Cringely: Wi-Fi in the Sky 158
Boiled Frog writes "In Cringely's latest article, he describes his plan to test a wi-fi connection between his house and his plane using two LinkSys 802.11g routers. He plans to experiment with various antennas to see which works the best."
Cringe-ly (Score:3, Insightful)
He takes a rather quick review of the geek-unfriendly regulations in the sky, and then simply says that because he doesn't believe in them he's going to openly ignore them.
At least he'll be using his own plane, so the only life he's risking in this situation is his own and maybe one or two willing others. Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed. That's rather high stakes to be guessing...
and so ? (Score:0, Insightful)
really.. who cares ?
i'm planning to wash my car this weekend, anyone intrested ? i can write a plan too...
AC
Wi-Fi (Score:5, Insightful)
from the blackhawk-down dept.!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn some manners, michael.
Re:Cringe-ly (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I agree, but I think that we have much more to fear in drunken pilots and just plain retarded [kare11.com] ones.
Re:Cringe-ly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cringe-ly (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a student pilot myself (35 hrs cumulative flight time), I really doubt that he's taking any significant risk at all. As it says in the article, it is up to the PIC (pilot-in-command) to decide whether or not to allow the use of personal electronic devices, and just looking over at his laptop while flying poses just about no risk. On a cross-country flights (100+mi), there's maps to be examined, air traffic controllers to contact, radio stations to tune into to verify your location, a flight computer to use (think complicated slide rule), passengers to talk to, and increasingly, GPS units to play with. He's been a pilot for 35 or so years, so I'm sure he'll set up everything on the ground and get it working before he ever starts the plane's engine, so just looking over to the laptop to check signal strength and connect to the internet shouldn't take any more concentration than looking at a sectional chart to make sure he's outside the local airspace.
As to the equipment interfering with the instruments, small aircraft have instruments based mostly on mechanical parts. Heck, some of them don't even use electricity to spin the gyroscopes. Additionally, I'm sure he's flown in this area before and therefore is familiar witht he terrain - every pilot I know has flown over his/her home numerous times
Bottom line, I agree that the FAA is being oversensitive, and I'm very curious about how this all turns out.
Anywho, back to work.
Re:Cringe-ly (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I don't buy this. If planes are so reliant on all these telemetry signals that a bunch of electronic devices in the cabin could cause them to crash because the pilots cannot possibly look at the instruments, look out the window, and figure out something's wrong, I don't know how any airline managed to stay in business or keep any sort of plane in the air before, say, 1995. Without GPS and the (incredibly consistent) global air-traffic radar systems, why, you couldn't so much as fly a plane over a country with whom your at war to drop a bomb.
Oh, wait, they did, and radar hadn't even become useful or reliable, in the early 1940s.
One of my favorite "West Wing" quotes is from the opening scene of the pilot (I think...), where Toby gets a page and calls into the whitehouse, and the flight attendant tells him he has to turn off his cell phone because the plane is approaching the airport. Paraphrasing, his response went something like, "This aircraft is equipped with a $60,000 telemetry system hooked into a multi-million dollar national air traffic control system, and you're telling me that I can cause the plane to crash with something I bought from Radio Shack for less than $30.00? Do you know how stupid you sound?"
I don't know, but something just doesn't seem right.
Is this guy for real ? (Score:1, Insightful)
As a proof of concept, sure
Cheap Wi-Fi Internet: Signal Reflectors (Score:4, Insightful)
I must say, this sounds like an excellent idea, but what about those rural areas where planes don't always fly, and what about if an airport grounds flights for any length of time, such as happened on 9/11? It seems to me that a better solution must be found if we're to obtain reliable network connectivity from such a system, as opposed to just cheap spotty access. But if nothing else, I give credit to Cringley for some very interesting ideas about the possibilities!
Great idea (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Wright brothers were alive today, they'd still be completing the paperwork to build an airplane.
Seems like I remember Boeing taking up one of their planes loaded with electronics equipment, trying to test out this interference issue. They got zero interference. But it is always possible. Somebody needs to put this whole line of fear-mongering to rest. Godspeed to the guy.
Why keep citing Cringely? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, why does he get Slashdot's attention any more?
Oh, I forget. As he said in that string of email I mention, he has 200,000 readers, thus making him an expert.
mesh network range (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly all 1000 planes aren't going to carry signals and the ones that do will need to be in range of a base station on the ground. In order to keep a connection going these planes would have to be constantly adjusting their antennas to point at ground stations and at the other plane.
Secondly at certain times of day/certain (most) places there won't be enough planes to give the range. Perhaps above major cities you can guarentee coverage most of the time, but elsewhere you won't be able to.
Thirdly, I doubt 1000 planes (flying their usualy patterns) could provide anywhere near 100% coverage of the air corridors in the USA. And you'll still need a base station every 30km, isn't this about what the current solutions use if not more?
I love the way Cringely always takes concepts like this over the top strecting them far beyond what is pratical.
Re:Cringe-ly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why keep citing Cringely? (Score:1, Insightful)
He writes stupid things just to get people talking about how stupid he is in order to maintain readership, (Or go so far over some readers heads that they think he's God) and
In the end though Cringly IS an idiot and