Todos
← Back to Squawk list
U.S. orders airlines to replace cockpit displays on 1,300 Boeing airplanes
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is requiring airlines to replace cockpit displays on more than 1,300 Boeing Co airplanes to avoid interference from Wi-Fi and cellular devices. Airlines will need to replace certain cockpit display units made by Honeywell International Inc used on Boeing's 737 and 777 jets within five years, according to an FAA document. (finance.yahoo.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Like people won't pull their phones out and play with them anyway...
Do passengers who're smokers still do it? NO.
Those that try to smoke are gonna miss their connection while chatting with the uniformed reception committee that'll meet them after their current flight lands.
The vast majority of passengers comply with smoke free flights -- without complaint. Passengers can get along without WiFi, too -- at least, until somebody claims WiFi to be a right.
Those that try to smoke are gonna miss their connection while chatting with the uniformed reception committee that'll meet them after their current flight lands.
The vast majority of passengers comply with smoke free flights -- without complaint. Passengers can get along without WiFi, too -- at least, until somebody claims WiFi to be a right.
Actually, there are already places where internet access is stipulated to be a right, so that day isn't far off.
As to your smoking analogy, sorry, that doesn't compare since, barring setting the aircraft on fire, smoking has no effect whatsoever on the safe operation of the aircraft. Blanking out or otherwise interfering with the instrumentation, on the other hand, surely does. Also, it's quite easy for the cabin crew to pinpoint who is smoking. Just follow the smell and the smoke. Try figuring out which one of the pax has their Wi-Fi or cellphone turned on, because the warning sign was not in the language they speak, or because they can't read, or because they forgot, or thought it was off, or thought it was in airplane mode, or thought the signs were just BS because they read something on the Internet that said otherwise, or because "just a little" won't hurt anything, or simply because they're an entitled a-hole who feels such things shouldn't apply to someone like them.
Meanwhile, as the cabin crew tries to narrow it down, you can't exactly pull over to the side of the road and wait.
And then, after every single pax has been searched, and every single device disabled, it turns out to have been caused by weather radar. Or a device still powered up in someone's checked bags. Or one of any of hundreds of thousands of other possible sources of RFI, including cosmic radiation and solar flares.
Let's also not forget that there's new displays available that are shielded properly and don't have this problem. So while airline A goes through all of the above, because they didn't upgrade their displays, airline B, who did upgrade and who offers WiFi, get's a large portion of airline A's customers.
Nah, what am I thinking... OF COURSE your solution is the correct one Fritz. Just forget all those pesky little flaws it it.
As to your smoking analogy, sorry, that doesn't compare since, barring setting the aircraft on fire, smoking has no effect whatsoever on the safe operation of the aircraft. Blanking out or otherwise interfering with the instrumentation, on the other hand, surely does. Also, it's quite easy for the cabin crew to pinpoint who is smoking. Just follow the smell and the smoke. Try figuring out which one of the pax has their Wi-Fi or cellphone turned on, because the warning sign was not in the language they speak, or because they can't read, or because they forgot, or thought it was off, or thought it was in airplane mode, or thought the signs were just BS because they read something on the Internet that said otherwise, or because "just a little" won't hurt anything, or simply because they're an entitled a-hole who feels such things shouldn't apply to someone like them.
Meanwhile, as the cabin crew tries to narrow it down, you can't exactly pull over to the side of the road and wait.
And then, after every single pax has been searched, and every single device disabled, it turns out to have been caused by weather radar. Or a device still powered up in someone's checked bags. Or one of any of hundreds of thousands of other possible sources of RFI, including cosmic radiation and solar flares.
Let's also not forget that there's new displays available that are shielded properly and don't have this problem. So while airline A goes through all of the above, because they didn't upgrade their displays, airline B, who did upgrade and who offers WiFi, get's a large portion of airline A's customers.
Nah, what am I thinking... OF COURSE your solution is the correct one Fritz. Just forget all those pesky little flaws it it.
Bernie:
I don't know why you've elected to ridicule me, especially since you're so vulnerable to ridicule yourself.
My smoking analogy applies perfectly to PASSENGER behavior, Bernie, not instrumentation interference that may be caused by WiFi.
Passengers who're smokers manage to get along just fine without smoking for 14, 15 hours on long distance flights. Passengers who're WiFi-addicted can get along without it, too. In any event, most modern passenger planes larger than commuter types have onboard entertainment systems. The WiFi-deprived can use them as a palliative.
Ever see those signs with a "/" across a circle containing a symbol for something like a cigarette or a directional sign inside? They're internationally understood and they're EVERYWHERE, Bernie.
Methinks you have way, way too much time on your hands, but correspondingly, very little of consequence with which to fill it.
Btw, congratulations are in order. Your Rube Goldberg scenario's second sentence is a breathtakingly long 89-word run-on sentence. That's got to be a FlightAware record. Well doneI Like most run-ons, though, it's a collection of disjointed "thoughts" that render it confusing, at best.
What were you thinking? Looks you were thinking you're smart and witty. Unfortunately -- for you -- your commentary demonstrates that you aren't either.
Bye !!
I don't know why you've elected to ridicule me, especially since you're so vulnerable to ridicule yourself.
My smoking analogy applies perfectly to PASSENGER behavior, Bernie, not instrumentation interference that may be caused by WiFi.
Passengers who're smokers manage to get along just fine without smoking for 14, 15 hours on long distance flights. Passengers who're WiFi-addicted can get along without it, too. In any event, most modern passenger planes larger than commuter types have onboard entertainment systems. The WiFi-deprived can use them as a palliative.
Ever see those signs with a "/" across a circle containing a symbol for something like a cigarette or a directional sign inside? They're internationally understood and they're EVERYWHERE, Bernie.
Methinks you have way, way too much time on your hands, but correspondingly, very little of consequence with which to fill it.
Btw, congratulations are in order. Your Rube Goldberg scenario's second sentence is a breathtakingly long 89-word run-on sentence. That's got to be a FlightAware record. Well doneI Like most run-ons, though, it's a collection of disjointed "thoughts" that render it confusing, at best.
What were you thinking? Looks you were thinking you're smart and witty. Unfortunately -- for you -- your commentary demonstrates that you aren't either.
Bye !!
I thought your analogy to smoking was out of place as well.
Wifi has become a concern, especially to business travelers. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Wifi has become a concern, especially to business travelers. I shouldn't have to explain why.
When you paint a target on yourself by posting such a ridiculous solution to a problem, do you really need to ask, "Why me?" Apparently so. The problem already has a solution, one not dependent upon passenger compliance with a new rule that would only apply on some carriers, or some aircraft, while on other aircraft and other carriers pax were encouraged to do just the opposite. WiFi access aboard aircraft is a revenue stream for the carriers that provide it, and travel today is all about getting as much revenue as possible from the pax.
Bernie: When you begin a response by characterizing what another poster has proposed as " … such a ridiculous solution…" because you disagree with it, you expose yourself as the first class jerk that you are.
My solution was offered because I believe it would work. You chose to ridicule it -- and me in the process
I don't give a rat's whether it might infinitesimally reduce a carrier's revenue stream.
As a matter of fact, business travelers who feel so self important that can't "put it down"for a few hours are annoying as hell. Sit next to one of 'em and maybe you'll see what I mean. I feel the same way about cell phone users who shut out the rest of the world while they loudly provide one half of their conversations or just can't wait to text message with someone on the ground.
But then again, you wouldn't have to sit next to one of 'em because you're probably one of 'em.
Do you really have to ask yourself why you're a jerk, Bernie? Nope. All you have to do is look in the mirror.
My solution was offered because I believe it would work. You chose to ridicule it -- and me in the process
I don't give a rat's whether it might infinitesimally reduce a carrier's revenue stream.
As a matter of fact, business travelers who feel so self important that can't "put it down"for a few hours are annoying as hell. Sit next to one of 'em and maybe you'll see what I mean. I feel the same way about cell phone users who shut out the rest of the world while they loudly provide one half of their conversations or just can't wait to text message with someone on the ground.
But then again, you wouldn't have to sit next to one of 'em because you're probably one of 'em.
Do you really have to ask yourself why you're a jerk, Bernie? Nope. All you have to do is look in the mirror.
Just because you believe something does not make it any less ridiculous. There are people who honestly believe that our planet's leaders have been replaced by a disguised race of space lizards. I would also point out to you Fritz that there is a difference between ridiculing you and ridiculing your idea. I have done my best to keep personal attacks out of this conversation, and restrict it to a discussion of your proposed solution, as that is in keeping with the topic. You, on the other hand, seem so wedded to your idea that you see any rebuttal of it as an attack upon yourself, and respond with personal attacks and name calling, rather than intelligent discussion. And you call me a jerk? What an odd and distorted little world you must live in!
Stop it! Both of you.
Stop what, Frank? The discussion of the topic? Or the childish name calling and personal attacks from Fritz?
Bernie:The childish arguing/ debate. The subject is the replacement of cocpit displays. Not passenger perks or whatever.
I interpreted the article as being related to cockpit wi-fi and cellphone use.
And I think Fritz is 'baiting'you just to get you angry.
I think your protaganist is getting the down votes here, so why not just drop it?
Happy trails to you.
I interpreted the article as being related to cockpit wi-fi and cellphone use.
And I think Fritz is 'baiting'you just to get you angry.
I think your protaganist is getting the down votes here, so why not just drop it?
Happy trails to you.
If Wi-Fi interferes with cockpit displays there should be no reason to make the airlines/manufacturers have to replace them with Wi-Fi-proof ones-- and pass the cost along to you-know-who.
The solution is obvious and simple:
THE USE OF WI-FI AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC DEVICES IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT ANY TIME
Passengers can get along without Wi-Fi for the duration of their flights -- just as smokers somehow manage to get along with out cigarette, cigars, and pipes.