[NYCFarmboy]

Is sleep mode ok during take off and landing?

Of course laptops and all electronic devices must be shut down during take off and landing on airplanes...

I have always completely shut down my ibook before take off and landing.. is this necessary or would "sleep mode" be ok?

Would save me the long boot up on my 500 mhz ibook which I normally just leave on all the time.

I DO NOT want to jeapordize flight safety but was curious about this issue.

[billybob128]

i left mine on sleep so did my brother i left it on all holyday even through the security check thing itll be fine asleep

[ccsccs7]

I left mine asleep as well. I think the problem is when it is actually running when it will be producing much more electronic interference (hard drive, processor, internal busses).

[chabig]

Sleep is just fine. I fly everywhere with my iBook asleep in the cockpit. When I remember, I do try to turn the airport card off.

Chris (Airbus 320 pilot)

[NYCFarmboy]

thanks! that answers that!

I will keep the airport shut off..good idea!

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
thanks! that answers that!

I will keep the airport shut off..good idea! ... at least until they install wifi

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by chabig:
Sleep is just fine. I fly everywhere with my iBook asleep in the cockpit. When I remember, I do try to turn the airport card off.

Chris (Airbus 320 pilot)

Interesting to hear a professional's opinion about this. I always switch everything off because I don't want to jeopardise plane safety but I also have sometimes thought that this might not be all that necessary.

Do mobile phones really have the ability to interfere with a plane's controls? I am not asking you so I can ignore safety procedures in future, just out of curiosity.
I know that Lufthansa and KLM are experimenting with high speed WiFi on board during transatlantic flights so that would indicate that wireless doesn't affect the plane at all...

[mdc]

i would also like a professionals view on this. i read some report about a flight that was sponsored by a cellphone company and people could make calls on it. and how some guy had his wireless on his laptop on the whole flight and everything was fine.

but yeah, who am i to take 400 other peoples lives into my hands because i want to see if wireless does indeed affect things. i will turn off airport.

[radarbob]

There are so many electronics in a modern aircraft that, IMHO, it's impossible to tell when or if computers, cellphones, PDAs, etc. (or some combination thereof) will cause interference. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it guaranteed to happen? Don't know. But I do know the consequeces would be worst during takeoff and landing in less than VFR conditions.

I think the biggest risk is to instruments that depend on incoming signals - primarily navigation aids.

I have had two incidents where my nav aids were affected. One was when the North Koreans were deliberately spoofing our nav aids; but it was expected, we knew where we were, and had backups so no big deal. The other was genuine interference from an electronic device a passenger was using. Again, the crew's situational awareness and redundant nav aids kept it from being a serious issue while we were troubleshooting the problem.

Aircraft are thoroughly tested and certified for flight with a given set of on-board, built-in electronic gismo stuff. When outside electronics are added to the mix... well, who knows. But, when at cruise using multiple navigation aids, when the crew's attention is not diverted dodging other traffic, the weather is good, then the risk is minimal, IMHO.

Bob Jones,
former C-130 pilot

[chabig]

Bob's got it right folks. Electronic interference is a possibility. And while it might not happen, it's not worth the risk.

As you probably know, the aviation industry has an amazing record of safety. Everything is designed, built, tested, regulated, and operated from a safety standpoint. It would amaze you.

When you have passengers broadcasting electromagnetic signals, it puts the airplane in an environment for which it was never tested. Thus--the risk.

You can be sure that when aircraft do begin deploying onboard wi-fi, the full effects and interactions of the airplane's systems will be fully tested and accounted for. Until then, it's just a risk we don't want to take.

I really appreciate everyone's interest.

Chris

[silverlode]

I took a telecommunications class at Northwestern here in Chicago and the prof (a telecom expert and consultant) told us that the only reason they don't want you using cell phones on a plane is that calls initiated from altitude tie up more bandwidth.

Now that I actually take a moment to consider this...it makes no friggin' sense.

[billybob128]

chabig can (and i no this is off topic) i ask your opinion on the grounding of the fleet of concords as and i no you said ther is amazing saftey and of this i dont doubt but where as with 747's and the airbusses and leerjets and the rest of those there have been multiple crashes causing many unfortunate deaths but they were never grounded however after just one concord crash they ground the whole fleet
so can i ask your opinion?

[chabig]

I took a telecommunications class at Northwestern here in Chicago and the prof (a telecom expert and consultant) told us that the only reason they don't want you using cell phones on a plane is that calls initiated from altitude tie up more bandwidth.

This is true. The cellular system is designed so that as your handset moves around, the call is handed off from cell to cell. Each cell has a limited number of channels or frequencies available to it. The reason the system works is because there are enough cells around so that all of the users can be accomodated. If you put a handset up in the air, it will be seen by many cell sites at the same time. If effectively ties up that channel/frequency in cell. Thus the overall network capacity is reduced.

BillyBob...all I know is what British Airways and Air France said. The concorde could not be operated profitable. It always lost money. They kept flying them as signs of status and finally decided it just wasn't worth it anymore. I'm sure there were safety consideration, but I think it finally boiled down to economics. The safety could problems could have been fixed at a cost, but why spend more money on a system that's already losing money?

Chris

[DigitalEl]

[WAY OFF TOPIC]

chabig can i ask your opinion on the grounding of the fleet of concords

<snip> with 747s and the airbusses and learjets and the rest of those there have been multiple crashes causing many unfortunate deaths but they were never grounded, however after just one concord crash they ground the whole fleet so can i ask your opinion?

Another simple answer. Politics. It's in the U.S. government's best interest to protect Boeing. It's in the EU's interest to protect Airbus Industrie. Therefore, when there are questions about the 747's center fuel tank (TWA 800), the fleet isn't grounded. When there are questions about the 737's rudder (US Air 427 and others), Airworthiness Directives are issued by the FAA, instructing operators to take a look and maybe make repairs, but grounding the fleet isn't even considered. Especially with the 737... Such a move would cripple the country, as that plane is the workhorse of the industry worldwide.

On the Airbus side, the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 into a Queens neighborhood just after 9/11 raised questions about the manufacturer's use of synthetic materials in its vertical stabiliser. Authorities instead blamed the First Officer for making "erratic rudder movements," causing the tail to snap off. A-300 operators were advised to "examine" their fleet's tail sections.

When in doubt, blame the pilots, because big business can do no wrong.

-----

As for the Concorde and economics, that's dead on, of course. Airlines save money with fleet commonality. If your MX people are buying and storing parts for many different AC types, it's going to cost more than if they have to buy and store parts for a single type. That's one of 10,000 reasons Southwest Airlines and little startups like JetBlue are making money while the big, flag carriers are failing. The Concorde brings prestige to British Airways and Air France, but operating and MX costs for just a fistful of planes means the type is no longer financially viable in this economy.

[/WAY OFF TOPIC]

[voodoo]

"When in doubt, blame the pilots, because big business can do no wrong."

-- !!!

Too true.