We’ve all been there, the fasten-your-seatbelt sign is illuminated, the plane is taxiing, air hostesses line the aisles and everyone is asked to switch-off any electronic devices as they may interfere with the airplanes instruments, or some such drivel. But, how much truth does that bold statement actually hold, could a simple text message or something of the like actually have a severe, adverse affect on your flight? The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigated…

Back in 1991, anecdotal reports that electronic equipment affected “airliner’s navigation equipment or disrupted communication between the cockpit and the ground”, saw the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implement strict restrictions on such devices. Two decades later though, and the supposed affects have yet to be successfully duplicated by Boeing and the FAA can merely advise that such devices’ radio signals “may” interfere with onboard equipment. This led the WSJ to conduct a survey to gather some solid evidence surrounding the debate and the results were astonishing.

 The odds that all 78 of the passengers who travel on an average-size U.S. domestic flight have properly turned off their phones are infinitesimal: less than one in 100 quadrillion, by our rough calculation.

The WSJ conducted an online survey of 492 American adults which found that for their most recent flight:

• 40% did not turn their phones off completely during takeoff and landing
• 7% left their phones on, with WiFi and full cellular communication enabled
• 2% actively used their phones when they were not supposed to

Naturally, these findings led to an inevitable question, why are the regulations still in force? Surely, if personal electronics could really affect flights so severely we would’ve noticed it by now. WSJ says it’s partly due to human minds being “cause detectors”, simply put when two events occur close in time, and if there’s even a slight chance that one may have caused the other, we assume that it did. However, what people often forget to consider is the frequency of such events in the total absence of external factors. After all, the survey strongly suggests that there are numerous gadget users on just about every flight use.

Fear is a powerful motivator, and precaution is a natural response. Regulators are loath to make policies less restrictive, out of a justifiable concern for passenger safety. It is easy to visualize the horrific consequences should a phone cause a plane to crash, so the FAA imposes this inconvenience as a precaution.

This is where things get a little tricky. Removing the restriction is easier said than done, not only because of the administrative red tape that no doubt has to be navigated, but also because it reinforces the idea that it’s always okay to use electronic devices on every and all flights. Every successful flight with gadget use permitted “cements our belief that the status quo is right and justified,” even though there is still a possibility, however big or small, that electronic devices could legitimately affect an airliner’s instruments. Just because its not happening when someone’s looking, it doesn’t mean it hasn’t before and doesn’t mean it can’t again.

So, where does that leave us? Should we go all out, blow caution to the wind and whip out all our gadgets on every flight? Not quite.

We are not suggesting that people should disobey the current rules. But we believe strongly that policies like the FAA’s ban should be based on evidence rather than on fear. The evidence shows that nearly every flight must have some phones and gadgets on, and those flights have not been falling out of the sky.

[Source: WSJ]