JetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14447 times:
The FAA has sent an official letter to an author, as he had is IPad on during takeoff. He was able to capture the video of the recent DL birdstrike out of JFK.
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13944 times:
That "Official" LETTER could be a precursor to an actual Penalty. And FAA fines START at $10,000 and could include Jail Time.
You might think the rule is Stupid But if you've got $10K to throw around?? Don't stop.. And when the FAA places him on a NO FLY list then it'll cost him 5X as much to get OFF of it.. He could have reported the story without the cell phone since none of you KNOWS the frequency ISN'T going to effect the Navigation... The FAA has already gone from 50Hz nav and comm Freq spacing down to 8 Hz over the last 29 years. and the wireless companies are still crying for More Bandwidth . Somebody has to follow the rules whether you like them or NOT!!
Especially if you DON'T know whether you're infringing into a safety area. You Don't, and He Didn't. The Feds should have "Socked it to Him"..
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19705 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13899 times:
I suspect the FAA took a dimmer view of this because his name was all over the video on YouTube, and he appeared to be using it as some sort of promotional device for himself.
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3): That "Official" LETTER could be a precursor to an actual Penalty.
No, that's going to be the end of it as far as he's concerned (unless it happens again, in which case they'll be harsher on him).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13764 times:
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): Does everyone who posts a video get a letter?
If everyone had their Cell phone or 4G iPad on, it could be a problem. The issue is the aircraft must be certified to be safe or it must be disallowed. It isn't an issue of one or 10% or some small number. But all (with wifi, bluetooth, 4G, texting, video, etc.) But as you noted:
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): That said, the rule is the rule and it is not up to the passenger to decide what rules to follow.
That is the rule. I do not like turning off my book (Kindle), but I do. It has wifi and I'm not sure what a hundred plus wifi+cell phones+other electronics could do on a freak chance.
The rule is to prove less than a 10^-7 chance of a serious impact. If the electronic makers want to pay to certify with each aircraft type, they are welcome to.
Seriously, the penalty is a letter that is valid for two years and then disappears (unless the author keeps the letter). This isn't a big deal.
csavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1331 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13635 times:
Also consider that if there is a rejected take-off or similar emergency, those I-pads, Kindles what have you can go flying and really hurt someone. I sure as hell don't want someone with face stuck in a kindle sitting behind me.
You might ask then why not ban books, especially hard covers. Good question!!!
probably because they were grandfathered in and with a book, even a hardcover, if it goes flying the likelihood is that the covers and pages will spread out, thus slowing down the momentum.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13445 times:
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 1): more importantly, no danger is created.
Quoting FlyBlue777 (Reply 2): This is just ridiculous, and laughable.
Because you are more qualified than the certification authorities to make this judgement? Please elaborate on these qualifications.
I have been in the cockpit when electronic devices interfered with displays, instruments, and automation. Have you?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6): The issue is the aircraft must be certified to be safe or it must be disallowed.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6): The rule is to prove less than a 10^-7 chance of a serious impact. If the electronic makers want to pay to certify with each aircraft type, they are welcome to.
That really is the bottom line: their operation is disallowed during flight close to the terrain (and in certain cases altogether) because the manufacturers of the electronics are absolutely uninterested in playing certification costs, costs that would be incurred every time there was a change to the design.
737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13127 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?
From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA. That is one reason why the airline issues the ipads to the flight crews and the pilots just don't go out and buy their own. Additionally each airline had to demonstrate to the FAA that the ipads caused no interference when used, and the test was done on each model the airline operates.
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12682 times:
Quoting 737tanker (Reply 11): From what my airline has told us the ipads used by the flight crew are built separately and have been certified by the FAA. That is one reason why the airline issues the ipads to the flight crews and the pilots just don't go out and buy their own. Additionally each airline had to demonstrate to the FAA that the ipads caused no interference when used, and the test was done on each model the airline operates.
I'm calling BS on that one... There are multiple reasons why it makes sense for the airlines to buy then distribute than having the pilots bring there own.
* They cant expect their pilots go out and pay ~$500-$750 for something they will be required to use for said airline.
* Discounted in bulk orders (assuming apple final gave a discount)
* Tailored programs can be installed with the iOS as a package
* Its a lot easier to mass upload all the related programs as the ipads are coming off the production line than to have every dick and Jane bring their personal ipads in and add all the software one by one.
I use my ipad on all of my flights with foreflight, yet I bought it off the shelf at target. The fact that I can fly any plane I want under part 91 and use an ipad for the sole means of all my navigational charts and planning and in doing so be completely legal yet the same exact ipad I'm using in my seat outside of the cockpit could cause interference is complete and utter BS...
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8):
Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?
Yes, any ipad can be used one way or another as a cockpit tool. Under part 91 (General flights) they are certified to be used as the sole replacement of ALL paper charts and planning. They also have a GPS component to them for use as reference only (not to be used as sole navigation) which will transpose an aircraft onto any sectional chart, Low/High enroute chart and all approach plates.
For any commercial operation, an individual company must submit to the FAA a request to use them and then will be certified to do so. I'm not sure what the FAA's definition of an Electronic flight bag is, but at the minimum, it allows the operation to go paperless for at least all of the charts.
The process, in short, is submitting your plans on how you intend to use them, how you will train your crews on them and the applicable changes in the SOPS. Foreflight can be used for Part 135 ops I believe (not 100% sure on this though), however I'm assuming due to the nature of part 121 flying, there is a separate program the majors use. I think one of the requirement for the commercial operators is that there must be two ipads on and in the cockpit while flying for redundancy.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19705 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12644 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13): I'm calling BS on that one... There are multiple reasons why it makes sense for the airlines to buy then distribute than having the pilots bring there own.
The biggest being that there are only certain applications that can be loaded onto the iPad (the FAA doesn't want pilots playing Angry Birds inflight). So whatever iPad is used as an EFB isn't going to be much good outside the cockpit, and thus it wouldn't make sense for the pilots to buy their own (they'd have to buy two - one for personal use and one for the plane).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
And it can be done with any iOS devices. Launch the program, and create a new configuration profile. Using the "Restrictions" tab, set whatever restrictions are appropriate (eg, disallow iTunes Store, installing apps, etc). Then either email the profile, or assign it to a connected iPad.
We've done it ourselves numerous times for various purposes.
DTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12458 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): Because you are more qualified than the certification authorities to make this judgement? Please elaborate on these qualifications.
And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule? Did they see any aircraft go down due to electronic devices?
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): I have been in the cockpit when electronic devices interfered with displays, instruments, and automation. Have you?
They must have interfered with the displays, but are you sure those interferences were due to electronic devices in the back of the plane? Also can you please elaborate how a digital camera interferes with displays and automation in the cockpit?
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12403 times:
Is It really that hard to follow a rule for a half hour until you can get your precious electronic device back?
I've been up front when our avionics were interfered with, and yes, it was a PED causing the interference. Until the FAA sees fit to change this rule, why risk anything? It's just a few minutes. Drop the electronic device, enjoy the view. It'll be good for you.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12324 times:
Quoting mmedford (Reply 8): Isn't the ipad certified by the FAA for flight? or is that only special ones?
Apple absolutely refuses to consider certifying the iPad, iPhone or any other device for flight. As do all the other equipment manufacturers.
Today a tiny percentage of the completed devices are tested to see if the actually meet the FCC standards for emissions.
To be certified for flight, every single device will have to be tested. This would of course increase the cost of devices significantly - and more importantly make the device manufacturer liable if it was proven to cause an aircraft crash.
But more importantly from the manufacturer viewpoint - any aviation certified device would automatically make them a defendant in the scatter shoot lawsuits that come after a crash. Even if the device had nothing to do with the crash - the company would still be sued and spend millions of dollars on defense.
The devices used in the cockpit are to be only loaded with certain programs and to not be WiFi, GPS/, or 3/4G enabled except under very specific conditions while in the aircraft.
.
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule?
Certification of electronic devices is an FCC responsibility/ authority - not an FAA one.
The FAA requires additional testing of FCC certified devices to ensure they are individually tested to ensure that every single one passes the FCC emissions tests.
Again - back to the basic point - the manufacturers are not willing to certify their devices.
Frankly, it is a good idea because the number of out of spec devices is very small, but still significant enough to be a manufacturing problem if they have to up their QA to 99.5% or higher compliance testing.
How good do you thing the manufacturing QA is? Have your every had a problem with such a device, or personally known someone with a problem device?
DTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12268 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 18): An aircraft going down is not the standard the FAA uses, and thankfully so.
Agreed, so how did they come up with the rule?
And of late, most of the security rules have been in reaction to an incident; after something has happened.
fxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, RR: 93 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12228 times:
Half the passengers keep phones,i-readers, notebooks turned on all the time. I'm sorry if it interfered with the espresso machine in the cockpit. FAA needs to work on a lot more important things that sending a letter to an author. Next.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12221 times:
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 20): so how did they come up with the rule?
There are two sources of the rule that I'm aware of.
One is long standing back to the early 70s that I remember - probably before - that passengers not have objects in their hands that can fly around an injure others if something happens during takeoff and landing. Also that passengers not have things around that could impede their need to evacuate the aircraft and get free of their seats.
For takeoff and landing - we are not supposed to have anything out. Yes, I know this rule is ignored for many items such as book or magazines. But it is still a rule.
The other is many documented cases of interference of aircraft instruments by electronic devices. Most of these are minor, but still they have been able to trace several to individual specific devices. The case documented by the company I used to work for in a private jet was determined by the FCC and RIM to be a QA issue at the plant which manufactured the Blackberry.
The general rule in aviation is "Unless the device is proven SAFE, it is not allowed."
The popular consensus is the opposite. As you note - many FAA rules are written in blood. This is a proactive approach which doesn't inconvenience anyone except a-holes who feel they are above the law.
But lest anyone feel I'm picking on them specifically, I'm not.
My basic point is that the QA in the manufacture process is not up to aviation standards. It is not the majority of in-spec devices that cause problems. It only takes one out of spec device to cause a problem.
robsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12134 times:
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16): And how did the certification authorities come up with this rule? Did they see any aircraft go down due to electronic devices?
Stop commenting on issues on which you have no expertise while you are ahead. Using faulty logic in your sarcastic response doesn't help your argument.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12111 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 13): Under part 91 (General flights) they are certified to be used as the sole replacement of ALL paper charts and planning. They also have a GPS component to them for use as reference only (not to be used as sole navigation) which will transpose an aircraft onto any sectional chart, Low/High enroute chart and all approach plates.
That's factually incorrect. How can a device be certified to replace charts that are never legally required to begin with. That's why one can use an iPad/whatever device to have charts for a Part 91 operation.
I'd suggest you check your facts next time.
-DiamondFlyer
Rock Chalk Jayhawk
25 catiii: Which goes to show how flipping stupid the rule is. My wife's Kindle weight 5.98 ounces. I am reading the new Robert Caro book on LBJ, and it weighs
26 kcljj: Disregarding all the merits of the rule, I think the FAA is right in issuing the letter. I think that even the FAA knows a good amount of people disre
27 catiii: Good post which cuts clearly to the heart of the matter.
28 EA CO AS: The FAA has taken this decisive action as the conclusions drawn from the video are clear and indisputable: iPads attract large birds.
30 zeke: I would like to see you prove the comment of "no danger", there is additional risk, however very minor. For example there has been a case where an iP
31 DiamondFlyer: Again, no approval required, as there is no regulatory requirement for charts to begin with. -DiamondFlyer
33 DiamondFlyer: Yes, for 121/135 carriers. For a true part 91 operation (other than subpart K), charts are never required, and as such, there would never be a way to
34 cmf: It is not up to anyone to prove it came from a certain device. It is up to whoever want to bring on a device to show it will not interfere. Everythin
35 Mir: Careful with the blanket statement - charts are legally required if you're operating a large or turbine-powered multi-engine airplane. See 91.503(a)(
36 DiamondFlyer: I forgot about those parts in the 500's. Regardless, John Q Public in his all weather interceptor C172 has no legal obligation to have any sort of ch
37 captainstefan: What I'd like to see is the FAA's response to a passenger who records the video of an incident on takeoff or landing, and the video turns out to be cr
38 JQflightie: And so he should have got a letter! I am a flight attendant and i am sick and tired of telling people to turn their devices off, especially when refue
39 DTWSXM: Well said JQ! I have commented on other threads showing videos of takeoff or landing. I specifically ask why they have an electronic device on. I am
40 Chimborazo: Did it combust because it was on at a time when it shouldn't have been? The inference here is that it was "worse" because it should've been switched
41 cpd: It's for that reason, and my experiences with unreliable iOS devices that all use of these kinds of devices during the landing or takeoff of a plane
42 etops1: Just follow the rules people.. How hard is that??
43 airbazar: He probably made a lot more money from the video and his appearance on TV. Imagine how much money the guys who filmed the LOT belly landing from the
44 tdscanuck: There absolutely is. It's not actually built separately (as in a separate production line) but there are FAA-certified iPads. Non-FAA certified iPads
45 nomadd22: Why would being GPS enabled be a problem? I didn't think any of these devices even used local oscillators any more that could potentiallly emit rf on
46 einsteinboricua: The problem I see with people following the rule (myself included) is that time and time again there is no evidence to have an electronic device turne
47 xdlx: Does anyone remember 9/11 ? How did the folks in the 4th airplane learned about their fate? Cell Phones!
48 cmdrcody: The FAA had to do it. If they didn't cite this guy after all the TV airplay of his unauthorized video, their rule would have no credibility. On the ot
49 Revo1059: ...in the end, for now the rule is the rule so either follow it or don't fly. Having said that............... It truly makes NO sense to me having peo
50 CALMSP: so, did the FAA go after MSNBC when they had video recordings when they sat in teh cockpit for their "A day in the life at AA"?? Um, I'll take $40 for
51 windshear: An IPad on flymode cannot be dangerous, 95% of all pilots have their cell phones ON and positioned neatly on the center console...! Ridiculous! Boaz.
52 nycjbird: So, I guess we need to be a reactionary society then? I think being proactive might be a better way to go. In the end it really amazes me how we have
53 xdlx: Part of the issue is exactly that.... the "Patronizing" the FAA provides. If they came out and said ... we know you may not like it, but this is the r
54 txjim: it's possible that the airline takes off-the-shelf hardware and has a continuous surveillance program to assure the emissions are within limits. Gene
55 SEA: The more important issue is, in my view, the fact that having an iPad out during the takeoff roll means that, were something to happen, you have a pot
56 tdscanuck: There is tons of evidence. The NASA reporting database has dozens of documented cases of interference, all the OEM's have documented it, most pilots
57 airbazar: Correct. I was saying that there is no such thing as a separately built iPad. It's the same stock iPad everyone buys at the store which is then has i
58 cmf: Having that extra altitude provide a lot of safety. The signals coming out of a device while locked to an AP and while scanning for an AP are very di
59 rfields5421: I though it was large ANGRY birds that the iPad attracts. That is pure BS. Any device can be dangerous. Batteries can and do overheat and start fires
60 Revo1059: No, 95% of devices scan when turned on until you select the network, plus the radio transmissions are no different, just the data in the transmission
61 PC12Fan: Sure they do. It's referred to as the blood rule.
62 cmf: Ever looked at the signals going out? They are not quietly scanning. They are not even kindly waiting for other devices to end their transmissions. O
63 BC77008: I'm an FA and I can attest that neither I nor your pilots care one iota if your electronic device is on or not. With that said, just please, please, d
64 nomadd22: I think the main thing that causes accuracy concerns isn't so much that one is just more accurate, but that the cheap GPSs most people use where sign
65 einsteinboricua: But then here's the thing: WHY is it only on the first 10k feet only? There is still ATC separation at cruising altitude where the pilot must acknowl
66 xero9: And now we know why the plane really crashed! /sarcasm
67 flightsimer: No its not. I said, that the ipad/foreflight is certified (approved if you dont like the word certifed) to replace any and all charts on part 91 flig
68 dl021: Speaking purely as a guy to whom Grant owes a hundred bucks, I'll say he deserved the letter, and probably ought to be fined. The rules were simple, h
69 OB1504: Speak for yourself. Even in a C172, that iPhone better be OFF during takeoff and landing.
70 fxramper: There is no study or ever have been that proved anything related to electronic devises interfering with a commercial jet that the FAA uses. The people
71 DiamondFlyer: Correct, but for simplicities sake, I just said part 91. A good chuck of part 91 operations don't require charts, and thus, would require no approval
72 lightsaber: Folks, The issue is one must *prove* that there is a less than 10^-7 chance that electronic devices won't interfere or they aren't allowed. It isn't g
73 tdscanuck: You need to draw the line somewhere. 10,000' is the normal line to let go of required seatbelt use, it's a sensible a place as any to draw the line f
74 catiii: Has a book? Or a bottle of water? Or any other loose object that weighs more than an iPad the FAA doesn't require be stowed?
75 DTWLAX: So why ban the use only upto 10K feet? Is there no interference above that?
76 web500sjc: It's an abritrary altitude above which the FAA is confident a problem caused by interference would be remedied before there is no way to avert a cras
77 catiii: I think that rule was established after the UA/TWA collision over Brooklyn in 1960, which followed two other mid-air collisions around that time peri
78 lightsaber: I should have put a or . I was kidding. Mea culpa. Lightsaber
79 catiii: Haha, no worries. Tough to infer tone on here.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 172 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
