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

[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.

Read the Boeing story

[the_pooh_experience]

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