Slashdot Mirror
Wireless LAN Onboard Passenger Aircraft
KjetilK writes "Scandinavian Airlines System announced today that they will start testing a wireless LAN based on IEEE 802.11b, onboard their aircrafts this year." It sounds like they have might have some restrictions in web sites available and such, but this is a darn cool idea. Of course, SAS isn't doing any domestic US flights but... *sigh*
The alleged source refers to Cell phone base masts, i.e. big base stations that cover a 3-mile cell and handle hundreds of calls.
802.11b has a power of 2mW consequentially a range of ~ 100m, these amounts are tiny, if you walk pass your microwave which also operates at 2.4ghz, they'd be more than 2mW of radio waves floating about.
The 2.4ghz spectrum is already crowded, so if your sentiment were true, we'd all have cancer due to our cordless (not cell) phones and microwave ovens.
Well, I don't know about a discman, but during some of those rough takeoffs and landings, I don't want loose laptops flying off seat back trays an onto me!!
http://www.tbg.com/promo/Articles/BCR_3_2000.htm
In future, please link; don't steal others' copyrighted text.
Even the smaller airports in Sweden have internet terminals that range in price from free to the cost of a phonecall. It's quite nice when that plane you're waiting for is delayed.
And now you know the rest, of the story... Isaac (Not related, but we know each other)
But 20 people running wireless network cards shouldn't be a problem?
WLANs and Bluetooth together have potential of providing a capability of phone-to-phone connectivity much the way we have cellular phone infrastructure today. I could walk into a room with a bluetooth enabled mobile, and use a unit connected to ethernet LAN of the building, and place a call. The building owner can get a small payment which will be automatically credited to him by the phone companies.
What technologies need to be enabled for this to happen?
and couple of companies are working in all these technologies. And we can actually dream of great bandwidths on our handhelds.
What other technology pieces are important?
-Vinod
Try and unpowered, crystal AM radio like the children's kits they sell at Radio Shaft. You might get some funny looks whipping it out on the plane to listen to Paul Harvey.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
When you put it that way, I think I'd rather have the leeches then my plane dropping out of the sky . . .
My Web Page
I've seen a lot of comments here along the lines of "How come this is OK, but cell phones aren't", along with replies "Cell phones are safe on 'planes".
Anyways there was an article in new scientist a little while back about how aircraft electronics can quite easily be affected by cellphone, I figured I'd throw it in here.
My mother takes two 14+ hour flights (NYC to Pakistan, and back) every two months or so. (Retired).
My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant).
Some people it's relavant, eh? Plus, the internets a nice way to make a 14 hour flight seem a helluva lot less.
~jawad
When you use a cell phone at 25000 feet, your phone can connect to multiple cell towers at the same time
This is not a problem if you think about it; if it were handover between adjacent cells of a cellular network would not be possible.
There are problems with cellphone usage at high altitude and in aircraft. Some of them are:
a) landbased cellphone technology may not be able to handle dopper of 500+ miles per hour
b) Each cell of a ground based network is typically only 5-15miles across, handover events would occur pretty damn regularly.
c) I also believe that when you phone from 25000' you effectively have a 25000' aerial on your phone, and your signal is out of range of what is normally expected.[dunno if this is true or not]
There is an Aircraft cellular system (TFTS), which is what normal aircraft telephony uses, but the cells for these are 50-150 miles across.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Yes, I knew most of this, since I wrote avionics software for Airbus; the comments were meant to be semi-humorous.
I didn't know the ILS frequencies though; 115MHz is uncomofortably close to a lot of the clock signals generated in a PC and other electronic equipment, which probably explains why airlines are more paranoid on take-off and landing.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
..the network uses traffic shaping to leave enough bandwidth for the flight control computers to talk amongst themselves!
Also, firewalls are possibly a good idea, to prevent some haX0r breaking into the main flight control system.
On a more serious note, there used to be a fair amount of paranoia about using laptops on aircraft, and a recent study found that the avionics bays of older aircraft weren't protected heavily enough against RF to allow you to operate your laptop safely. (URL anyone?), so I hope that this only applies to new SAS aircraft.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Apple has the Airport which can purchased for $299 at CompUsa, Circuit City and their own web site. I also think that DLink might have an accesspoint for $299 (I might of seen this at circuit city also). Even though the Airport is an Apple product, it is configured through snmp. You can get a java application to configure it. I use the Airport at my house as a transparent bridge which allows me to use my laptop anywhere in my house.
-- Bryan
The reason radios are banned in aircraft is because, inside the radio, particually FM ones, is generally an oscillator that is oscillating at the carrier frequency. Internally, this, and the incoming signal, are fed through a phase-locked loop which effectively cancels the carrier frequency out, and gives you the audio signal.
They're worried that the carrier oscillator won't be shielded enough, and leak out.
Personally, I think this is BS, but that's the line I've gotten from those in the know. (Note, I'm a private pilot, so while I'm not exactly authoratitive, I do have access to some pretty knowledgable people.)
just curious--by northern texas do you mean lubbock?--I have read several things about a particular flight school here--supposed to be great--and I am looking for confirmation, before I sign up!!!
;-}
Slackware: old school feel, new school gear.
Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?
Laptops, devices that don't intentionally transmit signals, are allowed to be turned on 10 minutes after takeoff and must be shut down 10 minutes before landing.
I know that anything the FAA says would apply only to the US but still.
Wouldn't it be cool to fly with a bunch of friends with laptops and spend the entire flight fragging? Now that'd be l33t! ;-)
It is pretty obvious who this "feature" is directed at, that is the business segment. I tend to fly with SAS every few months, and often the business class has more people than coach. As business class costs up to 3x the price of coach it is clear that keeping these high paying customers is very important for the airline.
The best customers are of course the ones with gold cards, one such I had a meeting with a few months ago just paid for a one week vacation in the carribean (from Europe) for himself, his wife and two children, including the hotel, using just his airmiles on one of his gold cards. Now, you can imagine how much money the airlines has made on that guy alone the last couple of years!
If wiring a single airplane for wireless internet attracts just one such customer it would be a goldmine for the airline..
> Then there's the claim that they have the right to search anything and anyone ... funny, that's not how I remember the Fourth Amendment!
Well, _they_ (the AIRLINE) actually do. They're a private company, and can specify certain requirements and obligations you must conform to if you want to partake of their services.
It's _government_ employees only who aren't allowed to search without a warrant and probable cause (despite Mr. Clinton's unconstitutional to increase gvt participation in airport security).
Don't ask me to explain why US Customs feel they have the right to do random searches. The only explanation I can think of is that they are simply set up to take advantage of non-US citizens entering the country who aren't aware of their rights.
--craig
14 hour flights not business? Folks are flying around the world to the Far East or Middle East for business all the time. Especially when a country like Israel has so many hi tech companies. 'net access on the plane is a great idea but just give me a power source and I'd be just as happy.
The problem is that an FM receiver is not a passive receiver. If I remember correctly, part of the FM receiver includes an RF modulator to generate the carrier frequency used for the FM broadcast, thus allowing it to be removed from the inbound signal. If noise from this leaked out of the unit, it could play havoc with inflight systems, since it's down in the 100 Mhz Range. 802.11b, on the other hand, is up in the 2.4 Ghz range, will above what I suspect is being used on most aircraft.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
That, and you'd get some little BOFH in training stuffing the jacks full of gum or sticking their fork into it. Or building an adapter that runs power from their laptop batteries to rj-45 and then sticking it into the jack. (although, i have to admit that that would be rather cool.)
----------------------
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
The new wireless technology creates possibilities for our passengers to gain access to e-mail and Internet onboard and on the ground. Our customers already have access to wireless communications in our SAS lounges through Telia HomeRun...
Hmmm.... I wonder what he access possibilities are like just _outside_ the lounge....
-
On the last couple of flights I've been on I've had a pair of WaveLAN cards. I've been tempted to try them out except I was worried that an active radio in the 2.4GHz band might really screw with the Avionics. I guess it's safe. Chris
Is it technically possible to build an FM crystal radio?
So an extremely simple transistor radio would be acceptable?
ridiculously funny realvideo encoded advertisements
I especially like the part where they intermix english phrases with their swedish language. When the clay baseball figure is on the screen, listen for him saying "catch you later" at the end of that particular ad.
I agree....why bother with wireless on a plane where you probably won't move out of your seat any way!
----------------------------
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
A couple of years back I was working on some Bluetooth development (yes, it has taken that long to come to market) and I went to one of the standards group working meetings. There was a lot of discussion about airplanes there, but at that time it was "..we have to be able to disable the radio transmitter or the FAA will ban our devices."
The threat was that if Bluetooth was built in to a laptop or PDA and there wasn't some way to completely power down the BT circuitry while the computer was in use, the FAA would ban BT-enabled devices from being used on board. If that's your starting point it's not hard to see why a non-American airline would do this first.
Nope. Ever seen an Iridium phone ? They're HUGE! Well, OK, huge in comparison to modern cell phones....but you wouldn't mix one up with your cell anyways.
Okay, so you're headed to the next big conference with your coworkers, and you decide to play Counter-Strike. Of course you start talking to each other:
1: "Hey, go look behind that door.. I think he's over there"
2: "I've got a flashbang.. open the door, I'll throw it in."
3: "Okay, I'll run through the door first, my AK47 is full of ammo"
1: "No! Don't shoot the hostages"
About then they'll land at the nearest airport and escort you off the plane..
I usually use a CDPD modem with my notebook when I'm travelling. I still get irritated when my flights are delayed (which is far too often) but I would be even more upset if I was stuck in the airport with nothing to do. It would be nice if I wasn't relegated to a 19.2k CDPD connection, though. An 11Mbit (or even a 2Mbit) wireless connection would make the time go by much easier.
On a somewhat-related note, apparently Northwest Airlines currently has 802.11b running in their WorldClubs lounges at various airports around the world (Minneapolis/St. Paul being one of them). These lounges aren't sheilded and I guess they broadcast their SSID so a resourcesful geek with a notebook should be able to sit somewhere near the lounge and surf the net for free.
Beg pardon, but bullshit. 802.11b devices only use 100mW of power. If that's "cancer-in-a-can", we should already be dead from cellphones, cop's radar, and a host of other devices.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Do you mean the Emily that is the hot babe at the tenzing.com reception?
Starbucks is working on this, and I'd assume they're going to use 802.11b though it's not specifically stated in the press release. The press release is on their web site (under About Us, Press Room) and is dated January 3, 2001.
Here's a quote from it:
-- fencepost
fencepost
just a little off
This sort of thing really comes into play when you want to fire off a quick email from your palm pilot (or watch?...)
take a triptonica to subthunk
How reliable is that article? It sounded like a couple of people blowing smoke.
/. complain about corporations, yet somehow we forget about the crazy negligent consumers (i.e. McDonalds Cup of coffee)
First, I'm assuming that everyone complaining about the "health risks" aren't using any kind of wireless devices. I'd hate for someone to be a hypocrate.
Second, no solutions are presented. Just scare tactics.
Third, they mentioned asbestos and breast implants. Any educated journalist who did a little research knows that breast implants were NEVER proven to cause cancer or any other ailments after extensive testing. Yet somehow Dow Corning went out of business even though their product didn't hurt anyone.
We at
I don't like the fact that you will only have access to a select list of websites. It probably will come down to "you can visit our sponsor's websites..." I would assume that the high bandwidth of the web would be expensive in this case so they might restrict access to those sites giving them money. I guess it just makes web browsing pointless, but e-mail would still be useful.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
You can't use laptops during take off and landing, ditto for CD Players. Mobile phones you're allowed to use until the plane leaves the gate (at least on one Airline I've used), then you have to turn them off for the duration of the flight until you reach the gate again.
--
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Atrowe, your link goes to the Denver Business Journal. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. As such, it is not written by scientific experts, and has not been peer-reviewed by other experts.
By spreading sources like these around, you are only contributing to blind, public hysteria. If you want the sources that are taken seriously by physicians and the scientific community, you need to hit the medical library and search on Medline. Business journals are not good sources of scientific info.
Actually, SAS is also a member of Star Alliance, so this may very well be a - more or less - joint operation.
The FCC considers these kinds of receivers to be "unintentional radiators," and they CAN cause interference.
Alright, I'll admit it that's an excellent point.
What good does wireless networking do on a plane? I guess it would be nice when I have started to download something and they make me change seats. I don't see that happening very often though. It would be interesting to have my palm contact my luggage to see if it made it on the plane. :)
Oh come on give me a link of a cell-phone causing a crash. Yup that is just real smart.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
According to recent news pieces on TV I've seen, Air Canada plans on introducing this within the next six months. Boeing should be rolling out the planes for that within that time period.
Whether or not those planes are modified specifically for Air Canada or for Boeing's larger plan, I don't know.
Dark Nexus
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
That's one of those things that varies from airline to airline. My boss routinely uses his cell phone on planes, and the flight crews only say to turn it off during takeoffs and landings. And there haven't been many crashes caused by cell phones, perhaps incidents where they say to turn off the cell phones, but not crashes
Then you have to take a plane out of service to add the godawful amount of wiring that would be required to add ethernet to even all of first class. It's a lot easier to just have a wireless hub sitting in the galley for the few people who do want networking type away.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
I wonder why nobody asked this question, but how do they connect to the ground?. I mean, there are not so many types of connections that can be used at the altitude of eight miles (and dragging a coax behind the airplane might prove to be one of the cheaper ones :-). Or do they provide only static content (we load some sites before the flight, and then the customers can browse them during it)?
And don't forget RangeLAN (Proxim)
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."
SAS flies out of Newark, Chicago, and Seattle, and is part of the Star Alliance with United for domestic legs of flight plans. If this succeeds, odds are that United would be the first domestic carrier to put it to use.
[quick plug]
Anyway, take a jaunt to Scandinavia on SAS. The whole freakin' area is wired, and pretty much everyone speaks English (and better than most Americans). My only overseas vacations have been to Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and I'd club a baby seal for the opportunity to go again.
[/quick plug]
This sounds like a great idea, but I can just imagine the Quake3 scoreboard...
PaSsAnGeR57 - 5 TurbanDude2000 - 3 MileHighLyle - 8 CoPilotShmoPilot - 7 747_AUTOPILOT_SYSTEM_SERIES_204 - 1,305
"Doh!"
------
Let me give you the lowdown
- HomeRF (Intel)
- HyperLAN II (Ericsson and Nokia)
See also the Wired article dicussing the battle of the standards.One simple rule for its versus it's
A certain amount of overlap is allowable, and does provide seemless handoff. However, when you are halfway between cells, you tend to use bandwith from both. Minimizing unecessary dual use is one reason that cell phones allways have multiply power settings.
There are also cases where too many cells in range will confuse the cell phone itself. I've heard stories of people overlooking a city and finding that they need to go down into the basement to make their cell phone work. Being able to handle 2 or 3 cells of overlap is very different than being able to hand 7-8.
but why are Air Canada and SAS the first
Prohibitive insurance costs.
Thanks to these leeches, no american-owned airline would dare to do something like this until after its been proven beyond all doubt that planes wont start dropping out of the sky.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Anyway, it has probably something to do with they both being Star Alliance members.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
However, some care should be taken, it's easy to fall asleep and think we're so good it does comes without effort. Jakob Nielsen has a thing or two to say.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I'm afraid that's not true.
The frequency used, 2.4GHz is right on where you get domestic microwave ovens (ok, they're on 2.45GHz). You get significant RF from the leakage from even a new microwave.
I never believe anyone who uses the phrase "in fact" in a post. Especially twice in one sentence.
Name even one developer of 2.4GHz technology who is dead directly because of RF-induced cancer.
<flame>
Then learn correct English grammar, and quote a reliable source.
</flame>
"This is your captain speaking -- the network and the plane are going down. Thank you, that is all."
...Andrew
Such jacks would be *much* more expensive. I believe the only reason for using wireless over jacks is that it is cheaper.
This is not a sig.
As I recall, last year, Boeing announced that they were testing some new technologies to allow plane-based network connections. As I recall the announcement, they were looking at using a phased array antenna to contact a satellite system. United and several other Star Alliance carriers were in the intial test group. I recall discussing this with some of the crew on a United bird coming back from Hawaii after we had an in-flight medical about 6 rows up from me - we were thinking in-flight telemedicine applications, along with some local-storage VOD stuff. We came up with some pretty spiffy ideas, based on a local VOD server and converting the LCD seatback screens into a web-based delivery system.
Hey! That's IEEE DSSS 802.11b, and don't you forget it!
This sounds like a good idea if a company buys out all the tickets on a transatlantic/transpacific flight, but what good is it without a fast Internet connection? The only viable option for an airplane is satellite, and jumbo jets don't quite get the reception/transmission capacity of an AWACS jet.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
This is one possible reason, but the REAL reason is that using a cellular phone whilst in the air totally SCREWS with the cellular network. As the signal getting back to literally tens of base stations is of the same signal strength, it totally confuses the network in the handoff of the call to the cell with the strongest signal. The excuse that it stuffs up aircraft navigation is a propogation of a beleivable lie, rather than the real reason...
This space intentionally blank
You ever notice how snobby Flight Attendants are when you use your laptop on the plane? Whenever preparing to land or take off - they always come to laptop users first to say "time to shut that down now" - in their best stereotypical flight attendant voice. And then if it isn't off within like 30 seconds - they come back to you to re-assure their instructions.
I always do my best to annoy them back - I call them Stewardess's - "Excuse me, Stewardess? Yeah.. uhmmm.. I'm gonna have to ask you to get me another coke - thanks."
They hate to be called Stewardess - so I'm told, and by the look on their face when I say it - you can tell it irks them.
I know it's FAA regulation - but what is a laptop or a discman really going to do?
Oracle.
You know.. you could have probably just linked to the article you pasted that from - it probably would have been a bit more effective rather than spamming us all.
Oracle.
As a private pilot, I can tell you that the "avionics" per se, are not that vulnerable, especially to any EM above UHF frequencies (400-500MHz and upwards). Believe it or not, the most vulerable piece of navigation equipment on board is also the oldest. The venerable magnetic compass is VERY susceptable to give erroneous readings when even the slightest artificially-generated magnetic field is switched on in the aircraft. Even any ferro-magnetic metals placed near the compass will screw with its readings. A non-pilot may dismiss the importance of a mag compass, but it is an essential piece of life insurance on baord an aircraft. When all the rest of the fancy electronic junk fails and you get lost, that lowly mag compass will point you back home and save your bacon.
When the Enola Gay encountered the EMP from the bomb blast, all mag compasses on board became useless due to all the ferromagnetic materials near it becoming re-magnetized in unpredictable polarizations. They steered their heading back home by the (vacuum-operated) directional gyro, and made sure the DG was set to the mag compass *before* the blast.
My instructors drilled into my brain to *always* offer up a PIREP upon initially calling up Flightwatch before asking for the wx info you want. It's good karma to give something of value first, and any FSS likes to receive confirmations of the wx data they already have on hand. More knowledge, even redundant knowledge is always a good thing when you're flying.
There sure do seem to be a lot of pilots here on Slashdot, Just out of curiosity, let's see how many read and respond to this. I'm a recent, new PP-ASEL (passed checkride in summer 2000) in northern Texas and currently working on my instrument rating. I fly Cessna 172's, a 150 and hopefully real soon now, my own (50% share) 1960's Piper Cherokee.
Nope not Lubbock. Much worse than there. Wichita Falls :-)
I'm sure if US Airlines put wireless Ethernet on planes it will be just as affordable as the phones that they currently have. Probably like $4.99/minute or something like that, and they probably will have a shared 14.4Kbps uplink.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
But cummon, who really takes that many flights longer than 2 - 3 hours
Anyone who lives in australia perhaps? or maybe south africa? or the countless other places more then 2 or 3 hours away from other advanced countries?
Damnit not everyone lives in the states (you may want to lie down to take in such mind blowing revelations)
a troll aboard a crashing airplane: fp!
Boeing's solution relies on a satellite to mediate the connection between plane and ground. The other solution is being worked on by some startup company (the name escapes me) and is far less elegant (but cheaper). It queues up requests (SMTP, HTTP, etc) and sends and receives a huge chunk of data to and from receivers on the ground at regular intervals. The onboard hardware basically acts as a proxy.
Both solutions are wired to the seat, which is safer than the wireless solution, but still reasonably insecure. I think that the cheaper solution still rings in at $17 and hour.
Personally, I don't think that we need Internet access on commercial flights, except possibly for 5+ hour flights (international). I don't know anyone who can't live without e-mail for an hour or two.
---- Just another spud server.
I feel dirty for saying this, but do we NEED yet more ways/places to be connected to the Borg Collective? I mean, for the few hours that comprise an airplane trip, is it that important to be wired into the Net? I can see a day looming when the Type A's of the world will have us all slavishly checking our email 24/7. The world is too dehumanizing and fast-paced as it is. Ted K. - we hardly knew ye!
CrazyLegs
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Use your laptop and webcam as a black box for the airplane...or, as you fly over Iraq, snap a few pictures of that weapons complex, then upload/e-mail them to the CIA. Look, ma, no satellites!
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
This might cause trouble for air-ground communications, but messages can be cached until such time as they can reliably be sent. The network within the aircraft would be nearly immune to disruption because it exists inside a metal structure (the aluminum fuselage), which has a shielding effect--a Faraday cage, to those familiar with physics. Thus, while the transmission of an e-mail to the ground may be delayed, the person would never see the trouble. Indeed, this is already the case--the aircraft only communicates with the ground at specified intervals, not constantly. As for web browsing, the impermanent connection kinda precludes it.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
As stated in at least one other post, the cell phone ban originally comes from the FCC, not the FAA. The reason transmitters are barred from use is not that they are likely to cause interference, but the slim possibility that they might. Equipment installed in aircraft goes through extensive and rigorous testing procedures to make sure that it will not cause interference to other systems, even under the worst of conditions. (This is also the main reason avionics are so expensive.) Your cell phone/ham tranceiver/walkie-talkie does not go through such testing, and is therefore not approved for use in flight. Receivers are also barred because almost all receivers (all modern designs) use a small oscillator as part of the reciever; under some conditions, that oscillator may act as a transmitter. Laptops, CD players, etc. are considered safe because the power levels, frequencies, etc. of their oscillators are such that they are not potential sources of problems, as well as the fact that they are generally well shielded. Items such as GPS receivers are also prohibited, but may in some cases be used-. The prohibition is a general blanket statement by the FAA; Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) specifically state that the pilot-in-command (read: captain) has the final authority as to the flight. As such, the captain can allow you to use your GPS, ham transceiver, etc. Most won't (and shouldn't!) allow a transceiver, but often will allow a GPS, especially an aviation model. All you have to do is ask. Just remember, if the captain says no, the answer is NO! (Incidentally, I am a pilot myself, as well as a ham and an electronics enthusiast.)
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Congrats on passing your checkride! I, too, am a pilot. I hold PP-ASEL, with Instrument (as of last November), and am working on Commercial. I'm an aviation major at the University of Oklahoma. Oh, and another of the replies to this post asks if by chance you mean Lubbock by northern Texas. If so, it's a small world--last semester, while working on Instrument, I flew down to Lubbock. Neat trip.
Better stop now, or else I'll never shut up...get me started on flying and pay the consequences!
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Combine this with the Air Force's laser-armed 747, and you've got an awesome game...
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Radio devices and cell phones are not allowed because they communicate all the way to ground stations. Both of those operate in frequencies in close proximity to those utilized by aeronautical navigation. Wireless LAN, on the other hand, operates in 2.4 GHz, and has a range of "AT MOST" 150 feet. In fact, for aircrafts as long as the 747 (~70m), they might even need 2 base stations for the whole plane's coverage. Signal interference to flight communication is minimal, and is thus safe to be implemented. As a pioneer, SAS would lead a trend that other major international carriers like Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, and British Airways would follow. Initially, probably first and business class would use the service for free, while a minimal charge would be imposed on economy classes. However, within a few years, all classes should use it for free, since by then, the Internet will no longer be a dot-com wonderland...it will become the connective that integrates everyone's lives.
I can see getting an SAS module for my Visor that's got a Bluetooth connection to the plane's galley, and having buttons that say things like "attention," "peanuts," "headphones," and "free beer so I can get some air rage on."
Dan.
Cue The Sun...
Orinoco(WaveLAN) works out of the BOX on SuSE 7.0. and it rocks.
Seriously, they've seen that joke coming.
They being the FAA.
In order to connect this to the cockpit you'd have to have the cockpit software include a TCP/IP/802.11b network stack. That means that the stack would have to be certified to Level C at least, Level A if it interacted in any way with airframe control info. Certification involves inspection and test planning and test specification and test execution and test result analysis and problem reporting and independent reviews of the inspections and test plans and test specs and test code and test results and test result analyses and problem reports and documentation and audit of ever step and FAA DER signoff on all work products and development processes. I.e., hundreds of times more labor and paperwork and management than just "code it and ship it" (you know: Microsoft).
As a colleague of mine once put it, "There isn't enough money printed to certify a TCP/IP stack for flight."
Cabin software for systems that have no connection to the airframe systems at all (e.g. video games) can be "certified to level E", i.e., not inspected or tested or approved, basically just reported. The hardware needs some, to prevent spurious emission.
Since this new system radios outside the aircraft, the network layer (the 802.11b part) might have required certification. If so, I think I know what project it is. And I think I worked on it. Or a piece of it. That's how big that process gets. Half of my company wrote tests for maybe 20% of that layer for over a year, and had no need to know what the eventual application was.
Or maybe that was a competing system that just got thrown out the market window by this one...
--Blair
So that means we can play unreal or quake on the airliners now? Or just that the suits will make us do our work on vacation to?
The whisper in your ghost.
I cannot believe that I saw this comment, "why aren't the larger air carriers doing this?". Can you remember any time in history where a new, innovative, or even slightly different idea was first implemented by the ruling class / icon type institution? The reason that people like SAS do this first is multi-fold but the reasons include small company size, forgiving governmental regulation on technology, country mentality towards tech, and so on. More power to them!
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; The population is growing.
Most aircraft (Including all Transport catagory craft) have a "Minnimum equipment list" that tells them what exactly can be inoprative for each type of operation. If 1 seat's interenet connection was busted it would not stop them from flying. They would just mark it as non fuctional till the next time the tech staff could look at it.
Similarly it is often the case that 1 seat on the airplane may not be usable due to a busted seatbelt or something, not a huge deal they just leave it empty.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I fly a DA-20 Katana out of BED, Hanscome Field, Bedford Ma. Got my PPL 24 Dec 2000. (Baby Pilot)
I expect to move to a PA-28 Warrior and do my IFR stuff in the next few months.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Yeah, but then he couldn't have converted each period to a goatsex link.
I know it's FAA regulation - but what is a laptop or a discman really going to do?
Exactly what the root post of this thread said they will do - louse up the navigation equipment.
While you're in the air, 30k feet above anything that might hit you, this isn't an issue. But when the plane is landing, it's following interference fringes of a couple of radio beacons by the runway. You do *NOT* want anything that even *might* be transmitting RF to be active during takeoff or landing. Airports have enough problems with noise from the local radio stations.
1) Join the Mile High Club and live webcast it using your laptop WebCam!
[other ideas?]
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
So no, before we see this in production use RF interference wont be a problem.
-henrik
a 747 of geeks playing quake and unreal tournament... wirelessly =)
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
SAS is also working to find a solution so that passengers can gain access to their own company's e-mail system behind a firewall.
:-)
In related news, SAS is looking to hire some 133t h4x0rs who can penetrate company firewalls
This sounds more like establishing L2TP or PPTP or IPSec tunnels to corporate firewalls, allowing email to be picked up after authentication. Why SAS would be getting involved in that level of connection is a little beyond me, but they might make it a pay service for those who regularly use their lounges.
I wonder what kind of link goes from the small router on the plane to the internet? Satellite most likely, although there are some terrestrial aircomm systems throughout Europe that could provide slow but cheap access. And would they really be filtering websites, or could I pass my own SSH/IPSec/SNMP/BGP traffic while at 35000 feet?
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I'd like to see this happen at coffee shops as well. A handful of coffee shops I know of have plenty of AC ports avaiable to plug into, but only 1 or 2 I know of have an ethernet port nearby to plug into. To narrow it down further, there's only 1 coffee shop that'll let you plug in(and pay the hourly fee) to surf the web and sip coffee on.
I've been to one coffee shop where an unofficial Quake deathmatch took place, and we had cords all over the place. This could be greatly simplified with wireless, where you wouldn't run into restrictions of how far your network cables go nor how many ports you have in your battery-operated hub. You could have all the customers in the shop just join in on the fraggin'.
Its quite interesting that the big moves in the Wireless market all seem to come from Scandinavia. For a small bunch of people they really really really like keeping in touch.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Hey, don't knock it 'till you've tried it man. Once you get over the "Oh, wow" reaction it's seems as normal as reading the newspaper while you do your thing.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
There are many people who take many flights longer than 3 hours. Have you ever traveled outside the United States? Do you have any idea how many flights fly out of this country every day and how many people fly on those flights?
Further, I don't know where you came up with the 3 hour limit. YOU might want to catch a nap while you're on the plane but that doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants to do. I can't sleep on short flights so for me, personally, any flying time is a complete waste. I usually synch up my laptop before emplaning and spend my time replying to my email. Having network connectivity would be great for me!
And how the hell did you conclude that these modifications would make the plane tickets any more expensive? If an airline has to raise prices to offer this service, consumers who don't care about the service won't take that airline any more!
Anyway, this service will probably not be offered in Cattle^H^H^H^H^Hoach Class to begin with, anyway.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Yes, not only are they common, they're actively solicited. I can't tell you how many times after filing or opening my flight plan, Flight Service has come back in a cheerful voice and said "We'd appreciate any pilot reports you could provide while in flight."
For non-pilots, a pilot report (or PIREP for short), is a weather report filed while in flight.
The MEL only applies to components of the aircraft that would otherwise render the aircraft unairworthy if they were to fail. A busted entertainment system would not render the aircraft unairworthy, so therefore it would not be included in the MEL.
Not to mention *weight*. You know how much it would weigh to wire each seat with cat5, and include the necessary jacks, hubs/switches, etc? It would weigh way too much to be feasable, unless it could somehow be integrated with the current wiring in place (which I seriously doubt). The weight that would be spent on cabling would be better spent hauling passengers or cargo... where the airline actually makes money.
Funny (slightly off-topic) story : I'm flying back from Germany a couple of months back. I'm coming out of the restrooms at the very back of the plane (big 747-400) and I pass this guy walking around with his cell-phone, jamming it to his ear and then checking the display. Of course my first thought is "moron, don't use a cell-phone in flight!"...then about 30 seconds later it hits me. We're about mid-way in a flight from Frankfurt to Toronto....there isn't a damned cell tower for hundreds of miles in any direction because we're over the mid-Atlantic. :) I didn't bother to tell him he had no hope of completing his call....I was too busy laughing. luser!
Let's just hope they give the flight controlls an IP.
;)
They don't need an IP. The smart money says the only two words you'll need to know are "public" and "private".
--
I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.
You probably aren't an RF engineer (neither am I), but I figured I'd clean this up. In order to receive a signal, you must transmit it. To be precise, if you've got a radio station transmitting at 107.9MHz, your radio must generate a 107.9MHz signal inside it, align that with the phase of the incoming signal, and subtract one from the other. It's left with the raw modulation, which is what you want to end up with.
Therefore, leaky electronics can and will spew RF even (especially!) if it's only a receiver.
--
"My mother takes two 14+ hour flights (NYC to Pakistan, and back) every two months or so. (Retired).
My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant)."
Ok, so the 14 hour flights aren't business flights. No Internet connection is required, though it might be fun to have one.
The 2 - 3 hour flights fall into my 2 - 3 hour timeline; does he *need* an internet connection?
I'm not saying the 'net' wouldn't be interesting to have access to in any place, just the same as it would be interesting to have the net accessable in a washroom. Interesting like, "Oh wow, what kind of person has to get their email while they're in the washroom".
My point is only that we should re-evaluate how much time & money we want public transportation to invest in keeping us working round-the-clock.
If I were on a plane with a laptop right now, I'd be playing a game, or reading some saved information. The fact that I *could* one day connect to the net and get new information is boring when i consider how much time I'm actually spending on most flights.
It seems like the only practical reason to invest time and money in networking people in-flight, is to help their business interests; and what business can stand to spend so much for a flight and accomodations, but can't afford that 3 hours of luxury net-free time we would all enjoy if we weren't so hyped about the 'possibility' of connecting in the air.
Ace
You really think you could produce something as good as this or the other pictures you can see here with a webcam? The information that is hard to come from is pressure, tempature, dewpoint. That kind of stuff. Hint they take these pictures from space they can see the whole world. And a weather station already gets pretty good reports from the pilots. Trust me I did this for 4 years they don't need a crappy little webcam picture
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Just out of my own experience, I just wanted to say that the standard itself rocks. I bought a base station and card from Dell with my new notebook and you can roam with these things everywhere. And since my cable modem only supports speeds up to around 3 Mbps, the 11Mbps standard more than covers it.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight
No, there havent.
I believe there was a Dateline NBC story a few months ago about just this (if not Dateline, it was another comperable show). Of all the studies conducted on this, not a single one has concluded that cel phone signals (or usage of laptops for that matter) interfere with anything on an aircraft. If you know of any, please direct us there, or if you can back up your claim, give us an NTSB official report of a crash caused by cel phone usage.
The real reason is that the airlines have struck a deal with cel phone service providers. When you use a cel phone on the ground, your signal goes to the nearest tower and is relayed along the network. When you are in a plane, the nearest tower changes very quickly -- so quickly, in fact, that the cel phone company is not able to track your call, and thus cannot bill you. Airline airphone towers work on the same general principles but the ground towers are much farther apart.. and youve never heard complaints there. Why? Because the airlines can charge $9/min for the monopoly.
Note: yes, I did hear about the plane that was forced to land a couple weeks ago because of what they claim was a cellular phone apparently ringing in the cargo hold. If this were proven to be the actual cause, it would be a first, but Im pretty confident they will find something else.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Large aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 require dozens of man-hours of maintenance for each hour they're in the air anyway. Replacing an ethernet port every couple of years would not be a big deal. The same argument could be given for the headphones offered on planes. Why doesn't the plane just take the headphone jacks out of the seat and provide wireless headphones to passengers?
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
How would wireless ethernet signals affect the plane's electronic systems. I know that the reason cellular phones aren't allowed to be used in planes is that the radio signal emitted by the phone can interfere with the plane's navigation equipment. There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight. Wouldn't it be easier to just add a RJ-45 jack next to the headphone jacks on all the seats?
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
HERE
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
They are even going so far as implementing policies of "asking" people carrying laptops with sensitive information to not work on/with that info in such a public place as an airport due to shoulder surfers and laptop thieves.
This should tons of fun for casual users but I imagine corps getting scared shitless over this. Even I would be a little nervous checking my yah00 mail.
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
For an aircraft to file a weather report while in flight is common. Even as a student pilot my flight instructor had me file PIREP's with the flight service whenever I ran into weather that was not exactly as the forcast said it should be.
There are some things like cloud tops which can only be seen from above.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Which, judging from the comments, many of us are quite familiar with.
The concerns I have are mostly practical. Philosophically there is no problem for me.
Things like security, reliability, speed.
Security, of course, depends on the encryption standards they use, if any. There could be a couple of good spy movies based on this somehow. [Insert plotline here]
Reliability. This is partly a simple hardware issue, the solution to which is 'trivial', because it is "merely" a matter of getting the right equipment. Some of it is not so trivial in terms of enviromental interference. Remember, this is in Sweden. For instance, there are reports in the far north of the Northern Lights being very intense and coming quite low into the atmosphere. As seen here, for example:
There is also this page, with many interesting articles.There is this article about auroral effect at ground level. I even recall reading about aurora being *visible* at ground level, but that was long ago, and I cannot find the link. There is even this article about aurora being *audible*, however. So the effects of such enviromental factors on an aircraft at six miles up can be important.
Speed is not so much an issue internal to the aircraft, but again is a problem of interferance with the ground stations. Enviromental factors are again in play
Needless to say, I am going to be very interested with the results of these trials
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"Have your bags been in your control since you left your home?"
"Has anyone given you a package to carry on to the airplane?"
"Are you a l33t h@x0r?"
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
This is not the first time this has happened. If you read Telia's press release they state "SAS will be the first European airline to implement this wireless technology on board their planes." If you read on a bit into the Tenzing site, Air Canada is starting a free Beta test of this technology here.
Now I fly a lot and this sounds like it's really going to take off, pardon the pun, but why are Air Canada and SAS the first? I would have expected this from one of the bigger airlines like United or something. Air Canada is a member or United's Star Aliance though. I guess if this works well, we may see this everywhere!
Dissenter
Dissenter
"There is no knowledge that is not power."
I wonder how much the NWS would pay me for a web cam uplink with GPS from my coach seat across the atlantic. The oceans are a bitch to get data from, maybe this announcement is the first step to more accurate forecasts!
--
...how long it will take Apple to sue them for the use of their "Airport" TM :)
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
Now if only you could log on to a Quake Arena or Half-Life server on-board and play coach section against business class.
Die, CEO of so and so, die!
Signatures? ÒöÈon't need no stinking signatures!
802.11b is showing up everywhere. Think about this for a couple of minutes and you might feel inclined to breathe a sigh of relief. This is an area where a number of players would have liked to establish a de-facto standard, potentially a closed and monopolistic one. It didn't happen. 802.11b happened, with ordinary TCP/IP and DHCP running over it. Do you realize what an impediment to Linux users it would have been, if "the standard" ended up being a closed one? I'm thankful for this. I'm looking forward to a time in the not-too-distant future where I'll be able to boot my Linux-based laptop in lots of different places -- coffee shops, airplanes, offices, perhaps even my home if I feel so inclined -- and just be on the net without any further consideration. This is one of those futuristic things that really looks like it's going to pan out just the way the dreamers imagined it. My hearty congratulations go out to the people who made it happen.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
this isn't really access. it sounds like they will have a couple of sites that are uploaded to the plane. the plane will sync w/ the groundstation "at regular intervals". you can probably send email to anywhere (message size restricted???) but you won't be able to "surf"
Am I the only person posting in this group who thinks this idea is a waste of money?
I mean, I'm as nerdy as the next guy; I really am. But cummon, who really takes that many flights longer than 2 - 3 hours. Isn't it enough that you can sit there and use your computer and get work done, do you have to be able to do real-time research and communicate with people for that whole three hours? Stuff like this can't wait until you land and take 4 minutes to get inside the airport, "Our customers already have access to wireless communications in our SAS lounges through Telia HomeRun"
In the end, any modifications the airline makes to the plane are going to raise the price of airline tickets. I don't want to pay more money for my flights so joe-asshole on his $8.00/min cell-phone can also type while I'm trying to get an hour or two of sleep.
Is there such thing as a business job that requires you to travel *and* get so much work done that you can't take a 3 hour break from being connected to the outside world? Not even a break from working, just a break from being connected... it sounds like 'too much hype' to me.
It reminds me of all the "business men" I used to sell Palm Pilots too back in my hay-day as a fledgling guru. "Whoa! I can connect to the internet with that!? anywhere?!". Guess how many of them actually do that 3 weeks after they get one... I think 90% of the guys running with leading-edge technology are actually wasting their time (and often other peoples time) figuring out how to be more efficient with their new technology.
ie: Hey, this palm pilot lets me get my email anytime i want, now I can check it on my way to work instead of when I get there. They then spend 4 hours setting it up, and save 5 minutes in their work day for a month or two until something new comes out.
Ace
"Cockpit Hacked, Plane Diverted To Amsterdam"
Let's just hope they give the flight controlls an IP.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads