41–50 of 80 posts
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?
If the FAA is fine with me sitting in the left seat with an iPad strapped to my knee, within a foot of the avionics, it's baffling that there would be an issue with passenger flights.
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.
But from what I understand a big reason for the "taxi, takeoff and landing" routine is that somebody completely absorbed by their iPad is the last thing the crew want when things to pear-shaped, and when this happens, it's at these points rather than on cruising altitude. Now of course you might the same argument for a book (although it's a strong one for music players), but just my $0.02
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…
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?
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…
I find this funny because if you are a private pilot, there's this: http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=iChart If the FAA is fine with me sitting in the left seat with an iPad strapped to my knee, within a foot of the avionics, it's baffling that there would be an issue with passenger flights.
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?
I'm pretty sure there have been enough people that ignore the rules and leave their devices on for us to be reasonably sure there's no substantial risk.
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…
In this case, we also know from experience that small devices like iPads do not cause high levels of EMI. Once we have tested a dozen models on a dozen planes and had successful results on all 144 tests, there is no need to test further models. This is unlike software, where of 144 unit tests, a good percentage are almost guaranteed to fail at some point in time.
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?
I find this funny because if you are a private pilot, there's this: http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=iChart If the FAA is fine with me sitting in the left seat with an iPad strapped to my knee, within a foot of the avionics, it's baffling that there would be an issue with passenger flights.
b) If something goes wrong with your avionics, you can turn off the iPad. If something goes wrong on an airliner, the pilot can't quite as easily figure out whose iPad is causing the trouble.