Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Recent FedEx 767 delivery flight >

Recent FedEx 767 delivery flight

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Recent FedEx 767 delivery flight

Old 08-03-2018, 07:39 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
Default

Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 View Post

But you did fail to mention Part 91.21(c)
In this case, FedEx (through its FOM), not the PIC makes the determination on what PEDs can be used while operating the aircraft.
The point here is this was a company provided item I thought. Don't your ipads take photos? Those are used after block out for company stuff. So company has presumably determined it won't interfere.

That is the requirement FAA side. If operator says it won't interfere, FAA doesn't layer on any particular use restrictions under part 91.

If you are claiming FEDEX is flying devices (company provided) that interfere that is a very strong claim - you'd need to support that.

For personal camera, FOM would guide - so I don't have a clue there.
dynap09 is offline  
Old 08-03-2018, 08:00 AM
  #42  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,406
Default

Originally Posted by dynap09 View Post
The point here is this was a company provided item I thought. Don't your ipads take photos? Those are used after block out for company stuff. So company has presumably determined it won't interfere.

That is the requirement FAA side. If operator says it won't interfere, FAA doesn't layer on any particular use restrictions under part 91.

If you are claiming FEDEX is flying devices (company provided) that interfere that is a very strong claim - you'd need to support that.

For personal camera, FOM would guide - so I don't have a clue there.
EFBs are items that go through conformance checks, they are allowed only after that process. At our shop, we can't take pictures on our EFB iPads. Not sure how it is at FDX.
So your company iPads are legal, but your personal iPad isn't. That's FAA logic for you.
dera is offline  
Old 08-03-2018, 11:05 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
Default

Fair enough - a conformance check seems reasonable, though I would be curious at the noncomformance rates. If low enough (ie zero) it might indicate apple is consistent in mfg. or has its own conformance testing
dynap09 is offline  
Old 08-03-2018, 09:55 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sluggo_63's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,268
Default

Originally Posted by dynap09 View Post
The point here is this was a company provided item I thought. Don't your ipads take photos? Those are used after block out for company stuff. So company has presumably determined it won't interfere.

That is the requirement FAA side. If operator says it won't interfere, FAA doesn't layer on any particular use restrictions under part 91.

If you are claiming FEDEX is flying devices (company provided) that interfere that is a very strong claim - you'd need to support that.

For personal camera, FOM would guide - so I don't have a clue there.
Respectfully, the point isn't about being a company item or interference at all.

METOGuido got it exactly right when he said:
Originally Posted by METO Guido View Post
Doesn't really matter if it's framing a snapshot, typing on a iPad, squeezing a mayo package onto dry turkey or daydreaming about the flirty conversation you had at the pub last night, the issue (for me anyway) is one of distraction.
If you read the final rule creating 121.542(d) you'll see that the FAA says:
Several incidents involving a breakdown of cockpit discipline prompted Congress to address this issue via legislation. In one instance, two pilots were using their personal laptop computers during cruise flight and lost situational awareness, leading to a 150 mile fly-by of their destination. In another instance, a pilot sent a text message on her personal cell phone during the taxi phase of the flight after the aircraft pushed back from the gate and before the take-off sequence. These incidents illustrate the potential for such devices to create a hazardous distraction during critical phases of flight.
This rule will ensure that certain nonessential activities do not contribute to the challenge of task management on the flight deck and do not contribute to a loss of situational awareness due to attention to non-essential activities, as highlighted by these incidents.
You see, 121.542(d) wasn't about anything but reducing distractions related to PEDs. That's why they stuck it in 121.542 in the first place. That was the "sterile cockpit" paragraph.
In fact, the FAA actually addresses interference in the final rule.
The FAA notes that the potential for electromagnetic interference on the flight deck is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking 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.
And it doesn't matter if the device is company issued or personal. It's all about its use. You are allowed to use your personal cellphone to call dispatch or maintenance if it's required or related to the flight. You are not allowed to use a company iPad to take a picture of a plane taxiing by in front of you.

And I agree the rule is dumb. It is very broad in what it bans (personal wireless communications devices). This includes everything basically that can transmit a signal. Cell phone, smart phone, e-readers, gaming systems, etc. But the FAA actually says "The provisions of the final rule do not prohibit the use of devices that
do not meet the definition of personal wireless communications devices." So, if it doesn't transmit, it's okay. So a newspaper, a book, a point and shoot camera (without wireless) are all okay. Am I any less distracted taking a picture with a Canon SureShot than I am with my iPhone? Probably not. Am I less engaged when I do a crossword puzzle with pen and paper rather than on a tablet? No. But one is banned and not the other. Go figure.
Sluggo_63 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
j3cub
Allegiant
6367
12-20-2020 08:01 AM
steamgauge
Cargo
95
03-24-2013 05:55 PM
CrakPipeOvrheat
Regional
94
02-12-2012 08:14 PM
Gunter
Cargo
58
11-21-2009 12:11 PM
vagabond
Cargo
15
03-18-2007 03:50 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 On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices