DEFINITELY the worst MEPS question ever. (Like, EVER)

[Flash]

Yes, but the iPads are now used for flight reference the whole flight. If the flight crew can have one on a few feet away from the instruments during an actual IMC approach, what will a few passengers with them in the back do?

Because......

With the WiFi turned off.

Another important factor is that they have control over the device as they have with the WiFi connectivity for the passengers as well. They can shut it down if necessary from what I know.

You can argue that the FAA is being an overly cautious bureaucracy but the simple fact is they can't do testing on all the devices out there that passengers carry that may interfere with flight-relted equipment. Even if the frequencies used by consumer cellphones/tablets/computers are different than those used by aircraft-related equipment you can still get 'leakage' or unintended radiated emissions from those consumer devices that could interfere with frequencies outside their designed operating parameters, especially if the consumer gear is damaged. To put it in layman's terms, you drop your cellphone and it might not be just a shattered screen or scratches that is wrong with it.

I would prefer the FAA continue to err on the side of caution on this issue, better someone not be able to 'like' the new shoes they got for the flight or yap to their bff about the creepy guy next to them than have a single accident.

 

[scoober78]

I would prefer the FAA continue to err on the side of caution on this issue, better someone not be able to 'like' the new shoes they got for the flight or yap to their bff about the creepy guy next to them than have a single accident.

You know, I've often wondered if part of the reason about phones is that we'd all have to listen to morons talking to other morons for hours about...nothing. I can just feel the hate on the redeye when that one guy (usually drunk) just won't stop talking. There's no way to be courteous with a phone in a space that confined.

This:

]

replaces this:

As the airplane nightmare.

 

[HokiePilot]

You know, I've often wondered if part of the reason about phones is that we'd all have to listen to morons talking to other morons for hours about...nothing. I can just feel the hate on the redeye when that one guy (usually drunk) just won't stop talking. There's no way to be courteous with a phone in a space that confined.

This:

]

replaces this:

As the airplane nightmare.

I agree completely. That is why most airlines that offer WiFi block VoIP services.

 

[HokiePilot]

Because......



Another important factor is that they have control over the device as they have with the WiFi connectivity for the passengers as well. They can shut it down if necessary from what I know.

Yes, it automatically stops below 10k and I assume there is another way to shut it off, but that doesn't stop everyone's else's WiFi radios.

You can argue that the FAA is being an overly cautious bureaucracy but the simple fact is they can't do testing on all the devices out there that passengers carry that may interfere with flight-relted equipment. Even if the frequencies used by consumer cellphones/tablets/computers are different than those used by aircraft-related equipment you can still get 'leakage' or unintended radiated emissions from those consumer devices that could interfere with frequencies outside their designed operating parameters, especially if the consumer gear is damaged. To put it in layman's terms, you drop your cellphone and it might not be just a shattered screen or scratches that is wrong with it.

But they have tested out iPads in some aircraft. Why not let us use them there? I don't believe for one second that everyone who has put their iPad away for the takeoff and landings has turned off all the radios. BTW, the last time I few, as we were getting ready to taxi, the stewardess made an announcement to the effect of "Our electronics are still indicating a few devices on. Turn them off." I didn't believe for a second that they had anyway of knowing. It was the first time I had ever heard that line.

You bring up an interesting point regarding damaged devices. It may happen. There is no real way to get around it.

I would prefer the FAA continue to err on the side of caution on this issue, better someone not be able to 'like' the new shoes they got for the flight or yap to their bff about the creepy guy next to them than have a single accident.

And I would prefer a more market based approach were individual airlines can decide how much risk they are willing to accept. After all, everything we do in life is balancing risk verses reward. I don't believe the government has shown that it can find the optimal solution for everybody.

 

[AllYourBass]

To address the initial topic, I went to MEPS today and during the brief, it was specifically mentioned that while books are fine, Nooks and Kindles would need to be powered down.

 

[Flash]

......But they have tested out iPads in some aircraft. Why not let us use them there? I don't believe for one second that everyone who has put their iPad away for the takeoff and landings has turned off all the radios. BTW, the last time I few, as we were getting ready to taxi, the stewardess made an announcement to the effect of "Our electronics are still indicating a few devices on. Turn them off." I didn't believe for a second that they had anyway of knowing. It was the first time I had ever heard that line........

And as far as I know th eiPads had their WiFi turned off, that makes a world of difference especially when the passengers often wouldn't know or care to turn it off. As for knowing if a few devices are on they are defintely ways to tell but I hadn't heard of the airlines making that investment, or maybe the cockpit was getting some static on their radios? Who knows, most of the folks on the plane wouldn't know the difference anyways.

......And I would prefer a more market based approach were individual airlines can decide how much risk they are willing to accept. After all, everything we do in life is balancing risk verses reward. I don't believe the government has shown that it can find the optimal solution for everybody.

A market based approach to safety overall or just this? Safety regs overall for the airlines shouldn't be left to them nor is it in the countries that have safe airlines. It isn't the pilots and ground crews I would be worried about but the bean counters the ones in charge who would skimp on safety to save a buck. Hence my deference to the FAA on this subject.

 

[phrogpilot73]

To address the initial topic, I went to MEPS today and during the brief, it was specifically mentioned that while books are fine, Nooks and Kindles would need to be powered down.

Did you explain that you never really turn it off - that it doesn't have any active flow of electricity unless you turn pages?

 

[HAL Pilot]

Don't pilots use iPads with great frequency now?

Remember many airlines now have WiFi in flight at cruising altitude. They are clearly not worried about interference in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands.

They are tested.

 

[HAL Pilot]

BTW, the last time I few, as we were getting ready to taxi, the stewardess made an announcement to the effect of "Our electronics are still indicating a few devices on. Turn them off." I didn't believe for a second that they had anyway of knowing. It was the first time I had ever heard that line.

One of our Captains always makes a PA as he is approaching the gate after landing. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are not at the gate yet. You need to keep your seat belts fasten. Currently we show 33...no now its 35...seatblets unfastened. Please buckle them back up. Oh good, we're down to 17 unfastened and dropping...."

 

[jmcquate]

One of our Captains always makes a PA as he is approaching the gate after landing. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are not at the gate yet. You need to keep your seat belts fasten. Currently we show 33...no now its 35...seatblets unfastened. Please buckle them back up. Oh good, we're down to 17 unfastened and dropping...."

Showing that Airbus clipping the RJ on pushback could be enlightening.

 

[sodajones]

I thought electronic emissions were required to be tested by the FCC prior to sale to the public? Isn't that what those stamps and seals are all about on every piece of electronic hardware that you buy?

 

[KBayDog]

I thought electronic emissions were required to be tested by the FCC prior to sale to the public?

There is no testing. The FCC is too busy keeping us safe.

Apparently humans have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of seven specific words. Were we to hear them, our minds would cave in and our hearts would explode in our chests.

 

[Flash]

I thought electronic emissions were required to be tested by the FCC prior to sale to the public? Isn't that what those stamps and seals are all about on every piece of electronic hardware that you buy?

Probably, but as far as I know they are not tested how they might interfere with aircraft-related equipment.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Probably, but as far as I know they are not tested how they might interfere with aircraft-related equipment.

Because the laws of physics are completely different in aviation.

All of you people just don't really care about safety. Some of you fake it well, but I can tell that you don't wear your glowbelts and condoms 24/7, to which I say:


SAFETY VIOLATORS!!!!!!

 

[KBayDog]

Because the laws of physics are completely different in aviation.

All of you people just don't really care about safety. Some of you fake it well, but I can tell that you don't wear your glowbelts and condoms 24/7, to which I say:


SAFETY VIOLATORS!!!!!!

Fleet Admiral HD, Arriving...