FAA Permits American Airlines To Use iPads In Cockpit "In All Phases of Flight" 372
hypnosec writes "American Airlines has announced that it has received permission from FAA to allow its pilots to use iPads in the cockpit during 'all phases of flight.' According to the airlines, the tablet will enable pilots to store documentation in electronic form on the iPad which otherwise weighs 15.876 kg (35 pounds) when in printed form. Use of the digital documentation will enable the airlines to save as much as U.S. $1.2 million of fuel each year." That number sounds both awfully low and awfully specific.
Specific? (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just the 15.875 kg that sounds "awfully specific"? Because this is American Airlines, so the actual number is the nice round 35 pounds.
Not too suprising (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever seen the reams and reams of paper in 3 ring binders that comprise the low and high route maps that a pilot must have on hand, as well as the approach plates needed to do a proper landing?
No reason this should be restricted to apple products as an android tablet would work just as well to view pdf files, but still, very reasonable savings estimate.
Only now? unbelievable. (Score:4, Informative)
Online Charts Beat the Heck Out of Paper Ones (Score:4, Informative)
If you've ever used any of the online chart apps, you understand what this is all about. They are simply phenomenal and beat the heck out of paper charts that may or may not be up to date. But to be honest they're probably of more use to private pilots who may not be in touch with ATC during every part of their flight.
Re:Hope it's not IMPORTANT documentation (Score:5, Informative)
It's the rolling bags of charts they have to carry with them whenever they fly. There are regulations that specify what charts they have to carry; all in all, a "Jep Bag" is about 35 pounds, and both pilots carry one. If they're using a Electronic Flight Bag app for the iPad, that's a pretty straightforward conversion of mass and very specific savings.
Re:An iPad within inches of the instrument panel.. (Score:4, Informative)
The best argument I've heard for the "real" reason you aren't allowed to use electronics during takeoff and landing isn't EMI or any other "technical" reason. It is because the crew wants two things. 1) Less distractions for the passengers. If an emergency were to arise, they want your full, undivided attention. No one saying "what was that? I was listening to Beiber". 2) Less items flying around in the event of a bad landing/takeoff. Accidents happen and an iPod at 200 MPH can probably ding you pretty good.
Red herring (Score:4, Informative)
For large airlines, that 35lb argument is such a red herring. $1.2 million in fuel savings when spread out per flight has to be so far below the noise floor as to be completely meaningless. Any change in fuel consumption over the year that small can be contributed to so many other factors.
I know I can sometimes flip through a large book that I am very familiar with to find what I'm looking for faster than I can type the words into a search engine - especially when I'm not 100% sure on what word I'm looking for, but I'll know it when I see it. How much fuel does a 747 burn idling while a pilot tries typing in different key words looking for that section he knows deals with the quirk at hand?
On a typical jet carrying 200+ passengers, there is going to be more than 35lbs of weight fluctuation in the level of water retention among the passengers.
Fuel burn is also related to temperature, humidity and wind speed. Will they see the fuel savings when factoring in all that entropy?
Maybe the weight makes a difference on a small 206 Caravan, but for these big birds, call a spade a spade - the pilots want their toys.
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to break it to you, but the paper charts have been relegated to the role of backup for the longest time. Flight management computers have the same information as those paper charts, that's how a B747 can execute a category III landing. I fly (well, rent actually) a DA40, and when I'm flying the whole purpose of me having my chart open is because it's easier to find the frequency I need from that chart than having to twist, push, twist, push from the Garmin G1000 panel.
I'm sure these guys carry all those paper stuff more as a backup than anything since all the information on those papers are accessible in the PFD's and MFD's anyway. If they use their charts is probably because the input system on most avionics systems suck really bad; it's just recently that the avionics manufacturers have decided to put touchscreen displays on them.
Apples to Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
Hi, I work with the FAA, including on projects involving Electronic Flight Bag research and testing.
Aeronautical charts in the US have a 56-day publication cycle. That means every 56 days, your paper charts are (possibly) out of date and should be replaced. Usually they're not, as most things DON'T change from one cycle to another, but there are always changes. So if you follow the approach procedures for a terminal in your flight bag, you may be following incorrect procedures, which at the very least is going to make ATC grumpy and in a worst case scenario could seriously impact safety. An iPad based solution means up-to-date charts can be loaded in seconds during pre-flight, instead of manually having to replace possibly dozens of individual manuals located in a heavy, bulky bag. Twice, since both pilots are required to have a copy.
So, while as a "professional researcher," you can probably feel secure in the knowledge that the ten-year-old mass spectrometer you're working with can be safely used with the manual that came with it ten years ago, the same thing is not the least bit true in the aviation world.
That being said, I'd much rather an up-to-date electronic manual, even for older hardware. Every manual has errors in it which can be hopefully corrected in future revisions...
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:5, Informative)
The checklists shouldn't be going anywhere. Disclaimer: I dont fly for AA, but I did fly for another airline. The pilots carry docs and the plane carries docs. The plane should have at least 2 checklists and a quick reference handbook, in printed form, in the cockpit. The checklists cover all normal procedures for all phases of flight. The QRH has all of the abnormal checklists. The absolutely vital emergency procedures are printed also in the QRH but the primary source is the pilots memory (things that need to be accomplished ASAP before there is time to consult the book).
What the electronic flight bag (EFB) is going to replace is the junk the pilots carry. My flight bag had 2 2" binders full of nothing but approach plates, a 1" binder with our hub airport approach plates in it, a 1" foldout thing with all of the enroute maps, a 1" binder with the company flight ops (essentially 14 CFR 121 plus whatever opspecs the airline has approval for), a 2" binder with procedures and checklists (serves as backup for the checklists and QRH that the airplane carries), a 2" binder with our collective bargaining agreement in it. Not carried was another 2" binder that were all of the details of the aircraft systems, it was not required to be carries and there just wasnt room for it. The EFB replaces all of that into a tablet form factor.
On a typical flight the only things in that bag that get touched are the high enroute chart I need, the airport diagram and company page for the departure airport and the approach plate, airport diagram and company page for the arrival airport. The checklist used is the laminated one that belongs to the airplane. If there is an abnormal, the QRH belonging to the airplane is consulted (in conjunction with other docs on the airplane: the MEL book and the logbook).
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the main reason for the whole "seat backs up, tray tables closed, put away your portable electronics" rule is that the takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight, and if something goes wrong, people need to be able to respond, need to not be distracted, and need to not have extra impediments to moving within the cabin.
For in-flight, the ban on cellular phones is actually technical in reason: each cell tower can only handle so many connected devices at once, even if they're not actively communicating with the tower. Cell phones use line-of-sight frequencies, which means that on the ground, any given phone is only going to see (and consume "slots" on) a handful of towers. In the air, every phone that's turned on will blanket a huge number of towers. For one of two phones this doesn't matter at all (so yeah, turning on your phone in an emergency is fine), but if people didn't turn their phone radios off, every passenger in every plane over a given city would be adding to the load of every single tower.
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your points and just wanted to add one more thing. There are documented cases where a passenger's consumer electronic device was verified to cause interference with one or more of the plane's systems. The crew located the passenger with the device, had them turn it off and saw that the problem went away. Then, for good measure, had them turn it back on and the problem reappeared. This is proof via the scientific method that it is possible for a device to interfere with an electronic system in a commercial aircraft, and frankly that's enough for me.
I'm a private pilot who, prior to learning about the event I just described, was also a strong believer that the ban was more to keep passengers from annoying each other than it was about safety.
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with your points and just wanted to add one more thing. There are documented cases where a passenger's consumer electronic device was verified to cause interference with one or more of the plane's systems. The crew located the passenger with the device, had them turn it off and saw that the problem went away. Then, for good measure, had them turn it back on and the problem reappeared. This is proof via the scientific method that it is possible for a device to interfere with an electronic system in a commercial aircraft, and frankly that's enough for me.
Links?
Boeing disputes your claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#Electromagnetic_interference [wikipedia.org]
Boeing performed extensive tests as reported in Aero magazine's "Interference from Electronic Devices"[3] in response to reports by flight crews of anomalies that they believed to be caused by electronic devices. The flight crew members claimed they could turn the "suspect" devices on and off and observe effects in the airplane. Boeing, in many cases, was able to purchase the actual device from the passenger and perform extensive testing on it. Boeing was never able to reproduce any of the anomalies. The report concludes:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html [boeing.com]
As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies.
If consumer electronics really did cause a problem with aircraft, then the FAA should require much more stringent measures to make sure they are powered off. On about half the flights when I put my phone into my carry on or checked bag, I find that it has powered itself on when I take it out of the bag because the power button is easily depressed accidentally. I bet most flights have a dozen or more phones, tablets, gameboys, etc all powered on and stowed in checked or carryon luggage.