AMC1 CAT.GEN.MPA.140 Portable electronic devices

CAA ORS9 Decision No. 1

TECHNICAL PREREQUISITES FOR THE USE OF PEDS

(a) Scope

This AMC describes the technical prerequisites under which any kind of portable electronic device (PED) may be used on board the aircraft without adversely affecting the performance of the aircraft’s systems and equipment.

(b) Prerequisites concerning the aircraft configuration

(1) Before an operator may permit the use of any kind of PED on-board, it should ensure that PEDs have no impact on the safe operation of the aircraft. The operator should demonstrate that PEDs do not interfere with on-board electronic systems and equipment, especially with the aircraft’s navigation and communication systems.

(2) The assessment of PED tolerance may be tailored to the different aircraft zones for which the use of PEDs is considered, i.e. may address separately:

(i) the passenger compartment;

(ii) the flight crew compartment; and

(iii) areas not accessible during the flight.

(1) Possible scenarios, under which the operator may permit the use of PEDs, should be as documented in Table 1. The scenarios in Table 1 are listed in a descending order with the least permitting scenario at the bottom.

(2) Restrictions arising from the corresponding aircraft certification, as documented in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) or equivalent document(s), should stay in force. They may be linked to different aircraft zones, or to particular transmitting technologies covered.

(3) For Scenarios Nos. 3 to 8 in Table 1 the use of C-PEDs and cargo tracking devices may be further expanded, when the EMI assessment has demonstrated that there is no impact on safety as follows:

(i) for C-PEDs by using the method described in (d)(2); and

(ii) for cargo tracking devices by using the method described in (d)(3).

Table 1 – Scenarios for permitting the use of PEDs by the operator

No.	Technical condition	Non-intentional transmitters	T-PEDs
1	The aircraft is certified as T-PED tolerant, i.e. it has been demonstrated during the aircraft certification process that front door and back door coupling have no impact on the safe operation of the aircraft	All phases of flight	All phases of flight
2	A complete electromagnetic interference (EMI) assessment for all technologies, using the method described in (d)(1), has been performed and has demonstrated the T-PED tolerance	All phases of flight	All phases of flight
3	The aircraft is certified for the use of T-PEDs using particular technologies (e.g. WLAN or mobile phone)	All phases of flight	All phases of flight, restricted to those particular technologies
4	The EMI assessment, using the method described in (d)(1), has demonstrated that: (a) the front door coupling has no impact on safety; and (b) the back door coupling has no impact on safety when using particular technologies (e.g. WLAN or mobile phone)	All phases of flight	All phases of flight, restricted to those particular technologies
5	The EMI assessment, using the method described in (d)(1)(i), has demonstrated that the front door coupling has no impact on safety caused by non-intentional transmitters	All phases of flight	Not permitted
6	The EMI assessment, using the method described in (d)(1)(ii), has demonstrated that the back door coupling has no impact on safety when using particular technologies (e.g. WLAN or mobile phone)	All phases of flight - except low visibility approach operation	All phases of flight - except low visibility approach operation, restricted to those particular technologies
7	An EMI assessment has not been performed	All phases of flight - except low visibility approach operation	Not permitted
8	Notwithstanding Scenarios Nos. 3 to 7	(a) before taxi-out; (b) during taxi-in after the end of landing roll; and (c) the commander may permit the use during prolonged departure delays, provided that sufficient time is available to check the passenger compartment before the flight proceeds

(d) Demonstration of electromagnetic compatibility

(1) EMI assessment at aircraft level

The means to demonstrate that the radio frequency (RF) emissions (intentional or non- intentional) are tolerated by aircraft systems should be as follows:

(i) to address front door coupling susceptibility for any kind of PEDs:

(A) EUROCAE, ‘Guidance for the use of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) on Board Aircraft’, ED-130A / RTCA DO-363 ‘Guidance for the Development of Portable Electronic Devices (PED) Tolerance for Civil Aircraft’, Section 5; or

(B) EUROCAE, ‘Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance’, ED-239 / RTCA DO-307A, Section 4;

The use of RTCA, ‘Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T PEDs) on Aircraft’, DO-294C (or later revisions), Appendix 5C; or RTCA DO-307 ‘Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance’, (including Change 1 or later revisions), Section 4 may be acceptable.

(ii) to address back door coupling susceptibility for T-PEDs:

(A) EUROCAE, ‘Guidance for the use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) on board aircraft’, ED-130A/RTCA DO-363, Section 6; or

(B) EUROCAE, ‘Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance’, ED-239 / RTCA DO-307A, Section 3; or

(C) The use of EUROCAE, ‘Guidance for the use of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) on Board Aircraft’, ED-130, Annex 6; or RTCA DO-294C (or later revisions), Appendix 6D; or RTCA DO-307 (including Change 1 or later revisions), Section 3 may be acceptable.

(2) Alternative EMI assessment of controlled PEDs (C-PEDs)

(i) To address front door coupling:

(A) C-PEDs should comply with the levels as defined by:

(a) EUROCAE/RTCA, ‘Environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne equipment’, ED-14D/DO-160D (or later revisions), Section 21, Category M, for operation in the passenger compartment and the flight crew compartment; and

(b) EUROCAE ED-14D/RTCA DO-160D (or later revisions), Section 21, Category H, for operation in areas not accessible during the flight.

(B) If the C-PEDs are electronic flight bags used in the flight crew compartment and if the DO-160 testing described in (A) identifies inadequate margins for interference or has not been performed, it is necessary to test the C-PED in each aircraft model in which it will be operated. The C-PED should be tested in operation on the aircraft to show that no interference with aircraft equipment occurs. Credit may be given to other aircraft that are similarly equipped (meaning in particular that they contain the same avionics equipment) of the same make and model as the one tested.

(ii) To address back door coupling susceptibility for C-PEDs with transmitting capabilities, the EMI assessment described in (1)(ii) should be performed.

(3) Alternative EMI assessment of cargo tracking devices

In cases where a transmitting function is automatically deactivated in a cargo tracking device that is a T-PED, the unit should be qualified for safe operation on board the aircraft. One of the following methods should be considered to be acceptable as evidence of its safe operation:

(i) A type-specific safety assessment, including failure mode and effects analysis, has been performed at the aircraft level. The main purpose of the assessment should be to determine the hazards and to demonstrate that the design assurance levels of the relevant hardware and software components of the cargo tracking device are adequate.

(ii) The high intensity radiated field (HIRF) certification of the aircraft has been performed, i.e. the aircraft type has been certified after 1987 and meets the appropriate special condition. In such a case, the operator should ensure that the following conditions are met:

(A) The tracking device:

(a) features an automated and prolonged radio suspension in flight using multiple modes of redundancy; and

(b) has been verified in the aircraft environment to ensure deactivation of the transmitting function in flight.

(B) The emissions from the tracking device comply with the levels as defined by EUROCAE ED-14E/RTCA DO-160E (or later revisions), Section 21, Category H.

(a) a declaration from the manufacturer identifying the device and confirming that the device and its deactivation function comply with the requirement (A) and (B) above;

(b) a declaration showing that robust design and production controls are in place during the manufacturing of the tracking device;

(c) a declaration of conformity and technical documentation showing compliance with the European Norms (EN), regulating the transmitter characteristics of the tracking device or its transmission module; and

(d) the EMI assessment report documenting compliance with point (B) above.

(iii) The tracking device interference levels during transmission are below those considered acceptable for the specific aircraft environment

(e) Operational conditions of C-PEDs and cargo tracking devices

The operator should ensure that C-PEDs and cargo tracking devices are maintained in good and safe condition, having in mind that:

(1) damage may modify their emissions characteristics; and

(2) damage to the battery may create a fire hazard.

(f) Batteries in C-PEDs and cargo tracking devices

Lithium-type batteries in C-PEDs and cargo tracking devices should meet:

(1) United Nations (UN) Transportation Regulations, ‘Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods - manual of tests and criteria’, UN ST/SG/AC.10/11; and

(2) one of the following standards:

(i) Underwriters Laboratory, ‘Lithium batteries’, UL 1642;

(ii) Underwriters Laboratory, ‘Household and commercial batteries’, UL 2054;

(iii) Underwriters Laboratory, ‘Information technology equipment – safety’, UL 60950- 1;

(iv) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ‘Secondary cells and batteries containing alkaline or other non-acid electrolytes - safety requirements for portable sealed secondary cells, and for batteries made from them, for use in portable applications’, IEC 62133;

(v) RTCA, ‘Minimum operational performance standards for rechargeable lithium battery systems’, DO-311. RTCA DO-311 may be used to address concerns regarding overcharging, over-discharging, and the flammability of cell components. The standard is intended to test permanently installed equipment; however, these tests are applicable and sufficient to test electronic flight bags rechargeable lithium-type batteries; or

(vi) European Technical Standard Order (ETSO), ‘Non-rechargeable lithium cells and batteries’, ETSO C142a.