Paul Parkinson

Mobile phones clear for take-off?

A few months ago I commented on some of the technical developments in passenger in-flight systems ('In-flight Internet access...and mobile phones too?'). In recent weeks, there have been some rapid developments, not on the technical front, but in terms of regulation and operation, with announcements from the UK telecommunications regulator Ofcom and the European Commission.

On the 26th March, Ofcom published the results of its consultation on the use of Mobile Communications on Aircraft (MCA). The executive summary summarizes the findings and Ofcom's decisions, but the full statement (PDF) provides much more detail, revealing a mixture of social, operational, safety and security issues.

The social issues which revolve around the acceptability of using a mobile phone in-flight, seem to have been brushed aside in the following statement:

3.9 Ofcom also understands the concerns expressed about peace and quiet on aircraft and the potential for mobile phone users to annoy other passengers. However we note that in similar cases which can lead to annoying behaviour, for example serving alcohol on board aircraft, it is a matter for aircraft operators to decide how to balance the services they offer to their passengers with the impact that they have. The airline industry is a competitive market and consumers generally have a choice between carriers: the provision of MCA services, and approaches to mitigating any annoyance, like quiet zones or quiet periods, could become part of the marketing differentiation between airlines. Further, Ofcom considers that UK consumers could be disadvantaged if MCA services were not permitted.

The comparison between serving alcohol and mobile phone use is unconvincing, because a passenger sitting in the next row having a drink is not likely to affect me unless they are drunk and unruly, whereas a passenger whose mobile phone and then talks loudly (to be heard over the background noise of the aircraft) will affect (i.e. annoy) me - I suspect a comparison between smoking in-flight and using mobile phones in-flight would have been more appropriate! For a more considered view on the social issues, I'd recommend Clive James' eloquent article 'I'm on the plane... the PLANE' (BBC Magazine).

The operational and safety issues are inter-related in some cases. For example, the proposed use of mobile devices is intended for use only above 3,000m altitude, and should be switched off during take-off and landing. However, once passengers become aware that mobile phones can be used at all on some flights, they are likely to become even more cavalier than they are at present (for example, on a recent return flight from San Francisco, a lady sitting across the aisle from me was using her BlackBerry  crackberry for email and phone calls while the plane was taxiing and only switched it off just before takeoff). Passengers probably won't distinguish between aircraft that have pico cells for mobile phone calls, and those that don't - the latter resulting in the mobile phone transmitting on increasing power levels in an attempt to connect to a base station, and thus increasing the risk of electromagnetic interference with aircraft electronics. These issues still need to addressed to the satisfaction to the UK CAA and EASA before mobile phones can be used in-flight over the UK and the rest of Europe respectively.

Some of the individual responses in the Ofcom consultation raised a number of security issues, however the Ofcom response was that this is responsibility of the DfT's Transport Security Branch but I couldn't find a responses or policy on mobile phone in-flight use on the Department for Transport's website.  The situation seems somewhat different in the US, where the Department of Homeland Security is openly opposed to the use of mobile phones in flight on security grounds ('Why US Airlines Still  Won't Join the Mobile Mile High Club').

The European Commission announcement (BBC News) makes it clear that the regulations not only allow for mobile data and text messaging services (which has been the focus of the recent trials by Airbus and Quantas), but also for both incoming and outgoing voice calls. Whilst the mobile network operators and airlines seems to be falling over themselves to introduce this technology, I can't help wondering whether this is what passengers actually want? It looks like I'm going to need to carry extra batteries for my Bose noise canceling headphones...

In-flight Internet access...and mobile phones too?

I read a business article in The Economist ('Mobile Phones on planes - Your call') during the Christmas holidays about the current developments in passenger in-flight systems, specifically the provision of Internet data access and the potential to support mobile (cell) phone voice calls during flight.

The article reports on trials of a Wi-Fi (Wikipedia) data service by JetBlue and Quantas, and a forthcoming mobile phone voice call trial by Air France (which follows on from the mobile phone SMS text messaging described in this Air France press release); it then goes on to discuss the social impact and acceptability of Internet data access and mobile voice calls during flight, which makes interesting reading.

The Internet, mobile phones and satellite communications have all been around for quite a while now, so you could be forgiven for wondering why we haven't seen these technologies rolled out across airline fleets before now? Well, maybe we are only just reaching the tipping point for technology (cost), and passenger demand (revenue)?

At present, the use of mobile phones in-flight is banned in the US by the Federal Communications Commission (and similarly by regulatory authorities in other countries) due to the potential for electromagnetic interference with aircraft avionics. If you perform a Google search, you might get the impression that this is a somewhat controversial subject with polarized views, but there is an example of hard experimental data to support the position on the UK Radiocommunications Agency website EMC Awareness page. There's also the problem that mobile phones passing over ground mobile networks at high speed could cause disruption as the networks struggle to perform handover from one cell to the next.

These new in-flight systems make use of a miniature base station on board the aircraft, known as a  picocell (Wikipedia), which connects to a satellite communications network to avoid both of these problems. This works because mobile phones transmit on increasing levels of power until they get a response - the concept is that if they receive a response from a nearby picocell they continue to transmit on low power levels, which will not interfere with aircraft avionics or reach ground-based networks thousands of feet below.

Despite this technological advance, I have to admit that I would try to avoid being on a flight where mobile voice calls were possible. This has nothing to do with the safety aspect, but because of the disruption. People tend to talk more loudly on mobile phones than on land lines because the sidetone on mobile phones is less than on landlines (sidetone is where the speech from the microphone is redirected to the speaker at a lower level, so that the person can hear what they are saying). If you now factor in the noise from the air-conditioning and jet engines, you've got a recipe for loud background chatter. The Economist article doesn't mention if these systems will support in-coming voice calls, but I certainly wouldn't welcome the sound of ringing mobile phones either, especially on a transatlantic flight, especially when I am trying to get some sleep! Maybe the reason why the airlines are being cautious about the introduction of voice calling is because they are wary of adverse passenger reaction?

On a positive note, I would very much welcome in-flight Internet data access, as it enable me to catch up on my email backlog, especially on long transatlantic flights. As an aside, my view on this isn't affected by the news story 'FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack ' (Wired.com) which was posted earlier this week and was rapidly seized upon and somewhat sensationalized by the wider media. The Wired article, includes mention of "multiple networks", "isolation" and "air gaps" (i.e. physical separation) but doesn't really explain the concept of aircraft networks, which would have provided some useful context.

Basically, aircraft have a number of different type of networks, or domains, which connect systems which perform different functions; these typically include Flight Deck, OEM, and Passenger Systems. The networks have different networking requirements and are separated by firewalls for safety and security reasons (see ARINC 664 for more details) - one aircraft design already in-service is reputed to use a hardware diode to only allow the flow of data in one direction only between networks. In any case,  so I don't think this story should be a cause for concern for 787 passengers. Back to in-flight Internet access, I wonder if other laptop users would be trying to use Skype to make Voice-Over-IP (VOIP) calls? If so, I hope they don't sit near me.

So Is it finally time for take-off for in-flight Internet access?

Integrated Modular Smartphone?

The title of this blog might suggest that I've got mixed up between Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) and consumer devices, but if you bear with me, I'll try to explain why I think there are some parallels.

I was recently given a shiny new smartphone (wikipedia), which will enable me to keep up to date with important emails when I'm out of the office, rather than get a couple of days behind which can happen  sometimes when I'm travelling.

Actually, I was quite pleased to receive the smartphone because, as an engineer, I like cool gadgets anyway, and also because it means that I am able to carry around one device instead of a mobile phone and a PDA. This will also please my wife, who complains that carrying all of these devices around is ruining the lining of my jackets. Anyway, there aren't any suitable alternatives...unless you're Joey Tribbiani in Friends ('The One with Joey's bag', wikipedia).

For the last few years, I've been using a Nokia 6310i mobile phone and a Palm Tungsten T5 PDA. They are both very competent at the providing the functions for which they were designed.

The 6310i is not the latest-and-greatest gadget phone by any means, but is an extremely capable business phone. It's triband (works in Europe and the US), has excellent range, and the lithium ion battery can last nearly a week before needing to be recharged. It also has Bluetooth, Infra Red and GPRS enabling me to connect to my headset, laptop PC and the Internet.

I would be lost without my Tungsten T5, quite literally, because as well as having all the usual Palm applications (Contacts, Calendar, Memos, Tasks, Documents-To-Go, etc.), I also have TomTom Navigator in-car satellite navigation software and a portable Bluetooth receiver.

So, I had high hopes about the prospect of integrating all of this functionality onto a single device, enabling me to carry less with me in my jackets, and also fewer chargers and cables in my laptop bag.  In this respect, the smartphone can be viewed as reducing SWaP (Space, Weight and Power), by integrating the functionality of multiple federated devices but on a single integrated modular system.

However, after having spent some time using the smartphone, I realized that it wasn't performing as well as I would have liked, in two areas:

1. Power consumption
   I expected that the smartphone would have greater power consumption than my Nokia 6310i, but I was surprised by the fact that if I have Bluetooth (for headset) or GPRS (for email) enabled for any length of time, the battery drains very rapidly indeed. This means that the smartphone barely last 24 hours between recharging which severely limits its usability. I'm surprised that the software isn't optimised to automatically put some of the devices into low-power mode when not in use.
2. Application integration and portability
   I had kept all my contacts in my Palm Tungsten PDA, and I wanted to migrate all of this data to Microsoft Outlook on the smartphone, but despite there being options to export and import data between the applications in several formats (e.g. comma separated, tab separated), these could not handle records with fields in different orders and sometimes partially complete records. In addition, the smartphone will not import the contacts from my SIM card into the Outlook address book, which means when someone in my SIM card calls me, their number is displayed but not their name. Overall, my contact and address data is fragmented in multiple locations, with has the potential for duplication and inconsistencies.

I couldn't help thinking of the differences between my experience with of rather poor integration with the smartphone, and what's being achieved with Integrated Modular Avionics and ARINC 653 (see my earlier post 'ARINC653 software weighs less' for details). Firstly, IMA architectures are saving space and weight and power (the weight saving alone is around 500lbs on a some wide body jets);  and secondly, applications written by different parties (and even using different programming languages) can communicate with each other through ARINC 653 ports. I can't help but think that the use and development of open standards such as ARINC 653 has got to be a significant factor in interoperability and portability. Maybe there's a lesson there for smartphone manufacturers...

A robot in every home

I've been trying to keep track of industry news, and at the moment it seems as to me as if everyone is either blogging about the Apple iPhone  (Engadget blog) or Windows Vista (Windows Vista Team blog). However, the announcement that caught my attention recently was the launch of the 'Microsoft Robotics Studio' (IET).

The story briefly mentions Microsoft's plan to "establish standards for controlling robots", but didn't go into technical details, although I managed to find some useful background in Bill Gates' article  'A robot in every home' (Scientific American).

The article makes a promising start by mentioning common standards and platforms, and I was starting to wonder if Microsoft might actually be beginning to embrace  Device Software Optimisation (Linux Devices);  but after reading a little further, I found that the instead of enabling choice and flexibility for hardware platforms, the Microsoft Robotics Studio appears to be tied to the PC architecture (the phrase "We may be on the verge of a new era, when the PC will get up off the desktop..." seems quite revealing). The article also mentions open platforms, but I couldn't find any mention of open standards to enable vendor choice and interoperability, only Microsoft-proprietary software. In fact, a report in The Register seemed to express dismay that the statement by Microsoft "...there is a sense of openness..someone with a Mac could fire up a web browser an interact with a robot from there" - this really only appears to pay lip service to open standards. So, it doesn't appear that Microsoft is adopting DSO yet.

However, Scientific American article is quite thought provoking in other ways. Bill Gates mentions some of the functions performed by contemporary robots: including vacuuming the floor - probably referring to the Dyson DC06 vacuum cleaner (PDF: IPI Industrial Robots, Article 2); but strangely he doesn't mention the incredible engineering achievements of the Honda ASIMO humanoid robot (wikipedia), or the Mars Rovers which are being taught new tricks (BBC News) and have an increased level of autonomy. He then goes on to mention some potential robotic applications in the future, including treating patients and handling hazardous materials. Although the word safety isn't used once in the entire article, these are definitely are safety-critical applications, and made me wonder if Microsoft is finally planning to enter the safety-critical software market? This would certainly mark a significant change in direction.

So, will Microsoft take the bold step to truly embrace COTS open standards and safety-critical systems, or will it continue down the closed proprietary route?