iPads mooted for Qantas flight manuals Last week, when this correspondent was returning to Sydney from Melbourne on the Australian national carrier, the flight was delayed by a recalcitrant keeping his mobile phone switched on. After several stern warnings were relayed from the flight deck, radio silence was achieved and we made our flight. The alleged dangers of …
I like Apple kit, don't get me wrong, but it just seems that every single bit of information that would be on a bit of paper now has to be presented on a tablet and more specifically an iPad. Bet Steve is peeing himself laughing at the number of suckers buying these for the more stupid applications.
Sometimes a simple laminated piece of card is suitable. It all just reminds me of the old urban myth/space story, "NASA spent millions getting a biro to write correctly in zero-G, the Russians simply took a pencil up with them.". Sometimes the oldest, simplest things are still the best.
No, they're great big thick books with index tabs.
Honestly though, computers make terrible document substitutes in a number of situations. For example, one need not recharge a book in order to use it. I can only envision a seldom used iPad in a cockpit stubbornly refusing to turn on because the battery is dead/flat. Even in a non-emergency that's a pain in the ass.
Consider the Apple edict that says that their devices fail if you use them where there is snow, and therefore the warrantee is invalid. Now think that often a plane sits on the tarmac at up to 40°C below, and the pilot may have to walk out to it.
Consider that you drop your flight manual on the floor. Do you prefer that maybe 1 or 2 pages gets dirty, or that suddenly you can't see anything at all?
Imagine that you are about to ditch in a river because all 4 engines went out on take-off because of bird ingestion. You press the button for the manual pages for emergency ditch, and it freezes for 30 seconds... you see your life flash in front of your eyes 10 times while waiting for the page
Aircraft maps have to be updated every 28 days if I'm not mistaken, and en-route charts take up a LOT of physical space (a large briefcase). iPads are just one of the tablets being considered/approved for use in the air. This will have several impacts: 1) Fewer maps have to be printed out, saving paper and costing less to airlines/airports paying people to replace charts; 2) Easier to carry on-board; 3) Depending on software and tablet, could be easier to sort/find the correct maps required for review.
As for losing all engines and ditching in a river, you wouldn't be seriously suggesting the crew is taking time to look at en-route charts, would you? Methinks the first officer (probably) would be reading the boldface steps on the laminated paper checklist kept handy to his/her seat, while the captain is "doing things" such as flying the aircraft (or attempting to steer a few tons of dead weight to the place least likely to cause his imminent doom).
Co-pilot: We have lost all electrical power
Captain: Get me the checklist for power loss from the manual
Co-pilot: I THINK this is it, but I can't tell because all the lights are out...candle?
Captain: If only there were a device which let us read manuals in the dark...
Yea, nothing easier when the shit is hitting the fan and you're falling out the sky trying to work out firstly why and secondly how to stop it than to use a computer - one that's probably flipping constantly between portrait and landscape and falling in to the foot well. SOO much easier and safer than a physical book to can rip the essential checklist our of and hold/clip to the yoke in front of your eyes.
Flight manuals are ridiculously big and heavy, even for the simplest of planes. Digitising them is a great idea, and they could always use a non-3G iPad or similar device.
People whining about them breaking and safety - do you really think pilots refer to the manual during an emergency situation? The manual is there because it legally has to be, not because the pilots don't know what they're doing.
"....do you really think pilots refer to the manual during an emergency situation?"
Er, yes I do.
As it's impossible for a pilot to memorise the entire manual and all the checklists for every possible situation in every aircraft type he's trained on, the drill is to consult the manual when something unexpected occurs. This applies even if the pilot has seen the problem before, as his memory of the procedure followed last time may be incomplete and / or the procedure(s) may have been updated since then.
Note also that even for the routine tasks where the pilot definately *does* know what he's doing, it's *still* mandatory to follow the written procedure checklists.
That's what a certain 747-400 pilot I occasionally have a few beers with says anyway.....
Whilst a London cabbie has The Knowledge, airline pilots are lesser mortals.
Capt. Kirk never refers to manuals- he has them all memorized. When he has an intuition informed by his command officer level of knowledge, he verifies it with the ship's computer.
Kirk: "Computer, can we restart the engines by steering directly into that nearby star?"
Computer: "Yes, however the ship will become a wisp of plasma 2.159 microseconds later."
Being neither London cabbies nor Captain Kirk, airline pilots require both manuals and computers.
Of course cattle class has their devices switched off - all passengers do. The reason has nothing to do with electronics interfering with the flight systems at take-off and landing and all to do with the fact that something is more likely to go wrong during those stages (or rather, something survivable) - they want your full attention so you're alert and ready to evacuate the plane. Same reason they dim the cabin lights - to get your eyes accustomed to the outside light if you're getting out in a hurry.
As for mobile interference - have you never heard what happens when you have an active mobile near a speaker?
" nothing to do with electronics"
So why do they ban mobiles for the entire flight?
So why do I get told that it is because electronics can interfere with landing systems?
"get your eyes accustomed to the outside light" Don't you mean "get your eyes accustomed to the limited light INSIDE if all the internal lights failed"
"active mobile near a speaker". Yeh. Isn't it remakable that a device that is not designed to work in an RF field gets interfered by a device producing one.
"So why do they ban mobiles for the entire flight?"
Because they won't work while you're in the air?
"So why do I get told that it is because electronics can interfere with landing systems?"
Because that generates a lot less panic than telling people "It's in case we crash horribly and you have seconds to save yourselves"
"Yeh. Isn't it remakable that a device that is not designed to work in an RF field gets interfered by a device producing one."
Sorry, of course the airline safety people shouldn't care about the things that are well known to happen and only go for the obtuse. Why do they bother worrying about this gravity nonsense anyway, it's hardly remarkable that 100-tonne objects will attempt to fall out of the sky given the opportunity.
So my past 20 years as a Avionics Engineer with specific responsibility for EMC specification and testing was because we did not want to "generate panic" then. Good to know
(P.S. EMC stands for Electromagnetic Compatibility. We pay a lot of attention to it when desiging avionic and aircraft systems, just so the pilot does not get a nast buzzing in his headphones)
"Because they won't work while you're in the air?"
I'm fairly sure that is wrong...
Especially when flying over land, the handset is within a similar distance from hundreds of base stations and this causes an exponential increase in "handoff traffic" (for want of a better term) between all these base stations as they hand the handset between them....
"Especially when flying over land, the handset is within a similar distance from hundreds of base stations and this causes an exponential increase in "handoff traffic" (for want of a better term) between all these base stations as they hand the handset between them...."
Yeah I'd heard that, but turns out to be FUD. Mobile masts are actually vaguely directional - why waste energy aiming it up into the sky or down into the ground is the theory. Most masts leak very little vertically.
Have left blackberry on accidentally before and noticed at cruising altitude. No emails had come through, despite a very busy account.
I'm not suggesting great coverage, but often there is enough for signal reception (which is what causes all the hand-offs) , the fact that you didn't get emails is hardly surprising because the data is the first thing to get dropped on a flaky connection...
"So why do I get told that it is because electronics can interfere with landing systems?"
They tell you to turn off your mobile phone on petrol station forecourts in case it causes an explosion. You don't seriously believe them, do you?
Scratch and sniff
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/
If folks had bothered to read the original article rather than the cut-down content-free El Reg version, it says "second battery for over 20 hours between recharges".
There may well be other good reasons why this is a bad idea (or there may not, see below), but battery life appears to have been considered already and a suitable workaround provided.
If you want to know what's really happening on this subject, and it really isn't what little you've read in this article, go read about the "electronic flight bag". It's here already (been here for ten years or more, actually), and it isn't (yet) iPad based, though some are already based on commercial laptops.
Have a safe trip.
Btw, what's the latest on the Qantas/Trent QF32 hiccup?
It has been tested again and again, both by (known from tv) Mythbusters and various organizations and found that all flight systems in modern planes are completely and totally shielded from the fairly weak signals in the bands relevant, i.e. those used by cellphones, bluetooth, wifi etc.
The real reason for the ban is most likely a combination of the attention excuse and a motive to sell expensive in-flight alternatives.
The original decision was made without any data. Banning it is the safe, CYA approach.
Suppose you personally made the decision to unban it. Now, suppose there's a plane crash for unclear reasons (it happens). And suppose someone claims that mobile phone interference caused it. Since the reason the plane crashed is unclear, you can't PROVE they're wrong. You personally get sued, as well as the company you work for. You have the hassle of a multi-year lawsuit, legal fees of hundreds of thousands of pounds (or dollars), and the worry that you might have to pay millions.
If you're the person deciding whether to unban it, there is no advantage to _you_ from actually unbanning it.
So, for anyone who has the power to unban it, the safest CYA answer is always "not yet, needs more study, your safety is important to us". The same logic applies to companies as well as individuals.
(I'm not saying this is "right", but it is how the world works).
Xenobyte and A/C
What I don't understand is that if the crew really just want you to pay attention and the electronic interference is an excuse, why can people go on reading books and newspapers etc.?
Why aren't these banned too? Why not just tell the truth? "We insist you pay attention!"
Yuck, so now pilots have to be staring an LCDs? If you're going to replace paper, replace it with something at least as good.
And are they going to have to wait while the Ipad needs charging after every trip? What happens when it runs out of battery?
E-readers (which the Ipad is *not*) with e-ink technology would be the candidate to look at. Even there though, replacing paper in these situations is dubious. I don't think replacing paper makes sense until we get a technological equivalent to paper - e.g., the "electronic paper" that is being developed.
The sad thing is that even when we have electronic paper, that looks just like paper, can be rolled up, doesn't need power to update, can display colour and video - Apple will release an expensive tablet based on outdated LCD technology with an Apple logo, and still win all the hype, because "Ooh I can't play games on the electronic paper model and it isn't as reflective!"
"I guess the Kindle vs. iPad argument depends on whether or not colour and/or graphics are involved."
There should be no more a Kindle vs. Ipad argument than say, Kindle vs. Netbook, or Kindle vs. any other non-e-reader device.
The actual argument should be between Kindle vs. Sony E-reader; or E-reader vs. Paper.
F111F: If it's about the maps, Nokia have been providing offline mapping software (i.e., no network connection needed) to ordinary people since before we even started getting rumours about Apple's vaporware tablet. I don't see why it's news that Apple can now do it years later.
All these tech heads and only one has heard of the electronic flight bag? Avionics-grade laptop and software, already in use on several airlines. Not sure how many companies want to spend their own time and money on certifying an iPad for cockpit use, rather than just buying one of the COTS options that are in development right now.
"All these tech heads and only one has heard of the electronic flight bag?"
There is at least one other possibility: Most of El Reg's commentards are write-before-read types.
"COTS options that are in development right now."
Some have even been on the market for years, if you have a generous definition of COTS.
Two different EFB examples from one vendor:
http://www.goodrich.com/Goodrich/Businesses/Sensors-and-Integrated-Systems/Products/EFB-Cockpit-Data-Management-Systems/Traditional-Electronic-Flight-Bags
http://www.goodrich.com/Goodrich/Businesses/Sensors-and-Integrated-Systems/Products/EFB-Cockpit-Data-Management-Systems/Laptop-Docking-Station-Electronic-Flight-Bags
1) Regarding why airlines would bother trying to use an iPad instead of a COTS EFB, one reason is cost. As much as an iPad + certified software costs, many EFBs cost more still. As soon as you put "Made for aviation" on a product, the cost skyrockets.
2) For me, the main problem with the iPad as an EFB or chart replacement is that I can't take out the one or two charts I need, but instead have to deal with the full bulk of the device. It might not seem like much, but when you're in a tin can travelling 100mph or more over the ground in sometimes less than ideal situations, little things like this sometimes matter.
3) As for the cell phone/electronic interference, yes, it sometimes /can/ cause interference. It sometimes takes very specific situations for it to matter, which makes it difficult to test in a lab environment. But I have personally experienced a situation where a cell phone could indeed have been the cause of the interference: ATC was unable to read my transponder code, and it was the one time I forgot to turn my cell phone off. Yes, it is only circumstantial evidence, but at least one other pilot I know of had a similar instance happen to him.
In the mid 90s I was doing some contract work for an medium sized airline and asked my client about the mobile phone issue.
His remit included the in-flight phone system so I joked that it was just to make passengers use the airline's $8 per minute phones. He informed me that it cost the airline $10 per minute and the service was a loss leader.
He also told me that Airbus had carried out many tests and had not managed to find find conclusive evidence that phones had any effect on the avionics. Some of the tests were quite extreme including placing a French army mobile radar unit on a scaffold right next to the fuselage. It had no adverse effect al all.
His off the record conclusion was that problems with avionics were likely to be software issues rather than external forces. I assume he was being honest with me.
"As soon as you put "Made for aviation" on a product, the cost skyrockets."
Perhaps that's in part because designing and certifying stuff for low volume aviation use involves rather more time and effort than the equivalent high volume consumer electronics product, where the consumer usually does the beta testing having paid for the product?
Which approach would you prefer next time you fly?
I think we give cabbies more praise than they deserve over "The Knowledge".
The last three black cab journeys I have taken in London involved the driver inputting my destination into his TomTom.
One didn't even bother to turn off the sound, so I could hear "turn left in 500 yards" etc. all the way from departure to destination.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
