Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment

OzPeter writes "Jetstar will start renting out of pre-loaded iPads as a form of inflight entertainment instead of the more typical seat back video system. No word in the article on how or if they will handle Wi-Fi connections, but interestingly it does mention that they will be usable during takeoff and landings — something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics."

Comments

Aircraft electronics

[Joce640k]

Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.

The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

Re:Aircraft electronics

[EdZ]

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

Re:Aircraft electronics

[IndustrialComplex]

More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.

Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.

If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.

Re:Aircraft electronics

[RedLeg]

The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

The reasons have EVERYTHING to do with safety, just not the way most people think.

The airlines and the FAA don't want passengers to be distracted or rows and aisles to be encumbered. Passengers need to be alert enough take direction from the aircrew (pilots + flight attendants) and free to maneuver in times of emergency. The most likely times for emergencies are during takeoffs and landings, hence the ban.

It has nothing to with harmful interference with avionics, but with interrupting communications and encumbering maneuvering.

Consider trying to get up and use the head from a window seat when the passengers in the row ahead have their seats reclined, and those on your row have tables down and laptops out. Add earphones in ears impeding hearing, and you get a mess in an emergency.

Red

Re:Aircraft electronics

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

i am not flying the plane.

there is no amount of concentration on my part that is going to help when the plane banks sharply on take off, slams into the ground, and begins cartwheeling through a cornfield spewing burning jet fuel while rows of seats tear off the floor and fall out of holes in the plane.

but if i could listen to music, at least i wouldn't have to hear everyone else screaming as i burned to death in an aluminum tube

Re:Aircraft electronics

[vlm]

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded.

Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.

No one takes low altitude sight seeing flights in a 747.

Its not like the high power radio transmitter towers to the east of timmerman and north of mitchell airport in Milwaukee somehow magically know they are supposed to interfere with the light planes but not the big planes. Theres no little eyeball on the top of the tower.

Light planes are pretty simple. You screw up the fuel management system on a major jetliner, you get big problems transferring fuel from tank 7 to tank 18 and weight and balance get all screwed up, now is engine 3 feeding out of tank 2 or is that cross connected to tank 9 again? In comparison, on the old 172 I flew in the 80s (eek) the fuel management system was an emergency shut off valve from the overhead tanks, a left/right/both tank selector switch, and an electric backup fuel pump with a circuit breaker and a switch. And a fuel gauge meter than was about 1/2 inch square and could not be read more accurately than "full, empty, or somewhere in between". It was so old it had a mechanical carb instead of a fuel injection system.

Re:Aircraft electronics

[geminidomino]

Funny you should mention that card. I'm glad I already know the (not complicated) instructions since the completely wordless cards are actually harder to understand....

Re:Aircraft electronics

[IndustrialComplex]

Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.

You also are doing the inspection on VFR days, so if VOR gets screwed up it's not that big of a deal.

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is sa

[Joe The Dragon]

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.

Not on UK airlines they won't

[gb7djk]

The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered. It *is* true that in pre CE certification days, certain mobile equipment did have some unfortunate spurii, but CE testing got rid of all of them decades ago. Which means that we are left with either a) the cabin crew need to demonstrate who's boss or b) the airlines don't want equipment flying about if there is any nasty tail waving or bumps during take off or landing.

Re:daily tampon story?

[quantumplacet]

If you want to troll, try harder. Here's a hint, tampons aren't pads, they're cylindrical. You did however do a nice job of proving beyond any doubt that you've never had a girlfriend.

Re:daily tampon story?

[OzPeter]

seriously enough with the tampon stories.

The funny thing is that I submitted this partly on the basis of seeing how fast an iStory would be accepted. My previous submissions have always seemed to languish around for a significant amount of time before being accepted or rejected (especially rejected), yet this one was accepted within 12 hours of submission.