Features

Aircraft WiFi revisted - summarising the arguments

Lufthansa has announced that it is going for WiFi in the skies. We've had dozens of letters about using cellphones, and Wireless LAN technology on aircraft from readers; here's one which summarises a point made by many; with the Editor's response. The letter is from Patrick - an airline pilot - and the full text of the letter follows below the comments.

Patrick,

You remarked: "I find this pretty lame to encourage people to use mobile phones in the planes as you do in your article. "

It turns out my article was not quite as clear as I had hoped; you aren't the first to gather that I want to allow phone use in the air! Most seem to have understood me, though. Read it again: I think you'll find that I didn't. And your letter points out that using cellphones in the air causes problems for the ground phone networks - again, if you re-read the original story, you'll discover that I said this, too.

What I was trying to point out was that while there are good reasons not to use phones on flights, they are actually being used. Not just by sneaky or bad-tempered passengers, but by people who leave their phones in their baggage and forget to switch them off; and even by some flight staff.

There is (I was trying to explain) a lobby. It is a group of airline flight engineers - pilots like yourself. They have heard of the idea of using PCs with wireless networks - Lufthansa has already started doing it. They want to stop it - they say, on safety grounds. This lobby is the focus of my argument.

My point: if phones are dangerous in flights, then it's time someone actively went about ensuring they can't be used. It's no earthly good saying, piously, that "if there's any danger, then we must err on the side of safety" - and then allowing people to climb aboard without even testing if their phones are switched on. Testing for the presence of an active GSM phone is not rocket science, it's not even expensive. Your suggestion that you have to fit expensive electronics in every seat exaggerates by quite a lot. The damn phones broadcast all over the spectrum; there never was an easier RFI source to track!

And my other point was: unless the authorities are prepared to grasp the nettle of banning batteries in phones, or even of testing to see if the phones are switched on, they absolutely can't bow to the whim of a group of pilots about PCs and WLAN.

You said:

Now when it comes to WiFi, I just can't understand why on Earth (or in the sky) one would like to switch WiFi on during a flight. I mean, ok, if you're with some friends it might be cool to say "yeah, we played Unreal Tournament in a WiFi network during the flight", but apart from the Wow factor, there's NOTHING serious that would make you have to use WiFi. And given the typical range of those wireless units, it could indeed have serious interactions with the on-board electronics! Letting your WiFi device turned on is IMHO just stupid and potentially dangerous until it's authorized by the airliners ...

Actually, there are dozens of reasons why someone might want to have access to the Internet on a seven-hour flight; and dozens more why you would like it to be wireless. I don't know if you've examined the radio frequency interference you get if you install CAT 5 LAN cable in an aircraft, but look it up! - it's been tried. It's vastly expensive, heavy, and radiates all over the shop!

All you can say is that you, personally, can't think of one right now. But within two years, it will be commonplace, and people will marvel that we tolerated such isolation before.

I think your point about the "range" of WiFi may betray careless research.

The interference from a cellphone is powerful and invasive. (Even so, aircraft continue to survive it). By contrast, there is no evidence AT ALL that WiFi can affect an aircraft, and plenty of evidence - from Boeing itself, which is equipping its new aircraft with the technology - that it is innocuous. The range of WiFi is a couple of hundred feet; the range of a cellphone is 30 miles. If you compare the two, you just aren't using your calculator! And as for worrying about Bluetooth - well, it's really not an issue. It's a fraction of the power of WiFi. If WiFi really were dangerous, do you honestly think Boeing and Lufthansa would be installing it? Would JAA be certifying it? And if WiFi is innocuous, how can Bluetooth be risky?

On one thing, we both agree: you don't allow people to place calls on flights - not because the danger is real or not (and yes, I do think it's trivial!) - but because it disrupts the cells on the ground.

If knives on a plane are seen to be a danger, then we go to enormous trouble to ensure that nothing sharp can be taken on board. If phones are seen to be a danger, then we do nothing at all. We just bleat. Is this the action of people who seriously believe they are dangerous? It doesn't seem like it to me!

And then we're supposed to take a bunch of lobbyists seriously when they say they don't like the idea of PCs on flights? When many of them are casually using cellphones on the flight decks themselves?

I think not, frankly. Either enforce the ban on phones strictly as we do the ban on guns, if they're that dangerous; or just make it very clear to people that it is disruptive to the network and that they can be sued for doing it.

Finally, can I just point out that the airlines seem very happy to accept dangerous objects in hand baggage if they themselves are making revenue from them? I've bought huge bottles of whisky "duty free" on international flights - in the air! Nobody is going to persuade me that you can't kill someone with a bottle of whisky - even before you've smashed it and turned the broken glass into a lethally sharp dagger. But I bet you haven't been found writing angry letters to your employers, demanding that only plastic bottles be allowed on flights?

Thanks for writing!

Cheers,

Guy

Here follows the full text of the letter:

Hello Guy,

I read your article about wireless and planes. While I agree with you in the sense that no crash has yet been caused by a wireless equipment use in flight, some studies have shown that in certain circumstances, wireless equipment can affect the plane's builtin electronics.

I honestly think that as long as safety is concerned, one should exercise caution first before thinking about comfort. Frankly, I can understand why one would want to use a cell phone during a flight, but honestly, apart in rare cases where calling in the plane would make a difference (9/11 comes to mind), I seriously think that it wouldn't harm much to wait until the plane has landed ... The main reason it's forbidden in flight is certainly because it can disrupt the operator network (a cell phone is not supposed to be able to link to that many cells at the same time) but there's been some reports of pilot-atc radio communications garbled by the use of mobile phones. So I find this pretty lame to encourage people to use mobile phones in the planes as you do in your article. :-(

Now when it comes to WiFi, I just can't understand why on Earth (or in the sky) one would like to switch WiFi on during a flight!!! I mean, ok, if you're with some friends it might be cool to say "yeah, we played Unreal Tournament in a WiFi network during the flight", but apart from the Wow factor, there's NOTHING serious that would make you _have to_ use WiFi. And given the typical range of those wireless units, it could indeed have serious interactions with the on-board electronics! Letting your WiFi device turned on is IMHO just stupid and potentially dangerous until it's authorized by the airliners ...

The simple fact that an emitting device cannot be detected by the crew is really not an excuse to use it. I mean, just because detecting a bomb in the passenger's luggage is not possible doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it, right? It's the same here: you really want the airport scan to include a bluetooth, WiFi and GSM sniffer test? And what if you just turn your device off when entering the plane, and turn it on later? The airliners would have to equip every single seat with a bunch of wireless devices detectors ... Any idea about the cost of such systems? And the added weight would mean less passengers or less luggages loaded in the plane, too. No, I think that the best solution is still based on trust, even if this means that some people (like you) will always try to cheat. I think that detectors should only be used if there's a significant probability that using such a device would bring the device down. Here we're talking about rare occurrences ... It's a bit like having a phone call with your mobile phone when driving a car: in more and more countries, this is becoming prohibited because it increases the risk to have an accident. You and I have probably done that a great many times without any problem, but hundreds of accidents have been caused by this behavior, so making it illegal seems a wise thing to do if it can save a few lives, even if this means an inconvenience for a lot of people!

As an airline pilot, I may take all these things too heartily, but I really think that people should use common sense instead of thinking of "selfish" interest first.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm uterly disappointed that my own airline (Air France) don't give electrical outlets even for first class passengers on our most modern aircrafts so that they can plug their laptops, and they won't seriously consider allowing the use of GPS (which are far less dangerous - potentially - than any other wireless device) in flight. As a hopeless geek, I'm the first to complain about having to switch off my PDA during take-off and landings (although I don't refrain from using it when I'm in the cockpit on the observer seat, as there's no builtin bluetooth or WiFi on my NX70V Sony Clie), but I've got the intimate feeling that sooner or later all the airlines will have to do something about wireless devices or electronic devices in general, but this has to come from customer lobbying! If they face wild, undisciplined customers using wireless devices, the risk is that they'll ban those devices first and it'll then take longer for the airlines to allow them again after properly shielding the onboard electronics ...

Just my two cents, of course!

Best regards,

Patrick Robbe