Subject:
|
Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:53:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
119 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote:
> 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.)
It can be devilishly difficult to properly shield devices. This
difficulty is why some electronic products aren't licensed for home use
because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay the expense of shielding it
properly and then testing it.
> In a truly free market (Libertopia if you wish), would the market demand
> safer cockpit instruments?
Probably not, in fact, I would guess that the free market would REDUCE
the specification for equipment. Airline travel is so safe compared to
any other travel that it's obscene. Also, I think the majority of air
accidents bascially boil down to pilot error, maintenance error, or
terrorism (of course so do most other transportation accidents [counting
highway rage shootings in LA as terrorism... :-)]).
> In a truly free market, would the safety issues be more severe due to cut
> costs and lack of regulation?
As long as the free market does not constrain the ability to use
lawsuits to seek redress. Lawsuits are vital to a free market.
> In a more strictly regulated market, would the system ever change to adapt
> to the modern world?
Probably not.
> What's really preventing the manufacturers in the consumer electronics
> industry from designing useful devices that don't interfere with
> contemporary avionics? (Probably cost...)
Of course one solution is actually older avionics... Interference isn't
a problem when there aren't any electronics...
> 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. :-,
Beyond all of the above, I think the problem of inteference is actually
way overstated.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
