iPads OK for use during all phases of flight?
 

The FAA has just given approval to American Airlines for pilots to use iPads containing their flight manuals in the cockpit "in all phases of flight." Flight attendants are to get them soon, too. Would it be logical to conclude, then, that passengers, too, could use them during all phases of flight, or at the very least not have to turn them off during take offs and landings? American Airlines will start transitioning to iPads later this month starting with its Boeing 777 fleet, and it will go entirely digital by the end of 2013.

Nobody seems to understand that the "all electronics off" demand has nothing to do with stray bits and bytes confusing the FMS or whatever.

It's because the airlines want passengers to be at least minimally attentive during the takeoff/departure and arrival/landing phases of a flight. No iPod earbuds, no Boses, no Gameboys, no iPads, no Kindles. Shut up and pay attention, at least a tiny bit, during those brief portions of a flight when it just might be necessary for a flight attendant to tell you that you're all about to die unless you listen.

It's so basic, I'm amazed that people still wonder whether "iPads make the navs go all crazy." Has nothing to do with it.

Pilots have been using iPads in cockpits for some time now. Typically there are a couple semi-permanently in the cockpit plus a couple that have been issued personally to the flight crew.

stepwilk

Although you make a very good point about being attentive during TO and LDG,
The excuse the airlines give for switching off electronic devices, is to prevent electronic Interference.

If they wanted us to be attentive and not read anything during TO and LDG, they would also ban newspapers and magazines.

What a load of cr@p and shows how little you understand the primary motivation.

An airline, the manufacture and the regulator need to ensure that any equipment used during critical phases of flight has been appropriately tested to ensure that it does not interfere with any systems.

Airlines in any regulatory regime of any repute will undergo some form of testing (or rely on others' testing) to ensure that two/three iPads in the cockpit won't interfere with the aircraft. In some cases (but not all) this testing is done specific to an ipad's serial number.

This testing does not involve 230 people tapping away on 230 iPads in the landing phase. Until that happens passengers are obligated to turn them off.

Until the regulator/manufacturer/operator test a hundred or so ipads down the back you may not conclude that it is ok to keep them on.

There is a secondary benefit in having attentive pax, but that is well secondary.

So we screen passengers for liquids, sharp objects and all manner of items that might cause undue harm to an aircraft or its occupants but when it comes to electronic devices, the system relies on the good graces of its passengers to dutifully shut off personal electronics. Really? That position just isn't consistent with everything else that passengers are subject to. It would be interesting I'm sure to do random surveys on transport aircraft to see the percentage of personal electronic devices left on (whether by intention or not) and happily humming away in jackets, purses and carry-ons up in the overheads with apparently no ill effects.

For years it was "please keep personal electronics off until the seatbelt sign has been shut off" but even when the seatbelt sign was shut off it was "please ensure that transmit and receive functions are disabled". Now today on many airlines the use of those same electronic devices is facilitated by onboard systems that require the transmit and receive function for use.

Yes, I am being overly simplistic and yes, I can think of dozens of reasons why it would be nice to revert back to an age when we didn't have cell phones, ipads and such. But here we are and these devices are part of our daily lives and passengers have caught up to the illogical premise that they are screened to ensure they aren't carrying too much shampoo but when it comes to personal electronics causing confusion to our doo-dads on the flight deck....well we'll just make sure to throw in the word PLEASE to ensure compliance.

Safety briefings do claim that electronic devices "may" interfere with aircraft equipment, so how come our old friend Al Q. hasn't yet figured out a way to hook a couple of smart-phones together, amplify the signal through an empty 50ml shampoo bottle and prove definitively that they "do" pose a risk? :8

All of which is facilitated by systems which prior to certification been rigorously tested and shown not to interfere with aircraft systems. In addition the system which I have been involved with installing was automatically disabled below 10,000ft. These systems use leaky feeders to ensure that RF signals are kept at a minimal level.

Why are some people so hell bent on using laptops, smart phones etc in all phases of flight? Is it because they are so important that they can not possibly be unreachable for a few minutes? Or is it just that the feel that no-one should tell them what they can and cannot do?

The aircraft portion yes but the other side of that system use is everybody's individual laptop, ipad, cell phone.........whatever, that have not gone through that same certification process.......which was my point.

Avionker

Why? Because many of us have abandoned newspapers and books and would simply like to read during the taxi-out, take-off and climb, for example. Nothing like a 30 minute delay watching tiddly happen outside the scratched windows.

How do you think the testing is carried out? Multiple commercially available personal devices are connected to the network in flight.

All personal devices regulate their signal strength in order to preserve battery life. They will transmit on the lowest possible power setting that allows a reliable connection without data loss or signal drop, hence the use of a leaky feeder running throughout the cabin, as opposed to a single central antenna.

The organisation I work for has just obtained approval to operate Ipads in the cockpit.

It was limited to one model, with the transmit/receive set to a particular mode, subject to retention tests on the mountings in the cockpit at predicted crash loads so that they can't do damage to people in such an event, and getting all that approved cost us a couple of tens of thousands of pounds.

And they're great! But to extend that easily to a wide range of pax devices would be impossible.

Electronic equipment
 

Although I can't see reference to them in this particular topic, why are cameras also included in the 'cannot use etc' - some people do actually like to film the T/O and landings - sad that we are !

I assume that if you were using a totally mechanical, batteryless, spring-wound little Bell & Howell 8mm, you could argue that it neither used nor produced electricity so should be allowed, but I -still- doubt that you'd get away with it.

Pilotage
 

I was just speaking to a friend-test pilot at Bombardier. They now also use Bombardier Flight Deck App. ALL the manuals are included, permitting them to now be 100% paperless. Loading, M&B, QRH......which are "active," meaning when the checklist refers to "go to XXX," clicking brings you directly there.

As I have a lot of the manuals on goodreader, I have found that I read them more often, increasing knowledge and safety. Instead of looking it up when you get to the airplane, you simply pull out the iPad and look it up over a beer or a coffee, sitting with the crew and discussing an issue or answering a question.

He confirmed the same experience, that he now is reading the manual more than ever.

It took Bombardier nearly 2 years to get Transport Canada approval and the manual for the paperless is itself 2 inches thick, but probably a good way to go.

Bombardier also warns on certain models that cell phone signals may set off the smoke detectors. I don't pretend to understand how, but the warning is there.

No you're wrong, its because of electronic interference. I'm amazed you can't understand something so basic. If the airlines' intention was to get people to pay attention they would not allow, and indeed encourage, them to read books or do puzzles. Have you never heard this announcement; "We will be dimming the cabin lights for take off/landing, to continue reading please use the reading light above your seat."?

So what's taking Al Qaeda and every other terrorist organisation so long to bring down an aircraft through such interference with vital control systems? It's not like they'd have any trouble getting suitable devices through airport security, is it?