Cell Phones and Air Safety 295
Cutie Pi writes "On the heels of this recent Slashdot story discussing Wi-Fi use on airplanes, the BBC is reporting about new evidence indicating that cell phones can interfere with airplanes' navigation systems. From the article: "In tests, compasses froze or overshot, navigation bearings were inaccurate and there was interference on radio channels." Look like like Wi-Fi and airplanes just don't mix."
Um... (Score:5, Informative)
long range wifi? (Score:4, Funny)
Better yet, I mercilessly slaughter ever 2.4ghz cordless phone for causing interference with my wifi.
Re:long range wifi? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:long range wifi? (Score:3, Insightful)
Difference between "VFR" and "IFR" (Score:4, Interesting)
The navigation instruments in question are extremely sensitive; that precision is required when operating in the terminal area (particularly on the approach) in clouds or other visual obstruction. Operating in such conditions is done under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Particularly in the terminal area, IFR operations depend on precision, with less error tolerated the closer the airplane is to landing. On final approach (200' above the ground, 1/4 mile from the touchdown zone, moving at 150 knots, for a typical airliner; some approaches can be flown entirely by instrument, without ever seeing the ground, all the way to touchdown), precision is very important; a very small error could have significant consequences.
Navigating from city-to-city is usually done with the aid of instruments regardless of conditions, but doesn't require quite so much precision--consider that, in trying to find New York, you're looking for a target several hundred square miles in area. A half-mile here or there is irrelevant.
How did they hit the buildings? Well, if you saw any video at all of any of the crashes, you might have noticed the color of the sky: blue. As in, no clouds. Without clouds or other visual obstructions, operations can be carried out under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). In short, the terrorists steered the airplanes toward the targets that they could see, visually, from many miles out!
Duh.
Re:Um... (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't anything "new". We've known about this since the 80's.
Most, if not all, consumer electronic devices intended for 2-way communication (ie. cell phones) emit RF [reference.com].
RF is bad for avionics [reference.com].
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore WiFi is direct sequence spread spectrum, so the amount of energy at a given frequency is even lower.
What could cut either way is that WiFi equipment is at a different frequency from cell phones.
I don't expect anyone to pay for the careful and expensive research and testing to prove whether passenger-operated uncertified radios can be used safely. You'd have to test every position in the cabin, to allow for multipath effects, and you'd have to check every operating mode of every safety-related piece of built-in electronics, and you'd have to repeat for every make of consumer radio, and even then you wouldn't be up to aviation safety standards because a consumer products company might let equipment come off the line with "minor" deviations. There's a totally different mindset in aviation safety, where equipment is guilty until proven innocent.
Then come the combinatorial problems. Passenger A uses a GSM phone at 890-915 MHz. Passenger B across the aisle uses a WiFi card at 2.4GHz. Both induce currents in the aluminum structure, including the corroded joint in the 20-year-old airplane. The corroded joint is nonlinear and mixes the signals, retransmitting sum and difference frequencies and higher order combinations.
_If_ you tape the compass to the 'phone, yes... (Score:2, Informative)
One thing we are told about mobile 'phones is that they emit "2 watts" - we are not told that this comes as very steep pulses peaking at 200W. Domestic microwave ovens start at 600W and work up. What you are holding against your brain-case is a third of a microwave oven.
Nevertheless a highly inefficient 200W (mostly) electric transmitter in a metal tube full of absorbtive objects like water-filled (70%) human bodies is likely not going to generate a strong e
Aren't they already banned? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:5, Informative)
I recall an anecdote of a lady. She used her phone while approaching the airport (coverage in the air would be absolutely amazing) and was met at the gate by law enforcement.
They are *not* allowed in the air.
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2)
Reason I clarify that is there can be a 30-minute time period between when you actually set foot onto the plane and when it actually starts to taxi away... I had that problem at MSP in January where a group of about 30 people coming in on another flight to connect onto mine landed 10 minutes la
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2)
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2, Informative)
Not on board any plane I have recently been on (quite a few, that is).
All electronic equipment (e.g. also laptops) is banned during take off and landing. Anything with an antenna is unconditionally banned during the entire flight.
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2)
They are banned so that you will pay $$$ to use the phone built into the seat. The phones built into the seat use the same technology as regular cell phones. They're just screwing you.
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. The systems are completely different: cellphones are optimized for use on the ground, while the airphone systems are designed to be used from the air. The frequency allocations are also different.
The airphones also have exterior (to the airplane) antennas, and the systems were tested at the time of installation to confirm they do not interfere with the aircraft navigation or communication systems.
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2)
There is a case of a cell phone in a baggage compartment [theregister.co.uk] that gave a false positive of the aircraft smoke detector.
Re:Aren't they already banned? (Score:2)
Cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Cell + Driving = Death
Cell + Extended Use = Brain Tumor -> Death
Although they've done wonder for the Tiny-Blue-LED Industry.
Re:Cells (Score:4, Funny)
All the times that urban legend is repeated + One more = Brain aneurism -> Death
Re:Cells (Score:3, Informative)
It's clear that using cell phones can distract drivers, but it has yet to be shown to be worse than many other types of distractions.
Priorities (Score:2)
Yesterday, I watched a dude walking along the footpath in Merriwa with his GF. They could barely afford clothes (what they wore was ragged, and not in a trendy way), yet could apparently afford a mobile 'phone that flashed red, white, blue quite brightly against the guy's face as he talked, and also the spondoolies needed to keep the thing on the air.
`Hello? Is this brain on?'
compass? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:compass? (Score:5, Informative)
Not really all that funny. (Score:5, Informative)
They do.
The compass is there to fall back on in case the sophisticated stuff quits working for whatever reason. And yes, a cellphone can interfere with the magnetic compass. I know, I'm a private pilot and own a small aircraft. Every bit of electrically operated gear in the cabin jacks with the compass's reading. Since I *know* how the electrical equipment that's installed and certificated as part of my aircraft affects my compass, I can deal with and compensate for that since I'm intimately familiar with all that gear.
It's all the *unknown* electrical devices that are brought on board an airliner and operated by passengers, that an airline pilot doesn't need to be made to worry about and wonder how to compensate for because if the situation has deteriorated to such a bad point that he's having to use the mag compass, you want nothing to interfere with it.
Now you might want to say,"How often does everything really go wrong and the pilot have to use the old fashioned mag compass to navigate?" Well, not very often at all in fact extremely rare, but I have to ask you, "How many times have you needed the spare tire in your car"? Well, I've driven my current vehicle over 150K miles in the past 11 years and never needed it, but that still doesn't mean I'm going to remove it or let the air out of it, or not check to see if it is in roadworthy before embarking upon a long trip, so why should the airline pilots risk the integrity of their last backup spare navigation instrument just because some selfish passengers want to play with their toys on board. Hell, the passengers should consider themselves lucky they are still allowed to fly at all and not having to make do with only ground and water transportation.
Re:Not really all that funny. (Score:2)
The article provided zero basis or clarification of the problems it described, especially given the serious nature of the effects. Wandering planes on a runway? Caused by a cell phone? Does it use The Force or so
No Immunity Requirements? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Immunity Requirements? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd imagine an overhaul to "cell proof" all commercial planes would cost the already struggling air industry more than they can handle.
and what's your point? (Score:2)
So? It's supposed to be a free market--let them go out of business if they can't provide necessary security and robustness at a competitive price. Let's also stop the government subsidies for security, air traffic control, noise abatement, airports, etc.
Re:No Immunity Requirements? (Score:2)
I'd imagine an overhaul to "cell proof" all commercial planes would cost the already struggling air industry more than they can handle.
I don't care. Why is it that a crowd like this which is so interested in computer security not see the security of planes in the same light as the security of computers?
If an exploit is found, a fix is issued and we go on. We don't go to the hacker crowd and say "Hey, we found this exploit, please don't use it for evil. Thanks." We fix it!
If it's the case that pl
Re:No Immunity Requirements? (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, they can tell if there's a operating cellphone on board.
Well, that's comforting (Score:5, Funny)
As long as they're not pointy.
surley Sergey pays the price (Score:2, Funny)
ok, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ok, but... (Score:2, Informative)
With the advent of more composite construction in these new airframes, it is conceivable that they may have less airframe attentuation than the older models, allowing cabin generated EMI to couple via the antenna path.
Re:ok, but... (Score:2)
BT plans wifi on its planes.. (Score:4, Informative)
British Airway is set to introduce on-board broadband services next month. and Connexion By Boeing has received to go ahead from the US Federal Aviation Administration to use WiFi networks with satellite links aboard planes, after satisfying the authority that the technology is safe.
Anyway, your cell phone won't work on a plane, it goes to fast to do hand-offs between cells properly.
Pah! It's a conspiracy. (Score:3, Funny)
Demand your right to use bluetooth, 8011b, and GSM devices while the plane is taking off and landing! To do anything else is bowing down to Da Man.
Oh, and if anyone knows how I can stop paying income tax, email me. It's a terrible drain on my broadband budget.
Now, if the radiation is baking the electronics... (Score:2, Offtopic)
In my more FUD/Luddite moments, I wonder what all or the radiation will do to society over time.
By the time you've got all of the electronics and wireless LAN crap installed, what is it _really_ doing to you?
Could it be that this technology will be to us as lead piping was to Rome?
Even if harmful long-term effects were demonstrated in enough studies, would it matter? <lights up a cigarette>
Re:Now, if the radiation is baking the electronics (Score:5, Informative)
But don't take my word for it, read the CDC study [cdc.gov].
A Few Articles & An Explanation (Score:2, Informative)
load of bull (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet those 30+ incidents reported blamed cells because they needed a scapegoat for their lack of good equipment checks.
I once heard a cell phone was blamed for starting a gas station on fire. Perhaps that would be true, except the last I checked circut boards arn't a good source of spark. Next thing you will see is women being baned from wearing makeup and good looking clothing because it is a distraction for the pilots. Give me a break
Fuel station fire (Score:2)
I once watched a guy reset an entire fuel station with his hundred-watt CB (27MHz) linear amp (antenna about 30cm from nearest pump electronics). Does that count?
Everywhere else in the world, `gas' is the hissy stuff that happens when you heat a fluid too much. Admittedly what Aussies call "petrol stations" are actually selling some bona fide gas (LPG and sometimes LNG) as well, now.
Re:load of bull (Score:3, Informative)
Re:load of bull (Score:2)
Don't forget the inside/outside difference. PLanes have certainly been designed to withstand and shield against a fairly large dose of radiation on the outside of the hull - but 30 years ago I don't think anyone conceived passengers inside the plan having high power RF transmitters onboard. There's no internal shielding between the passenger compartment and the instrumentation.
As for it being too expensive to shield this stuff - don't bother retrofitting shielding on the instruments - just line the passe
Not a game (Score:2)
I can't wait for the first thread blaming the Challenger firework on an astronaut using a cell phone.
ok some dumb questions.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am skeptical, but readily admit I don't know.
Re:ok some dumb questions.. (Score:2)
Truth is, most of the time, it doesn't make a whit of difference whether or not someone in the cabin (or even in the cockpit) has a mobile phone or WiFi device powered up. It seems that problems only arise when a combination of circumstances come togethe
why would such vulnerability be tolerated? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why would such vulnerability be tolerated? (Score:3, Funny)
Mua ha ha (Score:3, Funny)
"That so?" *beep beep boop*
fix the airplanes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fix the airplanes (Score:2)
Now terrorists will slip onto US planes carry hundreds of cell phones. Tweezers? Not allowed! Cell phones? a-ok!
I had read elsewhere that the problem with cell phones in airplanes was actually a problem for cell phone carriers. When you are in the air, your cell phone's signal would be picked up by hundreds of cell towers on the ground. This would overload the cell phone carrier's system and also make tracking and charging of user minutes much more difficult.
Physics (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem could be fixed by redesigning all aircraft communication and navigation systems to use jam-resistant modulation techniques. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Voice communications st
Re:Physics (Score:5, Interesting)
DME, VOR and ILS are based on ancient technology.
I believe you meant to say "DME, VOR and ILS are based on ancient technology that is well-proven and works.
Seriously, the reason the ILS hasn't changed in half a century is that it has a wide installation base (so changes would affect hundreds of thousands of airplanes around the world). We have a technology with incredible inertia; lots of people use it, and it is ungodly-expensive to replace avionics. (Nav/Comm radio? $2K for a nice one. GPS? Try $10K for some of the nicer models, equivalent to what you find in nicer cars these days. And that's in the light aviation market--radios in jets start closer to fifty grand apiece, and most airplanes have three or four comms, three or four nav radios, GPS, etc.) Changing technology requires exhaustive testing to gain certification, and an enormous investment from all parties; if a new system is going to "take off" (pun intended), it will have to be available in a wide area, or else nobody will want to pay for it.
The ILS has seen some incremental improvements; standard (Category I) ILS typically guides the airplane down to 200' above ground level (AGL). Cat II ILS, which requires special equipment on the ground and in the air, and special pilot training, reduces that to 100' AGL. Cat III ILs (which is actually subdivided into IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc), can provide guidance all the way down to the runway, in zero-zero conditions (zero foot cloud ceiling, zero foot forward visibility). The technology is proven reliable, relatively simple (always nice), and has the capability to go to zero-zero; what more do you really want from it?
VOR is "good enough" for most purposes; it has a nominal accuracy of four degrees (if memory serves), which is only four miles' error when you're sixty miles from the station. In most parts of the US, you would be hard-pressed to get more than sixty miles from a station. Four miles' error may sound like a lot, but it's really quite inconsequential--all of the other airplanes on VOR are seeing the same error, so it's a simple transposition, and you're in controlled airspace anyway, with a guy watching a radar screen to keep an eye on things. On top of that, the absolute error decreases as you approach the station. Given that most VORs are either on or near airports, the problem takes care of itself; as you get close to the airport (where precision is more important), the error decreases. Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) is plenty accurate at low altitude[0], and at high altitude, errors are less critical; on top of that, when using DME, everything is referenced to DME readings, so again, it's a transposition error. As long as everybody's on the same page, it's not a concern.
If you really need that degree of positional accuracy, there's GPS, which is being adopted with great enthusiasm by the aviation community. If you need more precision, use WAAS/LAAS, or inertial nav, or all of the above into a flight management system; if you need that kind of precision, though, you're probably referencing yourself to something specific on the ground. If that's the case, there's a wonderful navigation technology that can give you all kinds of precision. It's called "eyeballs."
Voice (and other stuff) is done using AM instead of FM because AM has lower power requirements for equivalent service; less power means less weight in the airplane, and better service for the ground station. Jam-resistant modulation? Again, we run into the problem of paying for the upgrade (unless, of course, you're offering), testing (and lots of it), and the fact that we have no real need. If we get into a situation where we're in that much trouble, the civilian fleet will no doubt be grounded (again!), and the military already has encrypted, jam-resistant communications and navigation technology. What we really need is more bandwidth, and we're getting that by reducing the channel spacing (comm channels have gone from 50kHz to 25kHz, and are moving to 8.33kHz)
Re:Physics (Score:2)
No, it's not.
Signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the emitter and receiver. That means that someone's cheap CD player in the passenger cabin can easily jam a navigation beacon that is 50 kilometers away.
We have these wonderful things called "frequencies" and "spread spectrum". That's why, say, you can use your 2.4GHz cell phone, WiFi card, microwave oven, and live next to a bunch of radio stati
Great! Another thing to get arrested for! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Great! Another thing to get arrested for! (Score:2)
Wait, am I reading this wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet you link to a story about Cell phones! Cell phones != wi-fi!
35?? (Score:3, Interesting)
35 cases in 7 years?? How many planes fly each day??
Cell Phone Interference Report (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a report (pdf) that discusses the interference effects of cell phones on aircraft: Interference Levels In Aircraft at Radio Frequencies used by Portable Telephones [caa.co.uk] An html [216.239.39.100] version is available on google.
Executive Summary
Measurements made on two types of civil transport aircraft confirm that transmissions made in the cabin from portable telephones can produce interference levels that exceed demonstrated susceptibility levels for aircraft equipment approved against earlier standards. Since aircraft equipment in this class is currently in use, and can be installed, and is known to be installed, in newly built aircraft, current policy restricting the use of portable telephones on aircraft must continue. Recommendations are made to reduce the interference risk and for further studies to understand more precisely the effects of interference to aircraft equipment arising from the use of portable telephones.
WiFi vs. cellphones on planes (Score:5, Informative)
BUT...to say "planes and WiFi" don't mix is inappropriate, since:
(a) the article makes no montion of WiFi
(b) WiFi is lower power
(c) Wifi is in the 2400MHz range. CDMA is 1900GHz, GSM is 900/1800/1900MHz, depending on where you are.
CLearly, if Lufthansa felt that WiFi was no threat to avionics, they wouldn't be testing it on international flights OVER WATER.
It's mostly GSM that's at fault. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it's mostly GSM phones that are the problem. When the phone detects that it's losing contact with the cell, it makes a short burst of very high energy transmissions that, on the radio, sound like 'dt-dt-dt dt-dt-dt dt-dt-dt' (morse code for SSS?
However, I've NEVER noticed this with a CDMA (okay, technically IS-95) phones, which are a lot more common in the USA (vs England and Australia which primarily use GSM now). So, the UK's test is probably more accurate for GSM phones. However, I'm also sure it's not a black/white issue, but rather a matter of proportions.
Personally, if *I* was in charge of the safety of a passenger-carrying flight, I'd want to make damn sure there wasn't ANYTHING that could adversely affect navigation, even if the chance was remote. Flying around IFR at night is
Further studies need to be done. Operators need to weigh the costs of shielding the navigation instruments against the benefit of allowing passengers to use bluetooth/WiFi on the aircraft. And, passengers need to damn well obey flight crew instructions
Re:It's mostly GSM that's at fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
(Please note the following applies to MSes not GPRS-attached. A completely different and more complicated explanation would be required.)
* The pulsing sound is a result of bursts being transmitted over the radio interface (certain bursts must always be transmitted, even if no user data is carried - i.e. no-one talking), thus, this is why is always sounds like the same pattern. If you start talking the GSM phone will emit a more constant stream.
*
rules against cellphones (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of an airplane crashing from cell phone usage? If it was really that easy to create safety problems, I'm sure it would happen all the time. Besides, terrorists could easily bring a much more powerful brodcaster onto an airplane. The real reason cell phones are banned, is that airlines don't want competition to their really expensive phones.
What about microwave ovens (Score:2)
Selfish (Score:4, Informative)
The world's aeronautical authorities don't do this sort of thing for fucking fun you know. This is serious business, and some of the responses coming from know-nothing fuckwits on this forum fill me (as occasional plane passenger and as a pilot) with horror.
This don't never belong on no airline. (Score:3, Insightful)
This all goes to show just how FRAGILE everything is in electronics. In programming, it's one thing to overrun a buffer by a few bytes and wonder why some totally different part of the system takes a dump, but in electronics, you can't even debug the damn thing. Airplanes have this problem times a million because of all the noise that goes circulating around in their systems. And I truly understand their concerns. I don't want to go falling down from 50,000 feet because some jackass in row 39D's WiFi driver in Windows starts sending out all kinds of strange signals. And because Windows Sucks.
WTF? (Score:2)
But anyways, instead of whining about the laptops, should we figure out how to isolate these instruments?
"Sir, whenever I stand up, femur bone juts out through my flesh." "Then don't stand up."
Always a good methodology of fixing potentially mortal weaknesss.
Something to think about (Score:2, Insightful)
Just spend time in any computer help forum and you will run across people who are helped by moving their un
Wireless Technology Aboard Aircraft (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Duh (Score:2)
False Warnings in the cockpit: Pilot got a txt msg from a "friend" in his destination.
Distractions causing aircraft to stray onto runway: Flying while Yakking
Interrupted Radio Comm: "Hold on, I got a call"
Multiple Safety
I believe Lufthansa already have wifi onboard (Score:2)
What's with the attitude? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are everybody going "no damn way, you'll pry this cell phone from my cold dead hands, I need scientific evidence". What about being a bit cautious, or are you all leet electrical engineers?
I have experienced cell phones interfering heavily with electronic equipment on the ground and also in flight, so this isn't a complete fabrication.
While I was flying in a dash8, the fire alarm went off, which was pretty damn scary, I tell you. Later it turned out that a cell phone recieving a call would almost always trigger the fire alaram system in a dash8.
I really don't understand why you are so negative towards this. Do you think it's some kind of airline conspiracy, forcing you to use their expensive phones?
I'm a private pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Kat, is your phone off?
Kat: Will my phone really mess up the plane?
Me: I don't know. Do you want to find out?
[Kat turns off her phone.]
My point is that almost none of us are qualified to determine whether mobile phones cause problems for aircraft. (Raise your hand if you're a certificated avionics technician.) Unless you were on one of the September 11 flights, there is not a single phone call so important that it's worth jeopardizing the safety of the flight. All of the people who are getting indignant about not being able to use their precious phones on an aircraft should step back and get some perspective. I'm an instrument-rated pilot, and if you're in my plane when I'm shooting an ILS through a 200 foot ceiling, you damn well better turn that shit off.
Here's the CAA Report that the BBC refers to (Score:2)
CAA Paper 2003/03: Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
Re:I guess I really should shut off my cell phone (Score:5, Informative)
Do you leave it on in your pocket when you fill up with "gas" (petrol) too because it's ridiculous that a spark could cause an explosion of fumes ? Do you smoke while filling the car up too ?
Put your phone next to your car antenna and turn the radio on, and turn the phone on - hear that "dut-dut-der-dut-dut-der-dut" pulsing ?? Notice how you get the same effect when you drive to the airport (from their radar) ? Do you figure maybe a cell-phone that can't get a signal so has upped its power output to max to try and get one, about 20 feet away from the plane's antennas is going to providea stronger pulse than the radio signal being transmitted from 5 miles away ?
I was standing on the tarmac waiting to board a flight in Pakistan, next to a 747 that was being re-fuelled (which was freaking me out anyway - the av-gas fumes were really strong), and the people behind me decided this would be a good time to light up a cigarette... (they were german, said something about being ridiculous when I told them to put their lighters away and put their "f*ckin fags out").
Re:I guess I really should shut off my cell phone (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I guess I really should shut off my cell phone (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I guess I really should shut off my cell phone (Score:4, Informative)
Ridiculous [hintsandthings.co.uk].
Do you smoke while filling the car up too ?
Not ridiculous [ananova.com].
Re:I guess I really should shut off my cell phone (Score:2)
You misspelled "Jet-A," which is chemically far more similar to kerosene (or kerosine, as I'm guessing you're British from your use of the term "fags" for cigarettes) than gasoline. Jet-A is far tougher to ignite than gasoline; in fact, it's very much like diesel, which requires significant pressure (or additives such ammonium nitrate) to do anything really interesting.
Nonetheless, lighting up when you have a strong fuel odor around ranks fairly high on my list o
BZZZT! Wrong! jet fuel != av-gas (Score:2)
I was standing on the tarmac waiting to board a flight in Pakistan, next to a 747 that was being re-fuelled (which was freaking me out anyway - the av-gas fumes were really strong), and the people behind me decided this would be a good time to light up a cigarette...
1) 747s do not use Av-Gas; jet fuel is similar to diesel. You can toss a burning match into a bucket of such fuel and the match will simply go out. (The temperature required to ignite the fuel is higher than the flash point of gasoline.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An Answer to the Problem... (Score:2)
If your data is really that valuable and you don't have a tape or CDR backup at home and another backup in your carry on, you are insane. If you don't back up because you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quality skills? Nice theory... (Score:2)
...but it'll never happen. Not on /. (-:
What rights? (Score:2)
Re:Electronic devices during takeoff (Score:2)
Re:You know... (Score:2)
If it really is possible problems in critical systems on a commercial airliner, someone is seriously liable if something happens.
Re:cellphones being used in hijacked planes on 9/1 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:cellphones being used in hijacked planes on 9/1 (Score:2)
Re:How about GPS? (Score:2)
And yes, they work fine, although it's difficult for them to get a lock on satellites through the tiny windows.
Re:How about GPS? (Score:2)
Yeah if it is a commercial airline in the USA, you leave you GPS in your luggage, turned off. That's pretty much the policy of every major airline that's still operating these days. Used to not be the case, once upon a time you could use a handheld GPS in-route (not during takeoff and landing), but one-by-one, all the airlines have added specific language to their policies forbidding their use.
Re:How about GPS? (Score:2)
I've always wanted to take my GPS on a plane and check out to see if the pilot is speaking the truth when announcing the altitude, plus checking speed would be cool. Anyone the rules about a GPS on a plane?
A) He's sort-of telling the truth. Above 18,000 feet, we fly at "Flight Levels," not altitudes. When passing through 18,000, we reset our alitmeters to the standard value (29.92" Hg, or 1013 mb, 760 mm Hg, or whatever your preferred value for standard pressure), instead of the local barometric pressu
Re:How about GPS? (Score:2)
Others will work with varying degrees of success. You may fine the receiver slow to get a initial fix, since they tend to assume you are stationar