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 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.
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 ...
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
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.
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.
In related news Andriod devices are not allowed in the cockpit becuase Apple has a patent on "using handheld electronic devices in a cockpit".
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?