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.
How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:2)
What happens if the iPad battery fails, it's not charged, there's a bug in the software, the documentation gets hacked and changes, etc? Resilience Engineering dictates that if something can fail then it will and you'd better have a backup plan. Last time I checked paper didn't run out of power, doesn't get hacked, may have a typo, but certainly doesn't have the myriad of possible failure points that a piece of hardware has.
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the iPad is not charged then obviously they... plug it into the outlet i the cockpit and charge it. And how exactly is their offline documentation going to get 'hacked'? And how would it be any more of a problem then someone maliciousy changing their printed documents?
Re: (Score:2)
They hax0r our b0xorz!
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, which ones?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine these would be "controlled" iPads, updated by the flight management staff of the airline. They are running a specialised app from Jeppesen, who have benn producing flight charts for ever, so I should imagine it probably has a custom and controlled update system.
Just because they use consumer equipment, they don't have to use it in the consumer manner.
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:5, Interesting)
The backup plan is you ask the ATC. Ask a pilot. Even "couple hours training" noob like myself knows that. Its considered extremely bad form to tell the ATC "I'm too Fing lazy to look up the approach plate, whats the ILS freq again?" but if you have an equipment breakdown they have procedures and policies in place for generations now to help you out.
As for plane docs, it doesn't really matter as long as the ipad is highly reliable. You use the same checklist over and over to make sure you don't forget anything... its 99.999% good without a checklist (literally) so once or twice is no big deal.
There is some truth that the ipad will probably be more up to date and less likely to have a page torn out or coffee dumped on it than paper. It'll likely be more reliable as a system, even if it doesn't degrade smoothly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As for plane docs, it doesn't really matter as long as the ipad is highly reliable.
I don't think any Avionics expert would call the iPad "highly reliable".
You use the same checklist over and over to make sure you don't forget anything... its 99.999% good without a checklist (literally) so once or twice is no big deal.
I've never heard that the iPad gives 5 9's of reliability.
But assuming that it is, it's that .0001% of the time when the iPad is not available that is the problem. The pilot goes through the identical checklist on every single flight, then that one time the iPad won't boot, he has to play it by ear, change his routine, and hope that he didn't miss anything. That's what causes accidents and is why there is a checklist in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather have my pilot try to decipher an emergency checklist on a torn up page than stare at his reflection in a blank iPad screen.
I still have paper documentation in my datacenter that tells me how to recover key servers because I know that technology sometimes fails, despite redundant safeguards.
I'd rather he stare at his reflection and then contact the ATC than spend his time attempting to decipher an emergency checklist. The problem would come when he found that he had the wrong checklist loaded, and didn't notice until he was already part way through it (pretty unlikely, but not impossible).
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: (Score:3)
That sort of works, but not as well as you might like. I had an Ipad with my charts on it overhead during an instrument departure from a busy Los Angeles area airport. Frequencies are very crowded, things happening quickly, no time to ask again at what DME should I change course. I had paper charts as a backup and was very glad to have them.
I'm not saying its a terrible idea, but the "contact ATC" backup just doesn't work as well as you might think.
For an airliner, the best bet would be for each pilot to h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Until the battery is empty or the device cant bear the heat/mechanical stress/dust/moist air any longer and all the sudden they have no clue where they are or how to get back.
They are handy, but I would advise everyone to keep a dead-tree-version at
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why you can spot the poseurs easily. real travelers have a standard GPS that uses AA or AAA batteries. I have a garmin foretrex on me for navigation. get to airport? mark waypoint. get to hotel? mark waypoint. batteries die? who cares, either insert the spare set I have or buy a set at any store or road side stand.
My survival bag has one as well, I can go 2 weeks on a single set of lithium AA batteries. so 2 sets will last longer than I will in a survival situation. Far more useful than a compass and a map that is probably useless (I have yet to meet any hiking or backpacker with a useful map, most have the crap one the park hands you.)
Re: (Score:3)
What happens if the iPad battery fails, it's not charged,
Presumably multiple members of the flight crew will each have an iPad or equivalent, and there will probably be a charging port available (regular power outlet).
there's a bug in the software, the documentation gets hacked and changes, etc?
Not net connected iPads likely. Pretty standard systems hardening for the machines you plug them into.
Last time I checked paper didn't run out of power, doesn't get hacked, may have a typo, but certainly doesn't have the myriad of possible failure points that a piece of hardware has.
I lol'd so hard I nearly spilled my afternoon coffee on the book in front of me. Paper fails all the time. It sticks, it tears, the ink fades, stuff gets spilled on it, it accrues crud from your hands on it, and it suffers the same problem of an
Re: (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 thos
Re: (Score:3)
Sit inside an airline cockpit once in a while, the majority of planes cannot do what a G1000 can.
Charts absolutely are used. On an approach, both pilots will have the approach plate (paper or otherwise) open and able to reference during the procedure.
The FMS, btw, is not why a B747 can execute a cat III landing. The aspects to that include crew certification (have to do a bunch of stuff in a sim to get certified), crew training (special procedures between the pilot flying and pilot not flying to setup the
Re: (Score:2)
The airplane explodes. It's a requirement of homeland security and the TSA. if the pilots iPAd malfunctions in any way, just to be sure it was not an act of terrorism they activate self destruct.
Re: (Score:3)
...you'd better have a backup plan.
because they'd NEVER carry a second, or maybe a third ipad?
Which is great until you discover a time related software bug that puts all 3 iPads into an endless reboot cycle, or you find that the documentation loaded onto the iPads is corrupt and the engine-out landing checklist is not available when you need it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about just an iPhone and save even more? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So the map kits they carry and distribute to thousands of pilots have to be weighted for UPS, and so forth. They know the weight, down to the sheet count, wrapper, etc.
If they know what it takes for a fleet average to carry x pounds, which is pretty easily determined, then the weight of the parcels times the pilots/copilots, and even extra pilots (ever notice that fat attache case they carry?) can be easily translated to projected carriage/fuel cost.
Ye gawds.
Re:Specific? (Score:5, Funny)
and even extra pilots (ever notice that fat attache case they carry?)
Not sure if serious...
Re: (Score:2)
Deadheading pilots (not the fans of Jerry Garcia, but those just going home or to another destination) carry a large black brief with maps and stuff, usually on a wheelie cart. Why? Maps aren't built into most planes for pilot use. They use paper. Except now, AA wants to use iPads and got permission.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Specific? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wanna know is: If saving a few pounds adds up to so much fuel then why aren't they weighing passengers and charging them accordingly? How come an extra bag costs me $50 but the 350lb guy pays the same fare as a 120lb guy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A fat book cannot hire a lawyer.
Re:Specific? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wanna know is: If saving a few pounds adds up to so much fuel then why aren't they weighing passengers and charging them accordingly? How come an extra bag costs me $50 but the 350lb guy pays the same fare as a 120lb guy?
The paper manuals are not likely to complain, boycott or sue for discrimination. That's why.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people miss the days when they weren't getting charged for every damn thing they do near or on the plane, even if it did mean higher ticket prices up front.
Re:Specific? (Score:4, Funny)
STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!
Re: (Score:3)
Because the really don't want a bunch of 350Lb guys pissed off at them.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad form to reply to yourself I know, but what about keeping approach plates and such on a kindle? No real battery issues that way.
Re: (Score:3)
I've searched high and low and there are no programs that I can find for android tablets and there are definitely none for the kindle.
Jeppesen has products for Android. But you're going to pay for those.
The kindle's screen is also less than optimal for some of the nice features that tablet's bring.
The Kindle is an Amazon product platform, essentially an entertainment platform. Relying on an entertainment platform and random open source material for critical flying documents / information is probably not a good idea. I'm not sure the "e-ink" type display is really optimal for this application.
As to the iPad, the Air Force bought around 10,000 a few months back, and C-17 pilots now carry them, though we do not yet have "flip" - charta
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. I believe the holdup has been more on the hardware side - particularly electromagnetic compatibility - than on the software side. AA, Apple, and perhaps the aircraft mfgs have done the extra legwork in testing to demonstrate that 1) the iPad is reasonably immune to interference in an aircraft setting (because it is just a reader, an
Re: (Score:3)
For basic documentatoin, yes, it's just PDFs (there are people selling subscriptoins to PDF plates).
Though, it appears that Apple actually got approval on the battery for iPad use in the cockpit [apple.com] (AC 120-76, which applies to airliner operations), which is why it's the iPad and not some random Android tablet.
Non-airliner operations often have better
Re:Not too suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You dont know the FAA then. I have two headsets, a Bose X and a Lightspeed Zulu. Both have the same 1/4" plugs and the slightly smaller one for the mic, both transmit the audio to the headset, both have (various degrees of) noisecancelling microphones, both use active noise cancellation.
But.... one has been shown to conform to a technical standards order (TSO) and one has not. So I can wear one of them at work, and one of them I cannot. All the TSO is btw is some standards on how the headset performs in certain situations, but the mfgr has to pay for the testing and certification. Both headsets work great, in fact the non-TSO one works better, but since word came down that we were not authorized to use non-TSO equipment, I cant wear it.
Its entirely plausible that apple has gone through a special certification process, and others have not. Typical of the FAA the certification is restricted to specific models, so you couldnt do something like certify "android", you would have to certify a specific hardware model with a specific version of the android OS.
So safety is no longer a factor (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless safety never was an issue.
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:5, Funny)
Unless safety never was an issue.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!
We have a WINNER!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell ya what. Here's a thirty-five pound case filled with binders, all stuffed with papers. Why don't you check each page to guarantee that every single one is in place, up-to-date and undamaged, while I ensure that between these two electronic tablets that the pilot and co-pilot are carrying, at least one of them will power up and run the appropriate reader app.
Go ahead. I'll wait for you. Take all the time you need.
Then, make sure that you repeat that check before every single flight. THEN you can go on about how bug-free your big bag of charts and checklists is.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So why it it ok to read a bulky 30 ounce, $30 hardback book during takeoff/landing, but a 6 ounce $60 Kindle has to be put away?
Re:So safety is no longer a factor (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet they have no rules against a person sleeping during these times, or talking to the person beside them. They also do not try to stop people from reading non-electronic material.
The "distraction" excuse is a bunch of B.S. It's paranoia based on concepts that have been obsolete for at least 2 decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope it's not IMPORTANT documentation (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the airlines, the tablet will enable pilots to store documentation in electronic form on the iPad which otherwise weighs 15.875 kg (35 pounds) when in printed form.
That's great, as long as the documentation in question isn't actually vital or particularly important. I'd hate to think of a pilot realizing his iPad is running low on power just when he needs critical info...or realizing that some things are still a lot better on a printed page (like a big fold-out schematic). "Mayday...I'm going down because the airline decided to save a buck by converting our fuel system diagram to a fucking app!...over."
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: (Score:2)
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;
I think the point the OP was trying to make could be summed up as:
You can rip the charts in two and you can still use them,
But if you break an iPad in two then it is unusable as a chart.
I know that planes have glass cockpits nowadays, but they still also have basic analog backup instruments as well, so this change is effectively transferring the charts from one class of tool to another (analog to digital). But as IANACP I don't know how this change affects flight safety. Presumably the FAA does know the answer to this.
Immediate updates, faster communication? (Score:2)
I'm assuming that AA has or will have Wi-Fi installed at the gates for this and that the pilots will sync the iPads as they get from station to station. I see a couple of neat possibilities:
- Immediate and instant update of flight charts and manual pages. Instead of the pilots (hundreds or even thousands!) having to update pages/plates in their Jepp books and other manuals - a very ardous and regular task that everyone has to be compliant on - you can send out updates instantly. The whole company can be ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hope it's not IMPORTANT documentation (Score:5, Insightful)
What documents could they even be carrying that are considered critical/vital for a safe landing?
The ipad breaks. ... low and slow and you can use cell phones on a plane just fine... Cell network can't tell difference between my Cessna 172 at 1000 feet and 60 knots from my car on the side of a 1000 foot hill at 60 MPH... Yes, I know, its not gonna work well at 35000 feet and 500 MPH, but then again you don't have much to worry about up there.
The paper printouts of both the pilot and copilot get coffee dumped on them (at least some pilots I know like to plan flights on their desktop PC and then print out neatly annotated paperwork specifically for their flight.... the charts for some airport 100 miles away are for emergency diversion use not daily flying)
Then the pilot's phone breaks (lots of pilots have a charts app on their phone)
Then the copilots phone breaks.
Then both redundant comm radios break so they can't ask ATC for help (This doesn't scale if no one ever carries plates and everyone pesters ATC for every little detail every time, but a 1 in a billion accident in a crazy scenario is perfectly scalable...)
Then they're too low on fuel to fly that triangle pattern (I forget the exact shape but its the pattern that means holy shit I'm lost please send me an escort)
Then the mode C transponder fails so they can't change the code to emergency thus getting themselves an "escort", but the mode C failure isn't noticed by ATC who naturally think the plane just crashed so they scramble everyone over to look at you. So this is a weird situation... maybe if the transponder and its circuit breaker had superglue sprayed all over it?
Then the "sat phone" system fails so they can't call the tower phone or any other person in the entire world who has charts
Then every single cell phone on the plane fails
Then the landing lights have to fail so you can't communicate with a tower via morse light flashing. SOS landing lights will get them all wound up..
Then the built in GPS which also usually has charts and data has to fail (admittedly, usually no NOTAMs...)
Also the pilots hand held GPS has to fail (lots of pilots have a GPS stuffed in their flight bag, right next to the flashlight) and the copilots.
Then bad weather over a large area has to roll in so they can't simply go VFR approach and just eyeball it (gonna be a rough, but probably safe, landing)
There have to be no other planes in the air to follow or get attention of..
The compass and a couple primary flight instruments and the clock all have to fail so they can't dead reckon their position (like over the ocean or something)
Well, lets say both pilots are new to the area so they can't rely on memory.
There's probably a few other things that have to break that I haven't thought of before a ipad failure will take out a plane. Then again if more than a dozen other things listed above all also have to break simultaneously its hard to give JUST the ipad all the credit for crashing the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are assuming they put an iPad into the cockpit but didn't think of a charger? Besides, both pilot and co-pilot will almost certainly be carrying one, and they might even have a backup onboard just in case. Probably be a lot easier to find important information as well: 35 pounds is a few thousand pages at least, and flipping through that in the confines of a cockpit is probably a major PITA.
Re:Hope it's not IMPORTANT documentation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to think of a pilot realizing his fuel tank is running low on fuel just when he needs to perform a critical maneuver (like not crash).
I wonder how the heck they solved that problem?!?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
You realize they've had power outlets in the cockpits for quite some time, right? Oh no! How will the pilot ever figure out how to plugin a power cable!
Gym (Score:3)
Get those pilots and flight attendants to the gym *now*!
Lets tackle global warming, a pound at a time ...
Re: (Score:2)
The passengers too.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Indeed. It would be amusing to see a little cropduster with one of those Honeywell flight computers....
Electronics (Score:5, Insightful)
See? I knew it was okay to use electronics during takeoff and landing! The pilots are using them!!! SEE??!?!!
Re: (Score:3)
So is the aircraft, come to think of it.....
Next Question (Score:5, Interesting)
So when can I start using my iPad during "all phases of the flight"?
Re: (Score:3)
So when can I start using my iPad during "all phases of the flight"?
The big issue is not the electronic part, but the 'it hurts if it hits you on the head' part. iPads, iPhones, Galaxy whatevers can be nice little missiles in the event of a crash. Of course, a hardback book is gonna hurt if tossed at you 50 mph so the current regs aren't all that logically consistent.
I read somewhere and too lazy to look it up, that the FAA is considering lowering the 'cabin electronics are OK' altitude to 5000 feet. Tell your kids, they might get to see it someday.
Re: (Score:2)
So when can I start using my iPad during "all phases of the flight"?
Pretty soon [computerworld.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Probably never. The last time I flew I wasn't even allowed to have my iPad in the seat pocket during takeoff due to some unspecified fear it might burst into flames -- and I'm not kidding. They made me put it back into my luggage in the overhead bin.
Re: (Score:2)
Where it would supposedly burst into flames and out of sight in the overhead bin.
So... (Score:2)
Does Microsoft Flight Simulator exist for the iPad now?
An iPad within inches of the instrument panel... (Score:2)
I wonder if this means that someday soon us passengers will be able to listen to music on our iphone / droid or read on our ipad / nook / fire during take off and landing?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think other regulations will likely preclude that.
The reason they only let you wear headphones connected to their system during takeoff and landing is to be guaranteed you can hear them if they need to make an announcement or in case of emergency.
If you can't hear them, it becomes a safety issue.
You can be specific about fuel savings (Score:2)
Electronic Subsitutions Not Suitable for Industry (Score:2)
I'm all for consolidating text and tasks to a convenient gizmo for personal use, but when it comes to work, you can't be at the mercy of a power outage, dead battery, virus, etc, when you need to reference something important. We keep paper logbooks for a reason, and I'm surprised to hear the airline industry is forsaken what works flawlessly for snappy, computer interfaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus they can quite probably counteract the problems of power outages, dead batteries, viruses etc but taking a charger or indeed (gasp!) a second one (which I believe is the plan).
Re:Electronic Subsitutions Not Suitable for Indust (Score:5, Interesting)
Power outage - well, if the plane's running on batteries, I think you have a bigger problem than worrying about following the approach plates in the iPad. And I'm sure the cockpit can have neat little things called 'charging ports' so your iPad can be charged from aircraft power.
Though, for the vast majority of flight, the ipad will sit in the flight bag unused so as long as it's reasonably charged (more than 10% battery - which would give roughly an hour's worth of usage, which is plenty for most flights).
Virus - well, ATC systems often use Windows, and those are a touch more vulnerable than say, an iPad. We are talking walled garden here after all (and "jailbreaking" is a pretty foreign term for them).
The *interesting* thing is the iPad, while there are a few aviation apps (ported from iOS) for Android, it seems the vast majority concentrate on iOS, and the iPad specifically (very little for the iPhone).
The aviation world has gone nuts for the iPad, primarily because an iPad with an AHRS system (total cost under $2000) can serve as a pretty good GPS system with a larger screen and better battery life. It beats having to retrofit a glass cockpit in your plane (if one's available - you're looking at easily $50k+ all in), a penel-mount GPS unit ($10k+), and cost-competitive with many handheld GPS units (around $2k). Except the iPad can also help you file your flight plan, do flight planning, and has a larger screen (and is more user (pilot) friendly). About the biggest complaint is the inability to use it with gloves.
You should check out the aviation mags from around 2010 or so - they all went ga-ga for the iPad and possibilities for pilots. These days, reading those mags you'd think every pilot uses one.
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...
Conversely (Score:5, Funny)
I Wonder... (Score:3)
Do they have to be in "Airplane" mode?
Seriously, I haven't been able to find (in a lunch at my desk search) any clear direction on the mode of operation required. Anyone know?
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:Red herring (Score:5, Interesting)
I've designed avionics and radios for aircraft. We didn't just care about a few lbs, we cared about everything down to the weight of the gaskets that sealed the antenna mounts.
Hell, I remember having to verify that the mass of the gas capsule for the lightning arrestor device was not included in the overall mass of the device itself. The manufacturer of the lighting arrestor didn't even know and had to refer to their engineering drawings to be sure. I think it ended up being something like 0.1-0.2 ounces.
Every ounce you shave from the aircraft is an ounce of fuel you can carry, or a fraction of fuel you don't have to burn. Over many thousand flights and many thousand miles, it adds up.
Let's put it this way, if you went to UPS and told them that you could eliminate 0.5 miles from the routes their drivers take, you would have a multi-million dollar idea in your hands.
Related calculations for United Airlines (Score:2)
StackExchange's Skeptics site has some related calculations for United Airlines [stackexchange.com] that may be illuminating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you prefer platform redundancy, install "Naviator" or any of the other competitors on the pilot's (and copilot's) android phone.
http://www.naviatorapp.com/ [naviatorapp.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I presume the number in question is the weight of the manuals. The manuals weight about 35 pounds. Some innumerate idiot then converted that approximate weight to a metric version with five significant figures.
Everybody knows that the metric system is more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Angry Birds in the cockpit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just scary. These pilots are being paid (I hope decent $$$) to get us from point A to point B safely, and if boredom is that big of an issue then it sounds like we don't really need pilots in the cockpit, and auto pilot can handle things.
How many times, I wonder, have we hit air pockets or wind sheers while the folks in the cockpit aren't paying attention. Could some of those injuries from those things been avoided? I'm just curious.
Re:Angry Birds in the cockpit (Score:4, Interesting)
Not any more: http://www.willflyforfood.com/airline-pilot-salary// [willflyforfood.com] I'm working twice as much for about 55% of what I made in the early 2000's, and I'm one of the lucky ones. Pay close attention to the contract carriers (express) where starting pay is as little as $20K and doesn't even break $100K by end of career (currently 65 years age). To illuminate my perspective, I've been at this for 25 years and have had no pay raise for 91/2 years.
Don't worry if we're not paying attention to "air pockets or wind sheers". CAT (clear air turbulence) is not visible anyway- PIREPs and turbulence forecasts are primary means of avoidance (assuming its not part of convective activity which can be seen). This is the part where you want your crew to be experienced and of sound judgement. You get what you pay for so quit wishing for cheap labor so airfares stay low... Wouldn't matter anyway as executives keep taking all the savings from labor to line their pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, would you want to fly in the back of one? Pilots do more than push buttons. They're paid for their judgement and experience- something an autopilot will never replace. I've got 25 years of what I contend is priceless professional skills the majority of which are not related to manipulation of flight controls- that's what you you should be filling the cockpit with.
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, it takes several million watts of engine power to keep a typical 737 in flight. Let's throw some numbers at it just to show how ignorant you are:
Aircraft weight: 100,000 lbs
Aircraft cruising power: 5 MW
Let's assume that dropping 35 lbs results in a commensurate power requirement reduction. (This is, of cour
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this isn't really any dumber than the dozens of "OMG what if it breaks?" comments or the "OMG if pilots can use electronic devices during takeoff/landing I can't think of any reason at all why hundreds of passengers distracted with colorful screens and music could be hazardous in an emergency situation!"
It's like Slashdot has become "this new thing is stupid because I thought of a simple, obvious objection which is also wrong" central.
Re: (Score:2)
If the backup copy is just one copy, you're still better off - because currently each crew-member has their own.
Re: (Score:2)
The geese(passengers)
That's SLF (Self Loading Freight).
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
There are some threads on aviation boards about the 'legality' of original vs photocopied (and other format) approach plates. It boils down to a requirement to have "the information" available and leave that up to airline ops procedures (vetted by the appropriate authorities) to define. So if they elect to certify an iPad process, the FAA will approve it.
One 'issue' is that the information must be current. Old copies must be purged. For either original or photocopies, this requires some m
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the pilots can have an electronic display that has been EMI tested, with all wireless communication features turned off, provide them up-to-date, safety-critical procedure information so that they can do their damned jobs.
Alec Baldwin can DIAF.