旅游英語閱讀：飛機(jī)起降時(shí)能打手機(jī)嗎?
下面學(xué)習(xí)啦小編為大家?guī)砺糜斡⒄Z閱讀：飛機(jī)起降時(shí)能打手機(jī)嗎?希望大家喜歡!
旅游英語閱讀：飛機(jī)起降時(shí)能打手機(jī)嗎?
WAS ALEC BALDWIN RIGHT? When the actortussled withAmerican Airlines personnel lastDecember over his desire tocontinue playing a gameon his phone during takeoff, he wasevicted from theflight. Defying airline safety rules is not a goodidea,but was Baldwin perhaps correct not to take thedangerseriously?
On Aug. 31, the Federal Aviation Administrationrequested public comment on its longstandingpolicyof prohibiting the use of personal electronics during takeoffs and landings. The restrictionsdateback to 1991 and were motivated in part by anecdotal reports from pilots and flightcrewsthat electronic devices affected an airliner's navigation equipment or disruptedcommunicationbetween the cockpit and the ground. Over the years, however, Boeing has beenunable toduplicate these problems, and the FAA can only say that the devices' radio signals'may' interferewith flight operations.
To gather some empirical evidence on this question, we recently conducted an onlinesurvey of 492 American adults who have flown in the past year. In this sample, 40% said theydid not turntheir phones off completely during takeoff and landing on their most recent flight;more than 7% left their phones on, with the Wi-Fi and cellular communications functionsactive. And 2% pulled afull Baldwin, actively using their phones when they weren't supposed to.
Consider what these numbers imply. The odds that all 78 of the passengers who travel onanaverage-size U.S. domestic flight have properly turned off their phones are infinitesimal:less thanone in 100 quadrillion, by our rough calculation. If personal electronics are really asdangerous asthe FAA rules suggest, navigation and communication would be disruptedevery day on domesticflights. But we don't see that.
Why has the regulation remained in force for so long despite the lack of solid evidence tosupportit? Human minds are notoriously overzealous 'cause detectors.' When two events occurclose intime, and one plausibly might have caused the other, we tend to assume it did. Thereis no reasonto doubt the anecdotes told by airline personnel about glitches that have occurredon flights whenthey also have discovered someone illicitly using a device.
But when thinking about these anecdotes, we don't consider that glitches also occur intheabsence of illicit gadget use. More important, we don't consider how often gadgets havebeen inuse when flights have been completed without a hitch. Our survey strongly suggeststhat thereare multiple gadget violators on almost every flight.
Fear is a powerful motivator, and precaution is a natural response. Regulators are loath tomakepolicies less restrictive, out of a justifiable concern for passenger safety. It is easy tovisualize thehorrific consequences should a phone cause a plane to crash, so the FAA imposesthisinconvenience as a precaution.
Once a restriction is in place, though, removing it becomes a challenge because every daywithouta gadget-induced accident cements our belief that the status quo is right and justified.Unfortunately, this logic is little better than that of Homer Simpson, who organized anelaborateBear Patrol in the city of Springfield and exulted in the absence of bear sightings thatensued.
We are not suggesting that people should disobey the current rules. But we believestrongly thatpolicies like the FAA's ban should be based on evidence rather than on fear. Theevidence showsthat nearly every flight must have some phones and gadgets on, and thoseflights have not beenfalling out of the sky.
翻譯：
亞歷克·鮑德溫(Alec Baldwin)做得對(duì)嗎?2011年12月，這位演員堅(jiān)持要在航班起飛時(shí)繼續(xù)玩手機(jī)游戲，與美國航空公司(American Airlines)的空乘人員發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)，結(jié)果被趕下飛機(jī)。違反航空公司的安全規(guī)定不是一個(gè)好主意，但鮑德溫認(rèn)為飛機(jī)起降時(shí)使用手機(jī)并沒那么危險(xiǎn)的觀點(diǎn)有沒有可能是正確的呢?
2012年8月31日，美國聯(lián)邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration，簡(jiǎn)稱FAA)就其長(zhǎng)期以來堅(jiān)持的禁止在飛機(jī)起降期間使用個(gè)人電子設(shè)備的規(guī)定向公眾征詢意見。這項(xiàng)禁令可以追溯到1991年，部分是源于一些飛行員和空乘人員的非正式反饋，說電子設(shè)備會(huì)影響飛機(jī)的導(dǎo)航設(shè)備，或干擾駕駛艙與地面的通訊。然而，這么多年來，波音公司(Boeing)一直無法證實(shí)這類問題的存在，F(xiàn)AA也只是表示，電子設(shè)備的無線訊號(hào)“可能會(huì)”干擾航班運(yùn)營(yíng)。
為搜集電子設(shè)備是否會(huì)干擾飛機(jī)起降的實(shí)際證據(jù)，近期我們對(duì)492名在過去一年中搭乘過航班的美國成年人做了一項(xiàng)網(wǎng)上調(diào)查。在該樣本中，40%的受訪者表示，在其近期的大多數(shù)航程中，他們沒有完全關(guān)閉手機(jī);7%以上的受訪者說他們沒有關(guān)機(jī)，無線Wi-Fi和手機(jī)通訊功能都處于啟動(dòng)當(dāng)中;還有2%的受訪者則跟鮑德溫一樣違反了相關(guān)規(guī)定，在飛機(jī)起降時(shí)仍在使用手機(jī)。
讓我們想想這些數(shù)字意味著什么。一架美國國內(nèi)班機(jī)平均能容納78名乘客，而根據(jù)我們的粗略計(jì)算，這78人全部關(guān)閉手機(jī)的可能性是無窮小的：小于十萬萬億分之一。如果個(gè)人電子設(shè)備真像FAA所說的那么危險(xiǎn)，那么美國國內(nèi)航班的導(dǎo)航系統(tǒng)和通訊設(shè)備每天都會(huì)受到干擾，但我們并沒有看到這些現(xiàn)象。
為什么在缺乏確鑿證據(jù)的支持下，這種禁令還能持續(xù)這么長(zhǎng)時(shí)間?眾所周知，人類的思維往往會(huì)不假思索地“下定論”。如果兩個(gè)事件接連發(fā)生，而其中一個(gè)事件貌似導(dǎo)致了另一個(gè)事件的發(fā)生，人們就會(huì)傾向于做出這種假設(shè)?？粘巳藛T說當(dāng)他們發(fā)現(xiàn)有乘客違反規(guī)定使用電子設(shè)備時(shí)，航班上的設(shè)備出現(xiàn)了這樣那樣的故障，我們沒有理由去懷疑他們說的這些故事。
然而，在這些故事中，我們沒有去驗(yàn)證無電子設(shè)備違規(guī)使用時(shí)導(dǎo)航設(shè)備是否運(yùn)行正常。更重要的是，我們沒有考慮有多少航班是在一些手機(jī)打開的情況下順利起降的。我們的調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，幾乎每次航班都存在幾個(gè)打開手機(jī)的乘客。
恐懼是一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的助推劑，謹(jǐn)慎從事則是一種自然反應(yīng)。出于為乘客安全著想的正當(dāng)理由，監(jiān)管當(dāng)局不愿放松相關(guān)規(guī)定，他們的腦海中無法擺脫因使用手機(jī)而導(dǎo)致飛機(jī)墜毀的悲慘畫面，因此FAA寧可讓乘客不方便，也要確保安全第一。
一旦禁令實(shí)施，要想廢除它就變得十分困難，因?yàn)橐恢倍紱]有發(fā)生因電子設(shè)備而導(dǎo)致的航空意外事故，從而進(jìn)一步鞏固了我們的信念，認(rèn)為目前的規(guī)定是正確和正當(dāng)?shù)摹Ｈ欢?，這種邏輯與動(dòng)畫片《辛普森一家》(TheSimpsons)中的情節(jié)一樣可笑：在片中，辛普森爸爸(Homer Simpson)煞費(fèi)苦心地在斯普林菲爾德(Springfield)組織了“防熊巡邏”(Bear Patrol)，并歡欣鼓舞地認(rèn)為，沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)有熊出沒要?dú)w功于“防熊巡邏”，而不是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)城市本來就沒有熊。
我們并非建議大家違反現(xiàn)行的航空安全規(guī)定，而是強(qiáng)烈認(rèn)為，F(xiàn)AA對(duì)于電子設(shè)備的禁令應(yīng)該基于證據(jù)而非恐懼。證據(jù)表明，幾乎每個(gè)航班的起降都有手機(jī)和電子設(shè)備開啟，而這些飛機(jī)并沒有從天上栽下來。
旅游英語閱讀：飛機(jī)起降時(shí)能打手機(jī)嗎?相關(guān)文章：