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?
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.
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
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.
Wait, slashdot posters are now accepting the idea that personal electronics can affect aircraft electronics ?
Yes. Other prerogatives now apply; namely arguing that greedy corporations are trying to kill they're customers by resisting regulators.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
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
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (tm)
The FAA does this ALL the time actually. They routinely issue AD's for many maintenance and operational issues discovered on aircraft. Sometimes these AD's come with short deadlines (you will fix this before the next flight) and sometimes they give you years (like this one giving 5 years). The FAA does this all the time, so this is NOT new.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
Potentially as one of the faults is "Display stops working". Whether that means it goes blank, or stops updating (i.e., frozen) is unclear.
Now, it's one reason why there is redundancy - if one display crashes, the PFD (primary flight display, i.e., flight instruments) can be reverted to the other screen (normally showing navigational information). If THAT doesn't work the PFD can be shown on the central displays (usually showing engine and other information), again, two of each.
And the co-pilot has another pair of displays as well that get their information from a redundant system, so 6 displays in total, which can get their information from two different independent sources.
Oh yeah, there's also basic backup instruments too.
Is it a problem? Yes. Is it fatal? Well, you have to be pretty damn unlucky to get all displays to lock up and the backup instruments as well. So a small chance, especially if the crew is inexperienced.
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...
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.
Those poor, poor airline operators.
Passengers will pay.
http://michaelsmith.id.au