hinted, the purpose of the regulation is to allow a quick evacuation. A survivable incident on takeoff or landing is often followed by an ugly fire that burns fast and hot. The FAA quite sensibly requires that aircraft manufacturers demonstrate that their aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds and this affects the design of everything from the seatbelts to the seats and the aisles.
Note that unless you're in a window seat, this isn't just a matter of your safety, but those in your row as well. If you're sitting in an aisle seat with your tray table down and your carry-on bag blocking my exit, you've needlessly endangered my life. The cost-benefit calculation is worthwhile but tricky: it costs you almost nothing to put up your tray table for a very small possibility of other people on the plane not dying a horrible death in a fire. I have no idea how to run such a calculation, but I'm sure you as an economist do. I'd love to see an impartial attempt at such an analysis.
Note that even in today's quite safe environment, fires do happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 I'm not sure they happen often enough for market forces to result in (a) aircraft that are designed to be evacuated in a reasonable amount of time, or (b) airlines to adopt a range of safety protocols that enable customers to make informed purchasing decisions on the basis of safety.
Airline travel is incredibly safe, but I attribute this almost exclusively to the harsh regulatory environment in which they operate. I don't have a lot of data here, but I do have some anecdotal data from my own career. I worked for a regional airline that constantly tried to cut corners in every department from crew training, to crew scheduling to maintenance. On multiple occasions I had to take a stance about not operating a flight in such a way that would violate FAA regulations. If I didn't have the backing of federal regulations (that in fact held me personally accountable as well as my employer), it's clear that I would have been fired. A typical instance is crew rest and my obligation to refuse flight assignments in violation of regulations which were *regularly* attempted by my airline in response to delays.
Random other notes: stowing your items for takeoff is also about more than evacuation safety. The laptop you'd like to have on your lap is going to depart violently for the front of the plane when a rejected takeoff results in maximum braking at 140mph. Chances are good it's going to hit someone when it does. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how quickly an aircraft going 140mph can decelerate, but the answer is fast.
Leaving your window shades open for takeoff and landing is about being able to see outside in order to know that you don't want to evacuate into a wing that's full of jet fuel and on fire.
That said, the TSA's regulations are absurd and clearly fail the most obvious cost/benefit analysis. The 9/11 hijacking problem was solved in half an hour with simple education. The impenetrable kevlar cockpit doors were a fantastic investment and finished solving the problem. Subjecting passengers to ionizing radiation, making them remove their shoes, taking away their shampoo and making them show proof of identification is all nonsense that should be stopped immediately.
Electronic devices: The FAA failed to do due diligence here in a timely manner. There was never a chance that your Kindle posed a problem. Cell phones on the other hand can be quite a nuisance!
As an airline pilot, I regularly experienced interference from mobile phones! It was mostly GSM band phones, and it was usually either the other pilot's or the flight attendants. Sometimes it was a passenger near the front of the plane. The interference manifests itself as a terrible intermittent noise over the radio that could and DID obfuscate audio enough that transmissions needed to be repeated. Modern mobile phones do not seem to be as prone to this interference. Note that your phone is also not going to work very well over about 10,000 feet anyway--so just put it in airplane mode to save the battery.
I think if they gave this justification people wouldn't be so annoyed by it. If the pilot says "we are getting some feedback on the radio which makes it hard to hear, can you please turn your phones off" almost everyone would be happy to help. But there was this implication that the plane was going to crash directly due to the phones being on which wasn't true.
Certainly the FAA (and the airlines) do a terrible job of communicating. And yes, in the rare cases where I made a PA asking passengers to double-check that their phones were off because we were experiencing some interference, the interference stopped.
The early fear was that devices with active transmitters might bleed over and interfere with ILS navigation signals. When you consider that an aircraft in fog is hurtling toward a runway in the blind with nothing but a pair of needles to indicate that you're headed in the right direction, it's terrifying to think what might happen if they did interfere. Just the right false signal in the right time and place causing a plane to be just a little off course would absolutely result in a crash. That's probably where the messaging came from, but I think at this point it's pretty clear that if mobile phones interfered with ILS we'd absolutely know about it by now.
Of course, we do know that 5G interferes with radio altimeters, but we've gone ahead and deployed it anyway!
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g#:~:text=During%20the%20two%2Dweek%20delay,from%20stopping%20on%20the%20runway.
I've long wanted to see a calculation of the number of person hours wasted per year during the safety presentation of flights. Something like: 150 passengers * 5 minutes * X flights. The number must be enormous and the benefits of the presentation have got to be close to zero, right?
One of my favorite bits from The Onion nailed this (il)logic a few years ago: https://youtu.be/nJdP1zK15bE
What the FAA never acknowledged is that a large percentage of passengers never turned off their cell phones during takeoff and landing, meaning there were on the order of 3 million opportunities each year for an incident, and none occurred.
Also, as of yesterday, masks are optional and it doesn't seem like TSA will appear the ruling.
About 10 years back, I sat next to an off-duty pilot who getting a free ride because there was an otherwise empty seat. He didn't turn his phone off or on airplane mode, and was checking it as soon as we came back in range, during final descent and landing. That was pretty telling, to me.
Incidentally, my understanding is that sometime around 2010 the airlines and FAA had determined that cell phones were safe to use on flights, and the advent of onboard wifi meant that it was actually technically possible for people to take calls on flights (like they do on trains). So they did some focus groups, and on net customers were pretty confident that allowing calls would make their experience much worse, and they were happier with the whole plane being the 'quiet car' of the train, rather than being able to take calls and having to put up with their neighbors taking calls.
[I do think the 'no devices for takeoff and landing' rule probably doesn't pass a CBA at the moment, and agree it would thus make sense to retire.]
The no devices for takeoff and landing has little to do with the electronics, but everything to do with the fact that the laptop on your lap can become a missile in the event of a rejected takeoff or maximum effort braking on landing.
Totally agree. Another factor in the stickiness of the regulations is the fear of lawsuits. Not that that's a good reason, but I'm sure it's partly why the do (and will) persist.
Same.
It mostly hurts you by draining your battery. But note that while you're unlikely to cause an incident, if you're either near the front of the airplane or sitting close to an antenna, it's possible that you're causing obnoxious noise on the radio.