Slashdot Mirror
FAA Permits American Airlines To Use iPads In Cockpit "In All Phases of Flight"
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.
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.
Is there an open source airline that I can fly on?
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.
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.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Unless safety never was an issue.
...but they won't become unusable if you accidentally smash their screens against something hard during unexpected turbulence.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
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."
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Get those pilots and flight attendants to the gym *now*!
Lets tackle global warming, a pound at a time ...
You would believe wrong.
I worked for a startup that designed a tablet-style device to hold flight manuals and maps for airliners. That was back in 1996. The device was bulkier than an ipad but did not weight 16Kg, and had a respectable 800X600 color display. I'm pretty sure tablets and/or laptops have been used since then in the cockpit - so the news here is proabably that the FAA approving yet another device.
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.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
See? I knew it was okay to use electronics during takeoff and landing! The pilots are using them!!! SEE??!?!!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
So when can I start using my iPad during "all phases of the flight"?
sudo make me a sandwich
Does Microsoft Flight Simulator exist for the iPad now?
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?
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
Finally, all those hours playing Flight Control in the Apple Store are about to pay off!
I worked at Boeing on two new airplane projects. The aircraft manufacturers and the airlines know almost exactly how much fuel is consumed per pound of aircraft weight.
Indeed! That's why the MPG of my car increases when I don't use my headlights!
[/sarc]
As a professional researcher, it's much more reliable to use the paper version of manuals and hardware documentation.
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.
How is that statement FUD? What fear, uncertainty or doubt is it spreading? Also, no, they won't have to have paper backups though the National Business Avaiation Association does recommend having paper backups for a transitional period. From
When transitioning to a paperless cockpit, FAA approval is not required, however it is recommend that operators carry paper backup materials during the initial transition period. The pilot in command of the aircraft is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the proper aeronautical charts are available for the flight, so it is important to validate the reliability of the iPad during the transition.
In related news Andriod devices are not allowed in the cockpit becuase Apple has a patent on "using handheld electronic devices in a cockpit".
Link got fucked. It's here.
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 instantly updated in a matter of hours or a day.
- E-mail! When I worked in the airlines I can't tell you how many pilots popped into our flight ops area to borrow a computer to check e-mail, connect with crew scheduling or check updates to schedules, etc. We of course were always glad to share our computer but this makes it a lot easier and quicker for the pilots to do so without having to go anywhere.
- Paperless workflow. Granted airplanes are required to carry a logbook for maintenance purposes (still on paper) but this could help facilitate maintenance writeups if they could find a different way to do this. The pages in the aircraft maintenance logbook are usually 5-ply carbonless copy papers and are difficult to read. The lines are tiny and just try writing in one while the plane is flying and you hit a bump here and there! If they could enter the maintenance writeups into an iPad and sync it when they get on the ground (or maybe even with the inflight Wi-Fi products?) that could get the wheels spinning faster for maintenance and reduce the need for actual physical paperwork.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
How come pilots get to use a tablet when they're flying a plane?
There are two pilots.
Commercial aircraft have collision avoidance systems
They aren't 20 feet away from someone going nuts and slamming on their brakes for no reason.
Now, turn off your fscking phone and pay attention to DRIVING.
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?
Invenio via vel creo
Do what I do. Start it paused, but then put your phone/pad/musicy in your pocket and say to the stewards when they ask that the music is off but you're using your headphones as ear defenders to make the flight quieter. Then slip your hand in your pocket and start it playing again. I do this even if I'm not listening to music, just to make the takeoff quieter. If I'm not listening to music I'll have the other end of the headphones unplugged and in obvious view for their benefit.
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.
Except the sysytem of constantly updating printed books is not flawless at all in the airline industry. If it was they wouldn't be going electronic in the first place. It takes way more effort to constantly print and disperse new updates to charts than to push a new documentation update on the EFB app.
As a researcher you probably have the benefit of large work-tables to spread the papers out on and the luxury of not having to pay a non-negligible sum of money for the weight of all your research papers and probably have the luxury of ample storage. Airline pilots don't have those.
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).
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.
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
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.
For the most part, the planes fly themselves.
Think of how much they are going to save now that they don't have to produce the binders. I'm sure that it costs a lot to produce 35 pounds of paper materials. And how often do they have to reproduce them. It will cost less then the price of the iPads in a few years.
StackExchange's Skeptics site has some related calculations for United Airlines that may be illuminating.
I work in the aviation industry. I hate to break it to you but I have talked to pilots who admit to playing games on their laptops while flying. It gets boring sitting up there for hour on hours every day.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Yes, because the 5 -10 W the iPad uses when displaying PDFs is so much greater than the power it takes to keep 35 lbs of dead weight up at 35,000 ft and cruising at 500 knots.
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 course, an approximation. But this is such a small deviation from the original situation by such a small amount that this is certainly valid as a first approximation). Removing the weight would result in 35 / 1e5 * 5e6 = 1750 W of reduced power demand. If that sounds like a lot...it is; flying is incredibly expensive from an energy perspective.
If the backup copy is just one copy, you're still better off - because currently each crew-member has their own.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The geese(passengers)
That's SLF (Self Loading Freight).
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
[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 manual process. For electronic copies, handling revision, expiration and other related functions is easier to accomplish.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
The fuel savings are reasonably simple to estimate, provided one has the weight savings, the average L/D of the aircraft involved, and the total flying time. L/Ds range from about 12/1 to 19/1 for commercial airliners, and are also identically equal to the extra thrust needed (1lb) to support an additional weight (12 or 19 lbs). Long-haul aircraft tend to have good L/D ratios (higher), while short-haul aircraft usually have lower values.
Specific fuel consumption (sfc) then relates the amount of fuel required per lb of thrust per hour. For jet aircraft, this value usually runs from 0.3 to 0.6 or so. I.e., it requires 0.3 - 0.6 lbs of fuel (depending on aircraft and flight parameters) to provide one extra pound of thrust for one hour (which will then allow the aircraft to carry an extra 12-19 pounds of cargo).
Working this out shows that saving 35 lbs will save 1-3 lbs of fuel per airplane per flight hour per ipad, or 1-2 quarts of fuel per hour per ipad. That's not a lot in the grand scheme of airline fuel consumption, but it's probably measurable in the aggregate.
The secondary savings might be even more substantial -- finding alternate approach plates and arrival and departure procedures is *much* faster with an ipad, and would likely provide substantial time savings and/or route flexibility in the cockpit translating into slightly shorter routes (with concomitant fuel savings).
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.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
The devices have supposedly been tested for Electromagnetic Interference issues with the specific aircraft AA flies, and they will be in airplane mode.
Heh, almost wrote autistic mode, too much GitS...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Do modern cockpits have USB charging ports?
Or, god forbid, cockpit accessable USB data ports that can be used to update flight system software?
If 35lbs is that huge... wouldn't have made more sense to pay the pilots to lose weight? After all, it is illegal to operate any electronic device below 10,000 feet for "SAFETY REASONS." From what I hear, operation of such devices causes the planes to just explode. Forgetting to put your phone in airplane mode == KABOOM!
Or perhaps this "no electronic devices" crap really wasn't about safety in the first place.
lets take 70,000 kg as a typical take off mass (wikipedia 737 page has numbers from 50,000 to 80,000). and we are saving 15kg
so we have a weight saving of about 0.02%, and presumably a similar fuel/emission saving.
claims that growth in air travel will be offset by improved efficiency do not look very strong if this sort of thing is considered press release worthy.
Well, they say they were fiddling with their laptops. Not taking a nap.
Have gnu, will travel.
The paper checklists will still be on the plane. This is mostly about having an always up to date set of maps, approach plates, weather info, and Airport Facilities Directories, which weigh a lot, cost a lot, and expire frequently. Backup and approach data will also be in the navigation system. If (both) iPads stop working, the pilots have plenty of options to get on the ground. I don't know too many pilots who don't already use an iPad for charts.
In a lot of cases you don't need the pilot. But you *DO* need/want them as a backup. And honestly, I'd rather they stay awake playing games than pass out from boredom.
Pilots are up there for when stuff goes wrong mostly. It would be completely possible today to set up an autopilot that could take off, fly to a destination, and land. Heck, AirBus jets are about 1/2 step away from that already. However, making that same autopilot capable of dealing with emergency situations is much much more difficult. There is an old army saying that life in the army is hours and hours of boredom followed by seconds of terror. That's about how pilots operate too. Almost all of the time your job is just to glance at the instruments and go "yep, everything's still ok", and maybe once in your career everything won't be alright and you'll have to act quick to save the plane.
Air Pockets/Wind Shear are basically invisible, especially from far enough away that you can do something about it in a 200 ton jumbo jet flying at 600mph. There's nothing you can do except try to find an altitude that has smoother air, which is basically just rolling the dice.
I read the internet for the articles.
You don't need pilots until you do need them... then you REALLY need them.
I have no hearing problems and I can rarely understand what's said over those PA systems either.....
There are now gloves that you can use with a capacitive touch screen. Heck there's even conductive thread you can buy to modify existing gloves.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
IANAP, but it's my understanding that, in most cases, we _don't_ need a pilot. Until something goes wrong.
Most routine flights could be flown gate to gate by autopilot, it's for the .00001% that you pay the pilot (like when a flock of geese take out both engines and you have to dead stick it into the Hudson).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
They better permanently put that thing in "airplane" mode or they've got problems! In case you missed the Mythbusters episode that thoroughly tested this, devices with RF broadcasting capabilities of almost any kind can make instruments spin and go generally crazy from even 25+ feet away. What stops it in reality is the EM and RF shielding in the cockpit door. See the problem? You bring an ipad into the cockpit, that plane's going down.
Huh? In the Mythbusters episode _I_ remember seeing on this, they had some monstrous frankenstein antenna hooked up to a PC spamming crazy amounts of EMF and got...a whole lot of nothing.
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/db/transportation/cell-phones-interfere-plane-instruments.html
Why not do both? At the same time, the real problem is the passengers. If on average we were dealing with passengers who weighed even 5 lbs less, that might translate to 150 lbs on a smaller 30 passenger plane, or 1250 lbs on a larger 250 passenger plane. Using the 30 lbs = 1.2 mil figure, that's 6 million to 50 mil annual savings in fuel (not to mention the environmental benefit). A national weight loss campaign would lower flight costs and the environmental footprint of flights, while also helping us all get a bit healthier. Win win. (And pilots can still use ipads).
"That number sounds both awfully low and awfully specific."-Hypnosec
Well the team that wrote the control narrative probably kept it as concise as possible. If a pilot needs an answer, better to only have to pour through 3 or 4 operational tomes than 7 or 8. The specificness comes from engineers knowing how much the tomes weigh, subtracting the weight of an ipad from that, and saying that number is the amount of weight saved. Questions about what happens during device malfunction are relevant, but realistically the ipad would be easier to troubleshoot than a laptop with a full blown operating system and all sorts of parts in it. Also it is always possible that a pilot could spill coffee on the operating tomes, or maybe they could get lost or catch fire. The ipad changes none of these things, but it does save weight. To that end, it is a good decision IMHO.
Will cockpits now have a USB charging port? If so can they help a guy out?
I can't believe how many comments there are about how the iPad is evil and paper is good. Isn't this a technology site? Do some of you watch Star Trek episodes and get angry that they just don't have paper and pencils since those damn consoles keep exploding every time they get hit by a tachyon burst? Is there that many people opposed to change around here or do you just hate all things apple? If you hate apple, fine, ask why not android. But don't get angry at the FCC and AA for trying to improve efficiency by utilizing technology.
"SAD BUT TRUE!"
Huh Huh, he said Metallica. Get him Lars!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
IAAP (and we are using iPads in the same manner as AA), and I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that pilots are needed for their judgment and experience- both before and during non-normal ops -same as any profession relying on experience and judgement.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
$1.2 million / 635 million enplaned passengers
Is your peace of mind worth that much?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The airlines know exactly how much weight a plane can carry and how much fuel it requires to move that much weight. If they can remove 35 pounds of weight from the plane, someone else can check a bag, or they can put a little bit more cargo into the hold.
I do not buy that they are going to save any fuel. They will make up for the weight elsewhere (like checked bags).
This isn't new either. A friend of the family is a retired pilot (pre-9/11) who used to do lots of intercontinental long haul passenger flights, which I'd guess have the longest periods of relative inactivity for the pilots. He said their procedural handbook had a long and quite specific list of the activities pilots were not allowed to do while in autopilot to pass the time (sleep, read, etc.). It didn't say he couldn't be flytying...that's always been a great image for me. I imagine it would be hard to do if there was any turbulance at all. Now the tiny scissors, and needles likely would be screened out.
Not any more: http://www.willflyforfood.com/airline-pilot-salary// 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.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Because that's what the software is on, and it's easily available. Having an interactive touchscreen LCD device also allows additional functionality than just viewing charts. Backlighting is nice in a dark cockpit, as well.
And really, in an industry that normally purchases $20k GPS units and $200k Flight Management Computers, you think a $600 iPad is an outrageous expense?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Boeing too. I've flown both. Neither is better than the other, but Airbus is more common among it's types and simpler to operate. As an aside Boeing's wings are much nicer- the flex more in turbulence making a smoother ride.
Again, with judgment and experience, a pilot can know whether a climb is better than a descent, what route is best to avoid, if taking extra fuel is more harmful than helpful, understands winds aloft, tropopause, and orographic phenomenon and their effect on turbulence, and a myriad of other vital information.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
As a professional researcher, it's much more reliable to use the paper version of manuals and hardware documentation.
As a professional researcher, you should have no problems citing a study that backs up the claim that it is more reliable to use paper version than electronic versions! :)
Now you know why they call it the COCKpit.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
So will they wake any sleeping passengers as well? Of course not. This argument makes no sense whatsoever based on the behaviour of the flight crew.
Do what I do. Start it paused, but then put your phone/pad/musicy in your pocket and say to the stewards when they ask that the music is off but you're using your headphones as ear defenders to make the flight quieter. Then slip your hand in your pocket and start it playing again.
Wow, you're a dick.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think, or rather I hope for the sake of humanity, that GP was joking.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If that's true, they shouldn't just ban electronic devices but also books, sudoku puzzles, newspapers, magazines, rubikubes, .... And they should have done that even before the proliferance of electronic devices.
But they didn't, and they don't. So that "real" reason can not be a valid reason.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.