

The F.A.A. says it will take a “fresh look” at the use of iPads on planes. - nickbilton
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/disruptions-time-to-review-f-a-a-policy-on-gadgets/
Likely bowing to public pressure, the F.A.A. has agreed to take a fresh look at the use of e-readers and iPads on planes during taxi, takeoff and landing.
======
raldi
Great article, and it's cool that you came here to post it yourself, but it
looks like you accidentally released an unfinished draft. Emphasis mine:

"The last time this testing was done was 2006, _check_ long before iPads and
most e-readers existed."

"Of 50 incidents in the most recent report _get link check_ from last year,
few had anything to do with cockpit interference."

You also said, " _buy_ the end of 2012".

It's neat to see the behind-the-scenes shorthand used in story drafts.

~~~
Mythbusters
Also the story is not just about iPads. It's about all the personal
electronics items. Kindles, laptopns and phones included.

~~~
Terretta
Cellphones excluded.

~~~
niels_olson
So, since the tablets are clearly gaining 4g... then what?

------
sunir
Does anyone else wonder why they need to actually fly the devices instead of
just extrapolating from the electromagnetic interference test results required
by the FCC?

It feels as if they believe in voodoo rather than physics. Is there a reason
they require device specific tests?

~~~
Anechoic
_Is there a reason they require device specific tests?_

It's the "unknowns" not accounted for in the models that are the (potential)
issue. If you have time read through this Ars Technica thread where a bunch of
these questions are hashed out:
[http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=116333...](http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1163338)

For those without the time, I'll highlight one post from page 5:

"Unintentional radiators.

The reason they ask you to power down ALL electronics, and not just turn off
radios, is that the oscillators (the clock that runs all digital devices) on
the circuit board can act as miniature radios, in and of themselves, via clock
signals on circuit traces. They emit at the clock frequency, and in some cases
many higher level harmonics of those frequencies.

As I've stated several times, it's actually pretty easy to mitigate against
_known_ frequencies and signalling techniques...it's the ones you don't know
about that are the problem. EMI can be downright spooky.

As an example: I was once testing a medical device (for the Medical Device
Directive) that was required to failsafe, since it would literally be touching
a patient (it was a combination pulseoximeter and a few other things all
rolled into one.

There were numerous tests for both emissions and immunity, and things were
going along ducky until we noticed two separate failure modes that weren't
considered failsafe. At the time, we were testing ESD immunity up to 20kV. It
would pass one time, and not another. We thought maybe we had a bad unit, so
we got a few more from the manufacturer. That entire week we kept trying to
figure out how to make the failure repeatable, without luck. My coworker and I
went in over the weekend, and could simply not make any of the units fail at
all, with the exact same test.

That's what triggered our thought process...what else could be causing the
issue during the work week but not on a weekend?

Other immunity tests! Turns out, a dozen or so meters away, a different device
was undergoing a different test...that wasn't required for the MDD. It was a
conducted immunity test (it may have been Electric Fast Transients, can't
recall) but the actual test signal was leaking out of that lab, and into our
lab, via AC lines in the building. Our chief engineer submitted a proposal to
add whatever test it was to the MDD, but I don't know whatever became of that.

I've seen simple clocks inside electronic gear cause CPUs to go haywire...in
effect a single system interfering with itself. I've also seen extremely low
power, yet very high frequency harmonics invade and corrupt function of
another device, several meters away."

~~~
SlowButEffectiv
Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches?
Can't they also be unintentional radiators?

~~~
Anechoic
_Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches?
Can't they also be unintentional radiators?_

what spa942 said.

From the linked thread:

"The low power in a digital watch is certainly a factor but the main thing
that keeps them from interfering is very low operating frequency. In older,
simpler watches this was 32 kHz! Only one octave above the audible range. In
more modern multifunction watches with stopwatches that go to 0.01 seconds (as
if anyone can push a button that precisely, but never mind that) they do have
to be clocked faster, but they are still clocked as slowly as possible, to
save power.... typically 1 MHz or less.

The RF from these things is all but undetectable unless you put a pickup
directly against the watch. "

~~~
mbell
Yet both examples still have to go through FCC testing. Anything digital with
a clock over 9 kHz has to go through unintentional radiator testing.

------
sophacles
I'm kind of amused by the number of comments on this thread that amount to
"all the devices that meet the standard are still required to be tested in
situ? lol wat!?". Yet, this is the same place that advocates heavy test driven
development practices, which include testing your code against libraries that
meet standards, testing that the libraries actually do the right thing when
you use them, and personally verifying that sites work on all browsers, even
if automated compliance checkers approve them. Isn't the FAA essentially doing
the same thing here?

~~~
mgkimsal
I wouldn't compare this to TDD - the devices would have been built to 'test'
specs the FAA puts out, testing via an FAA process would be a regular,
repeatable things manufacturers could perform regularly, for a fee perhaps.

And... clients/bosses complain when testing takes a long time, which is what
we're doing here to the FAA.

Given how many flights happen, with a variety of devices, you might think that
with some extra devices and controlled test procedures, the FAA would be able
to gather 'real world' test data (their devices, their tests, real flights,
etc.) and make conclusions over the past 3-5 years.

MAYBE... then issue guidelines (or even paid-for device approval processes).
Would Apple pay a few million to get an 'FAA-approved' sticker for iPads and
iPhones? If there were specified guidelines and a testing procedure, more
companies might work in that direction. I'd imagine there _are_ guidelines,
but not being in that industry, I don't know how easy to access they are. If
there were public knowledge, I'd imagine device manufacturers already
promoting "meets FAA guidelines for xyz", but since we don't see that, I have
to assume they're not easily accessible.

------
xpose2000
I presume more people than just me keep their phones or devices on at all
times during the flight. Therefore, due to extensive end-user testing. We have
deemed all devices safe to use.

~~~
Anechoic
_Therefore, due to extensive end-user testing. We have deemed all devices safe
to use._

Not at all:
[http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=22383605#p22383...](http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=22383605#p22383605)

------
ams6110
It really seems to me that all this regulation about personal devices is just
more theatre. Or some kind of psychological strategy to emphasize to the
passengers who is in control.

If a cell phone or an iPod could _really_ cause harmful interference with the
avionics, they would not be allowed at all.

~~~
spa942
If a high beam headlight could really cause harmful interference with the
vision of approaching car drivers, they would not be allowed at all. Right?

Here's a sampling of interference events:
<http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf> (edit: only some of them are
about EMI interference)

Instruments acting up won't automatically cause a crash. But they may
contribute to the accident (ref AF447)

<http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf> \- some examples of what
lack of EMI shielding can do.

------
arohner
How about we just take the empirical test. I know I often forget to turn off
my iphone on the plane (1 out of 5 times I fly). I'm not alone, and there are
100+ people on the plane. Odds are _very_ good that we have thousands of hours
of real world tests with a dozen phones turned on.

If this were actually a serious problem for the plane, there would already be
a sensor for this. "Sir, there's something emitting radiation in your pants".

~~~
jedberg
My cousin's ex-husband is a pilot for Southwest. He says he never turns his
phone off because it doesn't matter and is a stupid rule.

~~~
arohner
There is one good reason to turn off your phone however: the phone searching
for new cell towers drains the battery quickly.

------
raldi
What if they put _all_ the iPads on a flight, and there was still no
interference? Could they all be approved after that flight?

(Of course, it's a gamble, since a single bad device could ruin the
certification for all of them, but I think it's a smart gamble.)

~~~
khuey
That wouldn't account for destructive interference.

~~~
caf
By the same token, testing them individually doesn't account for constructive
interference.

Clearly we need to test all possible permutations.

------
powera
This entire argument is just stupidity. Nobody disputes that there have
ALREADY been tens of thousands of these electronic devices left on in the past
year with no noticeable interference. No expert (and your friend that heard
someone say they saw some interference once doesn't count) seriously believes
there is any way these could cause significant interference.

But the government has to mandate the most expensive testing program known to
man because nobody in a position of decision making is allowed to consider any
reasons why an iPad might be different than a raygun or a Van de Graaff
generator or a live tiger.

------
lutorm
I find this funny because if you are a private pilot, there's this:
<http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=iChart>

If the FAA is fine with me sitting in the left seat with an iPad strapped to
my knee, within a foot of the avionics, it's baffling that there would be an
issue with passenger flights.

~~~
mkopinsky
a) How many passengers are in your plane? I doubt this would be approved for
Part 121 or Part 135 travel.

b) If something goes wrong with your avionics, you can turn off the iPad. If
something goes wrong on an airliner, the pilot can't quite as easily figure
out whose iPad is causing the trouble.

------
phillco
> For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would
> have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate
> flight, with no passengers on the plane.

I still think that could be a great differentiator. "Virgin: We don't care
when you use your Kindle. Or your iPad". Too bad it's too expensive.

Also...having to do dedicated test flights seems very inefficient. What if
they just _bought_ 100 iPads and gave them to everyone on randomly selected
flights? They'd let the passengers use them for an hour (enough to watch three
episodes of _The Office_ ), take them back for another hour, and compare the
radio quality. It'd be great -- they'd get some serious stress testing, have
relatively low fixed costs, and it'd make the customers happy. (They could
even give the iPads away afterwards to rewards customers as gifts.)

Hmm, I guess it'd be not so cool if the devices actually _did_ cause the
planes to crash.

~~~
rmc
They cannot test them on a live plane with live people. Imagine if something
did go wrong, and it crashed the plane. What official wants to say "Oops".

Performing the tests would be insanely bad PR. An official has to approach
someone going on a flight and say "we think this device will crash the plane,
but We're not sure, would you mind playing with it during theft flight so we
can see if the plane you're on falls out of the sky?". Panic would ensue.

~~~
VBprogrammer
In the UK I often fly Ryanair who due to falling under the Irish Aviation
Authority have been allowing the use of electronic devices while the fasten
seat-belt light is of (although, not phones) for several years.

~~~
tedunangst
Does _of_ mean _on_ or _off_?

------
niels_olson
Guys, look, this is what test pilots are for. They get paid the big bucks,
because they occasionally fall out of the sky. The electronic emissions on a
767 are already more complex than any simulation could ever predict. If they
were going to fall out of the sky because of emissions, it would have happened
already, without a single phone on board.

Now, that's with hundreds of channels running right next to each other in
cable bundles. You're talking about tiny emissions from tiny devices, a couple
layers of shielding away. There's no way they can anticipate every combination
of everything else involved, but I'm pretty sure those cable bundles pose a
far greater problem on every flight, every day, than your cell phone ever
will. And I'm pretty certain vast numbers of passengers have left their cell
phones on during take off and landing, and there's no, zero, zip incidents of
a plane falling out of the sky because of it.

------
TamDenholm
There must be a smarter way of doing it than have 1 flight and 1 device.
Surely they could take 10 devices and if there was no interference thats 10
cleared and if there was an interference, they could then break up the that
batch into separate flights.

I'm sure there are also other ways to make this more efficient?

~~~
viraptor
This is assuming that when you put those devices in the same area, there will
be no interaction between them, no amplification, no cancelling out, etc.

A better question to ask would be probably: should they test multiple devices
in addition to single samples in order to catch more interaction patterns?

------
jedbrown
"Any device maker who doesn’t contribute financially to the testing won’t be
added to the new updated list of approved electronics devices on planes."

Really? Your suggestion is that someone checks specific models against a
special approved list that has nothing to do with the actual EMI standards met
by the device?

------
silentscope
I actually kind of like that there's no phones--it keeps the people around you
from talking your ear off for hours while you're trapped next to them.

But I believe it really is a "Because I said so" kind of deal.

------
mgkimsal
A linked article:

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-
tests-c...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-cast-
doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/)

mentions some measured electronic emissions from kindle and other devices
(razor, recorder). In some ways it doesn't matter what might actually be
allowed. If an attendant tells you to shut it off, and you don't, you're in
violation of their rules. If I took a razor on and started shaving during
takeoff, I'm betting I'd be told to shut that off.

------
frasertimo
Oh my god. _Rolls eyes_. I believe that the ban on electronic devices during
take off, taxi and landing is completely unnecessary and founded on paranoia.
I think the ban should be overturned as much as the next person.

BUT. Do you really have to claim that you're off to buy a STACK of magazines
to read in this time? Are you that incapable of sitting unstimulated in your
seat for a few minutes each time you fly?

------
edtechdev
Pilots themselves now are receiving iPads from their employers to use for
flight checklists and so forth. There's a whole market for flight related
apps.

So that's probably another factor in why the FAA is finally moving on this
issue, since passengers would complain if they couldn't use iPads but the crew
could.

------
projektx
I think the real driver here is software based avionics, a glass cockpit on
your iPad.

[http://www.padgadget.com/2011/08/07/aspen-avionics-brings-
th...](http://www.padgadget.com/2011/08/07/aspen-avionics-brings-the-ipad-to-
the-cockpit/)

------
jiggy2011
Weird, almost every time I have flown I see people using iPads and smartphones
on the plane without any issues.

They do ask people to turn them off during take off and landing , but this is
only a fairly small segment of the journey anyway.

------
tolmasky
Can't we just start a kickstarter project to buy out all the seating on the
required number of flights to test each of these devices?

------
mattieuga
Why is the first officer sitting on the left?

------
nknight
I feel like I'm missing something. He needs a "stack of magazines" to read
during taxiing, take-off, and landing?

To my knowledge, I'm not a slow reader, nor do I have an unusual amount of
patience (quite the contrary), but I can't imagine making it through a
magazine, much less a stack of them, during the time I usually spend unable to
use electronics on a plane.

~~~
raldi
You must not be from New York. At LGA or JFK, it's quite common to sit on the
runway for 45-60 minutes when taking off, or to be held in a holding pattern
for at least as long when landing.

~~~
nknight
No, west coast, my reference points are mostly SJC/SFO/PDX/SEA/TPE. An hour
between doors closing and taking off is largely unthinkable. I'm not even sure
it took an hour when I had to go through ORD in really crappy weather a few
years ago.

I've heard the occasional story about long tarmac waits in New York, but
didn't realize that 45-60 minutes could be anywhere near typical. Is Newark
any better, or basically in the same boat?

~~~
jonnathanson
Consider yourself blessed. NY airports are a nightmare. Same with LAX, ORD,
ATL, DEN, and most other major hubs. (DFW seems to be a sole exception to the
hubs-are-sucky axiom; I've rarely has anything but pleasant experiences from
that airport, and I think I've connected through it over 100 times in the last
12 months).

Of all of these hubs, I hold a special pocket of hatred in my heart for my
hometown airport, LAX. It's not the biggest or most crowded airport in the
country, but it seems to be the worst run. Security lines take at least 45
minutes a pop, even if there are only about 10 people in line. Pre-takeoff
delays on the tarmac routinely run 60 minutes or longer. Etc. It's about as
well-managed as a DMV, and every bit as infuriating.

SFO tends to suck, too. I'm actually surprised you haven't had worse
experiences there. It's routinely rated as one of the worst airports in the
country for delays. (SJC, by comparison, ranges from painless to downright
pleasant).

------
excuse-me
So logically either: There is a danger from these devices but 1, nobody has
ever switched on an iPad/phone/ebook reader/tamogochi/iPod on a flight in the
US - ever. Or 2, planes crash all the time but the government keeps it secret.

Alternatively an ebook reader doesn't emit enough RF to crash a 737.

On a recent Alaskan airlines flight you were allowed to use the $5 in flight
WiFi - but Bluetooth devices were banned. That's some pretty specific
interference!

~~~
burgerbrain
One wonders why the terrorists don't just buy a GNU Radio and a dish, and
start dropping airplanes like flies.

~~~
spa942
The airplanes wouldn't drop like flies, but you could probably make a plane
divert in bad weather by jamming the NAV frequencies.

------
funkah
Can't wait until the day I get to overhear everyone's phone calls on the
plane. It will really break up the monotony of crying babies.

~~~
artursapek
People used to complain about that actually. I remember hearing a radio debate
on why phones should be allowed back in like 2005, and the counter arguments I
can recall were:

• People hate having to listen to 1-sided conversations

• The phones were confusing the network - they would switch to a new cell
tower every 15-30 seconds.

Both valid arguments if you ask me. Not sure if these complaints were drawn
from reality or hypothetical problems - was there a period of time when you
could actually use your phone on a plane? I'm pretty young so I don't remember
back to the first cell phones.

~~~
excuse-me
Would it be overly cynical of me to suspect that the original ban had
something to do with the $5 charge for the seat back phone and the new policy
has something to do with the $5 seat back wifi?

~~~
spa942
How about acknowledging that the rules may be overreaching, yet be thankful
that the airline industry likes to err on the side of safety?

~~~
mikeash
The risk of dying in an airliner crash in the US is now literally too small to
measure. I think we can afford to loosen up a bit.

------
israelpasos
This article would've made my life easier two years ago while I spent an
entire day discussing the matter with my ex-Fiancée.

