Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Boeing to Have Net Access on Airliners in 2002 167

Posted by michael from the sir,-the-no-spamming-light-is-on dept.
wowbagger writes: "According to Yahoo, Boeing is going to have Internet access on airliners in 2002. The stated cost will be about $20/hour, and it will be strictly BYOC - it sounds like they'll be loaning you a wireless card. I wonder how this will stack up with the FAA regs against using "anything that sends or receives a signal", how many clueless users will not be able to configure their systems to use the card, and how many 1337 h@><0r doods will be 0w3n1ng other passenger's machines. Think I'll review my iptables setup before I fly..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing to Have Net Access on Airliners in 2002 More

Boeing to Have Net Access on Airliners in 2002

Comments Filter:

  • something (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    a/s/l? 30/m/er..

  • Re:No GPS? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Actually, the need to have 4 sats in view is not due to calculations involving x,y,z,t (Cartesian coordinates) but rather with a simple spherical geometry problem. The basic calculation that a GPS receiver performs is quite simple: linear distance from the sat. If we know the distance from one sat we describe a sphere. Distance from two different sats describes a circle (the intersection of two spheres). Distance from three sats describes two points (intersection of a circle and a sphere). Distance from four sats gives us a single point. As stated, three sats usually give a good approximation since one of the solution points is far from the earth's surface.

  • Am I the only one... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...who got that clever reference? It was from the trip the Simpsons clan took to Japan. Bart turned off his Game Boy (as requested) and the plane immediately did a nose dive.
  • I have led software projects on airline entertainment systems (yes a net connection is entertainment). Keep in mind that you have different levels of in-flight entertainment systems. Local hops don't even have audio. National flights have audio plus a single video channel (often overhead). International flights are the ones that have VoD (Video on Demand), games, etc. Don't expect to see this on anything less than internatinal flights. I assume that this system will cost in the range of US$10M. (Flight qual hardware is VERY expensive say several US$K for the 10" LCD you watch TV on). That is as about as much as the rest of the intertainment system on a 747. I also expect the laptop connection to drop by the way side. (Proposed connections include local modem - you modem via the phone jack to an on plane POP, or LAN - via USB or ethernet).
    There is a small set top box computer under each seat (or more correctly several CPU cards in a box under a seat for that row). These set top box like sysem support VoD, user interface, etc. On many system games are avalible. These system range from 286 class to low end P-Is with about 100 MHz 486 class systems becoming the norm. Remember that heat and power are big problems on aircraft. (The entertainment system was suspected for a while as the cause of the fire on the Swiss Air 747 ooff Canada a few years back). You can expect to start seeing browsing to become the norm on these in-seat system. This eliminates most of the tech support.

  • Re:Wireless?? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Great.... my seat will be the one where some jerk crammed their chewing gum into the RJ-45 jack.
  • I guess.. if you like 500ms latency. :-) It uses a satellite connection.
  • It's against FCC rules to use a phone from a hot-air baloon, and from parachutes - both of which are not regulated by the FAA.

    I think you'll find, with the exception of certain "ultralight" class hot air balloons, that the FAA does regulate hot air balloons. You need a pilots license to fly them, and the balloon itself requires regular Airworthiness certification inspections.

    The frequencies that cellphones work at basically travel straight, no bouncing of the atmosphere. So a cell phone in plane at 30,000 feet can be seen by cell phone towers up to roughly 250 miles away. Approximately a 200,000 square mile area. That's alot of cellphone towers.
  • I'm guessing they'll just put an ethernet jack in the seatback phone unit. Then it'll work like the box they use to provide ethernet in hotel rooms over the existing wiring. Wonder if they'll have free on the plane content like the hotels...
    Give us a nice updating page with current location, altitude, speed, and an updating map like some of the newer planes I've been on.
    (Not that I've been on many new planes as Northwest doesn't believe in them.)
  • I wonder how this will stack up with the FAA regs against using "anything that sends or receives a signal"
    The FAA doesn't have any reg against "anything that sends or receives a signal."

    Where do you guys get this stuff?

  • why do you need a GPS, apart from the geek factor of course ?
    I don't need to answer that!
  • FAA regs against using "anything that sends or receives a signal",
    So I can't take my GPS on the plane with me to se where I am? Damn.
  • The mobile phones that I know of use frequencies around 800 (AMPS and others), 900 (GSM), 1800 (GSM) or 1900 (all PCS) MHz. I' m not aware of any ~1300 MHz band.
  • I didn't see in the art where wireless was proposed. Instead they would hand you a port to an armchair connector and run everyones connection through a wired hub. Wired as in not wireless although the actual connection will probably be Ethernet through a copper to fiber translator/repeater. Why fiber? To save weight of course.
  • I can't wait for the next computer movie where Sandra Bullock gets to fly a crippled airliner taken over by terrorists by her laptop machine from the bathroom at the back of the plane while it's taking its payload of nerve gas to the Whitehouse on the day all the handicapped orphans are visiting and Sandra's personal life is all fucked up because the father figure/mentor she was sleeping with just kicked her out of bed to find himself as a volunteer worker for Tibetan Freedom.

    You know some towelhead'll be kicking down the door and poor Sandra has to put the plane into a roll and stand it on one wing to knock the towelhead down then she bursts out the head door and chick-fu's his ass.

    You know it'll be a titanium G4 that's bulletproof.

  • As we begin our final descent.. (Score:3)

    by Apuleius ( 6901 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @01:48AM (#152209) Journal
    I ask that passengers put their Hotmail accounts
    in the logged out positions, and put on their seat
    belts. It has been a pleasure carrying you on
    AOL-Time-Warner-American-Airlines, and I hope
    you'll choose to fly with us again.
  • He didn't have time to read, he was going for first post!
  • Only the Slashdot commentary mentions wireless.

    It says the airplane's net connection will be satellite-based (for obvious reasons), but the article says nothing about the makeup of the internal LAN. I'm betting they just provide Ethernet sockets, since it's way more standard than wireless.

    There's no way in hell they'll loan out wireless cards. Firstly, they'll lose them to absent-mindedness if not actual criminal activity. Secondly, your stewardress is NOT going to help you install it. Remember that your average travelling businessperson is a sales droid and would not be able to install the drivers themselves. Thirdly, there is a major issue with the emissions of wireless cards possibly interfering with the plane, which the FAA is not about to overlook.

    Jon Acheson
  • wouldn't that be "last post!"??

    --
  • The article suggests nowhere that users will recieve a wireless card for connection. The plane, of course, must connect wirelessly to the sattelite, but the users are probably going to jack in with an ordinary RJ45. IIRC, the in-flight phones have a data jack on them for sending/receivng modem/fax data. This new initiative is just eliminating the POTS modem and jacking up the speed.

    Read what you see, not what you think you see. :)

  • Wasn't "Connexion" one of the sites you could download Netscape (or was it Internet Explorer?) from?
    --
  • Actually, the no electronics law/rule is really only during take off and landing, atleast as far as I know, I have used plrenty of electronic devices on planes.
  • Having not read the article yet, since I cannot connect ot it for some apparent reason unknown to me, I would hazard a guess that the network signal would prolly piggy back over the GPS signal since a plane always has contact with atleast 3 GPS sat's at any point in time.
  • GPS does not use atmospheric pressure to determine altitude, it uses GPS, so pressure has 0 bearing on what the altitude is.
  • Cost is negligible; wireless requires less infrastrucutre and tearing up of the plane, plus network sockets can get zapped.

    Wireless means no wires hanging out. It means they can hand you can grab a card from them when you get on the plane and turn it in when you get off....

  • Yup. Wrong of me to assume. My bad.
  • I wonder what the odds are of geting linux/mac support on this... Probably not to good....
  • Passengers forget to turn phones off all the time. It should be the job of the plane manufacturers to make planes safe in the presence of passengers.

    The planes you get on are much, much older than you think. They don't predate bag phones, but they definitely predate your spiffy handheld Nokia that plays games. (Think about the DC-10's - those bad boys are older than I am, and I'm not that young.) Furthermore, the planes were designed long before they were built. These planes just weren't designed to handle dozens of people holding battery-operated microcomputers, let alone 2-way radios (which is essentially what a cell phone is.)

    These Boeings that are coming out are the first generation of planes that are specifically designed with today's wired user in mind, and as such, you're seeing wireless access on board.

    2.4GHz is already polluted by wideband radiation in planes, since they use microwave ovens to heat the food. So there can be some level of confidence that you 802.11 tranciever isn't going to bring the plane down.

    No, they don't use microwaves to heat ALL the food, only a few small things. I mean really, can you imagine them heating up meals for 120 people in microwaves? Even if they had half a dozen microwaves, and each meal only took 30 seconds, that's a long time. They get the meals pre-heated from the ground crew - those meal trucks that pull up to the plane, and then rise up to the back door.

    However being charged money to get on the net is not really a necessity is it? One person sets his laptop up as a gateway/NAT router and everyone else sets up as an ad-hoc 802.11 network. That would save people a bit of cash.

    I'm going to shell out my money for internet access on the plane, which isn't going to be fast by any means, and then I'm going to share it with other people for free? And furthermore, I'm going to waste time on my flight to run up and down the aisles asking if anybody wants to set up a quick network? Riiight. For that matter, we could do this today - the GTE Airfones have 9600 (woohoo) data access, and we could easily set up connection sharing using one of those bad boys. But we don't, because in an airplane, the last thing you want to do is get to know people up and down the plane, especially the ones who are trying to mooch internet access.

    So lobby lobby your MP/Senator/FAA rep/garage mechanic/EU minister to change the rules. It will improve the quality of your traveling life.

    No, not until the current fleet of planes is replaced. And not just replaced at one airline, but replaced at all of them - remember that "value" airlines usually buy their planes used from other airlines, so even today's planes will be in service for 20-30 years.

    How the parent post got modded up to 5 Insightful is disgusting, either that or /. readers truly never get on planes. I know I might be the other extreme (gf works for an airline, I fly 4-6 times a month) but this is ridiculous.
  • Actually, being online in an airplane would allow you to communicate with people during a plane crash, something passengers normally can't do.

    Have you flown in the last ten years? GTE has Airfones in the back of the seats. For $2-$5 a minute, you can call anybody you want, get stock quotes, get the weather, and more.

    With the 'net though, you could discuss the entire situation much sooner. Write entire emails.

    Again, you can do that now too. The Airfones have modem jacks.
  • /*The planes are. The avionics aren't. That's all that matters*/

    HA! HAHAHAHAHA! WOOOOOOO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAHAHHAHHAAAAA!

    ANd you've never worked for a major airline, have you? Obviously not! I DO and I can assure you we have some goddamned STOCK avionics (well, stuff built to original spec) and those damn things were built in the 50's and 60's.

    Get a clue.

  • No, bad gmanske. No mentioning company secrets. Don't make me come down there.

    Anyways, just poking around here at work (and yes I haven't read the article so I don't know if it already says this, mark me redundant as appropriate) I've discovered that Connexion is likely to be using DHCP for the IP address assignment and that it will actually be using Linux servers. So anything that's standards compliant (i.e. can talk DHCP and TCP) should work.
  • It's against FCC rules to use a phone from a hot-air baloon, and from parachutes - both of which are not regulated by the FAA. Minor corrections here: first, balloons are definitely regulated by the FAA, and second, the FCC restrictions specifically mention cellular phones. Portable phones using other technology (do the old pre-cellular radio telephones still exist?) wouldn't have or need such restrictions.
  • Yea, but a typical access point can only support about 30 people. Even a small jet is going to have more than that. What if everyone wants net access? You start colliding with other people and the access becomes worthless.

    1. I would bet that the average number of passengers on a flight that want to have internet access will be less than 25%. 30 people is probably going to be worst case.

    2. Anyone who is using excessive bandwidth can be made known since they know where you are sitting :).

  • Here is the appropriate section from the Code of Federal Regulations, title 14 Chapter 1, Part 121.306: Portable electronic devices:

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.

    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --

    (1) Portable voice recorders;

    (2) Hearing aids;

    (3) Heart pacemakers;

    (4) Electric shavers; or

    (5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

    (c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

    Notice that (b)(5) allows the operator to exempt any device if they can determine that it won't interfere with the avionics. They may certainly exempt wireless ethernet if they so choose.

    The only devices they cannot exempt are cellphones, as the FCC regulations prohibit using them while airborne. The FCC reason for this is that an airborne cellphone can communicate with a vast number of cells and clog up the network. The consipiracy theorists contend that the providers of the rather expensive sky-phone services lobbied the FCC to ban cellphones thus removing competition.

  • This looks catered to all of us game freaks. Up side: It would be cool to frag that dude due to turbulence. Downside: Loosing a match due to landing would suck. Whoops forgot, can't have kiddies playing those kind of games in public.
  • Yea bu thte onboard games would rock. Plus you would have the privilage of joining the l33t clan MhC (Mile High Clan)
  • Re - "FAA regs against using 'anything that sends or receives a signal'"

    It's actually not an FAA rule. It's FCC. The FCC forbids using a cellphone from any platform not attached to the ground.

    It's against FCC rules to use a phone from a hot-air baloon, and from parachutes - both of which are not regulated by the FAA.

    Both the FCC and FAA websites suck, but here's [ainonline.com] a pretty interesting article. The rule is in FCC reg 22.925 - maybe somebody else will have better luck finding the text.

    The nutshell is that the problem hasn't got anything do to with interference with navigation, but rather interference with ground systems. Cellphone just weren't designed to be able to "see" so many different cell towers.

    _Am
  • DHCP is your friend in situations like this. Depending on how smart your OS is, it can be totally automatic. IE with MacOS v8.1 -> 9.1, you can plug a shut down laptop into an ethernet network, turn it on, and it will automatically configure and activate TCP/IP, this is even if your default communications method is set to dialup :)
  • When he walked a few feet off the sumit so he could only see one city he had no problems getting a call out. He was, however, unable to circumnavigate the mountain and keep his connection. I guess the system just could'nt handle a phone jumping 100 miles between cells.

    The handoff assumes adjacent cells. The cells in question wouldn't be configured as adjacent. Also the frequencies used depend on the normal pattern of adjacent cells...
  • And now they want to bring radio transmitters on board?

    Commercial aircraft already have radio transmitters on board. Plenty have telephone systems, for the passengers, which play no part in helping fly the plane.
  • What's more, planse are actually pretty resiliant to stray RF frequencies

    They had better be otherwise RADAR would be a non starter for air traffic control. Let alone all those RADAR systems and other radio transmitters actually on board planes.

    Once when we were landing someone actually had their cellphone ring. They'd forgot to turn it off for the whole flight.

    The real issue with cellphones is that having them operating of aircraft can confuse the base stations. (Even if it's an unworkable situation radio frequences and processor time is being used attempting to keep the handset registered.) Also there may be issues of commercial lobbying by the satillite phone industry.
  • Actually, the "radios" are prerecorded tapes that run through the PA system and are looped for passenger enjoyment.

    They may be from tape or CD or HDD. There is nothing to stop an aircraft picking up radio or TV broadcasts. Just that they either need to do a frequency handover with ground based transmitters or only fly within the "footprint" of a satellite.
  • According to this piece of news [yahoo.com] from AP, Boeing's biggest competitor, European airplane manufacturer Airbus, has similar plans. They recently teamed up with Seattle-based company Tenzing Communications [tenzing.com] for offering similar service onboard their planes.
  • I recall reading that the captain of an airliner can shut off the seat-back telephones in an emergency and that an airline was recommending that they do so if a crash seemed emminent.

    This may be a good idea during a terrorist incident -- although I suspect the motives are to control the PR spin that people get and to reduce the damages for emotional distress that next-of-kin can claim.
  • the service operates at data rates of 5 mbps for incoming traffic and 1mbps for outgoing.

    What service _is_ that (mobile wireless 5Mb?!) and where else can I buy it from?
  • The reason cell phones are not allowed on flights is that the phone, if it makes connection with ground stations, will be trying to connect to several dozen of more groundstations at the same time since they are all available when you're that high. It ties up the cell phone system, and the frequent switching between stations causes a lot of dropped calls, etc. While the usually don't let you use electronic equipment during takeoff and landing (arguably the two most dangerous times in flight) it's more of a safety precaution, although it is absolutely true that today's airplane equipment can be adversely affected by todays external electronic equipment (especially transmitters such as cell phones). By limiting the usage of these devices the plane has a better chance of getting home.

    -Adam

    This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
  • sorry, folks, but if the company I'm working for puts me in steerage^H^H^H^H^H^Hcoach , do you really think I'm going to shell out $20 an hour to check my mail and get work done? it'll wait 'til I get there :p
  • I guess that's better than $2/minute phone access.
  • I have never had a pilot deny permission to use a GPS on board, for the last twenty of my flights.

    Why are you constantly tracking your position every time you get on an airplane? You already know where you are: You are on an airplane. Leave the airplane's position up to the navigator and watch the damn movie.

    :-)

  • Even better... (Score:4)

    by Ctrl-Alt-Del ( 64339 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @03:02AM (#152244) Homepage
    Yeah, and then take the laptop and a webcam with you to broadcast to the world in glorious technicolour and stereo sound your application for entry into the Mile High Club :-)
  • It is a bunch of bunk. The rules about all the RF stuff only applies to planes operated by commercial passenger carriers. It's perfectly legal and common for cargo carriers to use 802.11b devices during flight. I know this because I work for a company that makes wireless 802.11x data terminals and access points and we sell them to people like FedEx for sorting and processing packages during flight. And no, these aren't specially certified devices, it's just standard 802.11 stuff.

    Have you had a FedEx plane drop from the sky and land on your house recently? I thought not.

    ________________________

  • Like someone else said, it wouldn't be reasonable to pay $20 to use the internet at 56k speeds. I pay about $30 a month for cable modem at home.. mmm 700 kBytes/sec.

    It wouldn't be very reasonable to pay $7 for a cold ham and cheese sandwich either. But wait, this is air travel we're talking about. If they can charge you $7 for a 23c sandwich at the airport, I'm sure that they can charge whatever the fuck they want once you get in the air.

    ________________________

  • Everybody assumed the connection would be wireless because that's what the article said.

    Remember 2 things about aircraft:
    1) every kilo is precious. Adding ethernet wireing to every seat is going to add hundreds of kilos to the weight of the aircraft.

    2) Aircraft are old, and retofitting them expensive. It's a lot easier to set up a wireless LAN than to go back and rewire the seats.

    Not to mention the danger of tripping over the network cables in case of an unplanned rapid aircraft egress due to unforseen circumstances, the fact that only a small fraction of the passengers will want network access at any given time, and the electrical risk if the systems are connected to the plane (can you say FAA regs? I though you could).

  • Re:No GPS? (Score:4)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @02:56AM (#152250) Homepage Journal
    Your GPS doesn't altitude from pressure. The reason your altitude was wrong was that you didn't have a good 3D sat. fix.

    To get a 3D fix, you need at least 4 sats. (think of it as an algebra problem: you have 4 unknowns (x,y,z, and time) so you need 4 equations (4 birds) to solve for it. If the GPS receiver only gets 3 birds, it fakes it by assuming you are on the Earth's surface, and using that as the 4th equation.

    Since you were in a big metal can with only a small hole next to you, you probably only got 3 birds.

    However, you were in violation of airline regs using a GPS receiver on an aircraft (unless you had permission from the captain). You just didn't get caught.

    The problem is that almost all modern radio receivers, be they GPS, cell phone, or cheap transistor radio watch, are a superheterodyne design: the incoming signal is mixed with a second signal to create a third signal at a fixed frequency. That second signal, called the local oscillator or LO, radiates from the receiver and can interfere with other signals. That's how the police "radar detector detectors" work: they listen for the LO of your radar detector.

    You can demonstrate this by taking 2 old AM radios, and placing them next to one another. Tune one radio to 600 kHz, then tune the other to about 1055 kHz. Move the tuning around, and you should hear the first radio start to squawk. That's the second radio's LO being received by the first radio.
  • whoa....folks...this is something called "humor" (in its more rare form -- something called "sarcasm") ... chilllllll out.

    nlh

  • I recently received an internship at Boeing in southern california, and I must say I am impressed. These "PhD Engineers" that you speak of have built the airplanes that you fly on, the satellites that you rely on, and the delta rockets that launch them into space.

    I have seen my fair share of hackers here, like people all day hacking away on a sun workstation to improve GPS. "modernization" is the buzz word right now, actually...

    It is AMAZING to walk through a Boeing facility and see all the technology out in the open...

    Everything here has to be thoroughly tried and tested to make sure that it can't be f*ed up. You don't send a satellite up if it has a problem, because your client (i.e. the Air Force) won't offer you another contract, and may go with someone like Lockheed.

    I do not work on Connexion, but I have full faith that Boeing will deliver another successful, beneficial, and wonderful product to the public.
  • Oh come on, even as old as they are, those planes are designed to keep function fine WHEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING! This is going to create a little more EMP than a sub-watt cell phone (even - gasp - MORE than one cell phone!).

    Given today's knowledge about building robust wireless communications protocols and equipment, there's no real engineering excuse for airplane electronics to be "vulnerable" to consumer electronics. Somebody's either being lazy or there's some other reason why they keep this requirement.

    (A friend of mine was wondering whether they didn't like cell phones competing w/the on-line airphones, since when you're at 35000ft, your cell phone can probably contact a bazillion line-of-site cell phone towers - if the signal can get through the skin of the plane.)
  • Script kiddies are used to the apparent comfort and protection of their dark and lonely rooms.

    This doesn't need to happen if we ACT NOW! If everybody go to a vacant and lonely room that just needs some attention, we can bring room suicide rates down to a minimum. Bah! I think I'm wasting my time. You folks just don't care anymore. *sniff*

    - Steeltoe
  • Perhaps if you read the article:

    "The service will offer e-mail as well as Internet and intranet access through a satellite link"


    --

  • The moderators are on crack...

    First off, at least 50% of any flight I've been on somebody has been using some kind of electronic device. Be it a CD player, laptop, game boy or whatever. Plus some planes even have radios for you to listen to (through the arm rest). The airlines use microwaves and that's going to cause much more of a problem then some wireless lan cards. Also, a lot of flights have phones that you can use on the plane, that's not much different.

    Now, about the crew and pilot.. They offer alchol on plane, and the pilots arn't off getting drunk. What's to make you think they're gonna be surfing pr0n or IMing their friends.


    --

  • Sure you can. I did it on my last flight.. really need. We were going 453mph. At least that's what the Etrek said that I was borrowing.

    I wouldn't count on the altitude being correct, the presurized cabin screws it up.


    --

  • From: http://www.tramsoft.ch/gps/garmin_etrex-summit_en. html [tramsoft.ch]

    "Altitude via air pressure (barometer)"


    --

  • From: http://www.tramsoft.ch/gps/garmin_etrex-summit_en. html [tramsoft.ch]

    "Altitude via air pressure (barometer)"


    --

  • Re:No GPS? (Score:3)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @03:02AM (#152269) Homepage
    Your GPS doesn't altitude from pressure. The reason your altitude was wrong was that you didn't have a good 3D sat. fix.

    The eTrex Summit I had does to it by pressure, It said it was accurate up to 13ft, and it showed 4 sats connected (max on that screen, I probably had more). If you go into the diag screen it actually shows you the pressure. It was saying I was at 5k feet.

    However, you were in violation of airline regs using a GPS receiver on an aircraft (unless you had permission from the captain). You just didn't get caught.

    I didn't have permission, and they did see it. They didn't have a problem with me using it (flight attendents). They never did ask the captian.


    --

  • HA! HAHAHAHAHA! WOOOOOOO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAHAHHAHHAAAAA!

    Ritalin... it's not just for breakfast anymore.

    we have some goddamned STOCK avionics (well, stuff built to original spec) and those damn things were built in the 50's and 60's.

    Fine. As long as it doesn't send the plane into a reciprocal mixing-induced tailspin when Uncle Bob forgets to turn off his cell phone, we'll get along just fine.

  • Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:3)

    by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @04:48AM (#152272) Homepage Journal
    The planes you get on are much, much older than you think

    The planes are. The avionics aren't. That's all that matters.

    How the parent post got modded up to 5 Insightful is disgusting, either that or /. readers truly never get on planes. I know I might be the other extreme (gf works for an airline, I fly 4-6 times a month) but this is ridiculous.

    It was modded up to +5 because the poster nailed the issues square on the head. The idea of EMI/RFI from Part 15 devices bringing down a commercial jetliner is either laughable or it's horrible, and either way, it shouldn't be the passengers' problem.
  • Um, I'm not quite sure what everyone's talking about, but you can already plug your modem into the in seat phones. Sure, it's slow as a bitch, but you CAN do it, if you just need to check your mail or somesuch.

    Why would you think that they're "loaning everyone a wireless network card?" It sounds more to me like you jack something into your seat (probably ethernet, but who knows?) and then the whole plane shares the 5 mbps satellite uplink.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • i got a better idea (Score:3)

    by -ryan ( 115102 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @01:47AM (#152275)
    and how many 1337 h@><0r doods will be 0w3n1ng other passenger's machines

    Forget that, how about 0wNz0r1Ng the plane itself!

  • "a nice alternative than sitting in a cubicle all day."

    Out of the cubicle and into the cramped, uncomfortable, weirdly-pressurised, and anger-inducing airplane? No thanks.


  • Learn Windows. Then you can do tech support in first class. You hear someone say, "stewardess, I can't access....." You know you can charge them to get them online. $75 for 10 minutes of work is not unreasonable considering that they would have to pay $5/minute to call tech support and they will be running for several hours. Just bring all your windows OS and driver CDs.

  • The day they allow people to radiate what they want on airplanes is the day I stay on the ground! We have reached a sorry state when people are prepared to risk their lives (and those of everyone else) just so that they can spend even more time gassing on their cell phones!

    Sure, the chance of a cellphone actually causing an aircraft to crash are very remote, but when we design airplanes we don't allow even remote possibilities. There are numerous multiple redundant systems which would only ever be needed in very unlikely failure conditions, but if passengers found out that they were being removed then they would be very unhappy.

    The proposed wireless LAN is a slightly different matter since 802.11 tends to use lower power than cellphones and it works at a higher frequency where there is less chance of coupling into the wiring. Finally, I imagine that the airline will provide their own LAN cards which they have tested to make absolutely sure that they meet the frequency and power specifications. How do you know that your cellphone hasn't developed a fault causing it to radiate significant amounts of power on non-cellphone frequencies? Perhaps it doesn't do it now, but maybe it will next time it gets knocked, or if the temperature changes? Perhaps it has a loose solder joint?

    And as for it being the airlines responsibility to make their aircraft passenger proof. Well, maybe they should be proof against my 100W ham radio transmitter? Perhaps it should be safe for me to heat my own meals on board with a gas stove?

    And if the FAA do give in and allow transmitters and one day an aircraft crashes and there is some evidence (but no proof) that a cellphone caused it. What will happen? Passengers (particularly but not exclusively American ones) will start sueing the airline, aircraft manufacturer, cellphone maker and the FAA. Pathetic!

  • The first thing the Stews do is disable passenger comms.
  • Imagine being in IRC and explaining to your friends that these are your last moments. Kinda freaky. You could start spouting your passwords, or leave a love note. Think of the things people wished they could say on the way down.

    Your concept of reality and humanity is so undernourished that in your dying moments you think you would tell some anonymous people on IRC that you think you might die. Big deal. Tell someone who cares, like your mom and dad.

    And speaking of caring, in a crash your instincts would be to save yourself and then to save the people around you. No one in their right mind is going to take the opportunity to escape an aircraft that might blow up any minute and instead sit down at a terminal to write some buddies about the experience.

  • Re:Your last words. (Score:4)

    by revbob ( 155074 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @04:37AM (#152287) Homepage Journal
    Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety
    Re: Crashing
    From: Bertie the Bunyip

    > This DC-9 is pitching around and around and headed
    >for the ground.
    >Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

    Your use of the obsolete designator "DC-9" for the MD-80 aircraft indicates you know nothing about aviation. And motion around the axis of thrust isn't "pitching". It's called "roll".

    You deserve to die.

  • Wasn't "Connexion" one of the sites you could download Netscape (or was it Internet Explorer?) from?

    Connexion is one of those rare companies offering BFOB (Big Fsck-Off Bandwidth) Services to anyone willing to pay through the nose to get their data on Connexions servers.

    Sort of place you load your latest browser version to (like Netscape and IE).

    Chances of slashdotting it: about same as The BBC [bbc.co.uk] i.e. nill *grin*

  • It's well known that using a Game Boy during a commerical flight can cause severe instrumentation malfunction because of stray radion interference.

    If it's so well known why haven't we all heard about it? Provide the evidence whilst making such a far-off opinion.

    Probably 90% of planes in the skies have mobile phones in the ON position in the luggage bins, and as far as Accident Investigators have discovered, non has caused an accident.

    Accidents in the Air are caused by cost-saving maintenance procedures and tired aircrew, not by some kids gameboy.

    I may well have been trolled severely here, in which case well done *grin*



  • If intentional radiators were really that dangerous, terrorists would use cellphones, not bombs.
  • If crappy cell phones cause plane crashes, somebody should tell the security guards to stop letting people carry them onboard. Before some depressed kid with a grduge lights up his dad's old Motorola on final approach.

  • Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:4)

    by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @02:02AM (#152295) Homepage Journal
    Intentional radiators on planes (carried by passengers at least) are not presently permitted and so the whole issue is moot until there is a change in these regulations.

    The reason that the Bluetooth and 802.11 crowd keeps working on this is that there is some hope for movement by the FAA/CAA/Other regulatory bodies. The arguments are pretty simple..

    1) 2.4GHz is already polluted by wideband radiation in planes, since they use microwave ovens to heat the food. So there can be some level of confidence that you 802.11 tranciever isn't going to bring the plane down.

    2) Electrical interference is a function of both the strength of the interferer and the succeptability of the interferree. Plane equipment is supposed to be built to stringent succeptability requirements. When someone says you phone/pda/toothbrush will interfere with the plane, ask why the equiment on the plane is operating outside the succeptability requirements mandated for planes. The responsibility to make interference not be a problem has be foisted on the passengers. This is a bad thing. Passengers forget to turn phones off all the time. It should be the job of the plane manufacturers to make planes safe in the presence of passengers.

    3) There is lots of lobbying going on.

    However being charged money to get on the net is not really a necessity is it? One person sets his laptop up as a gateway/NAT router and everyone else sets up as an ad-hoc 802.11 network. That would save people a bit of cash.

    If all you wanted to do was play quake with your peers, you wouldn't need net access at all. 802.11 can work peer to peer. You don't need an AP just to communicate between a group of machines.

    So lobby lobby your MP/Senator/FAA rep/garage mechanic/EU minister to change the rules. It will improve the quality of your traveling life.

  • Well, a joke or a troll, I can't quite work it out. If the latter, is anyone going to bite and point out that the EM interference problems only apply to older airliners?

    I think that wowbagger does have a point about the FAA currently disallowing such things on all airliners despite it being safe on modern ones though.

    I'm more interested in which country's laws apply to your online activities, anyway (besides France's, which as we all know apply to the entire world and possibly several others :).

  • The FCC forbids using a cellphone from any platform not attached to the ground.

    "Attached to" or "resting on"? I'm not attached to the ground, and I have a pretty lively, bouncy gait when I walk, so would it be illegal for me to walk and talk on the phone?

    Jump! Jump! Jump!

  • Re:Run a webserver... (Score:3)

    by martyb ( 196687 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @03:36AM (#152304)

    Just run a webserver on your laptop when flying with the plane...submit it to slashdot: enjoy the feeling of being slashdotted 10000feet above the surface.

    It's likely you'd get just dial-up speeds on your connection. The data rates mentioned in this part of the article are FOR THE ENTIRE PLANE:

    Passengers will need to bring their own Internet connection device--a laptop computer, for instance--to use the service, Carson said, and the service operates at data rates of 5 mbps for incoming traffic and 1mbps for outgoing.

    The very next paragraph indicates that bandwidth, when split up among the passengers doesn't look so speedy::

    The speed will depend on the number of Internet users during each flight. Connexion by Boeing spokesman Terrance Scott says customers will have a minimum Internet hook-up equivalent to a 56K modem but should be able to get higher speeds.

    Though unstated in the article, I wonder how long it would be before some kind of bandwidth limiting may be imposed on the passengers; otherwise, a couple people streaming audio/video/pr0n to their laptops could saturate the connection.

    Besides the data rate, also consider ping times -- from what I understand the communications from the plane go by way of satelite. Don't know if they'll use low earth orbit sats or geosynchronous; but if the latter, you'll have some major roundtrip delays, too.

  • Just run a webserver on your laptop when flying with the plane...submit it to slashdot: enjoy the feeling of being slashdotted 10000feet above the surface.
  • I imagine it will be roughly the same number who currently browse this sort of magazine, which is in my experience not very many at all.

    Bryguy
  • If you actually go read the articles, the press release, and the Connexion by Boeing [boeing.com] FAQ, you'll find that there's isn't a word about how they're going to distribute the feed once it's on the plane. At this point, it's more likely the distribution will be good old cat-5. The wireless component is the plane's onboard phased array transceiver that's used to pump the internet feed up and down to a satellite.

    Of course, this does raise the interesting question of what the local-to-the-plan LAN is like. I imagine you could get a Doom/Quake/etc. game going on the plane between you and your buds without too much hassle.

  • Your last words. (Score:4)

    by infiniti99 ( 219973 ) <justin@affinix.com> on Thursday June 14, 2001 @02:03AM (#152315) Homepage
    Actually, being online in an airplane would allow you to communicate with people during a plane crash, something passengers normally can't do.

    Imagine being in IRC and explaining to your friends that these are your last moments. Kinda freaky. You could start spouting your passwords, or leave a love note. Think of the things people wished they could say on the way down.

    I actually first thought of this with cellphone text messaging, but the problem is you don't have signal (at least with ground-tower based service) until you are near ground. So if you were quick, you could fire off a "So long..." to one of your buddies just before impact.

    With the 'net though, you could discuss the entire situation much sooner. Write entire emails.

    Geez, maybe I should stop now. I have a 10 hour plane flight tomorrow after all...

  • Porn (Score:2)

    by Genie1 ( 224205 )
    Ahhh.... porn in the air. No more boring long flights. We'd probably have to fight for the toilet to ahem...
  • So that's it about this "one-mile-high" club everyone is speaking of... __ .sig missing... core dumped

  • 1337 H4x0R D00dz (Score:3)

    by OblongPlatypus ( 233746 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @01:45AM (#152320)
    I wouldn't worry too much about them. If they ever happen to find themselves on an airplane, they'll be too freaked out by the light and the people to be able to do anything. Script kiddies are used to the apparent comfort and protection of their dark and lonely rooms.
  • "Keep in mind that Boeing isn't a tech company"

    Yeah, there's no technology involved in airplanes. Or do you mean "tech" as in Amazon?
  • Perhaps im missing something here, but where did the poster get the impression it was going to be using wireless eth cards? I read the article twice and couldnt find any reference to 'wireless'.

    My first impression was they would be decking the planes out with rj45 ports and then allowing you to connect your laptop through your eth card using a cat5 patch cable. Surely that would be a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the long run, then using costly wireless ethernet cards and setting up a decent WAN. Not to mention possible problems with interference etc.

  • The point is, if they know what you're radiating and have certified their avionics as being cool with it, then it's okay to use it.

    The general prohibition is there because the aircrew has no way of knowing what kind of ham gear or Eurostandard jammer J. Random Ape has brought onto the flying coffin--er, aircraft.

    Boeing will give its subs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to certify this technology for flight. It will know exactly how it affects every input register and control signal in the cockpit. The FAA will have a DER sign off on the results and buglist. (Note: the DER can't fail a certification for having bugs, only for failing to document them. At that point the manufacturer is certified to know what's wrong with his stuff and to have taken responsibility for it. The government doesn't protect you, it protects its own ass from liability. And there's no recursive requirement to test the tests. This is what you get when you let industries write their own government regulations.)

    When Boeing's 802.11b flies, you still won't get to use your cellphone.

    --Blair
  • I'm just imagining the many times where I have a machine that just refuses to restart itself, and the reset switch is unresponsive. With bloody soft-off ATX, the odd time it can be necessary to physically UNPLUG the box from the wall.

    Now extend this to hard-wired equipment on an airplane:

    Attention ladies and gentlemen, this is you captain speaking. We may be experiencing a few bumps, as our support tech needs to turn off all electrical power to the airplane for just a few moments. Don't worry, at least half of all power failures DON'T result in crashes.

  • I work in the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Boeing in Brisbane. There is a Connexion office just up from us.

    I imagine there's no real reason why customers can't choose their OS given that it will be BYOC, but it will interesting to see how network and performance requirements will be addressed.

    Thing is, on short haul I wouldn't want to be checking my email or replying to memos - I'd want to get away from work on timeframes such as that, and game and entertainment up. :)

  • It's well known that using a Game Boy during a commerical flight can cause severe instrumentation malfunction because of stray radion interference.

    According to who? Sorry bud but I've used a gameboy, CD player, laptop, and a host of other electronic equipemnt on planes ranging from little Beechcraft turboprops up to 747-400s. As you might have guessed from the fact I'm typing this message that none of the planes have crashed. Nor did I or any of the other of hundereds of passengers doing the same thing get yelled at. Class B electronic devices, which things like tha Gameboy are, emit almost no radation. Go ahead and grab your scanner and check one some time. What's more, planse are actually pretty resiliant to stray RF frequencies. Once when we were landing someone actually had their cellphone ring. They'd forgot to turn it off for the whole flight. Yet, we didn't crash, nor were there any problems with the landing. See, most of the electronics on the plane are sheilded against stray RF and aren't affected. The rules are in place as a "just incase" sort of thing. After all, things like Cellphones, etc won't normally work when you're inflight (too high up) so why have them on? Yes, RF on the right band could potentially disrupt communications or electronics, but it's highly unlikely to find a consumer device that does that. At any rate, any normal portable consumer electronic device emits so little radation as to make no odds.

  • FAR 125.204 - Portable electronic devices.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
    operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
    operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil
    aircraft operating under this part.
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
    (1) Portable voice recorders;
    (2) Hearing aids;
    (3) Heart pacemakers;
    (4) Electric shavers; or
    (5) Any other portable electronic device that the Part 125 certificate
    holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
    communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
    (c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
    made by that Part 125 certificate holder operating the particular device to
    be used.

    Please note section (b)(5)......

  • Flying helpdesk (Score:4)

    by roguerez ( 319598 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @01:46AM (#152345) Homepage
    This will create a new job: flying technical supporter. Think of it: your parttime job will consist of bi-weekly 3 day trips where you fly to Australia and back to help passengers get their connection going, fetch their mail, etc.

    I've left my tech support period behind me, luckily. But for the new people this might well be a nice alternative than sitting in a cubicle all day.

  • Time zones (Score:4)

    by pklong ( 323451 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @02:36AM (#152347) Journal
    Oh no, now we shall need a utility to set the clock every time we change time zones.
  • Heck. I'll just set up my laptop as a basestation. Resell the connection "service" to the people around me for less than the airline charges. Make enough to buy drinks for the whole flight...

    So, what happens when a traveller opens his laptop and sees two different 802.11 networks to log on to? He will probably just pick the first one in the list. Imagine the fun that can be had acting as an "inflight ISP." (Logging, rerouting, etc)

    Give the airline about a year before they finally catch on.

    ______

  • That's nice! You will be able to find out on the net how much delay your flight is having 8-)

    Daniel
    "To be is to be the value of a variable" -- W.V.O. Quine

  • international regulations (Score:4)

    by Jeff Probst ( 459812 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @06:36AM (#152359) Homepage Journal
    lets say i h4X0r some site while flying in international waters.
    what laws will govern what i do?

Slashdot Top Deals

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner

Close