I am confused now ( nothing new there then ) but in another thread on PPRuNe
a poster says interference won't happen.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/47168...ipads-faa.html

stepwilk

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 703


The one thing that everybody seems to be missing about these electronics-shutdown rules is that they actually have nothing to do with imagined "radio interference." The reason for these rules is that the airlines and the FAA want passengers paying attention, undistracted, able to hear cabin-crew instructions during the crucial phases of flight. They don't want them playing word games, or having earphones clamped on their heads, or making cellphone calls when they should be at least minimally paying attention.

You can argue all you want about whether the stuff needs to stay off till 10,000 feet, or whether sitting at a gate with the door closed counts as "flight," but the whole frequency-interference thing is a red herring.

The airlines would be better off making this point rather than to continue hinting that the electronics "could interfere with avionics," which nobody believes anyway. A few people might at least minimally accept the explanation that they should not be distracted.


So who do I believe as both arguements seem valid.?

In this topic, which is a regular in the forum, I have chosen to only believe radeng. Firstly, because he is a RAdioENGineer and secondly, he travels a lot on planes. I take him to be independent of others. Lastly, he always go for the safest option.

One of the problems with humans is that we very easily get lulled into a false sense of security, "It's worked fine for 1 week/year/century - so it'll be fine this time too." Maybe not!

Good idea in theory except some PAX would probably be encouraged by that and would purposefully sit using mobile phones on board just to cause interference, thinking it's all such a big laugh. The mentality of some people is stunning.

I mean we all know lasers are bad, but it doesn't stop idiots shining them at cockpit windows. We all know you can't take sharps or liquids on planes, but you still get frequent flyers arguing with security personnel who take these things off them. We all told not to stand up and get our bags until the seat belt sign is off, but we still see people getting up on the taxi to the gate to get things, ignoring the CC demands to sit down...and then moaning when they get hurt from sudden braking.

Being unaware of regulations is one thing, but when it comes to commercial aviation too many pax are just ignorant and deliberately flout the rules. :=

edi_local = True. The lowest common denominator must take precedence.

Only a very tiny minority of airline passengers are qualified to fly the plane. However almost all passengers are qualified to drive cars.
Quite honestly I have never ever heard of any car-driver ignoring regulations like speed restrictions or traffic lights.

And in the most unlikely event that there were to be a case of a driver with excessive drink/drugs in him with two passengers in the back who are not wearing safety belts, then the employer of the chauffeur can always say that the fatal crash was deliberately caused by the Secret Service.

Both arguments are, at their core, valid.

Can I say that I am currently sat about 6 feet away from a man who has spent the last 15 years of his life ensuring the Electromagnetic Compatibility of airborne equipment. It is a massive job to ensure that equipment that is fitted to an aircraft doesn't interfere with each other, let alone introducing unknown quantities. All electrical/electronic devices emit RF and all are susceptible. All we are talking about are the differences in level and whether the equipment continues to funtion as designed at those levels. If this is all bull, then the aircraft manufacturers are spending a fortune trying to design out something that doesn't happen, not to mention having aircraft carry a large amount of weight in shielding and filters etc. The fact we don't see that many incidents is a tribute to those that practice the art of EMC design. They will be the first to admit that they can't mitigate for everything though. Hence the rule, it is a precaution. Just like fastening your seatbelt, if everything goes to plan then you won't need it. But if it goes wrong it has the potential to go very wrong, so why take the risk?

As for the argument that they want you paying attention during these phases, I absolutely agree with that too. I pay attention as if my life might depend on it, strangely enough it might. Yes, I am that man on the 'plane that gets irritated if you don't put your tray table up, return your seat to the upright position, and my pet hate, leave your laptop on the seat next to you. I get irritated because someone has decided to lower my chances in the incredibly unlikely event of something happening. I think that is just the height of discourtesy. But I also understand that the average person does not understand that an aircraft seat has been designed to provide protection but only under certain conditions. I also understand that the average person doesn't really appreciate the fact that a 5kg laptop, in a 10g crash will seem as if it was 50kg. So i politely ask them to comply with the rules, written by those who do understand.

If the pilot wants to break these rules, well they are in charge I trust them to fly me, I'll trust them to use their I-Pad safely whilst doing it.

The fact that the aircraft is EMC tight when made does not mean that it stays that way as cables move, shielding abrades, and even connectors get some corrosion. A particularly evil case is with avionics bays below galleys or lavatories: without EMC, there can be enough problems - look at the AAIB reports. Add EMC possibilities to the mix and the results are not readily predictable.

The business about lap tops etc flying in the event of a crash - how about a YMMM incidence? - is so obvious. Ironically, it's because air and train travel is comparatively so safe that people are not aware of the possibilities.

Incidentally, what is the maximum decelerating g force that the seats will stand without coming adrift and crushing you?

notlangley

:D:D:D:D:D

radeng, from memory I think JAR25 had something like 9g forward, 6g downward and 3g sideways.

Passengers can check flight schedules on their iPad, check in before the gate, as well as view terminal maps... but so can the cockpit now too.

The Federal Aviation Administration says pilots are now approved to use iPads during all phases of flight starting Friday.

Passengers, however, must still keep theirs on airplane mode.
Approved: The FAA has approved the use of iPads in the cockpits of planes as a means to cut down on paper waste which adds to fuel costs
American pilots last year tested the iPads as a way to replace paper manuals in the cockpit and with their following success have mutually succeeded in reaching the FAA's approval.
According to Seattle Pi, the electronic swap of manuals, maps, and charts into a thin handheld device will save 35 pounds of paper and therefore $1.2 million worth of fuel each year.

'By eliminating bulky flight bags filled with paper, (electronic flight bags) mean less weight for pilots to carry, reducing the possibility of injury on duty,' First Officer Hank Putek, a member of the APA Safety Committee, said in a news release obtained by SeatlePi.

'In addition, they enable pilots to immediately download updates, rather than waiting for paper versions of required documents to be printed and distributed,' Mr Putek said.

Test: American plots have been testing the use of the iPads over paper maps, reports and charts in the cockpit over the last year before getting the FAA's approval
American Airlines will be the first airline in the world to take on the transition starting Friday, according to zdnet.com.

The FAA acknowledges that the iPad is a 'commercial-off-the-shelf electronic hardware that is not approved or certified by the FAA,' according to a released 'Information for Operators' guide.

'However, it can be authorized for use by a principal operations inspector if it meets ... operation specification or management specification...' the FAA further explains.
First: American Airlines flights will be the first to use the iPads on Friday
In addition to going paperless, the iPads were also recently chosen as the designed device to carry a new program offered to pilots called 'Inflight 911 Services.'

This new program is said to establish a 'top-priority connection' between the aircraft personnel and emergency services team through the aircraft's Wi-Fi internet connection, according to InFlight911Services.

'We envision several iPads being available throughout the aircraft from the cockpit through the cabin ready to be used as a source of 'air-to-ground' communication during an in-air emergency,' Joseph Bekanich, a spokesperson for InFlight Labs said in a release.

The FAA reminds however that their operators 'transitioning to a paperless cockpit [will] undergo an evaluation period during which the operator should carry paper backups of the materia

iPads were approved by the FAA to be used inflight/on the flight deck with EJM (NetJets)

So, pilots can use their iPads during all flight phases. But I am forbidden to use mine (in flight mode) from the door close to TO +? and from initial descent to door open.

But I can distract myself with newspapers, books, magazines.

IMHO I believe nobody wants to change the rules 'just in case' something might happen and then they would get their nether regions sued by unscrupulous lawyers.

When instructed by the crew I diligently turn off my iPad (actually I put it to sleep by closing the cover) and grin. My better half, on the other hand, shushes me when I tell her to pay attention to the safety announcements and returns to her (bodice-ripping) book.

Witnessed a spat on EZY a few weeks ago as someone wanted to keep itunes all the way into Luton. It's only a few minutes at either end so I don't see what there is to get upset about as a passenger. Also probably increases attention and awareness in the unlikely event of..............There was an article in (I think) The Times this weekend which touched on this. Seemed to say that the pilots found the sound of their phones going live again on descent to be rather welcoming: but no texting, OK guys ;)