btfarrwm From United States of America, joined May 2011, 12 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3637 times:
I know airlines are looking at tablets for holding flight manuals, etc. How will these be compliant with FAA regulations about electronic devices during takeoff and landing, etc.?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3617 times:
Quoting btfarrwm (Thread starter): How will these be compliant with FAA regulations about electronic devices during takeoff and landing, etc.?
The iPad 1 has been certified for this already. So, no issues.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2198 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3483 times:
Interesting enough, AA just received FAA approval to use them in all phases of flight. AA, among other airlines, has been testing iPads, but AA is now the first to receive final approval. The test for them is over, 777 a/c will begin using them this Friday, with all fleet types to follow.
spudsmac From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 283 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3416 times:
So the pilots can keep their iPads on on takeoff, yet the passengers have to put their Kindle away? Lol, the irony.
fxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 681 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3370 times:
Comes down to AA, or whon ever, has gone through the process to prove that the iPad will not interfere with anything electronically and that the crew can safely use the iPad instead of the paper charts. If some one goes out and pays to get a Kindle an STC, then you could use that too. Of course, pax won't be able to use theirs for a littany of reasons, valid or otherwise.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Quoting spudsmac (Reply 4): So the pilots can keep their iPads on on takeoff, yet the passengers have to put their Kindle away? Lol, the irony.
No irony at all. The iPads being used have been certified for use in a cockpit and on an aircraft during critical phases of flight, including EM interferance, wheras Kindles have not. That's like saying its ironic that passengers can't use laptops during takeoff but pilots are allowed to have FMC's running... it's not a comparison one can draw.
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 7): No irony at all. The iPads being used have been certified for use in a cockpit and on an aircraft during critical phases of flight, including EM interferance, wheras Kindles have not. That's like saying its ironic that passengers can't use laptops during takeoff but pilots are allowed to have FMC's running... it's not a comparison one can draw.
What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
EMI is never a valid reason for that; it's just the one, that can't be validated...
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3275 times:
Quoting spudsmac (Reply 4): So the pilots can keep their iPads on on takeoff, yet the passengers have to put their Kindle away? Lol, the irony.
One's certified, one's not. One's being used by the flight crew, one's not.
"So pilots can keep their guns on the aircraft yet the passengers have to check theirs. Lol, the irony."
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
Yes. Certified devices are configuration controlled, non-certified ones are not. Only certain iPads got certified (so far) and, even then, they're still covered by the blanket personal electronic device rules for passengers.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): EMI is never a valid reason for that; it's just the one, that can't be validated...
EMI is a valid reason, it's well documented. I'm not sure where this old myth that it doesn't happen keeps coming from. Here's the last 50 reports to the NASA database the relate to personal electronic devices. In 60 seconds I already found two reports of EMI: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9): I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
I see it affecting the onboard equipment due to improper or unsufficient shielding of equipments. But not the radiated signal from the ground.
Longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
Here's some irony for you ...
A pilot issued iPad, (we have them as well), can be used in the cockpit per SOP, but can NOT be used in the cabin when traveling as a passenger. Why? Because electronic devices can not be used in the cabin. Period. As much as some people like to think these rules don't apply to them, they apply to everyone, even to someone that actually does have a device safe for use in an aircraft.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9): I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
So have I. It is irritating as hell. Sometimes I want to go back into the cabin, grab the offending device, and insert it into the users left ear. (after setting it into airplane mode, of course).
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
EMI is never a valid reason for that; it's just the one, that can't be validated...
Of course the pax would be forced to put it away. No electronic items are allowed in the cabin during critical phases of flight; it's really that simple, and it's not a stupid rule. There's a carpet ban for a reason and EMI IS a valid reason. Let's not forget, shall we, that the pax's iPad hasn't been certified for use onboard an aircraft, while the iPad used by the flightcrew has, as Tom has stated.
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2876 times:
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
Yes, there has been no testing of iPads in the cabin areas.... yet. Of course, if you want to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to get them cleared for use, you will find thousands of users who will thank you (perhaps).
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): EMI is never a valid reason for that; it's just the one, that can't be validated...
In aviation safety, the bias is toward safe rather than the unknown. One must prove the device will NOT cause a problem before it is approved for use. AA has spent 6+ months proving iPads do not cause a problem in AA 777 aircraft cockpits. The same can not be said for the 777 cabin areas (or any other airline's 777s).
Quoting Longhauler (Reply 11): A pilot issued iPad, (we have them as well), can be used in the cockpit per SOP, but can NOT be used in the cabin when traveling as a passenger. Why? Because electronic devices can not be used in the cabin.
Same for AA pilots. Okay for use in 777 cockpits ONLY --by the working crew ONLY. Nowhere and nobody else. 737 fleet is next with testing beginning in January. It will be a few months for that fleet to get approval.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 14): Quoting mmedford (Reply 8):
What about the pax that have an ipad? They would be forced to put theirs away as well...
Yes, there has been no testing of iPads in the cabin areas.... yet. Of course, if you want to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to get them cleared for use, you will find thousands of users who will thank you (perhaps).
Besides, it removes ambiguity. If you tell passengers to turn off all electronic devices, most will do it without fuss.
If you tell them to turn of all electronic devices except laptop models A, B, C (as long as it is a mk4 or later), tablet models D (but only a batch 2 production model), & E, music players F, H, I, & J, and phones K & L as long as they are in flight safe mode... How many people do you think will do it? Or will more people than before get confused / think it must be okay with whatever electronic gizmo they have and leave it?
notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2778 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9): I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
Okay, like what? Can you give me a few simple examples of things you witnessed?
Was it due to a phone....or something without an antenna as well, like an electronic game?
Would be funny......I switch on my phone--> plane suddenly squawks 7700!
No Tax On Rotax
Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 504 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 16): Okay, like what? Can you give me a few simple examples of things you witnessed?
Was it due to a phone....or something without an antenna as well, like an electronic game?
Would be funny......I switch on my phone--> plane suddenly squawks 7700!
See the link in Reply 9 by tdscanuck. Most of the instances have nothing to do with EMI but a few definitely do. One that caught my attention was a DL DC9-50 that occurred in a sector of airspace I work here at PHL. The crew received a TCAS RA on no traffic shown, then the RA "evaporated" as they described it with no "Clear of Conflict" message. As it turns out a FA found a pax trying to make a phone call at the time of the RA maneuver.
You have to read the brief descriptions at the beginning to find the relevant ones. Full and detailed descriptions for each of the 50 are after the brief synopses. I've read of other incidents by crew members on this forum in the past. Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't the crash of an aircraft ZRH maybe 10 years ago attributed to EMI? From what I remember they were conducting an ILS approach in IMC conditions and impacted terrain short of the runway because pax making phone calls skewed the glideslope indication.
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1601 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9): Yes. Certified devices are configuration controlled, non-certified ones are not. Only certain iPads got certified (so far) and, even then, they're still covered by the blanket personal electronic device rules for passengers.
To expound on what Tom means by certification for those not Aviation savy:
Certification goes all the way down to the individual unit being used. So even if all IPADs starts out the same. The ones that are certified have passed all required testing AND gets periodical RE-CERTIFICATION to make sure they still operate as intended.
This is not true for the run-of-the-mill IPAD which may or may not have defects straight from the factory, have been modified by the user, or hacked . . . etc ..
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2699 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18): Certification goes all the way down to the individual unit being used. So even if all IPADs starts out the same. The ones that are certified have passed all required testing AND gets periodical RE-CERTIFICATION to make sure they still operate as intended.
Off the shelf hardware can attain certification, it happens everyday. Certification is all for traceability...
The question is; certification based on what standard?
And nothing stops me from maintaining certification on a piece of equipment, I do it all the time.
Shouldn't the OEM work on better methods for protecting equipment from RFI?
EDIT: Thinking about something here, why doesn't apple capitalize on this? Why wouldn't they offer their customers the ability to have the only Airplane Approved Device, for all phases of flight?
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2698 times:
Quoting wagz (Reply 17): From what I remember they were conducting an ILS approach in IMC conditions and impacted terrain short of the runway because pax making phone calls skewed the glideslope indication.
I'd question this one; I've used a cellphone with flightcheck in the air...during runs.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1601 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2686 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19):
Off the shelf hardware can attain certification, it happens everyday. Certification is all for traceability...
The question is; certification based on what standard?
Others would answer this better. But the basic certification is per FAR.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): And nothing stops me from maintaining certification on a piece of equipment, I do it all the time.
If it relates to anything on the aircraft, then YOU would also have to be certified by the FAA or similar regulatory agency in order to maintain certification of any certified equipment. Nothing stops anyone from getting that certification . . . except cost, paperwork, and the necessary bookwork and training to get certified.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): Shouldn't the OEM work on better methods for protecting equipment from RFI?
They do have minimum standards to which they design to. But as you would know, there is a minimum, and there is the should be, and there is the military grade
Besides, equipment design and certified 20 years ago may not have taken into account the proliferation of all the personal equipment that can emit high power wireless signals now-a-days.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2676 times:
Quoting Longhauler (Reply 11): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
So have I. It is irritating as hell. Sometimes I want to go back into the cabin, grab the offending device, and insert it into the users left ear. (after setting it into airplane mode, of course).
Really, their ear? You are too kind, sir.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 20): Quoting wagz (Reply 17):
From what I remember they were conducting an ILS approach in IMC conditions and impacted terrain short of the runway because pax making phone calls skewed the glideslope indication.
I'd question this one; I've used a cellphone with flightcheck in the air...during runs.
Don't question it. I have personally seen a cellphone cause issues with avionics. Just because your interactions seem to show no apparent issues, DON'T mean those issues don't exist.
Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 16): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
Okay, like what? Can you give me a few simple examples of things you witnessed?
Was it due to a phone....or something without an antenna as well, like an electronic game?
Command bars on FD's disappearing, comparator warnings, etc. The FD bars were certainly due to a cellphone; the autopilot and comparator issues were unknown as they required a missed approach, after which I asked the FA's to check for PED's. They found several on including phones, so I don't know. I made an announcement explaining the situation and all was better. No idea what the offender was.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): Shouldn't the OEM work on better methods for protecting equipment from RFI?
Shouldn't the passenger just comply with regulations so airplanes (and tickets) don't have to get more complex and expensive?
notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2635 times:
Interesting PGNCS. And a little scary.
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 22): They found several on including phones, so I don't know. I made an announcement explaining the situation and all was better. No idea what the offender was.
Yep, I understand. You will only find out by throwing every offender off the plane, 1 by 1.
Very time consuming.....
But seriously, do manufacturers test this? The amount of interference caused by "gadgets"??
If so, I hereby apply for a test-job in Toulouse for the A-350.
An I-phone in one hand, a Nintendo DS in the other and I could play an electric organ with my feet during all phases of flight.
No Tax On Rotax.
Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 16): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
I've personally witnessed EMI from portable electronic devices on multiple aircraft, as have several other members of this forum.
Okay, like what? Can you give me a few simple examples of things you witnessed?
The one I've seen the most often, by far, is having my VHF communications stomped on by the "dit dit dah" sound of a nearby cell phone making a data transmission.
I also know of one series of flight deck displays that will blank in the presence of just the wrong kind of WiFi signal.
Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 16): Was it due to a phone....or something without an antenna as well, like an electronic game?
So far, I've never experienced anything I could pin on something that didn't have an antenna. However, a lot of things have antennas that people don't think of...bluetooth chips and WiFi are in almost everything now.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): The question is; certification based on what standard?
Compliance to the FAR's.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): Shouldn't the OEM work on better methods for protecting equipment from RFI?
Things that can be shielded are shielded. But if your equipment is *designed* to pick up RFI (communications, navigation, GPS, etc.) you can't shield it from RFI.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 19): EDIT: Thinking about something here, why doesn't apple capitalize on this? Why wouldn't they offer their customers the ability to have the only Airplane Approved Device, for all phases of flight?
Because Apple doesn't have that authority. Only the airline has legal authority to allow operating personal electronic devices onboard.
Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 23): The amount of interference caused by "gadgets"??
Yes. The problem is the number of gadets and potential uses of gadgets is way larger than the amount of possible testing and, even if you did all the testing, personal gadgets have no configuration control.
Tom.
25 notaxonrotax: Okay, and was that "somebody" making this transmission on purpose while flight testing? Purposely? Fair enough. And I´m not all being devil´s advoc
26 YokoTsuno: You have a point notaxonrotax. The problem here is that this debate about EMI interference in airplanes is no longer solely about exact science. It i
27 mandala499: If it interferes, they switch it off... if a pax iPad cause interference, they can't just go to the PA and say, "could someone with his/her iPad on p
28 tdscanuck: No. We brief to turn off personal electronic devices just like everyone else...but not everyone complies, just like everyone else. Correct. Exactly.
29 AAR90: Since AA is the only USA airline authorized to use iPad in the cockpit for ALL phases of flight --as of yesterday, only on the 777 fleet-- I can tell
30 PGNCS: Well the kitchen stove was pretty well shielded in that it was made of string, paper clips, and some cams and pulleys milled from limestone. Or that'
31 mandala499: Oh God! Not that one! Damn "smart" idea... let's authorize L-band spectrum for horizontal terrestrial use... on the L-band zones next to the GPS L-ba
32 PGNCS: Mine too! Merry Christmas! Now turn your PED's off when you're supposed to!
33 YokoTsuno: Should passengers believe that it is perfectly safe to land an airplane with certified brakes? If your analysis is to be applied consistently, commer
34 AAR90: In a way.... yes. To date, there has been nobody else willing to spend the time/money to get PED's approved for use during takeoff/landing time frame
35 seven3seven: Please dont question the airlines and the FAA. Just sit there and do what we say
36 mandala499: I wish it is that simple (although in a way, it is). Power, frequency range, EM radiation wave bands and modulation... No one thought that WiFi beams
37 cmb56: There is no certification for the use of iPads or any other personal electronic device used onboard a commercial aircraft. Passive, non-radiation devi
38 web500sjc: did any one notice AA made a mount for the iPad, so it has a place in the cockpit? (I assume that could be part of the reason the FAA has allowed it d
39 mandala499: Err... yes... "placed/mounted" on the place where the class3 EFB would be... so, they either fixed-mount it there (to be come a class 2... ie: allowe
40 AAR90: iPad use in airliners requires FAA authorization in the airline's Operations Specifications (OpSpec A061 in AA's case). According to our OpSpec, the
41 cmb56: The local level FAA office that has oversight for each airline has a lot of authority to decide what gets approved. In the case of the iPad this may r
42 tdscanuck: Yes, missing an ATC call to go-around in low visibility and smashing into an aircraft on the runway is very expensive. No. The Lightsquared/GPS comme
43 PGNCS: What are you talking about? A discussion of aircraft brakes, a certified and tested component integral to the design of the aircraft, has zero releva
44 as739x: There was a good article in the USAtoday about the argument of pilots using IPads vs. Passengers. It talked about multiple incidents when crews feared
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2011, 12 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8478 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 539 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 371 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
