It's official: using Wi-Fi on a plane can interfere with a pilot's navigational equip

[anat0l]

Re: It's official: using Wi-Fi on a plane can interfere with a pilot's navigational e

It's like saying "It's official : fat people cause airplanes to crash" and then going on to say that loading 1000 contestants from The Biggest Loser onto a 737 will prevent it from ever reaching V1 and therefore it will flop into Botany Bay.

Well... that would have some merit to it (except you can't put 1000 people on a 737, unless perhaps you were talking about 1000 dead people), considering Australia's propensity towards an obese population, current carriage models and allowances used by aircraft manufacturers may be insufficient to account for next generation passenger transport. (Either that or we'll get less luggage, pay more for burning extra fuel or they'll move to a total weight on board system, i.e. people + bags). In saying that, a headline like "fat people cause airplanes to crash" would light a fire under a lot more people than the headline in this article.

Besides, they only said it was subjected to a test which was supposed to be 'unreasonably achievable' in real life. But, what was the loading that was done? Is it equivalent to everyone on a full plane having a laptop with wifi going? Is it much much more than that? What was the stretch test?

 

[straitman]

Re: It's official: using Wi-Fi on a plane can interfere with a pilot's navigational e

How is this relevant? What were the circumstances? What sort of plane were you flying?

It is relevant only because we are talking about what can happen in a general sense as well as in this specific situation. I'm talking generalally.
The circumstances were varied. One example was when one DC generator started to have an under-volt situation and it caused all the EFIS screens to flash on and off and to give so 'interesting' displays.
Within the context of the general discussion the aircraft type is irrelevant.

The story is a beat up with a misleading headline to drag the punters in. It's like saying "It's official : fat people cause airplanes to crash" and then going on to say that loading 1000 contestants from The Biggest Loser onto a 737 will prevent it from ever reaching V1 and therefore it will flop into Botany Bay.

Irrelevant.

But why write a balanced story when sensationalism will do, eh?

This, we do agree on.

 

[eightblack]

Re: It's official: using Wi-Fi on a plane can interfere with a pilot's navigational e

Is it just me or am I missing something?

Late last year I was on a United PS flight from SFO-JFK and used GoGo inflight wifi for 4 out of the 5 hours. And Delta have installed wifi fleet wide and many of the other US carriers are following.

We set off from SFO on time and I'm pretty sure we landed at JFK (ie I hadn't that much to drink). So as far as I was aware, the aircraft's navigation equipment didn't have a hissy fit and managed to tell the pilots which way to go.

I don't see the country of lawsuits being too overly concerned...

 

[Moody]

Re: It's official: using Wi-Fi on a plane can interfere with a pilot's navigational e

It is relevant only because we are talking about what can happen in a general sense as well as in this specific situation. I'm talking generalally.
The circumstances were varied. One example was when one DC generator started to have an under-volt situation and it caused all the EFIS screens to flash on and off and to give so 'interesting' displays.
Within the context of the general discussion the aircraft type is irrelevant.

So completely and utterly irrelevant then, unless you adhere to the Today Tonight definition of relevance. Next it will be "Be careful when opening overhead lockers as your toddler may have moved during the flight!"

Beat up.