1–10 of 80 posts
The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason they require device specific tests?
Does anyone else wonder why they need to actually fly the devices instead of just extrapolating from the electromagnetic interference test results required by the FCC? It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason they require device specific tests?
Does anyone else wonder why they need to actually fly the devices instead of just extrapolating from the electromagnetic interference test results required by the FCC? It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason they require device specific tests?
But whatever it is, you don’t want to do all your tests in a “simulation,” then have some scientists say “Oops, our bad, we forgot to simulate lower pressure or increased gamma rays or what-have-you,” when we can simply fly the device and all of our testing equipment.
Now excuse me, I have to return to preparing for the Invasion of Moghron from the Frozen Seas of Neptune
Does anyone else wonder why they need to actually fly the devices instead of just extrapolating from the electromagnetic interference test results required by the FCC? It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason they require device specific tests?
What confuses me is why they don't ensure that planes' electronics are properly shielded rather than testing a bunch of electronics that emit very weak to weak EM. If a cell phone could create problems for a flight during take-off, what about a lunatic pointing a HERF weapon at the plane?
Really? Your suggestion is that someone checks specific models against a special approved list that has nothing to do with the actual EMI standards met by the device?
To my knowledge, I'm not a slow reader, nor do I have an unusual amount of patience (quite the contrary), but I can't imagine making it through a magazine, much less a stack of them, during the time I usually spend unable to use electronics on a plane.
"The last time this testing was done was 2006, check long before iPads and most e-readers existed."
"Of 50 incidents in the most recent report get link check from last year, few had anything to do with cockpit interference."
You also said, "buy the end of 2012".
It's neat to see the behind-the-scenes shorthand used in story drafts.
I feel like I'm missing something. He needs a "stack of magazines" to read during taxiing, take-off, and landing? To my knowledge, I'm not a slow reader, nor do I have an unusual amount of patience (quite the contrary), but I can't imagine making it through a magazine, much less a stack of them, during the time I usually spend unable to use electronics on a plane.
if someone's a frequent flyer, the routine is going to get monotonous. You'll need a moderate stack of magazines if you're stuck on the runway for another half hour. Change planes once or twice, and you'll really be wishing you had a lot more reading material. magazines are generally half ads, so you'll get tired of those reading those.
Overall, I sort of agree with you - it seems a little over the top, but it's probably not unreasonable for many people. A stack of newspapers would be lighter, but they're usually too big to deal with for extended reading in economy/coach seats.
(Of course, it's a gamble, since a single bad device could ruin the certification for all of them, but I think it's a smart gamble.)