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"..
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.