You Don’t Need to Use Airplane Mode on Airplanes | Airplane mode hasn’t been necessary for nearly 20 years, but the myth persists.::Airplane mode hasn’t been necessary for nearly 20 years, but the myth persists.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    If airplane mode really mattered they wouldn’t let you even have a device

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The idea that plane safety is tied to everyone together agreeing to and remembering to push a button on their devices is absolutely insane. You think that the regulating bodies that require multiple backups for every possible system also just trust that every passenger pushes a button and every flight attendant actually checks every passengers devices?

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        No I don’t think that. What words in my comment make you think I think that

        • kibiz0r
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think they were agreeing and meant “You” rhetorically.

    • dmention7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s asinine. It’s like saying “If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning”. Brakes are pretty damn important, but very few places (in the US at least) have any mechanism for ensuring yours are in working order even periodically.

      Proper risk mitigation takes into account (at minimum) the likelihood of an event occuring, the severity of the event occurring, your willingness to tolerate a failure, and the cost associated with implementing corrections.

      Airlines have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for any kind of risk that could conceivably lead to a catastrophic failure, so the fact that you’re allowed to have a device, despite potential safety concerns, comes from a combination of a few factors:

      1. The chances of some kind of major interference with flight ops happening are demonstrably pretty low
      2. People would likely push back quite hard on not being able to use electronic devices for entertainment on a flight.
      3. Most people comply with the request.
      4. Related to 3, there is little reason for airlines to change the rule, since cell operation is next to impossible in flight anyways, and wifi/bluetooth are not in the frequency range of concern.
      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Right, with that extremely low tolerance would come an extremely high bar of security.

        For example, you can’t have lithium in the cargo, and can’t have compressed gas or knives in the cabin. And what do we see? They prohibit and screen for those things (to the best of their ability).

        They wouldn’t let you have a knife if you promised to keep it in your pocket and not use it.

        Therefore it is clear that, as the article states, airplane mode is not a significant factor for flight safety. Because if it were, they would lock up phones or have implemented a jammer or some other such adjustment

        • dmention7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          Risks exist on a continuum, and something not literally being forcibly banned doesn’t mean there is zero risk in that thing, just that the risk is lower than those things that are forcibly banned or that the risks can be mitigated in other ways.

          Same reason you go through a metal detector to check for weapons before getting within half mile of a plane, but were left pretty much on your honor to not bring a Samsung phone with a spicy battery on board.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            You know damn well I meant intolerable risk when I implied they wouldn’t allow them

            • dmention7@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              I actually didn’t, which was the main reason I replied.

              It’s fairly common to see people arguing as though a thing is either risky or not risky, without any sense of context.

      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        That’s asinine. It’s like saying “If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning”

        This argument is also asinine. Cops aren’t in your car. If your brakes fail it isn’t their problem. Cops don’t give a fuck about your safety.

        The airline crew are in your plane. If there was actually a safety risk they would absolutely do something about it because it affects them personally.

        The reality is there is no safety risk which is why they don’t do anything. If safety was actually reliant on people turn on airplane mode then we’d all be fucked.