'Bomb on Board' Wi-Fi Network Causes Turkish Airlines Flight To Be Diverted (reuters.com) 177
A Turkish Airlines flight from Nairobi to Istanbul was diverted after the detection of a wi-fi network called "bomb on board" that alarmed the passengers, the airline said on Thursday. From a report: In a statement, Turkish Airlines said the flight made an emergency landing at the Khartoum airport in Sudan, but the flight was safely resumed after security inspections on all passengers and the aircraft. Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want.
They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
Re: (Score:2)
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
You want people to be held accountable for their actions? Heretic. :)
Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:4, Insightful)
The minor action isn't what needs to be stopped, it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed.
If I'm driving down the road and forgot to turn off my turn signal, and suddenly I've got road blocks and swat teams and snipers ahead trying to stop my car, we don't say "!ow guess he shouldn't have left his turn signal on, look at that huge commotion he caused, we gotta do something about those turn signals!" Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
Your example doesn't quite match, but you know what? I agree with you 100%.
In a perfect world.
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't. Yes, they over-reacted. But living in the litigious society we are, companies have to take every little thing seriously because if they don't that would be the end of them. Common sense is always beaten out in a court of law.
Re: (Score:3)
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
Re: (Score:2)
In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
If there had been a bomb, you best believe whoever set off the bomb would make sure everyone knew. One doesn't explode a bomb on a plane for anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
The minor action isn't what needs to be stopped, it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed.
Putting the aircraft down on a possible bomb thread doesn't seem like an extreme over reaction. And the cost of the diversion isn't cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a bomb on board, I bet you trying to ground the flight would set it off a lot sooner than not. Assuming it was remote detonated. People who actually follow through on these sorts of things rarely warn others of it.
Or it could be a faulty bomb and getting the aircraft on the ground gives emergency crews enough time to disarm it. If I handed you a bag and told you it was a bomb and would blow up if you let go of it, would you just laugh about it?
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a bomb on board, I bet you trying to ground the flight would set it off a lot sooner than not.
If the bomb was triggered by descent to landing, then it would go off on approach to the intended destination, too. Unless you think they're going to find and disarm the thing while aloft, you lose nothing by getting on the ground sooner.
On the other hand, if it is timed, then the sooner you land the better.
So, one kind of bomb makes no difference when you land, the other means people don't die. Do you land early or not?
People who actually follow through on these sorts of things rarely warn others of it.
People who do these kinds of things are trying to create fear and terror. Slipping a
Re: (Score:2)
So long as the plane doesn't drop below 50 MPH everything's fine.
Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
Your turn signal isn't a potential threat to human life. If you can't see the difference then you shouldn't be allowed to fly.
What's the difference in these scenarios?
95 times out of 100 these are all nothing. But you have to check them out. When human lives are potentially at stake, you can't ignore such statements. Do you want your pilot / cabin crew to make the decision "Well it says there's a bomb, but it's probably just a joke. Let's ignore it."? No. It's their professional obligation to take all possible threats seriously.
Now there's a 99.99% chance this was some idiot who forgot to change their default network name, or who was trying to be funny. Even so, you can't ignore it. If there's .01% chance the bomb is real - some deranged attention seekers advertise their intentions, hoping to get caught - you have to treat every potential threat as legitimate. Is getting to your destination a few hours later really worth risking hundreds of lives?
There's a lot of bad security and overreaction in the world. This is not one of those times.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not impossible someone one of these days could try to signal flight crew without bringing attention to themselves by doing any of the above if they were trying to back out or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no you really don't. *THAT* is the problem. If someone is bombing your plane with an intent to kill everyone, they aren't going to advertise it by changing their wifi SSID. It's totally preposterous. We don't need to overreact to terrorists, fuck them, react appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the Bomb On Board SSID was rather tasteless, I could now see passengers starting a tradition of seeing how many of their fellow WiFi using passengers they can get laughing out loud with funny AP names. I would start the game with TSAnalProbe.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the IRA phoned ahead on many of their bombing locations right?
Re: (Score:2)
And the guy who brought the bomb grabs his neighbor's phone or whatever and smashes it. End of bomb warning, and now the terrorist knows his neighbor tried to tell on him. Like that improves the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a turn-signal. This was being overtly threatening. This was the equivalent of driving down the road while holding up a sign that says, "I've got a bomb!" That gets, yes, SWAT teams and snipers, until they've proved that you are in fact not a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, this wasn't a minor thing like forgetting your turn signal. This was a deliberate choice of words that indicates that there is a bomb on board. If you're monitoring the situation, you don't know if it's a joke. You don't know that this wasn't the best way for whoever to communicate this, for whatever reasons. Somebody is saying there's a bomb on board. You need to take this seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
diverted after the detection of a wi-fi network called "bomb on board"
Spotted the dumb-ass teenager.
Listen up children. As totally unfair as it may seem, we don't always get to say (or print) what we want when we want. Most of the time, people will look at you as the annoying little prick that you are being at that moment. And that's fine I suppose. Who wants the world to be a better place anyway? But one of the areas that you absolutely DO NOT FUCK AROUND is commercial aviation.
If you feel like pushing a b
Yeah, we need to be scared (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this was definitely scary because if a terrorist did put a bomb on board, we all know that the second thing he would do would be to make a wifi network called, "Bomb on Board", alerting everyone to it.
Whew! Good thing they diverted the plane!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it wouldn't be the first time a terrorist had altered authorities to their bomb. Maybe they charged their mind at the last moment but didn't want to alert their partner, so passed a note to staff or wrote on the wall in the toilet.
Other terrorists planned to phone in warnings, not wanting to actually kill anyone. The IRA did that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, terrorists never warn before hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted.
What leads you to believe they will not be prosecuting?
Re: (Score:2)
They would have to identify and locate the culprit first; probably a very tricky task to pull off in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is like holding up a sign that says "I've got a bomb!" You can easily do this when there is in fact no bomb, but it's still gonna get a drastic reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted
You mean the pilots, crew, and panicing stupid passengers?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
In many countries its already a crime to do something that you know you shouldn't do that causes a flight to be diverted or return to an airport. The penalty is trifling... but it means you have no defence when the airline takes you to court for their losses. The airlines plan is to ruin you, they do so that you say "remember that flight they diverted to Colorado? That was me, I now cant get a loan, have no car and am renting in a roach motel because I still own half a million dollars to the airline."
Re: (Score:2)
They should have to re-enter the ticket queue line each time and buy a ticket for each and every passenger they inconvenienced.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Just tell all the other passengers who they were and ask if they still want to get on the plane :-)
Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:4, Insightful)
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
Why would you want to criminalize someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater, leading to a stampede that kills people? There are limits to most anything.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either
You're 100% correct. Now, the next time you're in a TSA interview make a few childish jokes about bombs and how you're carrying a package someone outside gave you.
Time and place my man. Time and place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And naming a wifi ssid "holocaust never happened" is drastically different from naming a wifi ssid "bomb on board". One offends people, the other suggests a life threatening event is possible.
Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between calling something "surveillance van" and "bomb on board". Since you don't seem to get it, I'll break it down for you. The first implies someone is watching. Ooo scary. The second implies that you might die in a fiery explosion, or as you fall from the sky when the plane is crippled. See the difference?
If you still don't get it, do the following for a real-world education: Go to the bank and deposit two different deposits. On the first deposit slip's back write "FBI surveillance van", and on the second write "I'm carrying a bomb". The police will be happy to give you some percussive education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Very different", huh? Okay, do that in an actual airport. The nice policman will explain to you in great detail how different it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your disagreement. Naming your WAP "bomb on board" is something the person on the plane chose to do so consciously with the intent it would be seen by other passengers. It's open for debate as to whether they thought it would be a dumb joke or whether they were looking to cause a panic, but the outcome in this case was definitely a panic.
Naming it "bomb on board" when not ON BOARD a plane is a much less meaningful context as in most cases, like out in the park, at home, in a restaurant etc
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't imply it credibly. Whoever made the panicked decision to divert the plane, made a bad call
I'm a frequent flier (65K miles last year) and I disagree, Anonymous Coward.
I think a lot of security measures are stupid, e.g I have no issue with sharps on board - And what exactly does confiscating granny's jar of homemade spaghetti sauce accomplish?
However in this situation you really don't know if this was a 21st century 'note.' What if I found out there was a bomb on board and I was trying to s
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if you create a WAP on a plane named "Bomb on Board" you deserve every bit of negative attention headed your way.
Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers (Score:4, Funny)
I work for the FBI, we do have these vans, and we do name them this. How little you know, child.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and that includes over reactions by ignorant and paranoid S.O.B.s like them.
Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
This is true. But seeing "FBI surveillance van", (I've seen similar things myself in wifi scans) which poses no immediate threat, is different from being on a plane and seeing a SID that says "bomb on board". Planes are small, fragile, enclosed spaces that take significant time to get safely back on the ground. These things must be taken seriously. The cost of not taking them seriously is too high.
A better example might be the sid "ImGoingToShootMyNeighbor". If I saw that pop up in my neighborhood, I'd
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the available APs showing on my laptop here at home, I am seeing right now:
Ravenplume
Crow's Fan
Private
Lily
NETGEAR23-5G
CenturyLink5285
Body Parts
CenturyLink4457
MySpectrumWiFi00-2G
Drew Plicity
MySpectrumWiFi76-2G
PS4-C04B1ED2B3D1
MySpectrumWiFie0-2G
MySpectrumWiFi16-2G
TheGEO.net44
MySpectrumWiFif0-2G
TP-LINK_FD7E
DIRECT-B2-HP ENVY 5540 Series
Other Network
No one in this neighborhood calling themselves FBI Surveillance Van, though I have seen one elsewhere in town. And only amusingly named one in range is B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has NEVER been illegal to yell "Fire" in a Crowded theater, it's an old and incorrect quote.
https://definitions.uslegal.co... [uslegal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, you and your "facts."
Re: (Score:2)
If you yell it in the context of "that actor is so bad they should fire him!" then sure, perfectly legal if highly annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
Why would you want to criminalize someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater, leading to a stampede that kills people? There are limits to most anything.
I wouldn't. And it's not criminalized. You are absolutely allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Even in this fucked up version of the U S of A, it's still protected speech. Don't think so? Go look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because reactions to possible emergencies are always carefully and cautiously thought out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
i hope you're really suggesting they are the same thing. If so, fuck off dummy.
Nope. Yelling fire can lead to deaths which is prosecuted one way. A bomb threat leads to the authorities making sure there isn't a bomb there, which shouldn't lead to any deaths but costs government money. Just like murder and graffiti are two different crimes, both of these situations should be handled appropriately for the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
A bomb threat leads to the authorities making sure there isn't a bomb there, which shouldn't lead to any deaths
And yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should result in an orderly evacuation in a calm and reasonable manner through the nearest sufficient and adequately marked emergency exits, and will not result in an emergency response by fire services that would endanger any of them or put them in an unavailable status for any other actual fire.
Here on Earth, we understand things don't always work out so simply. We understand the effects of panic and costs of deploying emergency services when they are not needed.
W
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, bomb threats are made by terrorists in the hope that they will be heeded. The IRA used to call in threats to minimize unwanted casualties, for example. Sometimes you want to blow up the building/plane but not th
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of terrorist who sends a threat doesn't want people to become so desensitized that they ignore the threat.
Thanks, I missed hearing about the manager's meeting that coordinated that new policy. Maybe the announcement got stuck in my spam-kablam filter?
Re: (Score:2)
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
You're ignoring what happened and are asking that question as if I'm advocating prison for someone naming their access point "iPhone WAN."
Re: (Score:2)
Main screen turn on.
Re: (Score:2)
How are you gentlemen !!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
Because they may name it "Armenian genocide" or "Kurdistan".
So, my good neighbors, the Turks -i am a Greek...!-, have laws to prosecute (/persecute) anyone mentioning such (and much more) "anti-Turkish things". One great example is that women can not wear cloths colored in a way that if combined may resemble the flag of Kurdistan! And please remember: you may not be a Turk, not ever being in Turkey, but, if you publicize something about the Armenian genocide, you may end up with an international arrest warr
Re: (Score:3)
why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
Because they may name it "Armenian genocide" or "Kurdistan".
So, my good neighbors, the Turks -i am a Greek...!-, have laws to prosecute (/persecute) anyone mentioning such (and much more) "anti-Turkish things". One great example is that women can not wear cloths colored in a way that if combined may resemble the flag of Kurdistan! And please remember: you may not be a Turk, not ever being in Turkey, but, if you publicize something about the Armenian genocide, you may end up with an international arrest warrant...
The situation in Turkey is a real shame. At one point they were a democratic nation, knocking on the door to the EU, access to which would have ended up in being a firm democratic step into the middle east. Now they're held hostage by a tyrant and a one party state with more journalists in jail than any other country.
Turkey is a real craphole at the moment (and I say this as someone who is a little bit Turk myself).
Re: (Score:2)
So why did Constantinople get the works?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason it's illegal to yell out "Fire" in a movie theater or crowded area.
That isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point, in a way.
In elden times, we had this thing called "shame" and it was used to subtly coerce people to act in socially acceptable ways. This was accomplished without layers of legislation and oppresive law enforcement. Society was better off, people tended to act 'better'.
In comes social media, and suddenly everyone's a beautiful unique butterfly -- being shunned and/or shamed by society is now almost a mark of individualistic pride, and there we have it.
Having your communi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to criminalize the parent who thinks "bomb on board" is a funny name for their wireless access point because their baby seems to explode a lot?
Yes. You aren't supposed to be running a WiFi hotspot on board an aircraft (at least not in US airspace) at all, according to federal law. Second, it is a deliberate act to turn on the hotspot function of a phone, since it is not normally on. At least, it is on any phone or device I've had that has hotspot functionality. It's a waste of battery and a security issue otherwise. "I accidentally turned on the beacon, which I just now remember is grail shaped" is a poor excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a statute, chapter and verse (or however the Americans phrase it) for that law?
Actually, I've more than a few times taken my domestic access point on board a plane forgetting that it's in the rucksac. It's not as if it needs to be plugged into the wall for more than about 30% of the time, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet strangely the airlines can provide 802.11 service themselves
The FAR allows the aircraft operator to authorize use of PED, including WiFi. The passenger does not get to authorize use of anything. If the aircraft operator has not authorized it, it is against the law.
and we don't see planes becoming lawn darts because of supposed "interference."
When you see the claim that every PED causes interference on every aircraft, y'all come back and make this statement. Until then, see if you can figure out how the claim that such things can cause interference, not that they must, is different. Also see if you can figure out the difference between an airc
MAC Addr ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MAC Addr ? (Score:4, Informative)
No Kismet necessary
Win32
netsh wlan show networks mode=bssid
OSX /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/airport -s
Linux
sudo iwlist scanning
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most cretins that would do that sort of nonsense on a plane aren't smart enough to think of that.
Assuming the cretin was even on the plane.... the cretin might have been on the ground or up in a broadcast tower with a strong WiFi signal,
and people on the plane started picking up the remote AP as they went by.
Re: (Score:2)
You could but they probably did not. Would be really interesting to tell police boating place "I have the MAC address of who did it" and have them confiscate devices to check.
YCFS (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm talking about everyone who thought the name of a network means doodley-squat.
What's next, I name my network 'you need to take a dump' and everyone on the plane rushes to the toilets?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My main mindgame on flights is when we takeoff and are climbing, look out the window at the wing, and act like someone who's completely awestruck and innocent and loudly proclaim, "WoW! Look at those wings move! It's almost like they're flapping!"
Lot's of other people will look, see the perfectly normal movement of the wings, turn pale as a ghost, and slam the window shade!
I know, I can be evil that way.
Re: (Score:2)
expected full service load deflection (for heavy turbulence for example) is over five meters on the big jets, and they test to 150% of that.....wonder if most people know that
Autocorrect (Score:2)
Maybe they were trying to name their network "Baby On Board", and the phone auto-corrected it?
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they meant to name it after the father. "Bum On Board".
Re: (Score:2)
- Apple Quality Control
It could have been much, much worse (Score:2)
It could have been "baby-on-board".
Stupid is as Stupid does... (Score:2)
Yea, that wasn't a good idea was it.... Stupid is as Stupid does. Who ever did this was an idiot. Even joking about a "bomb" at the security check point will get you an all expense paid trip to the holding room and/or a brief jail stay.
Why not use something like "Free WiFi" if you insist on letting everybody on board share your service? It's bad enough you are cutting into the revenue stream of the airline by depriving them of the fees the other users of your connection would have paid, then you pile on
No Bomb On Board (Score:2)
This is exactly why I always set up an SSID named "No Bomb On Board" when I fly -- so no one will worry about a bomb on board.
Though now I see an easy way to disrupt global air travel -- hide an ESP8266 on board multiple airplanes that can broadcast a "Bomb On Board" SSD at a particular time on all of the airplanes, and watch global air travel come to a halt while they try to track them done. For bonus points, have them turn on and off randomly to make them harder to find.
If I was going to put a bomb on board (Score:2)
If I actually was going to put a bomb on board I'd call the access point "TotallyNoBombsHereNoNoNo" or someth1¾,.m,.,
no carrier
A friend does this on Virgin Trains in the UK (Score:3)
Some of the trains/routes don't have wifi and he turns his hotspot on with "Virgin Trains Free Wifi" as the SSID. Then he tries very hard to suppress his own laughter when people start complaining about how the wifi doesn't work.
You can yell Fire in a theatre in the USA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, as I understand it, it isn't that you can't yell it. You just can't use it as a defense.
If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (while holding up my lighter and pointing at it) and everybody laughs and goes on watching the show, I have committed no crime, nothing bad has happened, and there's no problem. If everybody were to calmly stand up and leave the theater such that no one was injured and immediately head to the manager and demand their money back, the theater owner could then sue me for the m
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SSID: ISIS Safe House 17 (Score:2)
New SSID ... (Score:2)
... for this passenger: Bus Rider.
Buy a drink for the guy in 6C (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no it couldn't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't work in the first place with all the electronic noise their systems emit.
You don't believe that a system can be sensitive to certain RF signal interference just because it might emit some on some other frequency? Hmmm. I have a GPS system that emits a birdie smack on top of a specific active local amateur frequency. The amateur radio is blocked despite it being able to "emit electronic noise" quite well, by an electronic system that works quite well despite emitting a significant noise signal.
Simple analysis of complicated systems is often incorrect and misleading.
They are shielded, and don't care about that frequency, which is why wifi is allowed on the planes.
WiFi is allow
Re: (Score:2)
The use of a personal hotspot could have jammed the plane's computers and navigational controls and ended up bringing the plane down.
No, the FAA never tested the safety of in-flight cellular service because the FCC prohibited it.
The problem is that cellular handover is a somewhat intensive process, and your hotspot is going to work like crap anyway. Big planes have a cruising speed of 500+ MPH, so it's going to be handing over frequently---if it will even work at all. Naming the hotspot something stupid is just icing on the cake.
In addition, a horde of cellular handovers happening simultaneously could interfere with the cellular network.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
https://www.edn.com/electronic... [edn.com]
or
http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh... [discovery.com]
Finding: BUSTED
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
Cool. You've found one stupid link that talks about "galvanometer instruments", and a pop-culture TV show, that can't show that the specific devices they tested interfered with the specific aircraft systems they tested against, and leap to the conclusion that this proves that PED cannot interfere.
The issue is not that EVERY device WILL interfere. Proof that EVERY device does not interfere with EVERY system is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
Cool. You've found one stupid link that talks about "galvanometer instruments", and a pop-culture TV show, that can't show that the specific devices they tested interfered with the specific aircraft systems they tested against, and leap to the conclusion that this proves that PED cannot interfere.
The issue is not that EVERY device WILL interfere. Proof that EVERY device does not interfere with EVERY system is irrelevant.
Hey, shitstain.
Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference
You are pathetically and arrogantly ignorant. Look up what Part 15 says about "unintentional radiators", and then think about what intentional radiators are allowed to do.
and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
Very little of modern electronics is actually tested by the FCC directly. Most of it is based on manufacturer certifications -- and for a lot of Chinese electronics that certification is fudged or based on version 0.1 prototype of a device and not the current, shipping product.
ARRL [arrl.org] did an amazing test of common amateur handhelds by settin