Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Security Hardware

Risk Management For Electronics on Aircraft 209

Posted by michael from the faraday-cage-too-easy-apparently dept.
Phronesis writes "M. Granger Morgan and his graduate student Bill Strauss have a nice article in Issues in Science and Technology about the risks posed by electronic devices in flight. Unlike most articles on the subject, this one neither pooh-poohs the risks ('We have estimated that reported events are occurring at a rate of about 15 and perhaps as many as 25 per year') nor exaggerates them ('RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'). Instead, it presents a sensible plan for dealing with the risks that will accompany the inevitable expansion of the range of electronic devices passengers will use in flight, including cell phones and wireless computer networking."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Risk Management For Electronics on Aircraft More

Risk Management For Electronics on Aircraft

Comments Filter:

  • Airline-mode? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endareth ( 684446 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:52AM (#6470651) Journal
    Do airlines that require all mobile phones to be switched off allow exceptions for some new phones such as the Sony-Erikson P800 which provide a non-cellular Airline mode?

    • Re:Airline-mode? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gibble ( 514795 )
      I doubt it. Most flight attendants, and people working at the airline aren't going to be on top of technology enough to know the difference.

      Granted in a few years when the majority of phones are airline friendly, they will probably allow all phones to be used again with exceptions to the few people with older phones.

      At least I hope they do this, it sure would be nice!

      • Re:Airline-mode? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by L. VeGas ( 580015 )
        God, I hope not. I avoided getting a cell phone as long as I could because I enjoy the solitude of driving and don't like to be interrupted. My employer finally forced me to carry one during all working hours.

        Now, the only time I can be free of this pest is when I fly. If that goes away too, I don't know, I might just lose it, in more ways than one.
    • To be honest, i hope they don't. It really don't want to trust the average idiot who had enought money for a P800 and knows not how to use it, to switch it to the appropriate mode. Most likely they won't.
      And i am afraid that there are far more of these devices sold to idiots than they are to geeks.

    • Please, no! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:21AM (#6470910) Journal
      Do airlines that require all mobile phones to be switched off allow exceptions for some new phones such as the Sony-Erikson P800 which provide a non-cellular Airline mode?

      God, I hope not. On Amtrak, nowadays, you get five hours of everyone around you shouting into their phones*. It's a blessing that planes ban them -- I shudder to think what a cross-continent flight would be like with phones allowed. Besides, as someone else said, they have a nice revenue source from they phones that they don't want to cut into.

      * Mostly illustrating how utterly pointless their jobs are: "Mary? Mary? It's Bill! I'm on the train! Could you call Jeff and ask him if he got the fax Linda faxed to me? Call me back!" If anything, there seems to be too little white-collar unemployment.

    • Re:Airline-mode? (Score:3, Informative)

      by confused one ( 671304 )
      Your assuming two things:

      The airline steward(ess) will be knowledgeable to know which ones have such a mode

      The owner of the phone will remember to actually switch modes before take-off (wouldn't it suck to have a plane crash because Bob the Executive was distracted and forgot to switch the phone to Airline mode)

    • Re:Airline-mode? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DonGar ( 204570 )
      Seems like it would be a lot smarter if the phone manufactorers and the airlines got together to produce phones that automatically know to switch themselves off, or into airline mode.

      In theory, you could have transponders in the planes that told all devices what was currently 'acceptable' usage.

      If the standard was widely adapted, it could help with movie theatres and other similar situations.
      • ... it could help with movie theatres and other similar situations.
        Heh! Yup, and a few other situations -- like in the vicinity of enterprising people who don't care for cell-phones. I'd be sorely tempted to buy or make such a transponder.

  • Interference overrated? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrMickS ( 568778 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:55AM (#6470672) Homepage Journal
    Given the amount of electronics involved used in the automotive industry these days wouldn't the impact of cellphones have shown up here earlier? (Of course I'm excluding people who attempt to drive with one hand holding the handset, the other leafing through a document and steering with their knees).
    • Cars don't fall out of the sky. any intereference is easily managed since you can still control the car, despite many electronics the steering and brakes "should" always stay working.

      You in theory could lose your power steering and have it reverted to manual, but that's not a big deal and should happen since the power steering pump is still operated by the engine not the computer in most cars, you would most likely just mess up frivilous features in your car.

      But even that is extremely unlikely. Your mor
    • The electronics that actually control the running of the car don't receive any input via electromagnetic radiation, so I think the possiblity for such impact is much less.

      Airliners, as the article mentions, use microwave landing systems, etc., etc. that involve receiving signals from the outside, which cell phones could possibly interfere with.

      • http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/ 2003-July/011421.html http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/ 2003-July/011420.html

        How the hell did that get modded informative? Have any of you geeks ever even opened the hood of a car? Any of you ever heard of electronic ignition? Distributors without points?

        Whatever. It's just ./
    • I know that at least one model of the Chevy Suburban had a problem with handheld CB radios. Every time you pressed "transmit" within about 10 feet of the car, the radio would blow out. It was an expensive repair too, because you had to take the whole damn radio apart to get to the tiny little blown component at the rear. It would have been an early 90s model (can't remember exactly because it's been so long) with the fancy radio that had the mixer as a seperate component (IIRC). It even had a tape deck.
    • I was going to make an argument about vehicle age, but I ran out of patience. Here's some facts I've been able to glean:

      For each aircraft model in commercial use in the USA, the FAA reports average ages [faa.gov]. There are 85 different models reported, with an average (design) age of 23.5 years (not weighted by count of planes). Another site [airsafe.com] on airline safety (with counts of planes, year 2002) puts a weighted (by total planes) average of the top 14 carriers at 11.7 years. A rough guess from this is that 75% of
      • The age of a plane, unlike a car, has little to do with anything. Planes, unlike cars, are heavily inspected and very well maintained. Likewise, if a problem is suspected, recalled items get replaced fairly quickly. Unlike a car, where it may or not happen, and if it does get replaced, it may of been along any timeline.

        Now then, since we are specifically talking about EM, it's topic that's been fairly well understood for a very long time now. So, just because the plane may be an older design doesn't su

  • Good recommendations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:55AM (#6470675) Homepage Journal
    Probably the most useful recommendation in this article is the following:

    Developing and deploying simple real-time tools to help flight crews detect RF emissions. If airline cabins were equipped with RF detectors, then flight crews could take corrective action when strong electromagnetic emissions occurred. The utility of equipping flight crews with easy-to-use hand-held RF detectors also warrants investigation.

    Flight crews could be equipped with handheld RF detectors relatively quickly, which would not only help enforce existing FAA rules regarding inflight use of passenger electronics, but also help gather data that could form the basis of more long-term solutions.

  • Just shut yer frigging phone off for 2 minutes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:55AM (#6470677) Journal
    Every time I fly theres some halfwit who gets all riled up when he's told to turn off his phone/gameboy/laptop/pda/whatever. Like he's so goddamned important he just cant stop talking/typing/jerking off while the plane takes off and lands.

    They're right up there with the yokels who still think it's hilarious to make a joke about having a bomb, delaying the already brutal security points another few hours. "hey watch this, Clem, Ise gonna tell dem i gots me a esplosive bomb!"

    Just sit down and shut up, or drive, or walk. I have places to go.

  • other historical information (Score:5, Informative)

    by brentlaminack ( 513462 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:57AM (#6470698) Homepage Journal
    For those interested in historical perspectives on airline accidents and the ongoing debate on the risks of electronics, see the archives of the moderated netnews groups comp.risks. It's moderated by Peter G. Neumann at sri. One can get the archive at such places as Google Groups [google.com]

    Not only in-flight risks, but all types are discussed here. It's one of the more lucid discussions on the net. I've been following this newsgroup for the better part of 20 years.

  • About time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:57AM (#6470702) Journal
    RF interference stories occur once every little while, and I hope this finally shuts up the people who say, "my cell phone couldn't possibly crash a plane, the greedy airline just wants me to use their satphone".

    It's true that your cell phone, BY ITSELF, will not cause the plane to explode and shower the countryside with flaming wreckage. However, look at any airline accident in the last ten years or so. In almost every case, a sequence of one-in-a-million flukes comes together at exactly the wrong time to cause a crash. In the article, they cite probable cases where RF interference caused the airplane to fly slightly off course, or caused errors in the flight controls. If something like that happened at exactly the wrong time, YOU BET there would be an accident, and your cellphone would be to blame.

    I'm all for paranoia in the airline industry. It's what makes the flight safer than the drive to the airport.
    • If a butterfly flaps its wings in just teh wrong place, that tornado will hit your plane 9,000 miles away!!!

      Evil little pretty bugs.
    • I'm all for paranoia in the airline industry. It's what makes the flight safer than the drive to the airport.


      That ceases to be a benefit at the point where the paranoia imposes enough inconvenience so that some percentage of flyers choose to drive instead, thereby exposing themselves to much greater risk.

    • >However, look at any airline accident in the
      >last ten years or so.

      A disturbing trend seems to be pilot error: "Controlled flight into terrain."

    • I am a Navy S-3B NFO and there are many stories about EMI and its effects on aircraft systems. For my aircraft the most scarry I have heard involved the aircraft's control logic array (a large, non-solid-state avionics box that controls actuations of systems with constraints, e.g. the gear warning tone is generated when, throttles are up, gear is up and flaps are down). In this case, one of the radars on the carrier was somehow causing the wing-fold system to actuate as the aircraft taxied on the flight d

  • No heartbeat for you! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Endareth ( 684446 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:58AM (#6470708) Journal
    The FAA specifies that, "no person may operate...any portable electronic device on any...aircraft" unless an airline has determined that use of the device "will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."

    One has to wonder if any airline has tested whether pacemakers can cause interference?

    • Re:No heartbeat for you! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      People with pacemakers are often under doctors orders not to fly.
    • Now you've made me wonder if they would ask the passenger to turn the pacemaker off for the duration of the flight!
    • 135.144 Portable electronic devices.


      (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.

      (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -

      (1) Portable voice recorders;

      (2) Hearing aids;

      (3) Heart pacemakers;

      (4) Electric shavers; or

      (5) Any other portable electronic d

  • Bugs in airplane controls (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:02AM (#6470743)
    I work as a consultant for an airline, and thus post anonymously :)

    I know that an Airbus once had to restart all the control systems in the air, one by one, to get below 8000 feet. Before the restart, the plane's controls wouldn't let the pilot get below 8000 feet. If I had been the pilot, I'd demand some R&R after landing. :-)
    • sounds like a classic Windows machine.

    • Re:Bugs in airplane controls (Score:5, Funny)

      by MxTxL ( 307166 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:20AM (#6470904)
      I saw this one... it's the one where Neo and Sandra Bullock have to keep the plane above 8000 feet or the crazed anthony hopkins blows up the plane. At one point the plane actually jumps a non-built section of highway and clears it to the other side. They finally beat him by standing really still during a recording and looping the video tape while they transfer all the passengers onto another plane.
    • I do wonder how many incidents of "RF Interference" have really been incidents of "I can't find the cause, so it must be RF Interference". Software bugs often cause hard-to-find problems. I have been a product manager for an RF device used in hospitals, and occasionally we run into problems for which we can't find the cause. The problem happens, then the problem goes away. I think most troubleshooters have experienced something like that. Well, we always figure it must be "RF Interference" or a "Softwa
    • That's slightly better than the controls deciding the plane shouldn't be *above* -8,000 feet.

  • This could be bad for industry.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:03AM (#6470757) Journal
    If it suddenly comes out that cell phones do nothing to mess up the navigation of an aircraft, do people really expect the airlines to suddenly say "Go ahead and use your cell phones on the flight". They won't they're making too much money off of those $5 / call Airfones.
    • Oh yeah. I can't tell you how many times I had to fight someone to get to use one of those phones.

      In fact, I've never seen one used. Well no that's not true. I've seen little kids (read: grown adults) play with them for the entire flight. (Look! It comes out of the SEAT!) I thought there was talk of discontinuing them on several airlines as well.

      Just shut up and turn your damn phone off. I realize it's difficult since most people can't even disconnect while they are sitting in a movie theatre much
    • They may be making some money off of their Airfones, but I doubt they make much. On most recent flights that I've been on on typical airlines (Northwestern, ATA, Delta), I haven't seen the Airfones, and these weren't old planes.

      On the other hand, if they could allow cell phones, that would probably bring in quite a few more ticket sales. "Fly (insert airline here), because you can use your cell phone on our flight!"
    • Those airphones priced themselves right out of the market IMHO. I have never ever seen anybody place a call on them. The only time I've ever even hear of them being used was that call from the passenger on 9/11, and even then he probably had to think about it for a minute.

  • What I'd like to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:03AM (#6470758)
    The article is all well and good, and I'm glad to see that someone's finally doing objective, detailed studies of this, rather than banning devices indiscriminately.

    However, I'd like to see some sort of official ruling stating exactly which devices can and can't be operated at certain points during the flight. Ideally, this would apply internationally, too (though I'm not sure how that would be regulated, since the FAA has little jurisdiction internationally). I find extremely frustrating when one airline says a device is ok, and another does not. For example, I brough my portable CD player on a flight (a 13 hour flight) and was told I could not use it, because it would interfere with the aircraft's systems. This was on a relatively new 747-400. This was rather annoying, since on the same type of aircraft, 6 months prior to this, a different airline specifically said portable CD players (and tape players, etc) were ok.

    Ideally, the FCC, or UL, or some organization could put a little marking on the back of any electronic device to designate whether or not it is acceptable to use during flight. For example, it could be a letter system where "A" indicates that it may never be used (ie: tesla coil); "B" indicates it may be used at any time (digital watch/PDA), "C" indicate it may be used except during takeoff/landing (ie: walkman). Then, instead of having to explain to the stewardess that your PDA does not transmit any RF signals, they could simply look at the back, see the letter "C", and go on their way.

    Inconsistency in general (security checkpoints (before the TSA), airline policies, etc) is one of the most frustrating things to me as an airline traveler, and a policy like this could help solve the problem of being able to use my Palm Pilot on one airline, but not other.

    • Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:5, Funny)

      by afniv ( 10789 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:18AM (#6470884) Homepage
      You can use laptops anytime during the flight, except if you're siting on the left side of the plan flying east, or on the right side flying west. Mobile phones can only be used during five minute intervals the first five minutes of the hour if you in an odd numbered seat row, and at the middle of the hour if you're in an even numbered seat row. If you are sitting in a prime number seat row, don't even think about electronics, unless of course your seat letter is vowel then you can use any electronic devise if you're not using the overhead bin. The use of a Gameboy is only allowed if you're wearing shoes and flying north. Flying in any other direction requires emergency exit seats. Radios are only allowed if you leave them in your bag, stowed under the seat in front of you and you paid our cheap fee for those comfortable headsets and don't sing too loud. If you violate any of these regulations, we'll flush 'em down the blue toilet drain. Yes, even those laptops.
    • This presupposes that a device could only have one mode, and that all planes (some models have been built for decades) have the same tolerances. You might be able to mark some things as not safe for air use, but after that it gets really vague.
    • One of the problems is that the effects of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) vary among the different models of airplanes. A Boeing 747 has mechanical steering and the pilot can take over from the autopilot when it acts weird. In a "fly by wire" Airbus the pilot may lose all control over the airplane due to RFI when it hits the controls.

      For that reason it is unavoidable that in different planes different equipment is deemed acceptable. Even a simple division in classes may be impossible because some plan

    • If I had mod points, I'd use them. However, I haven't, so I'll reply instead.

      You're pretty spot on. The only nit I'd pick is that your labelling scheme changes direction partway through {A = never, B = always, C = sometimes; I'd prefer B = sometimes}. But details like that are bound to be discussed at length later anyway. For example, there may have to be more than three bands if some aircraft are found to be significantly more sensitive than others to RFI. On the whole, though, it's an excellent i
    • One major part of the problem is the age of the avionics. A modern aircraft is going to be vastly different from a 30-year old plane in terms of susceptibility. There are a lot of 30-year old planes still in use.
    • The CD player thing is interesting. If such things really are dangerous to aircraft systems, they should really ban laptops too at least ones like mine with CD players in them.
    • Ideally, the FCC, or UL, or some organization could put a little marking on the back of any electronic device to designate whether or not it is acceptable to use during flight.

      Good idea, but not possible due to the fact that different aircraft have different avionics. As a direct result, any given RF emitter will interfere differently with different aircraft.

      Another idea would be to turn the entire passenger cabin into a Faraday cage [physlink.com]. A quick calculation for the mesh size:

      Assume you want to block 900MHz

  • This is the REAL problem.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:06AM (#6470791)
    Kapton Wiring - The Silent Meanace [navy.mil]

    TWA warning [iasa.com.au]

  • I have had small items like Walkmans, Cell Phones and PDAs checked by airport security at checkpoints before. I think they are generally looking for explosive devices etc. I wonder if there is a list of device frequencies that are verbotten on airliners? This would have to be a frequently updated list of devices for the airport security and in-flight personnel to keep track of. Seems like the communications, fly-by-wire and navigation devices would be restricted to a limited bandwidth. I know it is common p
    • The limitation on RC aircraft is for the reason you mentioned -- if two people are using the same frequency then you likely end up with two self destructing (upon impacting the ground) aircraft.

      Interference, by definition, can happen even if the devices aren't in your limited bandwidth window. I've seen a 10Mhz transmitter interfering with audio equipment. I've seen a desktop computer interfere with a radio receiver. I've seen a supposedly shielded RF source (used as a frequency reference inside some

  • I'm with Guy Kewney on this one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:11AM (#6470838) Homepage

    If you can detect my electronic device, please feel free to ask me to turn it off. If you can't - or won't - put a $50 detector in a $5 million aircraft, don't then try and tell me that you're as worried by stray RF as you are by Nelly Nicotene smoking in the toilets.

  • Another kind of risk: cameras (Score:4, Funny)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:11AM (#6470839) Homepage

    There's a completely different risk imposed by another kind of electronic device: video cameras. The risk is that passengers will tape the pilot sleeping at the controls [go.com].

  • It's a story problem.

    If a guy with a new cellphone built by my company flies from Chicago travelling west at 800 miles per hour, and the navigation system locks up, and the plane crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?

    You take the number of phones in the air (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of disaster (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).

    A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't ini

  • The REAL problem with cell phones on airplanes (Score:4, Informative)

    by adam613 ( 449819 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:17AM (#6470878)
    Although there may be a small risk of a cell phone interfering with an airplane's avionics, the people complaining about cell phone use on airplanes are at the FCC, not the FAA.

    See, when you're on the ground, your cell phone picks up one or two signals that have line-of-sight to where you're standing. This is how the system is designed. But at FL330, you're going to be in line-of-sight for many, many signals, and your phone will connect to all of them, essentially DoSing the cellular network. And since your cell phone transmits all sorts of identifying information when you use it, it's fairly simple to track you down.

    (citation: Say Again Please: Guide to Radio Communications by Bob Gardner. Can't remember the page number ottomh)
  • I know that home-built EMP devices have been the topic on Slashdot before. But I've been thinking that, since it is just electronic components, the parts needed to build an EMP gun/bomb can be brought through screening and onto an airplane. (Not fully assembled, mind you, so that it is a little less suspicious.)

    It seems to me that this could result in a catastrophic event (takeoff/landing?), although I don't know the actual results of what one of these would end up doing. Anyone?

  • What about changing the wiring? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdhutchins ( 559010 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:28AM (#6470965)
    The article states that RF devices may induce currents in airplane wiring. I'm not sure how much commercial airliners cost, but I know it's probably well over 50 million. How much would it cost to use fiber optics instead of twisted-pair wiring? I'm sure relative to the cost of the airplane, it wouldn't be much, and that would eliminate having interference with the wires that must be run throughout the aircraft.

    I don't know how much of the concern has to do with the computers themselves recieving interference, but I don't think it's that much. People use cell phones around computers all the time, and I don't think it causes any problems.

    The only problem left then is potential interference with airplane navagation and communication systems. Again, the most critical times are when it's closest to the ground (takeoff and landing), but in those environments, I'd expect there to be a lot of cell phone usage by people in the airport, and that would (probably) cause as much interference as people in the plane.

    The pilots and flight attendants that are blaming malfunctions on passenger RF interference aren't qualified to talk about it. They say "plane is having problems, passenger is using laptop, therefore laptop is causing problems". They don't have a clue what does and doesn't cause interference, and you'd have to get someone who knows the subject to tell me that that's the case before I'll believe it.
    • As for the fiber optics -- replacing all of the copper would impose a massive weight and cost burden because you'd need to add converters on both ends, while still running a "wire" albeit a glass one. However, there is some fiber optic use in aircraft.

      I'd expect there to be a lot of cell phone usage by people in the airport, and that would (probably) cause as much interference as people in the plane. actually wouldn't be true. Signal strength drops as 1/r^2. A single cell phone in the cabin of the pla

    • The article states that RF devices may induce currents in airplane wiring. I'm not sure how much commercial airliners cost, but I know it's probably well over 50 million. How much would it cost to use fiber optics instead of twisted-pair wiring? I'm sure relative to the cost of the airplane, it wouldn't be much, and that would eliminate having interference with the wires that must be run throughout the aircraft.

      You have two choices. You can fly in:

      1. a plane where every system has been individually ch

    • It's not the wiring - from a private pilot (Score:5, Informative)

      by noahbagels ( 177540 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @12:24PM (#6472197)
      The problem is (mainly) not due to wiring.

      The problem is in fact that the radio navagation aids 'navaids' operate at low frequencies and use geo-displacement / frequency modulation as part of the navigation method. The most common example, the VOR, or 'very high omnidirectional radial beacon' sends out a radially sweeping signal at 3600hz. This is such a low frequency that it can be affected by non-primary frequencies in small electronic devices. For example: CDMA/TDMA cellular phones, while operating at (at least one of them) 1900Mhz (AFAIK), they have polling frequencies that could be very close to 3600hz.


      I would really like it if GPS was the primary navaid, but it is not. GPS was just recently approved (in the last two weeks) for IFR approaches, and until now, it wasn't even legal to conduct a full flight to commercial minimums (I think it's Category III ILS) - making it useless to commercial air carriers. Further, it's going to take the FAA at it's current rate, over a decade to convert the terrestrial navaid approaches and nav plates to include GPS routing and approaches.


      Thus - here's just one example, where it's not the routing, and hopefully this will clear up the radio frequency problem... When I take off with my CFI into IFR (clouds, zero vis), I guarantee you that we both turn off our cell phones! (and that's in a 4 seater cessna 172)
    • Fiber is very difficult to certify for installation in aircraft due to the requirements of the physical environment. Its a challenge to get a mix of materials and connectors that survive the vibration, temperature range, and humidity requirements specified by the FAA. Its even harder to get the right mix to operate in the worst-case environment with acceptable loss.

      I worked on a project to put an entertainment system that used fiber optics on planes. Although we qualified some fiber that could survive t
    • >The pilots and flight attendants that are blaming malfunctions on passenger RF interference aren't qualified to talk about it. They say "plane is having problems, passenger is using laptop, therefore laptop is causing problems". They don't have a clue what does and doesn't cause interference

      Fortunately there's been some experimental data. I believe it was in Aviation Week that I read about incidents where interference went away when a passenger was asked to turn a device off, and came back when the pas

  • It's all about the sources... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:34AM (#6471012) Homepage Journal

    So, let's see. In the first incident mentioned, testimony comes from:

    • National Transportation Safety Board
    • American Airlines
    • Allied Pilot's Association
    • Association of Professional Flight Attendants

    We're supposed to take the word of these obviously unbiased expert electrical engineers that EM interference was the cause of the error. A bunch of groups, some of which have glaringly obvious vested interests in not finding fault with the pilots, suddenly are a bunch of expert electrical engineers.

    Even if if they didn't have ulterior motives, they aren't experts in EM, and we're supposed to take their word on the matter? Obviously not... And yet, that's what the author does, by presupposing that someone looking for a straw man constitutes any sort of "proof" of incidents. There's NO way that there could be a problem with the instruments, either in hardware in software, since we ALL know that hardware and software engineers are perfect, so it must've been that guy in first class with laptop...

    While the author admits that the inflight ban of cell phones has nothing to do with interference reasons (it just makes life more difficult for the cell phone providers), he tries to justify fearmongering whithout any basis in fact...

    What a waste of a read...

  • Common Sense... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:37AM (#6471050) Journal
    ...'RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'...

    If you don't mind adding to your chances of being in that few percent then, by all means, be my guest and keep that phone/notebook/whatever switched on when you're asked to have it switched off.

    On the other hand, if you want to minimise your chances of being in that few percent, switch off your device when asked to. A few minutes with your phone/notebook/whatever off isn't going to kill you but a few minutes with it on just might.

    When travelling, your priority should be getting from A to B safely. You wouldn't deliberately stick your head out of a train window as it was about to travel through a tunnel so why take similar risks (with the safety of others and not just yourself) when travelling on a plane?

  • Forget about detecting RF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:38AM (#6471064) Homepage
    The only real solution is to harden the avionics against RF interference. It is only a matter of time before terrorists use ground-based microwave transmitters with directional antennas to harass airliners on takeoff/landing.

    The very fact that FAA and FCC panic over passenger electronics is clue #1 that we have a problem and it goes well beyond the average moron with a cell phone.
    • The only real solution is to harden the avionics against RF interference.
      And paying for this would be... ?

      What if it entailed flying becoming a luxury? Put on your suit and tie, just like in the 50s and 60s. Or expensive like space tourism today.

      You have no idea what that would cost, would you? Think about hardening against a hundred random attackers, all enclosed with you inside a nice metal tube.

  • Just curious... obviously if the plane exploded in a ball of fire because of your transgression, you would not be able to report back.

    But for those who survived. Did the cell phone actually work? I'd imagine it would be hard to get reception. Either you're over the Grand Canyon and there's no towers, or you're over a huge city and there's way too many in line of sight. The phone would have problems deciding which one to use.

    Any real world experience?
    • During the 911 crisis I wonder what form of cell phone the passengers used to talk on the doomed flight where they rebelled against the terrorists. Are you guys brain dead, passengers talked to relatives on the ground, or is there in flight phones for passengers on some 767s?
  • this article suggests to me that a fun way to kill a planeload
    of people would be an emp pulse.

  • This is silly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gte910h ( 239582 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:00AM (#6471339) Homepage
    This is really silly. We should be testing the avionics of planes to see if they can take RF of the differing frequencies that could bother it. If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded. In a day an age where you're in deep crap if you forget to take your pocket knife off a keychain, its quite possible to bring a laptop on a plane that can fake signals and jam avionics. Either ban laptops (yeah freaking right) as carry ons, or HARDEN THE FREAKING PLANE LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAYS. If you're worried about RF leakage out the windows, put a metal screen over them. Come on folks. We KNOW how to shield things properly, and we know how to test if we did it properly. The test equipment doesn't cost that much (100K, which is nothing for an airline). On another rant, why don't cell base stations detect the case where the idiot is obviously up the the air? That's a problem that should be easily solvable via electronics, and not by regulation.
    • Despite what the article says, the more modern the plane, the more likely it is already hardened. It's not perfect; there are likely to be some issues since none of the aircraft manufacturers is going to go to the trouble of putting the passenger cabin of a commercial airliner in a virtual Faraday cage (which is essentially what you seem to be suggesting).

      It's the older planes that are more likely to be susceptible. It's easy to say, "Harden the plane" or "Buy new planes" but, it's not economically fea

      • I'm not saying 100K per plane. Its 100K per set of emission/detection equipment that you use in the hangar to test the plane. Like a really expensive tire pressure meter.

        I'm saying a plane should not be let off the ground as a safty issue if it can't take the RF. Its a "I'm a terrorist and want to bring down the plane" sort of issue. I don't care about the guy who wants to use his laptop, but must be a nice boy and leave it off. I don't want the guy in the back to be able to fry/jam something up front mali

        • Re:This is silly. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by confused one ( 671304 )
          Ahhh, I see (says the blind man). I agree with the detector. Your right. Unfortunately, the terrorist type will always find a way. If the plane is shielded against consumer electronics, he could rig up a kW level (burst) RF generator in his luggage. (hopefully no one will try this)

          Bringing planes up to snuff shouldn't be too hard; but, most of the airlines are on hard economic times. (They asked the government for the money to add the armored cockpit doors after all -- which I think should have bee

          • Ahhh, I see (says the blind man). I agree with the detector. Your right. Unfortunately, the terrorist type will always find a way. If the plane is shielded against consumer electronics, he could rig up a kW level (burst) RF generator in his luggage. (hopefully no one will try this)

            I'm actually seeing designing the "threat" simulated by the emission-detection equipment as something more complex/powerful than consumer electronics. I believe its sloppyness that makes consumer electronics screw up the plane
    • That's why I stopped supporting the airlines or flying since 9/11. If they can't do it the right way and charge the right prices for it, then as far as I'm concerned the market doesn't need to exist.

      We're only doing it all for money anyway, so if its not profitable its not my problem. I don't even really want to fly the friendly skies.

      Here in America we outsource everything so nobody has to take responsibility for anything. So its all your fault.

    • If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded.

      Because banning the use is cheap, and it reassures the people that Something Is Being Done about the problem.

      However, that's too cynical: the truth is that if the airplanes had to have all the safety features we want, flying would be expensive just like in

      • Re:This is silly. (Score:1) by phliar (87116) on Friday July 18, @03:18PM (#6473236) If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded. Because banning the use is cheap Why are we putting the dangerous devices in the cargo bay? That's cheap too! And safe. And what I've been saying all along.

  • Is Boeing listening, I wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KC7GR ( 473279 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:07AM (#6471396) Homepage Journal
    That was an excellent article. Easily one of the best I've ever read on the issue. One passage in particular caught my eye.

    "But faced with the slimming down of work forces, expanding job responsibilities, and the retirement of older personnel who had specialized knowledge and experience in electromagnetic compatibility, the potential for problems increases..."

    Boeing has already laid off a huge number of engineers, more than I think they ever should have, all in the name of "Shareholder Value."

    I wonder where the "Shareholder Value" will be if the lack of one or more of those laid-off older guys, many of whom probably had all the knowledge ever needed regarding electromagnetic noise, will cause serious problems when future airliners are not properly designed, in terms of their avionics and wiring, to stave off interference problems?

  • I'm just curious (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:11AM (#6471446) Homepage
    and ignorant. So, I am asking the question. What about few thousands RFID tags in luggages and litterally stuffed in all goods in a not so far future?

    And a little bit lazy, I must admit, to search the web for technical info on RFID tags, frequencies, modes of operation, range, etc...

    So, if someone else and knowledgeable can answer it, I will be glad.

    • Most RFID tags are passive and only emit signals when excited. So as long as there is nothing to excite the tags, you'll be fine. Also the RF from an RFID tag is orders of magnitude less than that of a cell phone.

  • Wow, it's like 9-11 never happened (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <`gro.srengots' `ta' `yor'> on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:12AM (#6471457) Homepage
    Shouldn't the threshold for airplane sensitivity to RF interference from passengers be much higher now that we've realized the possibility that any of the passengers may be malicious and suicidal? If we're worried about stuff like CD players that is designed to run for hours with minimized EM emissions, then aren't we completely vulnerable to electronics of the same size designed to put 100% of their power output into EM interference, to do so in a big burst at the worst possible time, and to superficially look just like any of the other electronic gadgetry that gets by airport luggage screeners with no trouble?

  • To the moon, alice! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jasno ( 124830 )
    Why not just make the passenger compartment a faraday cage? Completely isolate it from the rest of the aircraft(separate, filtered power and comm lines). Coat the windows with a conductive film, and then even if some idiot turns on his cell fone its not going to interfere with anything, much less get a signal.

    Then, since the passengers will be properly separated from the crew we can drop all of the stupid pocket knife restrictions and fire half of the new airport security folks.

    If the airlines weren't s
  • Yet another article allowing geeks to whine about how the airlines won't let them play with their techno-toys...
    When will you geeks realise that YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH SAFETY. Interference from mobile phones can prevent a pilot hearing important information for air traffic control. Now if you think playing with your toys is more important than the safety of the aircraft, you are a complete and utter fuckwit!
  • Regarding a cheap portable RF emissions detector: get an AM radio. They are nicely sensitive to the pulsed and chopped energies emitted by digital electronics.

    Regarding shielding: airlines could mix in chaff (strips of metal) into the plastic used for aircraft interiors. This would deaden the RF environment inside the aircraft and prevent strong reflections and concentrations of RF energy in inappropriate locations. Of course, it would kill cell phone reception once you step inside the plane

    BTW,
  • Jerry: "Risk management? Why do you have to write about that?"

    George: "I dunno. I guess it's on my resume..."

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Close