| reply to Krisnatharok
Re: Turning devices off while on a plane? Lots of conflicting "technical" opinions about the use of the devices interfering with the plane's operation. Me, I don't know enough to make an independent judgment about it. I just follow the rules.
One thing I know is that of the three aircraft that crashed into the twin towers or Pentagon, a lot of the poor passengers were on their phones constantly prior to the final heinous act. Nevertheless, the low-level-skilled terrorists and killers flying the planes didn't seem to have any problems navigating or operating the aircraft successfully. |
|
 EGeezerGo CatsPremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:A Mets cap isn't going to bring a plane down.
I don't know about that. I've seen them play. 
--
Follow your dreams, except the one where you're naked in church. |
|
 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to Krisnatharok
FAA Approves iPads in Cockpits--but not for passengers!
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that pilots on American Airlines flights would be allowed to use iPads instead of paper flight manuals in the cockpit starting Friday, as reported by ZDNet, even during takeoff and landing. But, passengers are still required to shut down anything with the slightest electronic pulse from the moment a plane leaves the gate until it reaches an altitude of 10,000 feet.
The rule barring passengers from using a Kindle, an iPad, or even a calculator, were originally made to protect the electronics of an aircraft from interference. Yet pilots with iPads will be enclosed in the cockpit just a few inches from critical avionics on a plane.
There is some thought that the rule disallowing devices during takeoff and landing was made to insure passengers paid attention. The F.A.A. has never claimed this. (If this was the case, passengers would not be allowed to have books, magazines or newspapers during takeoff and landing.)
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | said by Krisnatharok:(I think the NYT needs an ensure vs insure review.)
»www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insure
(2) to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | They ghost-edited it. |
|
|
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to Krisnatharok
Well, it makes me even more suspicious, that the real reasons behind the "prohibition" discussed here are not technical, but rather pure economical. They surely don't need you to "pay attention" (you're a simple bag of crap  , tightened to the seat and can do nothing, lucky ones can even sleep at that time...), but rather they simply need you to "pay" for the service (read - "privilege" to read your own iPad). Later on, when they'll find a way to charge you for that - the prohibition will be gone (for those, who pays to airlines for the "new convenience" to read an electronic device or make a call). I'm sure iPad's and other electronic devices will be eventually allowed in all airplanes. Not convinced yet? iPad's in cockpit in a couple of inches close to the most critical avionics is your prove now...
And one more point here. It's interesting to find out that lives of all passengers become dependent on those iPads, isn't?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to Krisnatharok
Na, it's just Americans.
»oxforddictionaries.com/definitio···q=insure
quote:
For the more general senses, ensure is more likely to be used, but insure and ensure are often interchangeable, particularly in US English.
|
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
 ·Frontier Communi..
1 edit | reply to Krisnatharok
For every doubling of distance traveled, a wavefront's power-level drops 6 dB. So, if one starts with 1 foot as a typical distance between cockpit I-pod and key flight instrumentation, then from a similar I-pod at 16 feet away, received interference will be 24 dB lower. At 128 feet, it will be 42 dB lower. On the other hand, assuming each I-pod radiates the same level of interference and assuming it acts as white noise, each additional I-pod will increase interference levels by 3 dB. So... 100 passenger I-pods will tend to create a 300 dB increase in noise. The bottom line is that the noise/interference level will increase much faster with increasing numbers of passenger-held devices than it will decrease from the increased separation between most passengers and the cockpit. Thus a technical case could be made that allowing 2 devices in the cockpit (especially under the immediate control of the crew itself) is much less likely to interference-jam aircraft electronics than opening up the whole passenger compartment to the free use of those same devices, even though they'll be further away. This came as a bit of a surprise to me after I ran the numbers, but that's the way it is. While there are a lot of assumptions (white noise, equal radiated emissions from each I-pod, etc) in this back-of-napkin analysis, they are reasonable to at least scope out the situation.
However, what is most interesting to me is that the FAA and airlines appear not to have done any recent in-depth analysis of the real-world interference levels in and their effects upon a modern aircraft - else they would be quoting such comparative studies to defend their latest "cockpit I-pod" decision. As with so many things, they simply appear to be "winging it" on the basis of meager technical data and perfunctory studies... which is guaranteed to come across as arbitrary or self-serving to most travellers and observers. Different policies between airlines and different interpretations by different crews of the same airline indicate that the "rules" are not based on clearly-understood tests and studies, but upon everyone's guess for why such rules do or should exist.
Frankly, given the safety issues involved, I'd like to see the results of some full-blown EMI radiated emissions/susceptibility testing of current, modern hand-held electronics equipment and aircraft instrumentation within a realistic metal-aircraft envelope. I wonder how long the FAA and airline/aircraft industry will go, simply guessing at the results and consequent "best" policies? (Answering self: probably until there is some kind of undeniable crisis or disaster...)
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
