Wireless LAN Onboard Passenger Aircraft 143
KjetilK writes "Scandinavian Airlines System announced today that they will start testing a wireless LAN based on IEEE 802.11b, onboard their aircrafts this year." It sounds like they have might have some restrictions in web sites available and such, but this is a darn cool idea. Of course, SAS isn't doing any domestic US flights but... *sigh*
Re:Caution ! (Score:1)
802.11b has a power of 2mW consequentially a range of ~ 100m, these amounts are tiny, if you walk pass your microwave which also operates at 2.4ghz, they'd be more than 2mW of radio waves floating about.
The 2.4ghz spectrum is already crowded, so if your sentiment were true, we'd all have cancer due to our cordless (not cell) phones and microwave ovens.
Re:Not Just Transmitting Devices? (Score:1)
Well, I don't know about a discman, but during some of those rough takeoffs and landings, I don't want loose laptops flying off seat back trays an onto me!!
Re:Wireless Lans come of age (Score:1)
http://www.tbg.com/promo/Articles/BCR_3_2000.htm [tbg.com]
In future, please link; don't steal others' copyrighted text.
Re:AirPort at the Airport (free Internet from NWA) (Score:1)
Re:No. An unpowered crystal radio might be, though (Score:1)
RF problems? (Score:1)
But 20 people running wireless network cards shouldn't be a problem?
WLANs/Bluetooth: cellular-like infrastructure? (Score:1)
WLANs and Bluetooth together have potential of providing a capability of phone-to-phone connectivity much the way we have cellular phone infrastructure today. I could walk into a room with a bluetooth enabled mobile, and use a unit connected to ethernet LAN of the building, and place a call. The building owner can get a small payment which will be automatically credited to him by the phone companies.
What technologies need to be enabled for this to happen?
and couple of companies are working in all these technologies. And we can actually dream of great bandwidths on our handhelds.
What other technology pieces are important?
-Vinod
No. An unpowered crystal radio might be, though. (Score:1)
Try and unpowered, crystal AM radio like the children's kits they sell at Radio Shaft. You might get some funny looks whipping it out on the plane to listen to Paul Harvey.
-Isaac
Re:Insurance (Score:1)
cell phones do cause crashes... (Score:1)
Anyways there was an article in new scientist [newscientist.com] a little while back about how aircraft electronics can quite easily be affected by cellphone, I figured I'd throw it in here.
Re:More money for the normal user. (Score:1)
My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant).
Some people it's relavant, eh? Plus, the internets a nice way to make a 14 hour flight seem a helluva lot less.
~jawad
Re:Cell Phone (Score:1)
This is not a problem if you think about it; if it were handover between adjacent cells of a cellular network would not be possible.
There are problems with cellphone usage at high altitude and in aircraft. Some of them are:
a) landbased cellphone technology may not be able to handle dopper of 500+ miles per hour
b) Each cell of a ground based network is typically only 5-15miles across, handover events would occur pretty damn regularly.
c) I also believe that when you phone from 25000' you effectively have a 25000' aerial on your phone, and your signal is out of range of what is normally expected.[dunno if this is true or not]
There is an Aircraft cellular system (TFTS), which is what normal aircraft telephony uses, but the cells for these are 50-150 miles across.
Re:I just hope.... (Score:1)
I didn't know the ILS frequencies though; 115MHz is uncomofortably close to a lot of the clock signals generated in a PC and other electronic equipment, which probably explains why airlines are more paranoid on take-off and landing.
I just hope.... (Score:1)
Also, firewalls are possibly a good idea, to prevent some haX0r breaking into the main flight control system.
On a more serious note, there used to be a fair amount of paranoia about using laptops on aircraft, and a recent study found that the avionics bays of older aircraft weren't protected heavily enough against RF to allow you to operate your laptop safely. (URL anyone?), so I hope that this only applies to new SAS aircraft.
Re:Wireless Lans come of age (Score:1)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
They're worried that the carrier oscillator won't be shielded enough, and leak out.
Personally, I think this is BS, but that's the line I've gotten from those in the know. (Note, I'm a private pilot, so while I'm not exactly authoratitive, I do have access to some pretty knowledgable people.)
Re:PIREPs & POLL: how many pilots on Slashdot (Score:1)
;-}
What would the FAA have to say about this (Score:1)
Laptops, devices that don't intentionally transmit signals, are allowed to be turned on 10 minutes after takeoff and must be shut down 10 minutes before landing.
I know that anything the FAA says would apply only to the US but still.
Lan Games?! (Score:1)
Re:More money for the normal user. (Score:1)
The best customers are of course the ones with gold cards, one such I had a meeting with a few months ago just paid for a one week vacation in the carribean (from Europe) for himself, his wife and two children, including the hotel, using just his airmiles on one of his gold cards. Now, you can imagine how much money the airlines has made on that guy alone the last couple of years!
If wiring a single airplane for wireless internet attracts just one such customer it would be a goldmine for the airline..
Re:And a new question at airline ticket counters.. (Score:1)
Well, _they_ (the AIRLINE) actually do. They're a private company, and can specify certain requirements and obligations you must conform to if you want to partake of their services.
It's _government_ employees only who aren't allowed to search without a warrant and probable cause (despite Mr. Clinton's unconstitutional to increase gvt participation in airport security).
Don't ask me to explain why US Customs feel they have the right to do random searches. The only explanation I can think of is that they are simply set up to take advantage of non-US citizens entering the country who aren't aware of their rights.
--craig
Re:More money for the normal user. (Score:1)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
The problem is that an FM receiver is not a passive receiver. If I remember correctly, part of the FM receiver includes an RF modulator to generate the carrier frequency used for the FM broadcast, thus allowing it to be removed from the inbound signal. If noise from this leaked out of the unit, it could play havoc with inflight systems, since it's down in the 100 Mhz Range. 802.11b, on the other hand, is up in the 2.4 Ghz range, will above what I suspect is being used on most aircraft.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
----------------------
lounge 'sharing' (Score:1)
Hmmm.... I wonder what he access possibilities are like just _outside_ the lounge....
I've always been tempted to try that... (Score:1)
Re:No. An unpowered crystal radio might be, though (Score:1)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
a pretty hilarious advertisement for sas (Score:1)
ridiculously funny realvideo encoded advertisements [telia.com]
I especially like the part where they intermix english phrases with their swedish language. When the clay baseball figure is on the screen, listen for him saying "catch you later" at the end of that particular ad.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
----------------------------
Re:They aren't the only ones. (Score:1)
The threat was that if Bluetooth was built in to a laptop or PDA and there wasn't some way to completely power down the BT circuitry while the computer was in use, the FAA would ban BT-enabled devices from being used on board. If that's your starting point it's not hard to see why a non-American airline would do this first.
Re:Cel phones do nothing to airplanes (apparently) (Score:1)
It's gonna happen (Score:1)
1: "Hey, go look behind that door.. I think he's over there"
2: "I've got a flashbang.. open the door, I'll throw it in."
3: "Okay, I'll run through the door first, my AK47 is full of ammo"
1: "No! Don't shoot the hostages"
About then they'll land at the nearest airport and escort you off the plane..
Flight Delays would be less of an issue (Score:1)
AirPort at the Airport (free Internet from NWA) (Score:1)
Re:Caution ! (Score:1)
Beg pardon, but bullshit. 802.11b devices only use 100mW of power. If that's "cancer-in-a-can", we should already be dead from cellphones, cop's radar, and a host of other devices.
Re:EMILY!!! (Score:1)
Starbucks is working on this too (Score:1)
Starbucks is working on this, and I'd assume they're going to use 802.11b though it's not specifically stated in the press release. The press release [starbucks.com] is on their web site (under About Us, Press Room) and is dated January 3, 2001.
Here's a quote from it:
-- fencepost
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
This sort of thing really comes into play when you want to fire off a quick email from your palm pilot (or watch?...)
The article had errors (Score:1)
First, I'm assuming that everyone complaining about the "health risks" aren't using any kind of wireless devices. I'd hate for someone to be a hypocrate.
Second, no solutions are presented. Just scare tactics.
Third, they mentioned asbestos and breast implants. Any educated journalist who did a little research knows that breast implants were NEVER proven to cause cancer or any other ailments after extensive testing. Yet somehow Dow Corning went out of business even though their product didn't hurt anyone.
We at
Certain websites (Score:1)
Re:laptop aboard aircraft? (Score:1)
You can't use laptops during take off and landing, ditto for CD Players. Mobile phones you're allowed to use until the plane leaves the gate (at least on one Airline I've used), then you have to turn them off for the duration of the flight until you reach the gate again.
--
Re:Sources? (Score:1)
Atrowe, your link [bcentral.com] goes to the Denver Business Journal. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. As such, it is not written by scientific experts, and has not been peer-reviewed by other experts.
By spreading sources like these around, you are only contributing to blind, public hysteria. If you want the sources that are taken seriously by physicians and the scientific community, you need to hit the medical library and search on Medline. Business journals are not good sources of scientific info.
Re:RF problems? (Score:1)
Doesn't it scare you that cellphones are linked to plane crashes? I mean, COME ON...you've got a hermetically sealed tube designed to carry a couple hundred people thousands of miles at several hundred miles per hour at 50000 feet, and someone using a cellphone can cause it to crash?
What's next? None of us are allowed to have metal fillings or steel plates in our head? How do the microwaves for those tasty in-flight meals work?
And what's the deal with radio scanners? If I listen in to the top secret conversations between the pilot and the tower, I might cause the plane to crash?
What gives?
----------------------------------------
Yo soy El Fontosaurus Grande!
Re:They aren't the only ones. (Score:1)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
The FCC considers these kinds of receivers to be "unintentional radiators," and they CAN cause interference.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
Re:For WHAT!?!? So you can take it to the bathroom (Score:1)
For WHAT!?!? So you can take it to the bathroom (Score:1)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
In Canada.... (Score:1)
Whether or not those planes are modified specifically for Air Canada or for Boeing's larger plan, I don't know.
Dark Nexus
Re:Possible Problems (Score:1)
That's one of those things that varies from airline to airline. My boss routinely uses his cell phone on planes, and the flight crews only say to turn it off during takeoffs and landings. And there haven't been many crashes caused by cell phones, perhaps incidents where they say to turn off the cell phones, but not crashes
Then you have to take a plane out of service to add the godawful amount of wiring that would be required to add ethernet to even all of first class. It's a lot easier to just have a wireless hub sitting in the galley for the few people who do want networking type away.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
Similarly it is often the case that 1 seat on the airplane may not be usable due to a busted seatbelt or something, not a huge deal they just leave it empty.
Re:PIREPs & POLL: how many pilots on Slashdot (Score:2)
I expect to move to a PA-28 Warrior and do my IFR stuff in the next few months.
Re:Wireless Lans come of age (Score:2)
Re:AirPort at the Airport (free Internet from NWA) (Score:2)
RF Bad. (Score:2)
Exactly what the root post of this thread said they will do - louse up the navigation equipment.
While you're in the air, 30k feet above anything that might hit you, this isn't an issue. But when the plane is landing, it's following interference fringes of a couple of radio beacons by the runway. You do *NOT* want anything that even *might* be transmitting RF to be active during takeoff or landing. Airports have enough problems with noise from the local radio stations.
Things you can do on a aircraft LAN... (Score:2)
[other ideas?]
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
So no, before we see this in production use RF interference wont be a problem.
-henrik
Just what we need... (Score:2)
---
SAS to infiltrate corporate networks (Score:2)
In related news, SAS is looking to hire some 133t h4x0rs who can penetrate company firewalls
This sounds more like establishing L2TP or PPTP or IPSec tunnels to corporate firewalls, allowing email to be picked up after authentication. Why SAS would be getting involved in that level of connection is a little beyond me, but they might make it a pay service for those who regularly use their lounges.
I wonder what kind of link goes from the small router on the plane to the internet? Satellite most likely, although there are some terrestrial aircomm systems throughout Europe that could provide slow but cheap access. And would they really be filtering websites, or could I pass my own SSH/IPSec/SNMP/BGP traffic while at 35000 feet?
the AC
coffee shops? (Score:2)
I've been to one coffee shop where an unofficial Quake deathmatch took place, and we had cords all over the place. This could be greatly simplified with wireless, where you wouldn't run into restrictions of how far your network cables go nor how many ports you have in your battery-operated hub. You could have all the customers in the shop just join in on the fraggin'.
Wireless in Scandinavia (Score:2)
Re:More money for the normal user. (Score:2)
Hey, don't knock it 'till you've tried it man. Once you get over the "Oh, wow" reaction it's seems as normal as reading the newspaper while you do your thing.
_____________
I'd use it (Score:2)
Further, I don't know where you came up with the 3 hour limit. YOU might want to catch a nap while you're on the plane but that doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants to do. I can't sleep on short flights so for me, personally, any flying time is a complete waste. I usually synch up my laptop before emplaning and spend my time replying to my email. Having network connectivity would be great for me!
And how the hell did you conclude that these modifications would make the plane tickets any more expensive? If an airline has to raise prices to offer this service, consumers who don't care about the service won't take that airline any more!
Anyway, this service will probably not be offered in Cattle^H^H^H^H^Hoach Class to begin with, anyway.
Re:coffee shops? (Score:2)
You mean like this [slashdot.org]?
Re:What would the FAA have to say about this (Score:2)
Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?
No, the restrictions on cellphones is from the FCC. A cellphone in the air, where it has direct line-of-sight to about 30 cellphone towers will play havoc with the cells because it will block out a channel band in each of those cells.
I doubt the FAA cares about the intentions of the device - only whether or not it actually does transmit a signal. I guess the assumption is that the particular wireless protocol used is known to not cause interference with the airplanes navigation systems.
The FAA regulations apply only to US registered carriers and flights operating in and out of the United States. However, the FAA regulations are considered the de facto standard in formulating regulations by other aviation authorities.
Re:Money maker (Score:2)
For non-pilots, a pilot report (or PIREP for short), is a weather report filed while in flight.
Re:What would the FAA have to say about this (Score:2)
No person may operate, nor may the operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft... except for... any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system on the aircraft on which it is to be used.
So it only applies to U.S.-registered airplanes (although I bet the JARs have a similar section), and if the operator (air carrier) determines that there is no problem, that is allowed.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
Re:Cel phones do nothing to airplanes (apparently) (Score:2)
Re:I can see it now... (Score:2)
They don't need an IP. The smart money says the only two words you'll need to know are "public" and "private".
--
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
You probably aren't an RF engineer (neither am I), but I figured I'd clean this up. In order to receive a signal, you must transmit it. To be precise, if you've got a radio station transmitting at 107.9MHz, your radio must generate a 107.9MHz signal inside it, align that with the phase of the incoming signal, and subtract one from the other. It's left with the raw modulation, which is what you want to end up with.
Therefore, leaky electronics can and will spew RF even (especially!) if it's only a receiver.
--
Re:More money for the normal user. (Score:2)
My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant)."
Ok, so the 14 hour flights aren't business flights. No Internet connection is required, though it might be fun to have one.
The 2 - 3 hour flights fall into my 2 - 3 hour timeline; does he *need* an internet connection?
I'm not saying the 'net' wouldn't be interesting to have access to in any place, just the same as it would be interesting to have the net accessable in a washroom. Interesting like, "Oh wow, what kind of person has to get their email while they're in the washroom".
My point is only that we should re-evaluate how much time & money we want public transportation to invest in keeping us working round-the-clock.
If I were on a plane with a laptop right now, I'd be playing a game, or reading some saved information. The fact that I *could* one day connect to the net and get new information is boring when i consider how much time I'm actually spending on most flights.
It seems like the only practical reason to invest time and money in networking people in-flight, is to help their business interests; and what business can stand to spend so much for a flight and accomodations, but can't afford that 3 hours of luxury net-free time we would all enjoy if we weren't so hyped about the 'possibility' of connecting in the air.
Re:Money maker (Score:2)
The standard rocks (Score:2)
Cel phones do nothing to airplanes (apparently). (Score:2)
There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight
No, there havent.
I believe there was a Dateline NBC story a few months ago about just this (if not Dateline, it was another comperable show). Of all the studies conducted on this, not a single one has concluded that cel phone signals (or usage of laptops for that matter) interfere with anything on an aircraft. If you know of any, please direct us there, or if you can back up your claim, give us an NTSB official report of a crash caused by cel phone usage.
The real reason is that the airlines have struck a deal with cel phone service providers. When you use a cel phone on the ground, your signal goes to the nearest tower and is relayed along the network. When you are in a plane, the nearest tower changes very quickly -- so quickly, in fact, that the cel phone company is not able to track your call, and thus cannot bill you. Airline airphone towers work on the same general principles but the ground towers are much farther apart.. and youve never heard complaints there. Why? Because the airlines can charge $9/min for the monopoly.
Note: yes, I did hear about the plane that was forced to land a couple weeks ago because of what they claim was a cellular phone apparently ringing in the cargo hold. If this were proven to be the actual cause, it would be a first, but Im pretty confident they will find something else.
Re:AirPort at the Airport (free Internet from NWA) (Score:2)
Seriously, this is a great development and one that will make travel much easier - much in the way that national roaming on cellphones freed us from all those damn payphones and 25-digit dialing. Bring it on!
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
Possible Problems (Score:2)
Re:Sources? (Score:2)
Re:Possible Problems (Score:2)
I like the wireless solution, how pissed would I be if I paid for the access only to find my jack, the only jack on the plane that was down. Oh, there better be lots of alcohol onboard.
CIO's are now sleepless (Score:2)
This should tons of fun for casual users but I imagine corps getting scared shitless over this. Even I would be a little nervous checking my yah00 mail.
"Me Ted"
Re:Money maker (Score:3)
There are some things like cloud tops which can only be seen from above.
Security, Reliability, and Speed (Score:3)
Which, judging from the comments, many of us are quite familiar with.
The concerns I have are mostly practical. Philosophically there is no problem for me.
Things like security, reliability, speed.
Security, of course, depends on the encryption standards they use, if any. There could be a couple of good spy movies based on this somehow. [Insert plotline here]
Reliability. This is partly a simple hardware issue, the solution to which is 'trivial', because it is "merely" a matter of getting the right equipment. Some of it is not so trivial in terms of enviromental interference. Remember, this is in Sweden. For instance, there are reports in the far north of the Northern Lights being very intense and coming quite low into the atmosphere. As seen here [fairbanks-alaska.com], for example:
There is also this page [alaska.edu], with many interesting articles.There is this article [alaska.edu] about auroral effect at ground level. I even recall reading about aurora being *visible* at ground level, but that was long ago, and I cannot find the link. There is even this article [alaska.edu] about aurora being *audible*, however. So the effects of such enviromental factors on an aircraft at six miles up can be important.
Speed is not so much an issue internal to the aircraft, but again is a problem of interferance with the ground stations. Enviromental factors are again in play
Needless to say, I am going to be very interested with the results of these trials
Re:Possible Problems (Score:3)
There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight
That's only because the pilot wasn't using a hands-free kit and took his hands off the stick to take the call.Re:AirPort at the Airport (free Internet from NWA) (Score:3)
Singapore's airport provides free internet access to anyone carrying one of these cards. Works great. There are signs scattered around the terminal indicating the areas in which it works, usually with nice comfy chairs nearby. They'll even lend you a card for your laptop if you don't have one. (Unfortunately people without computers are stuck paying about US$6/hour to use the airport's machines)
This is definitely the sort of thing more airports should do - maybe I wouldn't always be so late for flights because I need to finish my work, if I knew I could take care of it in the departure lounge after checking in.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:4)
On a plane, your cell phone would be constantly out of range anyway.
Plus the 802.11b standard can be tested on the planes first to be sure it doesn't interfere with the controls.
And a new question at airline ticket counters... (Score:4)
"Has anyone given you a package to carry on to the airplane?"
"Are you a l33t h@x0r?"
Re:Possible Problems (Score:4)
The problem with RJ-45 sockets (or any physical connection for that matter) is that they wear, get damaged and require maintenance/ replacement constantly; especially in a location where constant insertion/ removal is envisaged. Imagine having a 747 with 300-500 such RJ45 sockets, each connected to a hub by an 8-core wire, and the potential for problems is immense. They have enough problems with the current wiring on an aircraft.
Wireless LANs on the other hand, have no parts subject to wear and abuse, only have a small number of components and the standard LRU/SRU repair procedure easy to implement.
They aren't the only ones. (Score:4)
This is not the first time this has happened. If you read Telia's press release [telia.se] they state "SAS will be the first European airline to implement this wireless technology on board their planes." If you read on a bit into the Tenzing site, Air Canada is starting a free Beta test of this technology here [tenzing.com].
Now I fly a lot and this sounds like it's really going to take off, pardon the pun, but why are Air Canada and SAS the first? I would have expected this from one of the bigger airlines like United or something. Air Canada is a member or United's Star Aliance though. I guess if this works well, we may see this everywhere!
Dissenter
Money maker (Score:4)
I wonder how much the NWS would pay me for a web cam uplink with GPS from my coach seat across the atlantic. The oceans are a bitch to get data from, maybe this announcement is the first step to more accurate forecasts!
--
I just wonder... (Score:4)
Now if only... (Score:4)
Die, CEO of so and so, die!
Signatures? ÒöÈon't need no stinking signatures!
Something many people don't think about... (Score:5)
--
this isn't really access (Score:5)
this isn't really access. it sounds like they will have a couple of sites that are uploaded to the plane. the plane will sync w/ the groundstation "at regular intervals". you can probably send email to anywhere (message size restricted???) but you won't be able to "surf"
More money for the normal user. (Score:5)
I mean, I'm as nerdy as the next guy; I really am. But cummon, who really takes that many flights longer than 2 - 3 hours. Isn't it enough that you can sit there and use your computer and get work done, do you have to be able to do real-time research and communicate with people for that whole three hours? Stuff like this can't wait until you land and take 4 minutes to get inside the airport, "Our customers already have access to wireless communications in our SAS lounges through Telia HomeRun"
In the end, any modifications the airline makes to the plane are going to raise the price of airline tickets. I don't want to pay more money for my flights so joe-asshole on his $8.00/min cell-phone can also type while I'm trying to get an hour or two of sleep.
Is there such thing as a business job that requires you to travel *and* get so much work done that you can't take a 3 hour break from being connected to the outside world? Not even a break from working, just a break from being connected... it sounds like 'too much hype' to me.
It reminds me of all the "business men" I used to sell Palm Pilots too back in my hay-day as a fledgling guru. "Whoa! I can connect to the internet with that!? anywhere?!". Guess how many of them actually do that 3 weeks after they get one... I think 90% of the guys running with leading-edge technology are actually wasting their time (and often other peoples time) figuring out how to be more efficient with their new technology.
ie: Hey, this palm pilot lets me get my email anytime i want, now I can check it on my way to work instead of when I get there. They then spend 4 hours setting it up, and save 5 minutes in their work day for a month or two until something new comes out.
I can see it now... (Score:5)
Let's just hope they give the flight controlls an IP.
Re:Possible Problems (Score:5)
That may be one reason, but the reason I've always heard was that, on the ground, cell phones can only "see" a few cell towers at a time. At 35,000 feet, it can see hundreds, and will switch cells every few seconds (given how fast the airplane is moving). This tends to play havoc with cellular systems as a whole. The ban on cell phone use in airplanes originated from the FCC, not the FAA.
A better example would be AM/FM radios. We've been told that years that radios shouldn't be used on airplanes, because they can cause problems with navigation equipment. I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.