Electronics & Planes Don't Mix? 625
dirtydamo writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running an interesting story on the old debate on whether electronic devices cause problems on planes. It appears pilots are pretty much accustomed to handling weird problems with equipment, which they attribute to passengers' portable devices. More research is needed to determine whether or not this is the actual problem, but the article certainly makes me a little uneasy about modern air travel."
Could a HERF weapon be made notebook sized? (Score:3, Informative)
Sad I have to post this anonymously.
Re:This is exactly right. (Score:5, Informative)
The last plane I was flying coach the aircraft was a virtual cattle car. Most city busses have more room and are usually more comfortable than the vast majority of aircraft.
Re:Can't they insulate this stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
-psy
Re:Stupid question: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anecdotal evidence is always suspect (Score:3, Informative)
Sorta like how your supposed to turn off your cell phone when pumping gasoline. This is based of an urban legend that the electronic feedback of the phone is sufficent to ignite petrol fumes. Yet... still we have warnings at all pumps, even though there has *NEVER* been a fire based on cell phones at the gas stations.
I figure its one of those better safe then sorry type stances. Although... this particular case, pisses people off to no end. Thing is, last time I flew I was allowed to use my laptop, except during take-off and landing... so this may be a airline to airline based rule.
Re:Anecdotal evidence is always suspect (Score:3, Informative)
For example if a Jumbojet with 40 passengers flew over a residentilal are before landing their phones could overwhelm the network.
I'm not sure about how CDMA handles this, but my (limited) knowledge about European GSM networks don't indicate that this is a problem.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. The problem however, is when pilots (or air controllers) rely on instruments they believe to be accurate and have no way of knowing whether this is true. In some instrument landing system (ILS) landings, it is virtually impossible to land without the instruments or verify all the parameters. More often, this only makes it hard to recover from another mistake such as leaving air brakes on [airdisaster.com] or verifying that the ground aid is working [airdisaster.com]. Pilots have well defined procedures for preventing these mistakes and for recovering from them as well. Yet the danger of faith in an inaccurate instrument can lead the crew to feel nothing is wrong until it is too late.
Re:Can't they insulate this stuff? (Score:4, Informative)
BTW airplanes are not the only place this kind of interference shows up. Any instrument with an exposed wire is subject to this kind of RF interference. Examples include medical equipment, entertainment devices, and scientific instrumentation.
I have personally identified it in HPLC chromatograms (analytical chemistry) where it shows up as spurious peaks (everybody else was thinking sample contamination). We had to ban communications devices from the labs, the security guards and manufacturing people used to grumble, but oh well.
Re:Seems funny only on planes (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly a cumulative effect?
Now...if the engine fuel mix sensor is in the nose, and the wiring happens to run right under your seat, and the engine fuel mix is a little off because the voltage down the wire is off due to your cell phone and the engine is runing a little rich.
Throw in some bad weather.
I'd rather not crash because the pilots were trying to compensate for a rough running engine, in a thunderstorm, for your of-so-important phone call.
Put your phone next to the pc, and make a call. You just might hear a little harmonic interference. You want that same interference affecting the aircraft intruments?
Myths about airlines and electronics... (Score:3, Informative)
Even fly-by-wire Airbuses are highly unlikely to be knocked out by anything a hand-held device can generate.
The real reason why cellphones are banned in flight is to save ground networks from being spammed by phones zipping from cell to cell a hundred times faster than ever foreseen. Not to protect the plane from disaster.
I'm a pilot (Score:5, Informative)
It is particularly crucial that these devices are off during landings. Landing is by far the most dificult portion of flying. On commercial planes, they are often making their approaches in IFR (Insturment) conditions. It takes very little to make approach devices go haywire. You don't want this happening when the visibility is 500ft and you are trying to touch down 30 tons of aircraft in fog. It hasn't happened yet, but sooner or later some aircraft is going to crash on landing because some schmoe couldn't wait till he got down safely to call and tell folks he is going to be late for his meeting. In 99 out of 100 cases there may be no effect on the plane, but it only takes one crucial event to destroy an aircraft. Try to remember that.
Re:So if it's the case that (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is more this. Cel phones periodically broadcast a 'Are you there?' signal to the ground stations. Most phones, if they don't get an answer will amplify this signal and request again (or just try repeatedly until they get one). Other electronics are not so nice about not producing EM interference from failing or aged circuitry. Besides, have you ever heard a nextel phone when it recieves or broadcasts to it's ground stations? That phone is so low in frequency or whatever that you can know your phone is going to ring when the speakers nearby you start to warble at you.
As for your plane being secured and safe, bully for you. Perhaps your plane's wiring is a) shielded, b) not sufficiently exposed to become an antenna or c) you aren't flying at sufficient distance from any towers to cause your phone to shout for a reponse (or your phone is 'plane friendly' and doesn't). Considering the age of most planes, I wouldn't count this measure of safety as a 'given'.
Re:Not too far fetched.. (Score:2, Informative)
Go take some flying lessons. You'll learn that pilots are VERY careful people who will not let their lives be ended that easily. And that goes for each and every person they/we have taken responsibility for as well.
For instance, in the typical light plane, you don't actually need the instruments to land it in good weather. If you're flying in bad weather, you have two redundant gyro systems -- usually one is vacuum powered and the other electrical. So, worst case, you can keep the plane upright and on course until until you run out of fuel. The ILS (Instrument Landing System) is a radio beacon system that will guide you to the threshold of the runway if the weather's really bad. This is probably where most of the concern comes from. But, it's standard practice to monitor the signal quality as you fly on it -- you don't want someone tripping over the cord to ruin your day. If the ILS subbornly refuses to work, you fly a "missed approach" procedure and either try again, or fly somewhere where the weather is better.
Although I hold a private pilot certificate, I'm not an instrument pilot. I'm starting my course of study for the instrument rating, though, so I've got some idea how this stuff works. Also, glass cockpits are common in airliners and they probably have different failure modes -- but from what I hear, they're a lot easier to use in "degraded mode" than the "steam gauges" we little people fly on. BTW, according to a recent issue of "AOPA Pilot", you can still and an Airbus with the mechanical trim -- no power, and no elextricty. At least if you can see the ground.
So, I don't see any problem with electronics if the weather's good. But, given that a lot of people who ride commercial airliners can't be bothered to look at the sky, I assume that it's easier just to make a blanket rule. I'd *much* rather fly myself -- at least until the airlines and commercial airport folks start treating me like a customer rather than a threat or a nusiance -- but that's a rant for another day.
In other words, a little knowledge will calm your fears quite a bit. Airplanes don't just fall from the sky (unless you rip the wings off), and your laptop just won't make that happen. Aviation folks are extremely cautious, by nature because that's what keeps them coming home to see their families. Or, if they're young single guys like myself, flying safe (or not flying if something doesn't look right) means that I'll get to fly another day!
Peace! May you enjoy the best view in the world, and the tranquility that comes with it.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:2, Informative)
We don't. The latest issue of "AOPA Pilot" mentions that even in 100% fly-by-wire aircraft like the newer Airbus models, you still have enough manual controls to land the aircraft without electrical or hydraulic power.
All aircraft have "trim", so that the pilot doesn't have to hold-back or push-forward on the stick/yoke all of the time in order to keep the plane flying at a constant speed/altitude. Many good pilots fly with the trim as much as they fly with the yoke - since the trim has to be adjusted every time you change speed, altitude, or the loading of the plane, or burn fuel. The aircraft that I fly only has elevator (pitch up/down) trim, but more expensive aircraft have it for rudder and aileron as well. So, in a pinch, you can fly an airliner with the trim.
And, to be certified, the Airbus test pilot has to show that the make and model of aircraft can be landed with ONLY the trim and no input from the normal controls. This is quite reassuring!
Re:Man this is bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Last I heard Airbus were using various RTOS systems and if its in a critical area, triplication with three different software solutions implemented on two different processor architectures (Motorola and Intel). I hope that Boeing is doing the same.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that's why they still put windows in front of the aircraft.... Unless it's just for pretty pictures and making the workplace more enjoyable.
Granted this wont work in low visibility. but 6 times out of 10 it's not an issue.
It worked for the first 7/8ths of aviation history... I'm sure it will work for while more.
FMS Maybe? (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the FMS has to be programed with the route for a flight. Programming these things, at least, used to be fairly painful with lots of horrible little codes and plenty of opportunity for keying errors. If you screw up, it is often easier to reset it.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:5, Informative)
Every Airbus ever made has been fly by wire. There is absolutely no direct connection to the flight control surfaces. The closest it gets is pitch trim can manually deflect the stabilizer through a hydralic actuator- the connection is still wired but seperate. All control inputs are fed to seven computers (2 ELACs, 2 FACs, and 3 SECs) which position the control surfaces. The system has three catagories of control law. Without any electrical power, the aircraft is uncontrollable.
Now to ease your fears...
If there are multiple failures of redundant systems, the controls can move from normal to alternate or direct law. Even with complete loss of generator power, the pilot can operate in direct law (on battery) and land safely. Yes, we train in this law. No, its not easy.
P.S. Lightning stikes are common and most aircraft have some damage taht is deferred until the next heavy maint. visit.
Digital Electronics (Score:4, Informative)
Consumer electronics devices are designed to be cheap. That means that they will not add shielding or EMI suppression unless someone holds a gun to their head.
A portable digital device can radiate large amounts of interference at many different frequencies. What is even worse, the RF output is not constant. Anything with a microprocessor in it will radiate at varying frequencies and power levels depending on what code the microprocessor is executing. This makes it almost impossible to test for interference to specific frequencies.
The earliest forms of computer music involved putting an AM radio near the computer and executing code snippets that would produce the desired sound (interference) on the radio.
Interference DOES exist.. (Score:5, Informative)
To quote from the report (6.1) :
The tests revealed various adverse effects on the equipment performance from simulated cellphone interference. Although the equipment demonstrated a satisfactory margin above the original certification criteria for interference susceptibility, that margin was not sufficient to protect against potential cellphone interference under worst case conditions.
So until there is concrete evidence one way or the other, erring on the side of caution may be advisable - its also one of the last places where you don't have to listen to some dickhead chatting on the phone in a loud voice.
Re:Not too far fetched.. (Score:4, Informative)
That's what happened in Kenya several months ago. A SAM-7 was fired at a chartered Israeli jet that had taken off a few seconds earlier. The terrorist fired it off too early, and the SAM never picked up on the IR signature you worry about. The pilots felt a bump on the left side of the plane and saw the smoke trail as the rocket flew past the plane. Once they reached Israeli airspace, they were escorted in by Israeli F-15's and landed safely.
I'm surprised you don't seem to remember this event. Its exactly what you describe. Except, of course, the missile failed to destroy the target.. more like bounced off it.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:3, Informative)
This is why they call them "instrument landings", and without them we wouldn't be able to fly in bad weather at all. A good percentage of all flights are flown under instrument flight rules and there's no higher incidence of accidents during bad weather as during good weather (at least not in countries with modern airline fleets).
All instruments have backups that take measurements in a different way than the primary instruments (all modern commercial planes have both radar and standard altimeters, for example). Some of them have so much redundancy that pilots forget how to use the backup instruments [aviation-safety.net], and this in itself has been responsible for a few accidents.
Instrument flight in itself is not the problem, and pilots are trained, and trained well, in what to do if and when their instruments fail (and instrument failure is fairly common - planes are even allowed to take off with certain instruments broken). The problem is, as always, the human factor, and at times human behavior will cause a completely avoidable crash that would at first glance seem to be the fault of poor or broken instrumentation. In fact I can't even recall a crash that could be fully blamed on broken instruments - unless a pilot literally loses everything (which would entail a complete electronics failure and simultaneous failure of various physical sensors on the outside of the aircraft linked with old-style analog backup instruments), he or she is trained in how to fly and land that plane.
Re:Radio? (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the infamous "TV detector" vans in the UK look for local oscillator radiation from TV sets. Not only can they detect that you have a television, the frequency of the local oscillator tells them which channel you are watching. The Nazis and Soviets used similar techniques to locate people who were listening to illegal foreign broadcasts.
If you look at a spectrum allocation chart, guess what is immediately above the FM broadcast band (88-108 MHz)? The aeronautical band (108-136 MHz), used for voice communication and navigation. Now imagine that you are sitting on an aircraft, listening to KRAP 106.3 MHz on your FM radio. The radio set the local oscillator to 117 MHz (106.3 + 10.7) to mix the signal down to 10.7 MHz. The FM radio is now radiating a signal in the middle of the aeronautical band, hopefully not on a frequency that the pilot is currently using. The radiation from the local oscillator may be relatively weak, but you are much closer to the aircraft's radio antenna than the control tower or the navigation beacon. This was the earliest noted form of interference from passenger electronics to aircraft electronics, well before laptops, GBAs and PDAs.
Re:Too far fetched... (Score:3, Informative)
But the most telling thing he said was "There is no way I would ever be a passenger on an Airbus."
Personally, it doesn't particularly bother me. In fact after 727s, I have flown more times on Airbusses than any other type of plane, and overall I prefer them.
Re:Not too far fetched.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, the Quran says that those who do go to heaven will be rewarded with blessings that eclipse anything on earth; unlimited food, riches, wishes come true. People will be reunited with their relatives, we will all be made young again, there will be no anger or pain. Those who get to the highest part will also be able to see Allah with their own eyes. Also, the believers who make it into Paradise, male and female, are promised beautiful companions called "Houris."
The Quran describes them in some detail. They are basically creations of God, intelligent yet soulless and created to serve the believer who goes to Paradise. They are described as pure, beautiful, lustrous, virgin, and more perfect than any human on earth. The woman of your dreams. A man in paradise will get numerous female servants for himself, while a woman would get male servants.
In Paradise, you can marry them. Even if you were married on earth, they will be invisible to your spouse. Islam is pretty clear in saying that guiltless sex is a reward in Paradise.
To answer your questions, they are made for the believers, they are intelligent yet have no souls. They are created for the purpose of serving the believer. They dont exactly have free will, they are like the angels in that regard. Of course it's worth being with them, since they aren't droids, they are smart but they just cant disobey God.
And no, dirty terrorists who hurt innocent people are sinning, so it's up to Allah if they'll go to Paradise or not.
More info on "the islamic paradise" [guidedones.com]
Real Data (Score:2, Informative)
Jay J. Ely and team are pretty much the leaders in tearms of research in this area, as the NASA Langley Technical Reports Server [nasa.gov] shows. [nasa.gov]
You can get actual reports of incidents related to PEDs and aircraft events at The National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center [faa.gov].
Also in Oct 2002, at the Digital Avionics Systems Conference [dasconline.org] in Irvine, CA, Session E addressed this topic:
Session E - The Electromagnetic Environment
Co-Chairs - Paul Cox, Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems Bill Larsen, Federal Aviation Administration
Re:What the hell is the pilot doing playing with t (Score:2, Informative)
If you had any idea of the protocol in the cockpit, you wouldn't have posted such an obviously under-informed opinion. I can see how, if he were the only person in the cockpit, it would be a problem. However, except during take off and landing, there is basically one person doing everything...that person is the autopilot. Then, there's one person monitoring. They take turns. It's really not that difficult to figure out, is it?
How exactly would you recommend the people in the cockpit "improve passenger safety and service"? They're operating under the guidelines of the aviation industry and applicable governments. Safety isn't going to be a problem I'd hope. After all, _most_ pilots are responsible people. Did you think he was listening to Britney WHILE he was actually piloting the plane? Unless there up there doing crystal meth, I don't expect they'd do anything which might endanger the passengers or their jobs. As for service, they're flying the plane. What else do you want from the cockpit crew? Blow jobs?
Personally, I'm really not that dim. Most would consider me bright. However, I have left my wifi card running, packed the laptop away (after putting it to sleep), and then opened it at my destination (or before) to no signal. This really is not an unusual event. I see people doing it all the time. Fairly smart people who didn't realize they could turn off their card do it just about every day.
As far as the pilots of the hijacked aircraft on 9-11, I think the consensus was that they were engaged in a circle jerk. Nothing like getting caught with your pants down, eh?
Please don't troll like that...and anonymously to boot. If you're going to be a troll, at least let your identity be known.