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?
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.
Testing code is important because we know, from previous experience, that code written by humans tends to have bugs.
In this case, we also know from experience that small devices like iPads do not cause high levels of EMI. Once we have tested a dozen models on a dozen planes and had successful results on all 144 tests, there is no need to test further models. This is unlike software, where of 144 unit tests, a good percentage are almost guaranteed to fail at some point in time.
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?
Perhaps they aren't willing to assume that the electronics in planes are as shielded as they're supposed to be.
What confuses me is why they don't ensure that planes' electronics are properly shielded rather than testing a bunch of electronics that emit very weak to weak EM. If a cell phone could create problems for a flight during take-off, what about a lunatic pointing a HERF weapon at the plane?
Shielding is only part of the battle; the other part is what they're doing here: controlling incoming emissions.
Nothing can be perfectly shielded in the real world and instruments or controllers may need very long cables to connect to their respective sensors and actuators making shielding difficult.
Now add in that many of these instruments actually need to process an RF signal and so won't work if shielded, and it becomes a difficult problem to solve.
Simulations only go so far. What if there was some sort of weird interaction between an iPad and the magnetic field of the earth at altitude, or cosmic rays, or something—I obviously don’t know what.
But whatever it is, you don’t want to do all your tests in a “simulation,” then have some scientists say “Oops, our bad, we forgot to simulate lower pressure or increased gamma rays or what-have-you,” when we can simply fly the device and all of our testing equipment.
Now excuse me, I have to return to preparing for the Invasion of Moghron from the Frozen Seas of Neptune
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...
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."
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. "
I'm pretty sure there have been enough people that ignore the rules and leave their devices on for us to be reasonably sure there's no substantial risk.
It's possible, but it's also possible that each passenger has ten iPads in their carry-on bag. Will they perform a test flight with 3,000 iPads? Not to mention how many more iPads could be stored in checked luggage.
cost of plane itself + cost of all the human lives on it = many millions, or "priceless", right?
seems cheap in comparison. plus they don't need to perform this test on every plane before every single flight. only once or a few times, per model permutation. If you spread the testing cost across all the operational instances where they'd be de-risked, I bet it would be pennies per flight, at most.
Because its for airplanes, up in the air, with hundreds of people on them, sitting on thousands of gallons of jet fuel hurtling through the atmosphere over a densely populated area near you.
It's admirable and entirely understandable that they should want to move to a policy grounded in direct empirical evaluations. Beats the hell out of the current situation, and I bet if it was your responsibility you would do the same. Some risks (hundreds of lives, hundreds of millions of dollars) are bound to trigger excessive caution.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
"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."
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?
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?
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
if someone's a frequent flyer, the routine is going to get monotonous. You'll need a moderate stack of magazines if you're stuck on the runway for another half hour. Change planes once or twice, and you'll really be wishing you had a lot more reading material. magazines are generally half ads, so you'll get tired of those reading those.
Overall, I sort of agree with you - it seems a little over the top, but it's probably not unreasonable for many people. A stack of newspapers would be lighter, but they're usually too big to deal with for extended reading in economy/coach seats.
I agree, though I'm assuming it really can take a long time at some airports; even in Europe there is the infamous Heathrow take-off queue, or the Polderbaan at Schiphol which is like half the country away from the terminal (I don't know how it is with the holding pattern; at least here in Norway the seatbelt sign tends to light up pretty late, and certainly not when the plane is holding).
But from what I understand a big reason for the "taxi, takeoff and landing" routine is that somebody completely absorbed by their iPad is the last thing the crew want when things to pear-shaped, and when this happens, it's at these points rather than on cruising altitude. Now of course you might the same argument for a book (although it's a strong one for music players), but just my $0.02
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!
3. World isn't black & white and most/all devices fit well below the threshold required to disturb any current system. (Potential) Issues start happening only in specific configurations / under specific conditions.
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.
>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.
There used to these cord phones in the seat in front of you above the food tray where you can pay $10 or whatever to make a call. I have never seen anyone use it though.
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?
I would love the airlines to err on safety. By making the seats out of a fire resistant non-toxic foam, before they were made to after a series of accidents. By fitting smoke hoods nearly 50 years after is they were first recommended.
And by the FAA spending a 0.1% of what the TSA costs on weather radar at small airports .....
"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.