If a cell phone or an iPod could really cause harmful interference with the avionics, they would not be allowed at all.
The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
11–20 of 80 posts
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#12I 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.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#13Does 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?
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#14http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-c...
mentions some measured electronic emissions from kindle and other devices (razor, recorder). In some ways it doesn't matter what might actually be allowed. If an attendant tells you to shut it off, and you don't, you're in violation of their rules. If I took a razor on and started shaving during takeoff, I'm betting I'd be told to shut that off.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#15Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#16Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#17I'm sure there are also other ways to make this more efficient?
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#18Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#19Does 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?
It's the "unknowns" not accounted for in the models that are the (potential) issue. If you have time read through this Ars Technica thread where a bunch of these questions are hashed out: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=116333...
For those without the time, I'll highlight one post from page 5:
"Unintentional radiators.
The reason they ask you to power down ALL electronics, and not just turn off radios, is that the oscillators (the clock that runs all digital devices) on the circuit board can act as miniature radios, in and of themselves, via clock signals on circuit traces. They emit at the clock frequency, and in some cases many higher level harmonics of those frequencies.
As I've stated several times, it's actually pretty easy to mitigate against known frequencies and signalling techniques...it's the ones you don't know about that are the problem. EMI can be downright spooky.
As an example: I was once testing a medical device (for the Medical Device Directive) that was required to failsafe, since it would literally be touching a patient (it was a combination pulseoximeter and a few other things all rolled into one.
There were numerous tests for both emissions and immunity, and things were going along ducky until we noticed two separate failure modes that weren't considered failsafe. At the time, we were testing ESD immunity up to 20kV. It would pass one time, and not another. We thought maybe we had a bad unit, so we got a few more from the manufacturer. That entire week we kept trying to figure out how to make the failure repeatable, without luck. My coworker and I went in over the weekend, and could simply not make any of the units fail at all, with the exact same test.
That's what triggered our thought process...what else could be causing the issue during the work week but not on a weekend?
Other immunity tests! Turns out, a dozen or so meters away, a different device was undergoing a different test...that wasn't required for the MDD. It was a conducted immunity test (it may have been Electric Fast Transients, can't recall) but the actual test signal was leaking out of that lab, and into our lab, via AC lines in the building. Our chief engineer submitted a proposal to add whatever test it was to the MDD, but I don't know whatever became of that.
I've seen simple clocks inside electronic gear cause CPUs to go haywire...in effect a single system interfering with itself. I've also seen extremely low power, yet very high frequency harmonics invade and corrupt function of another device, several meters away."
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#20I presume more people than just me keep their phones or devices on at all times during the flight. Therefore, due to extensive end-user testing. We have deemed all devices safe to use.
Not at all: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=22383605#p22383...