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...
I'd suggest you not be so disingenuous with your appeal to authority. Stop spreading scare tactics.
Okay, let's clear the air here. What the FAA has approved is the conversion of tens of pounds of flight documentation and such provided by the aircraft manufacturers and their subcontractors. There is absolutely nothing critical being replaced since the aircraft will be required to keep a paper library of these same documents on board. These manuals ordinarily need not be in use during takeoff and landing, so the iPads will be shut down in accordance with other FAA regulations regarding RFI.
The documentation on an iPad will be available to the crew when needed but these documents are not involved in flight safety. As a commercial pilot, I think you should know the difference in what's being proposed here and what the iPad will NOT replace.
I'm taking a long flight next week. I'll be using my iPad2 as in flight entertainment and I hope that the pilots on my plane also have iPads. I'm not afraid of iPads. If their iPads break down over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, I can simply lend them mine.
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.
IIRC, I read something somewhere that they had two have two iPads onboard in case of failure.
Where did it say the FAA bought these for airlines? Where did it say the government did anything?
My point too. The government did not do anything, other than approve the iPad for use in airlines. First of all, people who want to dismiss the iPad as a "useless toy" will have to take the FAA's approval of it for cockpit use into account. Also, I was kind of stretching the truth about the government buying these for pilots. My apologies.
IIRC, I read something somewhere that they had two have two iPads onboard in case of failure.
As someone suggested just keep a copy of the paper one on board, the point of the iPad is that they don't have to lug the paper one around and put it on their lap to leaf through, etc.
In the event of a catastrophic iPad failure, the paper backup will be enough... Assuming that is updated frequently enough.
As a traveller I would think just having two iPads onboard is not sufficient since indeed iOS and the iPad is not designed for the kind of failure tolerance of say, avionics systems or the stuff flight controllers use.
I think he was joking too. I remember that huge thread where "airline pilots" were weighing in the pros and cons. Of course, I'm sure some of them really were pilots but the extreme reactions was, much like every other thread on this forum, very interesting and pretty hilarious to follow.
Interesting article. However, the photo is redundant as (almost) all here know what an iPad looks like. I would have been more interested in seeing the 40 lbs of manuals being shoehorned into a cockpit. \
I would think enhancements to voice controls would be good too - for example searching for the checklist for a water landing - and some sort of interactive speech control where the first item is read to you and you reply - in the event you are alone in the cockpit so you can keep your eyes and hands on the controls. lots of possibilities.
Do they have a USB port in the cockpit to plug it in?
But the pilot will have to shut it off on takeoffs and landings.
Airplane mode...
They force passengers to shut it down because its easier/faster/safer than checking all the devices to make sure they are in airplane mode. Not to mention that some people dont even know what airplane mode is. They will always ask to shut devices off.
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...
Physical documentations dont malfunction indeed. imo FAA should force at least 1 backup ipad.
Lots of things, these days are "electronic devices", including pacemakers, wrist watches, digital cameras.
Those things dont "emit" a signal or try to detect and connect to networks... Passive devices are harmless indeed, but they need to play on the safe side and ask for everything to be off.
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...
Wow. Do you really believe what you're spouting?? ... AND you're a pilot?...
The fact that you typed all that with a straight face (did you?) would lead one to believe that the part about you being a pilot is blatantly false. If you WERE a pilot, you'd realize that nothing in your second paragraph is a concern AT ALL.
All the public really needs to know is that AIRLINE PILOTS WANT THIS, and the FAA needs to get off it's ass and allow it wholesale.
The rest of the world just doesn't understand how they will be used, and so they imagine all sorts of scenarios where it becomes critical to safety. That just isn't the case.
2. Mythbusters proved that consumer electronics affecting avionics was BS years ago
Did they prove that there was no potential threat or were merely unable to achieve a negative result? There is a big difference. I seem to recall that MythBusters talked to the FAA or a pilot or something, coming to the conclusion that it was best to err on the side of caution for they could not test every conceivable radio signal from every wireless device.
edit: This is what I found right on the MythBusterrs website.
Quote:
The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones.
BUSTED
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
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...
Wow! You are far smarter than the FAA because you consider them incompetent. Do you follow any of their other decision mistakes? Hahahaha. I understand your desire for a hardened iPad that can survive 25G impact and carries backup batteries. However, most pilots do not want to replace 40 lbs. of paper manuals with a 39 lb. iPad. You'll have your opportunity when the Windows 8 tablet is available.
Interesting article. However, the photo is redundant as (almost) all here know what an iPad looks like. I would have been more interested in seeing the 40 lbs of manuals being shoehorned into a cockpit. \
It is easy to see what commercial pilots currently carry onboard. Just hang out in the terminal at any major airport. The flight crews are either wheeling or lugging big flight bags, about the size of an old slide projector case, if you know what that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
ONE. One person that claimed to be a pilot was against it ... everyone else in the thread supported the idea.
I'm a pilot (private) and 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. If you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it you're in screwed city.
BTW, the article was perhaps a bit misleading about what private pilots are required to have in the cockpit. I don't recall the exact wording in the FARs, but the meaning is that all pilots are required to have complete and current information about their departure and destination and route of flight. The big difference for privates is that this rule is enforced on an incident basis primarily. If you get yourself in trouble you will be asked by the FAA whether you had the current charts onboard. Whether you could satisfy them with an EFB instead of traditional paper charts is unknown to me. A grey area I suspect.
Comments
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...
I'd suggest you not be so disingenuous with your appeal to authority. Stop spreading scare tactics.
Okay, let's clear the air here. What the FAA has approved is the conversion of tens of pounds of flight documentation and such provided by the aircraft manufacturers and their subcontractors. There is absolutely nothing critical being replaced since the aircraft will be required to keep a paper library of these same documents on board. These manuals ordinarily need not be in use during takeoff and landing, so the iPads will be shut down in accordance with other FAA regulations regarding RFI.
The documentation on an iPad will be available to the crew when needed but these documents are not involved in flight safety. As a commercial pilot, I think you should know the difference in what's being proposed here and what the iPad will NOT replace.
2. Mythbusters proved that consumer electronics affecting avionics was BS years ago
Yeah, but nothing gets people turning off devices faster than a death warning
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.
IIRC, I read something somewhere that they had two have two iPads onboard in case of failure.
Where did it say the FAA bought these for airlines? Where did it say the government did anything?
My point too. The government did not do anything, other than approve the iPad for use in airlines. First of all, people who want to dismiss the iPad as a "useless toy" will have to take the FAA's approval of it for cockpit use into account. Also, I was kind of stretching the truth about the government buying these for pilots. My apologies.
IIRC, I read something somewhere that they had two have two iPads onboard in case of failure.
As someone suggested just keep a copy of the paper one on board, the point of the iPad is that they don't have to lug the paper one around and put it on their lap to leaf through, etc.
In the event of a catastrophic iPad failure, the paper backup will be enough... Assuming that is updated frequently enough.
As a traveller I would think just having two iPads onboard is not sufficient since indeed iOS and the iPad is not designed for the kind of failure tolerance of say, avionics systems or the stuff flight controllers use.
Lighten up, he (she) is joking.
I think the name is a "he" name.
I think he was joking too. I remember that huge thread where "airline pilots" were weighing in the pros and cons. Of course, I'm sure some of them really were pilots but the extreme reactions was, much like every other thread on this forum, very interesting and pretty hilarious to follow.
But, but the iPad is just a toy! What is wrong with the government? They're spending my tax dollars on toys!!
I wonder how long Angry Birds has to wait for FAA approval.
But anyway good for Apple!!
But the pilot will have to shut it off on takeoffs and landings.
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
Do they have a USB port in the cockpit to plug it in?
But the pilot will have to shut it off on takeoffs and landings.
Airplane mode...
They force passengers to shut it down because its easier/faster/safer than checking all the devices to make sure they are in airplane mode. Not to mention that some people dont even know what airplane mode is. They will always ask to shut devices off.
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...
Physical documentations dont malfunction indeed. imo FAA should force at least 1 backup ipad.
Lots of things, these days are "electronic devices", including pacemakers
Those things dont "emit" a signal or try to detect and connect to networks... Passive devices are harmless indeed, but they need to play on the safe side and ask for everything to be off.
... The last article about iPads in cockpits whipped up quite a storm amongst users who claimed to be pilots. The really didn't like the idea.
ONE. One person that claimed to be a pilot was against it ... everyone else in the thread supported the idea.
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...
Wow. Do you really believe what you're spouting?? ... AND you're a pilot?...
The fact that you typed all that with a straight face (did you?) would lead one to believe that the part about you being a pilot is blatantly false. If you WERE a pilot, you'd realize that nothing in your second paragraph is a concern AT ALL.
All the public really needs to know is that AIRLINE PILOTS WANT THIS, and the FAA needs to get off it's ass and allow it wholesale.
The rest of the world just doesn't understand how they will be used, and so they imagine all sorts of scenarios where it becomes critical to safety. That just isn't the case.
2. Mythbusters proved that consumer electronics affecting avionics was BS years ago
Did they prove that there was no potential threat or were merely unable to achieve a negative result? There is a big difference. I seem to recall that MythBusters talked to the FAA or a pilot or something, coming to the conclusion that it was best to err on the side of caution for they could not test every conceivable radio signal from every wireless device.
edit: This is what I found right on the MythBusterrs website.
The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones.
BUSTED
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
• http://mythbustersresults.com/episode49
Note what myth was "busted" and that they officially back up the FCC and FAA's reasoning for the ban.
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...
Wow! You are far smarter than the FAA because you consider them incompetent. Do you follow any of their other decision mistakes? Hahahaha.
Where did it say the FAA bought these for airlines? Where did it say the government did anything?
But the FAA did have to spend money approving the iPad - so his post was essentially correct.
Not to mention that the intent of the joke was clear.
Interesting article. However, the photo is redundant as (almost) all here know what an iPad looks like. I would have been more interested in seeing the 40 lbs of manuals being shoehorned into a cockpit.
It is easy to see what commercial pilots currently carry onboard. Just hang out in the terminal at any major airport. The flight crews are either wheeling or lugging big flight bags, about the size of an old slide projector case, if you know what that is.
ONE. One person that claimed to be a pilot was against it ... everyone else in the thread supported the idea.
I'm a pilot (private) and 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. If you can't get your hands on the right approach plate when you need it you're in screwed city.
BTW, the article was perhaps a bit misleading about what private pilots are required to have in the cockpit. I don't recall the exact wording in the FARs, but the meaning is that all pilots are required to have complete and current information about their departure and destination and route of flight. The big difference for privates is that this rule is enforced on an incident basis primarily. If you get yourself in trouble you will be asked by the FAA whether you had the current charts onboard. Whether you could satisfy them with an EFB instead of traditional paper charts is unknown to me. A grey area I suspect.