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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.