"The objective of the Transformer (TX) program is to demonstrate a one- to four-person transportation vehicle that can drive and fly, thus enabling the warfighter to avoid water, difficult terrain, and road obstructions as well as IED and ambush threats"

Sounds like something as small as a Jeep, but as easy to shoot out of the sky as a Helicopter. The Sphere goes on to recount the not-so-brief history of failed and embarrassing flying cars. We'll see what some government money does for the situation, but I think they've got it wrong: instead of making cars fly, how about they put road going wheels on jets? [Gov via Sphere, above, the Moller Flying Car]

ABC News is reporting that Al Qaeda sewed about 80 grams of PETN, an explosive that's similar to nitro-glycerin, into the Nigerian attacker's underwear. For comparison, the shoe bomber only had about 50 grams in his footwear. Luckily, officials are saying the detonator was either too small or wasn't making proper contact with the explosive.

What does this mean for the future of airline security? After the shoe bomb attempt, we all had to start taking off our shoes at the screening line. Are we going to start walking through the detector in our birthday suits now?

Security expert Bruce Scheier points out that increased security in these sorts of situations just doesn't work, because the tools TSA uses can't detect schemes like these:

I don't want to even think about how much C4 I can strap to my legs and walk through your magnetometers.

Not to mention how ineffective the whole no movement during the last hour of flight idea is. In his words:

Do we really think the terrorist won't think of blowing up their improvised explosive devices during the first hour of flight?

For years I've been saying this:

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

This week, the second one worked over Detroit. Security succeeded.

Whatever inconveniences this may cause, I'm just glad that we averted another disaster. It's pretty unbelievable that twice—twice!—this stuff has snuck by security in various articles of clothing, and both times we've been incredibly lucky that no one got hurt.

Here's to hoping airport security figures out a way to accurately screen for explosives attached to the body soon, without needing all of us to get a little too friendly with each other at the metal detector. [ABC News]

Images via Pinkycay, Fastfission

Again, these are isolated incidents, and there's still no official word from TSA. But in certain instances, some passengers are reporting that electronics usage on inbound U.S. flights is restricted. We'll let you know if an official announcement comes.

The New York Times is reporting that no one will be able to move from their seats during the last hour of flight. That means no bathroom breaks, no accessing carry-on luggage, nothing. When that plane starts descending, you're planted.

Multiple sources, among them Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing, have also been told that no electronics are allowed on international flights. None. So you can't even play video games to distract yourself from how badly you have to pee.

From what we can tell, this is largely restricted to inbound international flights. TSA hasn't made any announcements yet either, so hopefully this is either a temporary measure, or the restrictions will be less severe once the official policy becomes clearer.

So much for using those free in-flight Wi-Fi codes we told you about. If you're flying today, tell us what you hear. [Business Insider, New York Times, @xenijardin]

Image via Bekathwia

Update: According to @charleneli, here's the situation:

New flight rules - Body search, no electronics apply only to int'l flights to US. Just landed in ORD from Canada, missed connection

Update 2: The TSA also released this statement, which seems to confirm that electronics usage policies will be on a case-by-case basis (emphasis added):

"Passengers flying from international locations to U.S. destinations may notice additional security measures in place. These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere. Due to the busy holiday travel season, both domestic and international travelers should allot extra time for check-in."

Update 3: We've been hearing reports from readers about their experiences under the new flight regulations. The good news is, most of you aren't having problems using your gear. The bad news is there's still no official word from TSA, so your milage may vary.

Reader Mikkel had this to say:

I arrived in to LAX last night on a British Airways flight. The only time there were restrictions on electronics were (as always) right after takeoff but now also during the last hour of the flight. Other than that, things were pretty normal. What surprised me, was that the airline had disabled the on-board map so we couldn't see where we were. They told us this was by order of the US government.

I got another email from reader Nic saying the same thing about the in-flight map. Here's a third from commenter Beatledud's observations, and his opinion on why the whole "stay seated an hour before landing rule" defeats the purpose of turning off the location tracker:

In the flight most things were normal. We were allowed to use gadgets but they wouldn't tell us how long it would take to get to DC. And while the moving GPS map on my video screen was disabled, the ETA time stamp on how much was left on the journey worked just fine, and it ended up accurate. DUMB.

Oh, and the having to buckle up and stay seated the last hour of the flight? First this seemed counterproductive since they were ATTEMPTING to prevent passengers from knowing when they were almost landing. Giving an hour heads up cancels that out. And they gave us 30 minutes to go to our bags and the bathroom before the hour lock down. And oh, what a lock down it was, I must have seen 30 people still doing whatever 20 minutes in and half a dozen people just get up anyways for the final 40 minutes to use the bathroom, go to their bags, whatever, and that was just where I was sitting.

The pre-boarding chain of events in Beatledud's story featured beefed-up security measures, but it sounds like everything was relatively normal onboard. He's not the only one to have an uneventful flight. Gynranger left this story of his normal sounding domestic travels in the comments:

I few yesterday, just a domestic flight, from New York, NY to Savanna, GA. We were allowed to use electronics but during take off until cruising alt and about 30 minutes before landing they made us shut everything off, including iPods or computers and other devices even those that didnt broadcast.

There have been some cases where in-flight restrictions were more extreme than usual, like this one from reader Arturo:

We flew from Eugene, OR to San Francisco today: they would not even let us read paperback books that we had brought with us. According to them, the new TSA directive is that in the last hour of flight, we are not allowed to leave our seats, nor use or have anything from our carry-on luggage or personal items.

This seems to be the main restriction, that you can't have anything on your lap during the last hour of flight. That's just the word from the airlines though. As of this writing, TSA still hasn't announced their new guidelines to the public. This is the latest statement up on their page:

Q: What additional security measures are being taken for international flights to U.S. destinations?
A: TSA issued a directive for additional security measures to be implemented for last point of departure international flights to the United States. Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.

So that's what we've been hearing. Again, there hasn't been an official word from TSA. Certain airlines have said that electronics are OK for now, and judging from your stories that seems to be the case. We'll keep an eye on the situation, and we'll try to break the news easy if it turns out you won't be jamming to Miley during the flight home. [TSA, Thanks to everyone who wrote in with their stories]

Update 4:

The CyberQuad, an "electric ducted quadrotor Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)," gains significant maneuverability from its fan-based technology, including a "perch and stare" function which allows it to hover in one place with increased stability and endurance. That is, until it's attacked by flying extraterrestrial fauna.

Last month, on our own planet, the CyberQuad successfully investigated an oil platform fire, beaming high-definition video back to operators stationed at a safer location. Still, its silent fans, as well as its unique "perch and stare" capabilities, suggest it could be put to use on our own battlefields in the near future. [Cyber Technologies via Wired]

While flying or flight helmets like these are great way to not only look like a cyborg, but to get some upgrades such as helmet-mounted display systems, I'd still prefer it if they had more appealing paint jobs. [Oobject]

This week, Gizmodo is exploring the enhanced human future in a segment we call This Cyborg Life. It's about what happens when we treat our body less as a sacred object and more as what it is: Nature's ultimate machine.

These airlines have overcome safety concerns that have kept phones off in the air before:

On-board equipment regulates the signals by routing them via satellite to the correct point on the ground. Passengers with standard international roaming service can make or receive calls or text messages just as they would on the ground. They are billed as usual by their cellphone providers.

That's all well and good, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Allowing people to talk on their phones in the air will turn a quiet flight into 6 hours of being trapped next to some guy on a conference call. Luckily, Congress is working towards banning in-flight cellphone use just for that reason. Please, please, please make that happen. In-flight Wi-Fi is amazing, but in-flight cellphone use is the work of the devil. [NY Times]

The modest distance (and height of about 5 feet) isn't a bad start in human-powered flight for a do-it-yourselfer. Dutchman Jesse van Kuijk hopes to go further in the future, without the bike chain powering his propeller slipping off its cog.

Though he's never flown in a real plane, Jesse says he studied self-powered craft like the Gossamer Condor and the English-Channel crossing Gossamer Albatross. He also got tips from the Albatross' pilot, American Bryan Allen, who is now a software engineer for the Mars exploration project.

So, what did you do this Summer? [Spiegel via Inhabitat]

The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. (Laughter.) Of course, I've never had a helicopter before — (laughter) — maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it. (Laughter.) But I think it is a — it is a — an example of the procurement process gone amuck. And we're going to have to fix it.

Of course, since the Pentagon already made the arrangements, Obama will still be riding in a helicopter that costs as much as Air Force One. [Actually, the 1.5+ billion is for 28 helicopters not only one, and according to Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon and the Secret Service, he needs them all: "They are stationed all around the country/world, just like a multiple-personality Air Force One aircraft." Also, the helicopter is American. The airframe is being built now by Agusta Westland Bell in the UK now, after being tested by Lockheed on the Merlin program. After the first few are built in Europe, the rest will be built by Bell in the USA, with Lockheed Martin adding the electronics in Owego, NY.-JD]

To me, the only fair solution would be to offer taxpayers the occasional opportunity to "bum a ride." [The White House and The Register via CrunchGear]

The FAA has issued an alert to airlines telling them to tell their pilots to turn their phones off.

The US FAA has issued an alert to airlines following an inspector's report that a first officer's cell phone began ringing at a critical phase of a takeoff recently, an incident the agency says was "a potentially serious hazard".

According to the FAA air safety inspector who was riding along on an unnamed airline's flight from the jump seat, just prior to reaching V1, the speed after which pilots generally are committed to taking off rather than aborting on the runway, a rather loud "warbling" sound was "detected" by both crewmembers.

"It was later determined that the sound came from the first officer's cellular phone, which had been left in the ON position," the Safety Alerts For Operators (SAFO) note reads.

"As a result the ring tone caused a distraction between the crewmembers during the takeoff phase and could have led the to crew to initiate an unnecessary rejected takeoff," the letter continues.

And even worse, he was totally being annoying and talking to his friends while other people were stuck in close quarters. How rude is that? [FlightGlobal]

Southwest is using a satellite-based system from Row 44, and not the cellular connection used by most other airlines with Aircell's GoGo service. So if you find yourself on that one (and soon to be handful) of Row 44-equipped planes, you can surf for free. [USA Today]

[via gizmowatch]

UPDATE: According to The Telegraph, the device is called the JetLev-Flyer. It runs $227,000 and can be purchased here.

The service will launch only on BA's business-class-only flights from the smaller London City airport to New York's JFK, so right now this is limited to banker types who can afford it. Also, the Telegraph does not hint at rates or service providers for the service. Other airlines like Emirates and BMI have implemented similar deals, and it seems like a pretty good compromise to the voice-calls-on-planes hubbub. No VoIP! [Telegraph via Mobile Burn]

The service, provided by Aircell's GoGo (no surprise since they pretty much rule the spectrum), will initially be available on 13 Boeing 757s that fly between New York and California to provide web surfing, email, IMming and corporate VPN access. Hopefully United will roll out the service to those of us not flying coast-to-coast shortly thereafter.

What do you think, is $13 a fair price? I believe it is, though I'd like to see that cost go down on shorter trips (a pricing option that Virgin has already implemented). [United]

The Air Data Inertial Reference System, which supplies position and attitude information to the plane's electronic instrumentation system, starting producing bogus data due to an internal error, not external interference. As funny as the ideas of an A330-controlling iPhone app or an Autopilot-B-Gone are, the general consensus of experts that spoke on this issue is that commercial jets are unlikely to be affected at all by personal electronics, let alone driven into the ground. [ABC AU via Slashdot]

This wouldn't be the first time Qantas has blamed passengers' gadgets for an in-flight mishap; in July, a Bluetooth mouse was said to have resulted in a Qantas jet's autopilot being thrown off course. Passengers on Tuesday's ill-fated altitude drop will now be questioned regarding what electronics they may have been using at the time of the incident.

The issue of whether everyday personal electronics can actually cause any significant problems on board an airliner is clouded, to say the least. On one hand, it's hard to see how such common devices that meet FCC and UL interference standards can affect airliners that are designed to be able to withstand lightning strikes—critical components on a commercial jet are shielded to prevent any kind of interference getting through. On the other side, claims of the insulation degrading in older jets making them more susceptible to interference make sense. Then of course there is the perfectly rational "why chance it" argument.

This Wiki page delves into the issue in more detail, and Patrick from Ask the Pilot, one of my favorite online columns, gave the issue a characteristically sober and level-headed look earlier this year (verdict: interference technically possible but highly unlikely). So why Qantas would be making a push for this line of reasoning is kind of a mystery.

[UPDATE: Nick from Giz OZ has let us know that this story may be in fact a result of a misunderstanding—apparently a reporter got the jet's onboard computers (for navigation, etc) mixed up with the computers of actual passengers in his original report. The NTSB is still not ruling out interference from passenger gadgets, though.]

What about you guys? Do you heed the warnings to turn off everything, or fly in the face of danger with iPod blaring away during takeoff. Must admit I've been guilty of the latter, occasionally.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

[NZ Herald via Slashdot, Photo: Daquella Manera/Flickr]

After being herded like cattle (a common metaphor, yes, but never so true) to your gate's waiting area which has no seating, bare overhead fluorescent bulbs and a stench not amenable to life, and then after fighting for an unassigned seat and buying your hair-of-the-dog Bloody Mary for $9 US, you can call home and tell everyone how much fun you're having. All for $4 per minute on service provided by Euro carriers O2 and 3. What a wonderful world. [The Register via Gadget Lab, Image: jon gos]