The iPad’s attempt to single-handedly revolutionise, well, everything, took another step to completion after Australia’s crown jewel airline, Qantas, announced that it will use iPads as in-flight entertainment systems.

Beginning in October, according to The Register, selected Qantas flights will sport the tablets as entertainment for passengers, with movies and television shows and music pre-loaded by the airline…

“Qantas executive manager customer experience Alison Webster said that if the trial is successful, it could lead to Qantas delivering all entertainment via wireless technology rather than personal seat-back television screens.”

Long term, users are expected to be able to use their own devices in lieu of the ones provided by Qantas, though content delivery systems are not yet in place for such an undertaking.

The airline cites significant weight savings over traditional in-seat systems as the main reason for the switch, but we’re sure travellers will also prefer the idea of an iPad to the clunky entertainment systems they’re usually subjected to.

Qantas isn’t the first airline to turn to the iPad as an entertainment system, and United Airlines has even handed out 11,000 iPadsĀ for its pilots to use as flight plans.

I’m not sure even an iPad will get me over my fear of flying, unfortunately!

  • Acolz

    Why are you feared of flying? Because you fear that the plane will crash? Look at how many cars crash daily and how many planes. I am much more feared of driving a car than flying with an airplane.

    • Matt

      A fear of driving a car is even more retarded than a fear of flying…

  • Svnelvn

    Well think of it this way. You have a very high chance of surviving a car crash, yet you have near 0 chance of surviving a plane crash.

  • In order to make as unbiased a comparison as possible, you would need to compare the standardized proportion of people who die in the two activities using the same sample size, this could be considered the probability of fatality. Clearly an activity undertaken by less people can result in less deaths. What we need to consider is the risk/fatality rate

  • In order to make as unbiased a comparison as possible, you would need to compare the standardized proportion of people who die in the two activities using the same sample size, this could be considered the probability of fatality. Clearly an activity undertaken by less people can result in less deaths. What we need to consider is the risk/fatality rate.

  • Cameron Carlyon

    What would you prefer? An average driver with a few days of driving tests or a pilot who has gone though YEARS of flight training and goes to flying lessons every few weeks. Plus there are at tops 5 commercial air crashes every year and 20 car crashes every day. I love to fly it’s why I am a pilot.

    • Good point, from what I’ve read a large majority of incidents are a result of negligent maintenance or human error, the planes are usually rigorously tested and perfected – that’s the benefit of having trial and error when building them, but of course, you don’t get that luxury when the pilot needs to make a decision they have never considered before.

      I would disagree of on your risk logic as I pointed out above, however. There are around 700m cars and around 300,000 passenger aircraft, so of flying and driving had the same proportion of accidents, you would expect the number of car accidents to be greater than airplane accidents. The proportion tells us more information than the level quantity.