1287457
story
Comments: 773 +- Mobile: Qantas Blames Wireless For Aircraft Incidents on Thursday October 09 2008, @09:55AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictransportation.gif); width:75px; height:69px;
transportation
musther writes "An Australian airline Qantas Airbus A330-300, suffered 'a sudden change of altitude' on Tuesday. "The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries when the flight bound from Singapore to Perth had a dramatic drop in altitude that hurled passengers around the cabin." Now it seems Qantas is seeking to blame interference from passenger electronics, and it's not the first time; 'In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course.' Is there any precedent for wireless electronics interfering with aircraft systems? Interfering with navigation instruments is one thing, but causing changes in the 'elevator control system' — I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."
Related Stories
Who to himself is law no law doth need,
offends no law, and is a king indeed.
-- George Chapman
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
If an airplane can have its control mechanisms interfered with by a simple wireless device then what the hell are they thinking?
Shield that crap.
If it is that delicate then don't use it - there are surely alternatives and surely my life should not depend on something so likely trivial.
It could be said that, "Yeah, they cause problems and in the interest of safety we're going to ban them." Bullshit. That treats the symptom and is not a cure.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
It's important to note that in a modern aircraft, there is a closed loop between the navigation system and the control system. Almost the entire flight is flown by the autopilot based on GPS and other navigational aids. While most planes still have backup pressure-based altitude instruments, GPS is even used for altitude calculation.
So I suspect it's not that the wireless is interfering with the fly-by-wire control mechanism, but making the navigation system think that the altitude is significantly off. Assuming that is, in fact, the cause.
(I can confirm that on small aircraft wireless devices that produce a lot of interference can muck with electronic instruments, but I hadn't heard about it seriously affecting a large aircraft's systems before.)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you're right(I don't know shit about this stuff), the issue then becomes the software.
If the plane descended so abruptly that it caused 70 injuries, then the software is to blame for not limiting ascent and descent in a more controlled manner.
When a human pilot sees they're at 30k feet and wants to be at 12k feet, they do not plunge the plane into a nose dive.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
A 747 certainly can push over fast enough to get negative gees in the cabin. It has nothing to do with a nose-dive and everything to do with how fast the plane's attitude changes. All you'd have to do is go negative enough to lift people in the air, then back to positive and they'll fall down.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
how fast the plane's attitude changes. All you'd have to do is go negative enough to lift people in the air, then back to positive and they'll fall down.
Well, maybe someone should get that plane some therapy and stop all those attitude changes. We can't have planes flying around with violent mood swings. Negative attitude, positive attitude, I can't be dealing with these kinds of planes. I want a plane that has a stable attitude and won't throw a fit and hurl passengers about just 'cause someone clicked a mouse.
Parent
The crash you mention (Score:5, Informative)
Airbus will not "take over", but it will clamp what it sees as out-of-range inputs.
The crash you are thinking of it the Habsheim one, where Airbus was doing a very low, slow pass in front of the crowd over a runway that was actually too short for it to use. The pilot was actually using the behaviour you describe: he had told the plane to go very slow and was depending on the software to keep it above stalling speed - which it did. But he was flying below tree height - and the software could not see the trees. The pilot forgot that the engines take 10 seconds to spool up from the low power used in near-stall to enough power to climb above the trees. So when he ordered climb power and nose up, the software refused to try to climb until the engines were delivering enough power to do so safely. Unfortunately, by this time the aircraft had hit the trees.
Basically, the pilot had flown into a very wide, shallow hole, and didn't have the power to climb out. A classic case of software-induced complacency. The software performed exactly according to the spec. Whether the spec was right is another question.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
I sincerely hope GPS isn't being used for primary altimetry:
http://gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm [gpsinformation.net], emphasis mine
Air pressure altimeters are accurate, stable, and perfectly standardized by aviation processes and regulation. I have grave doubts that any aircraft primary avionics suite would ever be fielded that puts GPS altimetry above that.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, it is always a tradeof.
Modern airplanes have a huge length (and mass) of wires running trough it and perfect shielding (besides the cost) would add far too much weight. The solution used is to shield the calculators and use robust communication protocols such as ARINC A429 between them. Of course, even with no weight constraints, they still can't shield some captors for obvious reasons and usualy rely on redundancy to offset the risks caused by a polluted measurement.
Parent
Dear editors... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear editors... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Channel Reuse & Interference (Score:5, Informative)
Is there any precedent for wireless electronics interfering with aircraft systems? Interfering with navigation instruments is one thing, but causing changes in the 'elevator control system' -- I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse.
Well, Wikipedia has a great section [wikipedia.org] on this.
Following from reading that, I would need to see whether Quantas planes have a lack of shielding somewhere that would make this a vulnerability. In the defense of so many airlines and the FAA, I will state that I would rather read a book than work on a laptop if it means reducing a very low risk. That risk being that I am operating in a range that interferes with a device that is crucial to flight and also improperly shielded.
Re:Channel Reuse & Interference (Score:5, Insightful)
No. This has nothing to do with "I want to use my laptop/DS/phone, so make me happy as the paying customer", and everything to do with "if an unauthorized wireless mouse can bring down a plane, we need the entire fleet of such badly defective planes grounded and fixed yesterday".
Seriously. Any system that can't deal with weak RF interference needs to hit the scrapheap. In any other industry, we'd see the customers suing - Imagine if Ford said using a bluetooth headset in their vehicles violates your warranty... They'd go bankrupt overnight. Only the fact that the aviation industry has slowly boiled the frog, making us expect horrible customer service at unpredictable (but high) prices, allows any of the BS we've put up with for the past 20 years (and the shout-and-taze squads aside, the airlines had problems long before 9/11).
Parent
Not the right reason to worry. (Score:4, Funny)
"I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."
Flown? No. Crashed? Maybe.
Fixed that for you.
Mythbusters (Score:4, Interesting)
Proof? (Score:5, Interesting)
Until they backup their accusations, its just an attempt to divert responsibility instead of saying "Oops, we messed up".
If it is a fact that a common wireless communication device can cause this sort of issue - why do they not have policies and procedures in place to prevent it? I'd say all blame still lands squarely on their shoulder - if some tool with a bluetooth headset can bring the plane I'm riding on down, you better believe I'm placing my faith in the airline that they take necessary measures to ensure that isn't possible.
Seems a lot more likely they slipped on their maintenance schedule however and a component in the plane failed, simplest answer is often the correct one.
Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
The FAA has an advisory on PEDs (personal electronics devices) called AC 91.21.1b where they suggest that carriers set their own standards as to what PEDs are allowed and which are not. This applies to US planes only, but I mention it as a point of comparison.
Whenever you read incidents of PEDs interfering with aircraft, it's important to note that they're pretty much all anecdotal. There's a story from 15 years ago where a pilot claimed that a laptop being turned on and off would toggle the autopilot disconnect, for instance, but when the airline purchased that exact laptop from the passenger and tried reproducing it on the same route at the same location and altitude, they were unable.
Modern avionics are not very susceptible to interference like this. Qantas may have chosen this explanation at this point for the same reason that a software developer might claim 'alpha bit decay' (or cosmic rays) was responsible for an unreproducible software crash. No confirmation is guaranteed, and a negative result during a test doesn't prove that the theory is wrong.
For my background, I've developed software, built programmable electronics, and installed avionics in aircraft. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've got a 'Bravo Sierra' alarm that's going off when I read this story.
I *hate* this discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I used to support PC-based ECG capture devices. I used to really like taking people who claimed their phone had no effect on medical devices, and taking them to stand in front of an ECG monitoring screen and *showing* them the effect on the traces that it had.
Kidding me right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a classic case of FUD to mask the real issue. Along with making sure that people stay scared about using electronic devices in plains.
I hate to break it to the aviation industry but we are pushing along in the 21st century these days. They are going to have to design and fly planes with people using electronic devices. There is no reason why a modern aircraft should not be able to accommodate that within reasonable limits.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a rather dangerous way to go about finding the real cause. They are assuming the cause, and now looking for proof. They have confirmation bias oozing from every pore.
Sounds like bullshit to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell can a *wireless mouse* affect the elevator controls of an aircraft? Are they somehow about a trillion times more susceptible to interference than the electronics in cars? Let's think logically about this for a fucking minute...
You can use a mobile phone in a car, which has damn near every function controlled by some sort of electronics (well, if it was built within the last ten years). Despite this, cars don't routinely have all sorts of weirdass control failures caused by people talking on mobile phones, which may be using an output power of up to a few hundred milliwatts. They are *sometimes* affected by massive sources of very very loud RF, like military RADAR systems - there's a spot of German autobahn known for cars having mysterious electrical failures which clear up when the car is towed a kilometer down the road. No surprises here, there's a big RADAR installation *right by the road*.
"But it's a wireless mouse, using bluetooth!" - okay, so that means it's on 2.4GHz. Fire up your laptop in the car. Weird electrical problems? Nope. Nothing. Right there you're using about 50mW of 2.4GHz RF, maybe up to 100mW depending on the card and local telecoms regulations. Get your bluetooth mouse out. Anything? Probably not - since they transmit in the order of a handful of *microwatts* of RF.
Okay, let's look at the plane - I wonder if it's got any sort of digital radio transmitter on it? Oh, look, a transponder, and that puts out somewhere between 100W and 500W depending on the type. Ah yes, and an ACARS transmitter with at least 5W, possibly as much as 25W, again depending on the type...
So, what are you saying here? Do you seriously expect me to believe that a wireless mouse operating in the microwatt range can affect the avionics of an aircraft, but *somehow* the aircraft's own very high power radio transmitters don't? There's probably more stray RF at 2.4GHz from the galley microwave.
Saying that it was caused by a wireless mouse is unquestionably bollocks.
True story (Score:5, Informative)
My dad was an Air Traffic Controller and casual pilot for many years and now works for the FAA. I asked him this question, "can cellphones really interfere with a plane's instruments", just a few years ago. He told me this story.
He was sitting in a 20-something-seater puddle jumper waiting to taxi out to the runway. The attendant had gone through all of the necessary checks, did the "turn off your portable electronic devices" speech, sat down, and buckled in. They all waited.
A minute or two later, the captain came on over the PA and said: "Hey folks, it looks like we've got someone with a cellphone still on -- can the men check their briefcases and the ladies check their purses and make sure yours is turned off, please? We can't taxi out until they're all off." There was a bit of fumbling as people checked, then more waiting.
The captain came on again: "Folks, I appreciate your patience, but it looks like we may have to deplane if we can't find that cell phone. Can everyone check one more time, please? Your phones need to be completely off, not just in standby mode." Again, there was much fumbling. This time, it was only a few seconds before the captain came back on. "There we go. Thanks everyone, that did it."
The rest of the flight was uneventful, but my dad waited to be the last to deplane and then stopped to chat with the captain. He explained who he was and then asked, basically, if that was for real. The captain gestured to his copilot and said "watch this -- mine doesn't do it, but his does".
The copilot pulled out his cellphone and turned it on. After a few seconds, several of the displays on the instrument panel started to twitch and do loopy things. The copilot switched the phone back off and everything went back to normal.
Long story short (too late!), it may be the case with larger and newer aircraft that the instruments are shielded well enough so that the EM interference isn't an issue. But with at least some aircraft, it apparently is.
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:We've got you uncovered (Score:5, Funny)
Well, since you're new you'll have to start with the over 70s.
Enjoy!
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm...risk being choked to death or spend several hours sharing half your seat with the naked guy sitting next to you. I choose death by thong thank you very much.
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Or even worse, you're in 32B and the fatty is in 32A and 32C
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Just prey to GOD you're not in seat 32A, with a fatty in 32B and C.
I'm preying to God I'm in a seat next to a hottie with 32Cs or 32Ds.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
meaningless security theater to calm the crowds.
I don't believe it's to calm the crowds. More like intimidate the crowds.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to long after 9/11, I was on a Qantas flight that passed out plastic silverware during dinner...except for those of us that ordered the steak, we got steel steak knives with our meal. You could hear people laughing all the way down the plane as the cart rolled down the aisle passing out knives.
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't doubt it for a second. There is a reason that federal law says you must turn off electronic devices, and has for decades.
I'm a pilot, and I've seen it happen. Not the level that is reported in this story, but simple electronics interfering with navigation and flight controls. (What do you think is used as input to the autopilot? Yes, the navigation instruments.) I've been on more than one IFR flight where I had to make sure that certain radio gear was turned off before contacting certain approach controls, because that radio caused the aviation radio to be useless. And that radio was a professionally installed, certified radio, not a piece of whatever being carried by just anyone.
They're that paranoid, and I'm supposed to believe they let people on board with gear that can interfere with the steering of the plane?
Yes, you should believe they let people on board with gear that can interfere with the steering of the plane, because they let ME on a plane with gear that can interfere with the steering. They let a lot of people I know on planes with such gear. They let a lot of people like me that I don't know on planes with such gear. Only one time in twenty years of flying have I been prohibited from carrying a radio on board an airplane, and that was a long time before 9/11. A stupid KLM screener confiscated a SHORTWAVE receiver, putting it in a sealed envelope for the purser to give back to me when we arrived. During the flight I pulled out the duty free catalog, and sure enough, they would SELL me an almost identical model to the radio they took. I called the purser, and he said yeah, it was stupid, here's your radio. Just don't turn it on. Never have I had any of the transmitters I've carried refused.
The summary talks about flying the plane with a wireless mouse. That's ludicrous, and it's dishonest to pretend that that's a fair statement of the problem. The problem is not taking control of the plane by sending the correct signals to do specific things, the problem is interference in either the navigation radio or onboard electrical controls that cause UNspecific things to happen. Anyone who has heard the BRRRPP of their cell phone in the audio of their stereo or computer speakers has had the problem demonstrated to them. You don't think that CPU speakers are supposed to pick up cell phone calls, do you? Well, I've heard that BRRRRRRRP noise coming from the audio system on a airliner.
A brand-spanking new airplane straight from the factory is unlikely to suffer from onboard interference. The wiring is new, the grounds tight and corrosion free. After twenty years in the air, the wiring isn't so new anymore, the insulation may have cracks, the grounds are frayed and corroded.
Why do they take liguids away from people? Because they can. Why? Well, most liquids are cheap commodity items. So what if you can't carry on a bottle of water, the airline will give you water for free on the plane. So what if you can't carry on a bottle of coke, you can buy one for two dollars when you get off, after drinking the airline's coke enroute. So what if you can't take a gallon of shampoo onboard with you? You aren't going to wash your hair that much before you can get to a dime store to buy another for a buck. Yeah, it's annoying and stupid and a meaningless gesture, but it makes stupid people feel better about flying, and most of the people who fly are stupid. The more people who fly, the more routes there are, and the more convenient it is for me to get where I am going instead of just somewhere close.
You can't just buy a new cell phone every time you fly. Or a new laptop. Or a new PDA. While they are approaching the level of commodity items, they aren't that easy to replace, and the reason is the data on them. There is no data in a bottle of coke that makes it any different than any other. My PDA is unique in the world.
So, yeah, a terrorist could cause a lot of trouble with elec
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
The folks at Airbus are just dodging blame
Airbus said nothing, it's the airline who is trying to dodge blame here.
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to shift blame when the blame belongs somewhere else is one thing. Trying to shift blame onto the company who supplies you with your airplanes using a moronic excuse is just bad business. You're saying you're moronic enough to buy a plane that can be crashed with a mouse, and that your supplier was moronic enough to build a plane that can be crashed with a mouse. Nothing good is going to come out of this.
Parent
Ford / Firestone (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, why are there two links in TFS, when the 2 are exactly the same link?
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, airplane components are tested (privately with confidential results of course) to ensure that nothing "wireless" will interfere with the devices. Needless to say, nothing wireless does interfere with the devices, and neither do things such as voltage issues or sudden electric surges. Remember, they protect airplanes from lighting strikes on the outside best they can and inside from sudden surges on their own, as well.
If Qantas manages to have a plane interfered with via either RF or Bluetooth, then they obviously need to come up with a better excuse next time. Maybe terrorism!
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
The article is clear -- Qantas never claimed a laptop or electrical device had anything to do with it. The ATSB (the Australian equivalent of the NTSB) is the one being quoted about uncommanded movements.
I fly that route regularly (and have been on QF72 twice in the past few months), and clear air turbulence is not uncommon. The sky can be completely clear and then bang - your lunch is all over you. When all is said and done it would not surprise me in the least if they just hit an air pocket.
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, they test a wide range of frequencies and devices. Any device irregardless of broadcast strength and frequency is not going to affect an electrical connection, pretty much guaranteed. There are electrical standards for this, and they are very detailed. The FAA doesn't fuck around with this stuff, as much as airline corporations do however.
Planes are not sensitive like they "used to be". People learned from those errors in about 2 years. It's been what, 35+?
Nothing is banned, because you cannot control devices coming on or off a plane. Screeners are trained to look for bombing/hostile devices, but ordinary electronics are not banned nor can realistically be controlled. So don't make shit up. A radio frequency could certainly disrupt the communications with other pilots or theoretically disrupt radar, but the latter has been compensated for and I'm sure the former can be as well.
Example: if you have your cd player in your bag during takeoff, they aren't going to know or stop you because they won't even see it. Is the plane going to crash? Well, you tell me. As an individual example, I've been flying for 20 years doing as such, and I haven't heard pilots complaining of malfunctions or "OMG TURN THAT OFF" either.
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The truth behind the pre-takeoff safety briefs (Score:5, Informative)
I was on a Quantas flight to Australia in 2004, and the security announcements were refreshingly straightforward. None of the American nonsense scripts that have nothing to do with reality.
Here are some of the things they said:
- Turn your stuff off. It won't crash the plane, it just distracts you from the safety brief.
- Your cell phones might just work in the air. And no, they probably won't crash the plane. Even pilots have been known to make a call or two before landing. But it confuses the heck out of the cell towers, and wastes your battery trying to figure out which one to talk to. So shut it off, thanks.
- Leave your stuff behind if we evacuate. You don't want your neighbor scrambling for his stuff and keeping you from getting out of the airplane, do you?
- If those yellow masks drop down, it's because we lost cabin pressure. If that happens, you have something like 10 seconds before you pass out from lack of oxygen. Now, what makes more sense: try to get the mask on your panicky kid as you both pass out, or put it on yourself FIRST, and being awake to help your kid?
- Wear your seat belts. All the time. Almost every day, some plane somewhere hits an unexpected wind gust, and we really don't want to wipe your blood off the overhead bins, thanks.
Very refreshing, and I've never forgotten the reality behind the script.
Parent
No, ACARS traffic typically doesn't cause issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the flight crew can be receiving updated WX and MGL numbers at the gate and on the taxiway, but that info is not something which would typically cause any flight delay, and it certainly isn't something automagically handled by the avionics onboard.
Background: I spent over a decade working on the Weather and MGL/Gross Weights ground systems at a major red-tailed US airline which handled most of the ACARS traffic to/from that airline's aircraft. Some of the stuff I dealt with included weather reporting and alerting (SA/METAR, FT/TAF, TWIP/Microburst Alerts, Turbulence Plot messages, NOTAMS, etc.), aircraft fuel on board (FOB) validation, takeoff and landing performance data including the optimal flap and thrust settings used for reduced thrust (FLEX) takeoffs, etc.
The ACARS terminals we used had a small text screen roughly 16 lines x 22 columns in size (the specific ACARS terminals and screen sizes tended to vary some by aircraft type), and the pilots were able to interactively request all of the above information in the event that an automatically generated message or alert was not received. They could also send and received freetext messages, and of course they also might have radio contact with their assigned flight dispatcher.
All of the operationally-related ACARS information was received and interpreted by the flight crew, and were not automagically handled by avionics. In addition, the same messages were cross-checked by both the flight crew and the flight dispatcher assigned to that flight (who received a copy in real-time of the same messages sent to the a/c via ACARS), and any issues with the data were dealt with well before the a/c started its takeoff roll. They mgiht be requesting WX and/or MGL updates while taxiing, but you can believe that they already have fairly accurate information well before that point.
ACARS messages provide additional information and advice to the flight crew, but the flight crew is ultimately responsible for doing some basic sanity checking on the numbers provided, and any changes to the a/c's takeoff or landing procedures are initiated by the flight crew, not by some automatic system.
Some automated ACARS traffic is processed, but those things are limited to things like automated Fuel reports on some aircraft (e.g., A320/A330), and various engine performance reports that can be interactively obtained by the performance engineering folks while the a/c is still in flight (they can request an engine status report enroute via ACARS, which then gets send to them via ACARS, and proactively notify the folks at the destination airport that some form of adjustment is required on landing).
Other airlines may vary. Also, my information may be somewhat out of date as I failed Axe Dodging 101 just after 9/11 and haven't worked in the flight operations area since leaving the airline. I still work on airline software, just not in flight ops. :-)
Hope this helps...
Parent
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
My comment was unfairly marked troll. I stand by what I said. Blaming an optical mouse (whoever it may be, Airbus or Qantas) is just sheer stupidity. No way is an optical gadget going to "cause interference" with shielded electrical wiring or devices.
As for things like radios, when I worked for an airplane supplier we used devices that were resistant, not just to radio, but radioactive events. After all, airplanes don't have a lot of atmosphere to protect them - they get some bombardment from cosmic sources (mostly the sun) which can cause flipped bits. The hardware has to be able to handle these events without failure.
Parent
Re:Wireless? (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty, can someone please explain how this could even remotely be true? Aren't these planes flying around at all altitudes with a multitude of radio wave radiation from an untold number of sources, both human and naturally occurring?
Design flaw. Not saying that's how it is, but it doesn't seem impossible that this plane was poorly designed.
A more likely possibility: the plane failed randomly, and scapegoating something was a more attractive alternative than saying "we have no idea why our plane failed, it could be anything really, maybe they all will fall."
Parent
Re:Shhh... Don't tell the terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Coming this summer: Mice on a Plane!
Parent