But the FAA did have to spend money approving the iPad - so his post was essentially correct...
Nope. The money is spent by the Airline that is SEEKING approval. The only thing spent by the FAA is the salary of the POI for that airline who determines whether or not to approve its use. The airline is responsible for doing any testing and spending the money that said POI may require.
...I hear nothing but enthusiasm for EFBs on discussions among pilots. Then again mostly private pilots, so it's possible that some ATPs are more skeptical...
Nope... Airline pilots are just as eager to get these things into the cockpit. The iPad/Jepp app is far superior to the TSO'd hardware that we have installed in some of our planes. It's also about 1/100 the the cost.
... If you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it you're in screwed city...
I'm of a different opinion there. A piece of printed paper (or electronic facsimile) is hardly necessary to fly an approach... It's nice to have, it may make things easier, but one is hardly "screwed" without it.
Note what myth was "busted" and that they officially back up the FCC and FAA's reasoning for the ban.
Additionally, and maybe most importantly, airlines avoid a 1000% increase in air rage incidents by people sitting next to assholes who talk on their phones at the top of their lungs for entire 6-hour flights.
Back to the "article" - does anyone really trust every plane/airline/pilot/maintenance worker to keep the iPad charged? A paper manual would be a pretty useful backup in the case of minor electrical/computer failures... an uncharged iPad? Not so much...
I wouldn't be surprised if some Apple lobbyist money was involved somewhere here...
I'm of a different opinion there. A piece of printed paper (or electronic facsimile) is hardly necessary to fly an approach... It's nice to have, it may make things easier, but one is hardly "screwed" without it.
I'm not an ATP and not instrument rated so I only know what I have heard. Won't you be busting the FARs if you fly an approach without the plates?
I'm not an ATP and not instrument rated so I only know what I have heard. Won't you be busting the FARs if you fly an approach without the plates?
Sure, you have to have the appropriate charts with you ... but paper pages go missing all the time, and batteries die in electronics... but one is hardly "screwed" if you can't "get your hands on it". The approach can be flown without having the chart available... nobody's going to get hurt.
Turning iPads on will affect the flight electronics especially it's so close to the cocpit. Either FAA is lying about this or they're willig to compromise flight safety for convenience?
As a commercial pilot, I think FAA just made a mistake. iPad may fail during flight. I would not risk the flight safety of a commercial airliner on a consumer product. There is a need to have a specially designed and manufatured tablet for this kind of purpose...
Based on the cost figure I've seen, the cost of two iPads (main + backup) + software subscription is still less than one year's subscription to the equivalent paperwork. And you'd still be saving 35lb and a cubic foot of space. Information can be updated quicker and possibly more often as well. And an added benefit, you should be able to do a quick search to skip to any random piece of information rather than flipping through books and pages.
I wonder what a specially designed tablet would cost. My opinion, it would probably be at least three times as heavy, ten times more expensive, and the user interface would look like something dreamt up in 1990, and the OS would not be updated very often, as every update would likely require recertification. Hardware advancements would probably also come at a glacial pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken
Time to abolish all the foolish restrictions that some airlines impose on "electronic devices", even disallowing people to do useful work in flight.
Granted, asking for "Airline Mode" for an iPod/iPad is warranted, but anything beyond that is too restrictive.
Lots of things, these days are "electronic devices", including pacemakers, wrist watches, digital cameras.
The big issue is transmitters. Watches don't even operate at the power and frequencies that can interfere. Even so, I recall they want you to turn off cameras during landing and take-off, despite the fact that most lack a transmitter.
Sure, you have to have the appropriate charts with you ... but paper pages go missing all the time, and batteries die in electronics... but one is hardly "screwed" if you can't "get your hands on it". The approach can be flown without having the chart available... nobody's going to get hurt.
Yes I know you can get away with just about anything if you don't get caught, but I was acting under the assumption that most ATPs would not the take the risk, since a lifted ticket generally means career over. I was also acting under the assumption that a familiar approach could be flown without reference to the plates without anyone being the wiser, but that flying an unfamiliar one that way would not necessarily have the same happy result.
Yes I know you can get away with just about anything if you don't get caught, but I was acting under the assumption that most ATPs would not the take the risk, since a lifted ticket generally means career over. I was also acting under the assumption that a familiar approach could be flown without reference to the plates without anyone being the wiser, but that flying an unfamiliar one that way would not necessarily have the same happy result.
I was only referring to your comment about "if you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it, you're in screwed city" ... my point being that there is no "screwed city" ... the chart isn't necessary. You still have it with you (or intended to... couldn't be helped that the page was missing or the battery failed) you just couldn't get your hands on it ... so there's no FAR compliance issue.
The unfamiliar approach flies the same way as the familiar one... ATC can give you the frequency and the inbound course ... so same happy result. (If you can't successfully fly an approach without a chart, then I like to think you'd have a hard time getting into the front seats of a Boeing!)
I was only referring to your comment about "if you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it, you're in screwed city" ... my point being that there is no "screwed city" ... the chart isn't necessary. You still have it with you (or intended to... couldn't be helped that the page was missing or the battery failed) you just couldn't get your hands on it ... so there's no FAR compliance issue.
The unfamiliar approach flies the same way as the familiar one... ATC can give you the frequency and the inbound course ... so same happy result. (If you can't successfully fly an approach without a chart, then I like to think you'd have a hard time getting into the front seats of a Boeing!)
So let me see if I understand this. If ATC intructs you to fly approach Kimmo 2 and you as the PIC don't happen to have that plate, ATC will be delighted to walk you through all of the intersections, courses, bearings and altitudes -- no questions asked? Personally, I've rarely found ATC to be that accommodating even with much less insensitive and complex VFR instructions. I've had them get testy with me for being unfamiliar with local ground references. "I'm sorry sir, I don't know what the brick factory looks like but if you tell me where it is I'd be happy to enter the downwind there."
I have yet to hear from a single pilot who doesn't love the idea. It's become very popular, especially among private pilots. You can even buy a clip that turns your iPad into a kneeboard. The only issue is you can't get real time weather.
I remember my days as a First Officer in a small jet charter company - I was the one designated to receive all the updates to the Flight and Approach charts by snail mail, update the bulky, heavy leather-bound folders full of hundreds of outdated pages, and chuck the old charts away.
What's not to like about that now being done electronically?
The Flight charts couldn't give you real-time weather either ;-)
I remember my days as a First Officer in a small jet charter company - I was the one designated to receive all the updates to the Flight and Approach charts by snail mail, update the bulky, heavy leather-bound folders full of hundreds of outdated pages, and chuck the old charts away.
What's not to like about that now being done electronically?
The Flight charts couldn't give you real-time weather either ;-)
Roger that. Even as a VFR pilot I can see the value of having all my charts and AF/D in one portable device, and moving map sectionals is another plus. Less head down time for sure. Real-time WX is the most requested add-on. The other solutions are considerably more expensive than an iPad. Somebody will figure that out eventually.
Our flight department has switched to Foreflight on the iPad and it seems better than paper, for us. It may not be for everyone. We have backup with G696/charts also. None of our people seem cozy with the iPad alone! And we keep a charging unit within reach. Thus far, all has worked well for our group.
Note what myth was "busted" and that they officially back up the FCC and FAA's reasoning for the ban.
I remember this episode, and it verified what I suspected before watching it.
The real push to keep cell phones off of planes is from the FCC, not the FAA. It's because the cell network doesn't expect one handset to be in range of dozens (or possibly hundreds) of towers at once. And it doesn't expect you to be moving at hundreds of miles per hour between the towers. This behavior puts stress on the network. It can handle some people doing it (which is why people who violate the rules by accident or on purpose don't create major problems) but if everybody flying with a cell phone left it active, the carriers would have to invest a lot of money (that they'd rather spend elsewhere) to upgrade their networks in order to handle the load.
The bit about electronics messing up the plane's electronics is BS, except perhaps for old unshielded equipment, which you're not likely to ever find on commercial aircraft flying today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The big issue is transmitters. Watches don't even operate at the power and frequencies that can interfere. Even so, I recall they want you to turn off cameras during landing and take-off, despite the fact that most lack a transmitter.
Different airlines have different rules. For instance, Alitalia prohibits (for the entire flight) use of optical drives, but has no problems with disc-free computers and solid-state music players. There is no logical reason for this restriction, but it's their rule. As far as I know, no other airline has this rule either.
But all airlines, no matter what the rules are, say that they are FAA regulations. I think that in most cases, the only regulation involved is the one that says you have to do what flight crews tell you to do.
Comments
But the FAA did have to spend money approving the iPad - so his post was essentially correct...
Nope. The money is spent by the Airline that is SEEKING approval. The only thing spent by the FAA is the salary of the POI for that airline who determines whether or not to approve its use. The airline is responsible for doing any testing and spending the money that said POI may require.
...I hear nothing but enthusiasm for EFBs on discussions among pilots. Then again mostly private pilots, so it's possible that some ATPs are more skeptical...
Nope... Airline pilots are just as eager to get these things into the cockpit. The iPad/Jepp app is far superior to the TSO'd hardware that we have installed in some of our planes. It's also about 1/100 the the cost.
...Whether you could satisfy them with an EFB instead of traditional paper charts is unknown to me. A grey area I suspect.
Nothing grey about it at all. In the part-91 environment, electronic charts are perfectly acceptable already. No individual approval is required.
... If you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it you're in screwed city...
I'm of a different opinion there. A piece of printed paper (or electronic facsimile) is hardly necessary to fly an approach... It's nice to have, it may make things easier, but one is hardly "screwed" without it.
Note what myth was "busted" and that they officially back up the FCC and FAA's reasoning for the ban.
Additionally, and maybe most importantly, airlines avoid a 1000% increase in air rage incidents by people sitting next to assholes who talk on their phones at the top of their lungs for entire 6-hour flights.
Back to the "article" - does anyone really trust every plane/airline/pilot/maintenance worker to keep the iPad charged? A paper manual would be a pretty useful backup in the case of minor electrical/computer failures... an uncharged iPad? Not so much...
I wouldn't be surprised if some Apple lobbyist money was involved somewhere here...
I'm of a different opinion there. A piece of printed paper (or electronic facsimile) is hardly necessary to fly an approach... It's nice to have, it may make things easier, but one is hardly "screwed" without it.
I'm not an ATP and not instrument rated so I only know what I have heard. Won't you be busting the FARs if you fly an approach without the plates?
I'm not an ATP and not instrument rated so I only know what I have heard. Won't you be busting the FARs if you fly an approach without the plates?
Sure, you have to have the appropriate charts with you ... but paper pages go missing all the time, and batteries die in electronics... but one is hardly "screwed" if you can't "get your hands on it". The approach can be flown without having the chart available... nobody's going to get hurt.
Turning iPads on will affect the flight electronics especially it's so close to the cocpit. Either FAA is lying about this or they're willig to compromise flight safety for convenience?
As a commercial pilot, I think FAA just made a mistake. iPad may fail during flight. I would not risk the flight safety of a commercial airliner on a consumer product. There is a need to have a specially designed and manufatured tablet for this kind of purpose...
Based on the cost figure I've seen, the cost of two iPads (main + backup) + software subscription is still less than one year's subscription to the equivalent paperwork. And you'd still be saving 35lb and a cubic foot of space. Information can be updated quicker and possibly more often as well. And an added benefit, you should be able to do a quick search to skip to any random piece of information rather than flipping through books and pages.
I wonder what a specially designed tablet would cost. My opinion, it would probably be at least three times as heavy, ten times more expensive, and the user interface would look like something dreamt up in 1990, and the OS would not be updated very often, as every update would likely require recertification. Hardware advancements would probably also come at a glacial pace.
Time to abolish all the foolish restrictions that some airlines impose on "electronic devices", even disallowing people to do useful work in flight.
Granted, asking for "Airline Mode" for an iPod/iPad is warranted, but anything beyond that is too restrictive.
Lots of things, these days are "electronic devices", including pacemakers
The big issue is transmitters. Watches don't even operate at the power and frequencies that can interfere. Even so, I recall they want you to turn off cameras during landing and take-off, despite the fact that most lack a transmitter.
Sure, you have to have the appropriate charts with you ... but paper pages go missing all the time, and batteries die in electronics... but one is hardly "screwed" if you can't "get your hands on it". The approach can be flown without having the chart available... nobody's going to get hurt.
Yes I know you can get away with just about anything if you don't get caught, but I was acting under the assumption that most ATPs would not the take the risk, since a lifted ticket generally means career over. I was also acting under the assumption that a familiar approach could be flown without reference to the plates without anyone being the wiser, but that flying an unfamiliar one that way would not necessarily have the same happy result.
Yes I know you can get away with just about anything if you don't get caught, but I was acting under the assumption that most ATPs would not the take the risk, since a lifted ticket generally means career over. I was also acting under the assumption that a familiar approach could be flown without reference to the plates without anyone being the wiser, but that flying an unfamiliar one that way would not necessarily have the same happy result.
I was only referring to your comment about "if you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it, you're in screwed city" ... my point being that there is no "screwed city" ... the chart isn't necessary. You still have it with you (or intended to... couldn't be helped that the page was missing or the battery failed) you just couldn't get your hands on it ... so there's no FAR compliance issue.
The unfamiliar approach flies the same way as the familiar one... ATC can give you the frequency and the inbound course ... so same happy result. (If you can't successfully fly an approach without a chart, then I like to think you'd have a hard time getting into the front seats of a Boeing!)
I was only referring to your comment about "if you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it, you're in screwed city" ... my point being that there is no "screwed city" ... the chart isn't necessary. You still have it with you (or intended to... couldn't be helped that the page was missing or the battery failed) you just couldn't get your hands on it ... so there's no FAR compliance issue.
The unfamiliar approach flies the same way as the familiar one... ATC can give you the frequency and the inbound course ... so same happy result. (If you can't successfully fly an approach without a chart, then I like to think you'd have a hard time getting into the front seats of a Boeing!)
So let me see if I understand this. If ATC intructs you to fly approach Kimmo 2 and you as the PIC don't happen to have that plate, ATC will be delighted to walk you through all of the intersections, courses, bearings and altitudes -- no questions asked? Personally, I've rarely found ATC to be that accommodating even with much less insensitive and complex VFR instructions. I've had them get testy with me for being unfamiliar with local ground references. "I'm sorry sir, I don't know what the brick factory looks like but if you tell me where it is I'd be happy to enter the downwind there."
I have yet to hear from a single pilot who doesn't love the idea. It's become very popular, especially among private pilots. You can even buy a clip that turns your iPad into a kneeboard. The only issue is you can't get real time weather.
I remember my days as a First Officer in a small jet charter company - I was the one designated to receive all the updates to the Flight and Approach charts by snail mail, update the bulky, heavy leather-bound folders full of hundreds of outdated pages, and chuck the old charts away.
What's not to like about that now being done electronically?
The Flight charts couldn't give you real-time weather either ;-)
I remember my days as a First Officer in a small jet charter company - I was the one designated to receive all the updates to the Flight and Approach charts by snail mail, update the bulky, heavy leather-bound folders full of hundreds of outdated pages, and chuck the old charts away.
What's not to like about that now being done electronically?
The Flight charts couldn't give you real-time weather either ;-)
Roger that. Even as a VFR pilot I can see the value of having all my charts and AF/D in one portable device, and moving map sectionals is another plus. Less head down time for sure. Real-time WX is the most requested add-on. The other solutions are considerably more expensive than an iPad. Somebody will figure that out eventually.
Note what myth was "busted" and that they officially back up the FCC and FAA's reasoning for the ban.
I remember this episode, and it verified what I suspected before watching it.
The real push to keep cell phones off of planes is from the FCC, not the FAA. It's because the cell network doesn't expect one handset to be in range of dozens (or possibly hundreds) of towers at once. And it doesn't expect you to be moving at hundreds of miles per hour between the towers. This behavior puts stress on the network. It can handle some people doing it (which is why people who violate the rules by accident or on purpose don't create major problems) but if everybody flying with a cell phone left it active, the carriers would have to invest a lot of money (that they'd rather spend elsewhere) to upgrade their networks in order to handle the load.
The bit about electronics messing up the plane's electronics is BS, except perhaps for old unshielded equipment, which you're not likely to ever find on commercial aircraft flying today.
The big issue is transmitters. Watches don't even operate at the power and frequencies that can interfere. Even so, I recall they want you to turn off cameras during landing and take-off, despite the fact that most lack a transmitter.
Different airlines have different rules. For instance, Alitalia prohibits (for the entire flight) use of optical drives, but has no problems with disc-free computers and solid-state music players. There is no logical reason for this restriction, but it's their rule. As far as I know, no other airline has this rule either.
But all airlines, no matter what the rules are, say that they are FAA regulations. I think that in most cases, the only regulation involved is the one that says you have to do what flight crews tell you to do.