flying – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "flying"

Verizon, AT&T Delay 5G Due To Ongoing Scuff Up Over Airplane Interference

from the dysfunction-junction dept

Late last year, we noted how the FAA and the FCC (the agency that actually knows how spectrum works) had gotten into a bit of an ugly tussle over the FAA’s claim that 5G could harm air travel safety.

The FAA claimed that deploying 5G in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz “C-Band” would cause interference with certain radio altimeters. But the FCC conducted its own study showing minimal issues, and pointed to the more than 40 countries have deployed 5G in this bandwidth with no evidence of harm. Telecom lawyer Harold Feld had a detailed post on this if you’re interested in the particulars:

…the technical evidence on which the FAA bases its interference concerns have a lot of problems — not least of which that about 40 other countries operate similar 5G deployments in the same C-Band without any interference showing up. Either physics works differently in the U.S., or the report at the center of this controversy needs to explain why this hasn’t shown up in any other country where deployments are either authorized or have already taken place.

This being about human lives, caution has generally prevailed, and AT&T and Verizon have promised to further delay the deployment of C band 5G service near airports until July 2023, giving the airline industry more time to retrofit any problematic altimeters. The airline industry still isn’t happy about it, claiming the entire thing is being rushed due to pressure from telecom companies:

“It is not at all clear that (air travel) carriers can meet what appears to be an arbitrary deadline,” trade group CEO Nicholas Calio said in a letter to Nolen. He said safety is jeopardized “by the rushed approach to avionics modifications amid pressure from the telecommunications companies,” and warned that if replacement parts aren’t ready in time, airline service could be disrupted.

AT&T and Verizon, which paid 45.45billionand45.45 billion and 45.45billionand23.41 billion respectively last year for C-band spectrum, very much want to get this spectrum deployed and in use (especially considering that U.S. 5G has generally underperformed so far). Much of this consternation is over who pays for these equipment upgrades (the airline industry has long wanted telecom companies to foot the bill, to no avail).

At the heart of this persists two government agencies that apparently can’t work well together. The FCC’s multi-year old reports on this issue say there wasn’t much of an issue. The FAA, in contrast, took to doing things like leaking scary stories to the Wall Street Journal instead of working with the FCC (again, the agency with the engineering expertise in how these things work).

Throw in some supply chain headaches and you’ve got a bit of a mess. So, again, taking time to do this correctly is important because of the fact that human lives are at stake, but this still wound up being way more avoidably stupid and complicated than it needed to be for a long list of reasons.

Filed Under: 5g, airline safety, broadband, delays, faa, flying, telecom
Companies: at&t, verizon

Homeland Security Starts Banning Laptops & Tablets On Planes From The Middle East

from the that-is-going-to-piss-off-a-lot-of-people dept

It’s been a very long time since I last flew somewhere without my laptop. I actually am more productive than usual on planes, and I tend to use flying time to just focus in and get a ton of stuff done. I can’t even begin to explain how ridiculously frustrating it would be to find out that I wouldn’t be allowed to bring a laptop onto a plane, and yet it appears that our new Homeland Security overlords have put in place new restrictions on flights to the US from certain countries in the middle east barring tablets and laptops from the cabin (apparently no American carriers are impacted — just foreign ones). Passengers are being told to check such things (which is odd, since normally you’re not supposed to check lithium ion batteries…). Flights from 13 countries are being hit with this, and Homeland Security won’t give any further explanation beyond the usual “national security.” And, just this morning, the UK announced that it would be doing the same thing.

Homeland Security has been hinting that this is due to some sort of specific threat — so it sounds like there’s intelligence around a planned attack using such a device. Perhaps then the extra precaution is sensible. But, once again, this feels like a form of overkill security theater: inconveniencing basically everyone (to extreme levels) based on the slight possibility of a very small number of bad actors. There has to be a better way. Every time one of these new restrictions is put in place, it not only completely inconveniences people, but it shows people that if they somehow convince the scaredy cats at DHS of some new type of threat, they can inconvenience people even more. It’s almost as if each additional inconvenience is impacting things way more than an actual exploding laptop or whatever might.

Of course, it should be no surprise that former TSA boss Kip Hawley, is now running around arguing that this is no big deal and Wired is happy to tell everyone to calm down and just “buy a book.” But that’s kind of crazy — especially for people who have important or sensitive information on their laptops and don’t want to hand them off to baggage carriers with a history of snooping through bags and stealing expensive electronics.

Also, since this is limited to just a few Middle Eastern airports, it’s not hard to think that if there are terrorists planning something, they’ll just head to different airports instead. Yes, I’m sure that someone saw something that they thought was a threat, and it’s reasonable to put in place plans that try to minimize some of that risk. But it has to take into account the cost side too, and there has to be a better way to deal with it than such a blanket ban impacting so many people.

Filed Under: dhs, flying, laptops, middle east, national security, security theater, tablets, terrorism, threats, tsa, uk, us

Cost-Benefit Analysis On Why We Should Just Do Away With The TSA Completely

from the just-get-rid-of-it dept

One of the key points we’ve brought up repeatedly in discussing the current surveillance state we seem to live in, is that those in charge seem to have no concept whatsoever of a cost-benefit analysis. They look at the world as a situation in which “terrorists must be stopped at all costs.” But that’s obviously ridiculous. For example, if you really wanted to stop terrorists on commercial airplanes there’s a simple way to do that: you end all air travel. That would knock out the issue of terrorists using commercial flights — but would obviously create another set of headaches while probably doing very little to stop terrorism. That’s an extreme example where the costs outweigh the benefits, that’s so obviously crazy that it’s not considered serious. Yet, by creeping and crawling along, we continually expand the surveillance state in similar ways without ever stopping to consider all the costs that are piling up.

Over at the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Dylan Matthews recently wrote about his experience flying commercially without having to go through security. That’s because he flew a small commuter plane that is exempt from having to send its passengers through TSA security. As he noted, the experience was a lot more like taking a bus or a train. You show up right before it’s time to go, collect your ticket and get on board. He thankfully points out that this was both awesome and no one died.

That eventually leads to a fairly simple idea: just get rid of the whole TSA and make all air travel like this. He points out that, on a basic cost-benefit analysis, this is probably totally worth it, even if terrorists do go back to trying to use commercial airlines in their plots:

Would this increase hijacking? Probably. But there’s no reason to believe it would increase casualties from terrorist attacks overall. That’s because increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere.

The best literature review available on the efficacy of counterterrorism tactics found that, on average, adding metal detectors and security screenings at airports led to about 6.3 fewer airplane hijackings in the years examined (a hijinking-heavy period chronicled in Brendan Koerner’s latest book, in case you’re interested). But that was more than compensated for by an increase in “miscellaneous bombings, armed attacks, hostage taking, and events which included death or wounded individuals (as opposed to non-casualty incidents) in both the short and long run.” In fact, metal detectors and security screenings at airports led to about 6.8 more of these substitute events. “When calculating the overall weighted mean effect size for all of the findings examining the effectiveness of metal detectors, the positive and harmful effects cancel each other out,” the review’s authors conclude.

Could that literature review be wrong? Sure. The evidence base on counterterrorism effectiveness is very thin because true experiments on it are hard to conduct. But you go to war with the data you have, and the data we have (including some from after that review came out) suggests that even the most rudimentary of security screenings have not saved any lives, all things considered. What they have done is waste countless hours and dollars, because we really needed a rock with which to scare away tigers.

In short: there’s little to no evidence that the TSA has saved a single life in stopping terrorism. While it may have prevented specific plots, that energy just went towards other plots and attacks. Yet the costs of the TSA are immense, and we’re not just talking about hiring all those people to feel you up at the airport, or even the super expensive naked scanner machines. It’s the costs to all of us — the public who travel. The fact that you have to get to the airport hours before your flight, stand in a very long line to be scanned or felt up and generally humiliated — that’s a massive waste of time and productivity for everyone, for apparently no benefit at all, other than security theater.

Yes, in many ways, this is the same point that Bruce Schneier has been making for ages, but it’s nice to see more mainstream publications, like the Washington Post, not just make this basic argument (the costs outweigh the benefits of the TSA) but to go all the way to the level of arguing that totally abolishing the policy probably makes the most sense.

Filed Under: cost benefit, flying, security, tsa

DailyDirt: Supersonic Flights

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Remember the Concorde? It was the longest operating commercial supersonic aircraft that flew its last flight in 2003 after 27 years of service. With a cruising speed of 1,350 mph (Mach 2), the Concorde could fly from New York to London in under 3 hours. For more than 20 years, the Concorde was the fastest and safest airliner in the world, but a deadly crash in 2000 that killed all 109 people on board, as well as 4 people on the ground, precipitated the demise of the Concorde, which was already suffering from a general downturn in the aviation industry. There hasn’t been a successor to the Concorde since it was retired, but perhaps the following are some possibilities.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aircraft, airline, aviation, concorde, dreamliner, flying, jet, mach, plane, scramjet, sonic cruiser, supersonic
Companies: boeing

DailyDirt: Flying Bikes

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Riding a bicycle is a great way to stay fit and healthy, while also helping the environment. For those who feel they need a little assistance on the ground, there are electric bicycles. And then, for those who want to soar above traffic, avoiding congestion, exhaust fumes, and bad drivers, there are flying bicycles. Here are a few examples of some of the latest (totally not dangerous-looking) flying bike prototypes.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aerovelo, atlas, bicycles, bikes, e-volo, exporeair, flying, helicopter, hoverbike, prototypes, sikorsky prize
Companies: kickstarter

Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly

from the and-no-damage-yet dept

I’ve always been careful about putting my phone into “airplane mode” when flight attendants ask. However, a few years back, for reasons that I’ve yet to see any explanation for, flight attendants changed the script and started insisting that “flight mode” wasn’t enough any more and you had to turn the phone all the way off. I’ve asked many times why this switch was made, and no one can say. At the point when that happened, I happened to have a smartphone that had no ability to turn off. I looked. There was no power button. There was nothing in the software that was a “turn off” function. The only way to turn it off was to pull out the battery. I did that on a few flights and then figured it was stupid. So I stopped. And nothing happened. With my current phone, I’ve tried to “turn it off” but even when it says it’s turning off it’s not really turning off (because when I switch the battery, it takes about 3 minutes to boot up — but if I “turn it off” and then turn it back on, it’s ready to go within a second). Today, I still always put it into flight mode, but that’s it. I turn off the screen and put the phone away, but I don’t “turn it off” because it’s pretty clear the phone doesn’t actually turn off. And the requirement is silly. Similarly, my tablet stays on in my bag and my laptop is generally in “sleep” mode, but not off.

And I’m not alone. It seems that lots of people leave their devices on when they fly.

In a study released on Thursday by two industry groups, the Airline Passenger Experience Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, as many as 30 percent of all passengers said they had accidentally left a device on during takeoff or landing. About 67 percent said they had never done this, always ensuring that their electronics were turned off. Four percent were unsure.

In another segment of the study, passengers were asked if they turn their devices to “off” when instructed to do so by the pilot. Although 59 percent of passengers said they do fully turn their electronics off, 21 percent said they often simply switch to “airplane mode,” which disables the main radios of a gadget. Five percent sometimes adhere to the rule. And others were either unsure or do not carry electronic devices on a plane.

People give all sorts of reasons for why the devices should be turned off, but none of them make much sense. There is the interference question, but given how many of these devices stay on, there would be at least some real evidence of interference by now if that were really a big concern. There is the “gotta pay attention to the flight attendants” argument, but then they wouldn’t let you sleep or read a book during takeoff. There’s the “flying device is dangerous if something goes wrong” argument, but that applies equally to books. So, what is the reasoning? There’s either some reason that no one’s explaining… or just a ridiculous overabundance of caution where it’s clearly not necessary.

Of course, as I was finishing up this post, someone passed along a Bloomberg video that claims that phones do interfere with flight GPS. If you look at at the text that goes with the video, they cite a story of a flight that went off course until flight attendants convinced someone to turn off an iPhone. However, nowhere in the video do they even mention that story or give any data or support for that claim. The video claims are also suspect. They name a single study from nearly a decade ago talking about a single phone, which is no longer on the market, that caused some interference. The other “studies” they look at include a very small number of claims from pilots who claim problems and that they “suspect” interference from phones, but those are never confirmed. They found 75 such claims over six years, but without any evidence to back them up.

Again, given how often people leave their devices on, you would expect a lot more verifiable evidence beyond a few pilots “suspecting” that phones were the problem, when a variety of other variables might have been a part of it.

Filed Under: airplanes, devices, faa, flying, interference, warnings, wireless

FCC Boss Tired Of Having To Put His iPad Away For Takeoff, Tells FAA To Fix It

from the inter-agency-squabbles dept

Numerous people have talked about the ridiculousness of requiring airplane passengers to put away their iPads or other portable devices during takeoff and landing on airplanes. There used to be excuses about how it could impact the equipment in the plane, but no one actually believes that any more. Now, even FCC boss Julius Genachowski is getting impatient with all of this and has asked the FAA to stop procrastinating and start allowing the use of such devices. The letter, of course, was more polite than that, but makes it clear that the FCC is ready to get on with the show and would like the FAA to finally “enable greater use of tablets, e-readers, and other portable devices.”

Filed Under: faa, fcc, flying, ipads, julius genachowski

KLM To Allow People To Pick Seatmates Based On Social Media Profiles

from the need-an-e-harmony-plugin dept

I spend way too much time in airplanes these days, and I’m one of those people who tends to be fairly anti-social during the flight. I generally don’t talk at all to my seatmates. Most of the time, this is because I tend to view flight time as productivity time, and focus on getting work done. That said, I’ve found that on the rare occasions that someone else initiates conversations, I’ve had some pretty fascinating conversations (including a very long discussion once with the VP of a big tech company on innovation tactics that took up much of a 10 hour flight). So I’m… intrigued but skeptical of the news that KLM is trying out a system that will let passengers pick seatmates based on social media profiles. The details are still a bit slim, but it sounds like when you purchase, you can link up your social media profiles (if you choose — opt-in only), and then as other passengers are picking seats, they can see who they might be sitting next to. My guess is that having a good seat will still significantly outweigh who you might sit next to. On top of that, you’d imagine that a lot of the really interesting people you’d want to meet might keep their info private. But, either way, even if I probably wouldn’t participate, it will be an interesting program to watch.

Filed Under: flying, seatmates, social media
Companies: klm

DailyDirt: Impractically-Powered Planes

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some methods of flying are better than others. Passenger comfort isn’t always the top priority for some aircraft, and that’s especially true when engineers are trying out really novel designs and propulsion ideas. Here are just a few examples of some new planes that aren’t quite ready for commercial flight, but that look really cool on the drawing board.

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: electic, flying, lenr, nuclear, planes, solar, superconducting, voltair

Uh, No, Using An iPad On A Flight Won't Get You On The No-Fly List

from the nor-will-being-a-jackass dept

A bunch of folks have passed around this story from Jalopnik entitled How An iPad Got A Guy Placed On The No-Fly List. Of course, I would bet that almost nothing in the title of that story is actually true. First of all, if you read the details, the iPad only played a minor role. Basically, as the plane was getting ready for takeoff, the guy was trying to use his iPad, and when flight attendants told him to turn it off, he talked back to them a bit, and didn’t actually turn it off the first time (but did so later). That’s about it for the iPad. Then apparently he just became a jerk to the various flight attendants, demanding alcohol and being a general nuisance on the rest of the flight, which apparently resulted in the airline having the airport police meet him upon arrival. So, what’s the “no fly” list got to do with it? Basically, the Jalopnik author was told by a flight attendant that the guy has been put on the no fly list, but there’s absolutely no evidence to back that up. While the whole no fly list is of questionable legality, and ridiculously managed, I’ve seen absolutely nothing that suggests that being a jackass on a flight can possibly get you onto the no fly list. And, even if this guy got in trouble, it was for being a jackass, not for using his iPad.

Filed Under: flying, ipad, no fly