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".

7 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  2. Faraday Cage / Tempest by RedLeg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seriously, at this point we are worried about EMI to individual avionics components / systems in the cockpit from wi-fi in the cabin?

    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

    1. Re:Faraday Cage / Tempest by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Polite language: red herring

      Otherwise: I call BullShite

      Am I really the only one who looked at the actual FAA Directive?

      SUMMARY:
      We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing
      Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, and
      Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by testing reports on certain Honeywell
      phase 3 display units (DUs). These DUs exhibited susceptibility
      to radio frequency emissions in WiFi
      frequency bands at radiated power levels below the levels that the
      displays are required to tolerate for certification of WiFi system installations.

      Clarification of Cause of Unsafe Condition
      The cause of the unsafe condition stated in the Discussion section of this AD is a
      known susceptibility of the Phase 3 DUs to RF transmissions inside and outside of the
      airplane. This susceptibility has been verified to exist in a range of RF spectrum (mobile
      satellite communications, cell phones, air surveillance and
      weather radar, and other systems), and is not limited to WiFi transmissions.

      Request to Withdraw the NPRM
      (78 FR 58487, September 24, 2013)

      [Virgin Australia] VOZ stated that during testing of the WiFi inflight entertainment system on the
      VOZ Model 737NG fleet, it noted that the DU blanking occurred only when the WiFi
      radiated power source (set-up in the flight deck) was increased to a high level. VOZ also
      stated that under normal operating conditions of the WiFi radiated power, there was no
      blanking of the DU, but interference was present only at a certain frequency. [...]

      Request to Disclose Underlying Data
      in Support of the NPRM (78 FR 58487,September 24, 2013)

      [...]

      The susceptibility of phase 3 DUs to RF transmissions was initially identified
      during a WiFi STC installation by an operator and a WiFi vendor and reported to the
      FAA. As a result of this discovery, we performed a risk assessment for in-service
      airplanes equipped with phase 3 DUs using our established COS process, which
      determined that an AD action was warranted for this issue. 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.

      I only got half way through the 23 page directive.
      Feel free to give it a full examination.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. We've heard this before. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Almost completely unrelated... by lsommerer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Surprisingly by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (Is it really a crash risk? That I don't know.)

    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.

  6. Re:Why is Boeing responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.