Wireless Computing and Airplanes? 522
Echemus writes "The Register has an article speculating whether the fact more and more devices have WiFi/GSM facilities built in will cause Airlines to ban all computing equipment and its like from the cabin. Airlines are ultra-paranoid about cell phones, but is that paranoia justified?"
Paranoid About Cell Phones... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Paranoid About Cell Phones... (Score:2)
Re:Paranoid About Cell Phones... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure...at least on a Blackberry device. Usually if you're sitting by the window, and are over a LARGE city (i.e. there are LOTS of towers below you), you can get enough of a signal to send/receive messages. Darn thing's gotta be up in the window, though! This happens even at altitude...20,000 feet +.
Re:Paranoid About Cell Phones... (Score:2)
I believe on 9/11 the guys in the plane over Penn. were talking to family on a PCS phone before they rushed the hijakers.
WiFi already planned on planes (Score:5, Informative)
Relevant quote:
And travelers may soon get WiFi while on the airplane, if recent trials in Europe and the United States are successful
Re:WiFi already planned on planes (Score:4, Interesting)
Don
-------
But, Marge, that little guy hasn't done anything yet. Look at him. He's going to do something and you know it's going to be good.
Re:WiFi already planned on planes (Score:5, Informative)
"Economic incentive
The airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air. The carriers receive a cut of the revenues from the telephones installed onboard. The two main providers of this air-phone service, GTE Corp. and AT&T Corp., charge about $6 for a one-minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates.
These in-flight telephones also operate on cellular technology -- using a single airplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired. AT&T and GTE, which recently agreed to sell its Airfone service, decline to discuss air-phone financial arrangements, as do several airlines. But Sheehan says airlines pocket about 15 percent of all air-phone revenue generated on their planes. GTE declines to discuss Airfone revenues, but analysts estimate the unit's annual revenues at $150 million." I'm sure the same applies to all such wireless gizmos.
Sky phone (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sky phone (Score:2)
Re:Sky phone (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the tower and antenna alignment (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, ever notice how a cellphone disrupts your monitor or your speakers on your desktop?
As a pilot you WANT the guys up front to have a crystal clear communication -- hell buzzing around the shoreview towers in minneapolis cause the radios to go wonky, so what do i know?
Re:Its the tower and antenna alignment (Score:3, Informative)
I have never had a problem using a cell phone while next to my computer -- laptop or desktop. When I am "on call" and fixing work problems from home, I regualrly use the cell phone to talk to Operations while I am logged on by modem through the landline, and have never had a problem with interference.
Also, not to be morbid, but if I recall correctly, the famous "Let's Roll" from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9-11 came from a cell phone. The plane crashed because of the terrorists, not the ce
Re:Sky phone (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, both the FCC and FAA ban cell-phones in flight, but for different reasons:
1: FCC bans cell phones in flight because the altitude and speed of an airplane would cause the cell phone to be reserving bandwidth on many cells, thus vastly diminishing capacity. Also depending on the anti-fraud measures in place, it may prevent the cell phone companies from charging (depends on how sensitive the sanity checking is). The billing problem could be easily solved, but the capacity problem is inherent to the system.
2: FAA bans cell phones because of the remote *possibility* of frequency leakage off the devices which could interfere with the communications systems of the aircraft. If you have ever seen an electric shaver interfere with your FM radio, you know what I mean. For good reason, the FAA tends to be very paranoid about these things.
Re:Sky phone (Score:2)
Airplanes and cellphones (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2)
The problem isn't stupid people, it's people who haven't been informed about the issue and are making a perfectly reasonable assumption.
I was about to suggest we tell everyone why they're not allowed to use cell phones on planes (thinking that if they're informed they will realize why they shouldn't), but then I realized that if they didn't think it was a "safety" issue, suddenly all the arrogant selfish SOBs would begin using thier cellphones chronically on planes, to hell with whoever is in the cells do
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:4, Informative)
One thing I did notice was the first cell phone I got (~1994) had the strange side effect that just before the cell phone would ring, the power on my computer speakers would cut out. That's one heck of an EM pulse to cause that, and it's not hard to imagine what a plane full of phones about to ring would do to fun electrics like the GPS/radio/etc.
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2)
I wish I had an EM meter... I'm really curious about the size of these EM pulses, too
Large EM pulses always fuck with electronics equipment, and planes have many, many electronics, some of them rather sensitive.
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2, Informative)
If a generic monitor manu. can shield a monitor, the companies making the airplane nav systems, etc can shield their shit too.
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:5, Informative)
If a generic monitor manu. can shield a monitor, the companies making the airplane nav systems, etc can shield their shit too.
Speaking as someone who maintain military aircraft for a living; the keyword is weight. A good definition of an airplane designer is someone who can design an item that weights one kilogram, when any idiot can make one that weights two. Mil-spec avionics and instruments are shielded off course, but they are frequently quite a bit heavier than cilivian grade equipment I've worked with (the RNoAF operates a few biz-jets as VIP-transports). And off course, the few sources of interference inside a fighter is known and can be shilded themself.
Add weight to an airplane and you trade off performance. The heavier an aircraft is, the slower and shorter ranged it'll be - if all other parameters like thrust, lift and drag are kept the same.
Also bear in mind that most of the airframes that is operated today is older than the 'cell-phone revolution'. They, and their internal systems, were designed and built in a day and age where you didn't have to worry that your SelfLoadingCargo carried microwave-transmitters. In a modern airframe the designers can take this into account from scratch and possible design things so that signal-cables etc run inside the longerons (for instance), using the aircrafts own structural parts for shilding. In an old airframe, the only shielding possible are addon, which increases the wight, which leads to the trouble mentioned above.
So yes, the companies that make the airframe and the system can "shield their shit", but it will cost. Both money- and performancewice in an old airframe, and moneywise in a new airframe. And face it - that cost will be added to the airfare, and as it is the consumers who pay that...
On the other hand (Score:3, Insightful)
a) The controls are primarily hydraulic/mechanical
b) As far as radio equipment itself - They don't make em' like they used to. In many cases older radio equipment is far more resistant to both physical damage and to electronic damage than newer stuff. Miniaturization and integration = easier to screw with.
Airplanes are designed to accept lots more electronic abuse than any consumer device can put out... A properly designed airliner can have a lightni
Re:On the other hand (Score:3, Informative)
True as far as the controls go, but as almost all updates on an airframe centers around the avionics you'll have the same problem as in an newer craft - unless you prefer flying with airlines that don't upgrade their machines off course ;
As for the lightning; most of that pulse travels along the skin of the aircraft, and as someone else pointed out, the same skin might function as a waveguide, amplefieing the signal of your mobile phone to a level where it might interfere with part of the onboard avionics,
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:3, Informative)
That's not to say that there aren't *some* problems (mainly with the way that cell phones themselves zero in on a particular sector), but "melt down" is far far too s
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2)
My understanding of this has been that the frequency of early cell phones interfered with the wireless control of the hydraulic system in some model commercial airplanes. In other words, we still are living with legacy rules like the federal excise tax on telephones imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War [house.gov] and not repealed until 2000.
Cellular systems are supposed to negotiate connections between cells and phones and do roaming anyway. The system associates you with the cell with the strongest signal t
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that makes a lot more sense than the airline fear explanation. I've flown in a few private jets and twin-engine craft and the pilots were completely comfortable with cell and PC operation. In fact, I've had no problems operating on ham frequencies as well (at hundreds to thousands more time the TX power).
I've had a few airline folks explain that the
Unfortunately, it sounds like some of the airline rent-a-cops are taking their official excuse by heart (forgetting the real reason for the policy) and are going nutso. Just like the gas station clerk who freaked when I had my cell phone active while fueling at the diesel pump (diesel doesn't work that way).
Who knows - maybe this is the beginning of the 21st century luddite revolt...
*scoove*
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Airplanes and cellphones (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, so you smugly say, well, I use a CDMA phone, and all CDMA networks are able to use the same frequency. However, each RBS is given a Pn offset so the phone can identify which RBS to talk to, plus it knows who to hand off to. (ummm...this is all aproximately correct). In a plane, you will likely be going so fast, tha
Laptops/PDAs/Cell Phones in checked baggage (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no way in hell I am going to check a laptop. Last year, one of the baggage handlers at LAX broke open my bag and stole some stuff out of it. American Airlines basically told me "Too bad."
Re:Laptops/PDAs/Cell Phones in checked baggage (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course that wasn't on American (I stopped flying AA a long time ago due to how crappy their service is), it was BA. Top marks
OT About London (Score:2)
Once an Air France ticket agent tried to get me put my notebooks (2) in my luggage. I said over MY DEAD BODY. And only if you are willing to risk the insurance. It was a semi long debate, with me winning in the end. Since then I have never had
Re:Laptops/PDAs/Cell Phones in checked baggage (Score:2, Funny)
Ah. So that's where "lost" luggage ends up.
Re:Laptops/PDAs/Cell Phones in checked baggage (Score:2)
Sucks.
Re:Laptops/PDAs/Cell Phones in checked baggage (Score:2)
The other alternative is that if you ask they will give you zip ties to close the bag. If they search it, they'll change the color of the zip tie.
~GoRK
signal ramping (Score:4, Interesting)
broadband in flight (Score:4, Informative)
There is no paranoia when a profit can be realized (Score:5, Insightful)
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-501431.html?legacy
The airlines aren't paranoid. They have a captive audience and they want to milk them for every dime they can. How much money does an air phone cost these days? How much will they get to charge for in flight high speed net access. I can imagine that they love charging for movie rentals on those long Detriot to Tokyo flights.
Re:There is no paranoia when a profit can be reali (Score:2)
Yeah, they're expensive, but who actually uses them? At what, I'm guessing $8/minute I suspect only first-class passengers and business travelers who can bill it to expenses. I've certainly never seen anyone touch them in coach...
Dead Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
No cell phones on planes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No cell phones on planes! (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed. Cell phone usage on planes should be banned forever. Not because of electronic "jamming", but because of the moronic conversations the rest of us would have to endure.
I recall many early morning flights home where I had to sit in front of various people engaged in inane chatter amongst themselves. It made it impossible for me to sleep. Those bastards. Not
Two things: (Score:4, Insightful)
2)There are several airlines worldwide testing WiFi for in plane access because its hella cheaper than putting ethernet everywhere and they want to recoupe some of the revenue they are losing with business travelers not paying top buck for last minute bookings.
Re:Two things: (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, can an idle cell-phone cause problems. I, for one, can't turn my cell phone off,(asides letting the batteries die) so it could recieve a call at any time with or without my permission.
If the cell waves can disrupt airplane equipment, then it's a problem. If they've never had a problem before, then it's just electronic paranoia.
This must be solved by empirical testing, and not uninformed fea
Past problems (Score:3, Interesting)
In the past with analog cell systems, they were known to cause SEVERE problems at the towers and with the provider's billing system. Being quadruple-billed for a call made from a plane (or worse) was possible and happened often.
Even with modern systems that prevent multiple simultaneous tower associations, a cell phone transmitting from high altitude raises the noise floor on tens or hundreds of towe
Re:Two things: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two things: (Score:2, Funny)
1)The paranoia is NOT justified, look at the Sept 11th events, tons of people on cellphones on the planes with no problems.
Nonsense! All the planes crashed.
Re:Two things: (Score:2)
And ya gotta admit, in political discussions, such post hoc reasoning is rather standard, if not de rigeur.
(Pardon my French, uh, I mean Freedom.
EMI, air-to-ground (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIUI, radio spectrum is supposed to be allocated in such a way that interference does not affect critical bands. There's a regulatory body to do it. In the past, before this became an issue, there were a lot of electronic gadgets that produced quite large broadband interference. Look at early home computers with plastic cases - you could get several volts of signal from some of them just by holding an oscilloscope probe over the case. Then people starting using serious shielding so that only the wanted frequencies got out.
The actual signal levels from Bluetooth, 802.11 etc. are all pretty low and they are in standards-designated bands.
So exactly what is the issue? Does it have, as I suspect, a lot more to do with the convenience of the cabin crew and the airline than the passengers?
Aircraft survive lightning strike. They are locked onto by powerful radar stations. They have transmitters many times more powerful than cell phones. But, seemingly, all terrorists need to do is to keep their cellphones turned on. doh.
Re: On-board EMI (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the EMI level of things like cell phones and Bluetooth is very well known. If the defined interference levels for emc in aircraft are so low that these things are a risk, someone hasn't been doing their homework. Portable phones have now been around for years, plenty of time to do a study.
In any case, aircraft must, as I pointed out,
EMI on planes is a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I was just looking for another article, but can't seem to find it - it was an article about a Compact Disc player in a first class cabin causing a plane's navigation equipment to go haywire. Every time the passenger played a song the equipment went nuts. When he stopped it all was fine. The crew determined it was indeed the CD player and then asked him to keep it off. They speculated that the rotational spin of the disc was actually generating a stronger-than-normal magnetic field and being that he was up in first class, he was close enough to the cockpit to cause problems.
Definitely a scary situation...
Re:EMI on planes is a problem (Score:2)
Perhaps the motor in the CD player?
Re:EMI on planes is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an electronics engineering tech, and I used to work for Boeing. I've seen how the 'black boxes' are put together, and how they're installed in the jets. They're heavily shielded against stray interference, both by their own grounded metal housing and by the fact that every single non-coaxial wire going into the thing goes through at least a bypass capacitor, if not the cap and a ferrite bead, before it ever hits its destination.
Don't even get me started on how many of those wire bundles have shield braid over the inner conductors.
Couple that with the fact that there's a solid metal floor between the 'people' area and the avionics bay, AND the fact that the boxes are all mounted in a grounded rack, and I have a lot of trouble believing that a CD player could so much as create an electronic hiccup in anything more than the headphones of the person using it. If it did, then there was something seriously wrong with the plane's avionics to begin with.
Show me independently-verified lab results that a CD player (or anything else in the cellphone or PDA category) can freak out fully functional and properly installed avionics, and I will cheerfully STFU. Until then, I would consider such a story to be in the same category as the Weekly World News reporting that Edgar Cayce had been reincarnated as a psychic fly.
Hello, antennas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if you're so smart, you've porbably also seen that gosh golly gee, those avionics are quite often attached to (gasp!) antennas for picking up (gasp!) radio transmissions.
Pilots are cautious for a reason- the FCC's testing of devices is not sufficient for close-range use with avionics. My father(a pilot, small single engine planes) explained it quite simply. He have no idea if a laptop will cause any of the avionics to malfunction. Maybe it doesn't...but say maybe it causes the VHF direction finder to go a little askew. After an couple hour's flight time, you find yourself way off course. Given that planes just can't pull over to gas up, getting off-course can be a major problem.
Show me independently-verified lab results that a CD player (or anything else in the cellphone or PDA category) can freak out fully functional and properly installed avionics, and I will cheerfully STFU
Oh, I see, devices "will not cause interference unless proven otherwise"? Unlike our legal system, everything that goes into a plane has to PROVE it meets FAA standards. We don't just throw shit into an airplane's equipment 'roster' and then wait for some "independent lab" to test them.
The problem is three-fold: a)you have no idea what's going to come onto the plane. There are hundreds of thousands of different electronic devices. b)you have no idea what avionics systems are in the plane c)you have no idea how the device will get used(and RF emissions from a laptop alone can vary on processor/ram activity, screen brightness, peripheral activity...) d)nobody has done even basic studies to see what general kinds of equipment cause interference.
Re:Hello, antennas? (Score:3, Interesting)
usually the smart engineers put those OUTSIDE the aircraft and on the bottom... wher your RF signals Can never EVER get to from inside the cabin.
RF is light light.. if you cant see the antenna nither can your RF signal (unless it can bounce off the ground or other object.)
so you'r analogy is horribly inaccurate.
Banning wireless devices absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you REALLY think, the achilles heel of aircraft made in the last 40 years (little lone last 20) is that turning on a cell phone or wifi card (with only the mW's of power)will interfere with the navigation systems or possibly down the plane? Give me a break. Those creating these regulations should put down their pens and close their mouths and try picking up a book.
Aircraft systems have countless safety factors designed in, and extensive RF shielding around critical systems (i.e. nav, comm, control etc.). The common radio, TV, cell tower would have a far greater impact on interferance than a lower power transmitter on board ever would, and we don't see them re-routing planes around those towers (even on landing or take off) do we? Why? Because it's NOT a problem and never was.
Dear lord.....may the ignorance stop one day....
Rich...
Re:Banning wireless devices absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
RF shielding increases weight, a premium on airplanes, so you can never wrap enough shielding around anything to guarantee that *no* signal will leak through. It is never about the strength of the signal anyhow - it is about the information *in* the signal that is the greatest risk. It is entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
I actually replied
Re:Banning wireless devices absurd (Score:3, Informative)
Did I mention that I researched this to stop a mobile phone mast being built next to my house? Did I? I didn't want one because it would look bad, but I couldn't object on those grounds. After A bit of dirt digging I suddenly realised I didn't want one due to the health aspects. Here is some of the information I put together to help my planning objection. I have made some text bold at the end of the information that I think is directly relevant to the problems in proving ahead of time that
Paranoia is the airlines' business (Score:3, Informative)
Paranoia is the bedrock of safety in the aerospace industry. Examine any airline accident in the last ten years
Business travellers will get what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
As we saw with smoking, airlines will only enforce a ban that is hostile to passangers when it comes from a higher authority (FCC in the US). The current ban on cell phones comes from the FCC, and dates from the time when cellular networks were easily overloaded by ground traffic alone. At leats in Europe, the density of cell stations has increased so far that today this concern is probably overstated.
Lastly, the airlines obviously try to extract extra money from passengers for (e.g.) phone calls, but they can only do this under cover of legislation. They know that business travellers are addicted to their notebooks, and any attempt to limit such toys in the air would be like raising prices by 50%, i.e. _bad_ for business.
internet access on an airplane...humm... (Score:5, Funny)
What my girlfriend would say is "The mile high club for geeks".
I've always wondered (Score:2)
Of course, the airlines and the FCC say you can't use cell phones while flying, but wouldn't it be ironic if those phones on the plane were cell phones??
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Listen to what the plane manufactuers say! (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I think banning cellphones on planes is a good idea regardless of the reasons - it's bad enough listening to all those "I'm nearly home!" calls on the train as it is.
It's not the signals... (Score:3, Insightful)
Plain and simple, they want an information blackout, not a lack of RF signals. They do not want you to be able to talk to an outside party, receive outside news, or receive any outside communications, including the location of the plane, unless they have absolute control over it. That's why you can still have airphones and live DirecTV. The flight crew can cut off those if neccessary.
Now I'm not saying that it's impossible that a phone, handheld device, or laptop has no chance of interfering with the electronics aboard an aircraft. I don't know the systems well enough to claim that. But I'm fairly sure that planes fly in the path of much more powerful sources of interference. For example, why worry about the RF from a milliwatt source, when you're flying by or near cellular towers (and other ground-based RF sources) transmitting at much higher power levels? You can say that the metal skin of the aircraft reduces outside interference, and it probably does. But it's not a solid metal skin, and I still don't buy it. We've got airlines that are now sanctioning using 802.11b devices on the aircraft, let's not forget, by setting up for-pay APs.
I'd be more worried about the security goons confiscating your GPS receiver at the airport security checkpoint than the airlines banning all laptops and handhelds in the cabin. Business passengers would pitch a fit, and I don't think they're going to risk it.
-Todd
Re:It's not the signals... (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, all radio receivers built since about 1920 also act as transmitters [ieee.org], so even a passive GPS receiver has the potential to cause interference.
Second, use of GPS devices in fligh
Nextel phones (Score:2, Informative)
thoughts suggestions ????
Re:Aren't the new Nextels GSM now? (Score:2)
I appreciate it (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you imagine being on a plane full of people talking on their phones non-stop? Or even just having to sit next to someone gossiping their head off for an entire 3 hour flight?
The airlines ban cell phones for the comfort of their passengers, and I'm glad they do.
My Take On This... (Score:2)
As a side topic thats been going through here, I hope they keep cell phones banned on planes. I would despise being stuck next to someone have a conversation with Bille Joe for the entire flight.
Put down the phones people. No one really needs to know
Only on older planes (Score:4, Interesting)
Newer planes use shielded wires, so are not affected by the phone's signal, however older planes or planes with corroded shielding are suseptable to cell phones causing interferance - which can cause catestrophic results (immagine if the interferance was interpereted as a signal to put the flaps full up!). Its like when your cell phone rings when you're playing music, you hear the interferance through the speakers.
So if the airlines want to upgrade their fleet to be cell-phone proof, then no, its not necessary, and they could offer wireless internet on the plane. However with pretty much all airlines now taking a major economic hit after 9/11, they arent about to spend the kind of money that would be needed to upgrade their fleet, and are more likely to just ban computers.
Re:Only on older planes (Score:4, Informative)
I call foul.
No pilot would attempt to land an aircraft in that condition. (The poster who implied that "a flight attendant probably saw it, and the Captain wanted to put the Fear of God into him" is most likely correct.)
If I'm flying a plane, and I'm noticing enough interference from anything (and I somehow magically intuit that this interference is from a cellphone :) that it jeopardizes my ability to land the plane smoothly, I'm going to come onto the PA waaaaay before landing, and say "Someone with a cell phone is interfering with my navigational systems and jeopardizing the safety of this aircraft. I could land it right here and right now, at 99.995% probability of successful landing, or I could tell you to shut it the hell off and let me land at 99.999 probability of success. Until you shut that phone off, we're all staying up here until I run low on fuel, or you run low on battery power, whichever comes first. Your call."
(After 15 minutes in a holding pattern, the passengers will take care of enforcement in a way that'll make the FAA and FCC seem like teddy bears ;)
Ultrawideband - its the real story. (Score:4, Interesting)
Swissair Crashed because of in-cabin electronics (Score:3, Informative)
of a fire started in the in-cabin electronics.
This was a case of extra bells'n'whistles to amuse the passengers causing trouble. Maybe it would be sensible to bad all wired and wireless in-cabin
electronics. (I know it'll never happen)
Let's think about this (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, the airlines are going for the annoyance factor, and just claiming safety to shut everyone up. I must admit, it does not bother me in the least.
The main problem with cellphones... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the main reason you can't use a cellular phone on an aircraft is that you'll be underminining the entire cellular concept. Think about it for a minute. When you're on the ground using your phone, the phone connects to a single cellular transciever or cell site, or perhaps a few at most. When you're tens of thousands of feet up in the air on an aircraft, your cell phone can and will connect to many more cell sites, as many more are visible to the phone. This causes added strain and expense for the cell site operator.
I used to work as flight crew with a airship company, and this is the reason that the FAA gave to our pilots, prohibiting them or passengers from using cell phones in flight.
Connexion?? (Score:3, Informative)
Check out more info here [boeing.com] and here [connexionbyboeing.com].
Banning electronics is not the answer (Score:3, Insightful)
It pisses me off that the government keeps pushing this bullshit idea. I was on a KLM flight last year and a guy was typing texts into his cell phone while we were on final descent into Manila, and we were seated right across from the flight attendant.
The poor woman really believed that the plane would crash; I had literally never seen someone that scared in my life. I calmed her down a *little* bit by explaining that the plane wouldn't crash because of a cell phone; otherwise the cabin equipment would be causing that problem already. While she digested that I got the guy to turn his phone off for her sake. It's silly to make people believe this stuff.
But there's another angle. Let's imagine that we do live in a fantasy world where cell phones and laptops make planes crash. The answer, and this should be obvious, has nothing to do with banning them on flights. Someone needs to fix the planes in that case, and certify that this is okay.
It's an exploit, we need to issue a bug fix.
Michael
Why the airlines are so "paranoid" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are flying in a private aircraft and your non-TSO'd cellphone or WiFi device causes a problem, it's assumed that you'll have the good sense to turn it off, or, alternatively, that you'll have enough insurance coverage to pay for the damage you cause.
On an airliner with 200+ passengers, the cabin crew doesn't have the capability to determine WHICH device will cause a problem, so the only safe choice it require that they ALL be turned off.
Sorry if you find it inconvenient, I'd rather get down in one piece. If you absolutely HAVE to be able to use your wireless device on commercial flights, pony up for one that IS TSO'd (it will cost about 5-10 times what you paid for the one you have), otherwise, quit complaining.
Read the Boeing story (Score:5, Informative)
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
In all honesty, I find the whole affair rather silly and overblown. If I'm wrong about that, then frequent air travels ought to find the situation disturbing.
No. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not really the airlines that are unhappy about cell phones on planes. It's the cell phone companies. Think about it.
Your cell phone can reach base stations that are many kilometers away. When you're on the ground, that's, like, a very limited number. But when you're up in the air, your phone can see hundreds, maybe thousands of base stations. That confuses the cell phone system and makes the companies upset. Also it makes your phone switch cells very rapidly and other bad effects.
It's a cell phone thing.
simon
A view from inside the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
In all our testing, the FAA took the view that it was not their responsibility to prove that something was unsafe - it's the manufacturer's responsibility to prove that their product isn't. This is the real reason airlines are so paraniod about cellphones, etc. Unless Nokia spends $500K+ per model to certify that there's absolutely no way the device can produce interference even in a failure mode (and provides every consumer with an embossed certificate to that effect), your flight attendant will be asking you politlely to shut the thing off.
There is, of course, always the possibility of a sea change. Perhaps the manufacturers will begin doing real testing of their devices for EMI, although that will increase costs (although much less than for IFE equipment because the volume would be higher). However, that would have to happen on every device manufactured anywhere and require the user to show some kind of certification to the airline. Perhaps the FAA will require even better shielding on critcal equipment, but that implies retrofitting every piece of equipment on every commercial aircraft in the world. Or maybe the FAA will simply come under political pressure to relax their safety requirements, but that will end the second a plane goes down for any non-obvious reason and a herd of lawyers appears screaming "I told you so!"
Unless there is a paradigm shift on one of these fronts (none of which are really palatable), you will see more and more restrictive policies on the use of consumer electronics in the cabin.
Until then? Simple. Leave your laptop powered off and read a book. Maybe you'll learn something...
PS - A pretty amusing cartoon appeared in the New Yorker peripherally related to this topic once. Check it out here [cartoonbank.com].
69,000 incidents as of 1996 (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectrum/sep96/fea
---
A report selected from the ASRS database illustrates
this type of incident. In March 1993, a large
passenger aircraft was at cruise altitude just outside
the DallasFort Worth International Airport when the
No. 1 compass suddenly precessed 10 degrees to the
right. The first flight attendant was asked to check
whether any passengers were operating electronic
devices. She said that a passenger in seat X had just
turned on his laptop computer.
The report continues: "I asked that the passenger turn
off his laptop computer for a period of 10 minutes,
which he did. I then slaved the No. 1 compass, and it
returned to normal operation for the 10 minute period.
I then asked that the passenger turn on his computer
once again. The No. 1 compass immediately precessed 8
degrees to the right. The computer was then turned off
for a 30-minute period during which the No. 1 compass
operation was verified as normal."
The report states that it was evident to all on the
flight deck that the operation of the laptop computer
was adversely affecting the operation of the No. 1
compass. It concludes: "I believe that the operation
of all passenger-operated electronic devices should be
prohibited on airlines until the safe operation of all
of these devices can be verified."
---
I flew on Korean Air once. They banned the use of portable CD players, but it was ok to use a laptop with a cd rom drive. I used my cd player anyway; you can only get drunk and pass out for so long on a 12 or 15 hour flight (Korea to NY, direct). Don't exactly remember how long it was...
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
It was the passengers with cellphones that prevented the plane from crashing to the White House or US Capitol by attempting to overpower the terrorists after they got word from the ground what was happening.
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
That's only a guess. No proof around for that. Or can you point me to a transcript of the voice recorder?
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
There were several reports of passengers finding out on one of the September 11th 2001 flights about the hijackings-in-progress via cell phone. When they were told that the other three hijackings ended with deliberate crashes into buildings, they overpowered their hijackers and crashed into a field.
Re:duh (Score:5, Insightful)
IF wifi and other broadcast devices are deemed dangerous because of interference, then they need to be completely banned from the cockpit.
Suggesting it now falls upon a crew who should be flying the plane to scan for wireless devices is ridiculous.
Say I leave my 'puter off until I'm onboard and the flight is underway. Do you expect them to do constant scanning, and then devote crew time (or flight attendant time, as if these folks are already stretched serviing an entire flight deck of people) to search for WHICH seat is broadcasting? Then, if I've put my computer back in the bag but left it on, they have to do a bag and pocket search in a limited area to try to determine WHAT device (cell phone, blue tooth, wifi laptop, PDA) is sending the signal out, then turn it off?
Come on mods. Use half a brain.
IF this stuff is truly interefering then there is NO reason to allow people to carry it onto the plane with them. Let the few people who think they deserve special treatment or have documents that need to be in their possesion at all times charter their own flight.
yeah but what will you ban? (Score:4, Insightful)
Training the cabin staff, searching all passengers and risking putting off the punters is a bad move for the airlines.
The only viable route is to approach it from the other end.
Aircraft should be designed and/or modified to ensure that this cannot become a problem. how difficult can it be, given the obstacles that have already been overcome in the field of aviation?
Re:yeah but what will you ban? (Score:5, Interesting)
In my arrogant and well informed opinion as both an electrical engineer and as an instrument rated private pilot, you need a reality check.
Modern aviation is not really so modern. Most aircraft flying today are from designs decades old. Avionics technology mostly comes from the 1950s and 1960s. It didn't take spread spectrum signalling in to account because it was mostly unknown back then.
These days, a precision instrument landing takes place with a system which depends on paired VHF and UHF channels using an AM signal to let the avionics know whether to go to the right/left or up/down. It's quite precise. It will place you at a window of airspace sometimes only 100' high +/- a few feet vertically and +/- about ten feet horizontally.
These systems cost in excess of $1M per runway to implement. It has been ossified in place around the world thanks to a bunch of international agreements based on this technology. Coordinating a new system for implementation among a world-wide forum of countries is damn near impossible. As long as this scheme works, it will be very hard to replace.
Further, aircraft electronics have to be very carefully hardened against things you would never consider in the rest of the world. For example, it has to withstand a lightning strike. Several hundred aircraft are struck by lightning every year. Thanks to this kind of certification such strikes are mostly a non-event. It also has to withstand temperature extremes that even automotive electronics might have trouble with.
Thus the certification process is long and difficult, the production quantities are relatively small, and the cost is hideous. The King KX-155 radios in my aircraft cost $2500 each to replace (with reconditioned radios) several years ago.
And then there are those who say "I'll use it and if it gives the pilot trouble, I'll just turn it off." The problem is that the only way the pilots will figure out that you're doing something to the navigation system is to figure out which navigation system is being affected. That's not an easy thing to do. Then, they have to figure out where the source of interference is coming from. Then they have to somehow explain to the cabin crew what to look for and how to turn it off. Meanwhile, the workload in the flight deck goes way up.
The only solution that will allow you the freedom to use your PDA is to put you guys in to a faraday shield. To do that you'd have to rip out the interior of the aircraft and install a metal screen around the entire cabin. Nobody in their right mind is going to do that unless new government regulations come out mandating this sort of thing.
In any case, very few aircraft cabins are deliberately designed to be isolated in this manner. If you want to know more, start here [amulation.com] and keep reading.
I admit, the probability that something will go wrong is in fact quite small. But if things do go wrong, you and every other person on that aircraft could easily become the next big smoking crater somewhere. Are you willing to risk not only your life, but everyone else's life on board the airliner, just to get a few more minutes with your PDA?
I didn't think so.
Re:yeah but what will you ban? (Score:3, Interesting)
And the cellular ban is mainly because one airplane with 30 cellphones turned on could DOS an entire city's cellular network, by trying to connect to every node in the city at once. We don't want that, so they don't allow the use
Total Ban (Score:2)
Even handheld games will have wireless soon, so nothing will be 'verifiable'..
If its electronic it will simply be banned.
Re:duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, we're lookin at an nearly complete ban, unless the airplane manufacturers can certify their design to be EMI/RFI proof.
Re:duh (Score:4, Funny)
Rich
Re:duh (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but there's a point to be made here. There are lotsa ppl out there who don't know the ins and outs of their hardware. They don't understand things like "wireless means radio". On the flip side, though, I find it strange that they haven't figured out how to properly shield the planes to allow for this sort of thing.
Re:Doesn't digital make the phones safer on planes (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the time it's an actual wire carrying the signal, but even when it's a wire, a radio signal can be picked up and introduce imperfections in the quality of the data signal. What they're afraid of is that these imperfections will cause signal errors and make the plane do something it hadn't been told to do.
Regardless of how realistic that fear is, I'd rather they be overly p