Why can't you user your cell phone on commercial flights (hint: it has nothing to do with technical limitation, you can use your mobile phones in flights in Europe) or why your seat has to be in their original and upright position a full 20 minutes before landing?
Willy Stern of The Weekly Standard has the REAL reasons:
Mike Munger, a political science professor at Duke University, says the FAA’s silly rules are, in fact, a form of what psychologists and zoologists refer to as “costly signals.” What’s the term mean? Costly signal theory explains actions that might seem crazy, but have a purpose. For instance, a gazelle espies a lion across the veldt and, instead of hiding, expends much energy by leaping high into the air, calling attention to herself. At the same time, she’s telling the lion, “Hey, I’m no simple catch so look elsewhere for your dinner.” Similarly, the FAA wastes a lot of energy and resources with its pages and pages of
inane rules, but is somehow trying to convey the message that planes are safe. Most of us would rather skip the message and finish our naps in full recline.
There ARE occurrences that the use of AM/FM radios and cellphones interfering on the navigational system of some airplanes. I once read about one here in Brazil that the Flight Management Computer fuel predictions went crazy.
Now imagine something like that happening in a low density airport area. Looks like older jets, specially the first from the digital era are more suscetible to interference.
But the FAA can't stand risking.
Man, this journalist is a complete idiot!! Seatbelts is not just about saving lives, but specially protecting from turbulence injuries!! There are a lot of reports on passengers and cabin crew injured due to a sudden turbulence.
You can't compare a plane flying @900km/h to a 45km/h slow accel tram. Come on!
Seats in upright position is like that not just because of evacuation space, but if an evacuation is needed after a non-sucessful landing, everybody is at least "partially" wake and won't have to deviate from non-reclined seats.
I doubt this journalist can exit from a window seat in a crampled 737 with the forwards seats reclined.
This text is pure SH1T. That's what happens when a journalist writes about something very technical without asking the right persons and without compromise with the truth. All he wants is to make noise.
EVERY rule and technical development in aviation exists to avoid potential or existing danger situations and conditions.
Doesn't this guy have something more important to b*tch about?!
It's like the rule against using mobiles in hospitals. I suspect as long as there is the slimmest chance of their interfering with any system on which lives depend then the best risk management procedure is to ban them outright. Anyhow anybody who can't do without their mobile for a few hours needs help.
However one thing that is significant is that, on most flights, you'll find your phone won't work anyway. I remember a ferry crossing a couple of years ago (less than 100 miles)one woman got extremely uptight because her phone had no signal for much of the crossing. She even complained to the crew. A helpful crew member asked her if her call was urgent, because if it was they had radio telephones on the ship she could use. She replied that she needed to send a text to a friend to ask if she wanted some duty free. Sad.
Of course you may be that person. :-(
Just f**king do it.
By the way I don't really think the argument "buses don't have seat belts so seat belts are unnecessary" is of the highest intelligence.
Maybe he should be asking why they don't put seatbelts on buses.
2. The reclining seat rule which wakes you up has the same logic as the open all windows rule: in case of an accident, you are as aware as possible or your outside situation (if you want to fall back asleep or put your neatorama owl eyes back on that's your choice).
3. The only REALLY stupid, useless, uncomfortable rule isn't even mentioned in his article, and it's before you board the plane. This "new" (it's been 4 years now) rule that you can't bring liquids on board. Unless they're in 100ml containers. Or unless you buy them after security. You can have an empty 1 liter bottle, but you can't have a 200ml bottle which contains only 50ml of liquid. That is the single dumbest rule ever, and is being enforced ONLY because it helped beverage sales after passing security and on board. It has NO sense whatsoever. Smaller volumes of liquid can be reassembled later after security. Bigger bottles can be bought for "mixing of materials" or whatever they're scared of.
Perfect example: Security is at its highest where? In Israeli airports. Can't say that they're not the most paranoid when it comes to security (with good reasons). Yet they, of all people, couldn't care less if you go on board with 1.5 liters of coke, half a liter of orange juice, and a big bottle of shower gel which you forgot to put in your suitcase. The point is, if after their security check they let you on the plane, whatever you bring with you won't be a problem.
And reclining seats on those smaller commuter jets often means I can't even lower my tray table there's so little space between rows.