Subject:
|
AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:15:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
158 times
|
| |
|
|
An article in Wired News today:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41276,00.html
What strikes me as really odd is that this LA lawyer is expecting to use
precedent (not yet?) set in lawsuits against handgun manufacturers, to be
applied towards cell phone manufacturers after future air crash disasters.
This isn't about whether or not guns kill people, or whether gun makers
should be held liable -- those are a totally different topic. Conversely,
this isn't about greedy LA lawyers either; they're just too stupid to
discuss. It really boils down to why there's a fear that a small personal
radio device can effectively mess up the controls in the cockpit of a
complex and expensive aircraft carrying hundreds of people. In my view, the
liability lies in the realm of the FAA (and their international
counterparts) and the manufacturers of the obsolete technology in the
cockpit. These sensitive instruments are sensitive because there's no real
fault-tolerance designed into the system. There's no real fault-tolerance
designed into the system because the FAA (and their international
counterparts) don't require it.
Some may argue that the sheer scale and non-stop nature of the airlines
industry prevents any kind of practical upgrade. But that's just silly. If
we as a high-tech society can upgrade our entire wireless phone system from
scratchy analog to semi-secure digital in the course of a decade, then why
can't similar advances be made in the avionics field? I'm sure there are
more phone users than airline passengers in any given day...
If I were to hypothesize using the data I've seen so far, I would think that
this is just FUD, some psychological residue from a dinosaur organization
struggling to keep up technologically with the rest of the world. The FAA
-- and similarly the FCC -- used to have absolute control over their
domains, but the times they have a-changed and these organizations are
beginning to feel left out in the cold. So when they can't cope with
adaptation, the cope with policy, a strategy which may eventually become
their undoing.
There's two possible explanations that I can see why this is still an issue
even after more than a decade of uncertainty. The normally reliable reason
-- someone's grossly exploiting the system for gobs of dough -- doesn't seem
quite applicable in this situation though I wouldn't rule it out.
The second possibility is that something or some things are horrible
obsolete. I find this to be the more reasonable excuse. However, what is
it that is so out-of-date that it's broken beyond repair? The technology,
certainly, but what of the organizations involved? Do the FAA and FCC still
serve a useful function? Does the airline industry? And are the cell phone
manufacturers indeed at fault for manufacturing devices which interfere with
the flight-critical systems on a contemporary aircraft?
This topic is quite interesting to me, and I'd like to hear what others here
have to say on this matter. Some questions I have in mind:
How hard can it be, really, to shield or otherwise electromagnetically
isolate the flight-critical systems on a 737 from typical personal
electronic devices? (Not hard at all methinks.)
In a truly free market (Libertopia if you wish), would the market demand
safer cockpit instruments?
In a truly free market, would the safety issues be more severe due to cut
costs and lack of regulation?
In a more strictly regulated market, would the system ever change to adapt
to the modern world?
What's really preventing the manufacturers in the consumer electronics
industry from designing useful devices that don't interfere with
contemporary avionics? (Probably cost...)
Would such devices be more expensive; and in the likely case that they are,
would the market support such devices?
And lastly, could short-range radio relay technology such as Bluetooth help
in resolving this issue?
Wow, what a rant. Must be the caffeine. I think I'll cut back -- for about
an hour. :-,
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
