AA policy or FAA policy that no electronics can be plugged in during take off?
Dec 18, 2010, 1:24 pm
#16
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,698
From E Ink themselves:
Electronic ink is ideally suited for EPDs as it is a reflective technology which requires no front or backlight, is viewable under a wide range of lighting conditions, including direct sunlight, and requires no power to maintain an image.
Dec 18, 2010, 6:16 pm
#18
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 6,769
It is against policy to turn on a wireless device in flight if the wireless function cannot be turned off, unless of course, they are selling wifi 
in which case by all means power that thing up. I don't know how much of it is FAA vs. AA but passengers see how much of a farce it is and its just frustrating.
in which case by all means power that thing up. I don't know how much of it is FAA vs. AA but passengers see how much of a farce it is and its just frustrating.This isn't correct. Power is only used to refresh the screen. No power is drawn to maintain the e-ink in place.
From E Ink themselves:
(emphasis added)
From E Ink themselves:
(emphasis added)
Per the description of electrophoretic displays, you need a constant electric field to maintain the TiO2 particles in the proper position. There are going to be losses and some power must be dissipated to keep the field constant. I assume this is going to be very low, but still non-zero. Could this be what brp is referring to?
The e-ink page probably rounds down the power to zero.
This is all academic because our nervous systems probably gives off more radiation than a static e-ink display, and we can't power that one off.
Dec 18, 2010, 6:48 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Yes, I am aware some people don't understand my sense of humor.
I am not really going to bring a Roku on the plane. After all you use them instead of using a PC to get to the internet. With a laptop with me, I have no need for Roku on a plane. What I can't figure out is why a lot of FA"s don't seem to notice bright PC lights flashing on some PCs while taxiing, when the plane is rather dark.. Uh... if the light is flashing, something is on...
I am not really going to bring a Roku on the plane. After all you use them instead of using a PC to get to the internet. With a laptop with me, I have no need for Roku on a plane. What I can't figure out is why a lot of FA"s don't seem to notice bright PC lights flashing on some PCs while taxiing, when the plane is rather dark.. Uh... if the light is flashing, something is on...
Dec 18, 2010, 7:14 pm
#20
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,888
I agree that it can be difficult to notice a flashing light in the OH bin, or under the seat in front of the customer
Dec 18, 2010, 7:55 pm
#21
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Maybe these electronic impulses are disruptive to the aircraft's ampullae of Lorenzini? Or is it only the 787 that wil have these?
Dec 18, 2010, 8:44 pm
#22
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC/PSP
Programs: AA EXP, A3 Gold
Posts: 4,106
Dec 18, 2010, 9:44 pm
#23
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Amb Elite & LT Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,230
Since all the pre-flight checks were posted.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers.
I love the random rules that FA's come up with.
On my AE flight last week, the FA actually told us that we could not have water bottles or newpapers in the seat back pockets. Not only did she say it, she went down the row and checked everyone and made them take out water bottles and newspapers.
I love the random rules that FA's come up with.
Dec 18, 2010, 10:26 pm
#24
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,598
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section. So this could put the compliance burden on the airline and not the offending pax. So the best the pilot could do would be to refuse to perform the flight or remove the pax. (See Josh Duhamel)
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight?
Anyone out there with more FAR experience who could provide more insight?
Dec 19, 2010, 8:51 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SJC
Programs: AA EXP, BA Silver, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 33,535
And, yes, that minuscule power dissipation was what I was referring to. Academic, to be sure.
Cheers.
Dec 19, 2010, 9:25 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: FLL
Programs: AA EXP 1MM, Hyatt Diamond, HH Diamond, Marriott Silver, Avis First
Posts: 419
I'm still trying to find where the FARs state pax must comply with FA instruction to shut off all electronic devices. Many sections, including those pertaining to smoking and seat belts, have a specific clause stating a requirement to comply with crewmember instruction. But those clauses apply to only the requirements of that specific section. I have yet to find a general clause to comply with crewmembers and there is not a section in 121.306 that requires compliance with crewmebers when instructed to comply with 121.306. So this makes me wonder if the FARs provide crewmembers with the "teeth" to enforce this section.
§ 121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff.
(i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments.
(i) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited including, but not limited to, any applicable requirements of part 252 of this title). This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items. The briefing shall also include a statement that Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying any smoke detector in an airplane lavatory; smoking in lavatories; and, when applicable, smoking in passenger compartments.
In any case, the FAA doesn't have the ability to hold someone criminally responsible for a violation of the FARs in the first place. Violations of the FARs go before an administrative law judge, which is not the same as a real trial.
I suspect they can try to throw this at you, which would be criminal, but I think it would a stretch for an electronic device:
Interference With Flight Crew Members or Flight Attendants—49 U.S.C. 46504
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant. See United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 941, 507 U.S. 998 (1993); United States v. Meeker, supra, 527 F.2d at 14. While attempted aircraft piracy and interference with flight crew can both be charged in the same indictment, if convicted on both charges, the defendant should be sentenced only under the attempted aircraft piracy conviction because, absent highly unusual circumstances, the interference with flight crew charge is the lesser included offense. See United States v. Compton, supra, 5 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Calloway, 116 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 324 (1997); United States v. Figueroa, 666 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982).
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant. See United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 941, 507 U.S. 998 (1993); United States v. Meeker, supra, 527 F.2d at 14. While attempted aircraft piracy and interference with flight crew can both be charged in the same indictment, if convicted on both charges, the defendant should be sentenced only under the attempted aircraft piracy conviction because, absent highly unusual circumstances, the interference with flight crew charge is the lesser included offense. See United States v. Compton, supra, 5 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Calloway, 116 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 324 (1997); United States v. Figueroa, 666 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982).
Dec 19, 2010, 3:25 pm
#27
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The regulations require that all passenger carry-on items be stowed for taxi, takeoff, and landing. If you have a charger out then it, and probably the item that is being charged, is not stowed.
That is true. Some months ago the FAA issued guidance clarifying the carry-on rules which emphasized that passenger carry-on items are not considered stowed when placed in the seat-back pocket.
That is true. Some months ago the FAA issued guidance clarifying the carry-on rules which emphasized that passenger carry-on items are not considered stowed when placed in the seat-back pocket.
Dec 19, 2010, 6:16 pm
#28
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,698
Electronic paper on Wikipedia
Per the description of electrophoretic displays, you need a constant electric field to maintain the TiO2 particles in the proper position. There are going to be losses and some power must be dissipated to keep the field constant. I assume this is going to be very low, but still non-zero. Could this be what brp is referring to?
Per the description of electrophoretic displays, you need a constant electric field to maintain the TiO2 particles in the proper position. There are going to be losses and some power must be dissipated to keep the field constant. I assume this is going to be very low, but still non-zero. Could this be what brp is referring to?
It is capable of holding text and images indefinitely without drawing electricity, while allowing the image to be changed later.
Dec 19, 2010, 7:49 pm
#29
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Encino, CA USA
Programs: AA EP
Posts: 136
I've always wondered: Can I have my FAA approved portable transceiver (being a pilot) on during taxi, takeoff, and landing? What about an FAA approved GPS?
Dec 19, 2010, 8:23 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 6,769
I don't read anything in that article that indicates that a charge is necessary to hold the TiO2 in place; simply that it moves when electricity is applied. It's possible that the image would eventually degrade without power, but everything I've seen is that electricity is only actually used to modify the page.
Here's a more technical paper on electrophoretic displays. The micro-capsules will have leakage (check out section 3.1.2) that although small, will consume power. It's four orders of magnitude smaller than switching pixel states, but it is something engineers consider when designing. It's still tiny, but leakage is an issue in many memory systems, such as DRAM and SRAM. It wastes power; in the worst case, you lose data.
Now you did say you buy that the image may degrade. Well, in that case, yeah, I suppose you could have no power consumption if you just said to heck with everything and let the image do what it wants. I was supposing that if the image was held static like in a device's screensaver mode.
But I'm no EPD expert, so don't take my word for any of this. I just read it 5 minutes ago.
