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?"

Comments

WiFi already planned on planes

[druzicka]

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

Re:WiFi already planned on planes

[WWWAvenger]

From a ZDNet article:

"Economic incentive

The airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air. The carriers receive a cut of the revenues from the telephones installed onboard. The two main providers of this air-phone service, GTE Corp. and AT&T Corp., charge about $6 for a one-minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates.

These in-flight telephones also operate on cellular technology -- using a single airplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired. AT&T and GTE, which recently agreed to sell its Airfone service, decline to discuss air-phone financial arrangements, as do several airlines. But Sheehan says airlines pocket about 15 percent of all air-phone revenue generated on their planes. GTE declines to discuss Airfone revenues, but analysts estimate the unit's annual revenues at $150 million." I'm sure the same applies to all such wireless gizmos.

Airplanes and cellphones

[phil reed]

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.

Re:Airplanes and cellphones

[Enry]

I heard the same thing from a pilot years ago. Not sure if it's still true or not.

One thing I did notice was the first cell phone I got (~1994) had the strange side effect that just before the cell phone would ring, the power on my computer speakers would cut out. That's one heck of an EM pulse to cause that, and it's not hard to imagine what a plane full of phones about to ring would do to fun electrics like the GPS/radio/etc.

Re:Airplanes and cellphones

[phil reed]

Antennas do not have sharp cutoffs on their radiation pattern. They can still receive signals from off-axis transmitters, though the signal will be attenuated.

Re:Airplanes and cellphones

[WegianWarrior]

If a generic monitor manu. can shield a monitor, the companies making the airplane nav systems, etc can shield their shit too.

Speaking as someone who maintain military aircraft for a living; the keyword is weight. A good definition of an airplane designer is someone who can design an item that weights one kilogram, when any idiot can make one that weights two. Mil-spec avionics and instruments are shielded off course, but they are frequently quite a bit heavier than cilivian grade equipment I've worked with (the RNoAF operates a few biz-jets as VIP-transports). And off course, the few sources of interference inside a fighter is known and can be shilded themself.

Add weight to an airplane and you trade off performance. The heavier an aircraft is, the slower and shorter ranged it'll be - if all other parameters like thrust, lift and drag are kept the same.

Also bear in mind that most of the airframes that is operated today is older than the 'cell-phone revolution'. They, and their internal systems, were designed and built in a day and age where you didn't have to worry that your SelfLoadingCargo carried microwave-transmitters. In a modern airframe the designers can take this into account from scratch and possible design things so that signal-cables etc run inside the longerons (for instance), using the aircrafts own structural parts for shilding. In an old airframe, the only shielding possible are addon, which increases the wight, which leads to the trouble mentioned above.

So yes, the companies that make the airframe and the system can "shield their shit", but it will cost. Both money- and performancewice in an old airframe, and moneywise in a new airframe. And face it - that cost will be added to the airfare, and as it is the consumers who pay that...

Its the tower and antenna alignment

[teambpsi]

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?

Re:Sky phone

[einhverfr]

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.

Actually, both the FCC and FAA ban cell-phones in flight, but for different reasons:

1: FCC bans cell phones in flight because the altitude and speed of an airplane would cause the cell phone to be reserving bandwidth on many cells, thus vastly diminishing capacity. Also depending on the anti-fraud measures in place, it may prevent the cell phone companies from charging (depends on how sensitive the sanity checking is). The billing problem could be easily solved, but the capacity problem is inherent to the system.

2: FAA bans cell phones because of the remote *possibility* of frequency leakage off the devices which could interfere with the communications systems of the aircraft. If you have ever seen an electric shaver interfere with your FM radio, you know what I mean. For good reason, the FAA tends to be very paranoid about these things.

Re:Banning wireless devices absurd

[e.a.kendrick]

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.

Read the Boeing story

[the_pooh_experience]

here is the boeing line of how interference causes "anomalous events" during flights.

Well...

[Loki_1929]

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.

Re:Only on older planes

[Tackhead]

> I've been on a plane that was trying to land and someone used their cell phone. It was a very bumpy ride. The pilot came on and said "Someone was using their cell phone on that landing, if I find out who it is, they will be reported to the police."

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 ;)