Newsstand - In-flight entertainment systems raise safety issues

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-03-22-electronics-fires-airlines_N.htm

Frequent flier Ron Goltsch loves Continental Airlines' (CAL) entertainment system, which lets him choose from thousands of movies, TV shows, songs and games on long flights between Newark, N.J., and Frankfurt.
Goltsch, an electrical engineer in Parsippany, N.J., is concerned, though, that the system under each seat's arm rest generates too much heat — 105 to 115 degrees — when not in use.
"That's not a good thing," Goltsch says. "Heat and electronics don't mix well."

Terrible article, just trying to find something else to whine about. Anything electronic on an airplane, be it a coffee maker or IFE system could cause an issue and after millions of flights, I'm sure there's a scenario that could be used to shed anything in a bad light. Bah.

I believe the Swissair MD11 crash over the Atlantic was blamed on the IFE system, so there is at least precedent to question the heat and wiring behind these systems.

I would think that with an airline such as Jetblue using the TV's for quite some time with no reported incidents would indicate that they are pretty safe to use. Id imagine they get shutdown when the plane is not in use, so how long are they actaully one each day.

Yes, it gets hot in the space where the TV is stored on the CO 772 in BF, which is what is being referenced here. Heat on its own is not a threat. Heat without appropriate precautions is. If the wiring and other hardware is rated correctly for the environment then there should be nothing to worry about. The article is decidedly :rolleyes: in an attempt to create fear based on no particular evidence or need. I wonder if the guy typically works on electrical systems on airplanes. Or inspected the wiring specifically to see what it was rated for. Or knows anything about this topic in particular.

The CO system is rather different that the B6 system in that the computer controlling the CO system is actually in the console between the seats in a rather enclosed space. It it noticeably hot when you first reach in to pull the monitor out at the beginning of a flight.

I did read the article last night and they do reference the SwissAir crash.

I didn't get a "creating fear" sense out of the article at all. Instead, I got a sense of questioning whether we really have the right standards for the miles of wiring that are being added to planes for IFE.

Given that smoke/fire inside an enclosed fuselage is something you absolutely want to prevent, I'm fine with the idea of investigating better wire insulation, better heat sinks, better ventilation, etc.
If the wiring and other hardware is rated correctly for the environment then there should be nothing to worry about. A classic if/then statement. Hey, if nothing breaks on the plane, then we shouldn't crash, either.

I think one of the thrusts of the article was that the wiring and other hardware might not be rated correctly for the environment, mainly because IFE in plane environments is still new enough that standards aren't completely fleshed out yet.

I think one of the thrusts of the article was that the wiring and other hardware might not be rated correctly for the environment, mainly because IFE in plane environments is still new enough that standards aren't completely fleshed out yet.

And who are they to suggest that? Seriously. Some electrical engineer opens up the console to pull out the monitor for his IFE and decides that it is too hot so it must be a safety issue. Based on what actual review of the systems?

Have there been incidents over the years? Yes. Do they threaten the safety of the aircraft? That is much harder to state with certainty.

And who are they to suggest that? Seriously. Some electrical engineer opens up the console to pull out the monitor for his IFE and decides that it is too hot so it must be a safety issue. Based on what actual review of the systems?

Have there been incidents over the years? Yes. Do they threaten the safety of the aircraft? That is much harder to state with certainty.Interesting take. From my point of view, "abundance of caution" doesn't go nearly far enough to describe how safe I want my airplanes to be. Until someone can "state with certainty" that IFE wiring does not threaten the safety of any aircraft, I'm more than happy to have journalists question the process. Especially since the FAA is set up in a way that they often do NOT err on the side of safety.

Several non-u.s. carriers have been using much more sophisticated IFE's for the last 25 years without any problems. Not to say it couldn't happen.

I’m curious, does anyone know if IFE units have a temperature fuse similar to a clothes dryer?
When the temperature rises to an unacceptable level the fuse senses the heat and interrupts the power.
It would seem a sensible safety strategy.

Interesting take. From my point of view, "abundance of caution" doesn't go nearly far enough to describe how safe I want my airplanes to be. Until someone can "state with certainty" that IFE wiring does not threaten the safety of any aircraft, I'm more than happy to have journalists question the process. Especially since the FAA is set up in a way that they often do NOT err on the side of safety.

You cannot "state with certainty" anything about an airplane's operation. You don't know if a worker crimped a cable when performing maintenance that might cause it to overheat and eventually start a fire, even if it was spec'd correctly in the first place, for example.

There are no guarantees in life.

I’m curious, does anyone know if IFE units have a temperature fuse similar to a clothes dryer?
When the temperature rises to an unacceptable level the fuse senses the heat and interrupts the power.
It would seem a sensible safety strategy.

Can't speak for IFE, but as past designer for avionics, there are resettable positive temperature devices which trip at overcurrent/overtemperature conditions. Typically on processor heat sinks also include a sensor which sends a fault if is overtemp so it can shut down.

That being said, it doesn't mean a faulty tanatlum cap couldn't eventually break down and toast; just limits the damage.

You cannot "state with certainty" anything about an airplane's operation. You don't know if a worker crimped a cable when performing maintenance that might cause it to overheat and eventually start a fire, even if it was spec'd correctly in the first place, for example.

There are no guarantees in life.Well, duh. What I would want in your example is 1)clear standards and procedures for workers so that the odds of crimping a cable are minimized; and 2) clear standards of sheathing of cable so that, even if crimped, it would generally not start a fire, or self-extinguish. Is that too much to ask? Isn't all of air safety based on redundancies to reduce the odds of catastrophe?

Well, duh. What I would want in your example is 1)clear standards and procedures for workers so that the odds of crimping a cable are minimized; and 2) clear standards of sheathing of cable so that, even if crimped, it would generally not start a fire, or self-extinguish. Is that too much to ask? Isn't all of air safety based on redundancies to reduce the odds of catastrophe?

And you believe these do not exist?

I'm under the impression that any wiring that goes into an airplane has some pretty stringent requirements associated with it. And that the wiring harnesses and the like are closely monitored, unless you're AA running MD80s that aren't being inspected too closely (http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2008/04/quarter-inch-2500-cancellations.html). But the policies are there.

I believe that the wiring that goes in to the IFE systems is just as safe as that which connects the flight control systems, the PA system, the cabin lighting or any other wired systems on the plane. Any legitimate reason to believe otherwise??

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/09/01/f-secretskies-vellani.html

From the article PropWasher cites:

"The threat of fire remains as serious as a decade ago," added David Evans, the editor of Aviation Safety and Security Digest.

He said that all the back and forth between the safety agencies and the regulators adds up to one simple truth. "I think people would be shocked to discover that the risk has probably gone up because of the density of the wiring and electronics in the cabin, but [also] by the fact that the cabin itself is not protected by smoke detection or fire suppression. The flight attendants, depending on the size of the airplane, have between two and four handheld fire extinguishers, that's it. It's not only amazing, it's appalling."