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."
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.
Coming this summer: Mice on a Plane!
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.
No. This has nothing to do with "I want to use my laptop/DS/phone, so make me happy as the paying customer", and everything to do with "if an unauthorized wireless mouse can bring down a plane, we need the entire fleet of such badly defective planes grounded and fixed yesterday".
Seriously. 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 - Imagine if Ford said using a bluetooth headset in their vehicles violates your warranty... They'd go bankrupt overnight. Only the fact that the aviation industry has slowly boiled the frog, making us expect horrible customer service at unpredictable (but high) prices, allows any of the BS we've put up with for the past 20 years (and the shout-and-taze squads aside, the airlines had problems long before 9/11).
Even if you're right(I don't know shit about this stuff), the issue then becomes the software.
If the plane descended so abruptly that it caused 70 injuries, then the software is to blame for not limiting ascent and descent in a more controlled manner.
When a human pilot sees they're at 30k feet and wants to be at 12k feet, they do not plunge the plane into a nose dive.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
The folks at Airbus are just dodging blame
Airbus said nothing, it's the airline who is trying to dodge blame here.
c++;
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.
I don't get how some people fail to see that a BIG plane cannot go from normal flight to a nose-dive as fast as would be required to injure over 70 people. Turbulence makes planes fall down like that. Not nose-dives. My source on this is a 747 pilot btw, I'd guess he'd know a thing or two...
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.
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.
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.
They had the correct links but before submitting it he clicked his mouse which interfered with his computer.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
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.
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.
how fast the plane's attitude changes. All you'd have to do is go negative enough to lift people in the air, then back to positive and they'll fall down.
Well, maybe someone should get that plane some therapy and stop all those attitude changes. We can't have planes flying around with violent mood swings. Negative attitude, positive attitude, I can't be dealing with these kinds of planes. I want a plane that has a stable attitude and won't throw a fit and hurl passengers about just 'cause someone clicked a mouse.
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."
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
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
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.
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".
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