Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#61

Post by spa942 »

ams6110 wrote: post #11

It really seems to me that all this regulation about personal devices is just more theatre. Or some kind of psychological strategy to emphasize to the passengers who is in control. If a cell phone or an iPod could really cause harmful interference with the avionics, they would not be allowed at all.

If a high beam headlight could really cause harmful interference with the vision of approaching car drivers, they would not be allowed at all. Right?

Here's a sampling of interference events: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf (edit: only some of them are about EMI interference)

Instruments acting up won't automatically cause a crash. But they may contribute to the accident (ref AF447)

http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf - some examples of what lack of EMI shielding can do.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#62

Post by arohner »

jedberg wrote: post #60
arohner wrote: post #55

How 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.

There is one good reason to turn off your phone however: the phone searching for new cell towers drains the battery quickly.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#63

Post by lizzard »

rmc wrote: post #56
phillco wrote: post #28

> 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 o…

They have been testing them for the past few years simply by allowing them on flights.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#64

Post by VBprogrammer »

rmc wrote: post #56
phillco wrote: post #28

> 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 o…

In the UK I often fly Ryanair who due to falling under the Irish Aviation Authority have been allowing the use of electronic devices while the fasten seat-belt light is of (although, not phones) for several years.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#65

Post by baddox »

tzs wrote: post #47
baddox wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't it possible that 300 passengers using devices at the same time could pose substantially more risk than just a handful of people using devices?

It's possible, but it's also possible that each passenger has ten iPads in their carry-on bag. Will they perform a test flight with 3,000 iPads? Not to mention how many more iPads could be stored in checked luggage.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#66

Post by mbell »

Anechoic wrote: post #57
SlowButEffectiv wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 watche…

Yet both examples still have to go through FCC testing. Anything digital with a clock over 9 kHz has to go through unintentional radiator testing.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#67

Post by tedunangst »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #64
rmc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

In the UK I often fly Ryanair who due to falling under the Irish Aviation Authority have been allowing the use of electronic devices while the fasten seat-belt light is of (although, not phones) for several years.

Does of mean on or off?

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#68

Post by Terretta »

Mythbusters wrote: post #44
raldi wrote: post #8

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…

Also the story is not just about iPads. It's about all the personal electronics items. Kindles, laptopns and phones included.

Cellphones excluded.

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#69

Post by nknight »

raldi wrote: post #12
nknight wrote: post #7

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.

You must not be from New York. At LGA or JFK, it's quite common to sit on the runway for 45-60 minutes when taking off, or to be held in a holding pattern for at least as long when landing.

No, west coast, my reference points are mostly SJC/SFO/PDX/SEA/TPE. An hour between doors closing and taking off is largely unthinkable. I'm not even sure it took an hour when I had to go through ORD in really crappy weather a few years ago.

I've heard the occasional story about long tarmac waits in New York, but didn't realize that 45-60 minutes could be anywhere near typical. Is Newark any better, or basically in the same boat?

Re: The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.

#70

Post by jonnathanson »

nknight wrote: post #69
raldi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be from New York. At LGA or JFK, it's quite common to sit on the runway for 45-60 minutes when taking off, or to be held in a holding pattern for at least as long when landing.

No, west coast, my reference points are mostly SJC/SFO/PDX/SEA/TPE. An hour between doors closing and taking off is largely unthinkable. I'm not even sure it took an hour when I had to go through ORD in really crappy weather a few years ago. I've heard the occasional story about long tarmac waits in New York, but didn't realize that 45-60 minutes could be anywhere near typical. Is Newark any better, or basically in t…

Consider yourself blessed. NY airports are a nightmare. Same with LAX, ORD, ATL, DEN, and most other major hubs. (DFW seems to be a sole exception to the hubs-are-sucky axiom; I've rarely has anything but pleasant experiences from that airport, and I think I've connected through it over 100 times in the last 12 months).

Of all of these hubs, I hold a special pocket of hatred in my heart for my hometown airport, LAX. It's not the biggest or most crowded airport in the country, but it seems to be the worst run. Security lines take at least 45 minutes a pop, even if there are only about 10 people in line. Pre-takeoff delays on the tarmac routinely run 60 minutes or longer. Etc. It's about as well-managed as a DMV, and every bit as infuriating.

SFO tends to suck, too. I'm actually surprised you haven't had worse experiences there. It's routinely rated as one of the worst airports in the country for delays. (SJC, by comparison, ranges from painless to downright pleasant).

Post reply on HN