Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Drops Wireless System For 787
K7DAN writes "It appears that state-of-the-art connectivity in Boeing's newest aircraft means a wired, not a wireless network. The Seattle Times reports that Boeing has abandoned plans to bring entertainment and information to passengers through a wireless system in its 787 Dreamliner due to possible production delays and potential conflicts with other radio services around the world. A side benefit is an actual reduction in weight using the wired system. Amazingly, the LAN cables needed to connect every seat in the aircraft weigh 150 lbs less than all the wireless antennae, access points, and thickened ceiling panels required to accommodate a wireless network (the design called for an access point above each row)." The article concludes: "The net impact, [a Boeing spokesman] said, is less technical risk, some weight saved, the system's flexibility and quality preserved plus 'a bit of schedule relief.'"
Wired seem to be a better solution for a plane anyhow, I wouldn't expect the need for moving around the plane with your laptop to be that massive, I mean people are usually pretty tied to their seats when going with a Boeing.
The problem probably is that different airline companies want different seating positions, but the article says that they should have solved this issue.
The article says nothing about how the LAN on the plane connects to the internet though. I think that is where the state of the art comes in, the only possible solution I see is through satellite connection, but with a moving plane I imagine that is going to give some problems.
Another problem in this is the bandwidth given by a satellite connection, if there are 20 passengers surfing the net that isn't going to give a lot of bandwidth pr. user.
Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.
I am, therefore you think.
They would need to have cables running throughout the plane anyway to all the wireless antenna. Just put a hub in place of an antenna and run a few more cables to the seats. With all the shielding and such that a plane has, you'd probably need a boatload of antennas...Then you have to worry about extra shielding for all the onboard components, etc.
Besides, all this means is that the business traveler will have to carry around a 2 ft CAT 5 cable...big deal. I bet some creative laptop maker comes up with one of those airline power adapters that also integrates a CAT 5 cable in to it. Just plug the one end in to the back of your laptop, and plug in the power and network cables in to the appropriate ports on the other end.
...if you're not moving around much, use a light little ethernet cable and save yourself all the hassle of wireless. It trumps wireless in speed, reliability and cost.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
how this makes sense for laptops as it shouldn't matter laptops generally have both, and there is no need to be mobile on a plane, but what about WiFi PDA's and the upcoming cell phones with wifi capabilities, both of those could be pretty important to an exec who needs to remain connected.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
"Amazingly, the LAN cables needed to connect every seat in the aircraft weigh 150 lbs less than all the wireless antennae, access points, and thickened ceiling panels required to accommodate a wireless network (the design called for an access point above each row)."
So, obviously, they didn't spec this out with commodity hardware -- I'm guessing that and the extra shielding were to mitigate any radio interference that might mess with the avionics. But come on.. there has to be a wireless solution that uses less physical hardware than this.
- 'Drew
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -- Voltaire
You could probably just warfly some wireless connection from the ground if you really needed wireless in a plane, right?
How important is saving 150 pounds on a plane that weighs between 360k and 540k pounds on takeoff?
It may seem small in comparison, but it's 150lbs less you have to pay fuel for, for the entire service life of the plane. While this probably wouldn't be a huge chunk of profits gone, why waste money? After a while the fuel needed to ship that extra 150lbs certainly adds up. I wouldn't want to pay for it!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It all adds up. If airplane designers aren't weight concious at all times then they're not airplane designers for long.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Umm, since when has wifi NOT been RF? I think it's overkill, but they don't have line-of-sight issues because the whole plane is within the line-of-sight of the APs. Now if they were doing optical or infrared wireless, that'd be different, but then everyone would need special hardware to use it and that'd just be a pain. But I'm pretty sure that wifi hasn't ever been anything but RF. :)
..is allow you to take your laptop on the flight.
Blerg.
Oooh...a sting to soaring brick designers everywhere.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Quick, call Boeing! They probably didn't even consider that! They'll love to hear the your expert opinion! Or: Ask yourself who'll know best. You or them.
An access point above every row? Maybe there is a technical reason that someone can point out, but that sounds just whacked to me... So now there are going to be jacks at every seat, people will need to carry a LAN cable and since we're crunching all the seats together to maximize profit thats one more coffee spilling device to invade the small world of the plane traveler's seat... Sigh...
There's... someone on the wing! Some... thing! And it's... trying to... leech wifi! </shatner>
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
> it's the first thing that popped into my head
/. comment.
I take that as a caveat for pretty much any
... it was going to be too hard to implement the system. Imagine this cockpit conversation:
"Denver, AA325 - Requesting clearance to LAN - over"
"Negative, AA325 - do not land - over."
"No, not land, LAN - over"
"Landover? No - this is Denver - over."
"Roger, Denver..."
"Sorry, Clarence, no clearance."
etc...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I would guess it was so they could use low-power APs. Probably easier to get FAA approval for something running in the bluetooth power range rather than a typical AP.
On my last flight I noticed the in-flight entertainment system used Linux. How I noticed? It crashed in the middle of the flight and had to be rebooted. Tux in corner, kernel boot messages and everything.
I just can't decide if it was a good or bad sign for Linux.
The challenge I see with wired Ethernet is the connectors. Is a standard cat 5 jack designed for multiple plug insertions and removals every day? How often would the jacks need to be replaced and can this be done easily?
Now if only they would add Power-over-Ethernet...
Don't forget that your typical household WAP (let alone a commercial version) has enough transmitting power to register a good signal at least 10m away. I'm guessing, based on the paranoia about RFI in planes, that nothing CLOSE to that high powered would be considered acceptable.
It's quite probable that, for safety reasons, they were looking at a solution with a large number of very low power WAP's, which makes sense--you will have a lot less stray energy.
I don't think that the primary design concern is how to cover as much of the plane as possible with little equipment.
they are likely specially designed low power setups that will not screw with the avionics package. Hardly you 1131AG.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
You have to remember, you want to save as much as you can. so this is only one so many weight saving measures. I am sure they have done things so save more weight as well, and say they save 1000lb total. that more cargo you can pack into the plane, meaning more cash.
The article is not about internet access at all but distribution of inflight movies and entertainment. And there is not an access point at every row, but an antenna at every row (in the old scheme). If you read it, that's a receiving antenna that would then distribute the content to the seats in that row, not a transmitting antenna (access point).
Also, this plane is already several thousand pounds over the design weight, so I imagine that has something to do with this decision.
Obviously you don't know much about how wireless works. See, while 3 AP's may provide the proper *coverage* (ie: you can get a signal anywhere in the plane), it can't provide the *bandwidth*. Assuming they're using this for more than just some person's want to get online from the air, such as for in-flight entertainment (think screens at each seat) and possibly a VoIP phone-type setup to consolidate cabling (no seperate phone/video cables for each seat), it likely will use quite a bit of bandwidth. If each row has some 7-8+ seats (twin aisle configuration, likely it's 2/3/2 or 3/3/3), and designing for peak capacity (i'm sorry you can't watch your in-flight movie because your rowmates are all watching it already and those guys are online and that guy is on the phone), it's going to take a lot of bandwidth. Even at 802.11g/a speeds, you're talking at most 108Mbps (twin radio configuration) split across 7-8 people. Figure watching a movie uses 3-10Mbps, that's at nearly peak capacity right there, best case scenario.
I hate sigs...
As I remember, when oil was $20/barrel, each lb of weight meant $100 in operating costs per year.
With wired they can sell premium seats with LAN, or cheaper seats without LAN. That would be harder to control with wireless.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Apparently even a little weight savings is a big deal for airlines. In China they want you to punch your ticket before boarding.
Consumer units are already low-power setups which will not interfere with properly-installed avionics packages.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
And think of how long the cord from the plane to the ground must be!
1) I spend how much on HIGH speed access, then I'm going to throttle it? Not!
2) I spend how much time on privacy and security, then I'm going to broadcast? Not!
3) I spend how much time tuning and tweaking Linux, but no device driver? Not!
Personally, I don't trust public access points for outgoing private information. Ever.
Please, sign me off the fing airwaves, AFAIC, hardwired is the only way to fly.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Wait, that doesn't make any sense... You brought the waste with you when you got on the plane. The weight of the plane doesn't change if you move the waste to the toilet. Is the loss of efficiency coming from the operational mechanism of the toilet? Drag due to frozen waste on the exterior?
Now if I could just plug into the port in the back of my head I'd be all set!
Oh... I see. Go before you get on. Right. Nevermind.
Sarcasm aside, I actually found this requirement a bit odd as well. What purpose would it serve to have an AP above each row? How much traffic are we talking about? I'm actually quite curious about the thought process that brought all of this about...
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
Why do I have mental images of the fleet in question being full of older gas guzzlers that waste millions of liters of fuel just by being old and obsolete, and the airline of course deciding that in order to save gas they're going to remove the seats and just tape everyone down to the floor, which saves hundreds of liters in the end?
I read the internet for the articles.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
My laptop only has a wireless card, for whatever reason, I got that finally working with Linux and I just don't have time to deal with making the ancient ethernet card I don't know that I can even find work too (before anyone jumps on me, we're talking ancient hardware on all sides plus some potentially broken dongles and now nonexistent patience). Since everywhere I tend to frequent has wireless, it's been a zero priority, and I scored a device that generates a wireless point from an ethernet port that I intend to test more fully on my next few trips. I wonder if they'll have a problem with me using that on the plane?
It may seem small in comparison, but it's 150lbs less you have to pay fuel for, for the entire service life of the plane. While this probably wouldn't be a huge chunk of profits gone, why waste money? After a while the fuel needed to ship that extra 150lbs certainly adds up. I wouldn't want to pay for it!
Exactly. On long haul flights (which is the 787's mission) weight is critical due to the increase in fuel burn over the trip. More weight means more lift, more lift means more drag, and more drag means higher fuel flow.
For example, on a typical 8 to 9 hour trans-Atlantic flight, if you choose to carry another 1000 lbs of fuel at takeoff, you'll have roughly 600 - 700 lbs more on arrival - the other 300 - 400 lbs were spent to carry the weight of the extra fuel. (The actual penalty will vary by aircraft.) So, shaving 150 lbs off the plane can save you roughly 40 - 50 lbs per flight, twice a day, year after year. That's over 5000 gallons of $1.89/gallon jet fuel per year.
And no, skinny crewmembers don't get a bonus.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
The 787 calls for 8-9 seats per row. If you take the worst case scenario of everybody being connected at once in a row, 9 users pretty well maxes out an access point.
The wired solution makes a lot more sense. Trying to configure a wireless zone in an airplane would be a nightmare. With an access point in every row, even staggering right/left side of the airplane, you will get a lot of interference from other access points as there are only 3 non-overlapping channels (assuming using the 2.4Ghz range). True, you could turn the power way down on them, but you have to be able to reach both sides of the airplane from your AP.
With 100Mbps ethernet connections at every seat, I wonder if they could sponser some killer LAN parties. Maybe show the current best players on the main screen? : )
But also has massive latency.
Worst case, you can easily throttle bandwidth to a particular row or seat to keep one user from sucking up too much.
What will be interesting is if first class passengers get more bandwidth than cattle class.
paintball
OH CRAP!!!
I didn't say that it's a 108Mbps standard, I said that with twin broadcasting radios (business class AP's), there would be a theoretical 108Mbps available from that *AP*. Yes, for a single radio on board an AP, there would only be 54Mbps available.
I hate sigs...
With 100Mbps ethernet connections at every seat, I wonder if they could sponser some killer LAN parties. Maybe show the current best players on the main screen? : )
Whatever you do, do NOT play cs_747!
paintball
I brought it up because there was no mention of what protocol they're using, and I'd hate to assume. Heck, maybe they were doing something really whacked-out with IR to talk to the IR serial port every laptop comes with. Yes, that's a crappy idea, but without any mention of 802.11 in the article, I just wanted to be sure. Once-upon-a-time somebody was proposing just this kind of thing for short-range wireless networks, which would require line-of-sight. I hadn't ever heard of it actually becoming a reality, but I know absolute jack about the 787 and considered maybe they had tried to do that.
I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
Save 150 pounds of airplane weight and you can carry another 150-pound package in the hold -- and UPS will charge the shipper almost $700 to fly it from New York to L.A. overnight.
rj
From long distances yes, but not IN a plane. Even a iPod has been recorded as screwing with avionics on major airliners and they dont even broadcast anything. DSs are really bad and they broadcast 802.11b
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Nope, just CAT-5 cable.
Understandable. :)
I mean people are usually pretty tied to their seats when going with a Boeing.
Boeing expects Google's Testing on the Toilet(TM) to really take off. They wanted to be prepared so that when it does take off, it doesn't hit the fan.
Expect wireless portables^H^H^Hility to be installed in the enhanced version of the 787 Dreamliner.
Even a iPod has been recorded as screwing with avionics on major airliners and they dont even broadcast anything.
All electrical devices broadcast something. Put a cable tracer next to it. You'll hear all sorts of racket.
What?
I find all this talk of internet access in economy hilarious. On most flights with the seat pitch what it is I can barely open a paperback book on the tray table. My laptop? Forget it!! It stays in the overhead bin.
I have found attempting to get any real work done on the plane to be futile at best. While I am not the most frequent flier around I fly enough for business (Permier Executive on United 4 years running now) to know that this is just ridiculous. No room, uncomfortable, power issues, no privacy... ...the best solution I have come up with is simply relaxing and "enjoying" the flight. While the 787 will be serving pretty long routes, I maintain that you will be fine not checking your email for 8 or so hours.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.
The costs for an ADD-ON system are not supported by the revenue. Putting a wireless system on an EXISTING plane means you have to:
- Take the plane out of service
- Partially disassemble the plane
- Run supplemental wiring
- Install new access points and new compartments to hold them
- Bolt-on trasmit/receive device
- Reassemble plane
The costs of a system BUILT INTO the plane when it is FIRST CONSTRUCTED would be MUCH, MUCH lower. You just run your network wires at the same time you run all the other wiring for the plane. And you don't have to REPLACE receptacles etc with new ones, you just install the ones with ethernet jacks to begin with.
And, in this case, they're installing a wired network, not a wireless one. So even cheaper still.
paintball
Oh please. 150lbs is not even worth them considering. You're talking around half of your average slashdotter here ;) Compare that to the weight of the paint that they use to make their planes pretty.
All the saved weight is is a talking point after the fact. It never played into any decision. Boeing just wants to make sure that they don't pull an Airbus and fall a year + behind schedule. Development was obviously lagging on this subsystem so they are going to plan B to ensure delivery. It's all about time, not weight.
I meant broadcast as in intentional broadcasting. The difference between a stray signal from say a iPod vs a object thats whole purpose is to broadcast radio waves will obviously be very different in power.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
if they use power over ethernet then they can make the in-seat entertainment system a thin client and use at least *some* off-the-shelf hardware (remember that aircraft electronics, even in entertainment, have to withstands many years of use, far longer than any consumer electronics have to).
it also means they could use SIP phones for providing in-flight telephony and put them on their own vlans, likewise have vlans for security cameras and remote controlled devices.
Figuring out how to wire a aircraft with multiple seating configurations is very, very hard. Go ask Airbus...
"The outside is an aluminum cylinder, then there's the glass windows..."
Um, the 787 does not have an aluminum fuselage. It is a composite structure. Same for the upper and lower wing panels. And the windows are not glass.
Most WiFi phones also do Bluetooth. Just set up a personal network giving access via your laptop and the LAN connection. When you get to the other end, reverse the connection and use GPRS over the BT to give the laptop access. Clever either way.
Discussion here:
w ifi-service-die/
http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/17/why-did-boeings-
Boeing didn't kill its existing wifi because of cost to implement -- it was already implemented. Ongoing costs of basic service weren't justified when so few passengers were willing to pay for the service to begin with.
I am, therefore you think.
If it's available, I'll use it. This allows me to shut off my radio and save battery life!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
That makes sense, but they can't easily limit the power that laptops put out... their minimum output power could easily be too much.
Unless, of course, they are actually using bluetooth instead of WiFi.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
I understand. The thing is that they do transmit, and there's plenty of wiring in the seat, armrest, etc. Conceivably, the iPod can inject noise into the wiring, spread throughout the aircraft, and hit something vital. Personally I don't care for personal electrical devices on airliners. The shielding is inadequate for my tastes, especially as the aircraft ages, and some of that shielding and insulation gets destroyed during maintenance. If these toys are so vital to the passengers, then they can pay to have them certified by the FAA not to interfere with aircraft equipment. Otherwise turn them off, and check them in with your baggage. If they get so bored, give them enough alcohol to put them to sleep, and a couple of aspirins after they land.
What?
In Soviet Russia, Wi-Fi drops YOU! .....oh wait, that already happens here in the States.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Somebody will be downloading a Linux distro to see if the airplane can run Linux!
Sure... so, to use a VOIP phone, I need to lug around and plug in a laptop? If you're using the laptop anyway, then yeah, it's no big deal. But if you only want to use the web on a PDA or a Phone, well, there's not a whole lot of room in an airplane seat in the first place.
Fortunately, Jet-A is much cheaper than Avgas.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
To keep the transmission power in each low enough that they don't have retest and recertify every other piece of electronics on the plane.
I've got a better idea: make the seats wider. Give passengers legroom and armroom.
It's called "First Class". You do that for everyone, and you will have to put the ticket prices up accordingly, since less people will fit on your plane.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It says:
Anyway, what killed this was cost. When I met with the Connextion team they told me it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to outfit a single plane with wifi.
Airlines didn't want to spend hundreds of thousands per plane to install the gear. So not only was it too expensive to put on planes, it was too expensive to maintain the satellite network to service the small number of planes with the service.
When ever 787 sold had the service installed standard, and has the power plug to run your laptop installed standard, the per-customer cost of providing the service is much, much lower, and the whole scheme becomes workable.
paintball
The best spot I can imagine is right above 1st-class, but that would require a rather large section of non-metallic surface to get coverage decently close to the horizon. The top of the tail could work, but it is rather small and probably full of mechanical parts. The tail isn't a place to be putting stuff that isn't critical for flight.
The situation gets much better if you don't mind having 3 to 6 dishes.
Just hire skinnier stewardesses.
Way to selectively quote a single comment from the responses to the article.
How about the main body?
"I flew SAS flight to Copenhagen 1.5 years ago and paid my $30. But I could only use the Wifi service for two hours because my laptop's battery wouldn't last longer than that.
.
.
.
Sorry, normal people will do without wifi if they have to pay $30 for two hours."
You can't justify ANY cost, whether to implement or to maintain, with LITTLE OR NO revenue.
I am, therefore you think.
You can't blindly extrapolate the anecdotal experience of one user in one environment to the potential experience of all users in a different environment. Well, I suppose you CAN, but it is stupid to do so.
Just because it didn't work last time doesn't mean there isn't a market for it, especially if the last time it was done poorly - as an add-on to existing planes (expensive) that didn't have a way for people to power their laptops.
Did it perhaps occur to you that JUST MAYBE, in these brand-spanking-new ultra-modern planes, they might give people a way to power their laptop in order to sell them internet service?
Did it occur to you that maybe, if the cost of installing the hardware in the plane is half as much, they can get away with charging the passenger half as much, and then nearly everyone with a laptop pays for the service?
Plus, AGAIN, you're not even reading what you're quoting. The guy didn't even say that the service was too expensive. He was willing to pay $30 for internet on the flight. The PROBLEM was that his laptop ran out of power. Sounds like all they need to do to get the $30 is put some power outlets under the seats - very easy to do if you're building a NEW plane.
paintball