Slashdot Mirror
Qantas Blames Wireless For Aircraft Incidents
musther writes "An Australian airline Qantas Airbus A330-300, suffered 'a sudden change of altitude' on Tuesday. "The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries when the flight bound from Singapore to Perth had a dramatic drop in altitude that hurled passengers around the cabin." Now it seems Qantas is seeking to blame interference from passenger electronics, and it's not the first time; 'In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course.' Is there any precedent for wireless electronics interfering with aircraft systems? Interfering with navigation instruments is one thing, but causing changes in the 'elevator control system' — I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."
Fly Boeing instead of Airbus.
If Airbus is that susceptible to electronic interference, then I'd rather not fly in their planes. The last thing I need is to plunge into the Atlantic because some disgruntled-fellow-gone-terrorist on the ground is jamming the flight controls with a generator and a pringles can.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If an airplane can have its control mechanisms interfered with by a simple wireless device then what the hell are they thinking?
Shield that crap.
If it is that delicate then don't use it - there are surely alternatives and surely my life should not depend on something so likely trivial.
It could be said that, "Yeah, they cause problems and in the interest of safety we're going to ban them." Bullshit. That treats the symptom and is not a cure.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
...both links go to the same page. What is your problem with actually doing some basic checking, like following the links?
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Why bring a bomb or a bottle of water when you can just bring a couple of bags full of wireless mice...
Is there any precedent for wireless electronics interfering with aircraft systems? Interfering with navigation instruments is one thing, but causing changes in the 'elevator control system' -- I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse.
Well, Wikipedia has a great section on this.
Following from reading that, I would need to see whether Quantas planes have a lack of shielding somewhere that would make this a vulnerability. In the defense of so many airlines and the FAA, I will state that I would rather read a book than work on a laptop if it means reducing a very low risk. That risk being that I am operating in a range that interferes with a device that is crucial to flight and also improperly shielded.
My work here is dung.
"I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."
Flown? No. Crashed? Maybe.
Fixed that for you.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed that our aircraft are so advanced that they can be flown with commodity consumer interface tools, or frightened silly.
Either way, I thought that all modern aircraft were "hardened" against interference from these devices, and that the UL listing on these devices specified that they cannot create interference? Methinks someone is trying to CYA by passing the buck to a mouse.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The idea that a standard wireless device can cause a multi-million dollar jet for a loop says a whole lot about the design of these systems on-board. Why is it that my laptop doesn't go flying off my desk when I shift-right click is beyond me.
In all honesty, can someone please explain how this could even remotely be true? Aren't these planes flying around at all altitudes with a multitude of radio wave radiation from an untold number of sources, both human and naturally occurring?
These planes are usually hydraulic, i don't see how electronic transmissions effect fluid movement. The transmissions are also very localized so the person would have to be righ on the pump to make a difference. If they are fly by wire i doubt some mouse or wifi will interfere with the signal that is being transmitted via a cable.
...was blamed on a passenger who punched the monkey.
Did anyone RTFA? First the plane went up 300 feet, then nosedived. Have they considered that the pilot noticed the 300 foot change and overreacted? He may have pushed the stick just a little too quickly.
Or maybe he was texting just before the incident.
As I understand it, you can get some pretty powerful standing waves inside an aircraft if enough people use wireless devices for an extended time period. I doubt a single mouse could cause problems, but say 30 of them for 2 hours - you might have some issues.
I would say this claim by Qantas is highly suspect. The mythbusters did a special to debunk the myth of wireless device interference. Ostensibly, Airbus uses some form of protection for their avionics. If not, as others are sure to say, fly Boeing! A wireless mouse uses a very, very low transmission power. This is not to say that I am in favor of cell phones on planes. If you are going to be crammed into a hollow tube, the last thing you want to hear is someone yaking on their cell phone while sitting in a seat with a cushion so thin that you are really sitting on the seat frame.
Until they backup their accusations, its just an attempt to divert responsibility instead of saying "Oops, we messed up".
If it is a fact that a common wireless communication device can cause this sort of issue - why do they not have policies and procedures in place to prevent it? I'd say all blame still lands squarely on their shoulder - if some tool with a bluetooth headset can bring the plane I'm riding on down, you better believe I'm placing my faith in the airline that they take necessary measures to ensure that isn't possible.
Seems a lot more likely they slipped on their maintenance schedule however and a component in the plane failed, simplest answer is often the correct one.
Overclockers
They just want to blame wireless devices instead of possibly poor maintenance or crew abilities. The signal range of a wireless mouse is so weak it would likely be blocked by the body of the plane and or the door to the cockpit. They are probably much more likely to be thrown off course by errant ham radio operators or satellite broadcasts than by simple low frequency wireless devices.
If this was really a risk, shouldn't we be seeing wireless-device-based terrorist attacks?
I mean, if a wireless mouse can bring down a plane, they're probably more of a risk than bottled water, right?
The FAA has an advisory on PEDs (personal electronics devices) called AC 91.21.1b where they suggest that carriers set their own standards as to what PEDs are allowed and which are not. This applies to US planes only, but I mention it as a point of comparison.
Whenever you read incidents of PEDs interfering with aircraft, it's important to note that they're pretty much all anecdotal. There's a story from 15 years ago where a pilot claimed that a laptop being turned on and off would toggle the autopilot disconnect, for instance, but when the airline purchased that exact laptop from the passenger and tried reproducing it on the same route at the same location and altitude, they were unable.
Modern avionics are not very susceptible to interference like this. Qantas may have chosen this explanation at this point for the same reason that a software developer might claim 'alpha bit decay' (or cosmic rays) was responsible for an unreproducible software crash. No confirmation is guaranteed, and a negative result during a test doesn't prove that the theory is wrong.
For my background, I've developed software, built programmable electronics, and installed avionics in aircraft. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've got a 'Bravo Sierra' alarm that's going off when I read this story.
" I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse.""
I'd be more worried that a forum with the moniker "News for nerds" didn't understand technical subjects.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
As far as I know all avionics are required to be shielded pretty heavily. It seems like the absolutely worst case should be that the radio gets slightly more crackly. And that wouldn't make a plane loose altitude.
This seems to me to be an excuse by the airline. There is probably some issue with the Airbus planes and they don't want to have to officially admit that. Hopefully they are working on fixing it, but they should really just some out and say it instead of trying to blame a passenger.
Some airlines are starting to put Wifi hotspots and cellphone nano-cells on planes. That is the future in my book, not totally banning all wireless on planes. And that is what will happen if airlines start blaming wireless for problems.
The claim by Quantas is really really hard to believe, for various reasons:
* Airlines request portable electronics to be turned off and stowed during takeoff as they can be thrown around and hurt people, and also since airlines want people to be alert during takeoffs and landings.
* The electronics messing with the aircraft communications is believable, but actually interfering with systems controlled by wired networks is far fetched.
* The incident sounds much more like turbulence/airpockets in the atmosphere, which is known to cause aircraft suddenly losing altitude and people to get thrown around with the on rare instances.
"Terrorist hijacks Airbus with a laptop, MS Flight Simulator and a bluetooth mouse"
Having worked with a company that entirely focuses on jamming and interference signals between air and ground I can tell you that all claims by airlines that electronic devices can interfere with the plane are simply scare tactics to get you to pay attention to the safety demonstration and to hear the in flight announcements.
I can see how electronics can interfere with precision radio instrument landing systems (ILS). However ... could someone explain how a passenger clicking a mouse could -in any way- otherwise affect the flight of an airplane?
Thanks.
Personally, I used to support PC-based ECG capture devices. I used to really like taking people who claimed their phone had no effect on medical devices, and taking them to stand in front of an ECG monitoring screen and *showing* them the effect on the traces that it had.
A few Airbus flights have had automatic rapid changes in altitude over the years causing all kinds of panic... things like this http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080111/wEmergency11.html It's not the mouse, it's the computer system
It's just crap. They're using the wireless boogeyman to scare everyone when it's their own fault. There have been wireless devices and electronics in use for a long time, and there's as much a chance of that interfering as listening to a radio will mess up a plane's instruments and gauges. What a crock.
Everyone knows that you shouldn't use Microsoft Flight Simulator X in a live environment.
Why can't they just put a Faraday cage around the cabin and let the passengers use whatever electronics they want? If planes are so delicate, does that mean we can shoot them out of the sky with a radio and a dish?
Charlie: Ray, all airlines have crashed at one time or another, that doesn't mean that they are not safe.
Raymond: QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
Charlie: QANTAS?
Raymond: Never crashed.
Charlie: Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!
That's a shame, now Rain Man REALLY can't fly
Sounds like a classic case of FUD to mask the real issue. Along with making sure that people stay scared about using electronic devices in plains.
I hate to break it to the aviation industry but we are pushing along in the 21st century these days. They are going to have to design and fly planes with people using electronic devices. There is no reason why a modern aircraft should not be able to accommodate that within reasonable limits.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
This seems like a rather dangerous way to go about finding the real cause. They are assuming the cause, and now looking for proof. They have confirmation bias oozing from every pore.
Quant is not going to want to lose customers in this economic environment. By making this statement, they are indicating that they will crack down on those with electronics. For quant to say this, it would have required Airbus to say it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Which device causes more interference? Digital or Analogue ? Either way, when the plane lands/takes off and it gets close to the ground, it is immersed in all sorts of digital/Analogue noise, microwave, terrestrial TV, cell phone etc that is much more powerful than "hand held" devices on board. So we should be seeing more incidents of Airplane crashes on takeoff and landings right ? or does the shell of the airplane shield the components?
Remember, it is the landing that kills you, not flying.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I was sitting at home on my patio and a Qantas aircraft flew over and my laptop crashed with some error message about landing gear file not found
I have flown half way around the world including half of that on the very model of aircraft that was having the problem (Charlotte to Frankfurt). Anyway, although it is somehow possible that a wireless mouse MIGHT cause some kind of problem I really have a hard time understanding how the airline and Airbus could forget to make sure that wiring is properly shielded to prevent this kind of problem. I guess it is too expensive to wire the control systems with fiber which would eliminate the problem completely. Getting a hint from me Airbus and Boeing? I hope so. I hope that there were not extraneous signals traveling around the wires on that USAirways Airbus A330 and Lufthansa Boeing 747 I flew on in the spring. :)
Wow, and I remember when old flight sims would just crash my computer...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This trend is shifting towards making passengers feel more like dogs in a dog van.. first no liquids (they have "relaxed" to 3oz is okay limit now) which makes people stink.. now this would make the already freaked out FAA ban all electronics.. its insane! Also, if it has been so easy for anyone to play real airplane simulator all this while, its amazing.. what next, banning clothes on planes because [insert insane argument]? already the xray machines get a trailer, so why not the whole movie? nudist plane ride isnt a bad idea..
Yes it is. If the aircraft is flying in auto-pilot mode (which is almost the case in mid-air), that a garbage going in to the navigation system would also result in a garbage out to the elevator control system.
That said, I don't think it's practically possible...those fly by wire system does have checksum, CRC or whatsoever to protect the data. The analog path should really have been limited to the first few millimeter from sensors to the microchip. You are telling me that a bluetooth could affect the system even with that distance (distance from the seat to the electronics)? May be I would buy that idea ONLY if my cell phone ringing next to my USB disk could cause a unrepairable flipped bit, or blue screen.
Every inch of wire in the plane is supposed to be shielded. While they would like you not to use electronics, in particular in old airplanes, there's no reason why an A330 should have any problems.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24463183-661,00.html
http://www.aviation.com/travel/ap-081008-quantas-altitude-drop.html
Notice how these two stories have contradicting points.
Every American flight I've ever been on requests that you keep your seat belt fastened when you're in your seat, and I've been on plenty. They say that specifically to prevent these kinds of accidents. I've also been in some severe turbulence where you'd want to be buckled up because of the way it tosses around hundreds of tons of perfectly functioning airplane. The question for me isn't whether there was electrical interference from consumer products (highly unlikely), but why did so many people have their seatbelt off mid-flight.
A simple directional antenna operating at a few watts from the ground could expose the avionics to many times more RF energy than these low-power devices inside the aircraft.
In other words, if this was really due to RF, then terrorists would be dropping planes out of the sky on a daily basis with $50 worth of equipment and a Pringles can.
Better known as 318230.
This takes clickjacking to a whole new level.
Didn't Mythbusters already disprove this electronic interference myth? Airline companies do it for safety's sake, even though all the important things are already shielded. Qantas just needs a scapegoat.
Option 1 (Airlines are Liars): So the current attitude of fear can be used in such a manner than any defect in design or operation of an airplane can be blamed on something that happens on *every flight* (people using electronics) thus freeing the Airline of responsibility. I just flew this past weekend and in addition to using my laptop to let my toddlers watch a movie (thus not drive me and the other passengers insane), We have all seen dozens on laptops on a two hour domestic flight, I don't fly internationally all that much but I'm guessing there is more of a need on a 6-10 hour flight.
Option 2 (Aircraft makers are Fools): Did you really design a system that a blue tooth mouse can take off course! you do realize people fly in these things right? If this is the case I will avoide Airbus like the plague!
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
How the hell can a *wireless mouse* affect the elevator controls of an aircraft? Are they somehow about a trillion times more susceptible to interference than the electronics in cars? Let's think logically about this for a fucking minute...
You can use a mobile phone in a car, which has damn near every function controlled by some sort of electronics (well, if it was built within the last ten years). Despite this, cars don't routinely have all sorts of weirdass control failures caused by people talking on mobile phones, which may be using an output power of up to a few hundred milliwatts. They are *sometimes* affected by massive sources of very very loud RF, like military RADAR systems - there's a spot of German autobahn known for cars having mysterious electrical failures which clear up when the car is towed a kilometer down the road. No surprises here, there's a big RADAR installation *right by the road*.
"But it's a wireless mouse, using bluetooth!" - okay, so that means it's on 2.4GHz. Fire up your laptop in the car. Weird electrical problems? Nope. Nothing. Right there you're using about 50mW of 2.4GHz RF, maybe up to 100mW depending on the card and local telecoms regulations. Get your bluetooth mouse out. Anything? Probably not - since they transmit in the order of a handful of *microwatts* of RF.
Okay, let's look at the plane - I wonder if it's got any sort of digital radio transmitter on it? Oh, look, a transponder, and that puts out somewhere between 100W and 500W depending on the type. Ah yes, and an ACARS transmitter with at least 5W, possibly as much as 25W, again depending on the type...
So, what are you saying here? Do you seriously expect me to believe that a wireless mouse operating in the microwatt range can affect the avionics of an aircraft, but *somehow* the aircraft's own very high power radio transmitters don't? There's probably more stray RF at 2.4GHz from the galley microwave.
Saying that it was caused by a wireless mouse is unquestionably bollocks.
It's something into which investigators are looking. It's not even a likely cause.
Aircraft system interference from personal electronics has been observed a few times related to navigational signals, but those are weak RF signals from the outside. The control signals for the flight control system go over redundant networks, and there are multiple computers driving them. The Airbus primary and backup control systems are on different kinds of processors with different software in different languages developed by different teams.
I suspect they're looking really hard at the sensors for the pitch damper. Like most large aircraft, the Airbus has an automatic pitch damping system, to keep the tail from oscillating up and down, which is annoying to passengers in the back. An unexplained excursion in pitch will draw attention to that system.
The screen reads "New device found. Device:A310. Start Auto-Configuration?"
If a wireless device could actually bring a plane down do you think they'd just tell you to turn them off? NO! they'd never let you on the plane with one, like a gun.
Planes are unable to be controlled wirelessly. The plunge in altitude of 300 feet was most likely due to a sudden change in air pressure. Its happened before, over thousands of feet, which is much worse. People should keep their seatbelts on. If a wireless mouse can push a plane off course, then that fact would have been exploited. The only thing that could affect the planes direction is if the plane was using radio navigation, rather than gps. And bluetooth mice dont emit a constant, high power set of radiowaves anyway. Its absurd.
I knew a flight attendant named Passenger Electronics once... boy was she good on her knees.
So they take away your nail clippers so you can't stab the pilot, who incidentally is behind a locked steel door, but they will let you keep your plane-destroying bluetooth mouse?!?
Disclaimer: I don't believe a mouse/wireless etc should be able to bring down a plane, but if it can, that's an unbelievably bad engineering job.
Quantas has been in the papers and inordinate number of times this past year for either crashes or near crashes caused by faulty equipment. I seem to recall an incident where a huge hole ripped in the side of the plane because luggage was not strapped in properly in the luggage compartment.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The point that everyone keeps bringing up is that while a consumer electronics device may have done this and if it had Qantas is looking at a more serious problem of properly shielding their critical control lines. Here is a link to the Qantas feed back page. http://qantas.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/qantas.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=I9yrAVfj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=
It's my understanding that all current planes (the last 10 years or so) are built with shielded wiring to prevent that very thing.
This was also discussed on Mythbusters and the same answer was given by the engineer they brought on the show.
SAVAGE/HYNEMAN '08!!!!
Pax Vobiscum
repeates cases where :PEDsa cause in flight 'incidents'.
Most of them don't result in a crash do to redundancy. If a PED, or series of PEDs interferes with the redundant system as well, then the plane may very well change course.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/12776.html
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html
There are many more. I just googled for PED Study.
Repeatable studies have shown interference to the Aircraft from PEDs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The most obvious argument against planes being interfered with by passenger gadgets is the number of planes that don't crash despite flying with mobile phones, computers, handheld consoles, etc. on them.
Just about everyone who's taken a few dozen flights has found afterwards that their phone was on all the time, or watched people use laptops during takeoff and landing, or watched kids play wireless DS games - and so on, everything that's supposedly proscribed.
Multiply that by 300 people on the plane, and it's not hard to guess that on average each flight has multiple violations of what's allowed already. Multiply that by the number of flights that don't crash or have sudden pitch-downs and you can see the risk must be extremely small..
It happens to all Aircraft. There are many documented cases of interference.
Wise up.
Look up PED study
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
EMI is regulated by the governments.. In the US, it's part 15. The FCC is the enforcing body, they never take action unless there's a complaint.
If somebody is making money, or claims that they will, the government is usually unwilling to step in.. just look up BPL.
UL does not test for EMI, it's up to manufacturers... In my experience, they cheat their way thru these tests.. usually by running their device in differnt modes, in a special box, whatever... EMI testing is the last thing to be done, there's no teeth in the enforcement. EMI compliance means nothing to 99.99% of the company's potential customers. So.. They cheat.
I've also got some experience with Immunity testing... checking out devices to see if they'll be interfered with by RF fields. The first time I was involved in this was an eye opening experience.. you put RF currents into things, any diode in an IC becomes a detector, which can lead to DC offsets or low frequency signals showing up. Causing problems! Just take an RF genny, step it way down and couple it into an opamp circuit to see what I mean.
Even if they make an attempt to sheild, I can see ways for problems to occur... If a sheild connection breaks or corrodes, it can let RF in.. a wire not completely bonded to the airframe can pick up RF. Remember the plane is a big tube.. and the RF generators are sitting inside.
I don't know if this Quantas thing was caused by EMI/RFI, but it's bound to happen at some point. I almost hope it is pinned to RFI as it's a nice wakeup call with nobody killed.. think of what would happen if they were landing..
I'm an electrical engineer, and I hate to say it, but fly-by-wire scares the crap out of me.
It's interesting to me that airlines forbid cellphones to be on, but allow laptops... how many business travellers are even aware when their wireless modems are on? Are these puter's trying to set up ad-hoc nets with each other or do they wait for an access point?
This is a distraction technique. This may just be bad luck, it may be something specific to Qantas, it may be something with the Airbus A330, but pinning it on EM emissions by mobile devices seems like a quick way to assure that a real investigation is not done.
In addition, TFA said:
I'm not typed on the Airbus A330. Does anyone who is care to chime in on what 'messages' the A330 could possibly deliver regarding 'irregularities' with the elevator control system? I know nothing about their master caution/warning system.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/
I can't believe no one has posted this yet.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
What I herd was:
Obviously they need to hire a few real engineers rather than just clueless mouth piece. Think about it this way;: The guys laptop, sitting less than a foot away (remember that r^2 EMI power density?), is much better shielded than the multi-million dollar air plane having countless human lives hanging in the balance on a daily basis? Darn, Where is my clue stick hiding these days...
1) "Infrared-colored"?? Ummm, no. How about "infrared-emitting."
2) That being said, IT AIN'T THE INFRARED THAT MATTERS. Read for content: it said wireless. Wireless, in this context, almost certainly means bluetooth. And that ain't infrared, no matter how you slice it (barring, say, relativistic affects when the jet goes mach 100000).
I only fly a 172, but this seems dubious to me.
The altitude of a plane is detected through a tiny-passive pnuematic system. Basically it measures the presure outside and adjusts for a manually set adjustment. The altitude of the the plane is controlled through a big-strong hydraulic system that sits behind an electronic controller that makes well measured choices about controlling the airplane. This controller is very aware of avoiding sudden/abrupt changes at altitude and speed. The idea that the altitude control system would do a sudden jerk on the controls while at altitude and speed, enough to hurt people, ney even enough to spill a drink, is unexpected by me. However, the idea that someone climbing in/out of a pilot/co-pilot seat could bump/fall-on the wheel, that seems possible.
BTW. Sorry for you instant news people, but Most Nations NTSB's are very well diliberated bodies. I would generally ignore anything except a final report on an incident, and those normally take a year. They are very thorough, and generally can be taken at face value, assuming you have the expertise to actually read the report.
assume for the moment that rf interference from passenger electronics is real, and can cause dramatic effects in aircraft telemetry, instrumentation, etc.
then, as a simple matter of prudence, the airline industry must invest in rf shielding technologies for its planes. such shielding represents what amount of financial outlay and is how effective?
if it is shown to be relatively cheap and effective, then build it into airplanes, and shut down this entire argument. because even if rf intereference is eventually proven to be an exceedingly remote phenomenon, the costs of shielding against it, even just in terms of peace of mind, is worth the expenditure. assuming it isn't much money
end of discussion
sure, you can confiscate electronics, but then you are stuck with a bunch of passengers with nothing to do but complain about being away form their umbilical cord. you can strongly punish people for using their electronics, but that won't stop kids from playing their games, the businessman who has to get that email, or devices that they were sure they turned off, but are still chattering away on their own
and if you were phrase this rf interference in terms of terrorism (since that is so popular these days): if you really believe that some guy can bring on board a small rf generator, twiddle with strength and frequency, and cause the aircraft to go into a dive, then the answer to this problem is obviously to be proactive in the design of the plane, not in how passengers are screened
you can have an rf generator with what? some copper coil and a battery? at the strengths we are talking, heck, just use some copper coil and channel some static electricity, that's easy to find on dry aircraft cabin air with lots of rugs. how hard is it to smuggle fine copper wire onto a plane? in your change in your wallet. then loop it around your finger on board, and start rubbing your sneakers on the ground for a static discharge
if you really believe rf interfering with a plane dramtically is real, this scenario can not be protected against, and so the plane must be proactively shielded
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
'The CWLU is used to create a wireless LAN inside the aircraft. Using the same 2.4 GHz direct sequence spread technology, the CWLU provides the wireless LAN between the flight/cabin crew's or passenger's computers and the NSU through the EGU. With the proper authorization, and laptop or personal digital assistant computer outfitted with 802.11b/g wireless LAN capability can gain access to the NSU.'
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FSA.html
^^ that and a windows server is all i need to read to deduce the issue
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikcharlton/348280630/
Just to mention something I had read in a different article, possibly linked to from /.
According to that, wireless devices in fact DO NOT interfere with the airplane, or the control towers at all. The ban on wireless devices while in-flight, are FCC bans, not FAA bans. If I remember correctly, the bans were targeted more towards cellular phones to prevent phones from rapidly jumping from tower to tower while traveling 300+ mph overhead. Which the author concluded wreaked havoc on the communications grid.
Absolutely ridiculous. As if I could load up MS Flight Sim and override the pilots actions and fly the plane myself...
I call shenanigans!
It takes a fairly significant transmit power level and very close proximity for non-receiving equipment to be affected. A cell phone or UHF/VHF walkie-talkie within inches of unshielded electronics might be a problem.
Operating in the same part of the spectrum as 802.11b at 2.4 GHz or so with very low power, it is very doubtful that a bluetooth device could affect anything.
Historically, the concern with passenger electronics operating in aircraft has been interferrence to communications. At least for the U.S., that has generally been at frequencies just above the the F.M. broadcast band. The mostly likely culprits for problems there are consumer F.M. radios.
Superhetrodyne receivers have most of the amplification and channel-separating filtering done at a standardized frequency, then shift the desired incoming signal down to the frequency by mixing it with a signal produced by a tunable oscillator in the receiver. In the case of F.M. broadcast radios, that oscillator makes a signal 10.7 MHz higher in frequency than the channel you're tuned to. So if you're tuned to a channel in the top-half of the FM band, the oscillator is making a signal in the aircraft band. It is easy to show the presence of oscillator signals if you have two FM radios. Take one radio and tune it to a quiet spot or weak signal near the top of the FM band. Listen to that radio. Then take a second FM receiver (volume not up) put it close to the first radio and tune it about 10.7 MHz lower and you should hear the other radio go silent from it. (if using a digital radio, you'll have to settle for 10.6 or 10.8 MHz lower)
The A330 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with extremely modern avionics systems. Those systems are tested for *years* before getting FAA certification. There's a huge amount of microwave and other bands of energy surrounding any major airport. I think some Qantas PR dweeb is talking out of his ass (again).
If Quantas suspects, then Quantas must reproduce the error. Must.
It is nuts to have "voluntary compliance" with passenger systems, and heck, it could all be by accident.
We are warned at each takeoff and landing to shut stuff down: that is a major weakness! Heavens.
Could we really be affecting the plane? How nuts is that.
Which planes if any are succeptical? (sp?)
It wasn't a crash. (Stupid /. filters. Imagine if the comment system controlled airplanes...)
SIG: HUP
My dad was an Air Traffic Controller and casual pilot for many years and now works for the FAA. I asked him this question, "can cellphones really interfere with a plane's instruments", just a few years ago. He told me this story.
He was sitting in a 20-something-seater puddle jumper waiting to taxi out to the runway. The attendant had gone through all of the necessary checks, did the "turn off your portable electronic devices" speech, sat down, and buckled in. They all waited.
A minute or two later, the captain came on over the PA and said: "Hey folks, it looks like we've got someone with a cellphone still on -- can the men check their briefcases and the ladies check their purses and make sure yours is turned off, please? We can't taxi out until they're all off." There was a bit of fumbling as people checked, then more waiting.
The captain came on again: "Folks, I appreciate your patience, but it looks like we may have to deplane if we can't find that cell phone. Can everyone check one more time, please? Your phones need to be completely off, not just in standby mode." Again, there was much fumbling. This time, it was only a few seconds before the captain came back on. "There we go. Thanks everyone, that did it."
The rest of the flight was uneventful, but my dad waited to be the last to deplane and then stopped to chat with the captain. He explained who he was and then asked, basically, if that was for real. The captain gestured to his copilot and said "watch this -- mine doesn't do it, but his does".
The copilot pulled out his cellphone and turned it on. After a few seconds, several of the displays on the instrument panel started to twitch and do loopy things. The copilot switched the phone back off and everything went back to normal.
Long story short (too late!), it may be the case with larger and newer aircraft that the instruments are shielded well enough so that the EM interference isn't an issue. But with at least some aircraft, it apparently is.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/
Sendou Wave Kick!!
Mybusters proved that cellular signals, even those jacked up 20x didn't interfere with ANY instruments in a Cessna, IN FLIGHT. I'm pretty sure that a wireless mouse signal is much more benign than that of a 20x cellular transmitter. There is no way a "Wireless mouse" did this. bah!
I cant get my wireless mouse to work 6 ft from my comp, im supposed to believe a signal from a mouse traveled far enough through a plane to mess w/ steering?
Mythbusters dispelled it! http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=432956
I wireless mouse button click caused the plane to go off course and laptop caused another plane to suddenly drop 300ft. Sounds fishy to me, if not I'll never fly Qantas ever. How does 74 people get injured in a 300ft drop in altitude? Don't they require seat belts on Qantas flights?
Was this plane, by chance, flying over the Pacific between Sydney and Austrilia? If so, I blame DHARMA.
As someone else said they are "fly by wire" not "fly by wireless" and a blue tooth mouse will NOT interfere with GPS signals. Used to work for an airline, cell phones, wireless etc has never REALLY caused interference. Think about how much RF is EVERYWHERE you really think you .5 watt transmitter in your pocket will add anything to it???? They had the no cell phone rules to A. Make money off the $1 a minute air phones and 2. keep people from annoying everyone.
There is some other issue, but an unknown issue is far more scary to the public than, oh there was some interference with those devices we been telling you for years cause interference.
s/world/water/
If there is no sourceforge project or metasploit package that lets me become the backseat driver for a commercial airliner (and there isn't, I checked), then this claim by the Airline Company is 100% pure bullsh*t.
... yeah, 'inconceivable'
But clearly you have something better to say...
If it was true, planes would be crashing every hour.
Airbus will not "take over", but it will clamp what it sees as out-of-range inputs.
The crash you are thinking of it the Habsheim one, where Airbus was doing a very low, slow pass in front of the crowd over a runway that was actually too short for it to use. The pilot was actually using the behaviour you describe: he had told the plane to go very slow and was depending on the software to keep it above stalling speed - which it did. But he was flying below tree height - and the software could not see the trees. The pilot forgot that the engines take 10 seconds to spool up from the low power used in near-stall to enough power to climb above the trees. So when he ordered climb power and nose up, the software refused to try to climb until the engines were delivering enough power to do so safely. Unfortunately, by this time the aircraft had hit the trees.
Basically, the pilot had flown into a very wide, shallow hole, and didn't have the power to climb out. A classic case of software-induced complacency. The software performed exactly according to the spec. Whether the spec was right is another question.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Thank the Gods he wasn't playing Diablo.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I mean, it caused a train wreck in the US, because the engineer was texting while driving.
Obviously, the cell phone's fault.
Maybe Qantas' pilots were doing the same?
Obviously, the cell phone's fault.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Last winter I was flying back from seeing my family, and I happened to be seated next to an engineer who actually did work in airplane construction. He told me that the whole electronic interference was just the FAA being afraid of their own shadow and not understanding anything about it. This is the same trip I had fun trying to text from my cell phone mid flight (doesn't work very well, by the way), and our plane landed just fine.
For a plane to suddenly change altitude enough to throw people around the cabin, the wings had to stop acting as aerofoils. That happens due to very big, powerful vortices in the surrounding air - not due to 10-20% of the aerofoil's surface tipping as it does as a normal part of its operation.
This was nobody's fault - it is the nature of an aeroplane - the insurance company will just have to pay out.
I sorry Qantas but Myth Busters busted that little myth wide open. It is pure and utter BULLSHIT. Losers. Maybe they should investigate their pilots. Oh wait, then they might get SUED.
If a wireless mouse can bring down an airplane, I seriously want one of them. I can barely get my mouse more than 2 feet from the receiver before it loses the signal.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
So I don't think wireless equipment was to blame.
Oddly enough, my experience was also on a route to Perth, only it was on a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong.
It was a sunny and mostly cloudless day and we were flying over the Indian Ocean. Suddenly, the "fasten seatbelts" light popped on and we had a couple of turbulence bumps.
The the plane just dropped out the sky without diving at all. It was like we'd flown into a vacuum. Everything that was unattached suddenly went into freefall; the guy in front of me jerked his hand up reflexively and a strand of beer flew out of it and then hung in the air for a second in globs of beer.
Then the plane suddenly resumed normal flight with a massive thump and a sudden roar of engines. Everything hanging in the air crashed down onto the seats or the floor, including anyone who had been standing up.
The entire cabin screamed in terror. After about ten seconds, the pilot came on the intercom and said something about excessive turbulence. He sounded scared, which is a tone you never want to hear in a pilot's voice.
The rest of the flight passed without any other event and I have never experienced anything like that since, although I fly a lot.
I have no idea what the heck it was - I don't see how a downdraft that strong could form over the sea on a clear day. But it almost scared the shit out of me.
Anyone else notice that the website that posted the story won an award for "Best News Website" at the "Quantas Media Awards 2008"! Suspicious?
Reminds of a Simpsons episode when they're flying to Japan.
.
(Bart's playing on the Simpsons equivalent of a Game Boy)
Stewardess: You'll have to turn that off.
Bart grumbles: You're a waitress.
(Turns it off. plane promptly nose dives)
Stewerdess: TURN IT ON! TURN IT ON!
(Turns it back on, plane flies normal)
Elesctrostatic buildup from artificial fibres ought to be much stronger and broadband, emi-wise, than a poor little mouse. Er, moose.
The danger from hostesses 'moving' too much as they walk up and down the aisles, and the electrostatic buildup from clothing being retransmitted en-masse through the RFID chips imbedded in their SLav-Mart uniforms... well, that could be really catastrophic. It's amazing it hasn't happened yet! Whole mainframes in the '70s died for much less.
However, I think the terrorist threat from regular clothing is ludicrous. Muslims are obliged to keep their bodies covered, after all.
But the danger from female flight attendants' attire + movement is real and immediate! Serious legislation must be passed immediately to uncover this security breach!
Er..., on to you, Bob.
Personal electronics do not produce any kind of radiation powerful enough to mess with a single engine prop. let alone jumbojet. I've been a pilot for several years now. I part of my "situational awareness" gear includes a bluetooth GPS, XM band weather reciever (also uses bluetooth) and a tablet PC all connected to a 600Watt inverter connected to the planes 24v power rails. With all my gear on and operating at full power my MAGNETIC compass is only off by at most 3 degrees. My TWO GPS receivers and other radios are far more accurate. This blaming personal electronics is a large load of donky crap! see below for more details on what I use. http://www.anywheremap.com/detail.aspx?ID=93
So with a bit of digging, the wireless mouse was blamed on a boeing 747 flight. The plane turned with three degrees of bank. I couldn't find the actual report of the incident on Australia's Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government site.
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
I often know when my cell phone is going to ring before it actually rings. Right before my phone starts playing its ring tone, my CRT distorts and flickers a bit. I can certainly see how cell phones can affect super sensitive avionics. This isn't a Toyota we're talking about here.
"Certainly in our discussions with passengers that is exactly the sort of question we will be asking - 'Were you using a computer?'," The Courier Mail quoted an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) spokesman as saying.
The ATSB said the pilots received messages about "some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system", before the plane climbed 300 feet and then nosedived.
"The aircraft is then reported to have abruptly pitched nose down," the director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walsh said.
Say, here's a thought: Suppose we believe that the terrorists want to eat our babies, hate our freedom, and are otherwise evil just for kicks. Or suppose we're just reasonably security conscious, and aware that there are a few nutjobs with money out there. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the susceptibility of flight control systems to intentional EMF than we are about who might be causing incidental EMF?
If this really is a risk, consider what a nutjob could do on final approach, when the plane is only a few hundred feet above rooftops and skipping between wind-sheer eddies.
Now I completely understand that using hydraulic linkages or adding shielding to electronic control systems would add weight and reduce effective hauling capacity. But wouldn't that be a reasonable tradeoff if unintentional EMF can cause the elevator to jump wildly?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You can only do this with Fly-By-Wire.
Airbus started the trend in transport aircraft with the A320. I don't remember how many aircraft after that have been developed.
Boeing waited longer due to philosophical differences on how airplanes should be controlled. The 777 and 787 are the only Boeing planes with FBW. You can buy a brand new 737 or 747 today and you still get mechanical controls, with an electronic stick vibrator to warn you when you are doing something bad for the plane.
You're a retard. You fail RF design, go directly to business school, do not take the PE exam, do not pretend to be an engineer. It should be fairly obvious that A) the transmiting antennas on the aircraft are outside of the fuselage, work on discrete frequencies, and are well characterized. B) The galley microwave is very well characterized C) Aircraft certified under part 23 rules are explicitly designed to and tested against interference from those systems.
Is the laptop's bluetooth transmitter a class A, B or C device? Can you tell me, definitely, that there is no way that the cabin and seating and wiring do not reflect radiation to focus it at any vulnerable spot?
It's possible, though very unlikely, that the bluetooth connection affected the flight controls. It's the same as a cellphone. People say "there's no way a cellphone could interfere with an aircraft" but when their damn cellphone gets a message, the speakers next to their computer buzz. . BTW, RTFA, it's not the "airlines blaming a bluetooth mouse", it's the australian version of TC investigating that among many other possibilities. You're a fucking retard
I was on a Quantas flight to Australia in 2004, and the security announcements were refreshingly straightforward. None of the American nonsense scripts that have nothing to do with reality.
Here are some of the things they said:
- Turn your stuff off. It won't crash the plane, it just distracts you from the safety brief.
- Your cell phones might just work in the air. And no, they probably won't crash the plane. Even pilots have been known to make a call or two before landing. But it confuses the heck out of the cell towers, and wastes your battery trying to figure out which one to talk to. So shut it off, thanks.
- Leave your stuff behind if we evacuate. You don't want your neighbor scrambling for his stuff and keeping you from getting out of the airplane, do you?
- If those yellow masks drop down, it's because we lost cabin pressure. If that happens, you have something like 10 seconds before you pass out from lack of oxygen. Now, what makes more sense: try to get the mask on your panicky kid as you both pass out, or put it on yourself FIRST, and being awake to help your kid?
- Wear your seat belts. All the time. Almost every day, some plane somewhere hits an unexpected wind gust, and we really don't want to wipe your blood off the overhead bins, thanks.
Very refreshing, and I've never forgotten the reality behind the script.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
If the screen lights up with "merde Merde MERDE!", the computer is probably right.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
A while back I was on a plane, ready for takeoff. Staff was just going through their normal safety instructions when a phone went off.
In a stewardess' pocket.
If a plane can't accept basic human failure I will start worrying.
BTW; wasn't there a Dilbert once with the PHB flying the plane by spreadsheet? :-)
Insert
Airbus has had numerous problems with software that, by design, decides the pilot is doing the wrong thing and overrides his inputs. The Airbus is not capable of doing the same barrel roll that the 707 did on its first public display about fifty years ago.
How would the public react if it was known that the departures from controlled flight were due to software bugs that could not be located and corrected? Who would want to make sure that didn't get out - aside from everyone involved?
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Meh..Any gamer will tell you that to fly you need a good joystick. I wonder what the flight attendants would think if they say me setting up a wireless gaming joystick on the tray in front of me. http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=74920&om_keycode=4
I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
Some thoughts. I was working with a company testing military gear I designed. They put it in a test chamber and exposed it to a Mil Std test of RF external radiation. They commented they had tested a Volvo the week before and it had failed (wipers turned on). This was 15 years ago. They commented this was important as cars often drive close to AM-FM-TV station transmitters where 100s of kilowatts of RF are being emitted. Airplanes must occasionally fly near broadcast stations. They also need to be able to survive lightning strikes. Something like a wireless mouse, which must be quite low power to have long battery life, should have no effect. Do they ever observe problems on taxiing after landing when 100 plus folks turn on their cell phones? I assume fly by wire systems use digital signals with checksums and other forms of redundency to minimize this possiblity. Another advantage of fly by wire systems is that if the pilot needs to make an evasive maneuver, she can shove the control all the way over as the computer will only move the control surface as much as the plane can safely handle. With a manual system the pilot may not use as drastic a maneuver for fear of crashing the plane.
These are jet aircraft. They are enormously powerful aircraft with sufficient redundant power to deal with multiple engine failures. So, with all the engines on, you've got some zoom zoom if you want it. Remember that these things are derived from military bombers in design and as such even these big planes can do things that old Mustang prop aircraft would only dream of.
In fact, let's look at an A300 vs a P-51 Mustang... Mustang we think of as an agile fighter, the A300 as a lumberer. But... numbers tell the story. The Airbus, and really any modern commercial jet, will have a higher cruising speed, a higher climb rate, and better power to weight ratio than any world war II fighter aircraft.
So you yeah, in theory, you could quite literally g-loc your passengers, etc... that's why having the reinforced doors is the preferred anti-terrorism weapon. If you are a pilot with a terrorist banging on your door with a steakknife, all ya gotta do is push the stick foward and back and flatten the guy on the ceiling and then floor of the plane. You could quite literally kill the guy.
This is my sig.
Yes like a couple of years back when Ford blamed Firestone for explorers that where rolling over when a tire burst. Despite the fact that there were pathfinders and other SUVs with the same tires that didn't roll over even when the tires burst.
With an Airbus Fly-By-Wire aircraft, or really any FBW aircraft system, you never had control in the first place. The computer takes your inputs, divines your intentions, and based on the operational envelope of the plane, attempts to control the plane in a similar way that won't endanger it.
There is a debate in aircraft control circles about how explicit a FBW system should react to commands. You could make them totally explicit where they are really no different than manual controls (this would allow you to do anything, even just stupidly dangerous), or you can make them completely autonomous where they try more to divine your intentions and make the plane react similarly (in this case the plane might not allow you to do something even moderately dangerous that could be necessary at the time). Airbus seems to lean towards the latter, Boeing towards the former.
The incident you refer to is Air France flight 296. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 There is a controversy surrounding it, but I have read somewhere that most aviation experts believe the FBW system got stuck in "Landing" mode and wouldn't switch to what it should have interpreted as a take off-go around command.
You are correct about Boeing planes before the 777, they are all manual controls with stick shakers. The 777 and probably all future planes including the 787 will be FBW. They will shake their stick at you when you are doing something dangerous, but they will also probably not allow you to do something dangerously stupid just as Airbus does to a varying degree.
A wireless mouse is a low-power sender. It has to be, after all it is designed to operate right next to a computer and not causing any glitches in it. A dramatic change of altitude is not a standard manouvre. You cannot cause it by intefereing with navigation or radio communication. In fact, there is likely no way you can create it electronically without crashing some systems. Now, airplane electronics can operate in significant electronic noise. Overflying a modern city would otherwise be extremely risky. In addition, about one layer of tinfoil is enough to weaken the signals from a wireless mouse to the level where they cannot influence even consumer-grade electronics. Incidentially, the same is true for mobile phones.
I would say, if this explanation is correct, then criminal neglience in the design of that aircraft is a certainity. On the other hand, if something else is to blame, the question why only Quantas seems to be affected comes to mind. Maybe they have some systematic problem with their jet customisation or their flight crews that they want to hide?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The news article says Australian Traffic Board safety investigators are checking whether passenger use of electronic devices could have been related to the accident. It didn't say Qantas claimed anything.
Does anyone seriously think the ATB should *not* investigate that?
I wonder about this sort of journalism.
And now you finally post your sources, after 4 or 5 other posts that were basically flamebait. If you had done this in your first post on this topic, maybe the rest of us wouldn't have dismissed you as the raving loony you appeared to be. Earlier I googled "PED study" like you said and got results about pediatric studies. For someone that raves against geeks and their ignoring evidence, you could have posted some relevant information much, much earlier and *then* if it was ignored you might have looked credible.
The focus on the investigation is on the aircraft computer system, not laptops.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10536760
That liquid bomb plot was complete BS.
"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," says Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray
In A.D. 1994, war was beginning:
In 1994, Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed started testing airport security. Yousef booked a flight between Kai Tak International Airport in Hong Kong and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport near Taipei. Mohammed booked a flight between Ninoy Aquino International Airport near Manila and Kimpo International Airport near Seoul.
The two had already converted fourteen bottles of contact lens solution into bottles containing nitroglycerin, which was readily available in the Philippines. Yousef had taped to the arch of his foot a metal rod, which would serve as a detonator. The two wore jewelry and clothing with metal to confuse airport security. To support their claim that they were meeting women, they packed condoms in their bags.
[...]
On December 1, Shah placed a bomb under a seat in the Greenbelt Theatre in Manila to test what would happen if a bomb exploded under an airline seat. The bomb went off, injuring several patrons.
On December 11, 1994, Yousef built another bomb, which had one tenth of the power that his final bombs were planned to have, in the lavatory of an aircraft. He left it inside the life jacket under his seat (26 K) and got off the plane when it arrived in Cebu. Yousef had boarded the flight under the assumed name of Armaldo Forlani, using a false Italian passport. The aircraft was Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on a Manila to Narita route, stopping partway at Cebu. Yousef had set the timer for four hours after he got off the aircraft. The bomb exploded while the aircraft was over Minami Daito Island, near Okinawa, Japan. A Japanese businessman named Haruki Ikegami was killed after the bomb detonated. The Boeing 747-200 safely made an emergency landing in Naha, Okinawa. None of the aircraft's other 272 passengers or any members of the crew were killed, although 10 passengers in front of Ikegami were injured. Yousef then planned which flights to attack for Phase I.
For people who claim to be technical-minded, Slashdotters are remarkably ignorant of the effective use of technology.
The idea of using liquid explosives is not to set up a chemistry lab on the plane, but to smuggle the explosive on board more easily. The biggest problem with bombing a plane has always been the explosive itself. A detonator (and timer, if desired) is easy to conceal on its own, but the explosive is somewhat more difficult. Storing the explosive shared among several bottles and assembling the bomb on board is a quite effective strategy.
I just got confiscated my aftershave and shampoo, because fluids are not allowed. Apparently they were above the maximum allowed capacity of 200ml. So next time you want to make a bomb, bring several small containers.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I used to fly more frequently, now I am so fed up that I avoid it if I possibly can.
I do think, moreover, that all this paranoia about cellphones and other thingies is ludicrous. All military aircraft, combat and non combat, have been designed to work in a tactical nuclear exchange environment, which would probably fry any Ipod or nokia you can think of: and any time the systems act up on my civilian aircraft, which by the way has been designed very recently, someone blames Phones, Nintendos and such. Come off it, please, I do not think that, with the cold war over, there was a particular shortage of engineering skills in that particular field.
Consider this:
First production of the F-16 Falcon: 1976
First production of the Airbus A 320: 1988
Both use "fly by wire" controls, i.e. all control surfaces are controlled electronically; It's true that it was unlikely that a fighter pilot would fly his plane, use a mobile and play on his nintendo DS at the same time, but 10 years of technology go far.
P.S: a small pet peeve: at Stansted airport, near London, they don't allow anybody to bring umbrellas on board; since it's impossible to stow them in the luggage, thay have become expendable items...I had an idea where to put them, the first time a prim officer told me I could not bring it aboard tough.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
http://www.heise.de/ct/schlagseite/03/01/gross.jpg
Auto configure ?
RTFA ! Quantas is INVESTIGATING, it is PROBING !
I was on an America West flight a few years ago which was an Airbus (A320 I think?). Anyway we were flying along just fine, no turbulence or anything. All the sudden we drop like a rock out of the sky for about 4 seconds. People gasp outloud. I saw the wing speed brakes were deployed, so it wasn't turbulence we hit. Now my uncle is a captain for another airlines and I've taken ground school so I know a little about planes. When I asked about it, the copilot told me later that the autopilot made some kind of "correction". I had the sense it was a BS response, either he didn't know or didn't want to say what happened. This is just anecdotal and I'm no aerospace engineer, but my gut tells me maybe their autopilot software is goofy. Normally I wouldn't reply but this sounds like the same thing that happened on my flight, just not as extreme (but just as scary). I have a hard time believing something that has to withstand lightening strikes would be affected by a bluetooth.
Makes me think of Superman Returns where Loise is thrown all around the cabin and yet she walks out perfectly aright without so much as a bruise. As for whether interference could cause those problems - i would expect that all important components would be shielded and the control system of the plane to be not wirelessly dependent. If interference was actually the cause it makes me think that some sort of system should be put in and turned on for normal flying which would override "commands" that would create such a severe acceleration. Of couse that would be pilot overrideable for landing as such, but it would prevent some sort of accidental stray signal from causing everyone to fly out of their seat.
Yes, the flight crew can be receiving updated WX and MGL numbers at the gate and on the taxiway, but that info is not something which would typically cause any flight delay, and it certainly isn't something automagically handled by the avionics onboard.
Background: I spent over a decade working on the Weather and MGL/Gross Weights ground systems at a major red-tailed US airline which handled most of the ACARS traffic to/from that airline's aircraft. Some of the stuff I dealt with included weather reporting and alerting (SA/METAR, FT/TAF, TWIP/Microburst Alerts, Turbulence Plot messages, NOTAMS, etc.), aircraft fuel on board (FOB) validation, takeoff and landing performance data including the optimal flap and thrust settings used for reduced thrust (FLEX) takeoffs, etc.
The ACARS terminals we used had a small text screen roughly 16 lines x 22 columns in size (the specific ACARS terminals and screen sizes tended to vary some by aircraft type), and the pilots were able to interactively request all of the above information in the event that an automatically generated message or alert was not received. They could also send and received freetext messages, and of course they also might have radio contact with their assigned flight dispatcher.
All of the operationally-related ACARS information was received and interpreted by the flight crew, and were not automagically handled by avionics. In addition, the same messages were cross-checked by both the flight crew and the flight dispatcher assigned to that flight (who received a copy in real-time of the same messages sent to the a/c via ACARS), and any issues with the data were dealt with well before the a/c started its takeoff roll. They mgiht be requesting WX and/or MGL updates while taxiing, but you can believe that they already have fairly accurate information well before that point.
ACARS messages provide additional information and advice to the flight crew, but the flight crew is ultimately responsible for doing some basic sanity checking on the numbers provided, and any changes to the a/c's takeoff or landing procedures are initiated by the flight crew, not by some automatic system.
Some automated ACARS traffic is processed, but those things are limited to things like automated Fuel reports on some aircraft (e.g., A320/A330), and various engine performance reports that can be interactively obtained by the performance engineering folks while the a/c is still in flight (they can request an engine status report enroute via ACARS, which then gets send to them via ACARS, and proactively notify the folks at the destination airport that some form of adjustment is required on landing).
Other airlines may vary. Also, my information may be somewhat out of date as I failed Axe Dodging 101 just after 9/11 and haven't worked in the flight operations area since leaving the airline. I still work on airline software, just not in flight ops. :-)
Hope this helps...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Hmm does this mean that you can apply the "Riker Maneuver" with a wifi mouse on Quantas flights?
I have a Logitech G9 mouse. It uses USB. When I set down my Blackberry near the cable and I get an incoming call, my PC receives "down scroll" signal for about 5 seconds. Every time. Call it a design flaw in one or both devices, but I have no problem whatsoever believing that RF devices can interfere with wired electronics in unpredictable and highly unusual ways.
IEEE Spectrum had an interesting article exploring this problem a few years ago. They have it online (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3069). The author worked on aircraft EM compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center (and was active in the IEEE's EM Compatibility Society), and did the research as part of his doctoral research at Carnegie Mellon. It's a pretty interesting read that some might find a bit surprising.
Quantas is like the Paraguan local bus service: only worse.
It has won dubious awards for its worst service and worser aircraft maintenance.
There are numerous cases of courts awarding fines against quantas in favor of customers screwed in both holes by it.
Now it is trying to escape liability by blaming it on something else.
People has used iPods, mouses, laptops for over a decade now.
If nothing happened so far, then nothing shd happen now.
Dumbass quantas.
It should be criminally convicted for malicious intent to attempt murder and shd be dismembered.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Finally, a company admitting inferior hardware/software in their planes. Time to get the government involved to NOT limit what passengers can take on, but rather GROUND the airline for flying a safety hazard. They admitted it. Ground them. See how long it takes for them to retract the statement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
how many signals do they fly threw every day? How much extra solar radiation and solar junk hits the plane?
Ask the pilot...do you know how irritating it can be to have a wireless mouse in the cockpit?
So apparently they are also making the bold claim that no one uses electronic devices on any other airline except theirs. I mean coincidence their negligence leads to "interference" while no other companies are making this claim nor having sudden drops in altitude.
If aircraft were truly sensitive to small (.1W) RF devices in the cabin, then the ground within 20 miles of every radio and TV broadcast antenna (5-25kW) would be littered with crashed airliners. Jeez people are clueless when it comes to RF.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I remember the episode. Their experts said that only older small planes were susceptible to electronic interference. Modern passenger jets should not even remotely be so.
If they were, wouldn't the tons of electronic noise around the airports cause far more problems than a low powered device in the plane?
Since I'm a EE doing industrial controls. I decide to do a quick check on the wireless laser mouse from Logitech I take with me everywhere.
I found the compliance certificate for the mentioned 2.4 GHz cordless mouse to be certified by the test result done by one MET laboratories, Inc. out of Baltimore, MD.
Based on the certificate, my wireless mouse put out 0.00016 Watts, in the frequency range of 2402.0-2479.0 MHz, with a frequency Tolerance of 66.0 PM. The FCC Emission Designator is 750KF1D (you probably knows which model I have by now). It also says that the mouse confirms to the CFR title 47, FCC part 15C rule for the low power transceiver. Oh did I mention it is also UL listed?
Based on my understanding the electrical equipments were sent to the lab, put in a faraday cage, and measure the amount of EMR they produced, as a stand-alone package (with everything assembled). I don't think the rules has changed that much through out the time. I sincerely doubt a 0.00016 watts of emission is going to have any chance of causing ANY interference on a typical wires. A wire with even the minimum amount of shielding (can be achieved by a very thin layer of grounded metallic shield over the insulators) would guarenteed that the mouse mentioned above would be in no way, shape, or form, cause any interference to be concerned of.
Run another check on the power rating of the device. It is rated to use 3V, 100mA power. So even if my mouse went bezerk and somehow using all the power to transmitt the radio frequency on its transceiver it would still produce a maximum of .3 watts (at a voltage of mere 3 volts), it still could not induce enough power to effect the signals on any hard-wired controls.
In the past I have seen a bundled 110 VAC wires inducing 12VAC on a pair of unpowered wires in the same cable way (they are wired to something but the power was killed). But at 3 volts DC it is far too low on the voltage level to induce anything significant to a hardwire controls that was supposed to have a lot higher voltage on the signals than the wireless mouse. Hopefully that was enough to debunk the "fly-by-mouse" theory.
And I'll handle the bras. To make sure they aren't tampered with before inspection it'll be crucial that I remove them directly from the passengers. I think I'll have my hands full with this job.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/nightmare-at-twenty-thousand-feet/
You are on the right track, but your solution lacks refinement...
Although clothing-free flights might be pleasant for the under thirty crowd (some anyway) us older peeps think a nice Tyvek body suit would be more practical... and more pleasant... for all concerned.
The way I see it getting on a plane should be like getting sent up. Changing room, shower, cavity search (or fluoroscope) and a jumpsuit. Okay.. not orange. There are marketing concerns. Pink for girlz and blue for boyz. Carry-on? Are ya kidding? Actually, all luggage is flown by drones the day before. For a few rubles extra it's at your destination when you get there. All in-flight computer activity is via the cloud. The Cloud's cloud (TM). Lunch? Blueberry yogurt for the boyz and strawberry for the girls. I also think we should get a free sleeping pill. You still with me? A blue one for the Boyz and a pink one for the girlz. And who needs a restroom when you could stuff a few more seats in? Besides, a situation with people moving around the cabin is insecure. REMAIN SEATED. What do you have against Dependz? Yup. You got it. Blue ones for the boyz, pink ones for the girlz.
Have a nice flight. Me? I'm driving.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Do the terrorists know that all they have to do to crash a plane is bring in a small transmitter that will override the aircrafts avionics?
Why were the systems not designed safer? My TV, radio, blue tooth devices, and computers are all required to operate properly when they are being interfered with by another device, why were planes not designed to the same standard that is required of consumer electronics?
if the low levels of RF radiated by consumer electronics is capable of causing a modern plane problems then it points to a few major F**Kups by the engineers , Cars have to withstand interference
without screwing up so why are planes allowed to fly with such major design floors next thing we know TV transmitters will be automatically turned of as planes fly by .
as has been said by another poster
>Any system that can't deal with weak RF interference needs to hit the scrapheap. In any other industry, we'd see the customers suing
So Boeing et al can build a military aircraft that can fly by wire while withstanding all sorts of much-higher-power deliberate jamming attempts by the enemy, but their commercial craft are supposedly susceptible to major interference from a passenger's bluetooth headset?
Um. No. Nice try, Quantas.
"This seems like a rather dangerous way to go about finding the real cause. They are assuming the cause, and now looking for proof."
My computer blue screened. What could cause that?
Much research has been done in this area and it is nearly impossible to generate enough power to effect the electrical systems. Myth busters even did and episode on this and was unable to produce any positive results. I notice that the airlines own seatback phone systems and cabin microwaves aren't being removed. This is either un-educated fear or veiled attempt to kill the competition (your phone).
If you read the article Qantas is not claiming anything. It's just a line of investigation the ATSB is following. C'mon CmdrTaco, lift your game. On the other hand, this is /. so what do I expect.
In the UK, they have TV detector vans that drive around to find unlicensed televisions, and the detectors locate unlicensed TV receivers from the RF they produce.
The vans are a hoax. Even the bbc describes them as 'a deterrent'.
As far as I could find, evidence from a 'detector van' has NEVER been used in court.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
And the Sim became a little too real.
And, that being said, I forgot to mention the whole "light not penetrating solid objects" comment. Funny -- I kinda thought that's what, say, windows, windshields, glass bricks, bottles (glass and plastic), quartz, diamond (the solidest [sic] object out there), etc. do with grace and elan. And mind, that's only *visible* light; at what point do you stop calling certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum "light?" 'Cause, if your definition is flexible enough, you can have parts of it pass through all *sorts* of "solid objects," including those very, very opaque to visible light (e.g., far infrared -- almost certainly in the vast majority of people's definitions of "light" -- does that for many things).
Just another two cents' worth...
This story on the same news site seems a lot more level headed on the subject...
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
One possibility is that really, this sort of thing happens all the time, but because Quantas have been in the news recently there's a self-perpetuating reporting of near-misses.
Stuff happens... And sometimes a lot of it happens within a short space of time. That's probability for you.
And finally, is there someone in maintainence with a grudge..?
Perhaps this is overly paranoid, but it seems
When it comes to a wired system and something goes wrong, it could be hardware noise, it could be programming bugs.
Nine times out of ten you'd have to place your money on a firmware fault.
(And I'm not casting aspersions on firmware engineers, myself included).
At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck "Blimey!"
of a freeze-dried throng of thongs?
(or, are you talking about flip-flop thongs?)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That a underwear-based hard-on (pull-handle) explosion could be hard on the passengers?
What kind of euphemisms could Quantas pull in that circumstance (or, Sir cum stance)? Precipitous Jet Stream? Unplanned Nozzle Spray? Atmospheric Thickening? Oxygen-Depleting Misting Effect?
Will this be a sit-tuation of begging "Pray, Tell" or "Prey-Tail"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I hear you. I took my pilot's license in the early 80's, in the days before cell phones, but even back then my instructor used to warn me about using any kind of portable electronic device (Walkmans mostly in those days of yore), and looking back now I think it must have been because of uncertainty about how poorly-shielded nav and comm equipment in the training birds (Cessna 152's) would react to any kind of interference, even negligible. I've written a long, rambling post about my experiences working at Miami International in those days, and I could write an equally long one one about my experiences as a wet-behind-the-ears student pilot (every pilot has a wealth of flying stories), but I'll spare you, and tell you one related to this incident.
The Qantas incident brings to mind something that happened to my instructor Al, after he got a job with a cargo airline flying between Florida, the Caribbean, and South America. He was a co-pilot on a DC-6 (an old 4-engined propeller aircraft, for those who don't know), and one night happened to be in Puerto Rico doing a drop-off and pick-up. He was standing on the ramp with the captain, watching the handlers loading crates aboard the aircraft while the captain checked them off on the manifest, when he noticed the captain turn as pale as a sheet and started to goggle at one of the pages. Turns out that the handlers had just loaded into the belly hold, right beneath the electronics bay, a number of crates containing......6,000 lbs of magnets. After both of them gazed at each other in astonishment, the captain ordered the crates removed from the aircraft, and had to be physically restrained from attacking the shipper's rep when the latter refused. The guy was exasperated that no air cargo op would take his perfectly legitimate load of magnets and wondered why the pilots were being so "silly" as to refuse good money. The eventually ditched the magnets, but everybody was pissed at the end of the wrangling over it.
Al was still shaking his head in wonderment when he told me the story a couple weeks later in Miami: "Three tons of magnets under the nav equipment. Over water. At night. I should have let him kill the fucker."
when I was looking into radio astronomy a while back, one issue with the C band 2 ghz/water band dishes is the radar from passing aircraft. Apparently the aircraft radar ranging system uses a 2 ghz frequency. If you look at the University of Indianapolis Radio astronomy webpage, they have samples of signals around this frequency causing interference on the ground. While I'm not sure if emitting this kind of signal at the level of the plane would have any effect, it definitely deserves consideration.
This is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard...do modern cars swerve and crash near wireless hot spots because wireless signals interferes with the cars wired electrical systems? Do ATMs spit out random amounts of money if you use your mobile while getting cash out? Do elevators craash because someone inside sent a text message?
Low power electronics and wireless signals can not interfere with wired systems - and passenger aircraft have kilometres of wires through them. Even if on the freak glitch that they do, the aircrafts computer checks the aircrafts status dozens of times a second and should recognize and correct glitches.
They can (barely) interfere with radio systems which are use for both communication and navigation, though the interference is completely miniscule and there is no way it can danger the flights safety. The aircraft have multiple navigation systems like radio beacons on completely different radio bands, Inertial Navigation Systems, GPS, and even the mandotory map/compass/timepiece.
In 1989 while on a plane in flight to Japan I watched the cabin crew verify that taking a picture with a camera caused the plane to
noticeably bounce. It was repeatable.
Since some airlines are already offering wifi service in-flight, this seems a little sketchy on the surface.
I doubt highly that the aircraft's control systems could have been affected by a wifi beacon signal.
If that's the case, airbus has some splainin' to do.
They're using their grammar skills there.
If they were flying FRO - Flight Rules Only (I think it's called) due to fog or heavy weather conditions, they may have had autopilot enabled. The aircraft might get its altitude data from radar operating on the same frequency from 802.11g wireless.
I was an a Swiss international flight, and prior to an international stop, the crew took these 2"x2" square signs that said occupied and had a 2"sharp pin attached to them and stabbed them into the headrests of passengers continuing to the final destination:)
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Alright...fly me to Havana or I'll click my Bluetooth mouse!
I have personally seen interference between aircraft controls and a wireless mouse! Whenever a colleague flew his remote control helicopter it would prevent another persons wireless mouse from working. So it seems perfectly plausible that a wireless mouse could affect a jet!
The NZ Herald is quoting the Courier Mail (a Brisbane Australia paper) quoting an unnamed "ATSB spokesman". Oh please! The level of technical filtering ability displayed by the Courier Mail barely registers, even in their tech section.
I'll defer to professional investigators who, not surprisingly, have officially said nothing about electronic devices on-board. I'm sure they'll ask as a matter of routine about transmitters, phones etc. and get a series of vague hand-wavey answers. You can be _very_ sure they'll be looking harder for a concrete elevator system failure and/or control system glitch, or atmospheric condition. Heck, they might even use "evidence".
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_40b.aspx
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
So if this is the problem, why only Qantas? I just came from an Airbus 320 with my eeePC and iPod and it managed to actually stay airborn and in one piece. Qantas' planes have been falling apart in the air the past few months, I don't see how losing a cargo-bay door in mid-flight just a few weeks earlier allows you to blame WIFI with any credibility.
And First/Business always gets metal cutlery (and glassware).
you had me at #!
wrong
What's different about Quantas Airbus planes and all others?
there...
A330-300 was trying to liven-up and live up to its namesake, hence (hints-hints) the 300-foot climb? And, 330-300=30... seconds to spare? Or, seconds left to SPEAR everyone with crash shrapnel...). I wonder if Quantas would care to QUANTIFY things... Clear the air, so-to-speak.... Not trying to make "light" of the situation...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Seems to be this one:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/pdf/aws250708.pdf
"During the cruise, the aircraft commenced to bank with about three degrees angle of bank. A passenger was using a wireless mouse and this is suspected to have caused the oscillations. "
This was on a Boeing 747 over the Southern Indian Ocean (if my use of Google is to be trusted).
Unfortunately the one line in a PDF doesn't say much, beyond "ATSB investigation: No".
For the same reason you don't connect the LHC to the internet or Nuclear Launch Facilities to the Internet.
Now, of course, if it could interfere with the altitude sensor (which could either be mechanical or GPS based), who's the bozo programmer of the autopilot program that allowed it to "autocorrect" a "change in atitude" at a speed that could very easily kill, maim, or otherwise be dangerous. That being said, while my bluetooth mouse can control my computer from across the room and I have two receivers with one sender for the purposes of dual-boxing a shaman on wow, and it was trivial to set up (but I don't use it since the frame rate/screen size differences don't seem to be avoidable without running my main computer fullscreen and I also can't have a hardware mouse to control the clone computer separately since the logitech device takes a USB AND PS/2 Port and it only has one working USB 2.0 port and 4 working USB 1.1 ports but the computer is scrap and isn't worth fixing unless I can get a server to run on it, but I don't see the point of trying when it's against Comcast policy to run a server (cough, this is how we could stop P2P, contract-violations-not-throttling--i.e., "we have a backup plan") but how it can reach the cabin kinda bugs me, when it should be EM shielded (Blame solar flares).
Now, of course, THEY'RE still responsible (or would be in the US), at least since "Comments are owned by the Poster" hasn't seemed to help Youtube versus Viacom or other IP suits, probably "Wireless devices are owned by the Passenger" won't help Airlines when it comes to physical injury.
I personally blame them for activating ECM because they falsely detected a Radar-source-seeking-missile launch...planes are equipped with that you know (actually they're equipped with countermeasure flares, i.e., dummy heat sources)
Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time
There is little reason to wait for a 'real' passport when thousands are stolen and forged annually: 3,000 Blank British Passports Stolen
But I agree, the 'liquid bomb' hysteria was ridiculous.
you had me at #!
The number one reason they don't allow the usage of phones on plans is for crowd control, period. If everyone on the plane were talking on their damn phones while the flight attendant was instructing the safety procedures for the plane it'd be a difficult task.
The whole concept that wireless devices are doing jack squat to the flight control systems of airliners is just balderdash.
I worked on this stuff quite extensively a few years back.
First of all, the actual communications between all the components in the aircraft takes place over a series of multiply redundant high speed serial data buses (AIRINC 429, MIL1553B, etc). Those buses are designed to reject even serious EMI. Naturally beyond that all data is heavily checksummed in both hardware and software, etc.
Furthermore every single system on the aircraft which is 'flight critical' or even deemed to involve 'safety of flight' is a multiply redundant brick wall. The systems I worked on (fuel management/center of gravity management) contained TWO completely redundant systems. Within EACH of those systems were 9 processor cards. For either box to fail a minimum of 4 of the 9 cards would have to cease to function. All power supplies are redundant, each box had two AIRINC429 bus interfaces, each of which transmits on 2 redundant physical buses. The other systems (navigation, flight control, autopilot, etc) are all similarly designed.
The software in these things is built to standards 5 orders of magnitude more stringent than what runs your bank. In the A330/340 FCGMS systems we had over 100 software engineers developing the flight software for a period of several YEARS, and I'd say there's maybe 20k SLOC (all written in Ada of course). So essentially every single line of code represents 100's of hours of work. My group actually constructed a physical and logical simulation of ALL digital and analog inputs to that system and literally took boxes off the production floor and simply ran every single flight scenario the aircraft is physically capable of performing into that system and verified that under no circumstances could it behave improperly.
I am quite sure the other vendors were equally thorough with their parts of the system.
But beyond even that, all these systems maintain comprehensive sanity checks on all input data. If any system sees weird or unexpected inputs (say all of a sudden a fuel tank reports that 1000 pounds of fuel just vanished from the tank) it would start flagging faults to the cockpit, provide estimates of what the readings SHOULD be, what they actually are, etc. Again, I'm quite positive all other subsystems have the same type of capabilities. So even if a blue tooth mouse were to say cause the navigation system get bad GPS data, that data would be flagged, rejected, and the cockpit notified. And that doesn't even count the fact that AT LEAST two independent copies of that system are operating at all times and it would be vastly unlikely both of them would be interfered with in exactly the same way at the same time.
The most likely explanation is that, like all complex systems, there are situations where if the pilots have set things up a certain way, and certain subsystems have suffered faults, and several other conditions occur at the same time that you will end up with something like this happening. No amount of systems engineering and verification can ever eliminate every single possible failure mode, unfortunately.
I'll bet serious money there was some sort of seemingly inconsequential maintenance issue with some part of the avionics which contributed to the incident and that the airline would naturally not want to take the blame for that. Same goes for the manufacturer and the vendors. It is mighty convenient for them to blame some external factor instead of having to admit they flew an aircraft with a bad card in one of the boxes, etc.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
There is no reference in qoutes or the like in any referenced material/article that neither Qantas nor Airbus blames the incident on wireless equipment. The statement is that "a Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) spokesman" is qouted that they will ask passengers if they where using any computer equipment. And I dont trust random Australian unqualified ATSB press liasons to know squat about the problem domain..
In a previous job I worked for a company that tests electronics. Testing for safety, product life, and various certifications. A few times I was handed electronics that were destined for airplanes. I was chatting with a representative of one of the companies that was having us test electronics to be put in a plane and he said that the EMI issues from consumer devices really was no longer a real issue. There are two tests that devices that are installed in planes with almost certainly have to pass. (Don't quote me on this, its been a long time) One is a test to see if the device in question emits too much interference outside of its operating range and another is whether it can handle interference from other devices. You would really have to work REALLY hard to bring something on a plane that would mess with its electronics.