Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 301 posts

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#141

Post by marshray »

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #125
marshray wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There's still a human pilot flying the plane. Even an arc welder (probably) won't magically make it go in to a nosedive. What could happen however is that certain navigation systems become unreliable during landing. Add that to bad weather, bad information, human error, and bad luck and you have a potential disaster. But it doesn't seem likely that a terrorist would find such a plan worthwhile to pursue. After al…

Hmmm.....could the terrorists cryptographically encode their flight schedules along with techniques, drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people? This way, they could prove their involvement. Your point about the compound nature of risk is valid, but doesn't it also suggest that the actual risk of allowing electronics during takeoff/landing i…

The thing that 'accidents' has in its favor over 'terrorist' is volume. Many thousands of takeoffs and landings and millions of passengers with electronic devices every day. Even a small additional risk is guaranteed to line up with the right mix of other factors occasionally.

Terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare, and they typically expend their resources with each attempt so they want a high probability of success. There are far better avenues for a technically sophisticated attacker these days than getting on a plane and emitting harmful radiofrequency interference in excess of FCC guidelines.

> drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people

I'm far from an expert on the mindset of terrorists, but I really don't think that's going to check the box for those aspiring to martyrdom.

Edit: It's an interesting thought experiment though. Let's say the next time an Air France crashes mysteriously into the ocean, the next day some group sends a private key to the media which decrypts a file from Google Cache containing the flight number and their religious slogan of choice. How would the media around the world report that?

A "hoax terrorist" could also encrypt and upload files for _all_ the flight numbers, or perhaps have a smaller set of files that decrypt differently with different keys. If they used CBC mode, they could even choose part of the plaintext when they disclosed the IV. You'd have to trust a cryptographer to know how reliable of an indicator that actually is.

Or a counter-hoax-terrorist could do that to discredit you. Would kinda suck to martyr yourself and have no one believe you about it later. If the CIA were smart, they would be doing just that, in advance.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#142

Post by cheald »

marshray wrote: post #114
nickbilton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?

I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law.

If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were possible, couldn't you just put shielding between the passenger cabin and the cockpit? EM radiation is line-of-sight, after all.

It seems like a giant non-issue that exists mostly due to rulemakers' ignorance.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#143

Post by 16BitTons »

AshleysBrain wrote: post #119
DaniFong wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.

If 1 billion people take a 20 minute nap every day... that's equal to 38,000 years wasted time every day... which is about 20 lifetimes every HOUR! OMFG nobody should nap!

Except without sleep, we all die. The question before us is this: without TSA, do we all die?

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#144

Post by rdtsc »

Bud wrote: post #8

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…

> If everyone has 15 objects out

I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#145

Post by brc »

marshray wrote: post #114
nickbilton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?

I once was talking to a pilot who swore first-hand that he had the plane doing odd things, asked the attendants to go through the cabin looking for people using devices and to shut them off. They closed down one particular laptop and the plane started behaving again.

Whether this is 'friend of a friend' type tale that pilots like to say (and co-opt as their own story) or not is difficult to say.

The same pilot also told me the main reason they don't want you using cellphones on a flight was because the base stations couldn't triangulate properly and identify who was making the call - which is clearly BS. Same pilot also freely admitted to using his own phone during flights.

I guess my point is that the pilots at the same time kind-of believe the official excuses, yet at the same time flout them and make up ridiculous reasons why they are official.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#146

Post by daeken »

cheald wrote: post #142
marshray wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?

I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were pos…

If it were trivially possible for you to interfere with cockpit computers, why wouldn't terrorists be going after that? Seems like a massive, massive oversight if that were the case.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#147

Post by qdot76367 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #86
Bud wrote: post #8

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…

> If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible. I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. > It's the s…

> I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.

The audiences at many concerts I've been to lately would speak to the opposite of this.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#149

Post by BCounsell »

Even on the slightest chance that a consumer device would cause interference, do you think having to put them away is so bad? On take off and landing you are also near other planes, populated areas.

Also don't forget with the 3.5 oz limitation someone did use that kind(Liquid) as an explosive to try and take down a airplane. poor electronics getting jolted from a peaceful sleep with a bullhorn.....

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#150

Post by pavel_lishin »

jser wrote: post #80
FaceKicker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they actually aren't willing to test whether cell phones interfere with their equipment, they shouldn't be allowing cell phones on the plane at all. Relying on people's compliance (or even just their attention) to ensure the plane doesn't explode is absurd.

Tests are performed when inflight connectivity is added to a plane -- and it has resulted in finding interference issues, such as WiFi blanking avionics screens ( http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference... ). For cellphones, there have been many reported incidents of interference when pilots had them on (search Google). I'd assume testing on cell phones would officially commence with installs of…

And yet, we can use our laptops during flight.

So, should I be skeptical of you, or terrified in two weeks when I fly to Dallas?

Post reply on HN