31–40 of 80 posts
Great article, and it's cool that you came here to post it yourself, but it looks like you accidentally released an unfinished draft. Emphasis mine: "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 ne…
Can't wait until the day I get to overhear everyone's phone calls on the plane. It will really break up the monotony of crying babies.
• People hate having to listen to 1-sided conversations
• The phones were confusing the network - they would switch to a new cell tower every 15-30 seconds.
Both valid arguments if you ask me. Not sure if these complaints were drawn from reality or hypothetical problems - was there a period of time when you could actually use your phone on a plane? I'm pretty young so I don't remember back to the first cell phones.
So that's probably another factor in why the FAA is finally moving on this issue, since passengers would complain if they couldn't use iPads but the crew could.
Can't wait until the day I get to overhear everyone's phone calls on the plane. It will really break up the monotony of crying babies.
People used to complain about that actually. I remember hearing a radio debate on why phones should be allowed back in like 2005, and the counter arguments I can recall were: • People hate having to listen to 1-sided conversations • The phones were confusing the network - they would switch to a new cell tower every 15-30 seconds. Both valid arguments if you ask me. Not sure if these complaints were drawn from reality…
> For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane. 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 b…
"For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane."
Can't wait until the day I get to overhear everyone's phone calls on the plane. It will really break up the monotony of crying babies.
People used to complain about that actually. I remember hearing a radio debate on why phones should be allowed back in like 2005, and the counter arguments I can recall were: • People hate having to listen to 1-sided conversations • The phones were confusing the network - they would switch to a new cell tower every 15-30 seconds. Both valid arguments if you ask me. Not sure if these complaints were drawn from reality…
There used to these cord phones in the seat in front of you above the food tray where you can pay $10 or whatever to make a call. I have never seen anyone use it though.
http://www.padgadget.com/2011/08/07/aspen-avionics-brings-th...
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?
There must be a smarter way of doing it than have 1 flight and 1 device. Surely they could take 10 devices and if there was no interference thats 10 cleared and if there was an interference, they could then break up the that batch into separate flights. I'm sure there are also other ways to make this more efficient?
A better question to ask would be probably: should they test multiple devices in addition to single samples in order to catch more interaction patterns?
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.…