Qantas Blames Wireless For Aircraft Incidents 773
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."
Cool... Or is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure if I should be impressed that our aircraft are so advanced that they can be flown with commodity consumer interface tools, or frightened silly.
Either way, I thought that all modern aircraft were "hardened" against interference from these devices, and that the UL listing on these devices specified that they cannot create interference? Methinks someone is trying to CYA by passing the buck to a mouse.
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.
Completely false (Score:1, Interesting)
Having worked with a company that entirely focuses on jamming and interference signals between air and ground I can tell you that all claims by airlines that electronic devices can interfere with the plane are simply scare tactics to get you to pay attention to the safety demonstration and to hear the in flight announcements.
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, the current generation of both Boeing and Airbus aircraft will not, I believe, allow the pilot to stall the aircraft
I think that the airbus planes will take control from the pilot. I remember a crash at an airshow a few years back during a touch-and-go caused by the software locking the pilot out and flying into the trees.
However, IIRC, Boeing planes do not take control. Instead, they do things like shake the control yoke when in a potential stall situation.
Re:I seriously doubt that (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know who Quant is, but Australians are actually doing pretty good at the moment so I wouldn't too surprised if we do stop flying Qantas. Their main feature was that they were safe, ever since they sent their maintenance off to China to save a few bucks, they've had nothing but trouble.
Hopefully this will teach other companies that a reputation is important.
Not likely (Score:2, Interesting)
It's my understanding that all current planes (the last 10 years or so) are built with shielded wiring to prevent that very thing.
This was also discussed on Mythbusters and the same answer was given by the engineer they brought on the show.
SAVAGE/HYNEMAN '08!!!!
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mythbusters anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:1, Interesting)
Typically most handheld amateur radio devices are in the 2 to 10 watt carrier level (FM being carrier based, and doesn't vary in amplitude due to modulation).
Depending on the band, (HF radios typically put out 100 watts or thereabouts PEP), he could have been running more power.
HOWEVER, they are talking about putting 802.11 in planes now. AIRBUS BEING ONE OF THE CLIENTS INTERESTED, I highly doubt the article is correct. I also think Quantus could be in for some SERIOUS trouble with AirBUS for putting their name in the mix when it's been proven that it doesn't cause problems.
http://www.wifitrends.org/entry/boeing-and-airbus-providing-airline-wi-fi-access/ [wifitrends.org] For those interested.
--Toll_Free
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, there has never been any proof that the (as you say, known about) defect in the FADEC had any bearing on this incident.
The bug bear I have about this case is that everyone seems to instantly use it as a 'omg, Airbus aircraft are sooooo unsafe, the planes overrule the pilots!' discussion point, and invariably never have the correct story.
The same thing happened to me in 1991... (Score:1, Interesting)
So I don't think wireless equipment was to blame.
Oddly enough, my experience was also on a route to Perth, only it was on a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong.
It was a sunny and mostly cloudless day and we were flying over the Indian Ocean. Suddenly, the "fasten seatbelts" light popped on and we had a couple of turbulence bumps.
The the plane just dropped out the sky without diving at all. It was like we'd flown into a vacuum. Everything that was unattached suddenly went into freefall; the guy in front of me jerked his hand up reflexively and a strand of beer flew out of it and then hung in the air for a second in globs of beer.
Then the plane suddenly resumed normal flight with a massive thump and a sudden roar of engines. Everything hanging in the air crashed down onto the seats or the floor, including anyone who had been standing up.
The entire cabin screamed in terror. After about ten seconds, the pilot came on the intercom and said something about excessive turbulence. He sounded scared, which is a tone you never want to hear in a pilot's voice.
The rest of the flight passed without any other event and I have never experienced anything like that since, although I fly a lot.
I have no idea what the heck it was - I don't see how a downdraft that strong could form over the sea on a clear day. But it almost scared the shit out of me.
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
The unfortunate fact about the Internet is that dripping sarcasm doesn't always come through. The point of my post is that if Qantas and Airbus REALLY want us to believe that their planes can't take a wireless mouse, then screw them. I'll happily fly a competitor who does NOT blame wireless mice.
In any case, Airbus's control systems screw up far too often for my tastes. Boeing is still the way to go.
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
Software - maybe no hardware at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Airbus has had numerous problems with software that, by design, decides the pilot is doing the wrong thing and overrides his inputs. The Airbus is not capable of doing the same barrel roll that the 707 did on its first public display about fifty years ago.
How would the public react if it was known that the departures from controlled flight were due to software bugs that could not be located and corrected? Who would want to make sure that didn't get out - aside from everyone involved?
They are jets dude... (Score:4, Interesting)
These are jet aircraft. They are enormously powerful aircraft with sufficient redundant power to deal with multiple engine failures. So, with all the engines on, you've got some zoom zoom if you want it. Remember that these things are derived from military bombers in design and as such even these big planes can do things that old Mustang prop aircraft would only dream of.
In fact, let's look at an A300 vs a P-51 Mustang... Mustang we think of as an agile fighter, the A300 as a lumberer. But... numbers tell the story. The Airbus, and really any modern commercial jet, will have a higher cruising speed, a higher climb rate, and better power to weight ratio than any world war II fighter aircraft.
So you yeah, in theory, you could quite literally g-loc your passengers, etc... that's why having the reinforced doors is the preferred anti-terrorism weapon. If you are a pilot with a terrorist banging on your door with a steakknife, all ya gotta do is push the stick foward and back and flatten the guy on the ceiling and then floor of the plane. You could quite literally kill the guy.
Ford / Firestone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
Something that people overlook is that there are liquids that can be used to bring down a plane which are *not* explosive, but in fact CORROSIVE. Just a few drops in the right place and wham! the wings are off their hinges, so to speak ..
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they should check their own software? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Interference with flight instruments (Score:4, Interesting)
I hear you. I took my pilot's license in the early 80's, in the days before cell phones, but even back then my instructor used to warn me about using any kind of portable electronic device (Walkmans mostly in those days of yore), and looking back now I think it must have been because of uncertainty about how poorly-shielded nav and comm equipment in the training birds (Cessna 152's) would react to any kind of interference, even negligible. I've written a long, rambling post about my experiences working at Miami International [slashdot.org] in those days, and I could write an equally long one one about my experiences as a wet-behind-the-ears student pilot (every pilot has a wealth of flying stories), but I'll spare you, and tell you one related to this incident.
The Qantas incident brings to mind something that happened to my instructor Al, after he got a job with a cargo airline flying between Florida, the Caribbean, and South America. He was a co-pilot on a DC-6 (an old 4-engined propeller aircraft, for those who don't know), and one night happened to be in Puerto Rico doing a drop-off and pick-up. He was standing on the ramp with the captain, watching the handlers loading crates aboard the aircraft while the captain checked them off on the manifest, when he noticed the captain turn as pale as a sheet and started to goggle at one of the pages. Turns out that the handlers had just loaded into the belly hold, right beneath the electronics bay, a number of crates containing......6,000 lbs of magnets. After both of them gazed at each other in astonishment, the captain ordered the crates removed from the aircraft, and had to be physically restrained from attacking the shipper's rep when the latter refused. The guy was exasperated that no air cargo op would take his perfectly legitimate load of magnets and wondered why the pilots were being so "silly" as to refuse good money. The eventually ditched the magnets, but everybody was pissed at the end of the wrangling over it.
Al was still shaking his head in wonderment when he told me the story a couple weeks later in Miami: "Three tons of magnets under the nav equipment. Over water. At night. I should have let him kill the fucker."
Re:Moral of the story? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me try to answer this a bit. (JAA ATPL (frozen)).
Kindly consider this case, wherein elevator deflections of an transport class aircraft in cruise apparently were commanded by the flight management computer.
Let's consider why the FMC commands any sort of elevator deflection at all.
If you arrive at one obvious reason -- pre-set FL change -- then the question comes down to how the FMC knows it has arrived at the pre-set waypoint. The answer? Consensus inputs from the INS. In modern systems, intercepting radials or overflying NDBs are used only to sanity check the INSes. So are inputs from the GPS systems. Occasionally so are manual inputs. The sanity-checking is very conservative, and in general if the INSes are in concordance then positional mismatches between the INS and radio navaids are resolved in favour of the INS.
Another obvious reason the FMC will command an elevator deflection is if it is has been instructed to maintain a constant pressure altitude (deflections will increase as pressure altitude varies, this is the reason for the maximum turbulent air indicated air speed rating of licensed aircraft), or rate of climb/descent, or a particular pitch. In cruise, only the first of these is likely to apply, except for stepped climbs which are scheduled based on fuel burn and pre-programmed as above.
Clear air turbulence and the equilvalent ("pressure pockets" which are usually sharp changes in the outside air temperature gradient) can result in a sudden change in pressure difference between the static port and the pitot. The result could be a commanded (and reasonable, slow-rolling) climb to maintain the desired altitude which ends up being unsafe for the IAS upon reaching the far edge of the pressure pocket. This can result in a human-noticeable rapid descent; in combination with turbulence it can also lead to Mach buffet and a partial stall.
Next, the flight envelope protection system will command an elevator deflection to counter detected uncommanded deflections. Mach buffet or a dramatic change in Cl, Cm or Cd can produce these. The resulting alarms are pretty obvious to flight crews and investigators, however. In aircraft without an envelope protection system, the AP will disengage in this situation, also leading to obvious alarms; the problem is that while recovery by human pilots usually maintain more pleasant aircraft attitudes and gentler acceleration curves, the latter often leads to overstresses of the control surfaces and airframe. There is a tradeoff involving some shaken-up passengers (but no moving cargo!) but a safe-to-fly aircraft versus aggressive maintenance to the aircraft-safe flight envelope leading to injured pilots and dangerously shifted cargo. Neither extreme is good!
A last reason I can think of is that the elevator deflection was commanded to compensate for the commanded drop of a wing as the FMC tried to correct for the programmed ground track. This is plausibly under the influence of radio navaids (there are occasionally high altitude flight paths which follow a VOR radial). It could be a contributing factor. However, the underlying factor would be that the FMC/envelope protection system commanded aggressive elevator deflections at altitude. It may have done so for a good reason. Noise from radio navaids suffering from local interference would not be a good reason!
Finally, VHF's SNR is lousy, but transport class aircraft benefit from having lots of outside surface area upon which to mount multiple aerials; they can also carry enough weight to use correlators on the redundant systems. Also, passengers are much further from the speakers and microphones and DF needles than the pilots, and the pilo