Print 9 comment(s) - last by Azethoth.. on Jun 26 at 7:36 PM

Thankfully, the pilot won't be playing Angry Birds, or so we hope...  (Source: JetBlue)
JetBlue pilots will use iPads for three key activities

We reported on Monday that iPads are now in use in every single American Airlines cockpit. The airline deployed 8,000 iPads that will save 400,000 gallons of fuel and $1.2 million in fuel costs each year.
Not to be left out, JetBlue announced today on their blog that its pilots would also be using iPads in the cockpit. However, JetBlue assures passengers that, "[The pilots] won’t be playing Angry Birds in the cockpit, but the cool technology they’ll be able to see before and during a flight will help them be even better pilots."
The iPads will replace both paper manuals and heavy laptops and as with American Airlines, greater fuel savings will be achieved by using the lighter tablets.
According to the BlueTales blog, pilots will use the iPads to scan real-time weather updates, pre-flight planning, and to peruse digital airport and aircraft charts.

Source: JetBlue

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Better idea
By corduroygt on 6/26/2013 1:22:35 PM , Rating: 1
The money they save will be nothing compared to the legal costs they'd incur due to discrimination lawsuits.

RE: Better idea
By Gondor on 6/26/2013 2:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Discrimination lawsuit, what a wonderful idea - I'm vision impaired (10% eyesight remaining), cannot get driver's license because of that, they sure as hell wouldn't let me fly an airplane ... so I should just sue them for discrimination against vision-impaired people.

Get real, a job can have certain prerequisites and "weight under certain limit" would be just as legitimate one as "20/20 eyesight". Not everybody is fit for everything.

RE: Better idea
By corduroygt on 6/26/2013 3:11:30 PM , Rating: 3
While demonstrating why a blind person can't be a pilot is easy, you'd have to be able to demonstrate why a pilot must be under a certain weight, and to save on fuel costs is not a valid reason, certainly would not hold up in court.

Also, you can have a pretty athletic person that's still quite heavy, look at NBA players.

RE: Better idea
By Solandri on 6/26/2013 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, strictly on an economic level, a 747 burns 3.1 liters per 100 km per passenger. If you figure the average pilot flies 75 hours/mo, and a plane flies at an average speed of 500 mph (including takeoff/landing), you get:

(75 hrs/mo)*(12 mo/yr)*(500 mph)*(1.61 km/mi) = 724,500 km/yr
= 450,000 miles/yr

A plane burns about 1 lb of fuel per 10 lbs of extra weight carried 1000 miles.

So putting it all together, over a year of work a pilot who weighs 10 pounds more will require (10 lbs weight)*(450000 miles/yr)*(1 lb fuel) / (10 lbs weight)*(1000 miles) = 450 lbs of fuel.

Aviation fuel is 6.79 lbs/gallon, so this is about 66 extra gallons consumed during a year of flying. Aviation fuel is about $6/gal right now, so a pilot who weighs 10 pounds more costs the airline $400 more per year in fuel costs.

So unless the pilot is grossly overweight (say, 50+ lbs) it doesn't make that much difference to the bottom line.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki