Damage dealt by an exploding Surefire flashlight, from across the room. What hit this didn't stop here either.
Investigative Report on Dangerous Gadgets, Lithium Ion Batteries, and Safe Air Travel
DISCLAIMER TO GIZMODO EDITOR:
The intent of this document is to prove my ability to draw in resources gathered, ask the right questions, and assess the situation. Its undue length is entirely from the fact that this is probably the most thorough assessment of the NASA ASRS database on passenger and gadget disturbances in existence. It is written informally in the style your readers are accustomed to.
Starting with ground zero and ending with today
I have taken my analytical skills to the 105 records of a Passenger Electronic Device interfering with a commercial flight in the Aviation Safety Reporting System database, omitting a few redundant episodes but mentioning them, and generally highlighting the most significant and occasionally entertaining in flight calamities. They are written in order of oldest incident to newest. The proliferation of gadgetry can be followed in a more obvious fashion this way. The threat it can pose is highlighted with a number of increasingly severe and recent events documented.
Lets look at the first incident that can be found for this type of interference. Pilots have long known the intrinsic link between electromagnetic activity and their instruments, and these pilots noticed the causal relationship in this incident where they suspected the "PAX", passenger, left his phone on. The first report for this kind of interference dates to 1999, whereby the symptoms of the cellphone interference disappear when the aircraft descends to 18,000 the height where passengers are reminded to stow their electronics for landing. The most interesting thing in this "origin" report, is that the crew mentions their airline recently changed passenger device policy allowing them to use cellphones on the ground with the door open. Quoting the captain, " I HAVE EXPERIENCE, LIKE THIS INCIDENT, WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH A POLICY MAY NOT BE WISE."
This doesn't bode well.
The second incident involves radio navigational instruments going off course, with the problem persisting after the flight attendant deals with 5 laptops and 2 CD players (A couple years before ipods). The problem got worse until a passenger was discovered sneaking cellular use which ceased after another cabin message. Once again 1999, DC-9 variant like the incident above. It's starting to look like older Mcdonnell Douglas products are suspect to this type of problem, because in the third incident an MD-88 has a flight computer proverbially give the crew the blue screen of death. Literally the " FMS LOCKED UP, NAV DISPLAY AND PRIMARY FLT DISPLAY FLICKERED AND BLANKED, RTE AND PERFORMANCE DATA DUMPED." Do you really want this kind of interruption to occur in the cockpit because a "PAX WAS USING A CELL PHONE WHILE ALL THIS OCCURRED. HE WAS SLOW TO TURN HIS PHONE OFF IN SPITE OF THE FLT ATTENDANT'S INSISTENCE. ALL SYS WERE RESTORED ABOUT THE TIME HE TURNED THE CELL PHONE OFF." That says a lot about the nature of this problem, because I'm sure that this selfish passenger would have woken up over his actions had they known what they were doing on the flightdeck. Unless the passengers name is Abdul Mutallab, most people would never try to harm flight operations, something they probably don't think about when they sneak a text message to their loved one about forgetting to turn on the washer.
The third incident is interesting because passenger arrogance compounds a situation, something which is critical for flight management training. When your dealing with a number of problems and you or your crew are task saturated trying to bring a 757 in with turbulent dangerous weather, the last thing you want compounding your problems is a nav failure. Cue arrogant passenger number #512,234. With the cockpit crew alerted of a medical problem, they proceed to become busy with the critical phase of planning an approach at a diversionary field. Well, both this 757 and another jet receive disruptive interference that the ground control cannot see, forcing the 757 with an ill passenger to go around and delay its landing multiple times in poor weather. It's situations like these that can cause a task saturated crew to miss an important item in the checklist like slats or spoiler-auto-arm, something that happened on Flight 1420 things which could destroy the entire plane in the event of a long landing or a go-around. While that incident resulted in no lasting problems. it mentions that planes 3-4 miles BEHIND the incident aircraft were getting the same interference. This clearly can be a large problem at times.
Number four is just plain funny. They must have had someone real important as the incident passenger, because "PAX REFUSED TO TURN OFF HIS LAPTOP COMPUTER FOR PREPARATION FOR DEPARTURE." Ok. So, since its regulation that all items must be turned off before takeoff, lets just wait for this person to finish his spreadsheet, email his girlfriend, and watch the Lord of the Rings bluray trilogy boxset on his laptop. THEN we can takeoff. You know, if we haven't burnt through 30,000 gallons of jet fuel whilst waiting on the tarmac.
The year 2002 brings us new levels of comedic idiocy. I can lay this one bare for you guys: "PAX DURING TAXI OUT ANSWERED CELL PHONE CALL AND HEADED BACK TO THE LAVATORY. I TOLD PAX TO TURN OFF PHONE AND BE SEATED (IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH). PAX IGNORED ME AND WENT INTO LAVATORY TO CONTINUE CONVERSATION. DEMO VIDEO WAS FINISHED AND CAPT SAID FLT ATTENDANTS PREPARE, WHEN PAX CAME OUT. I TOLD PAX TO HAVE A SEAT AND IGNORED AGAIN MY REQUEST. THEN PAX BECAME ANGRY AND SAID 'WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO IF I DON'T SIT DOWN?' ANOTHER FLT ATTENDANT NOTICED THE CONFRONTATION AND AGAIN PAX ASKED 'WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?' PAX WAS THEN ASKED TO BE SEATED AND REFUSED AND WAS THEN ASKED TO GET HIS LUGGAGE AS WE RETURNED TO HAVE PAX REMOVED FROM FLT."
My estimated cause is cocaine usage, as the A300 was departing from Caracas, Venezuela. But don't let the indecency stop there, it seems like some people view flight attendants the way they view authority figures. Which is to say they don't view them as people:
ON A FLT FROM MIA TO ORD WE HAD A PAX INTERFERE WITH OUR DUTIES AND REFUSE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS TO TURN OFF HER CELL PHONE. THE PAX WAS TOLD 3 DIFFERENT TIMES TO TURN OFF HER CELL PHONE SO WE COULD DEPART. SHE TURNED IT OFF AT FIRST, THEN WHEN I WALKED PAST HER, 2 MINS LATER, SHE HAD HER HEAD BENT OVER INTO HER CARRY ON BAG TALKING ON HER CELL PHONE. I FINALLY TOLD HER THAT I NEEDED TO WRITE UP A WARNING LETTER ON HER SINCE SHE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH OUR FAA REQUIREMENTS. I THEN WENT TO TELL THE CAPT WHAT WAS GOING ON. JUST THEN FLT ATTENDANT #2 CAME UP FROM THE BACK TO TELL ME THAT HE HEARD THE PAX CALL ME A '%$^#&' AS I WALKED UP FRONT. HE SAID HE TOLD HER THAT HE HEARD THAT AND SHE ADMITTED TO HIM THAT SHE DID SAY THAT. THE CAPT WENT TO SPEAK TO HER. I WASN'T THERE TO HEAR WHAT WAS SAID, BUT I DO KNOW THAT SHE WAS ON HER BEST BEHAVIOR DURING THE FLT SO WE (THE CREW) DECIDED NOT TO WRITE UP THE WARNING LETTER ON HER. WE FIGURED SHE LEARNED HER LESSON AND FELT BAD AS SHE NOW BEHAVED APPROPRIATELY. BOY, WERE WE WRONG. AFTER WE LANDED AND EVERYONE DEPLANED, SHE STEPPED INTO THE COCKPIT AND WAS VERBALLY ABUSIVE WITH THE CAPT. SHE TALKED UP THERE FOR ABOUT 5 MINS, ALL THE TIME BEING VERY HOSTILE AND ARGUMENTATIVE. THE CAPT KEPT TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO HER ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES OF TURNING OFF THE CELL PHONES. HE EVEN EXPLAINED WHY IT'S IMPORTANT BUT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT, SHE JUST KEPT STATING THAT IT WAS VERY UPSETTING TO HER THAT SHE WAS REPRIMANDED FOR NOT TURNING OFF HER CELL PHONE.
Which is more important, the passenger's social connection to the outside world for a few hours, or getting on with the worlds most massively coordinated and logistically gargantuan industry in the world, otherwise known as commercial aviation.
Most of the incidents like the following one are mostly passengers ignoring rules, like a passenger who repeatedly uses his phone and the overhead baggage while the plane is taxiing, or the next case where a passenger is simply entering phone contacts into his new phone. As it turns out just entering contacts sends the autopilot and several black boxes to hell in a handbasket for almost two minutes, because the phone is using maximum power to roam whilst canned inside a 767. It's an alarming little story, because the cause is so SIMPLE. Are we going to have 20 terrorists infiltrate a Boeing with Siemens CEO168 to blast HERF? I don't even want to think about the prospects of a passenger fitting his laptop with a jammer or the like. Heres the tale:
AT APPROX XA:44 ENE OF REMISS WE ENCOUNTERED THE EVENT. FIRST THING I NOTICED WAS THE AMBER AUTOPLT AND AUTO THROTTLE EICAS MSG AND AUDIBLE ALERT FOR A DISCONNECT. WE ALSO NOTICED SOLID YELLOW LINES THAT WENT THROUGH ALL FLT MGMNT CTL DATA ON BOTH CAPT AND FO ADI'S AND HSI'S. I LOOKED AT THE TOP EICAS ENG INSTRUMENT AND NOTED NO N1 OR EGT DIGITAL READOUTS, ONLY WHITE CIRCLES REMAINED.(ghosts in the machine!) LOWER EICAS REFLECTED THE SAME. NO DIGITAL INFO FOR N2, FF, OIL PRESSURE, OIL TEMP, OIL QUANTITY, VIB. BOTH CDU'S WERE BLANK. AN IMMEDIATE CHK OF THE ELECTRICAL PANEL INDICATED NO MALFUNCTIONS, A TEST OF INDICATOR LIGHTS REVEALED NO BURNED OUT LIGHTS. CENTER AUTOPLT WAS ENGAGED AND SHOWING PANEL ACTIVE WITH NORMAL INDICATIONS. STANDBY ADI INDICATED WE WERE STARTING A LEFT BANK. WITH WARNING OF AUTOPLT AND AUTO THROTTLE DISCONNECT I GRABBED THE YOKE AND HIT THE AUTOPLT DISCONNECT SWITCH AND DIRECTED THE FO TO FLY. HE MAINTAINED LEVEL FLT AND STATED THAT THE AUTOPLT WAS STILL ENGAGED. I ATTEMPTED TO DISENGAGE THE AUTOPLT WITH THE DISENGAGE BAR BY PULLING IT DOWN AND WAITING. THE WHITE AUTOPLT CMD LIGHT REMAINED ON. I WENT BACK TO THE YOKE AND AGAIN HIT THE DISCONNECT AND FELT THE YOKE PRESSURE THE FO WAS HOLDING. I CALLED ATC AND ADVISED WE WERE HAVING SOME KIND OF AN ELECTRICAL ANOMALY. JUST AFTER THE CALL TO ATC THE AUTOPLT DISENGAGED AND THE WHITE CMD LIGHT WENT OUT AND ALL SYSTEMS RETURNED TO NORMAL OPS. I DIRECTED THE FA 1 TO SEARCH THE ACFT FOR UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC EQUIP BEING USED. I THEN RPTED TO ATC THAT OPS WERE NORMAL. THE EVENT LASTED APPROX 45 SECS. I QUESTIONED ATC REFERENCE MILITARY ACTIVITY IN THE AREA WHICH MAY HAVE AFFECTED OUR EQUIP. DISPATCHER WAS CALLED. FA 1 RPTED A CELL PHONE WAS IN USE BY PAX. I DIRECTED FA 1 TO HAVE IT TURNED OFF AND CONFISCATED TO ME. PAX STATED IT WAS A NEW PHONE BY AT&T, MODEL SIEMENS CEO168, HE WAS INSTALLING NEW PHONE NUMBERS IN DATA BANK AND NOT TALKING ON PHONE. MAINT WAS CALLED AND STATED THE ACFT HAD NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF THIS TYPE OF EVENT. ONE AREA OF CONCERN WAS A POTABLE WATER TANK GAUGE QUANTITY PROB. THE FO AND I COMPLETED A COMPLETE SYSTEMS CHK CONCLUDING OPS NORMAL. WITH PASSENGER'S CELL PHONE OFF AND IN MY POSSESSION THE FO AND I AGREED WITH DISPATCHER TO CONTINUE THE FLT WITH CAVEAT THAT SHOULD ANY OTHER SIMILAR EVENT OCCUR WE WOULD LAND ASAP. THE FO AND I NOTED NO RECALL EICAS OR STATUS HISTORY. FROM NAVIGATION POINT REMISS WE PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY TO SFO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE ACFT HAD JUST BEEN VECTORED TO CLR A MILITARY AREA OVER THE GULF OF MEXICO AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS SOME SUSPICION THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ACTIVITY THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE PROB THIS COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. THE CELL PHONE THAT WAS ON AT THE SAME TIME IS RPTED TO BE A POWERFUL NEW TYPE IN THE SEARCH MODE. THE LOCATION OF THE PHONE DURING THE INCIDENT WAS THE CABIN AT SEAT ROW X WHICH IS ROUGHLY ABOVE THE ELECTRONICS AREA. DURING THE FAILURE THE STANDBY ENG INSTRUMENTS ACTIVATED. IN MAINT FOLLOW UP ACTION IT WAS THOUGHT THAT A VOLTAGE SPIKE OFF THE LEFT GENERATOR CTL COULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBLE CAUSE. THERE WAS RPTED TO HAVE BEEN FIVE DIFFERENT 'BLACK BOX' COMPONENTS REPLACED DURING MAINT. THE DIGITAL RECORDER WAS READ AND IT VERIFIED THE FAILURES OCCURRED AS RPTED BY THE CREW. DURING THE COURSE OF THE FAILURES THERE WERE NO STATUS OR ALERT MESSAGES DISPLAYED AND NONE WERE ABLE TO BE RECALLED AFTER THE FACT. THE RPTR REITERATED AGAIN THAT THE TOTAL TIME OF THE INCIDENT WAS NO MORE THAN 1.5 MINS.
Yes, roaming mode on a cellphone caused the autopilot to go haywire! What if the indications were not as overt, and the plane flying on autopilot slowly pitched into a nearly unrecoverable state whilst flying in clouds. Control upsets can cause more than spilled drinks.
The case after those minor fiascos is simple, navigations instruments go wonky for a moment while a passengers phone rings in the cabin. After the call, the situation returns to normal. The date of this report is 2002, and it seems from the text flightcrews have more experience with this kind of issue at the time. Moving forward in the reports a 2002 female passenger at JFK gets verbally assaultive and threatens violence on a flight attendant after being asked to turn it off. She gets to have a nice little chat with the cops.
Minor incidents mark the records forward from here, such as an oh-shit moment in 2003 where aboard an MD-80 the Captain and First Officer smell burning plastic and immediately put on their oxygen masks fearing the worst, an inflight fire. The flight attendant cancels their adrenaline rush when they are messaged a passengers CD player had shorted out, and was secured in a container. This is the beginning of the problem I'm trying to expose. An inflight fire is a nightmare no aviator or passenger should ever have to face, and is the cause of the loss of Swissair Flight 111, in addition to others. Cellphones are an issue, but the greatest issue this author sees pertains to the increasing energy density and changing marketplace of mobile devices. Things are getting increasingly dangerous when manufacturers cut corners and with the rise of Chinese and third world manufactured electronic devices, the security of their energy sources becomes a much larger issue than most people realize. I predict that within the next ten years we will see a major aircraft fire with loss of life if this trend continues unchanged. The increase of power density in lithium ion and other batteries is becoming increasingly worrisome, as I will demonstrate. But at the moment there is more passenger behavior that should be exposed. Multiple reports cite an anomaly with a radio or navigational instrument, which ceases after a PA message alerting passengers to shutdown their equipment. Even more strange is one pilot blames Iraq for inflight disturbances, but not in the way you would expect, as this officer is analyzing his equipment:
I CALLED OUT FULL SCALE DEFLECTION JUST AS WE BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS AND FOUND THAT WE WERE ABOUT 1 MI TO THE R OF [runway] CTRLINE. THE FO HAD NOT NOTICED ANYTHING UNUSUAL UNTIL I MADE THE CALLOUT. BOTH PLTS WERE ALERT AND FOCUSED AND FLYING BY THE BOOK. IN RETROSPECT, I BELIEVE THAT THE ACFT INSTS HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY CELL PHONES OR OTHER EQUIP IN THE ACFT CABIN. I MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY ATTRIBUTED TO THIS BY MAKING AN ANNOUNCEMENT AS WE STARTED OUR DSCNT ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ. ATC HAD MADE A BROADCAST IN THE BLIND THAT THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ HAD JUST BEGUN. THE TENSION CREATED BY IMMINENT WAR WAS ON EVERYONE'S MIND AND I WAS HAPPY TO SHARE THE NEWS WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE CABIN. HOWEVER, THE EVENTS DURING THE PAST 2 YRS HAVE SHOWN THAT CELL PHONES PROLIFERATE AND CAN BE USED FROM THE BACK OF AN AIRPLANE. I HAVE NO OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE AUTOPLT BEING LOCKED ONTO A LOC 1 MIN AND 1 MI OFF COURSE THE NEXT MOMENT. SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS COULD HAVE MADE THIS EVENT MUCH WORSE
Those factors are too lengthy and technical for this document, but his report ends with the warning
"SUGGESTIONS FOR PREVENTION: NEVER MAKE A PA THAT MIGHT ENCOURAGE THE USE OF A CELL PHONE DURING FLT."
Which makes me hope ATC didn't tell everyone when Michael Jackson died, it could have caused a plane crash!
The prior incident involved a newer 737-700, and it's starting to show that a variety of planes are vulnerable to this type of interference. But in a strange incident, a DC-9 dodged a plane that wasn't there in 2003 during departure, because a critical instrument called a TCAS alerted the pilots to climb at TWICE their maximum available rate of permissible climb to avoid traffic. After an anomalous traffic target was seen to not exist, inquisition with the flight attendant revealed a computer which shouldn't exist, both in the cabin and reality because the report says "THE COMPUTER, A 'DELL INSPIRATION 8000,'" was on. Joking about the lame typo aside, a laptop caused a potentially serious situation, what if the crew reacted without thinking and threw the plane into such a hard climb it stalled? The pilot followed up by contacting the manufacturer and ended up getting the runaround, as "THE PIC SAID THAT THE COMPANY APPEARS TO SHY AWAY FROM THESE ISSUES OF 'PED'S'". PIC stands for Pilot In Command and PED stands for Passenger Electronic Device. Whats even more alarming is the report ends saying the PIC "BELIEVES THAT THE ISSUE OF RELIABILITY OF THE TCAS SYS DURING A SCENARIO SUCH AS THIS IS A KEY SAFETY ISSUE." Another report from another DC-9 has the exact same thing happen, because a Flight Attendant sees a woman try to call her daughter with a phone, right when the plane has to pitch up to avoid a phantom target.
Go figure. This problem seems to become worse every year, with the frustration of a pilot in this 2003 report summing things up:
UPON ARR, FLT ATTENDANT TOLD ME SHE CAUGHT PAX ON CELL PHONE ON APCH. HE SAID IT WAS OK BECAUSE IT WAS VFR.[meaning visual flight rules] AIRLINE POLICY OF CELL PHONE USE IS LUDICROUS AND CONFUSING. CELL PHONES SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BE USED ON ACFT, EVER! THE POLICY THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE ACFT DOOR (OPEN OR CLOSED) DOES NOT WORK. THERE IS NO WAY THEY KNOW WHEN IT'S OPEN OR CLOSED. THEY THEN INTERPRET IT'S OK ANYTIME ON GND OR, LIKE THIS GUY, WHEN IT'S NON INST WX. GET CELL PHONE USAGE OFF THE ARPT BEFORE WE FIND OUT THE HARD WAY ABOUT INTERFERENCE.
Words that should have been abided by, but you can't control everything. In fact another flight in moderate weather was flying an approach inbound, when the autopilot rocked the plane from 30 degrees to the right, followed by 30 degrees to the left. The autopilot was intercepting a radio signal and a passenger, sneaking a cellphone below seat level, caused the needle to deflect back and forth from radio interference, causing the planes computer to try to hit the needle for the navigational aid. The result is a passenger inadvertently controlling the airplane because he wasn't following rules. Flight Attendants need to increase their vigilance of PED's in order to maintain flight safety. Flight attendants have an important job of assuring the safety of other passengers, and they voice their alarm in a report that highlights the issue of the self check-in process as well. The attendant says a passenger can check in at home, print a pass, and if they aren't checking luggage the only personal check on the well being of the individual occurs at the security screening area. After that, the passenger can go into a bar, get hammered, and avoid another agent at the gate by using the electronic gate reader and board without any human contact. As one man did in 2003, in a disturbing report where at first a Flight Attendant "SAW [a] PAX BOARD. SEEMED UNABLE TO WALK WITHOUT FALLING TO SIDE, BUT THOUGHT IT MAY BE MEDICAL, OR MENTAL SIT." Turns out the guy was drunk, later in flight after acting mentally disturbed and repeatedly using a phone, and trying to "touch" the young woman sitting next to him, they put it together and smelled the booze under his breath. So the human element in the passenger disturbance scenario is always throwing a curveball to anyone who prepares for these situations. Take this highly entertaining individual, who decided to act in manner that becomes much more amusing when you imagine the passenger to be Amy Winehouse, Mel Gibson, or Tom Cruise(not that they would be caught dead on something called an "air bus"):
APPROX 1 HR INTO FLT, I WAS INFORMED THAT A PAX WAS BEING A 'PROB' AS HE APPEARED INTOXICATED AND WAS CAUSING A DISTURBANCE IN THE CABIN. HE WOULD NOT STOP TRYING TO USE HIS CELL PHONE INFLT UNTIL A FLT ATTENDANT TOOK IT FROM HIM. HE TOOK OUT HIS CIGARETTES AND, WHEN TOLD HE COULD NOT SMOKE, HE TOOK HIS CIGARETTE AND WENT INTO THE LAVATORY.(you can really see the gears turning in that little mind of his now, don't you. Turning backward from all the drugs, especially if you think you can smoke in the bathroom and get away with it!) HE SPILLED HIS FOOD TRAY AND 'ORDERED' ["Clean that up, bitch"]THE FLT ATTENDANT TO CLEAN IT UP. WHEN NOTIFIED OF THIS BEHAVIOR, I SENT AN ACARS MESSAGE TO DISPATCH THAT I MAY HAVE TO DIVERT IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS PAX REMOVED FROM THE FLT, AS HE WAS USING PROFANITY AND WAS A POTENTIAL SECURITY THREAT. THE FLT ATTENDANTS BELIEVED THAT HE WAS BOARDED IN AN INTOXICATED STATE AND HE WAS TAKING PILLS INFLT. THE FLT ATTENDANTS HAD TO TAKE A BOTTLE OF ALCOHOL FROM HIM AS HE PROCEEDED TO DRINK FROM IT. THE FLT ATTENDANTS WERE EVENTUALLY ABLE TO CTL HIM AND I ELECTED TO CONTINUE TO JFK. EMT'S WERE REQUESTED TO MEET THE FLT, AS THE PAX COULD NOT GET OFF OF THE ACFT UNASSISTED.
The fact the man couldn't get off the plane "UNASSISTED" says some serious things about the problem of letting him ON to begin with. Criminal record maybe? Might be one now.
Maybe it's just something in that recirculated air in these metal tubes stuffed with people hurtling over the earth at somewhat unsafe velocities near the edge of our breathable atmosphere. Maybe thats why one nut kept lying to flight attendants that her video game didn't have an off button. As if thats going to work, and when it didn't the passenger became belligerent. Whatever happened to decency? I quote the report: "THE CAUSE OF THE PROB IS: PAX DON'T FOLLOW RULES! THEY DID NOT WANT TO TURN OFF THEIR GAME."
Of course there is more than just Flight Attendants, Crazies, and cellular nuts in said tube. There are Air Marshals, watching your every move: "GPS WAS BEING USED INFLT BY PAX. THE AIR MARSHAL OBSERVED HIM. HE WAS VERY SECRETIVE WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS USING SUCH A DEVICE. HE DENIED USING THIS. I FOLLOWED UP APPROX 15 MINS LATER AND HE DID HAVE A GPS. I ORDERED HIM TO PLACE IT IN HIS CARRYON BAG AND NOT TO REMOVE IT UNTIL HE DEPLANED."
So despite many incidents involving unruly passengers, something any transportation business as large as this one would understandably have, the record thus far seems to have little by way of gadgets being unruly. All the events written above happened before the following, which represents the biggest threat to Airline safety. The most catastrophic disaster is going to come from fire related incidents, and this First Officer says in his report, a Targus power adaptor, could have brought down a Boeing 777 in 2003:
PAX IN FIRST CLASS COMPLAINED THAT OUR COMPUTER PWR OUTLET WAS DEFECTIVE AND CAUSED HIS PWR CONVERTER TO SMOKE. DURING MY REST BREAK, I CONSULTED WITH THE PAX AND INSPECTED HIS PWR CONVERTER. HE INFORMED ME THAT HE PURCHASED IT AT AN ELECTRONICS STORE AND HAD USED IT 'FOR HRS' ON OTHER FLTS. THE CONVERTER WAS A TARGUS PA-AA-70W-CWT, INPUT 11-16VDC, OUTPUT 3-24VDC. I PLUGGED IN PIGTAIL TO THE UNIT IN MY SEAT WITH NO EFFECT. AFTER CONNECTING THE CONVERTER TO THE PIGTAIL, COPIUS SMOKE EMANATED FROM THE CONVERTER. HAD NO ONE BEEN THERE TO DISCONNECT IT, A FIRE WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY ENSUED.
What comes to mind, is it possible for a terrorist to take say, a laptop with a excessive capacity of high power lithium cells, wire it up in a manner that would intentionaly cause cell destruction, and possibly even trigger this weapon with a discharge from the aircrafts large electrical supply? This is an incredibly alarming prospect, because if you've been to an airport recently, laptops are ubiquitious! I deem these power sockets being accessible to the passenger to be a flight risk in this day and age, of utmost stupidity:
A PAX HAD DECIDED TO CHARGE HIS 9 VOLT BATTERY TO HIS DVD PLAYER WITH OUR 15 VOLT POWER PORT SYSTEM. HIS BATTERY STARTED TO MELT. OUR OWN DVD PLAYERS WHICH WE GIVE TO OUR PAX ON THE 767 DO NOT HAVE CHARGERS PACKED IN THEM. MY UNDERSTANDING OF OUR POWER PORTS WAS THEY WERE PUT ON BOARD FOR ENTERTAINMENT, I.E. COMPUTERS, DVD PLAYERS. NOT FOR MAINT OF THEIR BATTERIES OF THESE TOYS. 20 PEOPLE DECIDE TO CHARGE AND I THINK WE'D HAVE A FIRE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE PAX HAD OPERATED THE PERSONAL DVD AND EXHAUSTED THE BATTERY AND DECIDED TO RECHARGE THE 9 VOLT BATTERY FROM THE 15 VOLT SEAT POWER PORT. THE RPTR SAID THE 9 VOLT BATTERY NOT ONLY MELTED, IT WAS CREMATED ALONG WITH SOME SMOKE AND INTENSE FUMES. THE RPTR STATED THE BATTERY OPERATED DVD WAS OWNED BY THE PAX AND HAD A WIRE HARNESS THAT PLUGGED PERFECTLY INTO THE SEAT POWER PORT. THE RPTR SAID IT WAS NOT DETERMINED IF THE WIRE HARNESS CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE BATTERY OR THROUGH CIRCUITRY IN THE DVD. THE RPTR STATED THE POWER PORT WAS ONLY FOR LAPTOP COMPUTERS AND DVD PLAYERS AND NOT FOR BATTERY CHARGING. BUT THIS DVD COULD NOT BE USED IN THE SEAT POWER PORT. THE RPTR SAID IT WAS UNKNOWN IF ANY CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIPPED DURING THIS MELT DOWN BUT OTHER UNITS IN THE AREA CONTINUED TO OPERATE.
So apparently the circuit breaker failed to act in a compromised circuit, potentially overheating wiring behind insulation, cabin padding etc, possibly resulting in a fire that cannot be fought with simply a small halon fire extinguisher. As you can see, this isn't something that should be available to Abdul Mutallab's and his ilk, not that they have been smart enought to exploit it at the moment. Sadly that may not be necessary when there are idiots who think you can power TWO laptops with a powersplitter plugged into the socket. "PAX WAS FOUND TO BE USING 2 COMPUTERS OFF 1 ACFT PWR PORT." Results of this cheap chinese power splitter?
" SMOKE IN CABIN, RECURRING BURNING SMELL, DEVICE HOT TO TOUCH AND SMELLING." "THE FUMES WERE THROUGHOUT THE CABIN BEFORE THE CAUSE WAS DISCOVERED. THE DEVICE WAS CONFISCATED AND THE PWR TO THE PWR PORT SYS DISCONNECTED. AFTER A REASONABLE TIME THE FUMES CONTINUED SO DIVERSION WAS MADE BECAUSE OF CONCERN FOR POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE ACFT SYS."
How absolutely foolish is it that a 767 had to land short of its destination because of one little $0.50 chinese power plug failed, due to an inept passenger. Thats wasted money for all parties involved, airline and passengers. Yet another reason why the device in this article should be taken seriously, because fueling up a jet with the gas it takes for them to divert costs more than a used car. This took place in 2005, and I don't think they have learned their lesson yet. And if that isn't disruptive, how about when a regional jet crew almost turned back and landed because once the plane was enroute, they couldn't communicate because the radio was flooded by a fax machine/modem dialup noise! They made every passenger get up and check their PED and it went away. Moving forward to 2006 the lurking danger surfaces. A passenger buys a laptop power adaptor at the airport duty free store. Now whether the adapter was ever plugged into the aircraft is not stated in the report, but the aircraft type is none other than a Boeing 777-200, the exact type which has had outlet problems before! So its reasonable to suspect that this passenger, did plug it into the aircrafts electrical socket. What happened thereafter is fact. Cheap Chinese crap failed the way it usually does, first by melting off the fake UL listed sticker, followed by copious amounts of smoke and melting debris. Typical actually, but the response the crew receives from their procedures to deal with the event are alarming. "I TOOK THE ADAPTER TO DOOR 1L WHERE FLT ATTENDANT PLACED IT IN AN EMPTY METAL ICE BUCKET AND PLACED IT ON THE FLOOR. FLT ATTENDANT NOTIFIED THE PURSER AND COCKPIT WHILE I TOOK THE HALON EXTINGUISHER FROM THE STOWAGE LOCATION (101) AT DOOR 1L AND PROCEEDED TO FIGHT THE FIRE. ON DISCHARGING THE HALON 1211, WE WERE SHOCKED TO SEE A CLEAR LIQUID DISCHARGE FROM THE EXTINGUISHER. (NO POWDER.) THE ADAPTER WAS COVERED IN LIQUID AND BUBBLED FOR A WHILE. WE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO USE A SECOND EXTINGUISHER AS THE FIRE AND SMOKE HAD CEASED. I AM GREATLY CONCERNED THAT IF IT WAS A COCKPIT FIRE OR A MORE SEVERE FIRE THAT THIS HALON EXTINGUISHER WOULD HAVE CAUSED FURTHER ISSUES, IE, WET LIQUID ON ELECTRICAL FIRE."
So the officer flying the plane says, by proxy, if the cockpit circuit breaker started arcing and they use the fire extinguisher, the result would be the entire circuit breaker arcing. Does anyone reading this find that acceptable? Now we cannot even trust the vaunted Halon fire extinguishers?
So by this point in this long and comprehensive article you must be thinking that all the above have been mostly manageable incidents, with solutions available to the involved parties. This article is only beginning to get to the juiciest details. Do you want to hear about a near disaster? Well in Vienna, Austria, 2007, shit came so close to hitting the fan the only reason I can think of this incident not having been major news a couple years ago, is because some people have really good PR. An Airbus almost went down in flames because of? A goddamn PSP battery. I don't want to eloquate this in my words, because they are not the evidence that does this alarming problem justice:
"CHECKED BAG CATCHES FIRE DURING BOARDING, THE LOADMASTER INFORMED US THAT A RAMPER HAD REMOVED A CHECKED BAG THAT 'WAS ON FIRE.' FIRST OFFICER (I WAS ON THE PHONE AT THE MOMENT) ASKED TO HAVE THE PAX IDENTIFIED AND TO VERIFY IF HE HAD ANY MORE CHECK LUGGAGE OR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE. THE PAX WAS ASKED BY THE GND SECURITY COORD IF HE KNEW OF ANYTHING IN HIS BAG THAT MAY HAVE CAUSE THE FIRE. HE ANSWERED 'NO.' THE GND SECURITY COORD INFORMED THE PAX OF HER INTENTIONS TO REMOVE HIS ENTIRE CHECKED LUGGAGE FROM THE FLIGHT AND LEAVE IT BEHIND. THE PAX AGREED WITHOUT ANY HESITATION OR ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER. HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD RETRIEVE IT ON HIS WAY BACK. WE LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE PAX HAD ONLY A ONE-WAY TICKET. THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT, LOCAL AIRPORT POLICE, STATION GND SECURITY, OPS MANAGER AND THE FLIGHT'S DISPATCHER WERE INVOLVED, ALONG WITH THE FLIGHT CREW, IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THIS EVENT. WE ALL AGREED THAT IF THE PASSENGER WAS TO BE RE-SCREENED WITH ALL HIS PERSONAL BAGGAGE AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLEARED BY THE TSA FOR RE-BOARDING, WE WOULD ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE. WHILE THIS WAS ON-GOING JUST OUTSIDE OF THE AIRCRAFT DOOR IN THE JETBRIDGE, I MADE A PA ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE 144 PAX ON-BOARD OUR FLIGHT TO INFORM THEM THE REASON OF OUR DELAY. SHORTLY AFTER THIS, I WENT TO THE JETWAY TO FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION AND WAS MET BY THE GND SECURITY COORD TELLING ME THAT THE PASSENGER VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS FLIGHT AND THAT HE WOULD FLY ON ANOTHER DAY. THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS EVENT IS WHAT MAKES IT QUITE DIFFERENT AND IN MY VIEW, SUSPECT. THE PASSENGER REACTIONS ARE THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS REPORT (NOT THE BAG ON FIRE). PASSENGER IMMEDIATELY AGREES TO LEAVE HIS CHECKED BAGS BEHIND. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE FIRE IN HIS BAG (IT WAS LATER DETERMINED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS A BATTERY PACK FOR A PSP HANDHELD BATTERY OPERATED VIDEO GAME), ALONG WITH A BUNDLE OF WIRES/CABLES. A ONE-WAY TICKET. HE AGREES TO NOT DELAY THE FLIGHT ANY FURTHER AND DECIDES TO FLY A DIFFERENT DAY WITHOUT ANYONE ASKING HIM TO. AS FO POINTED OUT, HAD WE LEFT THE GATE ON-TIME, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN AIRBORNE WHEN THIS BAG IGNITED. KIND OF WEIRD THAT BEING LATE WAS WHAT SAVED THE DAY. THE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS: WHO WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL? WERE HIS ACTIONS INTENTIONAL? WHY WAS HIS BEHAVIOR SO ABNORMAL? AN ALERT RAMPER SAW THE BAG IN FLAMES. HE SAVED THE DAY. BATTERY PACKS, ESPECIALLY LITHIUM BATTERIES ARE VERY RISKY AND NEW REGULATIONS SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE. THE ONLY COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE IS NOT BEING ABLE TO TALK TO CORPORATE SECURITY. I KNOW IT WAS LATE ON A SUNDAY, BUT A SECURITY RISK SHOULD BE GUARANTEED A RESPONSE FROM CORPORATE SECURITY. I INDICATED TO THE OPS MANAGER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THEM, I PROVIDED MY CELL NUMBER BUT NOBODY CALL."
Not only was this extremely alarming incident not followed up upon from what I can gather, but that this is NOT a priority amongst the airlines! There are numerous other reports scattered throughout the years in this selection that mention flouting the rules for the customer, something which grew so bad on one flight, a charter pilot has resigned from operations within that division of his company due to in flight FAA violations by the crew and passengers. It would seem to me the airlines would rather keep their customers rather than say no toys in flight. Here is more evidence that this problem hasn't been dealt with. In 2007 another Austrian aircraft, a 737, was at a 38,000 foot cruise when all of a sudden the crew smelled electrical smoke in the cabin. Since they could not find the smell and it was growing stronger, they declared an emergency and diverted to Vienna. That is not a cheap operation, customers have to be satisfied, fuel bills have to be accomodated, etc. Well, right before landing the smoke abates and they find after landing that a passenger had left their laptop plugged into the aircrafts port, and the battery itself was smoking, hot to the touch, and smelled like a chemical factory. The most problematic nature of this incident is explained by the officer. "WE OBVIOUSLY ISOLATED THE SITUATION BY TURNING OFF THE POWER PORTS AS PART OF THE CHKLIST. MY CONCERN IS IF A LAPTOP IS IN THE OVERHEAD BIN AND SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTS, WE WILL NEVER KNOW IT IS NOT THE AIRPLANE. THE FLT ATTENDANTS OR OUR CHKLIST SHOULD HAVE A PLACE TO REQUIRE ALL PAX WITH BATTERY DEVICES OF ANY KIND LOCATE THEM AND INSPECT THEM DURING AN EMER OF THIS TYPE. IF WE COULD ISOLATE A CABIN SMOKE INCIDENT TO A COMPUTER VS. THE ACFT, IT MIGHT MAKE THE EMER MORE MANAGEABLE. IF A BATTERY DEVICE DOES CATCH FIRE, ONCE ISOLATED, IT MIGHT POSSIBLY BE LESS OF A THREAT TO THE ACFT AND PAX INFLT."
Once again these things can be heavily mitigated by the proper procedures. The procedure being, these little electron bombs need the respect they clearly are not receiving! The officer mentions "WE WILL NEVER KNOW IT IS NOT THE AIRPLANE." This is just plain chilling when you think about the incidents we DON'T know for sure about, Swissair 111, Air France 447. Have hundreds of people already died because of a cheap chinese lithium cell in someones Vaio? Already someones battery did explode, in an Ecuadorian flight, 2007, where an explosion is reported in the cabin, and a disintegrated battery and seatcushion is discovered. Unfortunately we cannot tell what kind of battery or why it was unstable, because nobody would fess up to hucking battery bombs. A couple months later in Europe a flight crew has to deal with a 9V battery which has become blisteringly hot, and required submergence in ice. I quote the crewman "QUESTION: IS THERE ADEQUATE FLT CREW GUIDANCE AVAILABLE IN PLT AND FLT ATTENDANT MANUALS OF PROCS TO HANDLE AN OVERHEATING BATTERY IN THE CABIN? IS PLACING THE BATTERY IN ICE THE PROPER PROC? A LARGE LAPTOP OVERHEATING BATTERY COULD PRESENT INCREASED PROBS. 9V BATTERY HOT. PAX CARRY ON BATTERIES WHICH HAVE OVERHEATED HAVE BECOME A CABIN SAFETY ISSUE." You bet your paycheck they are a cabin safety issue! Need more proof? 2007 again, a passenger buys an Ipod charger from the airport shop, which probably stocks cheap chinese junk to keep their profit margins high, which promptly caused his beloved music collection (and possible sanity for the duration of the flight, however this wasn't mentioned in the report) and Ipod overheated, smoked up, and immolated itself. The most mind bending thing in the report? "THIS IS THE 2ND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED ON ONE OF MY FLTS. THIS DEVICE IS A SEVERE FIRE HAZARD AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM DUTY FREE." If we follow the trend, money says this event wasn't followed up on. And once again, this problem stemmed from those Boeing 777 power sockets that should be removed immediately(after this article goes to print), lest anyone get any ideas. Here is yet another exaple, a passenger charged his battery with the airplanes socket, and about 4.5 hours into a transoceanic flight, which could bring a plane down without any evidence, it ignites and proceeds to melt violently. How many instances is it going to take before these sockets, aka fire hazard on demand, is dealt with. This took place in 2008 in Europe, but a newer incident in 2009 ended up being more costly logistically because a smoking laptop caused a 737 to make an emergency landing.
Conclusion and Solution
I think that these are perfectly reasonable problems with an unreasonable risk, and the battery industry has downplayed the issue. We really have to ask ourselves, and gadget lovers, can we go without our lithium powered goodness for that long flight to Paraguay with the screaming baby? Or do we all have to buy AA powered CD players to drown him out. There are other security issues, not the least of which I have named particular gadgets which can cause an airplane to fly funny. If every Siemens 168 sells out on ebay call the FBI! The most alarming case of a cell call causing a plane to rock from side to side, because it was on Roam mode, whats to prevent 20 terrorists from boarding a plane with lots of lithium batteries, multiple cellphones that they can turn on inside a bag, and maybe some Garmin Nuvi's just for chaos. If you disrupted instruments so badly during instrument flight conditions, or set off a lithium chain reaction, you could crash a plane. I know it sounds silly at first, crashing an airliner with batteries, cellphones, and wifi, but at the risk of opening another can of worms, even a small amount of mercury can present a dire threat to aircraft. A tiny scratch in aluminium surfaces can allow the mercury to permeate like metallic rot. If this is a reaction you haven't seen, clicking on this youtube link will make you say Holy Crap. So the threat, from all the evidence I've shown, needs to be respected, something which is not the case today, in 2010.
Conclusions
Why can't we treat lithium aboard aircraft the way we do mercury? well, that dilemma would so much easier if people didn't need to power their livelihood for the duration they are crammed into a seat and unable to move. I suspect if they took away the batteries from flights we would have a massive uproar, and a halfway house needs to be enacted, such as the rollout of the safer LiOn cell I linked to on youtube. Incorporating a No-Unsafe-For-Flight-Batteries program would make the automotive (electric cars) and airline industry a great deal safer. While the ticking time bombs such as the cheap PSP battery that almost started a fire in the cargo bay will be hard to avoid, education of the flyer is now of the utmost importance. Teaching people not to buy that cheap Chinese made power adaptor with the UL label slipping off is now actually a job not only Gizmodo has to take on, but the airlines too. And while I perfectly agree with Wilsons great article about how the PED rules are FUBAR, I think the rules need to be tightened if anything(300 watt hours of 25 grams of lithium!). I really hope the evidence I have gathered and presented from the ASRS database will show why I have this concern. Oh and if Wilson Rothman is still wondering why they will let you read a paperback but not an off e-reader, it is because if the planes tire blows, the plane crabs and then flips, your kindle is now a potentially lethal missile in the cabin. Thats why they want everything larger than your fist away. The velocities reached on takeoff aren't golf cart speeds. Actually I take that back, I've seen Jackass The Movie
Some further pieces of evidence served my conclusion to this article, they are presented as follows:
Saudia Flight 163, an inflight fire which killed everyone aboard that originated from the cargo bay, is certainly suspicious in my book.
If you look here http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=42 there is a lithium battery powered flashlight exploding, in flight, with potentially serious consequences. I think vindication is at hand.
these cells went off like a ticking timebomb. The timeframe of 40 minutes from malfunction to calamity, is just perfect for a baggage handler or passenger to treat their bag roughly, corrupt a battery, and then right when the airplane hits the pressurized altitudes 40 minutes later, massive cargo bay conflagration which cannot be fought.
surefire explosions are apparently COMMON, despite the legacy of the brand
Here is the most reputable and reliable brand of batteries, surefire, who say in their PDF here
www.surefire.com/surefire/content/graphics/pagebuilder/pdfs/Battery-Explosion-Warning.pdf
that they have NEVER had a single battery blow up from their brand. Well sorry it would seem that is bullshit baking in the oven: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=951360
At that link you will find some fairly good evidence to refute that corporate PDF mentioned.
Do you think they would be flight cleared if they said in their safety PDF "no failures, oh except this one set where a possibly negligient customer made an inadvertent pipe bomb that could have penetrated a cargo bay hull...."
Sometimes the truth can hurt or be scary. Frankly I'm alarmed after everything I've seen that high energy density devices remain on aircraft. Here are some DOT guidelines for safe travel. http://safetravel.dot.gov/larger_batt.html in those guidelines it says "You are allowed one larger lithium ion battery installed in a device, plus up to 2 spare larger lithium ion batteries. These are in addition to any smaller lithium ion batteries." All my training reads that statement as "You are allowed to carry one battery with an energy density high enough for a proverbial electron bomb, at 160 watt-hours, and two additional 160-130 watt-hour bombs, in addition to as many cellphone packs you can carry for submunition explosions after the main lithium bomb has gone off." Thats what I read it as, and I really want to know if the people who formulated these guidelines know how much damage their "equivalent lithium content" maximium permissible level, at 25 grams of 300 watt-hour, can really do. In preparation for this article I was going to take the universal laptop battery standard cell, the lithium-ion 18650 cell, charge it up to the maximum, and then huck it off the side of a bridge onto some rocks to demonstrate that it would explode with the force of a small pipe bomb. Instead I found a video from a company that is actually marketing a solution to this mess. Which is great because I have to order those darn cells from China! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjF2lcVAHZo
Thats what happens to a compromised Lion cell, here is their solution cell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xtmBJ9X8Y8 Much less violent no? The problem gets worse when you put that cell in its working environment. Can't the new Macbooks almost boil water with their unibodies blistering blast furnace heat? Well, you stick EIGHT of those cells in a typical 17 inch laptop, an already hot piece of equipment, which causes lithium ion cells to lose their stability. Add in the fact that these batteries are crammed into such tight places that a violent event occurs when those batteries lose stability. Here is what happens to a lithium polymer battery, like whats in most cell phones. Less explosive but more flames http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjudHKh-bI
We can only hope these new rounds of rules and regulations incorporate this issue:
http://www.prba.org/prba/About_PRBA/Press_Release/ICAO_Agrees_to_Adopt_PRBA_Lithium_Battery_Proposals,_Rejects_Pilots_Association_Proposals.ashx
Still not convinced we carry little potential fireballs around in our pockets? A guy just wrote to Gizmodo about an exploding cellphone. If you don't believe him then type into youtube laptop fire.
A side note for those who are interested, remember how they just allowed in flight wifi? Then they must have solved this problem! :
FLT XXX, A B737-800 ZZZ-ZZZ1. AFTER TKOF NEAR MAX GROSS WT, PRIOR TO FLAP RETRACTION RECEIVED A RESOLUTION ADVISORY 'MAINTAIN VERT SPD' WITH RED AREA NOT TO DECREASE TO 1500 FPM OR LESS RATE OF CLB. DELAYED THRUST REDUCTION AND FLAP RETRACTION TO COMPLY WITH RA AND SCANNED FOR TFC. TCAS INDICATED A CO-ALT TARGET (RED CIRCLE) LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. THIS OCCURRED AT 1000 FT MSL, AND CLRED UP APPROX 30 SECONDS LATER. SECOND RA OCCURRED NEAR 12000 FT MSL. SAME TARGET INDICATION, A RED CIRCLE CO-ALT LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. NOW THE RA ADVISED 'DSND, DSND, DSND.' WE STARTED THE DSCNT, ADVISING ATC OF THE RA AND SCANNING FOR TFC. ATC ADVISED US THERE WAS NOTHING IN OUR VICINITY, AND TCAS WAS CLEAN OF TARGETS FOR NEARLY 10 MILES. BEGAN TO SUSPECT EMI FROM CABIN. STARTED TO CLB AGAIN -- IGNORING THE TCAS RA COMMANDS. THE BOX WAS QUIET. RECYCLED THE XPONDER POWER. AT 14000 FT, WE GOT A THIRD TCAS RA. SAME DISPLAY AND DSND CALLOUTS. WE IGNORED THEM. CALLED CABIN FOR A CHK OF EQUIP THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED INTERFERENCE. FOUND PAX SEATED IN FIRST CLASS WITH LAPTOP ON. MODEL HP 6220 WITH WIRELESS FUNCTION ENABLED. THE PAX CLOSED THE LID WHEN WE WERE BOARDING ON THE GND, PUTTING THE LAPTOP INTO STANDBY/HIBERNATE MODE. ONCE HE DISABLED THE WIRELESS FUNCTION, ALL OK. THE TECH PEOPLE SHOULD GET A HEADS UP ON THIS. GUESS THE WIRELESS FUNCTION WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A CONNECTION AND EACH TIME IT DID (OR A FRACTION OF THE ATTEMPTS) WAS INTERPRETED AS A TCAS SIGNAL. (CO-ALT, .01 BEHIND US.) THE DISPLAY WAS A RED CIRCLE, NOT A RED SQUARE. NO YELLOW OR WHITE CIRCLES PRIOR TO ANY RA EVENTS. IS THE TCAS ANTENNA CABLE SHIELDED FROM INTERNAL (CABIN COMPUTERS) EMI? I HAVE NOT SEEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS BEFORE. WHAT MAKES IT HAZARDOUS -- IS THE RATE OF CLB AT DEP, PRIOR TO ACCELERATION AND FLAP RETRACTION AND THE 1500 FPM OR GREATER RATE OF CLB. (TRANSCON NEAR MAX TKOF WT.) WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF WIRELESS COMPUTERS, I AM SURE WE WILL BE SEEING THIS MORE OFTEN.
It would appear that when some wifi cards are allowed to probe for networks as some do have roaming software, these wifi, probably DSSS signals are interpreted as traffic targets on the TCAS. In reality probably a fairly simple thing to fix, but what if those in flight wifi signals make a passing plane unequipped for the service go wonky? Another case written up above cites interference from one plane causing problems on another miles away.
Oh and if you think flouting this rule for your "passive" GPS unit is wise, guess again buster. The proof is in the pudding, especially if your using a Boing 737 and a Garmin Nuvi 660:
I HAD THIS EXACT PROBLEM ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS EVENT OCCURRED IN THE SAME TYPE OF ACFT, A B737 [NON GLASS]. DURING CLBOUT AND INITIAL CRUISE, I NOTICED THE NAV RADIOS WERE IN AUTO UPDATE BUT THEY WERE NOT UPDATING. I THEN CHKED THE FMC STATUS OF THE IRS' AND FMC RADIO UPDATES. IT SHOWED DME UPDATING FAIL. BEFORE I COMPLETED A POSITION SHIFT, I (CAPT) CALLED THE FLT ATTENDANTS AND ASKED THEY DO A WALK THROUGH AND CHK FOR ANY PED'S. THEY FOUND A PAX WITH A HANDHELD GPS, GARMIN NUVI MODEL 660. ONCE THIS WAS TURNED OFF, THE FMC DME UPDATING WENT FROM FAIL TO ON AND THE RADIOS STARTED TO UPDATE AGAIN. THE FLT CONTINUED AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE ACFT WAS A B737 'CLASSIC' MEANING ROUND DIALS AND NOT EFIS. IT HAD TWO IRS' WITH A SINGLE FMC BUT 2 FMC HEADSETS IN THE COCKPIT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT BECAUSE HE HAD EXPERIENCED THIS SAME TYPE OF EVENT THREE TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS AND ALL IN THE B737 ACFT WITH THE FMS SYSTEM BUT NO GLASS, THAT THERE MAY BE A COMMON THREAD. ONE PREVIOUS EVENT WAS CONFIRMED AS CAUSED BY PORTABLE GPS AND THE OTHER MAY HAVE BEEN A CELL PHONE CALL MADE JUST PRIOR TO LANDING. IN THE EVENT REPORTED HERE, THE DME FAILING TO UPDATE WAS THE FIRST INDICATION. HE NOW FLIES THE B737 CLASSIC AS WELL AS THE B737 NG'S. THE NG'S APPEAR TO BE MORE ELECTROMAGNETICALLY ROBUST.
And this guy sounds like he was on drugs yo, white paper and all :
I WAS FLT ATTENDANT #1 ON FLT FROM PHX-ORD. DURING BOARDING, WHILE PREPARING MY GALLEY, A MALE PAX BOARDED AND AN ALARM SOUND WAS COMING FROM HIS CELL PHONE. MOMENTS LATER, I ASKED THE #4 FLT ATTENDANT IF SHE HEARD IT ALSO AND SHE DID. I ASKED HER TO KEEP AN EYE ON HIM. AFTER WE PUSHED FROM THE GATE, FLT ATTENDANT #4 INFORMED ME THE PAX'S ALARM ON HIS PHONE WAS CONTINUING TO SOUND AND SHE ONCE AGAIN INSTRUCTED HIM TO TURN OFF THE PHONE. I INFORMED THE CAPT OF THE PROB AND HE INSTRUCTED ME THAT, IF IT WENT OFF AGAIN, TO TAKE HIS PHONE AWAY AND REMOVE THE BATTERY AND KEEP THE PHONE IN THE GALLEY DURING FLT. AFTER TKOF, A PAX CALL LIGHT CAME ON. THE #4 FLT ATTENDANT PROCEEDED TO ANSWER THE CALL. A PAX SEATED NEXT TO THE MALE WAS COMPLAINING THAT THE ALARM WAS GOING OFF. #4 FLT ATTENDANT BROUGHT PHONE TO FIRST CLASS GALLEY. WHEN I TOOK THE BATTERY OUT OF THE PHONE, WHITE PAPER FELL OUT. I INFORMED THE CAPT. HE ASKED IF THE PAX WAS BELLIGERENT OR UNRULY. #4 FLT ATTENDANT SAID THE PAX GAVE HER THE PHONE WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR, BUT SEEMED A 'BIT OFF.' SHE COULD NOT DETECT ANY ALCOHOL SMELL. AS WE CONTINUED ON THE FLT, I WENT TO COACH CABIN TO PICK UP AND NOTICED THE PAX HAD HIS HEAD ON HIS TRAY TABLE. THEN, HE QUICKLY LIFTED HIS HEAD AND STARED INTO SPACE. I INFORMED THE CAPT. THERE WERE NO MORE DISRUPTIONS ON OUR FLT. SECURITY MET OUR FLT IN CHICAGO AND ESCORTED THE MALE PAX AND HIS PHONE OFF THE ACFT.