Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Told To Replace Cockpit Screens Affected By Wi-Fi
Rambo Tribble writes The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered Boeing to replace Honeywell-built cockpit screens that could be affected by wi-fi transmissions. Additionally, the FAA has expressed concerns that other frequencies, such as used by air surveillance and weather radar, could disrupt the displays. The systems involved report airspeed, altitude, heading and pitch and roll to the crew, and the agency stated that a failure could cause a crash. Meanwhile, the order is said to affect over 1,300 aircraft, and some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators".
Queue the many certifications that will pop up for current screens suddenly claiming they aren't affected by wifi to any meaningful degree.
Is that too cynical?
They are ordering that a manufacturer actually do something to make it's product safe rather than just ban wifi? It's not April 1st! Where did this new FAA come from?
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (tm)
Pretty sure this is the same kind of conversation that was had at GM before the fatalities and subsequent massive recall took place. Cut your losses Boeing and fix this now.
Oh man, I'm cryin'
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Wait, slashdot posters are now accepting the idea that personal electronics can affect aircraft electronics ?
"some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents 'a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators'."
Yeah, it sure sucks that you're involved in an industry where hardening against air surveillance and weather radar are a pre-requisite, and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder.
...and some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators
Did Ford try that argument with exploding Pintos?
I have never ever heard of wifi interfering with an LCD screen. What did they do to them to get them to blank out? Stick them 1 inch in front of a directional 1kW magnetron?
I think that's between Boeing and Honeywell, no? Honeywell didn't supply the jets with the displays in them - Boeing did. Now if the displays weren't up to the spec under which they were sold, then Boeing probably has a good case to go back to Honeywell and demand compensation. On the other hand, if being unaffected by wifi was never part of the specs or the deal, then that's Boeing's fault and they should have to eat it.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
First, I would hope that the avionics themselves were shielded and tested before deployment and use. I mean, we don't want the altimeter interfering with the artificial horizon, do we? (stupid, simple, but real example)
Second, the whole cockpit and supporting avionics and other fight critical systems are in an enclosed conductive vessel, ie the cockpit and support area. It's a Faraday cage within a larger Faraday cage (the aircraft), so Coulomb's law should apply and mitigate this theoretical threat. Wi-Fi (bluetooth and the rest) should not reach the cockpit and instruments from the cabin unless the cockpit door is open. We all know how often that happens these days....
Polite language: red herring
Otherwise: I call BullShite
-Red
They didn't pay their protection monies. Besides the Aircraft Mechanics Association Union needs work to do.
some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators".
Several years before 9/11, pilots were asking that the cockpits be made more secure by installing a $200 lock on the pilot's side of the door giving access to the cockpit. Airlines complained that it would be too expensive. So, thanks to the airlines being too cheap to do something that made sense, more than 3,000 people died, and we now have the TSA going where no man has gone before.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Cheaper option: Have the flight attendants go around with wifi scanners and arrest people who have it operating during the flight. (And smack them over the head.)
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone). Labor is a significant portion of an airline's budget.
Besides, the FAA approved hammer used to smack passengers over the head would probably cost more than just swapping out the equipment.
Great, the Helen Lovejoy argument, once again.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The LED lightbulbs in my house cause interference with my iPhone. It only happens when the phone is too close to the bulbs (less than 2 feet as I recall). I know this isn't really surprising. The thing that struck me as odd was that the interference pattern showed up on photos as well as on the screen. Great Value bulbs caused more interference than G.E. bulbs.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
I think the question is likely covered in contract and could fall either way. Boeing may not be liable for the costs of applying an Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA unless the sales/lease contract says Boeing has to pay for replacing the displays. Boeing WILL have to do the engineering necessary to satisfy the FAA in the design, but if these aircraft are not pretty new, the owners and not Boeing will likely be footing the bill for the parts and labor.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I don't know that specs would be required.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that airplanes are resistant to air surveillance and weather radar (arguably WiFi too for a passenger jet, but I'd think those other two are un ambiguous, though it should be assumed that there's at the very least accidental WiFi on, permitted or not) to be fit for the purpose in which they are sold, making it an issue of implied warranty.
If Boeing purchased these with the stated purpose being the cockpit, I don't think speccing enters into the equation, these are things that a reasonable person assumes are fine for a display, especially if it's being sold for flight. Nobody requested in the spec it not randomly turn off for no reason, but if that was the problem I'd assume it would be unambiguous too, it's implied that they will operate, and operate in the environment for which they were sold.
It is Boeing's job to make the airlines whole (if it's determined that they are indeed unacceptable), and Honneywell's job to make Boeing whole.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Put up warning signs and include the penalty warning in the "In the case of a water landing you may not be able to update your facebook status.." presentation at the beginning of each flight. Then just have the air waitresses scan before the flight to make sure everything is off. During flight have them scan and take down the people's names and put them on the "never gets to fly again, EVER!" list. Good luck getting back from Hawaii, asshole!
After enough walkers/bussers/boaters (depending on where they want to travel) start screaming online most other special snowflakes will get the clue.
Yeah, that sounds much better than making sure that airliners are immune to common sources of RF interference (including terrestrial sources that are going to exist whether or not anyone uses Wifi on the plane). Put grandma on a no-fly list because she wanted to play angry birds and didn't know how to put her phone into airplane mode. While on other aircraft, airlines *encourage* you to use Wifi to access inflight internet and entertainment.
and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder
Yeah. They used Honeywell, a cut rate, shade tree operation that isn't one of the top three commercial avionics producers on Earth. And the results prove it too â" with dozens of no reported operational interference problems at all. Boeing's profit focused greed is killing ever more passengers per mile, in some alternate universe where your worldview makes sense.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Dear Airline,
Please fix your cockpit system.
We, the passengers, LOVE our WiFi gadgets so much that even our kids have WiFi enabled Fisher Price tablets. With the Internet of Things, practically everything has WiFi in it: cameras, phones, tablets, laptops, kids toys, kid tracking devices, etc. And if you think that every single one of these are turned off during the flight, you are fooling yourselves.
Just because there have been no public reports that the system has been interfered with, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or won't happen. It just means that you have been lucky so far. Take a page out of the car manufacturer's handbook. They had known issues that they didn't fix and look at all of the trouble that they have been in!!! This could be you, only 100x worse.
So, do the right thing, stop complaining, fix your system, and let us get back to our margaritas...
Airline Passenger
"It is Boeing's job to make the airlines whole (if it's determined that they are indeed unacceptable), and Honneywell's job to make Boeing whole."
Without knowing what the contracts say, that statement is pure conjecture. Both contracts may have acceptance clauses ("we think this meets spec, but you're ultimately responsible for testing it in your usage environment to be sure and notifying us in a timely manner") or simple warranty terms ("warranty on defects in material and workmanship only good for 90 days").
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone).
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest. Not following the directions of the captain of an air vessel is a felony. Once the plane is moving by itself (even taxiing on the ground), the flight has started and the captain is the ultimate authority.
So yes, the can, and if needed they will, arrest and restrain you if you interfere with the safety of the flight or fail to follow any legal directions. That includes telling you to turn off your phone.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest.
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
"Enjoy the rest of your flight, sir. It will be your last for a few years."
Airline contracts are more complicated then that.
For example, you can buy a Boeing airplane but order you own engines to be put in.
I don't know if it applies to this case, but I suspect the people dealing with this do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're correct , I'm assuming implied warrenty . I'd think that at least the airlines (as the end purchaser ) would be covered under the fair assumption that airplanes can operate unhindered by weather radar etc .
I would assume that's the equivelant of selling an airplane that doesn't fly .
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
"I'd assume it would be unambiguous too, it's implied that they will operate, and operate in the environment for which they were sold."
That's a wildly flawed assumption. Almost comically flawed assumption. Boeing specs are exhausting. Their resistance to EMR would have been detailed and thoroughly tested, as would every other operating parameter.
Boeing typically writes the specs and vendors build to those specs. Perhaps they should use the same displays that the 787 has. Those are quite nice.;)
Actually (from above post copying the FAA report)
" In addition, Boeing did an independent safety review and also determined that the DU blanking was a safety issue using its own risk assessment process."
Boeing thinks this is a problem too... it's the airlines that don't want to pay for the repair. (AKA it's *their lobbyists that aren't doing their jobs)
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
Yes they can.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
As others have pointed out, Boeing says it is not a theoretical problem ...
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing)."
"Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits."
http://www.boeing.com/commerci...
Hey, you'd bitch if those mechanics were on welfare too! We just can't please everybody, most certainly not those with your mindset.
It depends on who was responsible for specifying the EMI tests and who was responsible for performing them.
Back in the old days, Boeing did most of its own certification testing. But as time went on, they delegated that to subcontractors. Remember the story about the fire at the 787 battery charger manufacturer? Boeing may not even have the facilities or qualified personnel available to do thes sorts of tests anymore.
Have gnu, will travel.
All you need are some windows that open in flight. Problem solved.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes they can.
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
I have inside knowledge of this issue, and it is actually available as a public Advisory Directive http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/c2bcf2b2a4ea336886257d64006136e5/$FILE/2014-20-06.pdf
The issue was brought to light during WiFi testing (which uses a 4W transmitter) and my inside source says they got the transmit antenna closer than specified to the display Unit, which then blanked out. Actual WiFi would never cause the issue, but due to the blanking during testing further investigation revealed that the Display Unit did not meet the HIRF (High Intensity Radiated Field) specs, which has been a requirement for cockpit displays since the '80s.
The iPhone should not be held next to LED lightbulbs.
Is Boeing responsible? Are you sure? I don't remember reading that.
I would like to know who is supposed to pay for this: Boeing? Honeywell? The airlines?
But in this case, the specs were changed long after the fact.
I don't think Honeywell made defective devices, the FAA changed the requirements years later.
Those poor, poor airline operators.
Passengers will pay.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I think that's between Boeing and Honeywell, no? Honeywell didn't supply the jets with the displays in them - Boeing did. Now if the displays weren't up to the spec under which they were sold, then Boeing probably has a good case to go back to Honeywell and demand compensation. On the other hand, if being unaffected by wifi was never part of the specs or the deal, then that's Boeing's fault and they should have to eat it.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
And to continue that train of thought, why should Boeing have to eat it if there was no law or other legal requirement in place at the time the planes were sold requiring displays to be resistant to wifi (or other)?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
Yes, you are right, but this is also true for any other non-law enforcement arrest. In this case, the captain's ultimate authority ends the moment the plane hits the gate and the flight has ended so he has to hand them over. Furthermore, a captain can delegate his ultimate authority to other flight crew, or even passengers should he deem that necessary. But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony. Interference with the flight crew also happens to be a felony in most countries as well. And remember, on a plane, the law of the country it is registered in applies as well.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants.
And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants. And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
No you did not. I said "they do have the power to arrest", to which you replied "No, they don't".
I then listed multiple sources pointing out that your statement is wrong. I never said the FAs rights are derived from their employment. I merely said: they do have the right to arrest". As a citizen, and as flight crew based on the delegated authority of their captain.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I'm guessing they blasted the screens with several kW in the spectrum that is around radar and wi-fi, and they blanked out?
It's probably a problem being directly in front of a radar transmitter, but wifi is just in the right spectrum, much much weaker...