FAA clears gadgets

[avcanada]

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/01/f ... =allsearch

12:48 AM ET
FAA clears gadgets for takeoff
Good news for travelers who hate to put away their electronics before takeoff and landing. The FAA announced you will soon be allowed to use devices like e-books and tablets below 10,000 feet. Anderson spoke with New York Times tech columnist Nick Bilton who made it his mission to change these rules.

[Doc]

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/01/f ... =allsearch

12:48 AM ET
FAA clears gadgets for takeoff
Good news for travelers who hate to put away their electronics before takeoff and landing. The FAA announced you will soon be allowed to use devices like e-books and tablets below 10,000 feet. Anderson spoke with New York Times tech columnist Nick Bilton who made it his mission to change these rules.

And, in five years or so, Transport Canada will follow suit.

[AirFrame]

Been using them in flight for years. Why would they affect the plane differently during takeoff/landing? I'm still amazed it took so long for this to happen.

[Liquid Charlie]

They are just getting the reruns of Myth Busters

[CID]

Takeoff and landing are more critical phases of flight so any interference could have a more serious affect on safety. The snippet doesn't mention that flight crew will still have the option to shut all devices down in poor weather or during other critical situations.

[Doc]

Takeoff and landing are more critical phases of flight so any interference could have a more serious affect on safety. The snippet doesn't mention that flight crew will still have the option to shut all devices down in poor weather or during other critical situations.

They're either safe (which they are) or they're not. If the FAA says you can use them, you can. Wouldn't want to be the flight crew who says differently, and has it get back to the FAA! Contrary to politically correct belief, the crew can NOT walk on water. There is no interference caused by these devices. Never has been.

[xsbank]

It's got nothing to do with the devices tumbling gyros, it's because while using these things the average human turns into a drooling dolt and pays no attention to his surroundings. Hard for the crew to do the safety thing and impossible to get them out in an emergency. "Oh Marge? They just told us to evacuate! What? Yes, I am going to the theatre tonight. Sally got some new shoes. Sorry? I can't hear you very well, the flight attendant is shouting something..."

It just gets better and better as we get dumber and dumber and flying becomes more poisonous.

[photofly]

Takeoff and landing are more critical phases of flight so any interference could have a more serious affect on safety. The snippet doesn't mention that flight crew will still have the option to shut all devices down in poor weather or during other critical situations.

Poor weather is a critical situation now?

[Liquid Charlie]

it's because while using these things the average human turns into a drooling dolt and pays no attention to his surroundings

EXACTLY!!!!!

[crazy_aviator]

As part of a highly secret , clandestine operation, I was part of a select team who, unbenounced to everyone else, crept into the bowls of every airline and aeroplane in america and sprayed anti-EMF dust into every avionics bay, electronic gadget and instrument one could think of . Well, folks, the outcome were totally protected aircraft from those nasty cell phones,,, And now, Happily, the FAA can report that we can ALL safely fly and text and call and piss off all our neighbours in the cabin !

[2R]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF


It would be interesting to see what happens if they used 300 phones all broadcasting at the same time on the next test

[Jet Jockey]

It's got nothing to do with the devices tumbling gyros, it's because while using these things the average human turns into a drooling dolt and pays no attention to his surroundings. Hard for the crew to do the safety thing and impossible to get them out in an emergency. "Oh Marge? They just told us to evacuate! What? Yes, I am going to the theatre tonight. Sally got some new shoes. Sorry? I can't hear you very well, the flight attendant is shouting something..."

It just gets better and better as we get dumber and dumber and flying becomes more poisonous.

I agree!

I'll start by saying if people can't wait a few minutes during the two most important phases of flight to "connect" to their phones or tablets then I couldn't care less if they missed an important safety related call from the crew... They will deserve whatever comes to them.

Furthermore, this new rule does not allow one to have his cell phone or any other device with 2 way communication to be "ON" during takeoff or landing. The devices must still be put in "Airplane mode" so no one will be able to place phone calls.

For Internet use once airborne if the aircraft is equipped with onboard Internet service, and then you will be able to connect to it. I doubt the low cost read cheap airlines are going to rush to install such system because of their cost unless they charge the passengers good money to connect to such a service which is usually satellite based.

[Gannet167]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2asMIp4C9E

[LousyFisherman]

Personally I think this is a terrible idea. True story, not more than 2 weeks ago I am on final for the second landing of my 5 solos for the float rating. My cellphone starts buzzing and I have to ignore it (with a huge smile on my face) and then I proceed to pull off the best landing of the 6 I did <sarcasm>What if I was unable to isolate the distraction? </sarcasm>

Now I could have idled there on the lake (No I couldn't, after 3 hours of flying my arm was really tired ) and phoned back, but given free reign with a 180 on floats, when I usually fly a 150 on wheels, I made one of the poor business decisions I am known for (bdm); did a UGMPFS check and pushed the throttle in.

I do like the 180, even if the column does tug on the arm a wee bit.

Wouldn't want to be the flight crew who says differently, and has it get back to the FAA! Contrary to politically correct belief, the crew can NOT walk on water. There is no interference caused by these devices. Never has been.

Really? I would have thought that the PIC has the right, obligation, and responsibility to overrule the FAA if required. I do agree with you that the devices themselves do not cause any problems.

LF

[frozen solid]

Is the F.A.A. now in the business of policing safety requests made of the passengers by the crew? What about if we think there might be turbulence, so we turn on the sign and ask them to sit down, and then there turns out there's no turbulence and some of the are pissed off? What if the F.A.A. finds out about that? It seems as though Doc is on board with the emerging corporate attitude that since flight crew are typically not "managers" at the company, there is no way they can have any real authority. However, I will speculate that his attitude would change the moment anyone on HIS plane refuses to comply with one of his requests. I have met a few pilots like this, whose attitudes change depending on whether it's themselves or someone else's behaviour they are commenting on. It's attitudes like this we are trying to stamp out in aviation.

[Mark_space]

They're either safe (which they are) or they're not. If the FAA says you can use them, you can. Wouldn't want to be the flight crew who says differently, and has it get back to the FAA! Contrary to politically correct belief, the crew can NOT walk on water. There is no interference caused by these devices. Never has been.[/quote]

Amen to that, Doc!

[frozen solid]

Yes fellows, watch out for the F.A.A. ... Let that be your primary concern while giving safety instructions to your passengers.

...and Doc of course.

[Nark]

They're either safe (which they are) or they're not. If the FAA says you can use them, you can. Wouldn't want to be the flight crew who says differently, and has it get back to the FAA! Contrary to politically correct belief, the crew can NOT walk on water. There is no interference caused by these devices. Never has been.

Doc, do I need to revoke your FAA certificate? I assume you hold at least an ATP...
Read the FAA's press release, not NBC, CNN, Fox News version of it.


I should also add this to the discussion, it is up to each carriers Principle Operating Inspector to approve these devices, not a blanket approval by the FAA. But that wouldn't make a good story would it?

[CID]

Name calling gets you a week's vacation.


Sulako

[I WAS Birddog]

Now if pilots could only put down their phones and STOP texting useless drivel to their girlfriends while doing taxi checks.
...
...
...and that includes me also

[Johnny#5]

Name calling gets you a week's vacation.

Sulako

[NeverBlue]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... tonly.html

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=92571

...ya...totally safe

[Waldo Peppar]

They're either safe (which they are) or they're not. and.....There is no interference caused by these devices. Never has been.

That is quite a broad statement there Doc...but it is not correct.
Whereas I agree that there little, if any, interference with modern aircraft like any Airbus etc, because of electro-magnetic shielding , I believe it is called. Also I doubt there was any interference on older simple VFR Cessna types and such, but I am not so sure there never was any interference on the older ILSs.

I do know first hand that there was interference on some DC-9-32s. in my case it was the auto pilot. There was a passenger in Business Class using a computer with an external modem or printer connected by a cord. Whenever he pressed enter or send, whatever, the elevator servo spiked causing the aircraft to react as thought the control column was given a sharp jab.
It took a few min. to figure out what was happening, but was proven beyond a doubt. An incident report was filed with computer make etc and it wasn't long after that , the flight attendants preflight included the instruction that no computers with external attached devices were to be used....as far as I know that instruction is still there.

As well , if I remember correctly, some of the earlier pressurization controllers ( newer ones installed on a refit) were also subject to some reported cases of interference on the DC9.

I do believe there was a couple of VOR or ILS interference reports on the 727s as well, but it was to long ago to certain now.

So, Yes DOC , there has been interference caused by the devices.
Cheers

[shimmydampner]

Wow, this appears to be one of those rare posts based on factual first hand knowledge rather than conjecture or opinion that was rectally mined and delivered with conviction.
A good day to check Av Canada! Thank you Waldo, that was actually very interesting and informative.

[Rudy]

Looks like Europe is doing the same with approvals coming shortly.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... g-easa-caa

Any guesses on when Canada might follow suit?