tenacioustins

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/bu...c-devices.html

I know this came out in August...I have not had time to be here much so I'm sure this has come up before here. What are your thoughts?

Here are my thoughts:

The flying objects is a serious safety issue.

On the other hand, half the people on a plane use PEDs anyway. If it was legalized, they'd just legalize something that someone was already doing.

I personally would vouch for all large objects to be stowed-laptops, tablets, kindles, etc. and for all cell phones to be on airplane mode, etc. but allow smaller PEDs and cameras. I am a "picture" person, I like to take pictures and videos of everything to document the trip since I don't travel very often. And even if I did, I would still document it because that is how I am. My one wish has always been that it was not illegal for me to get pictures/videos during takeoff.

However, I will understand if these rules are not lifted, because of the flying objects issue.

sparkchaser

I am not a fan of the current PED situation but it's far easier (and cheaper) to have a blanket limitation on PEDs than to test every single PED out there for EMI compliance.

milepig

Following your logic, we should ban all mushrooms since a few types cause death.

sparkchaser

Following this logic, portable electronic devices for sale have all been tested for EMI compliance with regards to avionics.

deniah

The (near-zero) likelihood of death from bathtub accidents is higher than the possible non-zero lijelihood death from EMI-caused accidents

So I wonder what precautions you take for the former case ?

kkjay77

Would the large objects include babies or hardcover books?
Those weigh more than Kindle, for example.

BTW, how hard would it be for FAA (or airlines) to say exact iPAD model AA is using (probably iPAD 2 wifi 16G version?) and say only that model is approved for use?
I don't understand why portable voice recorder or electric shaver (that hasn't been tested at all) can be used but not the thoroughly tested iPADs.

Yaatri

Shavers emit harmonics of the fundamental frequency and its harmonics. None of these frequencies are anywhere near the RF range. It's even below AM. Moreover, shavers are not designed for the purpose of transmitting electromagnetic waves. Any emission by a shaver is a consequence of rotation of its motor. Voice recorders also are not in the business of communicating via electromagnetic waves.

iPad in the cockpit are under direct control of the cockpit crew. Their use has limitations, such as only read only connection with data systems, and transmit/receive ability for AAC only. PAssengers are not allowed to do everything pilots needs to do.

Yaatri

An accident or whatever else that might happen in your bathtub is your business alone. What you do in an aircraft is not yours alone. That's the difference IMHO.

Risk maybe small under many situations, But it may not be zero all the time, as numerous anamolies, suspected to caused by EMI have been reported and compiled under ASRS. One of the ways of managing EMI is by controlling electromagnetic emissions. Think of energy of electromagnetic transmissions as a budget. You are only allowed so much. Various techniques, including emissions are employed to stay well within the budget. The EM budget is an important design parameter for all large commercial and defense platforms. There are many mechanisms via which electromagnetic signals can affect aircraft systems.

Yaatri

Except those specifically allowed by FCC or FAA, all PEDs have to be be tested and proven safe by the manufacturer. In case of medical PEDs, the guidance is that the airline is responsible for ensuring any PEDs it allows are not going to cause interference with aircraft systems and, it may not disallow use of medical PEds unless the PED is unsafe. Some CPAPs now carry a label that they meet the EMI specifications. The testing has to be done by the manufacturer and the data is evaluated by the airline. For a PED like a cell phone the situation is even more muddled. Even if a manufacturer conducts sufficient testing and the airline deems it EMI safe based on evaluation of the data submitted by the manufacturer, FCC still does not allow cell phones, neither does FAA. There is no reason for anyone, the manufacturer or the airlines to make the first move. If demand/pressure for allowing use of cell phone grows, the situation might change. I don;t see it happening anytime soon though. IMO until anamolies cases of suspected EMI have been resolved, I don't think anyone will say definitively that it's OK to allow use of cell phones.

deniah

people HAVE died slipping in bathtub. so its possible you will, too.
this is a personal question - what do you do? (because - and i presume - your stance on PED is atleast an effect of self-preservation, not altruism).

Yaatri

Yes, it's possible. But it won't take anyone else with me.
I am puzzled why you took such offence at my stand that it makes you speculate the mode of my death.
If you would permit me, I would like to make a correction. Very few people die while slipping. Most die after slipping, many after many days of post slipping hospitalisation.
Making assumptions about others is not a good practice. The reason for my stand is neither self preservation nor altruism. It's simply an understanding from education in the field of electromagnetism and experience in evaluating and advising on scientific/technical issues practiced with a common sense. It's also what is currently allowed. As to to what I do, don't believe I have to answer that. The hint is in my words above. What about yourself?

planeluvr

We all know what happen to Oceanic Flight 815. That is enough proof for me.

quick_dry

You said this in my other thread, but shavers are noted as a source of analog TV interference on VHF channels (by other sources and by my own experience).


Can you explain what you mean here please? Are these 'data systems' information/programs on the iPad already, a wired connection from iPad to something else, or wireless from something to the iPad?

deniah

You absolutely don't have to answer anything. And beside, my question was not to satisfy morbid curiosity, but to draw out the hypocrisy in attitudes towards flying safety.

As for me personally, I take no extraordinary caution getting in the tub, touring in the rain, eating food in the street, getting in a vehicle in cairo, riding a scooter in jakarta, bicycling in texas, or even flying myself in a C152.... all of which *guarantees* higher risk of fatality than commercial flying (regardless of cause!)

Hence I find it utterly silly to be so worried about whether a seatmate shut off his ipad or mobile phone properly. It's been posted here that some people absolutely refuse to wear flip-flops or non-cotton clothing in case of fire and emergency evac. Its not a practice of extraneous effort, and theyre all within their rights to feel that way. But getting in a plane isnt exactly like russian roulette, so its hard not to have a laugh at the whole thing.

Personally speaking, of course.

docbert

Shavers are allowed during takeoff and landing? Since when?