Quote:
But still floored with a wireless mouse.. wow..
How do you think the wireless mouse works? It's either bluetooth or some other radio communications between the mouse and the computer. I'm not saying that the rule makes any sense, but by definition, a wireless mouse is using some form of radio communications. It' snot magic pixie wishes making the cursor move around.Originally Posted by Ancien Maestro
Blue tooth I can understand..But still floored with a wireless mouse.. wow..
Suspended
Quote:
I agree..Originally Posted by hjohnson
How do you think the wireless mouse works? It's either bluetooth or some other radio communications between the mouse and the computer. I'm not saying that the rule makes any sense, but by definition, a wireless mouse is using some form of radio communications. It' snot magic pixie wishes making the cursor move around.
It just never occured to me a wireless mouse would cause interference.. but I can see the reasoning now..
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this work in the U.S., as it will impact other areas of the world as well (including Canada):
Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: August 27, 2012
Contact: Brie N. Sachse
Phone: (202) 267-3883
FAA Announces Plans for Industry Working Group to Study Portable Electronics Usage
WASHINGTON Given the widespread consumer use of portable electronic devices (PEDs), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is forming a government-industry group to study the current PED policies and procedures aircraft operators use to determine when these devices can be used safely during flight. Current FAA regulations require an aircraft operator to determine that radio frequency interference from PEDs are not a flight safety risk before the operator authorizes them for use during certain phases of flight.
With so many different types of devices available, we recognize that this is an issue of consumer interest, said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Safety is our highest priority, and we must set appropriate standards as we help the industry consider when passengers can use the latest technologies safely during a flight.
The government-industry group will examine a variety of issues, including the testing methods aircraft operators use to determine which new technologies passengers can safely use aboard aircraft and when they can use them. The group will also look at the establishment of technological standards associated with the use of PEDs during any phase of flight. The group will then present its recommendations to the FAA.
The group will not consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight.
Were looking for information to help air carriers and operators decide if they can allow more widespread use of electronic devices in todays aircraft, said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. We also want solid safety data to make sure tomorrows aircraft designs are protected from interference.
The governmentindustry group, established through an Aviation Rulemaking Committee, will be formally established this fall and will meet for six months. It will include representatives from the mobile technology and aviation manufacturing industries, pilot and flight attendant groups, airlines, and passenger associations.
As the first step in gathering information for the working group, the FAA is seeking public input on the agencys current PED policies, guidance and procedures for operators. The Request for Comments, which will appear in the Federal Register on August 28th, is part of a data-driven agency initiative to review the methods and criteria operators use to permit PEDs during flights.
The FAA is seeking comments in the following areas:
* Operational, safety and security challenges associated with expanding PED use.
* Data sharing between aircraft operators and manufacturers to facilitate authorization of PED use.
* Necessity of new certification regulations requiring new aircraft designs to tolerate PED emissions.
* Information-sharing for manufacturers who already have proven PED and aircraft system compatibility to provide information to operators for new and modified aircraft.
* Development of consumer electronics industry standards for aircraft-friendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation.
* Required publication of aircraft operators PED policies.
* Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
* Development of standards for systems that actively detect potentially hazardous PED emissions.
* Technical challenges associated with further PED usage, and support from PED manufacturers to commercial aircraft operators.
The request for comments will go on display later this week at the Federal Register. Comments can be filed up to 60 days after the Federal Register publish date. View the document at: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/medi..._8-27-2012.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: August 27, 2012
Contact: Brie N. Sachse
Phone: (202) 267-3883
FAA Announces Plans for Industry Working Group to Study Portable Electronics Usage
WASHINGTON Given the widespread consumer use of portable electronic devices (PEDs), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is forming a government-industry group to study the current PED policies and procedures aircraft operators use to determine when these devices can be used safely during flight. Current FAA regulations require an aircraft operator to determine that radio frequency interference from PEDs are not a flight safety risk before the operator authorizes them for use during certain phases of flight.
With so many different types of devices available, we recognize that this is an issue of consumer interest, said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Safety is our highest priority, and we must set appropriate standards as we help the industry consider when passengers can use the latest technologies safely during a flight.
The government-industry group will examine a variety of issues, including the testing methods aircraft operators use to determine which new technologies passengers can safely use aboard aircraft and when they can use them. The group will also look at the establishment of technological standards associated with the use of PEDs during any phase of flight. The group will then present its recommendations to the FAA.
The group will not consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight.
Were looking for information to help air carriers and operators decide if they can allow more widespread use of electronic devices in todays aircraft, said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. We also want solid safety data to make sure tomorrows aircraft designs are protected from interference.
The governmentindustry group, established through an Aviation Rulemaking Committee, will be formally established this fall and will meet for six months. It will include representatives from the mobile technology and aviation manufacturing industries, pilot and flight attendant groups, airlines, and passenger associations.
As the first step in gathering information for the working group, the FAA is seeking public input on the agencys current PED policies, guidance and procedures for operators. The Request for Comments, which will appear in the Federal Register on August 28th, is part of a data-driven agency initiative to review the methods and criteria operators use to permit PEDs during flights.
The FAA is seeking comments in the following areas:
* Operational, safety and security challenges associated with expanding PED use.
* Data sharing between aircraft operators and manufacturers to facilitate authorization of PED use.
* Necessity of new certification regulations requiring new aircraft designs to tolerate PED emissions.
* Information-sharing for manufacturers who already have proven PED and aircraft system compatibility to provide information to operators for new and modified aircraft.
* Development of consumer electronics industry standards for aircraft-friendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation.
* Required publication of aircraft operators PED policies.
* Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
* Development of standards for systems that actively detect potentially hazardous PED emissions.
* Technical challenges associated with further PED usage, and support from PED manufacturers to commercial aircraft operators.
The request for comments will go on display later this week at the Federal Register. Comments can be filed up to 60 days after the Federal Register publish date. View the document at: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/medi..._8-27-2012.pdf
Quote:
* Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
There's a perfectly rational reason to disallow the use of PEDs during takeoff and landing.* Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
Quote:
Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
The claim of "may interfere" is valid, the claim of "will interfere" can be challenged, but a "may interfere" is enough of a reason for the certifying and regulatory authorities to place restrictions on the use of PEDs in flight.Originally Posted by KenHamer
There's a perfectly rational reason to disallow the use of PEDs during takeoff and landing.Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
For aviation safety, a device has to be proven safe via the ARP4761 (in conjunction with ARP4754A at times) process - which is currently under a rewrite. Until a device has been proven to be safe, it is assumed to have some level of risk of not being safe.
Quote:
Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
Agree completely. Having people alert and not distracted by headphones in the event of an incident, which is most likely to occur on take-off or landing, and avoiding cables running around the place that people might trip over in an evacuation, not to mention flying laptops in the event of a crash, are excellent reasons to retain the rule.Originally Posted by KenHamer
There's a perfectly rational reason to disallow the use of PEDs during takeoff and landing.Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
Interference isn't.
Neil
Quote:
A lot of people seem to have an issue understanding the subtlety of proving that something does NOT cause interference as opposed to merely lacking evidence that it DOES cause interference.Originally Posted by jaysona
For aviation safety, a device has to be proven safe via the ARP4761 (in conjunction with ARP4754A at times) process - which is currently under a rewrite. Until a device has been proven to be safe, it is assumed to have some level of risk of not being safe.
Yes, it is a very low probability for most PEDs, but not zero. I'm only aware of a couple of tests that demonstrate some interference; one with cell phones in rather high transmit power states and placed extraordinarily close to aircraft wiring; and the other in a more accidental case in a private aircraft with a rather old portable AM/FM radio (the local oscillator apparently generating harmonics interfering with the aircraft radio).
I think the issue will be a partially opening of the rules may lead to a flood-gates wide-open mentality for what is brought aboard and used on aircraft.
Quote:
Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
+1. Has anyone notice flying on any American airline, the FAs are more Nazi like trying to get passengers to turn it off?Originally Posted by KenHamer
There's a perfectly rational reason to disallow the use of PEDs during takeoff and landing.Claiming that the devics will interfere with navigation electronics is not.
Quote:
BA als well. Of course there is commonly also a big difference in expectations for F vs Y passengers!Originally Posted by cuto
+1. Has anyone notice flying on any American airline, the FAs are more Nazi like trying to get passengers to turn it off?
Also it seems that bloggers writing trip reports and tourists posting on you tube about there vacations are issued with "special" non-interfering video cameras and cell phones
This is one of the disadvantages of flying in 1D or 2D on most of the narrow fleet as the FD can see you so you can’t use your PED 
. Flying to MCO last week and sitting with the family in row 31 was great as you can use your PED without the F/A seeing so you can record memories and make those you tube videos 
After all it's not uncommon for F/A to be sitting after all passengers are buckled in checking their smartphones for messages also!
. Flying to MCO last week and sitting with the family in row 31 was great as you can use your PED without the F/A seeing so you can record memories and make those you tube videos After all it's not uncommon for F/A to be sitting after all passengers are buckled in checking their smartphones for messages also!
Quote:
Actually, quite the opposite. Whenever I fly US or Canadian airlines, I am well, not horrified, but concerned how blatant cell phone use (for voice comms) is ignored by the FAs well after the 'phones off' message is given; including for new calls dialled out. I assume they turn a blind eye for fear of alienating business pax.Originally Posted by cuto
+1. Has anyone notice flying on any American airline, the FAs are more Nazi like trying to get passengers to turn it off?
While having my doubts about what actual 'damage' the phones may have until actually rolling to take-off, I wonder at what other rules the FAs are ignoring or not enforcing and the culture of the airline given over in its crew training.
On Asian/Pacific airlines such as SQ, QF, DJ and NZ, after a small tolerance period after the announcement, especially for J pax, phone users are mostly politely and variably firmly asked to turn off. Yes, exceptions do occur, but rare in my experience.
Many airlines in China do not allow any phone usage even in airplane mode the entire flight!
I think it is time we get passed this, if it caused any significant interference, they would not allow phones on board. There is no way to check if all the passengers have them on or off anyway.
I think it is time we get passed this, if it caused any significant interference, they would not allow phones on board. There is no way to check if all the passengers have them on or off anyway.
If we've just aborted a takeoff due to an impact with something or a landing gear collapsed I imagine the stop will be rather abrupt and things will go flying towards the front of the plane so 2 things come to mind re PEDs
- Flight attendants manning the emergency exits won't get hurt by flying paper but a hard edged PED projectile could do some damage to them and nearby passengers.
- with all that paper and booze at the front of the airplane strewn about, - is there a fire risk from damaged PEDs that may emit sparks or impact IFE screens or kitchenette control panels which in turn could spark?
I'm also concerned with build standards and QC on the PEDs and how you would control them. Just because one device is approved, what guarantee is there that a later version of that same device has the same electrical/electronic components or the same different QC stds. Maybe the new unit has bigger batteries or less safety protocols (especially after market stuff). An airline would need a complete new infrastructure just to manage what is and isn't allowed.
- Flight attendants manning the emergency exits won't get hurt by flying paper but a hard edged PED projectile could do some damage to them and nearby passengers.
- with all that paper and booze at the front of the airplane strewn about, - is there a fire risk from damaged PEDs that may emit sparks or impact IFE screens or kitchenette control panels which in turn could spark?
I'm also concerned with build standards and QC on the PEDs and how you would control them. Just because one device is approved, what guarantee is there that a later version of that same device has the same electrical/electronic components or the same different QC stds. Maybe the new unit has bigger batteries or less safety protocols (especially after market stuff). An airline would need a complete new infrastructure just to manage what is and isn't allowed.
Quote:
- Flight attendants manning the emergency exits won't get hurt by flying paper but a hard edged PED projectile could do some damage to them and nearby passengers.
- with all that paper and booze at the front of the airplane strewn about, - is there a fire risk from damaged PEDs that may emit sparks or impact IFE screens or kitchenette control panels which in turn could spark?
I'm also concerned with build standards and QC on the PEDs and how you would control them. Just because one device is approved, what guarantee is there that a later version of that same device has the same electrical/electronic components or the same different QC stds. Maybe the new unit has bigger batteries or less safety protocols (especially after market stuff). An airline would need a complete new infrastructure just to manage what is and isn't allowed.
While I generally agree with this, I suggest taking a soft cover book, and with a little force, smack yourself with its spine. Now imagine that in one of your aborted takeoff scenarios. I'm not convinced my phone hitting you in the face would hurt any more than a book. And let's not even get into hardcover...Originally Posted by Wrong Way
If we've just aborted a takeoff due to an impact with something or a landing gear collapsed I imagine the stop will be rather abrupt and things will go flying towards the front of the plane so 2 things come to mind re PEDs - Flight attendants manning the emergency exits won't get hurt by flying paper but a hard edged PED projectile could do some damage to them and nearby passengers.
- with all that paper and booze at the front of the airplane strewn about, - is there a fire risk from damaged PEDs that may emit sparks or impact IFE screens or kitchenette control panels which in turn could spark?
I'm also concerned with build standards and QC on the PEDs and how you would control them. Just because one device is approved, what guarantee is there that a later version of that same device has the same electrical/electronic components or the same different QC stds. Maybe the new unit has bigger batteries or less safety protocols (especially after market stuff). An airline would need a complete new infrastructure just to manage what is and isn't allowed.
The problem is that the rules are inconsistent. There is no chance that my tablet in airplane mode is going to interfere with the equipment more than the phone in someone's bag that they forgot to turn off. And it's not going to hurt any more than a large book if it flies across the cabin. If the ban is for fear of projectiles, they need to ban all projectiles. Otherwise, there's no reason that something I'm allowed to use at cruising altitude should be disallowed while taxiing.