Boeing Told To Replace Cockpit Screens Affected By Wi-Fi 142
Rambo Tribble writes The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered Boeing to replace Honeywell-built cockpit screens that could be affected by wi-fi transmissions. Additionally, the FAA has expressed concerns that other frequencies, such as used by air surveillance and weather radar, could disrupt the displays. The systems involved report airspeed, altitude, heading and pitch and roll to the crew, and the agency stated that a failure could cause a crash. Meanwhile, the order is said to affect over 1,300 aircraft, and some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators".
Change is in the air (Score:4, Funny)
Queue the many certifications that will pop up for current screens suddenly claiming they aren't affected by wifi to any meaningful degree.
Is that too cynical?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The word you're looking for is 'cue', meaning 'to set up, schedule', not 'queue' which is a list of items or objects to be processed in order.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
They are ordering that a manufacturer actually do something to make it's product safe rather than just ban wifi? It's not April 1st! Where did this new FAA come from?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The FAA realizes that regardless of how many times the crew tell passengers to turn off their RF emitting devices people are still going to ignore them or not even realize the device is on in the first place.
Typically the primary displays in the cockpit all have the same part number - just different configurations/strapping. This keeps the quantity of replacement screens on hand down.
The pilot and copilot sides are (mostly) isolated from one another. Power is provided via two separate busses and redundant
Re: (Score:2)
As long as passengers are willing to pay for the upgraded gear with the price of their tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
In other industries one would say that a product which fails and potentially kills people just because someone turns on wifi or a cellphone was flawed by design and make the manufacturer pay to fix it. Don't get me wrong, I understand why planes weren't being made to deal with now current electronics 30 years ago. I even understand that it would be have been to expensive to immediately upgrade or scrap the then current airplane fleets as cellphones became popular.
But.. the FAA should have told manufacturer
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work that way in aerospace. The client pays for maintenance. Margins on development are small and the risk for developers is very high. If the airlines insisted on free fixes, the developer would just disappear. They don't want that to happen so they pay for the extra work.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly (Score:2)
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (tm)
Re:Surprisingly (Score:4, Informative)
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (tm)
The FAA does this ALL the time actually. They routinely issue AD's for many maintenance and operational issues discovered on aircraft. Sometimes these AD's come with short deadlines (you will fix this before the next flight) and sometimes they give you years (like this one giving 5 years). The FAA does this all the time, so this is NOT new.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is really a crash risk, I'm not convinced relying on passengers not forgetting to turn their devices OFF (completely) or put them in Airplane Mode is a terribly comfortable solution.
Anyway, that may not be enough - from the article:
(Is it really a crash risk? That I don't know.)
Re:Surprisingly (Score:5, Interesting)
Potentially as one of the faults is "Display stops working". Whether that means it goes blank, or stops updating (i.e., frozen) is unclear.
Now, it's one reason why there is redundancy - if one display crashes, the PFD (primary flight display, i.e., flight instruments) can be reverted to the other screen (normally showing navigational information). If THAT doesn't work the PFD can be shown on the central displays (usually showing engine and other information), again, two of each.
And the co-pilot has another pair of displays as well that get their information from a redundant system, so 6 displays in total, which can get their information from two different independent sources.
Oh yeah, there's also basic backup instruments too.
Is it a problem? Yes. Is it fatal? Well, you have to be pretty damn unlucky to get all displays to lock up and the backup instruments as well. So a small chance, especially if the crew is inexperienced.
Re: (Score:2)
But are the rest of the displays also made by Honeywell? Unless they're intentionally diverse in design, this seems like the kind of problem that could affect all the displays simultaneously.
Re: (Score:1)
If it's the pilot's MFD it's a BFD.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is good for the passengers not necessarily for the airlines affected. I'd call that good and in line with common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Where? Common sense dictates not forcing the airlines to replace screens on 1,300 aircraft just because someone can't go without internet for any meaningful amount of time.
Think about how easy it would be for someone with malicious intent to bring aboard a jammer disguised as a legit electronic device. Cockpit electronics need to be hardened against interference regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they are using "crap lead free solder". Doesn't ROHS have exemptions for this sort of stuff.
Also even if they are using lead free solder I don't think the situation is anywhere near as bad as you imply. I have plenty of stuff that still works which is 5-10 years old. Capacitor failure still seems to be a bigger problem than solder failure.
Same conversation at GM a while back. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Same conversation at GM a while back. (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been cases of Boeing 777s and modernized 737s developing unexplained system faults. Do not be so sure that RFI was not to blame. These have had much worse reliability than other Boeing models in recent years and as no other faults have been offered by Boeing as explanation, it is illogical to simply dismiss the one fault we know about as unrelated to the unusual number of abnormalities and crashes specific to these two models.
Obviously, Boeing has no interest in being honest about the problems they know about, be they software or hardware. Nor are they likely to Open Source anything, so there is no possibility of scrutiny by an independent party.
Simple logic (and self-preservation) says they have an unattributed defect capable of causing catastrophic failure, and a defect that can potentially cause catastrophic failure, therefore fixing the defect is essential.
The cost? The cost is insignificant. Boeing is hardly poor and is quite capable of covering the airlines' cost as this is a manufacturing defect. The airlines? They're making enough money that they can afford riots on board when seats are tilted. Besides, this is the cost of doing business. There's a price for bad decisions, all other sectors (except, apparently, banks) are expected to take the rough with the smooth. If several go bust because they chose unwisely, that's how life in business goes. You pay your money, you take your choice. Besides, they'd still be doing better than the German in Last Crusade.
If I went into business and made bad choices, would you be telling people to ignore my expenses? No? Good. If I'm not fit for purpose as a businessman, I've no business expecting support. So why should Ryanair, a notoriously incompetent company, deserve better? Because they're too big to fail? Not a good reason.
13.8 million, over 5 years... (Score:1)
Oh man, I'm cryin'
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I'm cryin'
Over 1300 aircraft, that's only around $10,000 each, or for a plane that makes one flight per day for a year, that's less than $30 per flight.
Re: (Score:1)
The price of the bag of peanuts just went up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, devices affect aircraft ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, slashdot posters are now accepting the idea that personal electronics can affect aircraft electronics ?
Yes. Other prerogatives now apply; namely arguing that greedy corporations are trying to kill they're customers by resisting regulators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or not.
"We do not agree that no problems have occurred on in-service airplanes, since the wi-fi... testing that disclosed this susceptibility was conducted on an in-service airplane fitted with phase 3 display units,"
Boeing says not a theoretical problem ... (Score:3)
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turni
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part being that iPads and the MS Surfaces are rated for Cockpit use. Pilots are now using these all the time because it saves them from having to carry around 30lbs worth of paper charts. It's kind of a big deal if the pilot isn't allowed to double check where he or she is going because the plane might break. Oh, and when I say carry around I mean it. Things like charts are per pilot, not per aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
... Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits ...
The funny part being that iPads and the MS Surfaces are rated for Cockpit use. Pilots are now using these all the time because it saves them from having to carry around 30lbs worth of paper charts. It's kind of a big deal if the pilot isn't allowed to double check where he or she is going because the plane might break. Oh, and when I say carry around I mean it. Things like charts are per pilot, not per aircraft.
And why are they rated for cockpit use, because their emissions have been tested and unlike some of the devices that Boeing found they do not exceed limits?
Boo hoo. (Score:1)
Yeah, it sure sucks that you're involved in an industry where hardening against air surveillance and weather radar are a pre-requisite, and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder.
Boo hoo. (Score:2)
and you decided to buy off-spec from what I imagine was the lowest bidder
Yeah. They used Honeywell, a cut rate, shade tree operation that isn't one of the top three commercial avionics producers on Earth. And the results prove it too â" with dozens of no reported operational interference problems at all. Boeing's profit focused greed is killing ever more passengers per mile, in some alternate universe where your worldview makes sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Honeywell produced and Boeing accepted a device that experiences interference when placed in the environment where it is intended to be used, right? Yeah, that's some crazy alternate universe worldview I've got.
Ford (Score:2)
...and some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators
Did Ford try that argument with exploding Pintos?
Re: (Score:2)
No, even in Fords internal tests 8 out of 11 rear end collision crash tests at 31 MPH with Pinto resulted in gas tank rupture and fuel dumping out.
Re: (Score:2)
No, even in Fords internal tests 8 out of 11 rear end collision crash tests at 31 MPH with Pinto resulted in gas tank rupture and fuel dumping out.
But the $1 shield per vehicle was deemed too expensive, which the jury decided otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
I was just saying Pinto issue was known provable problem, whereas I'm very skeptical of claim of wifi effects on LCD screen system. We all are in a position to observe such a phenomenon if it existed, but who has ever seen such a thing? Haven't seen my cell phone affect any LCD display system either
Re: (Score:2)
We all are in a position to observe such a phenomenon if it existed,
That must be a pretty big airplane if the entire readership of /. is able to squeeze into the cockpit to observe the effects of WiFi on a cockpit instrument.
Re: (Score:2)
because cockpits have magic LCD screens that are totally different from LCD screens mere commoners use
Because cockpits have instrumentation that very few commoners have access to, and those LCD screens are built into systems that are different than the LCD monitor you are probably looking at now. When you talk about RFI and ingress, you need to consider not only the component part (the LCD) but the entire design and implementation.
How the fuck are those screens built? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I'm thinking. I've had speakers emit noise when near cell phones but I've never seen any LCD show interference. Are they expecting passenger jets to withstand the same radiation as the ISS?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fun experiment to do with computer MIC port:
It is possible to simply plug an extension cable that's both ends male into your mic port, hold the other end in your fingers, and pick up a particularly powerful AM radio station. 1MHz will be much faster than the input transistor's biaser's bandwidth, so the base will simply be moduled like a diode, providing the nonlinearity to act as an envelope detector. Your fingers make a really bad low-Q antenna though, so unless there's a signal dominant signal you'll onl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably spilled their beer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never ever heard of wifi interfering with an LCD screen. What did they do to them to get them to blank out? Stick them 1 inch in front of a directional 1kW magnetron?
While you may not have heard of it your sarcastic alarmist examples is way off the mark for what can take out any ordinary screen. I have a 1W UHF transmitter on my desk, when I push the PTT button my PC screen goes blank. It doesn't take much to interfere with digital signals, especially if you look at the quality of a typical digital signal these days.
You may not appreciate how on the very edge of not working most electronics actually are, employing all sorts of tricks such as digital signalling, shieldin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or your electronics is so badly shielded, it's a wonder it's working at all.
You haven't pulled apart many electronics have you? For the vast majority of consumer electronics shielding is either an after thought or poorly implemented borderline turning the system into an antenna to drag noise into the power supply. What is shielded in any system is typically the bare minimum. Transmission lines are shielded. Cables are shielded. In some cases the housings are shielded, in many other cases a tiny shield sits over a powersupply just enough to get that piece of paper that says Part 15
Re: (Score:2)
Faraday Cage / Tempest (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I would hope that the avionics themselves were shielded and tested before deployment and use. I mean, we don't want the altimeter interfering with the artificial horizon, do we? (stupid, simple, but real example)
Second, the whole cockpit and supporting avionics and other fight critical systems are in an enclosed conductive vessel, ie the cockpit and support area. It's a Faraday cage within a larger Faraday cage (the aircraft), so Coulomb's law should apply and mitigate this theoretical threat. Wi-Fi (bluetooth and the rest) should not reach the cockpit and instruments from the cabin unless the cockpit door is open. We all know how often that happens these days....
Polite language: red herring
Otherwise: I call BullShite
-Red
Re: (Score:1)
Having been a military trained avionics technician, I completely agree. Total bullshit. Someone is trying for a money grab. I'd guess someone at Honeywell is trying to find a way to generate new orders to replace perfectly good existing equipment. Let's tell the FAA our systems are flawed and dangerous! Our government is completely corrupt at every agency and every level.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I sort of lost interest at this: "It estimated that the replacement programme would cost about $13.8m (£8.5m) to implement." The FAA is imposing a small cost for a small increment in safety. Not much to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Faraday Cage / Tempest (Score:5, Informative)
Polite language: red herring
Otherwise: I call BullShite
Am I really the only one who looked at the actual FAA Directive?
SUMMARY:
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing
Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, and
Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by testing reports on certain Honeywell
phase 3 display units (DUs). These DUs exhibited susceptibility
to radio frequency emissions in WiFi
frequency bands at radiated power levels below the levels that the
displays are required to tolerate for certification of WiFi system installations.
Clarification of Cause of Unsafe Condition
The cause of the unsafe condition stated in the Discussion section of this AD is a
known susceptibility of the Phase 3 DUs to RF transmissions inside and outside of the
airplane. This susceptibility has been verified to exist in a range of RF spectrum (mobile
satellite communications, cell phones, air surveillance and
weather radar, and other systems), and is not limited to WiFi transmissions.
Request to Withdraw the NPRM
(78 FR 58487, September 24, 2013)
[Virgin Australia] VOZ stated that during testing of the WiFi inflight entertainment system on the
VOZ Model 737NG fleet, it noted that the DU blanking occurred only when the WiFi
radiated power source (set-up in the flight deck) was increased to a high level. VOZ also
stated that under normal operating conditions of the WiFi radiated power, there was no
blanking of the DU, but interference was present only at a certain frequency. [...]
Request to Disclose Underlying Data
in Support of the NPRM (78 FR 58487,September 24, 2013)
[...]
The susceptibility of phase 3 DUs to RF transmissions was initially identified
during a WiFi STC installation by an operator and a WiFi vendor and reported to the
FAA. As a result of this discovery, we performed a risk assessment for in-service
airplanes equipped with phase 3 DUs using our established COS process, which
determined that an AD action was warranted for this issue. In addition, Boeing did an
independent safety review and also determined that the DU blanking was a safety issue
using its own risk assessment process.
I only got half way through the 23 page directive.
Feel free to give it a full examination.
Re: (Score:2)
They are shielded and tested before deployment. But no testing is 100% effective, ever. And EMI is a tricksy thing to test and shield against.
Re: (Score:3)
As I mentioned in another post, PILOTS use tablets now. It's a huge weight saver vs tons of paper maps. Sure they're supposed to turn the WiFi off on those things, but mistakes happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, posted that as AC. Banana equivalent dose [wikipedia.org] is actually a thing.
Boeing didn't contribute enough campaign donations (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually (from above post copying the FAA report)
" In addition, Boeing did an independent safety review and also determined that the DU blanking was a safety issue using its own risk assessment process."
Boeing thinks this is a problem too... it's the airlines that don't want to pay for the repair. (AKA it's *their lobbyists that aren't doing their jobs)
Re: (Score:2)
We've heard this before. (Score:5, Interesting)
some airlines are balking, since the problem has never been seen in operation, that the order presents "a high, and unnecessary, financial burden on operators".
Several years before 9/11, pilots were asking that the cockpits be made more secure by installing a $200 lock on the pilot's side of the door giving access to the cockpit. Airlines complained that it would be too expensive. So, thanks to the airlines being too cheap to do something that made sense, more than 3,000 people died, and we now have the TSA going where no man has gone before.
Re: (Score:2)
Several years before 9/11, pilots were asking that the cockpits be made more secure by installing a $200 lock on the pilot's side of the door giving access to the cockpit. Airlines complained that it would be too expensive.
Cite?
Re: (Score:2)
On October 9, 2001, the FAA published the first of a series of Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) to expedite the modification of cockpit doors in the U.S. fleet. This Phase I fix included installation of steel bars and locking devices.
No mandatory door locks before 9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA requirement for a lock on the door [faa.gov] was only issued after 9/11
On October 9, 2001, the FAA published the first of a series of Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) to expedite the modification of cockpit doors in the U.S. fleet. This Phase I fix included installation of steel bars and locking devices.
No mandatory door locks before 9/11.
Yes, but the claim was that prior to 9/11 pilots were asking that locks be installed and that airlines refused the expense. I was asking for a citation supporting those claims -- that pilots asked and airlines refused.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed I'd be interested in this cite too, since prior to 9/11 not only did I not hear of anyone asking for locked doors, but the opposite where pilots actually invited (typically younger) passengers into the cockpit for a look around.
Gone are the days.
Re:We've heard this before. (Score:4)
Do you have a reference for that? I find it hard to believe because when the FAA implemented the sterile cockpit rule [wikipedia.org] after recurring accidents where crew distraction was a contributing cause, the pilot's union fought it tooth and nail. You're now saying the pilots suddenly want to be isolated from the cabin?
Also, the predominant cost of adding equipment to an aircraft isn't the purchase price. It's the fuel burn cost. An airliner flying 1750 miles burns about 5 cents worth of fuel for every additional pound it carries [fivethirtyeight.com]. If that beefier lock weighed 1 pound, at 3 flights a day, 330 operational days per year, and 20 years in service, the fuel cost to carry that lock is $990.
If you factor in the cost of a (say) 20 pound $1000 steel-reinforced door to go along with the lock (after all what good is a $200 lock if the door has 35 cent hinges), you're now talking about ~$22,000 in additional fuel per aircraft. This is the reason why aircraft manufacturers and airlines are willing to spend thousands of dollars extra on materials which shave just a few pounds from an aircraft's weight.
Almost completely unrelated... (Score:5, Interesting)
The LED lightbulbs in my house cause interference with my iPhone. It only happens when the phone is too close to the bulbs (less than 2 feet as I recall). I know this isn't really surprising. The thing that struck me as odd was that the interference pattern showed up on photos as well as on the screen. Great Value bulbs caused more interference than G.E. bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very new to LED bulbs and Great Value (Wal*mart's store brand) and G.E. are the only ones I've tried so far. I haven't had them long enough to have an opinion on them. I really selected those brands because I don't have good luck with bulbs lasting as long as they say they should. I wanted something that I would have a reasonable chance of being able to get replaced under warrantee.
I purchased bulbs with a 3, 5 and 10 year warranty. I'll report back in 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You are holding it wrong... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the switch-mode regulator inside them that provides the constant current which is radiating the RF. This is not unique to LEDs, and probably also not universal across LEDs. Instead it would depend on the design of the individual regulator, chosen switching frequency, and shielding. I have a bench supply which interferes with AM radio when I turn it on and the radio is sitting too close to it. "DC" hasn't really been nice clean "DC" for a long time.
Letter to the Airline Operators.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Airline,
Please fix your cockpit system.
We, the passengers, LOVE our WiFi gadgets so much that even our kids have WiFi enabled Fisher Price tablets. With the Internet of Things, practically everything has WiFi in it: cameras, phones, tablets, laptops, kids toys, kid tracking devices, etc. And if you think that every single one of these are turned off during the flight, you are fooling yourselves.
Just because there have been no public reports that the system has been interfered with, doesn't mean that
Re:Why is Boeing responsible? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's between Boeing and Honeywell, no? Honeywell didn't supply the jets with the displays in them - Boeing did. Now if the displays weren't up to the spec under which they were sold, then Boeing probably has a good case to go back to Honeywell and demand compensation. On the other hand, if being unaffected by wifi was never part of the specs or the deal, then that's Boeing's fault and they should have to eat it.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
I think the question is likely covered in contract and could fall either way. Boeing may not be liable for the costs of applying an Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA unless the sales/lease contract says Boeing has to pay for replacing the displays. Boeing WILL have to do the engineering necessary to satisfy the FAA in the design, but if these aircraft are not pretty new, the owners and not Boeing will likely be footing the bill for the parts and labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that specs would be required.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that airplanes are resistant to air surveillance and weather radar (arguably WiFi too for a passenger jet, but I'd think those other two are un ambiguous, though it should be assumed that there's at the very least accidental WiFi on, permitted or not) to be fit for the purpose in which they are sold, making it an issue of implied warranty.
If Boeing purchased these with the stated purpose being the cockpit, I don't think sp
Re: (Score:3)
Without knowing what the contracts say, that statement is pure conjecture. Both contracts may have acceptance clauses ("we think this meets spec, but you're ultimately responsible for testing it in your usage environment to be sure and notifying us in a timely manner") or simple warranty terms ("warranty on defects in material and workmanship only good for 90 day
Re: Why is Boeing responsible? (Score:1)
You're correct , I'm assuming implied warrenty . I'd think that at least the airlines (as the end purchaser ) would be covered under the fair assumption that airplanes can operate unhindered by weather radar etc .
I would assume that's the equivelant of selling an airplane that doesn't fly .
Re: (Score:1)
"I'd assume it would be unambiguous too, it's implied that they will operate, and operate in the environment for which they were sold."
That's a wildly flawed assumption. Almost comically flawed assumption. Boeing specs are exhausting. Their resistance to EMR would have been detailed and thoroughly tested, as would every other operating parameter.
Boeing typically writes the specs and vendors build to those specs. Perhaps they should use the same displays that the 787 has. Those are quite nice.;)
Re: (Score:2)
Airline contracts are more complicated then that.
For example, you can buy a Boeing airplane but order you own engines to be put in.
I don't know if it applies to this case, but I suspect the people dealing with this do.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on who was responsible for specifying the EMI tests and who was responsible for performing them.
Back in the old days, Boeing did most of its own certification testing. But as time went on, they delegated that to subcontractors. Remember the story about the fire at the 787 battery charger manufacturer [seattletimes.com]? Boeing may not even have the facilities or qualified personnel available to do thes sorts of tests anymore.
Re:Why is Boeing responsible? (Score:5, Informative)
I have inside knowledge of this issue, and it is actually available as a public Advisory Directive http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/c2bcf2b2a4ea336886257d64006136e5/$FILE/2014-20-06.pdf
The issue was brought to light during WiFi testing (which uses a 4W transmitter) and my inside source says they got the transmit antenna closer than specified to the display Unit, which then blanked out. Actual WiFi would never cause the issue, but due to the blanking during testing further investigation revealed that the Display Unit did not meet the HIRF (High Intensity Radiated Field) specs, which has been a requirement for cockpit displays since the '80s.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's between Boeing and Honeywell, no? Honeywell didn't supply the jets with the displays in them - Boeing did. Now if the displays weren't up to the spec under which they were sold, then Boeing probably has a good case to go back to Honeywell and demand compensation. On the other hand, if being unaffected by wifi was never part of the specs or the deal, then that's Boeing's fault and they should have to eat it.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
And to continue that train of thought, why should Boeing have to eat it if there was no law or other legal requirement in place at the time the planes were sold requiring displays to be resistant to wifi (or other)?
Re: (Score:2)
Is Boeing responsible? Are you sure? I don't remember reading that.
I would like to know who is supposed to pay for this: Boeing? Honeywell? The airlines?
Re: (Score:3)
Cheaper option: Have the flight attendants go around with wifi scanners and arrest people who have it operating during the flight. (And smack them over the head.)
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone). Labor is a significant portion of an airline's budget.
Besides, the FAA approved hammer used to smack passengers over the head would probably cost more than just swapping out the equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only cheaper if you think flight attendants work for free (and that they have the power to arrest anyone).
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest. Not following the directions of the captain of an air vessel is a felony. Once the plane is moving by itself (even taxiing on the ground), the flight has started and the captain is the ultimate authority.
So yes, the can, and if needed they will, arrest and restrain you if you interfere with the safety of the flight or fail to follow any legal directions. That includes telling you to turn off your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest.
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
"Enjoy the rest of your flight, sir. It will be your last for a few years."
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
Yes [wikipedia.org] they [wikipedia.org] can [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they can.
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
Yes, you are right, but this is also true for any other non-law enforcement arrest. In this case, the captain's ultimate authority ends the moment the plane hits the gate and the flight has ended so he has to hand them over. Furthermore, a captain can delegate his ultimate authority to other flight crew, or even passengers should he deem that necessary. But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony. Interference with the flight
Re: (Score:2)
But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants.
And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
Re: (Score:2)
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants. And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
No you did not. I said "they do have the power to arrest", to which you replied "No, they don't [slashdot.org]".
I then listed multiple sources pointing out that your statement is wrong. I never said the FAs rights are derived from their employment. I merely said: they do have the right to arrest". As a citizen, and as flight crew based on the delegated authority of their captain.
Re: Cheaper option (Score:2)
All you need are some windows that open in flight. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Put up warning signs and include the penalty warning in the "In the case of a water landing you may not be able to update your facebook status.." presentation at the beginning of each flight. Then just have the air waitresses scan before the flight to make sure everything is off. During flight have them scan and take down the people's names and put them on the "never gets to fly again, EVER!" list. Good luck getting back from Hawaii, asshole!
After enough walkers/bussers/boaters (depending on where they want to travel) start screaming online most other special snowflakes will get the clue.
Yeah, that sounds much better than making sure that airliners are immune to common sources of RF interference (including terrestrial sources that are going to exist whether or not anyone uses Wifi on the plane). Put grandma on a no-fly list because she wanted to play angry birds and didn't know how to put her phone into airplane mode. While on other aircraft, airlines *encourage* you to use Wifi to access inflight internet and entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, the Helen Lovejoy argument, once again.
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case, the specs were changed long after the fact.
I don't think Honeywell made defective devices, the FAA changed the requirements years later.
Re: (Score:3)
Those poor, poor airline operators.
Passengers will pay.