Slashdot Mirror
Alaska Airlines Jettisons Paper Manuals For iPads
fullymodo writes "Alaska Airlines has become the first major US airline to hop on board the paperless bandwagon. While it's not quite ready to ditch paper navigation charts just yet (though that is under consideration), the airline has announced that it will be replacing its traditional flight manuals with iPads, which will be loaded up with the GoodReader app and PDFs of 41 different manuals and other materials.' So explain why I have to shut off my non-wi-fi-capable ebook reader during take-off and landing?"
If the plane has a bird strike and has to ditch in the Hudson, they don't want you to miss announcements because you're busy flinging Angry Birds. It's not about the electronics, it's about them having your attention during the two parts of flight where all the crashes happen.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So explain why I have to shut off my non-wi-fi-capable ebook reader during take-off and landing?
One, I'm sure they tested that model of iPad thoroughly in their cockpit to make sure it didn't interfere with anything. They also know they weren't modified an any way that could generate additional RF. They didn't test your gadget, and they don't want to take any chances.
Two, people are far more willing to accept small risks when there's a tangible benefit. Switching to iPads saves weight, and thus money. Letting you use your device during take-off and landing doesn't benefit them at all.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
You have to turn off your non-wifi ebook reader because when the flight attendants are getting things going, "turn off all portable electronic devices" is a lot easier and faster than learning to tell which are and which aren't, and checking that those passengers who are still poking a screen are using something non-wifi enabled.
And really, it's not that big a hardship to turn off your device for ten minutes during takeoff.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's right there in the article, fullymodo.
'The iPad is considered a Class 1 electronic device, meaning it is stowed during takeoff and landing under Federal Aviation Administration regulations.'
So your book reader has to be stowed and this iPad is too.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
So explain why I have to shut off my non-wi-fi-capable ebook reader during take-off and landing?
Because computers have internal electronics that generate electric currents in the GHz range, and it is not impossible that these electrical currents could radiate enough energy to interfere with airplane electronic and navigation systems.
Presumably they have tested the particular devices that the pilots are using, and verified that these particular devices don't interfere. If they haven't tested your particular device, then they don't know that it won't interfere. Probably it won't. They don't know that for sure.
And, also, how do they know that it doesn't have wifi? Are they supposed to inspect all electronic devices on boarding? (Are you willing to be charged extra to pay for a person to do that?)
This is, undoubtably, absurdly over cautious. However, the penalties for failure are very large, and the cost for being overcautious (in the form of inconvenience) is paid by you, not by them.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Easier to read in a cockpit (and they can get real glarey), search across books, longer battery life. I'd also go out on a limb and say they're more reliable...
anyway, as long as they don't start using Flight Control HD to land the damn things, I'll be happy.
I can see the ads now : "Meet local girls in Pacific Ocean, right now." (shamelessly ripped off from the ever relevant xkcd)
Anyway your argument is false for a couple of reasons:
- this is Apple, not Google. Apple isn't an advertising company and doesn't send home your browsing behavior AFAIK.
- they need not give the iPads access to the internet.
- they can block anything they don't want to leave the internal network using a firewall, which they should already be doing.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
The definition of the various electronics classes doesn't have much to do with electromagnetic radiation. They primarily are related to the physical design of the gear and how it's mechanically interfaced with the aircraft.
Class 1: Anything commercial off-the-shelf and not purpose-built for the plane is Class 1 and must be stowed during takeoff and landing, because they're loose equipment and can become a hazard in turbulence. (Even these iPads have to be put away during takeoff and landing.
Class 2: Can be off-the-shelf or purpose built, but it has to be bolted down using a certified mounting or a kneeboard. You don't have to stow a class 2 during takeoff and landing.
Class 3: Installed in the plane, subject to airworthiness certification and the hardware has to be designed for the purpose. Only class 3 EFB gear has to be tested for radio emissions.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
They don't ban books, or conversations, or any number of other reasons we might ignore those announcements. Also, even if this were the case, it's a bit depressing that the only way they can make this happen is by lying to us on every single flight.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Because if there is a crash, your handheld device is going to turn into a flying projectile and womp someone else in the back of the head. In fact, FAA regulations state that all items must be stowed at takeoff and landing for this precise reason -- just because it's handheld now doesn't mean you'll continue to hold on to it.
They'd patent this idea and then sue anyone who tried to follow suit.
hardcover books should be subject to the same regulations, I'd be willing to chance being whacked with a paperback though, trade paperbacks are a nebulous gray area.
My friend's Dad was an engineer at Boeing and tested exactly this. Beyond old planes (DC-9 and older), electronics were not a problem, as everything was shielded enough not to interfere. But people have a hard time understanding "you can do it on this plane, but not on that one" if they are used to a behavior.
Cell phones are a problem for the cell towers, not the planes. The number of handoffs that happen on calls from the air is pretty bad.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You like apple? fine, but historically they are constantly breaking compatibility with themselves which makes it hard for serious people who want a bit more of a long term investment than a buzz-headline.
I see stories like this and think, hunh here is some tard tossing a pile of money down a proprietary hole for what? to look "cool"? Thanks I know where not to waste my money.
Navigation charts are bigger and more detailed than what could fit on a single screen, so scrolling is necessary anyway. The navigation plates (terminal procedures, approach, departure, etc.) can fit all on a screen and for the US all of them are already available as PDFs. Here’s an example iPad app that Googling produced: http://www.ipadappsdude.com/plates-chart-viewer-navigation/
Will other devices be allowed to be used? I hate Apple, and hope other device like the Kindle or Android based Tablets/ebook readers can be used like they are using the iPad now.
Are you a pilot for Alaska? The question might then be relevant, since this story is talking about company-issued flight pubs for Alaska pilots.
Remember, it's a device that replaces company issued / FAA required flight pubs, not a personal eReader for the flight crew. It is company equipment, not personal equipment.
So, my guess is "no", Alaska will not be making their flight pubs available on Kendle of random Android tablets. Why would they?
Speaking of which, a lot of our C17 pilots here at McChord AFB take iPads loaded with pubs and forms and other personal pilot-type apps, on the road with them.
I don't own *any* Apple hardware, I can't afford it. But our guys like the iPad.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
If the plane has a bird strike and has to ditch in the Hudson, they don't want you to miss announcements because you're busy flinging Angry Birds. It's not about the electronics, it's about them having your attention during the two parts of flight where all the crashes happen.
As someone whose father was a pilot, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard; if something happens that is important enough, trust me, you'll notice, big time. Foreign Object Damage, for example, if a blade lets loose from the jet engine, will sound like someone set off a bomb on the wing (don't worry, most jet engines these days are designed to contain several blades failing.) And trust me, your flight attendants will make it reaaaaaaally damn clear if they need you to do something, and you'll notice everyone around you, well, doing it.
They don't want your device interfering with instruments during takeoff and especially landing if ILS is in use (now high-accuracy GPS landing systems are becoming more prevalent), and the rule was the best solution they had to "do electronic devices interfere with plane instruments?" You can't test every device out there, even if you only had to test a dozen instruments, and there are thousands of different avionics packages in hundreds of different planes out there. So the easiest assumption is, when hundreds of lives are at stake: turn off the cell phones, keep the portable devices off, etc. Keep in mind that with GPS, the signal from the satellites is about fifty watts, making for incredibly low signal, so even modern gear could be affected what seems like very low leakage by your music player.
My father and I tried an experiment once - back in the late 90's, we fired up an ultraportable laptop with jeppesen data on it while we were on the ground. The damn thing was like an RF bomb. It caused noticeable interference with the radios, the VOR went a little wonky, and the stormscope interpreted some RF noise from the laptop as lightning strikes (noise on the stormscopes is actually fairly common, but the laptop had a clear effect.) Guess what? Being off-course (VOR) has fuel implications, traffic avoidance implications, etc. Yes, pilots are supposed to check and cross-reference stuff (in fact, much of the busy work a pilot or copilot did pre-GPS-everywhere...was checking one navigation system against another...ADF vs VOR vs GPS vs LORAN), but the rule in aviation is to minimize ANY problems, because they have a nasty habit of snowballing. Aviation disaster reports are full of "this little thing wasn't working, and so-and-so didn't repair ____ quite right, and..."
Please help metamoderate.
Some planes I've been on have done this.
.sig withheld by request
parent link is goatse
I'm really uncomfortable with this, being as the iPad is a consumer-grade device built as cheaply as possible with it's #1 function being generating profit for Apple, and I don't think the device was designed with critical use in mind. It's made to be *just* reliable and durable enough that the warranty return rate isn't too high, and no more. (If I were Apple I'd be really uncomfortable with people using them for anything more than entertainment! for liability purposes!)
From what I've seen using iPhones in a business environment, they're NOWHERE NEAR being what I would consider business class devices- we've had many of them not survive 1 day of use before breaking. Not that they weren't dropped or abused, but that's life of mobile devices and I imagine daily use in a cockpit isn't any cakewalk.
I guess I'm a bit of an Apple-hater at my core, but even considering this I just don't think this is smart at all. Appropriate devices can certainly be built- there are specific military standards for devices durability in the field, lots of devices built to those standards, and that could be a minimal starting point. I would think the FAA should publish (or adopt an existing) standard for non mounted cockpit devices?
I used an old Sanyo "rugged" phone until I upgraded to an Android recently. It had survived too many drops onto concrete to count, being dropped in a lake at least twice, and even flying off the top of my car at 40+mph (took a long time to find the battery!)- it looked like hell but it never failed. Had to reboot it about twice in the 5 years I used it. Lots of other devices are designed to be, and are, that tough. That's the kind of reliability you have to have for a critical device.
Because computers have internal electronics that generate electric currents in the GHz range, and it is not impossible that these electrical currents could radiate enough energy to interfere with airplane electronic and navigation systems.
It's not absurdly over cautions to restrict unknown electronics that might cause interference. Even the local oscillator in an simple old-fashioned analog tuned F.M. broadcast radio can affect some communications. Digital gear is worse. There are pulses at many different rates far below microwave frequencies in digital gear, and because they are pulses and not sinusoidal waveforms, they're rich in harmonics. The noise generated extends down even to relatively low frequencies due to main power supply inverters and in some cases inverters for screen backlighting. Try taking an ordinary analog tuned AM/FM radio and putting it very close to a laptop and compare the noise between stations or heard on weaker signals.
It is doubtful that they're using anything that is particularly sensitive to interference from WiFi.
No one in their right mind would expect WiFi to be interference free and use it for anything critical. Read the F.C.C. notice in the manual for ANYTHING that uses WiFi. You'll see something like "must accept harmful interference, including that which may cause undesired operation".
Allow me to simplify what you said. These aircraft are built to crash into the ground with the simplest of provocation. Consumer RF is one example, butterfly farts are another. Don't even think about bringing a butterfly aboard an A380.
Fuckwads. Ground them all.