Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Computing and Airplanes?
Echemus writes "The Register has an article speculating whether the fact more and more devices have WiFi/GSM facilities built in will cause Airlines to ban all computing equipment and its like from the cabin. Airlines are ultra-paranoid about cell phones, but is that paranoia justified?"
As far as WiFi goes, it seems like the airline industry is already planning on providing WiFi internet access on the plane. See this Yahoo business article. cached by Google.
Relevant quote:
And travelers may soon get WiFi while on the airplane, if recent trials in Europe and the United States are successful
If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
Cell phones are only banned so the airlines can charge you a ridiculous amount of money to use the stupid sky phone. It's such a scam.
Airlines are not afraid of cellphones -- the FCC is. Cellphones work because they can hit a handful of cells, which decide between them which cell to use to handle the phone's traffic. A cellphone in the air can hit dozens (over Los Angeles, hundreds) of cells at once, causing the cell system to melt down.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Well, I must say that I have always had the same view as everyone else. ( who cares if your cell phone is on or not) , but I just got my nextel blackberry 6510. and it interfers with everything, PC speakers. Car speakers. and house speakers. It sends a clicking through them, and it does it for everyone else at work as well. I would say that it does it from about 10 feet away.....
thoughts suggestions ????
You might be referring to an article in IEEE Spectrum that came out in the late 90s. (I read it, but don't have the exact reference handy). It essentially discussed a few of such instances, and one EE's first hand experience with unpredictable interference in what amounts to a pretty complex electrical environment. Definitely _not_ just the stuff of urban legends...
The SwissAir flight (New York to Geneva) that crashed in Nova Scotia probably went down because
of a fire started in the in-cabin electronics.
This was a case of extra bells'n'whistles to amuse the passengers causing trouble. Maybe it would be sensible to bad all wired and wireless in-cabin
electronics. (I know it'll never happen)
SkyPhone, and the related private pilot versions use a different network -- the antennas are fewer and are pointed upward. Cell towers on the ground negotiate which one is going to handle your traffic -- and when you're cruising along at 300+ mph you're moving between normal cells at a good clip.
Furthermore, ever notice how a cellphone disrupts your monitor or your speakers on your desktop?
As a pilot you WANT the guys up front to have a crystal clear communication -- hell buzzing around the shoreview towers in minneapolis cause the radios to go wonky, so what do i know?
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
I agree that a passenger activating a wireless device is unlikely to cause a problem. If it did, the airlines would not allow the devices in the cabin.
... they normally involve one-in-a-million fluke convergence of many factors which combine to bring an airplane down. In TWA 800, a fuel tank exploded after a worn wire produced an arc at just the right time during the flight after heat from an air conditioning unit had produced an explosive fuel-air mix in the fuel tank. For the concorde, a piece of metal debris in just the right place on the runway burst a tire in just the right way to fling rubber fragments into a wing fuel tank and start a fire.
Paranoia is the bedrock of safety in the aerospace industry. Examine any airline accident in the last ten years
It's not impossible that a navigational problem from RF interference could cause an aircraft to be a few hundred meters off course, at the same time as an unrelated problem causes another airliner to be on an intersecting course.
As for transmitter power being much greater from the ground than onboard, are you forgetting the inverse square law? Not to mention the fact that the aluminum skin of an airliner acting like a waveguide to send much of the RF energy straight to the cockpit.
Personally, I'm quite happy to have a paranoid FAA, it makes my flight safer. Furthermore, as other posters have pointed out, I'm quite happy not to have cell phones on planes, as I enjoy peace and quiet, and have no desire to be next to some blathering idiot for four hours on a transcontinental flight.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Check out more info here and here.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Double bollocks.
Did I mention that I researched this to stop a mobile phone mast being built next to my house? Did I? I didn't want one because it would look bad, but I couldn't object on those grounds. After A bit of dirt digging I suddenly realised I didn't want one due to the health aspects. Here is some of the information I put together to help my planning objection. I have made some text bold at the end of the information that I think is directly relevant to the problems in proving ahead of time that any one particular device will be dangerous in any particular situation:
Other effects of RF Radiation
Heating alone is not the only effect of RF radiation. The pulsed microwave radiation used in mobile telephony is similar in frequency and pulse to some of the brain's own electrical activities. This means that the brain can be interfered with by even weak radiation, due to the information content of the signal. This is how critical energised equipment in aircraft, hospitals, and heart pacemakers are affected. Don't forget - you should never go near a mast if you have a pacemaker.
The signals from mobile telephony use frequencies that can be discerned by the brain, and does affect brain function:
* It may cause headaches, it affects structures and systems in the brain in a way that is considered to cause headaches.
* It disrupts sleep. The duration of REM sleep is shortened by exposure to radiation. This impairs the bodies nightly repair process, which will leave you more prone to illness.
* It causes fits in people pre-disposed to epileptic seizures. The signals caused in the brain by particular flashing lights may be reproduced by microwave signals entering the brain directly, causing the same result.
* It affects memory. Microwave radiation interferes with the hippocampal region of the brain, which is consistent with reports of memory problems. Behaviours such as hyper-activity and temper tantrums may be due to similar interference.
* It may cause cancer. Disruption of sleep inhibits nocturnal secretion of Melatonin. Experiments have also shown that radiation too weak to break down DNA can remove Melatonin. Melatonin clears up free-radicals, which if left, may cause cancer. It has been shown that pulsed microwave radiation promotes the development of cancer in mice.
Research into non-thermal effects has not progressed far. It is difficult to reproduce as everybody has different brain waves, and this causes each individual to react differently to the same radiation signal. More research is necessary, but the Stewart report concludes that it may cause subtle biological effects and evidence so far justifies a precautionary approach, as advised in Article 130r of the European Treaties (Maastricht Treaty). If you consider the danger from RF radiation from masts is like having a gun, and not knowing if it is loaded or not. The precautionary approach simply means "don't put a gun against your head and pull the trigger unless you are sure it isn't loaded". This is why many countries in Europe, and the rest of the world, have a 500m exclusion zone around masts, ensuring no-one lives within the potentially dangerous area. Many county councils also have this policy, unfortunately ours does not.
As others have stated, this rule is necessary to avoid problems with a cell phone signal being received by multiple towers and causing interference. This rule has nothing to do with airplane safety.
There is another rule, however, by the FAA which related to portable electronic devices. FAA rule 91.21 states:
(That includes all commercial airlines.)
This rule is intended to avoid problems with electronic devices interfering with the navigation, communication, or other aircraft systems. There are exceptions, however, the most important of which is given in (b)(5) of the same rule:
In other words, the operator of the aircraft has the ultimate responsibility for determing which devices you can use.
Now, on to the more important question, can a cell phones cause interference to aircraft systems? Tests have been done which show no interference, but there are too many variables which the tests cannot duplicate. What if a cell phone is not operating properly? What if there is a problem with the airplane that makes it particularly sensitive to interference? Search around the internet and you will find pilot anecdoes about hearing cell phone conversations in the cockpit. There is no system for reporting or tracking these types of interference, so anecdotes are about the best evidence you are going to find. If we accept these anecdotes as fact, then we can say that some cell phones may cause interference with some aircraft.
To be in compliance with the FAA rule, the operator of the aircraft must determinie if a portable electronic device can cause interference with any of the navigation or communication systems on the aircraft. The rule doesn't specifically state whether each individual device must be excepted, or if whole classes of devices may be excepted. For example, cd players are an exception to the rule on most airlines. If we assume that the rule applies to whole classes, and given the above reasoning, then cell phones can cause interference and must not be used. If the rule applies to individual devices, then each cell phone could be tested to see if it causes interference. But that might take a while!
An avionics equipment on a certified air transport aircraft must demonstrate (and be certified) that it conforms to RTCA DO-160 emission limits. The equipment must also demonstrate a specified performance level in the presence of defined interference levels. These specifications are designed to prevent interference between on-board aircraft systems.
With the introduction of the large assortment of passenger electronic equipment that may find its way onto an aircraft, the airframe avionics are operating in an environment that now includes uncertified equipment with unknown radiation performance. As a condition of aircraft certification, only certified avionics are allowed on-board, and I understand an airline's discomfort in allowing the passengers' non-certified equipment to be operating on the airframe.
Ever heard the chirp-chirp of a Nextel when the user was within, say, 20 feet of your speakers? It happens to me all the time (I edit video) and I've heard the chirp leak into CNN and other broadcasts as well.
Maybe it only interferes with audio equipment and maybe it's only "cosmetic" interference, but it certainly does happen.
here is the boeing line of how interference causes "anomalous events" during flights.
Personally, I have serious reservations about flying in an aircraft which can be brought down by a cell phone. I can certainly understand the bandwidth reasons for not allowing them, but this would seem to be an FCC concern; not an airline's. In terms of wireless devices, I also find it pretty amazing that the airlines can claim that air travel is safe while at the same time claiming that my laptop looking for a WAP can send the plane I'm on careening into the side of a mountain. If these things are truly this shoddily built, ought we really be riding on them? And if any of this is really true, wouldn't a terrorist be better off setting up a mobile broadcast vehicle near an airport, rather than having to mess with bombs and missiles?
In all honesty, I find the whole affair rather silly and overblown. If I'm wrong about that, then frequent air travels ought to find the situation disturbing.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Commercial aircraft often have an operational lifespan of thirty years.
What engineer in 1970 would have predicted that there would be several--or dozens of--microwave emitters inside the plane? You don't need as much RF shielding inside the body of the plane as you would if it were made of, say, wood--the plane is METAL. It *is* a shield.
And now you think it is just peachy to let fourty to seventy people operate 300mw microwave transmitters inside the metal body of the plane, where the RF energy will mostly bounce around and get absorbed by people, materials, and onboard electronics.
If I were to operate a 20 watt microwave transmitter in the Amateur Radio service, I would be expected and required to take into account human exposure to RF energy in my antenna design and placement. And yet you want to cook in a 20 watt microwave oven for a trans-continental flight.
On top of that are the issues with cell phone range. On the ground, 300mw will barely get you two miles in perfect line-of-sight transmission with an omnidirectional antenna. Put one transciever in a tall tower (a cell tower) and you can reliably communicate in a few miles radius. Put one transciever in an airplane, and you can potentially extend that transcievers range to dozens or hundreds of miles. On my handheld transciever, I once listened to a gentleman with a 5 watt handheld transciever flying a private plane from Washington (state) to Florida. (Amateurs who are pilots are legally allowed to transmit in flight, and take the necessary precautions to prevent interference). I heard him loud and clear over Colorado, and still heard him as he crossed the Georgia border. I'm in central Kansas. On the ground, I would not be able to hear him more than 30 miles or so away under ideal conditions. So, hold that cellphone up to the plane window, and you could be hitting a couple of *states* worth of cell towers with enough RF energy for them to all lock on to your call.
There are so many reasons that it is a bad idea, it is hard to imagine a seemingly intelligent person claiming it is a good idea.
DJ
I call foul.
No pilot would attempt to land an aircraft in that condition. (The poster who implied that "a flight attendant probably saw it, and the Captain wanted to put the Fear of God into him" is most likely correct.)
If I'm flying a plane, and I'm noticing enough interference from anything (and I somehow magically intuit that this interference is from a cellphone :) that it jeopardizes my ability to land the plane smoothly, I'm going to come onto the PA waaaaay before landing, and say "Someone with a cell phone is interfering with my navigational systems and jeopardizing the safety of this aircraft. I could land it right here and right now, at 99.995% probability of successful landing, or I could tell you to shut it the hell off and let me land at 99.999 probability of success. Until you shut that phone off, we're all staying up here until I run low on fuel, or you run low on battery power, whichever comes first. Your call."
(After 15 minutes in a holding pattern, the passengers will take care of enforcement in a way that'll make the FAA and FCC seem like teddy bears ;)
True as far as the controls go, but as almost all updates on an airframe centers around the avionics you'll have the same problem as in an newer craft - unless you prefer flying with airlines that don't upgrade their machines off course ;
As for the lightning; most of that pulse travels along the skin of the aircraft, and as someone else pointed out, the same skin might function as a waveguide, amplefieing the signal of your mobile phone to a level where it might interfere with part of the onboard avionics, which might cause a malfuntion.
Likely? No, but likely enought not to risk it. the buzzword when it comes to flight is safety .
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Actually, the GTE system operated on a L-band satellite phone network. The rates are a little bit above what standard sat phone rates are- about $4 a minute. They did not work on cell networks. Thats why you could use them over the ocean, over the middle of nowhere america. But, it doesn't matter now any more does it? I flew AA two weeks ago and all the GTE Airphones had been put out of service. The airlines took a big loss on that little idea.
Actually, the EMI level of things like cell phones and Bluetooth is very well known. If the defined interference levels for emc in aircraft are so low that these things are a risk, someone hasn't been doing their homework. Portable phones have now been around for years, plenty of time to do a study.
In any case, aircraft must, as I pointed out, survive high levels of external radiation. They are hardly Faraday cages or cell phones would not work inside them. Equally, when an aircraft flies into or through a radar or near a high power transmitter, the field levels inside will not be zero.
With traffic down over SARS, terrorism, and general economic jitters, now is not the time for airlines to piss off the business traveller without a pretty good reason.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The Airfone system is a known element that has been accounted for, unlike the numerous types of portables. WiFi devices would been an even bigger headache since unlike your GameBoy Advanced which would need to be within five-ten feet of a sensitive device, they could cause problems from nearly anywhere on board. While the effect is known, exactly which way individual and combinations of devices will throw the system off is not. Navigation and precision approach and landing systems will still function, but will give the crew eronious readings. New FAA regulations will be reducing air traffic spacing and seperation in the near future so you can expect the airlines to be even more strict about carry-on portables.
You haven't flown in a while, have you?
I'll outline restrictions for you:
No electronic devices may be on during takeoff/landing. No exceptions.
Once the aircraft reaches 10,000 feet, you may use the following electronic devices: Computer, PDA, gameboy, CD player, yada yada.
Cellular and satellite phones, GPS systems, AM/FM radios, wireless networking products, and televisions are not allowed to be on from the time the door closes on the plane before takeoff, to the point the door re-opens on landing.
Basically, They don't want any electronics on during takeoff/landing, to make sure there isn't any possiblity of RF or something being emitted by the device causing interference with the instruments used duing take off and landing. The theory behind denying the other devices period has do do with concerns regarding interference with instruments required to FLY THE PLANE, as well as the communications equipment. While I disagree with the argument against cell phones (I think it has more to do with cell-providers not being able to bill customers properly than anything else), the other's make sense. Navigation uses GPS and radio frequencies, which could definately get screwed up by am/fm radios and personal GPS systems, and the landing systems use VHF/UHF, as someone else mentioned.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.