Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Law
Pilots' personal use of electronic devices >

Pilots' personal use of electronic devices

Search
Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

Pilots' personal use of electronic devices

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-12-2014, 06:04 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
skytrekker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 167
Default Pilots' personal use of electronic devices

FAA bans pilots' personal use of electronic devices in cockpit

FAA bans pilots' personal use of electronic devices in cockpit | Mobile - CNET News


http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-02991_PI.pdf

Last edited by rickair7777; 02-12-2014 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Fix Links
skytrekker is offline  
Old 02-12-2014, 07:42 AM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Default

You have to read the details and reference the FCC rules for definitions but it's unclear whether this applies to e-readers.

It sounds like the intent is to ban communication devices using cell service systems. E-readers have wifi that can be used to load new e-books, I'm not sure if they fall under the FCC definition.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-12-2014, 08:14 AM
  #3  
Working weekends
 
satpak77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Default

mostly a non-event, except for those who desire to play Angry Birds while in flight. Me, the best show on earth is out your window. Never figured those other guys out, but...
satpak77 is offline  
Old 02-13-2014, 07:38 AM
  #4  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Default

Originally Posted by satpak77 View Post
mostly a non-event, except for those who desire to play Angry Birds while in flight. Me, the best show on earth is out your window. Never figured those other guys out, but...

I can enjoy the view for 20 minutes or so (in the west). Looking at 1000 mile eastern undercast was only cool for the first few minutes.

I agree 100% that "interactive" digital activities can be a distraction because they can "demand" your attention at certain moments which might be the same time you needed to catch that radio call. That kind of thing probably should be banned. Hard to say where to draw the line. But good old fashioned reading (hard copy or electronic) is nothing new and should be allowed. Without some kind of mental action, people are more prone to zone out or even doze on the backside. Sometimes the other guy isn't a great conversationalist.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-13-2014, 10:00 AM
  #5  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

You have to read the details and reference the FCC rules for definitions but it's unclear whether this applies to e-readers.

I know 26 pages is a lot for most people to read, but what is unclear about this?

Page 16, under III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule, Prohibited devices
"This broad category includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cell phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, some (but not all) gaming systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well as netbooks and notebook computers."
(emphasis mine)
This change to § 121.542 essentially does nothing new, as it only repeats a prohibition already stated in 49 U.S. Code § 44732 - Prohibition on personal use of electronic devices on flight deck.







.
TonyC is online now  
Old 02-13-2014, 10:39 AM
  #6  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
I know 26 pages is a lot for most people to read, but what is unclear about this?

Page 16, under III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule, Prohibited devices
"This broad category includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cell phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, some (but not all) gaming systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well as netbooks and notebook computers."
(emphasis mine)
This change to § 121.542 essentially does nothing new, as it only repeats a prohibition already stated in 49 U.S. Code § 44732 - Prohibition on personal use of electronic devices on flight deck.







.
I read it all. The discussion mentions e-readers but the discussion is not regulatory and appears to contradict or muddle the regulatory language. The actual language references an FCC definition which seems to describe devices which use mobile data services, ie cell networks. E-readers which don't use cell phone connectivity would not fall into the category. I think.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-13-2014, 01:29 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Aviator89's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 292
Default

is this only part 121/135? cuz my part91 trips that exceed 6 hours crossing th continent will get real boring real quick without a game or two of chess and angry birds. :) the view is only good for a little while haha
Aviator89 is offline  
Old 02-14-2014, 05:46 AM
  #8  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

The discussion mentions e-readers but the discussion is not regulatory and appears to contradict or muddle the regulatory language.

Yeah, you're probably right. The first 24 pages of the docket were probably a big waste of time. We don't really need to know anything about the background, intent, or meaning of the single-sentence change to a single sub-paragraph of the whole set of Federal Aviation Regulations. It's not regulatory, and neither is the AIM.

Good luck with that argument when your friendly FAA Inspector takes issue with your use of an e-reader during cruise to break the boredom.

But I'm very interested to see which parts of the wasted 24 pages you believe to "contradict" or "muddle" the actual regulatory language.




(from your first post:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

It sounds like the intent is to ban communication devices using cell service systems.

Did you glean the intent from the regulatory language, or did you glean it from the wasted 24 pages of the docket which preceded the actual regulatory language, or did you fashion the intent from thin air?

Here's the intent I read in the docket. In fact, it's on the first page, in the first paragraph:
"This rule ... is intended to ensure that certain non-essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck or a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non-essential tasks."
That doesn't even mention electronics or wireless, much less "cell service systems." Maybe that's what you wish it would say, but there's simply nothing to support such a wish.




Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

E-readers have wifi that can be used to load new e-books, I'm not sure if they fall under the FCC definition.

This wifi thing you talk about ... does that use a wire to connect the device to something else, or does it communicate wirelessly? I mean, if it uses a wire, I could see how you would think it might not fall under the FCC definition of wireless device.

But if it's wireless ... eh, that's a tougher sell ...





Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

The actual language references an FCC definition which seems to describe devices which use mobile data services, ie cell networks.

Yeah, about that definition. With a few mouse clicks and average Google-foo, you can actually read that definition. Or, you can save some clicks and read here: (49 U.S. Code § 44732 - Prohibition on personal use of electronic devices on flight deck (It's subparagraph (d)))

Oh, what the hay, I'll save you all the clicks and just post it here:
(d) Personal Wireless Communications Device Defined.— In this section, the term “personal wireless communications device” means a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted.
And, then you can see you need to figure out what "personal wireless services" means. Again, you can click on the hyperlink, or you can read it here:
(C) Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i)the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
Or ... better still, you could read the paragraph from the docket, from among the useless, worthless 24 pages, entitled "Prohibited devices":
"As stated in the NPRM, Section 307 of the Act defines 'personal wireless communications device' as a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934) are transmitted. The Communications Act of 1934 states that personal wireless services means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access service."
Wow, ain't that handy!?!? BOTH references incorporated in the text of the docket! Oh, and if you still find that confusing, the next paragraph goes on to explain it further:
"In general, wireless telecommunications is the transfer of information between two or more points that are not physically connected. In the final rule, the FAA retains the same broad category of included devices because a list of specific devices would ignore the reality of evolving technology. This broad category includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cell phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, some (but not all) gaming systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well as netbooks and notebook computers."

Oh, wait, I already quoted that last sentence before. I guess that pretty much wraps it up then.



Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

E-readers which don't use cell phone connectivity would not fall into the category. I think.

I think you should reconsider.






.
TonyC is online now  
Old 02-14-2014, 05:48 AM
  #9  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Aviator89 View Post

is this only part 121/135? cuz my part91 trips ...

It's a change to § 121.542.






.
TonyC is online now  
Old 02-14-2014, 02:35 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

Stupid. If it means I can't read a book on a electronic device....but it is legal to read a book that is in print.....
atpcliff is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
P-3Bubba
Major
174
04-23-2014 06:14 AM
Free Bird
Safety
34
01-20-2013 07:21 PM
TruthHurts
United
64
04-02-2012 10:23 AM
RPC Unity
Union Talk
149
06-30-2011 08:39 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices