Cringely: Wi-Fi in the Sky

Cringe-ly by LostCluster · 2004-07-16 02:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sometimes, this Cringely guy just makes me cringe...

He takes a rather quick review of the geek-unfriendly regulations in the sky, and then simply says that because he doesn't believe in them he's going to openly ignore them.

At least he'll be using his own plane, so the only life he's risking in this situation is his own and maybe one or two willing others. Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed. That's rather high stakes to be guessing...

Re:Cringe-ly by garcia · 2004-07-16 02:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least he'll be using his own plane, so the only life he's risking in this situation is his own and maybe one or two willing others. Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed. That's rather high stakes to be guessing...

Yeah, I agree, but I think that we have much more to fear in drunken pilots and just plain retarded ones.
Re:Cringe-ly by PD · 2004-07-16 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wrong instruments shouldn't cause crashes any more than a broken speedometer in your car will cause a crash. Competent pilots can fly with their backups, or their eyes.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:Cringe-ly by RPI+Geek · 2004-07-16 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

At least he'll be using his own plane, so the only life he's risking in this situation is his own and maybe one or two willing others. Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed. That's rather high stakes to be guessing...

Being a student pilot myself (35 hrs cumulative flight time), I really doubt that he's taking any significant risk at all. As it says in the article, it is up to the PIC (pilot-in-command) to decide whether or not to allow the use of personal electronic devices, and just looking over at his laptop while flying poses just about no risk. On a cross-country flights (100+mi), there's maps to be examined, air traffic controllers to contact, radio stations to tune into to verify your location, a flight computer to use (think complicated slide rule), passengers to talk to, and increasingly, GPS units to play with. He's been a pilot for 35 or so years, so I'm sure he'll set up everything on the ground and get it working before he ever starts the plane's engine, so just looking over to the laptop to check signal strength and connect to the internet shouldn't take any more concentration than looking at a sectional chart to make sure he's outside the local airspace.

As to the equipment interfering with the instruments, small aircraft have instruments based mostly on mechanical parts. Heck, some of them don't even use electricity to spin the gyroscopes. Additionally, I'm sure he's flown in this area before and therefore is familiar witht he terrain - every pilot I know has flown over his/her home numerous times :-) Commercial aircraft use more sensitive electronic gauges, but my opinion is that they're robust enough to handle the interference from PED's; even if there's a problem, though, teh pilots are trained to fly using much less equipment than the plane actually has. Most people don't realize how much redundancy is build right into the regulations.

Bottom line, I agree that the FAA is being oversensitive, and I'm very curious about how this all turns out.

Anywho, back to work.

--

- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Re:Cringe-ly by CatLord42 · 2004-07-16 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

... Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed.

I'm sorry, I don't buy this. If planes are so reliant on all these telemetry signals that a bunch of electronic devices in the cabin could cause them to crash because the pilots cannot possibly look at the instruments, look out the window, and figure out something's wrong, I don't know how any airline managed to stay in business or keep any sort of plane in the air before, say, 1995. Without GPS and the (incredibly consistent) global air-traffic radar systems, why, you couldn't so much as fly a plane over a country with whom your at war to drop a bomb.

Oh, wait, they did, and radar hadn't even become useful or reliable, in the early 1940s.

One of my favorite "West Wing" quotes is from the opening scene of the pilot (I think...), where Toby gets a page and calls into the whitehouse, and the flight attendant tells him he has to turn off his cell phone because the plane is approaching the airport. Paraphrasing, his response went something like, "This aircraft is equipped with a $60,000 telemetry system hooked into a multi-million dollar national air traffic control system, and you're telling me that I can cause the plane to crash with something I bought from Radio Shack for less than $30.00? Do you know how stupid you sound?"

I don't know, but something just doesn't seem right.

--
Meow. Now!
Re:Cringe-ly by LostCluster · 2004-07-16 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

What if the broken instrument was the gas tank... leading the pilot/driver to think they have gas when they're really about to be out. That's a formula for a crash right there...

and so ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 02:28 · Score: 0, Insightful

really.. who cares ?

i'm planning to wash my car this weekend, anyone intrested ? i can write a plan too...

AC

Wi-Fi by Rethcir · 2004-07-16 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Someday somebody's going to have to explain the whole war-driving/war-flying type thing to me... I really don't see the appeal in doing all this seemingly pointless stuff with wireless just to watch a few numbers fluctuate on a laptop. (I'm sure a lot of you think I should be banned from slashdot for saying that though). (Also, who names their kid "channing?" or "cole" for that matter? The quality of child naming has really gone down of late...)

from the blackhawk-down dept.!?! by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · 2004-07-16 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

What an insensitive thing to say.

Learn some manners, michael.

--
The latest Slashdot meme.

Is this guy for real ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 02:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

"... symbiotic relationship where aircraft owners benefit from volunteering the use of their planes by getting free airborne Internet service"

As a proof of concept, sure ... but the cheese has slid off his cracker if he thinks pilots are going to volunteer their plane and/or their time to fly around so those below can surf.

Cheap Wi-Fi Internet: Signal Reflectors by william_lorenz · 2004-07-16 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Towards the end of his article, Cringley seems to suggest that it might be possible to use ground stations aimed upwards, like AirCell, to provide airplanes with wireless network connectivity. Those airplanes, in exchange for the use of the network connectivity, could then bounce signals back down to earth from a much higher altitude to cover a much wider area. Something like an FM repeater.

I must say, this sounds like an excellent idea, but what about those rural areas where planes don't always fly, and what about if an airport grounds flights for any length of time, such as happened on 9/11? It seems to me that a better solution must be found if we're to obtain reliable network connectivity from such a system, as opposed to just cheap spotty access. But if nothing else, I give credit to Cringley for some very interesting ideas about the possibilities!

Great idea by DanielMarkham · 2004-07-16 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some guy in his own homebuilt plane, flying in unrestrcited airspace VFR trying to work out answers to questions a lot of pilots have.

If the Wright brothers were alive today, they'd still be completing the paperwork to build an airplane.

Seems like I remember Boeing taking up one of their planes loaded with electronics equipment, trying to test out this interference issue. They got zero interference. But it is always possible. Somebody needs to put this whole line of fear-mongering to rest. Godspeed to the guy.

Why keep citing Cringely? by eggboard · 2004-07-16 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cringely consistently discusses radio with inaccurate technical descriptions. I've been on email threads in which he responds to critics who try to get him to be more accurate with statements about how he's trying to popularize technology and that people should just try interesting, weird things. From his never-again-discussed passive billboard antenna -- against the laws of physics and he never provided promised details to the Bay Area Wireless User's Group -- to his Why-Fi proposal (completely prima facie unrealistic and contradictory) to his "stick an antenna up at maximum gain and serve a neighborhood" essays a few weeks ago...

Well, why does he get Slashdot's attention any more?

Oh, I forget. As he said in that string of email I mention, he has 200,000 readers, thus making him an expert.

--
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others

Re:Why keep citing Cringely? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 04:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Virtually every article he has written in the last two years has been 99% B.S.

He writes stupid things just to get people talking about how stupid he is in order to maintain readership, (Or go so far over some readers heads that they think he's God) and /. is piggybacking on him to generate their own readership based on his stupidity.

In the end though Cringly IS an idiot and /. debases itself for even mentioning anything he says. :(

mesh network range by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

He mentions that there are up to 1000 small IFR aircraft in the air in the USA at any one time and that these could have a mesh network between them and this could provide a cellular network for planes. I think not somehow, as he states in the article mesh networks only work effecitvely with 3 hops or less and that a reasonable range is 10km using directional antennas.

Firstly all 1000 planes aren't going to carry signals and the ones that do will need to be in range of a base station on the ground. In order to keep a connection going these planes would have to be constantly adjusting their antennas to point at ground stations and at the other plane.

Secondly at certain times of day/certain (most) places there won't be enough planes to give the range. Perhaps above major cities you can guarentee coverage most of the time, but elsewhere you won't be able to.

Thirdly, I doubt 1000 planes (flying their usualy patterns) could provide anywhere near 100% coverage of the air corridors in the USA. And you'll still need a base station every 30km, isn't this about what the current solutions use if not more?

I love the way Cringely always takes concepts like this over the top strecting them far beyond what is pratical.

15 of 158 comments (clear)