Slashdot Mirror
Britain's CAA Considers Laptop Ban on Commercial Aircraft
hayb writes "An article in Britain's The Register claims that NASA and United Airlines have conducted tests on various aircraft and have found that ultra-wideband (UWB) devices "knocked out" collision-avoidance systems and impaired instrument landing systems.
It states that the blanket ban on all devices in necessary because flight crews do not have the knowledge to differentiate between standard notebooks and ones with UWB devices."
hehehehehhe
...if there's a blanket ban on laptops, how else are you supposed to keep warm?
Nah .. too stupid.
that business-people worldwide will be beating their chests like so many banana deprived apes. Bow your head!
Why can't they just fix the planes? It is much harder to spot someone leaving something on. I sometimes leave my cell phone on on planes, I just forget that it is in my hand luggage.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Surely the airlines instrument systems could do with some updating... The military must have systems which do the same job and don't suffer from the crippling effects of laptop and cellphone interference. Or maybe the 'bad guys' will start defending their encampments with laptops in order to confuse the guidance systems on cruise missiles.
Just today I noticed an article somewhere that was talking about the airlines hurting becuase business travel has gone down a good bit since Sept. 11 last year. (Business travelers are apparently the highest margin passenger class becuase they tend to book nicer seats and fly on shorter notices so they're higher up the essentially exponentail cost function correlating time-to-flight-from-ticket-booking and ticket price.) And now they want to eliminate laptop usage... Sure, I bet the suits and shiny shoes crowd will just looooove that.
Not that I care though. If it's good for safety it's beyond question. And honestly, if you don't have your work done by the time you catch the plane to your distant meeting, the chances of you being ready are slim-to-none anyway. Hopefully this might be another wedge in the organizational door being held shut against the wide adoption of telecommuting.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
More news at 5.
The whole point of UWB is that it is spread-spectrum technology.
So, because it is using a huge bandwidth at low power, it is supposed to be able to share it with other narrowband and high-power transmissions.
The point is, though, if it is causing interference with *any* narrowband communications, something is very wrong. Personally, I don't believe that UWB is going to be practical anyway, because it's just increasing the noise-floor, which is fine for a few devices here and there, but once every cell phone in the world has a UWB connection to it's hands-free kit, the noise-floor is going to be really high.
Infact, a good comment would be, 'Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!', because, ironically, they would all interfere with each other, (in the real world - in an ideal world they wouldn't, but do you really believe that manufacturors are going to implement the full specs, etc? No, they will just implement the least possible subsystem, which will be rubbish).
Does anyone else think that it should therefore be possible to create a small handheld device that say looks like a walkman/personal stereo, but contains an UWB transmitter? Activate it in a heavily traveled airspace and create chaos at best...
/. and that they couldn't have thought of it themselves :) In fact why bother being on the plane, have it in the baggage hold on a timer... It's not explosives, its a harmless walkman...
Rather than just try and ban the devices shouldn't they be working on methods of blocking the signals? Or altering the collision avoidance systems to cope with the interferrance?? Doesn't this smack of really bad shortsightedness?? Even if UWB is several years away, spark-gap transmitters ought to be homebuildable and with far more power than the average UWB transmitter.
I might be giving away ideas here, but doubt that terrorists read
Just a thought, these things crop up when people try one solution to a problem, but they are just trying to prevent it. And even though people say prevention is better than cure, cure is far more reliable.
Z.
P.S. Sorry to bring the 'terrorist' angle up again but this strikes me as a stupid thing to do, even if it never occurs. When you have people's lives at risk it ought to be cure, not a reliance on prevention.
I wish he could spell Britain properly... I don't go around writing Amerwika do I? Especially since it's the article title...
With more and more devices going wireless from
here to there. Maybe the aircraft bussiness has to
adjust their machines to work in a "hostile"
electromagnetic world. With bluetooth enabled
pda's talking to other pda's in the cabin etc. etc.
And imagine the flying in over a town where there
is a few tousand wavelan hotspots to fly thru.
wireless - ho yeah! =)
yes I look like a walking gadgetshop with my
laptop, pda, phone and bluetooth stuff. And my
SOG multiplier =)
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
The real annoying part about laptops in airplanes is the limited battery life. Where are power outlets when one need them the most !
"...because flight crews do not have the knowledge to differentiate between standard notebooks and ones with UWB devices."
Two Replies:
"Knowledge is Power"
"Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups"
Seriously, did anyone else get the impression from this that we are going to be flying nude without carry-on bags of any sort in the near future?
Considering how rare (nonexistent in the consumer market, according tot he article) these things are presently, why is this considered a problem that deserves such reactionary treatment as banning *all* laptops and PDAs? (Nevermind that if we want to treat this as a security risk there go calculators, game boys, and anything else that could conceal one of these things).
More reactionary nonsense in the name of "security": I'm waiting for someone to attempt to hijack an airplane with their shoelaces (a garrote) and see how quickly it takes legislators to attempt to ban shoes.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Not allowing laptops to be carried aboard would be a very drastic measure. I protest. I certainly don't want to check in my laptop with the rest of my luggage because:
1) Laptops are expensive and can be stolen
2) Laptops are fragile. I have seen how airport workers handle the luggage. I shiver with the thought of them throwing my laptop bag around like a football ball.
I think, a good compromise would be to allow people to carry laptops aboard but disallow using them at all times. Of course, the airlines could make a case for banning the laptops aboard by saying that they could be used by the terrorists to "knock out" whatever UWB systems that are vulnerable to this..
As I understand it crudely speaking a UWB transmitter is based on a spark gap.
That being the case have United and NASA just proved that planse can be serioulsy put at risk by somone making sparks with say a coin across the terminals of a 9v battery?
If that were true then almost any battery operated device or plane system could be abused to put the plane at risk.
On that basis take me to xxxx or i'll repeatedly plug in and unplug my headphones will be a credible hijack threat.
mine is a sad story indeed. I've been neautral until the parent post ( 21 posts so far ). and now - oh dear... my karma went "bad" on me. Have you no respect to old /. traditions? when a ./er sees an empty news he MUST post a "first post"... true enough, the "first post" was what originally introduced the karma regime... but hey, if this was the spark that lit the darkness, who are we to determine it false ?
said my peace. if this post will get offtopic I'll stop posting altogether. bye bye for now.
I happen to know a form of technology that humans have had for some time now. It's called: education. Surely flight crews could be given a crash course on what to look for instead of making everyone suffer?
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
If I want to cause panic on a commercial aircraft, I no longer need to bring a bomb?
"Stand back! I have a bluetooth device!"
Most airlines (in europe) don't allow laptop use anyways, and that's been a while.
;-)
At first it was only during takeoff and landing, but now it's throughout the whole flight--and that's before UWB of course.
It's annoying, but it makes sense--maybe they should think about shielding things a little better
yours ever, fz.
One of the airlines (in Europe) that i've flowned with (and which shall remain nameless) forbade the use of CD reading devices during any part of the flight. At first i tought it was just misinformation from the stewardess, but i checked the airline's magazine and there it was in the safety precautions section - no CD reading devices.
I really cannot see what's the problem with CD reading devices. Maybe there's some BOFH like explanation, say:
"Quantum coupled ressonance between the CD reading laser and the flight systems"
flight crews could be given a crash course
Ba dum dum
If I plan on traveling in leasure, I have my wife drive or I'll take the train!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I'm a not-so-infrequent air traveler and, man, if I'm not able to use my laptop onboard, I'm screwed. I travel between Tokyo and Vienna and with an 11-12hr. flight, you wanna bet that a couple of hours of working with the notebook helps to pass the time. Efficiently, even.
(Deep Breath)
One would hope that sensibilities will prevail. I'm allowed to take my cell phone on the plane and I do make calls right up to the point we are about to taxi out to the runway. No hassles from anybody. As long as I turn off my phone, the crew is happy.
As with not using CD-ROM drives on board -- I don't -- one should just be able to disable the WiFi and use the computer. Let's hope that they realize that business people really do require the use of their laptops while they fly.
It states that the blanket ban on all devices in necessary because flight crews do not have the knowledge to differentiate between standard notebooks and ones with UWB devices.
That doesn't indicate that a blanket ban is "necessary". That implies just that a blanket ban is either easier or cheaper for the airline than actually training their flight crews how to differentiate.
collision-avoidance systems and ... instrument landing systems
These sound like mission-critical systems. Perhaps they be appropriaty shielded to block interference from other electronic devices?
May be it has something to do with the on-air casino on all Australian aircraft? You plug your credit card in and play right there on your seat. You end up clean when you land, sort of robbing the tourist before they even arrive?
So no more quaking on-board?
Of course in the real world we all know geeks rarely inspire terror except in girls at the thought they may ever have to touch one.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How I'm I supposed to hack wireless networks at 50,000 feet now? Heh, I bet noone thought of that before... Oh, wait...
Whenever I see a business man "working" on a flight he is usually just trying to look cool and appear ultra productive - which clearly he is not or the work would be done already.
Okay, let me get this straight...
- FCC approves UWB devices for testing at power levels an order of magnitude less than is commonly believed to cause ANY interference,
- UWB devices have been tested, and found to interfere with the #1 topic guaranteed to scare large populations?
What device did they test? Where'd they get these things? How can I know they didn't just hook up a 30KV spark-gap transmitter and go "See??? Interference!" (Booga booga booga!!)AND
Oh, great. "UWB will cause a 747 to crash into the White House, curdle your milk, kidnap your virgin daughter and sell her to the Hells Angels, molest your wife, and defraud every company you've ever invested in!"
Great, sure. The airline industry (like any industry) hates to spend money unless it's absolutely necessary. Look at the current state of US air traffic control. (Yike!) Heck, look up the state of aviation radios, even! There's a simple little thing called "heterodyne detection" that isn't present! (People have died as a result!) Yes, there are fancy computers, and GPS, and "glass cockpits" -- but there are some extremely basic technologies of aviation that haven't changed in 50 years simply because nobody has said "That's dangerous and idiotic, we've had better tech for a generation! Do it right!!!"
On second thought... this is probably a good thing. It'll return air travel to its' proper place -- an enforced, several-hour vacation! Relax, look out the window, marvel at the world you live in. No phones, no computers, but lots of distractions. God forbid, you might even talk to your neighbor. (I wonder how many people even remember how to work with a pen and a piece of paper..?)
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Simple. Ban headphones.
(this isn't a knee-jerk, I normally walk like this)
Just make sure the UWB standards don't use any preallocated frequencies. And have hefty fines for making/possessing one that does.
Why ban all laptops, just because the CREW doesn't know them? Wouldn't it be better to just ask the owner and decide then? After all, many owners know.
Plese bukl ur seetbelts. Hop u injoy ur flite.
-The Captan
Oh well, I just came off a transatlantic flight to London on the weekend and it looks like they give laptop power cords for anyone who needs them (even in economy - I may be wrong though)... so I guess they'd be plugging those up (so to speak), at least in British airspace.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Once again, the equivalence of instability with insecurity rears its ugly head.
What we appear to have is a claim that airplane electronics are extraordinarily open to interference from consumer devices. They are so open, that such devices may indeed accidentally trigger safety-critical failures in the operating environment.
Lets assume this is true.
Now understand, that which can be accidental does not need to be.
If one can accidentally down a plane with a gameboy, it stands to reason that one may be able to intentionally down the plane with the very same gameboy -- easier, in fact, because the attacker knows exactly which frequencies to exploit. This is...disturbing. I cannot imagine it very difficult to stow any form of consumer electronics, even with a "time delay" activation, inside of luggage or carryon.
Now, I'm not afraid of gameboys. See, I've *met* Boeing safety engineers. Hell, I've quoted em, learned a bit from em. Paranoid doesn't begin to describe them. These guys imagine everything, and implying that they didn't budget for even a miniscule amount of shielding and noise resistance...it's almost insulting.
Hell, you don't see planes crash every time the sun decides to belch out a few terajoules of flare in our direction. Not to mention the basic design of a fuselage bears some resemblance to an EM-blocking faraday cage.
Granted, it may very well be this same paranoia that allows those same engineers to say "Please, no new equipment, we couldn't test with that precise radio environment". The *world* is an unpredictable precise radio environment, and unfortunately, so now are its residents. I hate to say it, but if a plane can't survive a ringing cell phone, it ain't Nokia who's to blame.
That being said, the UWB failure are interesting: If the claim is that UWB operates below the noise floor relative to a given frequency, then the question becomes how did the collision avoidance systems even *detect* UWB transmissions, unless they themselves operate in a baseband manner?
One answer is that noise floors might be relative: A nearby transmitter emitting weakly across all frequencies might be overpowering the far away signal tranmitting on one. This is...hard to believe, but not impossible.
I suppose that's my biggest problem with the consumer electronics ban: Since it's inconceivable that planes are actually vulnerable to random noise from consumer electronics, *all* device-level concerns become suspect. That's annoying.
If somebody -- anybody -- has evidence they feel I should see, feel free to contact me here or in email.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I don't know if you'd even get to finish that sentence...
- "Stand back! I have a bluetooth..."
"Eewwww, get away! Heard of a toothbrush? When was the last time you used one??""Blue tooth, huh? You really ought to see a dentist about that..."
Another down side is that geeks talking about tech are going to be put in the same category as people making jokes about bombs, guns, and hijackings -- subject to summary arrest.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
If a laptop can play havoc with navigation and landing systems, there is something wrong with the navigation and landing systems. Banning laptops isn't going to fix this. Installing shielding or more robust airplane electronics are solutions.
The thing is that, if you really want your laptop to emit these UWB, you can do it (you don't have to power off your laptop even if you have it in its case, you know).
If there is really a case against the USE of laptops within the airplanes, there is an absolute need for some kind of screening system (we should be forced to put our laptops in special cases). If not, then this is just another case of false sense of security, and all this discussion is nonsense.
90 percent of users have NO IDEA as to what devices they have installed in their laptops. Just ask the lUSER? You are truly a moron. Please re-insert your head in your ass. Failing that...blow me.
Ridiculous, banning headphones will not solve this, they are an innocent party, we need to get rid of the passengers....
I mean, really, what this is really about is the airlines losing the 5-10 bucks they charge for those headphones so you can watch those sorry ass movies on crappy VHS.
What they really want to ban is DVD players!
This
The moderation system allows just one vote from a dipshit like this, to lower your post below the threshold of most everyone. And whatever braindamage has caused his malfunction is just one of many disruptive voting types.
A way to eliminate this is to require multiple votes to change a score. As it is now, the noise floor is allowed to participate in the voting process. Aggregate scoring is accurate scoring.
When your collision system bluescreens??
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
It's Britain, you assmonkeys.
However, it is the responsability of the editors to actually edit.
Oh, I don't know about that. Ever watched undegraduates getting handed (back) exams from a physics/math/CS/EE TA?
(Someone who not only spent 4-5 years of their life muttering equations to get a B.Sc./B.Eng., then decided to spend 2 to 7 more years doing the same for low pay... By any definition, a geek^H^H^H^H somebody who loves their field.)
}:-)
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
This method could be first field-tested by a volunteer group of female flight stewards.
...but I'm still a bit amazed at how lightly people take issues like this.
Your sitting in a metal crate with two giant combustion engines delivering an insane amount of power to get you off ground.
A plane consists of several thousand electronic, mechanical, and electromechanical systems, a zillion bolts and hundreds of tonnes of lightweight metal. And any single part of this giant system might fail at any time.
The fact that accidents don't happen more often than they actually do must be considered an engineering miracle.
So, you can't smoke and sip a gin&tonic while writing some shitty design document nobody cares about and which you might as well write when you get there?
Boo-fucking-hooo
Read a book.
Hey! That's discrimination. You can't judge all laptops just because SOME of them might be dangerous. ;)
All people are now banned from flights, as the security crews are not able to tell the difference between terrorists and regular passengers.
This is how the slide starts....
Considering that I've never heard of this "Britan" place of which you speak, I am not worried.
ATC on many parts of the US and world is based on allocation of large amounts of air space for fixed times just like the old railroad lines. Its designed so that radio failure isn't a problem. Now that a generation of programmers have read Booch's book on OOD and know how to do air trafic control better than the old system we get all these new systems that work as long as all the gear works.
Old the system made use of paper strips that track the planes. The cool thing about the paper system is that when the power goes out or the scope reboots or whatever, the controller has a bunch of paper strips to look at and know whats going on. All the controller needs is a radio and they can get all the planes down.
Australia has a "modern" ATC system and I've got to talk to three different people to groups to fly into the general aviation airoport in Melbourne if I come from the north. In the US, that would be two. The controllers here out number the ones in the US and can't cope with a much lighter load. The new system for London has had major issues since it was turned on.
General rules for programming have been discovered. Most of them have been used in the Kansas City freight yards for a long time.--Derrick Lehmer (1949) from Knuth Vol1
Aircraft don't fly themselves. If you knocked out their collision avoidance systems and nav systems and lining-up-with-the-runway systems the pilot will still be able to fly the plane and land the plane. So a terrorist who tries this method in an attempt at installing fear in air travellers will fail.
Would you be all that concerned to hear this announcement from the pilot:
"Due to electrical problems with one of the navigation systems on this aircraft, we are preparing to land early at the closest airport.. There is another aircraft waiting there for you, we think the total delay to your journey will be about 60 minutes."
Passenger hysteria ensues...
"Oh no! A terrorist is... oh... wait... you mean we're going to be LATE!?!? Damn airlines!!"
If this were really an issue, we would be seeing terrorists with small devices built into cell phone cases that were built using a switch, a battery, a capacitor, a coil, an electromechanical relay, and a large antenna loop: a spark gap generator, of the type one makes from Radio Shack project kits.
;^)).
Or, they would just have cell phones, since they are also supposedly a source of interference with something other than AirFone revenues
In reality, this article is _mostly_ bogus.
The ILS (Instrument Landing System) is vulnerable to electronic interference, mostly because it is an incredibly ancient implementation, and has not yet been replaced with anything designed in the last two decades.
The antique ILS in even the most modern aircraft is why you can't use electronic equipment during takeoff and landing (landing is obvious; so's takeoff, if you realize that it might have to be aborted, in which case it turns into a landing).
Most airports, however, are in urban areas, with a high telephone cell density. If this were ever a real issue, we would see aircraft dropping out of the sky as they flew over any urban area. SFO, PHX, and SLC tend to have a higher than average instrument requirement (the first for fog, the second two for temperature inversion based wind shear; want to vomit? Fly Tucson to Phoneix. SLC also has snow visibility issues in winter). For most airports, the systems are largely ignored. SLC has an upgraded system that ~60% of modern planes can use, actually; it's a deployment issue.
The TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) is actually based on paired receivers. It's succeptable to powerful broad-band interferences; "powerful", in this case, means "orders of magnitude higher than the those currently permitted for use in UWB devices".
The failure you would see (and you would probably need a specially manufactured transmitter to see it) would be a 180 degree polar flip (i.e. if the transponder you cared about were 23 degrees down and 17 degrees right, it would read as 157 degrees up and 163 degrees left). This actually happens a lot, and the hardware is built to automatically compensate through multiple samples (i.e. sustained interference is required).
The fix for this is to go to trios instead of pairs of receivers.
As we saw just the other week, though, TCAS itself is generally ignored in favor of ground instructions, we lost two planes in a collision in Germany specifically because TCAS was ignored.
Given that TCAS is almost never used, anyway, because the controllers keep the planes far enough apart, the interference is isn't likely to be an issue.
In any case, I think the overall concern is a result of the fear of out-of-spec devices, which met emissions at the time of manufacture, and have since, for whatever reason, ended if with a much higher signal strength.
Personally, I think they are worried over nothing: it's just an uncommenly slow news day, what with most of the U.S. shut down for Labor Day...
-- Terry
Seems like UWF devices will get in line by the time they're commercial, according to the article, so fine. But expecting the airline industry to train all its underpaid flight attendants to screen laptops would be a big expense in resources, and it sounds like they should really spend that money elsewhere, on some basics.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
For shrugging off a command to open up and take everyting out of his wallet. He did it but his verbal response was "Yeah you got me I keep a rifle in there."
It was on MSNBC I think. Coupled with airlines now charging up to $80 per bag to check the bag if it's over an arbitrary size and basically what you have is an industry that is committed to committing suicide. At this rate there will be 1 or 2 Long Distance Airlines that only carry passengers overseas or long distances from coast to coast or internationally outside of western Europe. And everyone else will do anything but fly, which will costs thousands of dollars anyway.
It will be a return to the 1930's except we don't have trains in the US anymore so everyone will drive in Federally mandated 8 MPG land arks - one to an SUV by law. Once in a great while we'll look up and see a jet and it will seem as strange as seeing a hot air balloon or the Concorde today.
There needs to be support from passengers & airlines that new aircraft need to be built insulated from interference.
Everyone complains, but no one DOES anything about it!
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
Why can't they just build a UWB receive-only box, stick one on the plane and yell at anyone who flashes up as sending out a signal?
Or, for that matter, build a better insulation system round the components before I just bring on a homemade electrical interference generator. Not difficult to generate RF noise, after all.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The goverment (i.e., NASA) and the airline industry (i.e., United) look at a new technology to see if it could cause any problems. Instead of being aplauded for looking to the future, they are being lambasted for doing it all wrong. As the article notes, authorities recognize that more research is needed before a ban is implemented, but that it is wise to look into it further.
Get off your conspiracy theories. Sometimes people are just doing they're jobs. Just because they used the word "laptop" doesn't mean there's a global conspiracy against them. I'm sure to keep the business traveler happy, the airline industry would rather modify the UWB standard than ban it.
Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, but this topic is bringing out the worst in me as I am really tired of created drama.
1. Is there any wonder why this study is coming out by two companies that have needed to save face in recent times on safety issues?
2. If UWB devices are unlikely to appear in consumer products, why worry exactly? There already is a rule against operating a laptop during takeoff and landing procedures.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
a new trick...
The new security guards should be smarter in the United States at least, since they are Federals now, rather then high school dropouts or recent immigrants.
Everyone is given a sticker for the laptops that pass inspection, then all the flight stewardess has to do is look... No sticker, no using.
Consider it an arm band policy... If you cheat, you get fined just like smoking... It can be a good revenue stream.
Tournament Management Online &
Why is NASA spending money on this. To date neither Boeing 737 or 747 go into space. People wonder how the ISS goes over budget.
Maybe they should use the CIA method. Use the space shuttle to smuggle coke from the moon cartels.
Heres a better thought. Train your frickin personal. If someone cant tell theres an 802.11b card in a notebook then there just stupid. I really dont want someone who cant identify one flying a plane. Hell, i dont want them serveing me my drinks.
Education, Not illimination.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
You have no idea how much I'd like your grammar nazi dick up my ass. I've got an English teacher fetish in the WORST way.
This problem goes way beyond WiFi PDAs. See this dated but still relevant description of RF-based attack. We're really stupid to rely on avionics systems that can be so easily disrupted. Its only a matter of time before this becomes big trouble.
Try to think of the larger picture.
Its possible to jam signals or drown them out. A truck with a decent signal generator and amp could drown out an airport's air-traffic control.
Now, lets say that there is a problem in a particular airport, a bomb threat or something so that the planes are stacked above it, now if someone should jam / drown out the air-traffic controller with a high Wattage signal, and at the same time use the spark-gap transmitter to scramble the collision avoidance, now where are you???
Yes its a doomsday scenario, but it requires a number of devices:
a bomb threat - telephone call
UWB devices, cheap personal stereo's and some cheap electrics.
Signal blocker... Take some standard radio gear and beef up the wattage, saturate the signal band. Use a directional antenna to improve the signal strength and to make tracking harder...
Use the signal blocker to trigger the UWB devices, and then you have a scenario..
Sure nothing might happen, but a well co-ordinated attack could easily cause some nasty accidents, especially if you rig it so that some extra flights are diverted to that airport before-hand...
The skills required are soldering and some knowledge of electronics.. These aren't criminal skills and the info you need is easily available on the net...
Its more than just a UWB on a single plane...
Doomsday, true, unlikely, true, impossible, false.
Z.
And people think Americans have no clue about the rest of the world. Surely not!
(And they also say you have no understanding of sarcasm or irony either. How could that possibly be?)
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
ultra-wideband (UWB) devices "knocked out" collision-avoidance systems and impaired instrument landing systems
Collision-avoidance and instrument landings systems seem to be critical only during takeoff and landing, coinciding with the 15 minutes at the beginning and end of flights when use of computers is already banned. So what?
So that still brings the issue down to cost for the airlines who appear to be on the brink of going bust. One of the great failings of privatised transport is the cost-cutting made to maximise profits.
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
As for the TCAS system, while it is mandated by the FAA (at least in the US), some may argue that it doesn't work all that well. The pilots are told to follow the TCAS rather than ATC instructions. This has led to a few "interesting scenarios."
However, while ATC usually keeps the aircraft apart, in high traffic areas TCAS can be useful. Especially when Joe pilot in his little Cessna flying VFR wanders across your approach unbeknownest to the tower. Of course visual awareness on the crews part is important there as well.
Airlines, however, tend to be a little paranoid about electronic devices. Northwest is the best telling you that "we have been cleared to land so please turn off all of your electronic devices, blah, blah, blah." I'm not too sure about the experiences of others, but all the times I've flown into Greater Pittsburgh I have never been cleared to land at 12,000 feet when not even established on the approach. But hey, that's just me.
Kris
Sure, it's easy to recognize a PCMCIA access device, but who here can easily recognize these devices when integreated into the computer. Sure, educate the flight attendant is one suggestion, but I don't think they should have to either a) learn all OSs in order to tell whether or not UWB software/drivers are installed and in use; or, b) partially dissasemble and recognized and UWB device by appearance. But, of course, as other people have been pointing out, UWB may start being in a variety of devices. What does this mean, no high-technology electronics on board at all?
It's a story picked up from the London-based Times, which apparently quotes the UK's Civial Aviation Authority as saying "more research is needed".
Throwing a few keywords at Google found this article in Aviation Week's online pages from June 17 amongst other stories. From this, it appears that the unexpected effects occured at much higher usage levels than would be typical in consumer devices and only under some usage scenarios. While it does sound as though the interaction between this new source of interference and aircraft electronics needs more investigation, gleeful /. extrapolations to hand-held open-spark transmitters appear unwarranted.
Relax. The sky isn't falling yet.
As a workaround why don't all airlines introduce Internet terminals and more legroom to accomodate for a keyboard.
I think an airline has already done this, anyone know which one?
As a student pilot I have found that most of the technology used in aircraft was developed more than 20 years ago and is VERY slow to change.
The non-military GPS signals used by aircraft for navigation are much weaker than the military versions that are designed to be jam resistant. They are little more than noise.
There is talk about shutting down the old VOR based network of radio navigation since most pilots would rather use GPS. However, concerns about possible jamming of GPS signals has delayed the VOR phase out.
Collision avoidance systems used in large comercial aircraft are based on transponder signals used by air traffic control, which are based on old WWII friend or foe systems. In order to scale up to high traffic levels, these systems now use a lot of signal processing that is noise senstive. Air traffic control sometimes see's "Ghost" aircraft that are artifacts of noise.
So, eletronic navigation and traffic detection used in aircraft, large and small are vulnerable to incrased electronic noise. It is not unreasable that new uses of spectrium must ensure compatibility with existing systems.
These aircraft systems will not change anytime soon. The industry is very slow to change due to the risk of loss of life and the lawsuits that would follow.
Because rubbing your feet on the carpet will generate static, and a spark gap transmitter, which will cause interference.
Fortunately planes still have pilots who do the actuall piloting of the plane.
Thank you. Most of the retards around here have *no idea* about any of this. It's a little different when your family is thick with pilots and electrical engineers who cut their teeth on RF circuitry.
When I flew to China, I was told that no battery-powered equipment was allowed in the hold. I would never send a laptop in as hold luggage, well ... not again anyway.
Ex-owner of a Toshiba Libretto.
... and you might as well make the most of it, if you're going to be paid so badly. I plan to strike terror and complexity theory in the hearts of students!
Lea
Collision-avoidance and instrument landings systems seem to be critical only during takeoff and landing... Well, those two planes that collided lately were a long way from takeoff or landing. Admittedly the collision was mostly due to the pilot of one plane being told one thing by TCAS and another thing by traffic control, and obeying traffic control - which was wrong. But still anti-collision instruments are vital at all times. Most commercial flights are filtered along the same routes. Look at a flight map and you'll see 'Airways' which are high altitude routes banned to VFR pilots. These are regions of airspace for IFR traffic at altitude. i.e. airliners, small business jets, etc.
"Information wants to be paid"
If it is published in their in-flight magazines there is no danger of libel, defamation or whatever.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Flying today is more like sentencing yourself to prison for a day. You start by getting shaken down for cash (by the SkyCap and/or cabbie), questioned, proving your identity, securing the proper documents, then file past metal detectors and x-ray machines where they declaw you of any possible offensive device (along with your privacy and dignity). THEN, after waiting in an antiseptic, mind-numbing holding tank (departure lounge), you get shown to your cell - a fourteen-inch seat, made out of material that will give off toxic fumes when burned, assuming you don't die of 'economy class syndrome'. Once in a while one of the 'bulls' will decide that you're causing a problem, point a gun at you, detain you at the other end for even more indignity.
And if anything goes wrong, they LITERALLY tell you to try and bend over and kiss your ass goodbye (with that cute little 'crash tuck'). From back in coach, that's about as much control as you have over your destiny in a fatal crash.
And now, they want to ban the most effective passenger distraction device since the triple martini? Whoops, those are banned, too.
Let's not even get started on the bizzare, arcane, nonsensical way airline tickets are priced. It makes tax law look as simple as the Ten Commandments.
A night in the drunk tank is probably safer. It could hardly be LESS comfortable.
Of course, they airlines are the only game in town. If you want better service you have to start your own airline.
So screw it. I've got 38 more training hours until I get my own damn pilot's license, after that I'll do all my own flying.
interference from lightning? Wouldn't the loud electrical noise from a nearby thunderstorm be more dangerous than low-power devices used by passengers? How about solar storms?
As far as what passengers use, wouldn't covering the back of the cockpit with grounded aluminum foil prevent the interference from laptops etc.?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
There's a story of how the US managed to capture a Soviet MIG sometime during the 70's (I think). They took it apart and found that the Soviets were still using vacuum tubes. The problem was not that the Soviets couldn't use microchips. They chose vacuum tubes to protect against EMP and to not have the added weight of shielding. I am not suggesting we retrofit modern airlines with vacuum tubes, what I am suggesting is that the dangers of RF and EMP attacks be properly accounted for, and if they currently are then to drop the bunk about "interference with navigation and communications systems."
> What they really want to ban is DVD players!
And they are right! The use of a DVD player on an international flight would represent a copyright infringement because you are out of any zone that you are allowed to whatch you DVD. When you are flying from Chicago to London are in Europe or in the U.S.?
Why fix the problem when you can get rid of whatever exploits the problem. Now how long before someone builds a device that looks like a pack of cigartes to scramble up these systems on purpose.
at least, up until right before the plane crashed. So I guess we don't really know whether the phones were dangerous to the avionics.
And since all the modern planes are fly-by-wire, if your electronics are screwed, so are you and your pilot (and the rest of the plane).
As a matter of fact, EMP or radio signals from a device physically on board a plane could easily yield the same final result as explosives and are so easy to get on board that I am very surprised no one has tried it yet.
The idea certainly doesn't make me feel any safer flying than all the stupid people too dumb to understand basic physics of cellphones and choosing to ignore announcements. I mean, which part of "Leave your phone completely switched off while on the plane." didn't they understand?
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
Global ban on laptops is both overdoing it and most likely ineffective since it is hard to tell if a device was left on accidentally. Retrofitting all existing aircraft is very expensive. But how difficult would it be to make a pager-sized detector of these signals? One with a strength, and perhaps direction, of signal indicator? Such a device could be worn on the belt of a flight attendant, allowing them to find the device and insure that it is turned off. In my mind this would be much more convenient to everybody and a better, cheaper, solution to the problem.
I wish most of the people who have posted on this thread had "carefully" read the parent message.
In his message, LBU.Zorro pointed out that, using this logic, electronics couldn't be allowed in checked baggage either. It would be too easy to setup a laptop, walkman, blender, etc. as a UWB "bomb" that would activate after the plane was in flight.
So, it's not just a problem with not being able to "type a document while flying". It's a problem with not being able to transport the tools necessary to do your job by air.
So for all those who figured they were providing the opinion, "you fly on the ones that allow electronics, but I won't", well you probably won't have to fly at all, because you won't be able to carry the tools that made your flying a necessity in the first place.. Better start fighting for those Micky D's jobs! If you aren't a "local tech", then you won't be able to work in distant states...
As a tech who hasn't lived and worked in the same state for over 10 years, this is a Really Bad Thing (tm).
So, this is a problem that won't have a simple solution. Banning electronics will force more airlines into bankruptcy. And, it will affect the economy in a very bad way.
- "...the fact that the U.S. ATC relies on "dated" technology may be the reason it's so successful."
Oh God, thank you. I needed a laugh! "US ATC" and "reliable" in the same sentence, with a straight face even!To the regular person, I suppose ATC could be looked at as 'reliable' -- but go talk to a controller sometime; the people who have to present the aura of reliability when something fails. Ask him (or her) how often their radio breaks. Or how hard it is to get vacuum tubes for some of their equipment. Perhaps you could visit the vampires -- the people who sit in an almost completely dark room dealing with everything IFR (and VFR in controlled airspace). Everything is voice and paper -- it's a sobering sight. Yes, there is a lot of computerization, but the interaction goes
- Pilot (flight plan) -> computer -> piece of paper -> controller <-> pilot!
It's a wonder these people stay sane sometimes.(Note the heads on the arrows.)
Canada privatized their ATC system, and (to an outsider) it has worked quite well. Communications systems are much better. The controllers don't have to keep track of planes on slips of paper, they can actually interact with the computer. One has to consider, however, that Canada doesn't deal with nearly the same daily volume of aircraft that the United States does, so their successes may not scale the way we'd need.
I must admit that the last time I was in an ATC facility was before the whole Y2K thing, and a lot of money was spent to upgrade things for that particular scare. Perhaps things are better now, but ATC doesn't live on internet time -- so I doubt it.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
This is bull it only applies to older sytems. Newer plans have been designed to fix this problem. Collision avoidance systems are actually added onto a plane since they are not required in many countries(all of Asia for example). So I say fix the planes and dont ban laptops. Beside what are the chances that your system is broadcasting at exactly the right frequency I think its fairly small and with this logic you can create a powerful enough signal from the ground to do the same thing which can make any terrorists job a lot easier. So laptops arent the only problem.
And they are right! The use of a DVD player on an international flight would represent a copyright infringement because you are out of any zone that you are allowed to whatch[sic] you DVD. When you are flying from Chicago to London are in Europe or in the U.S.?
It's not copyright infringement, however it may be considered a DMCA violation,
however the DMCA does not apply to non-US territory either.
I'm not sure, but I think the legal definitions for international flights are something like the thirty minutes after take-off and before landing.
(which is why you have to wait a bit before buying duty-free..)
However efficient it is financially for the carriers if they insist on making everything more expensive and more unpleasant - that is unless people really don't mind paying for their own cavity searches then the carriers will whither and die.
You say this as if it's a bad thing. We also used to send most of communications through the air. When demand outstripped capacity, much higher-capacity fiber was laid in the ground to cover the high-volume routes.
It's time to do this to the transporation system. High speed trains can carry far more people per route, and carry them in greater comfort and safety. They arrive at city center, rather than a $40 cab ride away. And there's no need to check luggage.
One day, hopefully we'll be amazed at the practice of stuffing hundreds of people into flimsy aluminum structures and launching them into the air.
United Airlines says UWB devices led to failure of major systems, despite FCC approval Preliminary tests of ultra wideband (VWB) transmissions have led to failures in aircraft avionics, including the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS), instrument landing system (ILS) localiser, and glideslope (GS), United Airlines has revealed. The results support airline and general aviation operator's claims that UWB devices, approved this year by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), pose a danger to aircraft systems. Radio communications and VOR navigation beacons were not affected during the tests, which were conducted by NASA's Langley Research Center and Victorville, California-based Eagle Wings on Boeing 737-2OOs and 747-400s. "At intentional emission levels set by the FCC we are observing critical flight systems anomalies from a single UWB device," says James Miller, United's flight operations technology department programme manager, who represents the US aviation industry on UWB issues.
Researchers operated a UWB chip at varying distances from avionics system antennas outside the aircraft and in several interior locations; The chip transmitted at the maximum power level set by the FCC. The communication and navigation systems broadcast at the lowest levels permitted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. When operating the chip outside the aircraft, NASA says, the TCAS tail light came on, its display indicator turned off and the targets disappeared off the screen. At lower UWB strength (inside the aircraft), says NASA, "the warning light did not come on, but the targets disappeared off the screen. It spoofed the system without any direct warning to the pilot." The UWB source also caused erratic motion and retraction of the GS bar and pointer, and extension of the GS failure flag while transmitting outside the aircraft. These effects were not observed while transmitting inside the passenger cabin. The source also caused uncommanded motion and blanking of the ILS localiser course deviation indicator bar on the horizontal situation display. UWB devices will broadcast weak signals over vast swathes of the aeronautical spectrum. Miller insists that the new FCC regulation "allows unlicensed consumer devices to intentionally radiate into [safety-critical aeronautical] bands under the guise that UWB is not powerful enough to interfere. Any pilot will tell you that injecting any level of interference into the cockpit is an unacceptable consequence of FCC rule making."
Losing TCAS is bad. Losing the ILS localizer and glideslope during approach is worse; that's the primary bad-weather landing aid. Yes, ILS failure only occured with the UWB unit outside the cabin, but this was with only one UWB unit transmitting. TCAS failure occured with a UWB unit inside the cabin, which is unsuprising; it's receiving signals from other aircraft, while ILS is receiving signals from major ground stations with plenty of power.
UWB transmitters need to be filtered to keep them out of the aeronautical bands. They probably shouldn't be emitting any measureable power below 3GHz or so.
Or is there some reason for putting radio navigation receiving equipment in the passenger cabin?
This is also true of 802.11a and 802.11g, although 802.11a uses the 5 GHz band rather than the 2.4 GHz band used by 802.11b and 802.11g.
What consumer devices actually use UWB? I haven't yet heard of any.
What is the range on these devices? If they are actually connected, wouldn't it stand to reason that in various areas the signal would be passing near the aircraft regardless of an active connection within the craft itself?
That is to say, if an airborn device has enough strength to reach a landbound or sat-type network, would not landbound signals also affect anything passing through their airspace regardless? Is is the signal area small enough that only on-plane devices would do this, or would a focussed signal do the same?
If would really suck if all one had to do to screw up incoming aircraft would be to point a signal-boosted UWB PDA at them...
What role did United Airlines play in the study? Probably, not much, they probably asked Nasa for help.
Nasa would supposedly provide all technical expertise.
What role did CAA play in the study? None, it seems.
So their being quoted at this point is clearly premature. Their comment about disallowing these devices on the planes is probably to calm the nerves of worried passengers. It would probably also be a short-term solution until planes can be designed so that the navigational equipment is more robust and the cockpit is better insulated from the cabin. I'm sure Nasa's role is to suggest improvements needed in lieu of blanket restrictions.
Although I'm concerned that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc are not involved in this effort, since they would presumably be implementing the solutions.
I'm sure that rather than laying the heavy hand, they will consider a different approach and deploy spectrum analyzers or other equipment to detect the interference before it gets anywhere near problematic. If there is interference, a stewardess can take a portable emag detector to localize the source. Maybe even slap a bigass fine on the offensive party. This will leave it to the individual to ensure they are using a device that does not emit the radiation.
The consequence of disallowing laptops on flights is going to have a negative effect on revenue, and the airlines and FAA know it.
"If it's good for safety it's beyond question."
Since when is safety a sacred concept?
Safety should not be the #1 priority, the unquestionable priority. While safety helps preserve life, it can also reduce its quality. More and more "qualified authorities" will emasculate your possibilities in the name of safety.
Quantity or quality, that is the question. The balance seems way too tilted toward quantity.
When deciding when to stike the balance do not look at the horrors of the past more than the gleaming possibilities of the future. There is more future than past.
So, we have airlines that cannot fit locked doors to crew cabins to keep terrorists out - It's easier to scan them down to their fillings.
Why not use armoured bulkheads and locked doors like El-Al ?
Now they think that wireless devices such as laptops, phone's PDA's, and even CD players are a threat.
Why not fix their shoddy planes so they don't suffer from this vulnerability in the first place ?
... hijack a plane with shoelaces that is...
Hi. I'm a handwringing euro. Now, I would like you to point any article from the european press that blames the terrorist act on anyone else but Al Queida. I hope you were not too brainwashed by your media to think on your own, so I invite you to try and find the difference between "The muslims attacked us for no reason, we'll bomb them out of existence" and "A terrorist group attacked us, let's find out why and how can we avoid this happening again, and actually think back so that we don't make the same mistakes that brought us to this point again."
The people who use terrorism to make a point are people who don't deserve to be considered human. ANY person who uses ANY form of terrorism falls into that category.
Do you think we should feel safer after the attack on Afghanistan? Do you think we can feel safer after an attack on Iraq? How do you think civilians killed in a bombing are different from civilians killed in a terrorist act? Think for a while before answering that their was an unprompted act, because I don't really think many man, women and children in Afghanistan were involved in the voting for the 9/11 act of terror.
Terrorists, from wichever religious or political origin, find their soldiers in areas dominated by despair and rage. Try to understand the reasons for their despair and their rage, try to solve their problems. A terrorist group with no men has no power.
The situation in the middle east is very complicated and very fragile. In addition to that it's the place from where we take our fuel, and we do have some interest in having non-democratic forms of government in there, after all the fewer people you have to pay the cheaper the oil is.
Often we, as western countries, have messed around those areas to get benefit from it, not really thinking about consequences or the good of people leaving there.
Just some food for your brain: do you remember the students of Kandahar, the heroes that were fighting against the evil russians? Do you remember CIA training and supporting them to get to power in Afghanistan? Do you know how they are called nowadays? (Check out one good form of archive of popular feelings in time: movies. May I suggest Rambo III?) Do you know the evil northern alliance of Afghanistan? How do they differ from the peace keeping good hearted northern alliance we (us Europeans and you americans) just put in charge in Afghanistan?
One last question: could you help me try to remember who put Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq and armed to fight against Iran?
Will we ever learn from history?
Sorry about this rant, but I spent the last month in the states having to deal daily with people thinking that Europeans were siding for the terrorists. No we don't! There is only one difference: after condemning the acts we tried to use our brains to understand what happened. I'm sorry, but I don't think I have seen many of the people in the states I talked to go any further that "we are good, they are bad, we kill them". And many had absolutely no idea who was "them".
Fabio
It is me, none else but me. And who would you be?
This what we need. Airlines should quit putting passangers on planes. Instead pay them, using the money from ticket sales, to drive to thier destination. This would give us ample parking at the airport. And greatly lower the risk of a terrorist attack on an airline!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
why is this considered a problem that deserves such reactionary treatment as banning *all* laptops and PDAs?
For the same reason Greece banned all video games. Some governments make it a policy to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Will I retire or break 10K?