It is remarkable how many people are dependent (professionally and emotionally) on their iPods, BlackBerrys and other PEDs. Even more impressive is the level of technical aviation safety expertise that is acquired by individuals who merely ride in airplanes. Most aviation professionals, while attending social events, are accosted by individuals (from almost any industry and of a wide variety of positions/experience) who expound on how airlines could do __?___better and the opinion is expressed with absolute certainty.
Thus, it is not surprising that the long list of
assume the same experiential expertise on the safety implications of PEDs on an aircraft. Their statements of opinion are long on assertions and short on technical data. This is particularly annoying when the FAA has issued a notice, well defined and organized, calling for specific answers to relevant technical questions.
In this context, it is spectacular that The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s aviation writer has written a piece which reaffirms that opinion unsupported by substance, even though found in a source all too often considered authoritative, is not worthy of such high consideration. Good point, Christine Negroni.Share this article: