21–30 of 80 posts
Alternatively an ebook reader doesn't emit enough RF to crash a 737.
On a recent Alaskan airlines flight you were allowed to use the $5 in flight WiFi - but Bluetooth devices were banned. That's some pretty specific interference!
I'm kind of amused by the number of comments on this thread that amount to "all the devices that meet the standard are still required to be tested in situ? lol wat!?". Yet, this is the same place that advocates heavy test driven development practices, which include testing your code against libraries that meet standards, testing that the libraries actually do the right thing when you use them, and personally verifyin…
And... clients/bosses complain when testing takes a long time, which is what we're doing here to the FAA.
Given how many flights happen, with a variety of devices, you might think that with some extra devices and controlled test procedures, the FAA would be able to gather 'real world' test data (their devices, their tests, real flights, etc.) and make conclusions over the past 3-5 years.
MAYBE... then issue guidelines (or even paid-for device approval processes). Would Apple pay a few million to get an 'FAA-approved' sticker for iPads and iPhones? If there were specified guidelines and a testing procedure, more companies might work in that direction. I'd imagine there are guidelines, but not being in that industry, I don't know how easy to access they are. If there were public knowledge, I'd imagine device manufacturers already promoting "meets FAA guidelines for xyz", but since we don't see that, I have to assume they're not easily accessible.
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?
They do ask people to turn them off during take off and landing , but this is only a fairly small segment of the journey anyway.
So logically either: There is a danger from these devices but 1, nobody has ever switched on an iPad/phone/ebook reader/tamogochi/iPod on a flight in the US - ever. Or 2, planes crash all the time but the government keeps it secret. Alternatively an ebook reader doesn't emit enough RF to crash a 737. On a recent Alaskan airlines flight you were allowed to use the $5 in flight WiFi - but Bluetooth devices were banned.…
But I believe it really is a "Because I said so" kind of deal.
I still think that could be a great differentiator. "Virgin: We don't care when you use your Kindle. Or your iPad". Too bad it's too expensive.
Also...having to do dedicated test flights seems very inefficient. What if they just bought 100 iPads and gave them to everyone on randomly selected flights? They'd let the passengers use them for an hour (enough to watch three episodes of The Office), take them back for another hour, and compare the radio quality. It'd be great -- they'd get some serious stress testing, have relatively low fixed costs, and it'd make the customers happy. (They could even give the iPads away afterwards to rewards customers as gifts.)
Hmm, I guess it'd be not so cool if the devices actually did cause the planes to crash.
I 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.
But yeah, it is 2012 get with the program.
So logically either: There is a danger from these devices but 1, nobody has ever switched on an iPad/phone/ebook reader/tamogochi/iPod on a flight in the US - ever. Or 2, planes crash all the time but the government keeps it secret. Alternatively an ebook reader doesn't emit enough RF to crash a 737. On a recent Alaskan airlines flight you were allowed to use the $5 in flight WiFi - but Bluetooth devices were banned.…