Your 787 controlled from seat 34G?
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
From: Oxford, UK
There is also the possibility of "Denial of Service" problems
John
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Why not simply have totally independent networks? That way, the only unauthorized data that the computer and electronics whiz in seat 34G could access is the latest pay-per-view movies. To somebody who isn't in the electronics field, it seems like a simple enough thing to do. I'm willing to learn why the most obvious thing is being ignored.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
...or maybe if they decide to go with robust network security, we'll have to enter a password every time we change the QNH or try to execute a new route
Last edited by Check Airman; 7th January 2008 at 17:37.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Europe
It is my responsibility at work to start and programme the IFE on the 747/777/A330, and to try and fault-find and 'fix' it whenever it doesn't work as advertised.
It is one of the least enjoyable aspects of the job. I am technically minded, so it's not that. I am computer literate so it's not that either.
The problem lies in the fact that IFE systems are notoriously opinionated and unpredictably moody.
The manufacturers swear on everything they hold dear that their system will under NO circumstance ever do X Y or Z, yet all of us know for a fact that X Y and Z are regular occurrences.
And of course the fault can never be replicated on the ground and the dedicated mechs look at you as if you're some sort of total moron.
Similarly, the manufacturers will wax lyrical about the reliability of the system, its stability and back-up.
While in reality, the systems crash for no good reason, behave weirdly when you least expect it, ignore whatever fault fixing procedure you let loose on it and will on principle do the exact opposite of what the manual says they will
The idea that an IFE system could be in any way at all connected to the cockpit systems causes me the deepest of anxieties.
Actually, more of a screaming panic!
It is one of the least enjoyable aspects of the job. I am technically minded, so it's not that. I am computer literate so it's not that either.
The problem lies in the fact that IFE systems are notoriously opinionated and unpredictably moody.
The manufacturers swear on everything they hold dear that their system will under NO circumstance ever do X Y or Z, yet all of us know for a fact that X Y and Z are regular occurrences.
And of course the fault can never be replicated on the ground and the dedicated mechs look at you as if you're some sort of total moron.
Similarly, the manufacturers will wax lyrical about the reliability of the system, its stability and back-up.
While in reality, the systems crash for no good reason, behave weirdly when you least expect it, ignore whatever fault fixing procedure you let loose on it and will on principle do the exact opposite of what the manual says they will
The idea that an IFE system could be in any way at all connected to the cockpit systems causes me the deepest of anxieties.
Actually, more of a screaming panic!
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Gosport
Carbon 15, previously such services were supplied by the Connexion by Boeing (CbB) system that was installed on the likes of Lufthansa and Etihad.
Owing to a slightly dodgey business model, the grown ups at Boeing pulled the plug leaving aircraft with some extra ballast and something akin to an upside down bathtub on the roof.
Inmarsat have launch a "high speed" service called Swift Broadband. This is designed to give a "high speed" data service to the aircraft through its I4 satellite constellation.
Hope this helps
Owing to a slightly dodgey business model, the grown ups at Boeing pulled the plug leaving aircraft with some extra ballast and something akin to an upside down bathtub on the roof.
Inmarsat have launch a "high speed" service called Swift Broadband. This is designed to give a "high speed" data service to the aircraft through its I4 satellite constellation.
Hope this helps
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 443
Likes: 2
From: Texas, like a whole other country
Boeing 787 hit by wireless security fears
Sorry for the alarmist title, but it was written by the BBC, not me:
OK, it does seem a bit like a slow news day story. But, if "Like most modern planes, the 787 has extensive computer systems," what about this type has attracted the attention of the FAA on this issue? Why are they not worried about the A380, for example? Only because no American carriers have ordered one? 
Boeing has been ordered to ensure passengers on its new 787 Dreamliner jet cannot hack into the flight system and take control of the plane.
The ruling has come from America's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is concerned that the plane's computer system may be vulnerable.
Boeing said it was in constant dialogue with the FAA to resolve the issue.
The US giant will start to deliver the mid-sized planes from November. British Airways has ordered 24 Dreamliners.
Rival UK carrier Virgin Atlantic has orders for 15.
'Appropriate safeguards'
Responding to the security revelation, which was first reported by trade magazine Flight International, Boeing said that "appropriate safeguards were already designed into the 787".
Like most modern planes, the 787 has extensive computer systems.
"We have already reached agreement with the FAA on the documentation, analysis and demonstrations necessary to show compliance with this special condition," it said.
"Completion of these activities will occur during the flight test programme."
It added that information from the test flights would be fully shared with the FAA to ensure a thorough review of the system.
The Dreamliner is Boeing's fastest-selling plane, with 802 orders in total by the start of this year.
Last year it was hit by a six-month delay due to manufacturing problems.
The Dreamliner is Boeing's first all-new jet since 1995.
It is the only big commercial aircraft made mostly of carbon fibre rather than aluminium and is billed as the most environmentally-friendly commercial jet ever built. Boeing says the 787 is much more fuel efficient than its competitors and produces 20% less carbon dioxide.
The ruling has come from America's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is concerned that the plane's computer system may be vulnerable.
Boeing said it was in constant dialogue with the FAA to resolve the issue.
The US giant will start to deliver the mid-sized planes from November. British Airways has ordered 24 Dreamliners.
Rival UK carrier Virgin Atlantic has orders for 15.
'Appropriate safeguards'
Responding to the security revelation, which was first reported by trade magazine Flight International, Boeing said that "appropriate safeguards were already designed into the 787".
Like most modern planes, the 787 has extensive computer systems.
"We have already reached agreement with the FAA on the documentation, analysis and demonstrations necessary to show compliance with this special condition," it said.
"Completion of these activities will occur during the flight test programme."
It added that information from the test flights would be fully shared with the FAA to ensure a thorough review of the system.
The Dreamliner is Boeing's fastest-selling plane, with 802 orders in total by the start of this year.
Last year it was hit by a six-month delay due to manufacturing problems.
The Dreamliner is Boeing's first all-new jet since 1995.
It is the only big commercial aircraft made mostly of carbon fibre rather than aluminium and is billed as the most environmentally-friendly commercial jet ever built. Boeing says the 787 is much more fuel efficient than its competitors and produces 20% less carbon dioxide.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 1
From: is everything
Wifi access....
The logical Aircraft Control Domain and Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain are not physically separate. So, an enterprising person or a malfunctioning device might be able affect the performance of one domain from the other.
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 25
From: ME
Bushfiva, how about this.....
Mutt
Commercial Airplanes employees in late December wirelessly connected a maintenance laptop to the 787's maintenance system for the first time.
This capability will allow airlines to wirelessly run computational tests between flights and determine needed maintenance. Boeing will also use the system during the upcoming 787 flight-test program. The wireless connection enables maintenance personnel to move around the airplane while staying connected to its maintenance functions. "This is the first step to a flexible and efficient way to maintain an airplane without being tied down," said Mike Sinnett, 787 Systems director.
The interesting note is that the Feds are very interested in how Boeing is protecting that wireless access to the airplane.
Rumor has it that MS hackers are being paid to try and crack the system to find holes in advance of delivery.
This capability will allow airlines to wirelessly run computational tests between flights and determine needed maintenance. Boeing will also use the system during the upcoming 787 flight-test program. The wireless connection enables maintenance personnel to move around the airplane while staying connected to its maintenance functions. "This is the first step to a flexible and efficient way to maintain an airplane without being tied down," said Mike Sinnett, 787 Systems director.
The interesting note is that the Feds are very interested in how Boeing is protecting that wireless access to the airplane.
Rumor has it that MS hackers are being paid to try and crack the system to find holes in advance of delivery.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
From: On the western edge of The Moor
Of course this sort of thing doesn't really happen!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...9520-20281665/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...9520-20281665/
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Germany
Hi,
maybe I overlooked the information I'm interested in, but anyway:
I can hardly believe that flight critical systems share the network. In my opinion, most likely the Cabin Management Systems use the same network. But maybe I'm wrong...
Does anybody know which a/c systems share the network with the PAX-systems?
maybe I overlooked the information I'm interested in, but anyway:
I can hardly believe that flight critical systems share the network. In my opinion, most likely the Cabin Management Systems use the same network. But maybe I'm wrong...
Does anybody know which a/c systems share the network with the PAX-systems?
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 228
Likes: 5
From: London, UK
Why not simply have totally independent networks?
This is one place for (quality) comment and analysis in the IT world on this and other risk s:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.1.html#subj2
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Gosport
Regarding interfaces between the Pax entertainment systems and other aircraft systems, the following are typical of the latest generation IFE systems
ARINC 429 (Rx only) for moving map positional data (Alt, long, lat, speed etc)
Pax Service System for reading lights and calls lights/chimes
PA System so announcements can be heard through headphones
SATCOM for voice/data connectivity
Electrical power (obviously)
Hope this helps
ARINC 429 (Rx only) for moving map positional data (Alt, long, lat, speed etc)
Pax Service System for reading lights and calls lights/chimes
PA System so announcements can be heard through headphones
SATCOM for voice/data connectivity
Electrical power (obviously)
Hope this helps
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 970
Likes: 54
From: uk
And when they've resolved that, they can resolve the issues around harmful pollutants (carcinogens?) being released into the local atmosphere if, God Forbid, a B787 should ever suffer a major fire.
My grapevine tells me that fire services, for one, have raised this issue with EASA who have been working on it for some time.
I appreciate that this is not a new problem, that composite structure has been around for ages, that there are plenty of people who actually know all about this and whether there really is a problem, and that I'm not one of them.
So does anyone know exactly where the matter stands, today?
My grapevine tells me that fire services, for one, have raised this issue with EASA who have been working on it for some time.
I appreciate that this is not a new problem, that composite structure has been around for ages, that there are plenty of people who actually know all about this and whether there really is a problem, and that I'm not one of them.
So does anyone know exactly where the matter stands, today?
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
From: NZWN New Zealand
Ever heard of the Martinair 757 incident ?
On May 28, 1996, at 1421 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 767-31AER, PH-MCH, operated by Martinair Holland, as flight 631 received minor
damage during an unscheduled landing at Logan Airport, Boston.
The flight destined for Orlando, Florida, had departed Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam. Flight crew reported that they had received several false system advisories during the flight. The advisories would appear and then disappear
shortly thereafter, with no corrective action being taken.
There was no evidence that the actual airplane systems were being affected.
These advisories started shortly after the airplane had reached cruise altitude, and continued at an intermittent rate throughout the flight. In addition there were multiple uncommanded auto pilot disconnects.
The transponder code window would suddenly display all zeros, and there were changes to the zero fuel weight information displayed on the EFIS. At one time, the airplane flew for about one hour with no problems noted. At 1355, when the 757 was about 20 nm miles north of the Kennebunk VOR, Maine, the crew declared an emergency due to loss of EFIS cockpit displays and the inertial navigation units.
They requested to land at Boston. The flight crew extended slats, and received a split slat indication. After checking that the available runway length was adequate, for their configuration and weight, they decided not to
extend flaps.
The spoilers were armed; however, after touchdown, the flight crew had to manually extend the spoilers and was unable to engage the reverse thrust.
Let's not forget the Egyptair 767 either, which went into a wild roller coaster dive.
Some years ago loading baggage for Air New Zealand, I remember on duty in the baggage hall how cell phones would keep ringing in baggage ready for loading on flights.
There was the CFIT crash of a Dash 8-100 belonging to Ansett NZ in June 1995. The captain Gary Sotheran claimed that whilst struggling with hung up main gear on an IFR approach the radar altimeter suddenly flipped 1,000 feet. Nobody ever believed him.
Sotheran was put on criminal trial and the day after that trial was abandoned news agencies disclosed that NZ Police had concealed evidence of a cell phone call being made by a passenger during the approach.
Police didn't seem to think it was their duty to share with the aviation world that cell phones endangered the flight because they were so hell bent on their prosecution.
On May 28, 1996, at 1421 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 767-31AER, PH-MCH, operated by Martinair Holland, as flight 631 received minor
damage during an unscheduled landing at Logan Airport, Boston.
The flight destined for Orlando, Florida, had departed Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam. Flight crew reported that they had received several false system advisories during the flight. The advisories would appear and then disappear
shortly thereafter, with no corrective action being taken.
There was no evidence that the actual airplane systems were being affected.
These advisories started shortly after the airplane had reached cruise altitude, and continued at an intermittent rate throughout the flight. In addition there were multiple uncommanded auto pilot disconnects.
The transponder code window would suddenly display all zeros, and there were changes to the zero fuel weight information displayed on the EFIS. At one time, the airplane flew for about one hour with no problems noted. At 1355, when the 757 was about 20 nm miles north of the Kennebunk VOR, Maine, the crew declared an emergency due to loss of EFIS cockpit displays and the inertial navigation units.
They requested to land at Boston. The flight crew extended slats, and received a split slat indication. After checking that the available runway length was adequate, for their configuration and weight, they decided not to
extend flaps.
The spoilers were armed; however, after touchdown, the flight crew had to manually extend the spoilers and was unable to engage the reverse thrust.
Let's not forget the Egyptair 767 either, which went into a wild roller coaster dive.
Some years ago loading baggage for Air New Zealand, I remember on duty in the baggage hall how cell phones would keep ringing in baggage ready for loading on flights.
There was the CFIT crash of a Dash 8-100 belonging to Ansett NZ in June 1995. The captain Gary Sotheran claimed that whilst struggling with hung up main gear on an IFR approach the radar altimeter suddenly flipped 1,000 feet. Nobody ever believed him.
Sotheran was put on criminal trial and the day after that trial was abandoned news agencies disclosed that NZ Police had concealed evidence of a cell phone call being made by a passenger during the approach.
Police didn't seem to think it was their duty to share with the aviation world that cell phones endangered the flight because they were so hell bent on their prosecution.