Sony Reader on an airplane

[nathantw]

Just wondering if any of you have flown with your readers (dumb question)? If you have, since the unit really doesn't use much power were you required to turn it off during takeoff and landing?

[Nate the great]

Yes, I flew with my Reader. And since all electronic devices must be off during takeoff and landing, yes I turned it off.

[kovidgoyal]

I've found that when the cabin staff are making their rounds checking for devices, they typically looking for glowing screens, so if you hold the reader with the cover not fully turned back they just assume its a diary of some kind.

[NatCh]

It's not like it's really any more "off" just 'cause the screen's blank, in any case.

I had one flight recently where they never did ask us to turn stuff off -- no general announcement, anyway, I was specifically listening for it. I suppose the FA's might have been going down the aisle asking individuals to turn things off, but if so, they didn't say bupkiss to me about my Reader.

[nathantw]

You're aware of why the entire "turn off all electronics" rule first came about, right? It was because one particular company created an electronic item (I think it was a CD player) that wasn't FCC compliant, though it said it was, and took down the airplane through interference. Ever since then we've been following the rule.

What's interesting is that there was once a time many years ago I took my boombox onto the airplane. While in flight the flight attendant came up to my seat and asked if I had my radio turned on? I said no and she said "hmm, strange." Then she returned to the front. First off, my radio was in my bag so she couldn't have known I had one and second, how did she pinpoint the seat? Well, I checked my radio after she left and sure enough the radio was switched ON! Oops.

[Astropin]

Originally Posted by nathantw

You're aware of why the entire "turn off all electronics" rule first came about, right? It was because one particular company created an electronic item (I think it was a CD player) that wasn't FCC compliant, though it said it was, and took down the airplane through interference. Ever since then we've been following the rule.

Sounds like "popular myth" to me.....link to pertinent information please

[anotherchance]

Yes, I took my Reader on my trip to the UK last month and it performed flawlessly. I was a good boy and turned it off before takeoff and landing.

I thoroughly enjoyed using it on the plane. I put one of the little pillows on the tray-table, and nestled the Reader on that, then I was able to sit back, relax, and just keep one finger on the page-turn button. I blazed through nearly two complete books during the return flight, and the battery dropped one bar. Loved it.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Astropin

Sounds like "popular myth" to me.....link to pertinent information please

No its true a lot of small countries who cant afford anti aircraft weapons just throw CD players and other electric items in the sky to bring planes down!

Just imagine if a plane could be brought down like that, A planes systems are shielded against this and in fact it was tested on 'mythbusters' where they tried everything they could and couldnt affect the instruments.

The actual reason I remmber reading is because during take off and landing, the most dangerous times they want people concentrating on the instructions and whats going on and any messages the crew may give. and In fact on more than one occasion I have been asked to put my book in the little pocket on the seat in front during the takeoff and landing.

[Trenien]

Actually last summer while coming back from a trip in Greece, the flight attendant (male, in his forties) saw me reading on my librie and began to ask me a couple of questions about it.

The catch? The questions weren't of the "is this device dangerous for the plane" variety. They were of the "there are readers with such nice screens on the market" variety. It ended up with me discussing for a few minutes the various merits and flaws of readers with him and a couple of his colleagues (all guys ).

End of story : none of them even asked me to turn it off when we were landing...

[nathantw]

Originally Posted by Astropin

Sounds like "popular myth" to me.....link to pertinent information please

Ah, not enough time to look it up yourself? I may have been wrong on the type of unit that caused the problems, but here's some info. Perhaps you'll say that Boeing's data is a "popular myth" too.

1996/1997, 767 airplane.
Over a period of eight months, Boeing received five reports on interference with various navigation equipment (uncommanded rolls, displays blanking, flight management computer [FMC]/ autopilot/standby altimeter inoperative, and autopilot disconnects) caused by passenger operation of a popular handheld electronic game device. In one of these cases, the flight crew confirmed the interference by turning the unit on and off to observe the correlation. The same unit was used on another flight and on a different airplane, but the event could not be duplicated. Boeing purchased two of the actual suspect units through the airline and tested them in the laboratory, along with three off-the-shelf units. It was determined that these suspect units had emission profiles similar to the off-the-shelf units and that the levels from these devices were below airplane equipment emission limits.


Top of Page 1998, 747 airplane.
A passenger’s palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. Boeing was not able to purchase the actual PED, but contacted the PED manufacturer and purchased the same model. Boeing laboratory emission testing revealed that the unit exceeded Boeing airplane equipment emission levels by up to 37 dB by demonstrating energy levels in the frequency range of 150 to 700 kHz. In the Boeing navigation laboratory the unit was placed next to the FMCs, control display unit, and integrated display unit, but the reported anomaly could not be duplicated.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer..._textonly.html

[chuck94022]

Originally Posted by nathantw

Ah, not enough time to look it up yourself? I may have been wrong on the type of unit that caused the problems, but here's some info. Perhaps you'll say that Boeing's data is a "popular myth" too.

Wrong on the type of unit and wrong on the result. Read your own quote. The plane was not "brought down", but the pilots merely experienced some equipment interference.

None of the described interference effects would have been sufficient to bring down the plane, assuming the pilot was minimally competent (maybe that's a bad assumption in these cost cutting days... )

Further, note that on further testing, both cases cited difficulty in reproducing the problem in the lab or other aircraft, which might indicate poor or deteriorated electrical shielding on the affected aircraft.

[nathantw]

Originally Posted by chuck94022

None of the described interference effects would have been sufficient to bring down the plane, assuming the pilot was minimally competent (maybe that's a bad assumption in these cost cutting days... )

Further, note that on further testing, both cases cited difficulty in reproducing the problem in the lab or other aircraft, which might indicate poor or deteriorated electrical shielding on the affected aircraft.

You think that uncontrollable banking will not have an effect to bring down an airplane. Good thing you're not a pilot. Here's a piloting tip, if you can't move the rudder, your elevators, and your airlons, you're more than likely going to crash.

Yes, they couldn't reproduce the problem with a unit they purchased because they weren't defective. All it takes is one defective unit to cause a problem, or do you think everything off the shelf is perfect? The truth is that there were problems with electronics. The truth is that the pilots of the planes reported that it went into uncontrolled banking. The truth is that a plane will crash if it can't come out of an uncontrolled bank if not corrected.

[chuck94022]

Originally Posted by nathantw

You think that uncontrollable banking will not have an effect to bring down an airplane. Good thing you're not a pilot. Here's a piloting tip, if you can't move the rudder, your elevators, and your airlons, you're more than likely going to crash.

Yes, they couldn't reproduce the problem with a unit they purchased because they weren't defective. All it takes is one defective unit to cause a problem, or do you think everything off the shelf is perfect? The truth is that there were problems with electronics. The truth is that the pilots of the planes reported that it went into uncontrolled banking. The truth is that a plane will crash if it can't come out of an uncontrolled bank if not corrected.

Actually, I am a highly experienced pilot, with Instrument and High Performance ratings, in addition to ratings in sailplanes, helicopters, ultralights and even hang gliders. I think I know very well what I am talking about.

Granted your "piloting tip" is no doubt true, but it is not what was described in either of the reports you posted. Here is a fact: autopilots, when they misbehave (and they do ALL THE TIME, by the way) can easily be disabled or even overpowered by the pilot. I have had MANY occasions where I enabled the autopilot and it either refused to engage or started doing something unexpected. That is not an emergency, just an annoyance.

Now, if the pilot is in IMC (instrument conditions, ie, can't see out the windshield), this is inconvenient, but not an emergency. It just means the landing will be done by hand (which likely means the copilot will get some stick time), rather than by computer.

Pilots, during critical maneuvers like landing, are monitoring and cross checking systems constantly. A misbehaving autopilot will be instantly detected and shut down. A misbehaving electronic navigational aid (like the GPS or ILS) will be quickly detected, and if on an instrument approach, the pilot will immediately execute a missed approach procedure, go around, and request a different landing procedure not requiring the failed instruments.

All the electronic systems in a modern aircraft are "backed up" by non-electronic systems (we call them "steam gauges") that are driven by dynamic air pressure and/or simple electric motors. If the electronics fail completely, there are sufficient instruments to provide a pilot with enough information to land the plane.

The control surfaces (elevator, rudder, ailerons) are controlled with hydraulics in commercial aircraft, and by other mechanical means in smaller craft. A PS3 or Kindle is not going to take such systems out.

Finally, the pilots did not report "uncontrollable" banking. They reported that the autopilot improperly "initiated a shallow banked turn" (also known as an "uncommanded" bank) in one case (this is easily corrected by the pilot, who is constantly monitoring the autopilot), and in the other case, the autopilot disengaged or refused to engage.

As I stated before, this kind of stuff happens all the time, for many many reasons. Neither of the above cases would rise above the level of annoyance to a pilot, but would be diligently reported on landing, as *all* observed equipment problems are required to be "squawked".

[drogo]

I recently flew from IAD to LGA in the middle of a good book. I really didn't want to put it down. But, having just got my ASEL (October 9, woohoo!!), I know I want my instructions to be followed when I'm PIC, so I turned it off.

It sucked, but coming home was very much worth it. We turned across Manhattan just after dark, and the view was incredible. It was kind of like a candy cane, one street all red (tail lights), the next all white (headlights).

I don't think the reader would cause much of a problem since it "off" most of the time, but still, you have to follow the flight crew's instructions as per federal regulations.

[chuck94022]

Originally Posted by drogo

I ... just got my ASEL (October 9, woohoo!!)...

Congratulations!

Originally Posted by drogo

I know I want my instructions to be followed when I'm PIC, so I turned it off.

I totally agree! And that is the precise reason the device should be turned off. I personally think the Sony Reader can do no harm to a commercial flight control system, but I always reluctantly turn it off, because the pilot (through the flight attendant) requested it.