Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
9. If the threat exists, it's a symptom of casual design/testing of aircraft systems
Mon May 14, 2012, 01:39 PM
May 2012

I've worked in electronics R&D labs for many years, specifically in consumer products. An essential part of the process involves subjecting circuitry to lengthy tests to detect the effects of emitted energy across the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. You may have seen the FCC label on one or more of your electronics items reading "this device may not cause harmful interference, and this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." This is applicable only to devices falling under the domain of the FCC, but the principle applies, or should, to communication, navigation and control systems used in aircraft as well. If they feel that a potential threat exists, the onus needs to be on aircraft manufacturers to correct the situation with proper shielding/grounding/error correction and other techniques.

As is, they're admitting the possibility exists that a genuine terrorist might be able to adversely affect a flight with a custom "airplane mode", instead of fixing the problem.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does filming your takeoff...»Reply #9