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."
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.
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
I really doubt the cause was really EMI from any passenger's gadgets. I mean, airport security confiscates liquids for fear someone might manage to cook up composite explosives by stirring fluids together for a few hours, all while keeping the concoction cooled and not being noticed. They're that paranoid, and I'm supposed to believe they let people on board with gear that can interfere with the steering of the plane? Please.
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.
"Terrorist hijacks Airbus with a laptop, MS Flight Simulator and a bluetooth mouse"
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.
The folks at Airbus are just dodging blame
Airbus said nothing, it's the airline who is trying to dodge blame here.
c++;
Everyone knows that you shouldn't use Microsoft Flight Simulator X in a live environment.
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.
Being a good slashdotter, I did not read TFA, but I did read TFS, and it mentioned a wireless mouse, not just an optical mouse. Not that I necessarily believe that any variety of wireless mouse or cell phone or WiFi or Bluetooth or any other consumer-level wireless tech should really be capable of interfering with an airplane, but if it were possible, it would be wireless tech, not optical mouse tech, that would do it.
Also, why are there two links in TFS, when the 2 are exactly the same link?
In the US, airplane components are tested (privately with confidential results of course) to ensure that nothing "wireless" will interfere with the devices. Needless to say, nothing wireless does interfere with the devices, and neither do things such as voltage issues or sudden electric surges. Remember, they protect airplanes from lighting strikes on the outside best they can and inside from sudden surges on their own, as well.
If Qantas manages to have a plane interfered with via either RF or Bluetooth, then they obviously need to come up with a better excuse next time. Maybe terrorism!
You are assuming that airport security is competent and doing something related to real security rather than performing meaningless security theater to calm the crowds.
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.
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.
You're right. Banning liquids is moronic! This is a complete security theater right there. If only they'd do something about the real threats, like clothes. You can easily use trousers, a shirt or a bra to choke someone to death (thongs are best for this). Clothes are a serious security threat. I won't feel safe until the TSA bans all clothing articles.
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
Don't be so sure. Boeing uses analogs, and hydraulics controlled by the motive force of the pilot that is in turn, connected to the 'autopilot'. Airbus uses system whereby controls are 100% translated to their operational functions. Should a lot of EMI confuse their computers, although it's admittedly unlikely, an Airbus could conceviably do strange things.
Yes, sheilding should be adequate to diffuse the problem, but transconductance and skin effect, along with misbehavior of poorly designed consumer electronics could make a wicked aeronautical stew.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The article is clear -- Qantas never claimed a laptop or electrical device had anything to do with it. The ATSB (the Australian equivalent of the NTSB) is the one being quoted about uncommanded movements.
I fly that route regularly (and have been on QF72 twice in the past few months), and clear air turbulence is not uncommon. The sky can be completely clear and then bang - your lunch is all over you. When all is said and done it would not surprise me in the least if they just hit an air pocket.
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...
Just prey to GOD you're not in seat 32A, with a fatty in 32B and C.
Or one of us less-than-fragrant techs.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Good point. I believe I will stand in line at airports demanding that women remove their thongs and hand them over to me for the convenience and safety of other passengers. It is, after all, for the children.
Umm, they test a wide range of frequencies and devices. Any device irregardless of broadcast strength and frequency is not going to affect an electrical connection, pretty much guaranteed. There are electrical standards for this, and they are very detailed. The FAA doesn't fuck around with this stuff, as much as airline corporations do however.
Planes are not sensitive like they "used to be". People learned from those errors in about 2 years. It's been what, 35+?
Nothing is banned, because you cannot control devices coming on or off a plane. Screeners are trained to look for bombing/hostile devices, but ordinary electronics are not banned nor can realistically be controlled. So don't make shit up. A radio frequency could certainly disrupt the communications with other pilots or theoretically disrupt radar, but the latter has been compensated for and I'm sure the former can be as well.
Example: if you have your cd player in your bag during takeoff, they aren't going to know or stop you because they won't even see it. Is the plane going to crash? Well, you tell me. As an individual example, I've been flying for 20 years doing as such, and I haven't heard pilots complaining of malfunctions or "OMG TURN THAT OFF" either.
Yeah. Queue lawsuit from Airbus against Australian Airlines in 3...2...1...
Trying to shift blame when the blame belongs somewhere else is one thing. Trying to shift blame onto the company who supplies you with your airplanes using a moronic excuse is just bad business. You're saying you're moronic enough to buy a plane that can be crashed with a mouse, and that your supplier was moronic enough to build a plane that can be crashed with a mouse. Nothing good is going to come out of this.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Hmmm...risk being choked to death or spend several hours sharing half your seat with the naked guy sitting next to you. I choose death by thong thank you very much.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Well, that's logical.
Kind of like how my brother's Honda died when his bitchy neighbor walked outside. If Honda's are that susceptible to PMS, then I'd rather not ride in their cars. The last thing I need is to be left stopped in the middle of the freeway at rush hour because some woman with a hormone imbalance got too close to the car.
Buy Ford instead of Honda.
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.
Obviously you are not talking about the new Boeing 787: the first fully-electric civil aircraft. Further, AFAIK 767 and/or 777 do fly by wire as well.
Airbus was the first one to do fly by wire in the civil field, and for that reason has become the focus of bad press. But today's Boeing's are similar in that way.
Anyway, fly by wire is the way to go. It has specific problems, but the old methods do have their ones as well, and has demonstrated that the operation costs get lower.
My Logitech wireless mouse/keyboard combo isn't RF, it's infrared, the same as a TV remote. There's no way it could interfere with an airplane's electronics.
A cell phone, now, perhaps. When I watch TV I can tell someone's phone is going to ring a good three seconds before it goes off, because the TV picks up the signal.
Free Martian Whores!
This is more than rediculous. Turn over any mouse and look at the labeling. See that FCC logo? That means that the device passed the FCC's stringent EMI testing requirements. This crap is regulated, and manufactures dump a good bit of cash in making sure their design's pass testing. If these devices interfere with an airplane's control systems, then that's poor design on their part and the FAA might want to take a second look at their own design regulations.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Or...........
you could keep your seatbelt fastened while sitting in your seat, like they REPEATEDLY tell you to do.
Light does not penetrate solid objects!
My, my. You even used an exclamation point because you were so sure. What about glass? Plastic? Sheets of colored paper for effect? Cardboard (maybe lump with paper)? Shining a bright light under your hand or in your mouth?
What an awful analogy, and not a single mention of a car.
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!
Ryanair is way ahead of you.
what do pediatric studies have to do with this topic? If you can type "lookup something" just post the damn link.
Yup.
http://www.wifitrends.org/entry/boeing-and-airbus-providing-airline-wi-fi-access/
Especially when Airbus is asking people to use WiFi on their planes.
Makes no sense, does it?
Talk about theatrics. Remember shortly after airlines started flying again post 9/11 and the silverware was absent knives? What harm is a serated butter knife going to do? How about a fork with all but 1 tine bent back? They didn't remove the forks!
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.
Another reason to keep devices off is so you're concentrating on the announcements that are made, if something goes wrong and everyone needs to get out. This applies in particular to any operations on or near the ground, but not as much while at flight level.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Hey everyone - just think yourselves lucky that the shoe-bomber wasn't the underwear-bomber!
There. Fixed that for you.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems
meaningless security theater to calm the crowds.
I don't believe it's to calm the crowds. More like intimidate the crowds.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I am a pilot of a private aircraft and I fly with my iphone turned on (I forget to turn it off).
When I am below about 3000 feet, the iphone trys to connect to the towers.. I can hear very lound clicking noises on my radio when it does this.
My old cellphone was not as bad, but the iphone with all it's wireless goodness really interferes sometimes and I have to shut it off
It could very well interfere with the nav radios and give the autopilot false readings - more likley on a small plane with only one radio, the large commercial's have 3-4 radios as backup
Imagine the noise on the radio with 250++ passengers on board playing around with their laptops/cellphones/etc
Food for thought
The unfortunate fact about the Internet is that dripping sarcasm doesn't always come through. The point of my post is that if Qantas and Airbus REALLY want us to believe that their planes can't take a wireless mouse, then screw them. I'll happily fly a competitor who does NOT blame wireless mice.
In any case, Airbus's control systems screw up far too often for my tastes. Boeing is still the way to go.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Just prey to GOD you're not in seat 32A, with a fatty in 32B and C.
Or even worse, you're in 32B and the fatty is in 32A and 32C
My comment was unfairly marked troll. I stand by what I said. Blaming an optical mouse (whoever it may be, Airbus or Qantas) is just sheer stupidity. No way is an optical gadget going to "cause interference" with shielded electrical wiring or devices.
As for things like radios, when I worked for an airplane supplier we used devices that were resistant, not just to radio, but radioactive events. After all, airplanes don't have a lot of atmosphere to protect them - they get some bombardment from cosmic sources (mostly the sun) which can cause flipped bits. The hardware has to be able to handle these events without failure.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Not to long after 9/11, I was on a Qantas flight that passed out plastic silverware during dinner...except for those of us that ordered the steak, we got steel steak knives with our meal. You could hear people laughing all the way down the plane as the cart rolled down the aisle passing out knives.
What about cars with the drive by wire for the gas pedal. We have yet to hear about a car that accelerated on it's own because of cell phone interference.
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
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.
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.
Something that people overlook is that there are liquids that can be used to bring down a plane which are *not* explosive, but in fact CORROSIVE. Just a few drops in the right place and wham! the wings are off their hinges, so to speak ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Ummmm, yes, Miss Flight Attendant? I need some of your complimentary rubber gloves and safety glasses, and possibly a smock. MmmmKay? Thaaaanks!
Oh, also, can you tell the nice pilot man to keep the plane steady for a few moments, I need to titrate...
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Lots of lights penetrate solid objects, so I think you're simply making shit up. It entirely depends on the frequency of the light, and the exact nature of the material. Or did you think radio waves were something other than light?
They can't be blamed at all, for one simple reason: Cosmic radiation. The radiation produced from high energy collisions in the upper atmosphere douses a plane in far more EMI than any cell phone could ever generate. A few hours in a airplane gives you a year's worth of ground level radiation exposure.
Just prey to GOD you're not in seat 32A, with a fatty in 32B and C.
I'm preying to God I'm in a seat next to a hottie with 32Cs or 32Ds.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
And dont mind me while I remove the seats, peel back the floorboards and cut the rats nest of wiring, hydarulic lines and fuel lines. Oh this bottle of "water?" that's nothing I just think that these structural supports look thirsty. Hmm... That smoke probably means that they like it and want more, well there seems to be a lot of supports here, perhaps next time I should bring a few litres. They'll let through security with 10 Litres of water in a glass jug right?
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
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.
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.
Yeah but Fly By Wire doesn't involve unreliable wireless transmission of anything. There's a minute chance of interference in the wiring but even then, the stuff used in aircraft construction is shielded as mandated by the FAA so it would have to be one hell of a powerful cell phone to generate any kind of interference.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
It's "Cue lawsuit...".
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
how about the less-than-fragrant male tech in need of 32d's (or would it be 46dd?? not really sure of the nomenclature anymore...)
Nudity warning on the above link. Not suitable for work places!
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Unless they're making multiple lawsuits and they're treated as FIFO by the court system... yeah that's a stretch. :-)
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
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.
I don't doubt it for a second. There is a reason that federal law says you must turn off electronic devices, and has for decades.
I'm a pilot, and I've seen it happen. Not the level that is reported in this story, but simple electronics interfering with navigation and flight controls. (What do you think is used as input to the autopilot? Yes, the navigation instruments.) I've been on more than one IFR flight where I had to make sure that certain radio gear was turned off before contacting certain approach controls, because that radio caused the aviation radio to be useless. And that radio was a professionally installed, certified radio, not a piece of whatever being carried by just anyone.
They're that paranoid, and I'm supposed to believe they let people on board with gear that can interfere with the steering of the plane?
Yes, you should believe they let people on board with gear that can interfere with the steering of the plane, because they let ME on a plane with gear that can interfere with the steering. They let a lot of people I know on planes with such gear. They let a lot of people like me that I don't know on planes with such gear. Only one time in twenty years of flying have I been prohibited from carrying a radio on board an airplane, and that was a long time before 9/11. A stupid KLM screener confiscated a SHORTWAVE receiver, putting it in a sealed envelope for the purser to give back to me when we arrived. During the flight I pulled out the duty free catalog, and sure enough, they would SELL me an almost identical model to the radio they took. I called the purser, and he said yeah, it was stupid, here's your radio. Just don't turn it on. Never have I had any of the transmitters I've carried refused.
The summary talks about flying the plane with a wireless mouse. That's ludicrous, and it's dishonest to pretend that that's a fair statement of the problem. The problem is not taking control of the plane by sending the correct signals to do specific things, the problem is interference in either the navigation radio or onboard electrical controls that cause UNspecific things to happen. Anyone who has heard the BRRRPP of their cell phone in the audio of their stereo or computer speakers has had the problem demonstrated to them. You don't think that CPU speakers are supposed to pick up cell phone calls, do you? Well, I've heard that BRRRRRRRP noise coming from the audio system on a airliner.
A brand-spanking new airplane straight from the factory is unlikely to suffer from onboard interference. The wiring is new, the grounds tight and corrosion free. After twenty years in the air, the wiring isn't so new anymore, the insulation may have cracks, the grounds are frayed and corroded.
Why do they take liguids away from people? Because they can. Why? Well, most liquids are cheap commodity items. So what if you can't carry on a bottle of water, the airline will give you water for free on the plane. So what if you can't carry on a bottle of coke, you can buy one for two dollars when you get off, after drinking the airline's coke enroute. So what if you can't take a gallon of shampoo onboard with you? You aren't going to wash your hair that much before you can get to a dime store to buy another for a buck. Yeah, it's annoying and stupid and a meaningless gesture, but it makes stupid people feel better about flying, and most of the people who fly are stupid. The more people who fly, the more routes there are, and the more convenient it is for me to get where I am going instead of just somewhere close.
You can't just buy a new cell phone every time you fly. Or a new laptop. Or a new PDA. While they are approaching the level of commodity items, they aren't that easy to replace, and the reason is the data on them. There is no data in a bottle of coke that makes it any different than any other. My PDA is unique in the world.
So, yeah, a terrorist could cause a lot of trouble with elec
did you think radio waves were something other than light?
well.. i suppose youre right.
I make frequent calls to the police telling them to shut down WRAS because their FM signal is keeping me awake at night. I mean.. even with my eyes closed it's like staring into the sun : P
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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/
A quick search of the ASRS Database (the database of US aviation incident reporting) shows hundreds of instances of people (aviation employees who are totally unaware of the scientific method) blaming all sorts of issues on passenger electronic devices. Every time there is anything that has gone wrong, plus they are able to find a random electronic device on, it must be the fault of the device. I suggest that you can *always* find some electronic device that is on.
Except that the whole idea of the "can't bring a bottle of water" through security is because the terrorists were using magical liquid explosives that can't be detected.
nitroglycerin is a standard nitrogen explosive and hence detected by standard detectors. And one would hope the plan to stop the terrorists didn't involve the security people throwing containers of nitroglycerin into bins in a crowded security bottleneck.
"The cause of this buzzing has to do with GSMâ(TM)s time division nature. The ever-knowledgeable Keith Nowak, spokesperson for Nokia, explains it as follows: [[With GSM]] the RF transmitter is turned on/off at a fast rate, and that pulsing is often picked up by nearby devices that donâ(TM)t have good RF shielding. In the case of GSM the pulse rate is 217 Hz, which can be easily heard.
from link 1
not to mention: link 2
Calm, intimidated, what's the difference?
Next you'll be saying there's a meaningful difference between loyalty and fear.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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."
At least your use of the word 'prey' seems close to appropriate in context, as oppsed to everyone elses. It's 'pray' when you are talking to $deity.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Let me try to answer this a bit. (JAA ATPL (frozen)).
Kindly consider this case, wherein elevator deflections of an transport class aircraft in cruise apparently were commanded by the flight management computer.
Let's consider why the FMC commands any sort of elevator deflection at all.
If you arrive at one obvious reason -- pre-set FL change -- then the question comes down to how the FMC knows it has arrived at the pre-set waypoint. The answer? Consensus inputs from the INS. In modern systems, intercepting radials or overflying NDBs are used only to sanity check the INSes. So are inputs from the GPS systems. Occasionally so are manual inputs. The sanity-checking is very conservative, and in general if the INSes are in concordance then positional mismatches between the INS and radio navaids are resolved in favour of the INS.
Another obvious reason the FMC will command an elevator deflection is if it is has been instructed to maintain a constant pressure altitude (deflections will increase as pressure altitude varies, this is the reason for the maximum turbulent air indicated air speed rating of licensed aircraft), or rate of climb/descent, or a particular pitch. In cruise, only the first of these is likely to apply, except for stepped climbs which are scheduled based on fuel burn and pre-programmed as above.
Clear air turbulence and the equilvalent ("pressure pockets" which are usually sharp changes in the outside air temperature gradient) can result in a sudden change in pressure difference between the static port and the pitot. The result could be a commanded (and reasonable, slow-rolling) climb to maintain the desired altitude which ends up being unsafe for the IAS upon reaching the far edge of the pressure pocket. This can result in a human-noticeable rapid descent; in combination with turbulence it can also lead to Mach buffet and a partial stall.
Next, the flight envelope protection system will command an elevator deflection to counter detected uncommanded deflections. Mach buffet or a dramatic change in Cl, Cm or Cd can produce these. The resulting alarms are pretty obvious to flight crews and investigators, however. In aircraft without an envelope protection system, the AP will disengage in this situation, also leading to obvious alarms; the problem is that while recovery by human pilots usually maintain more pleasant aircraft attitudes and gentler acceleration curves, the latter often leads to overstresses of the control surfaces and airframe. There is a tradeoff involving some shaken-up passengers (but no moving cargo!) but a safe-to-fly aircraft versus aggressive maintenance to the aircraft-safe flight envelope leading to injured pilots and dangerously shifted cargo. Neither extreme is good!
A last reason I can think of is that the elevator deflection was commanded to compensate for the commanded drop of a wing as the FMC tried to correct for the programmed ground track. This is plausibly under the influence of radio navaids (there are occasionally high altitude flight paths which follow a VOR radial). It could be a contributing factor. However, the underlying factor would be that the FMC/envelope protection system commanded aggressive elevator deflections at altitude. It may have done so for a good reason. Noise from radio navaids suffering from local interference would not be a good reason!
Finally, VHF's SNR is lousy, but transport class aircraft benefit from having lots of outside surface area upon which to mount multiple aerials; they can also carry enough weight to use correlators on the redundant systems. Also, passengers are much further from the speakers and microphones and DF needles than the pilots, and the pilo
I am the pilot of a PC based flight simulator and I hear these same noises from an incoming sms or phone call:)
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Fact - The real reason airlines asked you to switch off your phone is because it confuses the heck out of the mobile phone network, it can cause real disruptions...although some aircraft now have equipment to deal with this better. have you seen mythbusters? they proved cell phones dont cause aircraft instruments to give false readings. they cranked the signal to a ridiculous level and still got the correct readings...over and over again... noise on your radio might annoy you, but theres a big diff between annoying noise and false readings.