United Airlines Deploying 11,000 iPads to Pilots as Electronic Flight Bags

[wizard]

Possibly the most important point in this thread.

...

But hey, if the iPad on board of all things is going to prevent you from flying, well, maybe that's one less irrational passenger I have to deal with when *I* fly.

Seems like there has to be at least one of these idiots on every flight I've taken. It is one of the reasons I find it more enjoyable to drive these days.

 

[wizard]

Electronics, even aircraft electronics can be susceptible to RF devices.

No. You still have to. Those iPads were probably tested a million times and certified safe for use with navigation systems, and not **any** iPad, only the tested iPads could be used.

I know I know, chances that the shiny new iPhone interfering with navigation systems is less than 1 in a million, but do you want to be on that flight?

This isn't true at all, Airlines have evidence that indicates that navigational systems where corrected after asking passengers to turn off electronics. It is a real issue demonstrated more than a few times.

Now from a different perspective I work on automation equipment where just one sensor, on a production line with thousands, responds to RF energy. By that I mean getting to close with a cell phone or two way radio trips the sensor. So why one out of thousands of sensors? Hard to say but it happens often enough in strange ways that I'd certainly would not want people using cell phones when a plane is landing. You just never know what might happen.

I think waiting for 15 minutes until the plane hits 10K+, and 15 minutes until it lands is not asking for too much.

Exactly!!!!!! Anybody make a big deal over shutting off their device has to be really stupid as you are endangering the entire flight.

 

[r018u]

Haha this has to be the most entertaining thread I've yet to read on Mac Rumors.

 

[b.c.]

...Airlines have evidence that indicates that navigational systems where corrected after asking passengers to turn off electronics. It is a real issue demonstrated more than a few times.

as evidence to back up this fact, see this IEEE article (a more recent followup to the one I mentioned earlier in this thread)

e.g. quote:
"... the data certainly suggest that PED interference events occur a few times each month. In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked the passenger to switch the player on again..."

 

[Mac'nCheese]

I believe fat people are protected under the constitution for having the right to be treated equally.

I don't think so since there were neither airplanes nor fat people when the constitution was written.

Are you suggesting they charge by the pound? For your luggage and carry on as well? Should someone tall get charged more than someone short? Men more than women? Just curious about this and how it would play out...

I think the issue is that they are selling you a seat to go from X to Y and not the fuel you consume to go from X to Y so they need to charge everyone who is buying a ticket under the same conditions the same price.

Not saying that they shouldn't charge by weight (even though it would screw me a bit).

Its not my idea. It was on the news quite a bit last year when some of the major airlines started charging extra for two pieces of luggage. Its not about the room they take up, but the weight. So some airlines suggested charging anyone who is seriously overweight more. They already charge a really fat person for two seats (as they should) if they need em. So if you are using a significantly more amount of fuel or seats then an average person, your conditions are not the same and the price therefore is not the same.

Since you can't run a laptop off USB it makes no sense -- OTOH you can plug in a cell phone charger into a normal plug. All modern computing/phone devices are 100V~240V & 50/60Hz -- and I'm sure they have heavy duty circuit breakers in case of a short.

Are laptops the only electronic devices being brought onto planes? I saw how some people now have outlets in their home with a usb slot in between the top two (whatever they are called, slots...) and thought that was brilliant and that's the way it should be in new cars and planes and homes. So many ipads, pods, phones, etc that use USB for power. One fewer cord or adapter I need to worry about. (Still don't know why they use the old stupid cigarette lighter outlets in cars....does anybody?)

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't think so since there were neither airplanes nor fat people when the constitution was written.

What would you call Ben Franklin then?

 

[Popeye206]

Everyone realizes pilots are fairly tech savvy right? We all own smart phones, laptops or iPads anyway and carry them in our bags, which are kept in the cockpit. If a pilot is unprofessional, he doesn't need a company provided digital "flight bag" to be so. Having these iPads changes nothing if a pilot is "unprofessional". However, the iPad does enhance flight safety by making access to information quicker and more efficient, actually reducing distractions in the cockpit. Try searching through multiple manuals looking for some important reference via multiple indexes. Searching in a digital data-base will be so much quicker and efficient, which is ultimately safer and less distracted.

Stop being so practical and logical.

Don't you know every subject here digresses into a major disaster, major conspiracy, or is just another example of how worthless the technology is.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

What would you call Ben Franklin then?

Portly.

 

[gr8tfly]

I call ********. iPads aren't saving on fuel by cutting weight.

Complete ********.

Not only that, but everyone knows that you always have to have a hard copy of whatever you are trying to use for an electronic device. So the maps are there on the plane weather an iPad is or not.

Have you ever lifted a flight bag? It not only has the ~35 pounds of paper, but also thick, leather bindings for each volume, and the weight of the case itself. Between pilot and copilot, that getting close to 90 pounds - Do you think passengers in that weight range fly free? Every pound costs fuel.

As for backup, I believe the FAA has a requirement for backup in the form of additional iPads. It's actually, surprisingly, not in the form of paper. Jepps used to be updated weekly (not sure about them recently, as I haven't flown as pilot-in-command in quite a while). Sectionals and other maps every few months. That backup in the form of paper that needs to be tossed out frequently doesn't do much good at all. Someone would need to get them on board and keep them current, for every flight. Edit: I stand corrected on the last sentence - apparently some airlines do that task for the pilots. They, themselves, don't need to keep their own paper set.

 

[bilboa]

Overstated benefits

I can easily believe this will be more convenient for pilots. However the fuel savings stats seem like a publicity stunt, misleading at best. The gross weight of a 727 for instance is 209,500 pounds. The article says carrying an iPad instead of papers will save 38 pounds per flight. That's about a 0.0002% weight saving per flight. While that certainly is greater than 0, it's not as if that's going to make a meaningful dent in the airline's costs or greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[vastoholic]

This had already been implemented in military aircraft as well. I was doing some research on it trying to figure out how I could use my own iPad as a mapping tool for ground patrols and ran across presentation for helicopter pilots to replace their bags with the iPads. They even used commercial apps, just loaded with own specialized maps.

BitMap, Map Box, and Adobe Ideas were 3 apps they used. With those I could use my own iPad but I'm not willing to give up my iPad to load classified maps on. So my idea failed.

 

[FroMann]

Cheaper, smaller, and eats less trees compared to lugging around a bunch of maps.

 

[Clarence Oveur]

i Pad on during take off and landing

I'd better not see one of those in use during take off or landing.

It better be on if that's all I have.

 

[tangozulu]

Jeppeson is late, this is already done.

Yes, Jeppeson is a big name in aviation charts. But they're a second mover in this kind of application. ForeFlight's been doing this for a while now. And, been doing it better and cheaper. (Jeppeson is notoriously expensive.)

I've flown using ForeFlight. It works, and works well. No, the GPS in the iPad is NOT used for navigation purposes. It just keeps the map centered. Approach plates and more are also available in ForeFlight's app. It's great and beats trying to flip through plates or refold a chart when in the clouds and turbulence.

And yes, you can plug it in if you're flying a longer flight than the battery lasts.

 

[28monkeys]

But remember, iPads are just for consuming content, not for real work!

really?

I use it for keynote presentation regularly. And my boss was really impressed.

 

[MattInOz]

in before someone uses the word iToys

Given play is one of the most powerful learning tools for not just for humans but animals in general. I always find it odd that's it is an insult to call a piece of Tech a "Toy".

 

[prestomusic]

As much as I love the idea of using the iPad for this purpose, who wrote the line 'and save on fuel'??? WTF?!? Maybe whoever came up with that absolute rubbish would care to do the sums and calculate the weight saved and what impact this will have on fuel. None I'd expect. Minor point, but why include a rediculous line like that in the top of the article?

 

[Aviboy97]

So, does this mean that in addition to the thousands of dollars worth of avionics and navigation equipment, there will now be a USB jack standard in UAL planes?

 

[Zaphodsplanet]

I think the print industry is going to really start hurting in a few years.

They already are, as is any business involved with DVD/CD duplication services. Businesses have to evolve to survive.

----------

Does anyone know if they have any kind of glare protection. I love my iPad but trying to use it in daylight is murder on the eyes. I've flown in a few small planes which I'm sure are no different than a larger jet. Ample Sunlight....LOL. I know PDF screen used in the new glass cockpits have countermeasures to make it so you can still see them in direct light... but if you own an iPad... you know it's like a mirror in the sun.

 

[Aviboy97]

I can easily believe this will be more convenient for pilots. However the fuel savings stats seem like a publicity stunt, misleading at best. The gross weight of a 727 for instance is 209,500 pounds. The article says carrying an iPad instead of papers will save 38 pounds per flight. That's about a 0.0002% weight saving per flight. While that certainly is greater than 0, it's not as if that's going to make a meaningful dent in the airline's costs or greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, you are looking at wrong. Pilots now need to carry 38 lbs less around the airport, rushing to their next flight. This saves HUMAN energy and time needed for these highly educated and federally trusted men and women to fly thousands of people daily to their work / vacation destinations.

Why don't you carry a 38 lb weight around the office all day and see how you feel at 5pm?

 

[pcmxa]

Its not my idea. It was on the news quite a bit last year when some of the major airlines started charging extra for two pieces of luggage. Its not about the room they take up, but the weight. So some airlines suggested charging anyone who is seriously overweight more. They already charge a really fat person for two seats (as they should) if they need em. So if you are using a significantly more amount of fuel or seats then an average person, your conditions are not the same and the price therefore is not the same.

I guess I don't have any problem with it as long as they charge everyone for weight/size. A base charge plus a set rate based on fuel costs for every pound you weigh and the weight of the luggage you check would be cool. Skinny people without much clothes could fly much cheaper than tall people having to take a lot with them. Charge everyone for what they use regardless of why.

 

[UAL]

Clearing up some misconceptions

This thread has been very entertaining, seems everyone has an opinion on the pros and cons of iPads in the cockpit.

This has not been some overnight decision making leading to a business case of 'wouldn't it be cool to put iPads in the cockpit?'. They are a valid business device for this purpose, the form factor and capabilities are almost perfect for the use case.

I am leading this deployment effort from an IT perspective at United and can shed some light on some of the topics discussed.

1. With Jet fuel at $126 per barrel every pound of weight removed from the aircraft saves some money. Its not a great amount per flight but multiply that by 2000 flights a day/365 days a year and it all adds up

2. Theres a 14 day revision cycle for these docs and its a huge expense to manually go through every document removing expired pages and inserting new ones. As the merger between United and Continental progresses the documents will merge into one and will be delivered consistently and electronically across the system regardless of whether you were a Continental or a United pilot.

3. The iPads are going out out as a class 1 EFB, which means its not part of the minimum equipment list and will not ground an aircraft in the event of the pilots and co-pilots devices being inoperative. It also means it is not for use below 10000 feet or in critical stages of flight. Spares will be kept at pilot domiciles across the country and can be swapped out fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag

4. The device will be fully managed via MDM and will be in a locked down state so no angry birds, no ibooks, no iMovie, no music, no movies. Its a single purpose device.

5. Glare has been flight tested with and without screen filters and deemed to be not a problem. Rapid decompression testing has been performed and the device passed. EMI testing has also been completed with no issues.

6. All United data on the device will be managed and controlled, each device is password protected and through the MDM solution we can remotely wipe any device reported lost or stolen. Preference would be to 'brick' the device but Apple don't share those API's.

7. The devices being a class 1 EFB will not be attached or mounted to the aircraft and nor will they access the data or power busses.

Hope that cleared up some of the wild and whacky misconceptions out there.

 

[johanf]

Maximum operating altitude

Is the iPad approved for this? Apple specifies "Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet (3000 m)". What if they loose cabin pressure ...
And what about plane and helicopters without pressurized cabin?

 

[meeksdigital]

Serious question to ponder.

Is UA admitting that we don't need to turn off our portable electronics now?

Cause I sure as hell would like to keep mine on (not that I really turn anything like this "off")

This exact topic has been burning in my mind for months. It absolutely pisses me off how the airlines (fight attendants) are so Nazi-like about electronic devices. The woman sitting next to me on a recent flight was chastised by a flight attendant for simply hitting the top (sleep) button on her iPhone when asked to turn it off. The flight attendant rudely said "Yeah, I know that doesn't turn it off. Do you need me to show you how? You hold down the top button until it says slide to power off, then slide your finger to power it off!" and waited for her to do it.... I could not believe how rude she was about it.

I never put my stuff on airplane mode or turn it off or anything. iPhone and iPad stay on. I am just careful to either text covertly before take off or don't use my stuff at all, for fear of being made a spectacle of.

What really gets me is that people with iPads, Kindles etc are treated like CRIMINALS for having those on, even reading a book or something, when the people next to them reading paper books/newspapers are obviously fine. Reading more about this, I found that the FAA regulation is in place to reduce electromagnetic fields (caused by any electronic device) during the most sensitive stages of flight - takeoff and landing. HOWEVER, not one emergency, failure etc has been proven to have been caused by interference from an electronic device. The only time a failure was even remotely blamed on a device was when a 737's autopilot disconnected (turned off) for no reason. A flight attendant blamed a passenger's laptop that was in use at the time for the interference (no way in hell...) and the airline or aircraft manufacturer (I think Boeing) bought the passenger's laptop and conducted rigorous tests to try and recreate the problem, to no avail.

Really what the regulation comes down to is the airlines covering their asses. When something does go wrong, they want their lawyers to be able to absolutely prove that that something was not caused by joe schmoe and his iPhone....

... and yet the pilots will be up there using iPads for Jepp charts, procedures, checklists, etc and nobody will blink an eye.

BECAUSE THE REGULATION IS ABSOLUTE BS!

----------

This thread has been very entertaining, seems everyone has an opinion on the pros and cons of iPads in the cockpit.

This has not been some overnight decision making leading to a business case of 'wouldn't it be cool to put iPads in the cockpit?'. They are a valid business device for this purpose, the form factor and capabilities are almost perfect for the use case.

I am leading this deployment effort from an IT perspective at United and can shed some light on some of the topics discussed.

1. With Jet fuel at $126 per barrel every pound of weight removed from the aircraft saves some money. Its not a great amount per flight but multiply that by 2000 flights a day/365 days a year and it all adds up

2. Theres a 14 day revision cycle for these docs and its a huge expense to manually go through every document removing expired pages and inserting new ones. As the merger between United and Continental progresses the documents will merge into one and will be delivered consistently and electronically across the system regardless of whether you were a Continental or a United pilot.

3. The iPads are going out out as a class 1 EFB, which means its not part of the minimum equipment list and will not ground an aircraft in the event of the pilots and co-pilots devices being inoperative. It also means it is not for use below 10000 feet or in critical stages of flight. Spares will be kept at pilot domiciles across the country and can be swapped out fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag

4. The device will be fully managed via MDM and will be in a locked down state so no angry birds, no ibooks, no iMovie, no music, no movies. Its a single purpose device.

5. Glare has been flight tested with and without screen filters and deemed to be not a problem. Rapid decompression testing has been performed and the device passed. EMI testing has also been completed with no issues.

6. All United data on the device will be managed and controlled, each device is password protected and through the MDM solution we can remotely wipe any device reported lost or stolen. Preference would be to 'brick' the device but Apple don't share those API's.

7. The devices being a class 1 EFB will not be attached or mounted to the aircraft and nor will they access the data or power busses.

Hope that cleared up some of the wild and whacky misconceptions out there.

Just seeing this now. Good to hear this info from someone in the know. I still think the 10000 foot regulation is bullcr@p but whatever. And I highly doubt all pilots will abide by said rules... I personally have friends that are united pilots who talk on their phones during flight.

Interesting that the iPads won't be plugged into the aircraft's own power - makes sense. This would require pretty rigorous certification and modifications to add dock connectors with power to all equipped aircraft. Really no reason to anyway, being as the iPad has a 10hr battery life under continuous and fairly rigorous use. I'm sure it will be no problem during flights.

I have found the iPad to be completely reliable for navigation and reference in my own airplane using Foreflight Mobile HD - not to mention the convenience of updating maps and airport info for free, on the go. I've completely replaced all of my charts - under FAR part 91 we can use an EFB as long as it does not replace any aircraft system or instrument. These solutions are certainly the future of cockpit information!

----------

Does anyone know if they have any kind of glare protection. I love my iPad but trying to use it in daylight is murder on the eyes. I've flown in a few small planes which I'm sure are no different than a larger jet. Ample Sunlight....LOL. I know PDF screen used in the new glass cockpits have countermeasures to make it so you can still see them in direct light... but if you own an iPad... you know it's like a mirror in the sun.

Don't need it. The iPad is fine in the cockpit - I've used mine in numerous different aircraft - high and low wing - and with the screen brightness up, glare is not a problem at all. You're never really in direct sunlight in the cockpits of most aircraft anyway, so it's no issue.

 

[annk]

This exact topic has been burning in my mind for months. It absolutely pisses me off how the airlines (fight attendants) are so Nazi-like about electronic devices. The woman sitting next to me on a recent flight was chastised by a flight attendant for simply hitting the top (sleep) button on her iPhone when asked to turn it off. The flight attendant rudely said "Yeah, I know that doesn't turn it off. Do you need me to show you how? You hold down the top button until it says slide to power off, then slide your finger to power it off!" and waited for her to do it.... I could not believe how rude she was about it.

I never put my stuff on airplane mode or turn it off or anything. iPhone and iPad stay on. I am just careful to either text covertly before take off or don't use my stuff at all, for fear of being made a spectacle of.

What really gets me is that people with iPads, Kindles etc are treated like CRIMINALS for having those on, even reading a book or something, when the people next to them reading paper books/newspapers are obviously fine. Reading more about this, I found that the FAA regulation is in place to reduce electromagnetic fields (caused by any electronic device) during the most sensitive stages of flight - takeoff and landing. HOWEVER, not one emergency, failure etc has been proven to have been caused by interference from an electronic device. The only time a failure was even remotely blamed on a device was when a 737's autopilot disconnected (turned off) for no reason. A flight attendant blamed a passenger's laptop that was in use at the time for the interference (no way in hell...) and the airline or aircraft manufacturer (I think Boeing) bought the passenger's laptop and conducted rigorous tests to try and recreate the problem, to no avail.

Really what the regulation comes down to is the airlines covering their asses. When something does go wrong, they want their lawyers to be able to absolutely prove that that something was not caused by joe schmoe and his iPhone....

... and yet the pilots will be up there using iPads for Jepp charts, procedures, checklists, etc and nobody will blink an eye.

BECAUSE THE REGULATION IS ABSOLUTE BS!

I don't work at an airline and have no insider insight, but a woman who does once told me that the regulations about when electronic devices must be turned off also are important in regard to communicating with passengers in emergency situations - such as take-off and landing.

She said that reading printed material isn't a problem because passengers can and will put it down when flight attendants really need to get their attention. This has not been the experience with electronic devices; people always "just have to" turn them off, fiddle with them first, can't hear because they're using headphones etc.

I can understand why you reacted to the flight attendant's rudeness in the situation you describe, and of course that was out of line. But as anyone who works in the service industry will tell you, people tend to think they're above the rules. They ignore them completely, as you admit you do, or - like the person you describe who sat near you - only pretend to follow them. That kind of arrogance must be incredibly frustrating for the employees whose job it is to get us around safely, especially when they no doubt encounter it daily. So without defending her actions, it's not hard to understand why that employee lost her cool.

For me, it boils down to this: when I'm a passenger, I understand I have to follow the rules that are set up at any given time by the carrier. Whether or not I agree with the rules and the reasons for them isn't the issue. I agree to them when I purchase my ticket. I can have any opinion about the rules I like, I can write to the airline or whomever makes the industry regulations to complain, but when I'm in that seat, my job is to follow them. Not turning off devices when instructed to shows an amazing lack of respect for the people working the flight.