9 ms·
The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes.
Likely bowing to public pressure, the F.A.A. has agreed to take a fresh look at the use of e-readers and iPads on planes during taxi, takeoff and landing.
- israelpasos 15y agoThis article would've made my life easier two years ago while I spent an entire day discussing the matter with my ex-Fiancée.
- jiggy2011 15y agoWeird, almost every time I have flown I see people using iPads and smartphones on the plane without any issues. They do ask people to turn them off during take off and landing , but this is only a fairly small segment of the journey anyway.
- sunir 15y agoDoes anyone else wonder why they need to actually fly the devices instead of just extrapolating from the electromagnetic interference test results required by the FCC? It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason they require device specific tests?
- sage_joch 15y agoThat's like asking why integration tests are needed when individual modules have already been unit tested.
- roadnottaken 15y agoExactly. I thought that was precisely why the FCC regulated the type of signals that consumer devices emit.
- raganwald 15y agoSimulations only go so far. What if there was some sort of weird interaction between an iPad and the magnetic field of the earth at altitude, or cosmic rays, or something—I obviously don’t know what. But whatever it is, you don’t want to do all your tests in a “simulation,” then have some scientists say “Oops, our bad, we forgot to simulate lower pressure or increased gamma rays or what-have-you,” when we can simply fly the device and all of our testing equipment. Now excuse me, I have to return to preparing for the Invasion of Moghron from the Frozen Seas of Neptune
- harshreality 15y agoPerhaps they aren't willing to assume that the electronics in planes are as shielded as they're supposed to be. What confuses me is why they don't ensure that planes' electronics are properly shielded rather than testing a bunch of electronics that emit very weak to weak EM. If a cell phone could create problems for a flight during take-off, what about a lunatic pointing a HERF weapon at the plane?
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y agoShielding is only part of the battle; the other part is what they're doing here: controlling incoming emissions. Nothing can be perfectly shielded in the real world and instruments or controllers may need very long cables to connect to their respective sensors and actuators making shielding difficult. Now add in that many of these instruments actually need to process an RF signal and so won't work if shielded, and it becomes a difficult problem to solve.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Anechoic 15y agoIs there a reason they require device specific tests? It's the "unknowns" not accounted for in the models that are the (potential) issue. If you have time read through this Ars Technica thread where a bunch of these questions are hashed out: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1163338 http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=116333... For those without the time, I'll highlight one post from page 5: "Unintentional radiators. The reason they ask you to power down ALL electronics, and not just turn off radios, is that the oscillators (the clock that runs all digital devices) on the circuit board can act as miniature radios, in and of themselves, via clock signals on circuit traces. They emit at the clock frequency, and in some cases many higher level harmonics of those frequencies. As I've stated several times, it's actually pretty easy to mitigate against known frequencies and signalling techniques...it's the ones you don't know about that are the problem. EMI can be downright spooky. As an example: I was once testing a medical device (for the Medical Device Directive) that was required to failsafe, since it would literally be touching a patient (it was a combination pulseoximeter and a few other things all rolled into one. There were numerous tests for both emissions and immunity, and things were going along ducky until we noticed two separate failure modes that weren't considered failsafe. At the time, we were testing ESD immunity up to 20kV. It would pass one time, and not another. We thought maybe we had a bad unit, so we got a few more from the manufacturer. That entire week we kept trying to figure out how to make the failure repeatable, without luck. My coworker and I went in over the weekend, and could simply not make any of the units fail at all, with the exact same test. That's what triggered our thought process...what else could be causing the issue during the work week but not on a weekend? Other immunity tests! Turns out, a dozen or so meters away, a different device was undergoing a different test...that wasn't required for the MDD. It was a conducted immunity test (it may have been Electric Fast Transients, can't recall) but the actual test signal was leaking out of that lab, and into our lab, via AC lines in the building. Our chief engineer submitted a proposal to add whatever test it was to the MDD, but I don't know whatever became of that. I've seen simple clocks inside electronic gear cause CPUs to go haywire...in effect a single system interfering with itself. I've also seen extremely low power, yet very high frequency harmonics invade and corrupt function of another device, several meters away."
- SlowButEffectiv 15y ago
- projektx 15y agoBecause its for airplanes, up in the air, with hundreds of people on them, sitting on thousands of gallons of jet fuel hurtling through the atmosphere over a densely populated area near you.
- baddox 15y agoI'm pretty sure there have been enough people that ignore the rules and leave their devices on for us to be reasonably sure there's no substantial risk.
- tzs 15y agoIsn't it possible that 300 passengers using devices at the same time could pose substantially more risk than just a handful of people using devices?
- baddox 15y agoIt's possible, but it's also possible that each passenger has ten iPads in their carry-on bag. Will they perform a test flight with 3,000 iPads? Not to mention how many more iPads could be stored in checked luggage.
- mkramlich 15y ago3000 iPads * $800 per iPad = $240k cost of plane itself + cost of all the human lives on it = many millions, or "priceless", right? seems cheap in comparison. plus they don't need to perform this test on every plane before every single flight. only once or a few times, per model permutation. If you spread the testing cost across all the operational instances where they'd be de-risked, I bet it would be pennies per flight, at most.
- Estragon 15y agoIt's admirable and entirely understandable that they should want to move to a policy grounded in direct empirical evaluations. Beats the hell out of the current situation, and I bet if it was your responsibility you would do the same. Some risks (hundreds of lives, hundreds of millions of dollars) are bound to trigger excessive caution.
- mkramlich 15y ago"In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there almost always is."
- jedbrown 15y ago"Any device maker who doesn’t contribute financially to the testing won’t be added to the new updated list of approved electronics devices on planes." Really? Your suggestion is that someone checks specific models against a special approved list that has nothing to do with the actual EMI standards met by the device?
- nknight 15y agoI feel like I'm missing something. He needs a "stack of magazines" to read during taxiing, take-off, and landing? To my knowledge, I'm not a slow reader, nor do I have an unusual amount of patience (quite the contrary), but I can't imagine making it through a magazine, much less a stack of them, during the time I usually spend unable to use electronics on a plane.
- mgkimsal 15y agoI thought the same thing, but... if someone's a frequent flyer, the routine is going to get monotonous. You'll need a moderate stack of magazines if you're stuck on the runway for another half hour. Change planes once or twice, and you'll really be wishing you had a lot more reading material. magazines are generally half ads, so you'll get tired of those reading those. Overall, I sort of agree with you - it seems a little over the top, but it's probably not unreasonable for many people. A stack of newspapers would be lighter, but they're usually too big to deal with for extended reading in economy/coach seats.
- raldi 15y agoYou must not be from New York. At LGA or JFK, it's quite common to sit on the runway for 45-60 minutes when taking off, or to be held in a holding pattern for at least as long when landing.
- nknight 15y agoNo, west coast, my reference points are mostly SJC/SFO/PDX/SEA/TPE. An hour between doors closing and taking off is largely unthinkable. I'm not even sure it took an hour when I had to go through ORD in really crappy weather a few years ago. I've heard the occasional story about long tarmac waits in New York, but didn't realize that 45-60 minutes could be anywhere near typical. Is Newark any better, or basically in the same boat?
- jonnathanson 15y agoConsider yourself blessed. NY airports are a nightmare. Same with LAX, ORD, ATL, DEN, and most other major hubs. (DFW seems to be a sole exception to the hubs-are-sucky axiom; I've rarely has anything but pleasant experiences from that airport, and I think I've connected through it over 100 times in the last 12 months). Of all of these hubs, I hold a special pocket of hatred in my heart for my hometown airport, LAX. It's not the biggest or most crowded airport in the country, but it seems to be the worst run. Security lines take at least 45 minutes a pop, even if there are only about 10 people in line. Pre-takeoff delays on the tarmac routinely run 60 minutes or longer. Etc. It's about as well-managed as a DMV, and every bit as infuriating. SFO tends to suck, too. I'm actually surprised you haven't had worse experiences there. It's routinely rated as one of the worst airports in the country for delays. (SJC, by comparison, ranges from painless to downright pleasant).
- raldi 15y agoGreat article, and it's cool that you came here to post it yourself, but it looks like you accidentally released an unfinished draft. Emphasis mine: "The last time this testing was done was 2006, check long before iPads and most e-readers existed." "Of 50 incidents in the most recent report get link check from last year, few had anything to do with cockpit interference." You also said, "buy the end of 2012". It's neat to see the behind-the-scenes shorthand used in story drafts.
- natrius 15y agoAlso, "the F.A.A. responded differently that it usually does".
- Mythbusters 15y agoAlso the story is not just about iPads. It's about all the personal electronics items. Kindles, laptopns and phones included.
- Terretta 15y agoCellphones excluded.
- niels_olson 15y agoSo, since the tablets are clearly gaining 4g... then what?
- raldi 15y agoWhat if they put all the iPads on a flight, and there was still no interference? Could they all be approved after that flight? (Of course, it's a gamble, since a single bad device could ruin the certification for all of them, but I think it's a smart gamble.)
- ams6110 15y agoIt really seems to me that all this regulation about personal devices is just more theatre. Or some kind of psychological strategy to emphasize to the passengers who is in control. If a cell phone or an iPod could really cause harmful interference with the avionics, they would not be allowed at all.
- spa942 15y agoIf a high beam headlight could really cause harmful interference with the vision of approaching car drivers, they would not be allowed at all. Right? Here's a sampling of interference events: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf (edit: only some of them are about EMI interference) Instruments acting up won't automatically cause a crash. But they may contribute to the accident (ref AF447) http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf - some examples of what lack of EMI shielding can do.
- mgkimsal 15y agoA linked article: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-cast-doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-c... mentions some measured electronic emissions from kindle and other devices (razor, recorder). In some ways it doesn't matter what might actually be allowed. If an attendant tells you to shut it off, and you don't, you're in violation of their rules. If I took a razor on and started shaving during takeoff, I'm betting I'd be told to shut that off.
- funkah 15y agoCan't wait until the day I get to overhear everyone's phone calls on the plane. It will really break up the monotony of crying babies.
- artursapek 15y agoPeople used to complain about that actually. I remember hearing a radio debate on why phones should be allowed back in like 2005, and the counter arguments I can recall were: • People hate having to listen to 1-sided conversations • The phones were confusing the network - they would switch to a new cell tower every 15-30 seconds. Both valid arguments if you ask me. Not sure if these complaints were drawn from reality or hypothetical problems - was there a period of time when you could actually use your phone on a plane? I'm pretty young so I don't remember back to the first cell phones.
- excuse-me 15y agoWould it be overly cynical of me to suspect that the original ban had something to do with the $5 charge for the seat back phone and the new policy has something to do with the $5 seat back wifi?
- spa942 15y agoHow about acknowledging that the rules may be overreaching, yet be thankful that the airline industry likes to err on the side of safety?
- mikeash 15y agoThe risk of dying in an airliner crash in the US is now literally too small to measure. I think we can afford to loosen up a bit.
- excuse-me 15y agoI would love the airlines to err on safety. By making the seats out of a fire resistant non-toxic foam, before they were made to after a series of accidents. By fitting smoke hoods nearly 50 years after is they were first recommended. And by the FAA spending a 0.1% of what the TSA costs on weather radar at small airports .....
- xpose2000 15y agoI presume more people than just me keep their phones or devices on at all times during the flight. Therefore, due to extensive end-user testing. We have deemed all devices safe to use.
- Anechoic 15y agoTherefore, due to extensive end-user testing. We have deemed all devices safe to use. Not at all: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=22383605#p22383605 http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=22383605#p22383...
- tomjen3 15y agoYou should put in in airplane mode, since it will drain the battery otherwise (at least if it is a 3g ipad). But yeah, it is 2012 get with the program.
- TamDenholm 15y agoThere must be a smarter way of doing it than have 1 flight and 1 device. Surely they could take 10 devices and if there was no interference thats 10 cleared and if there was an interference, they could then break up the that batch into separate flights. I'm sure there are also other ways to make this more efficient?
- viraptor 15y agoThis is assuming that when you put those devices in the same area, there will be no interaction between them, no amplification, no cancelling out, etc. A better question to ask would be probably: should they test multiple devices in addition to single samples in order to catch more interaction patterns?
- sophacles 15y agoI'm kind of amused by the number of comments on this thread that amount to "all the devices that meet the standard are still required to be tested in situ? lol wat!?". Yet, this is the same place that advocates heavy test driven development practices, which include testing your code against libraries that meet standards, testing that the libraries actually do the right thing when you use them, and personally verifying that sites work on all browsers, even if automated compliance checkers approve them. Isn't the FAA essentially doing the same thing here?
- mgkimsal 15y agoI wouldn't compare this to TDD - the devices would have been built to 'test' specs the FAA puts out, testing via an FAA process would be a regular, repeatable things manufacturers could perform regularly, for a fee perhaps. And... clients/bosses complain when testing takes a long time, which is what we're doing here to the FAA. Given how many flights happen, with a variety of devices, you might think that with some extra devices and controlled test procedures, the FAA would be able to gather 'real world' test data (their devices, their tests, real flights, etc.) and make conclusions over the past 3-5 years. MAYBE... then issue guidelines (or even paid-for device approval processes). Would Apple pay a few million to get an 'FAA-approved' sticker for iPads and iPhones? If there were specified guidelines and a testing procedure, more companies might work in that direction. I'd imagine there are guidelines, but not being in that industry, I don't know how easy to access they are. If there were public knowledge, I'd imagine device manufacturers already promoting "meets FAA guidelines for xyz", but since we don't see that, I have to assume they're not easily accessible.
- mkopinsky 15y agoTesting code is important because we know, from previous experience, that code written by humans tends to have bugs. In this case, we also know from experience that small devices like iPads do not cause high levels of EMI. Once we have tested a dozen models on a dozen planes and had successful results on all 144 tests, there is no need to test further models. This is unlike software, where of 144 unit tests, a good percentage are almost guaranteed to fail at some point in time.
- excuse-me 15y agoSo logically either: There is a danger from these devices but 1, nobody has ever switched on an iPad/phone/ebook reader/tamogochi/iPod on a flight in the US - ever. Or 2, planes crash all the time but the government keeps it secret. Alternatively an ebook reader doesn't emit enough RF to crash a 737. On a recent Alaskan airlines flight you were allowed to use the $5 in flight WiFi - but Bluetooth devices were banned. That's some pretty specific interference!
- burgerbrain 15y agoOne wonders why the terrorists don't just buy a GNU Radio and a dish, and start dropping airplanes like flies.
- spa942 15y agoThe airplanes wouldn't drop like flies, but you could probably make a plane divert in bad weather by jamming the NAV frequencies.
- tomjen3 15y ago2) obviously. Why do you think we keep hearing about the obesity epidemic? Being fat is not dangerous, it is a cover-up.
- viraptor 15y ago3. World isn't black & white and most/all devices fit well below the threshold required to disturb any current system. (Potential) Issues start happening only in specific configurations / under specific conditions.
- silentscope 15y agoI actually kind of like that there's no phones--it keeps the people around you from talking your ear off for hours while you're trapped next to them. But I believe it really is a "Because I said so" kind of deal.
- phillco 15y ago> For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane. I still think that could be a great differentiator. "Virgin: We don't care when you use your Kindle. Or your iPad". Too bad it's too expensive. Also...having to do dedicated test flights seems very inefficient. What if they just bought 100 iPads and gave them to everyone on randomly selected flights? They'd let the passengers use them for an hour (enough to watch three episodes of The Office), take them back for another hour, and compare the radio quality. It'd be great -- they'd get some serious stress testing, have relatively low fixed costs, and it'd make the customers happy. (They could even give the iPads away afterwards to rewards customers as gifts.) Hmm, I guess it'd be not so cool if the devices actually did cause the planes to crash.
- darkstar999 15y agoThey can't let passengers test the devices: "For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane."
- rmc 15y agoThey cannot test them on a live plane with live people. Imagine if something did go wrong, and it crashed the plane. What official wants to say "Oops". Performing the tests would be insanely bad PR. An official has to approach someone going on a flight and say "we think this device will crash the plane, but We're not sure, would you mind playing with it during theft flight so we can see if the plane you're on falls out of the sky?". Panic would ensue.
- lizzard 15y agoThey have been testing them for the past few years simply by allowing them on flights.
- VBprogrammer 15y agoIn the UK I often fly Ryanair who due to falling under the Irish Aviation Authority have been allowing the use of electronic devices while the fasten seat-belt light is of (although, not phones) for several years.
- edtechdev 15y agoPilots themselves now are receiving iPads from their employers to use for flight checklists and so forth. There's a whole market for flight related apps. So that's probably another factor in why the FAA is finally moving on this issue, since passengers would complain if they couldn't use iPads but the crew could.
- projektx 15y agoI think the real driver here is software based avionics, a glass cockpit on your iPad. http://www.padgadget.com/2011/08/07/aspen-avionics-brings-the-ipad-to-the-cockpit/ http://www.padgadget.com/2011/08/07/aspen-avionics-brings-th...
- lutorm 15y agoI find this funny because if you are a private pilot, there's this: http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=iChart http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=iChart If the FAA is fine with me sitting in the left seat with an iPad strapped to my knee, within a foot of the avionics, it's baffling that there would be an issue with passenger flights.
- hyperbovine 15y agoMaybe it's the 150 iPads vs. one they're concerned about.
- mkopinsky 15y agoa) How many passengers are in your plane? I doubt this would be approved for Part 121 or Part 135 travel. b) If something goes wrong with your avionics, you can turn off the iPad. If something goes wrong on an airliner, the pilot can't quite as easily figure out whose iPad is causing the trouble.
- mattieuga 15y agoWhy is the first officer sitting on the left?
- arohner 15y agoHow about we just take the empirical test. I know I often forget to turn off my iphone on the plane (1 out of 5 times I fly). I'm not alone, and there are 100+ people on the plane. Odds are very good that we have thousands of hours of real world tests with a dozen phones turned on. If this were actually a serious problem for the plane, there would already be a sensor for this. "Sir, there's something emitting radiation in your pants".
- niels_olson 15y agoGuys, look, this is what test pilots are for. They get paid the big bucks, because they occasionally fall out of the sky. The electronic emissions on a 767 are already more complex than any simulation could ever predict. If they were going to fall out of the sky because of emissions, it would have happened already, without a single phone on board. Now, that's with hundreds of channels running right next to each other in cable bundles. You're talking about tiny emissions from tiny devices, a couple layers of shielding away. There's no way they can anticipate every combination of everything else involved, but I'm pretty sure those cable bundles pose a far greater problem on every flight, every day, than your cell phone ever will. And I'm pretty certain vast numbers of passengers have left their cell phones on during take off and landing, and there's no, zero, zip incidents of a plane falling out of the sky because of it.
- powera 15y agoThis entire argument is just stupidity. Nobody disputes that there have ALREADY been tens of thousands of these electronic devices left on in the past year with no noticeable interference. No expert (and your friend that heard someone say they saw some interference once doesn't count) seriously believes there is any way these could cause significant interference. But the government has to mandate the most expensive testing program known to man because nobody in a position of decision making is allowed to consider any reasons why an iPad might be different than a raygun or a Van de Graaff generator or a live tiger.
- tolmasky 15y agoCan't we just start a kickstarter project to buy out all the seating on the required number of flights to test each of these devices?
- frasertimo 15y agoOh my god. Rolls eyes. I believe that the ban on electronic devices during take off, taxi and landing is completely unnecessary and founded on paranoia. I think the ban should be overturned as much as the next person. BUT. Do you really have to claim that you're off to buy a STACK of magazines to read in this time? Are you that incapable of sitting unstimulated in your seat for a few minutes each time you fly?