Why is the first officer sitting on the left?
The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
51–60 of 80 posts
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#52Does 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?
Perhaps they aren't willing to assume that the electronics in planes are as shielded as they're supposed to be. 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?
Shielding is only part of the battle; the other part is what they're doing here: controlling incoming emissions.
Nothing can be perfectly shielded in the real world and instruments or controllers may need very long cables to connect to their respective sensors and actuators making shielding difficult.
Now add in that many of these instruments actually need to process an RF signal and so won't work if shielded, and it becomes a difficult problem to solve.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches? Can't they also be unintentional radiators?
Because these are low power devices working at low frequencies, and it's about minimizing risk not eliminating it.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#54What if they put all the iPads on a flight, and there was still no interference? Could they all be approved after that flight? (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.)
That wouldn't account for destructive interference.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#55How about we just take the empirical test. I know I often forget to turn off my iphone on the plane (1 out of 5 times I fly). I'm not alone, and there are 100+ people on the plane. Odds are very good that we have thousands of hours of real world tests with a dozen phones turned on.
If this were actually a serious problem for the plane, there would already be a sensor for this. "Sir, there's something emitting radiation in your pants".
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#56> 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…
They cannot test them on a live plane with live people. Imagine if something did go wrong, and it crashed the plane. What official wants to say "Oops".
Performing the tests would be insanely bad PR. An official has to approach someone going on a flight and say "we think this device will crash the plane, but We're not sure, would you mind playing with it during theft flight so we can see if the plane you're on falls out of the sky?". Panic would ensue.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches? Can't they also be unintentional radiators?
Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches? Can't they also be unintentional radiators?
what spa942 said.
From the linked thread:
"The low power in a digital watch is certainly a factor but the main thing that keeps them from interfering is very low operating frequency. In older, simpler watches this was 32 kHz! Only one octave above the audible range. In more modern multifunction watches with stopwatches that go to 0.01 seconds (as if anyone can push a button that precisely, but never mind that) they do have to be clocked faster, but they are still clocked as slowly as possible, to save power.... typically 1 MHz or less.
The RF from these things is all but undetectable unless you put a pickup directly against the watch. "
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Would it be overly cynical of me to suspect that the original ban had something to do with the $5 charge for the seat back phone and the new policy has something to do with the $5 seat back wifi?
How about acknowledging that the rules may be overreaching, yet be thankful that the airline industry likes to err on the side of safety?
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#59So 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.…
One wonders why the terrorists don't just buy a GNU Radio and a dish, and start dropping airplanes like flies.
The airplanes wouldn't drop like flies, but you could probably make a plane divert in bad weather by jamming the NAV frequencies.
Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
#60How about we just take the empirical test. I know I often forget to turn off my iphone on the plane (1 out of 5 times I fly). I'm not alone, and there are 100+ people on the plane. Odds are very good that we have thousands of hours of real world tests with a dozen phones turned on. If this were actually a serious problem for the plane, there would already be a sensor for this. "Sir, there's something emitting radiati…
My cousin's ex-husband is a pilot for Southwest. He says he never turns his phone off because it doesn't matter and is a stupid rule.