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 Scheiner 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

The typo has just been discovered as the reason why the United Arab Emirates A340-541 Airbus had problems taking off, with a report claiming:

"During the reduced thrust takeoff, the aircraft's tail made contact with the runway surface, but the aircraft did not begin to climb. The captain commanded and selected take-off and go-around engine thrust and the aircraft commenced a climb. After jettisoning fuel to reduce the landing weight, the flight crew returned the aircraft to Melbourne for landing."

Apparently, the plane's first officer recorded the weight into the flight system as 262.9 tons, when in actual fact it was 362.9 ton. Quite a difference, you'll agree. While there were no injuries to the 257 passengers, 14 cabin crew and four flight crew, two of the crew resigned afterwards, presumably from the shame of watching the tail of the aircraft bounce against the runway three times. [ATSB report via Ieee Spectrum]

Weather, luck, and wishes permitting, the plane should be taking taking to the skies around 10:00 a.m. PST/ 1:00 p.m. EST, so we've got another 20 or so minutes to head over to the webcast site, prepare to either cheer at a success or sigh at another letdown, and wish good luck to my second favorite daydreamer. I've got faith in this one, how 'bout you? [New Airplane]

You can find updates on the flight status, and the actual webcast right here and you can place your friendly wagers on whether this'll be a success or not in the comments. [New Airplane —Thanks, Dustin!]

For years we've been told that gadgets produce EMI—electromagnetic interference—that cause glitches in an aircraft's avionics. A cellphone could interrupt communication between pilots and the tower for a crucial second, or a child's Game Boy could cause a light on a flight computer to go on the fritz.

We can't take excess liquids on a plane on only the slimmest evidence of any real threat. If gadgets were such a threat to safety, they'd be banned entirely.

Instead, an arbitrary set of rules established by the FAA and extended by the airlines prohibits iPods during takeoff, but explicitly allow electric shavers to be used during flight.

Hundreds of travelers at this very moment are using electronic gadgets during takeoff after the flight attendants have taken their jump seats. We're told it's dangerous. It isn't. Let's drop the pretense.*

The EMI Lie

In 1993, the International Association of Transport Aircraft (IATA) suggested that airlines prohibit the use of personal electronic devices during takeoff and landing, despite a lack of evidence that these gadgets had caused a single accident. The IATA's Terry Denny then said, "We haven't been able to trace an accident to the use of one of these devices...but we are convinced that this could happen."

In the intervening decades, gadgets became something more than a toy for the rich or nerdy, but an intrinsic sidekick for nearly everyone. Especially the iPod.

In 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration commissioned a study to see if "intentionally transmitting" gadgets like cellphones and Wi-Fi caused interference with avionics. The final report "said there is insufficient information to support a wholesale change in policies that restrict use of PEDs." ("PEDs" is FAA-speak for a gadget, or "Personal Electronic Device(s)"; a PED with a radio transmitter is a "T-PED".)

Which is to say, they couldn't find a reason to change their policy—but there hadn't been a whole lot of evidence to begin with.

Yet the FAA has approved in-flight Wi-Fi service for a variety of airlines. While the routers and systems must undergo an FAA certification, there's nothing magical about the onboard 2.4GHz signal broadcast that prevents it from interfering with the plane's avionics. The thousands of flights completed safely each day—a marvelous and commendable record, it should be noted—clearly indicate that having activated gadgets on board aircraft does nothing of negative consequence.

So your laptop's Wi-Fi won't mess up the planes avionics, but your Kindle might? How fragile are these planes?

"But it's about paying attention"

I've had conversations with pilots and other employees of airlines about this issue before, and after they realize the electromagnetic interference argument isn't going to fly, they invariably change tack to "safety". "Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of the flight," they say. "And it's important that passengers be able to hear instructions from the crew in case something goes wrong."

That's a nice idea, but look around the cabin of an embarking aircraft. Parents are soothing cranky kids. People are asleep. Many passengers are drunk or medicated to help address anxiety.

If there were an accident, alerting an unaware person with headphones would take no more effort than nudging a sleeping person next to you. It's not prohibited to sleep during takeoff, just as it isn't prohibited to read a book or magazine or to be deaf. (This also presumes that a passenger could do anything to protect themselves or others during a takeoff accident, even though we all know that in a majority of incidents, there's little to do except pray.)

Ah, but what about gadgets flying around the cabin as missiles if there is turbulence? It could happen, sure, but is a Kindle appreciably more dangerous than a hardcover book? If a Nintendo DS could hurt someone during an unexpected loss of altitude, why are they ever allowed to be unstowed? The answer is simply that the likelihood of these things happening is far less than the likelihood that customers will go absolutely apoplectic if they aren't allowed some sort of inflight entertainment.

If the airlines are already able to make a judgement between ultimate safety and convenience, why not loosen up just a little more?

Little things matter

I have a lot of sympathy for flight attendants. Herding and soothing a few dozen passengers, many of whom are belligerent and rude, is a thankless job. Their jobs should be easier. They're the ones who have to explain to passengers why the pilots were too busy playing with their laptops to land the plane.

But every time a flight attendant perpetuates the lie that these harmless gadgets are somehow a threat to safety, it erodes the faith that they should be cultivating with their customers. How are we to trust someone telling us that reading a Kindle during takeoff is dangerous as we stare across a field of EMI-spewing LCD seat-back screens?

Here's a deal: I'll listen attentively to the flight safety demonstration, make doubly sure to note where the exit doors are and who I'll have to climb over to get to them—and you guys will let me listen to my iPod after the flight attendants are in their seats and I'm making peace with my god.

Trust me, I'll be a lot more apt to listen to flight attendants commands if they don't start the flight with a well-intentioned deception. And more likely to believe the FAA and the TSA when it comes to other security and safety concerns when some of their policies aren't demonstrable half-truths.

* I'm not talking about using Wi-Fi or cellphones during takeoff. I'm in complete support of "Airplane Mode" during takeoff, if not the entire flight. What anecdotal evidence there is about EMI from gadgets is almost exclusively suspected to be from radios and other transmitters.

@joeljohnson deals primarily with first-world problems, but hopes it does not interfere with your pursuit of fixing third-world ones. This isn't the last he's got to say about this issue.

Now, we can make light of this incident because all 117 passengers and crew walked away from the crash largely unharmed. The only real casualty was the captain's ego, although I think he's probably the talk of the terminal this morning. I mean come on—lava!

And check out this crazy quote from MSNBC:

The plane was flying from Kinshasa to Goma, and passengers had warned the crew that there were heavy clouds, Radio Okapi said.

Since when do the passengers do in-flight risk assessments for the crew? [MSNBC via Geekologie]

Now, the FAA says the airlines need approval from the FAA's hazardous materials division, and has asked them not to store spare lithium ion batteries for the readers on planes. A few airlines went through some special training to get the okay, but at least Delta and JetBlue don't carry spares or charge the readers on board at all.

The current rate for gadgets exploding on planes is about one every four months, says a former NTSB dude. Which isn't so bad, considering there are millions of flights happening in that time period. Still, I have the feeling this xkcd comic is going to stay funny for the reasons it's funny now for like another year, max. [NYT]

http://xkcd.com/651/

Using prerendered chunks of track and a digital ruler, you can shape the path of their virtual roller coaster, bobsled track or jet flight. (Should you draw something that's impossible to perform, the system will guide and correct you.)

As for the simulation itself, your fate is in the hands of an industrial robot arm from Kuka Robotics, like you've seen in car plants. We can only assume that the robot shakes you at high velocities until you feel dizzy or sick, all while fans occasionally blow air at your face to simulate velocity.

Several years back, I tested a similar build-your-own coaster ride at DisneyQuest. Some effects were actually pretty wonderful, but the customization was fairly limited and the simulators were far more typical. Knowing my well-being is in the grasp of a robot that could literally destroy me makes the whole prospect sounds a lot more exciting. [CNN]

Southwest and Alaska Air are nearing tests of a new ad-supported Wi-Fi system. The hardware and software are installed by third parties with the goal to point fliers to an online catalog called the Skytown Center.

Whether you purchased Wi-Fi or not, you could do some shopping on the plane (with the participating retailers and advertisers footing the bill.) But the more tempting benefit is that airlines look to have most or all the costs associated with providing in-flight Wi-Fi covered under such sponsorships. So while there's no guarantee we'll be browsing the entire web for free, it seems a likely scenario that you'll be able to check your email if you're willing to deal with a few extra ads.

The service, powered by JiWire, will be launching this fall. [Marketing Vox via Mashable via Lifehacker]

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 Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) today announced that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner is expected by the end of 2009 and first delivery is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2010.
The new schedule reflects the previously announced need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft, along with the addition of several weeks of schedule margin to reduce flight test and certification risk. The company projects achieving a production rate of 10 airplanes per month in late 2013.

There you have it. According to their press release, the fabled Boeing 787 Dreamliner will finally take off by year's end. With their credibility completely gone, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I think I will do both. [Boeing]

Crashing in Taiping, Dacre died on his fourth run. According to a witness, the jet shot up about 200 meters into the sky before veering to the left and crashing into flames.

I'm gonna say that this, while an incredible tragedy, is going to set back the plans to have the eight-seat flying taxi ready by 2010. [The Star via Engadget]

(Click on the image to see it bigger.)

I have no idea whether or not all of the stats are true, but I believe the shit out of them. Peach versus baby blue is the new good versus evil. Apply haphazard census information to a bathroom guy graphic and it's un-freggin-questionable. That's the bathroom guy, after all. He's never abused my trust by leading me into a women's restroom only to laugh and laugh while recording the event for a little YouTube subscriber bait.

That's restraint.

Having flown both types of carriers, I'd have never known that a company like Air France has 10x the staff of a company like EasyJet. And I don't know the last time I was served a meal on a non-international flight, no matter how large or expensive the carrier or ticket. [Flickr via Digg]

I'll let Boeing tell you about the latest snafu, with snarky blogger filter uncharacteristically removed:

"In two areas on the fuselage, the structure doesn't have the long-term strength that we want," said Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter.

What that means is wrinkles. Microscopic wrinkles. Dangerous, drop-out-of-the-frickin'-sky wrinkles in the fuselage that negatively affect the plane in ways I don't want to think about given I'm already antsy about air travel. Boeing has therefore ordered Italian supplier Alenia Aeronautica to halt production of these faulty fuselage sections immediately so that carbon fiber patches can be applied to make things right.

Carbon fiber patches or not, customers were expecting the first Boeing 787 orders to be filled by first quarter 2010. That's not going to happen. As we've detailed here in the past, the phrase "perpetual delay" has become synonymous with the 787 project, which has cost Boeing billions of dollars. Seventy-two planes have been canceled thus far (although, to be fair, 800 orders are still on the books). [Silicon Valley via Slashdot]

Here are ten machines that are so enormous that they'll screw with your sense of what's large, what's small, and what is truly gigantic—each handily put into scale.

A fair bit longer than the Eiffel Tower laid flat, is how big. [DarkRoasted Blend]

The Komatsu 9xx Series mining trucks look a bit like Tonka toys. No, they look exactly like Tonka toys. [MiningTopNews]

24-foot-tall Tonka toys, mind you. [E-Transport.ro]

Howard Hughes' ill-conceived, ill-fated Spruce Goose has always been fascinating to me. HAY GUYS, LET'S MAKE A PLANE OUT OF WOOD! WHAT COULD GO WRONG? [Colorado U]

Along with being a hugely strange idea, it was hugely huge. That's the 1019-ft Queen Mary cruise ship, for reference. [DriveArchive]

The Bagger 288 strip-mining machine has gained plenty of notoriety on the internet, mainly on account of looking like it was designed to kill. It isn't, at all, but you can't fault us for jumping to conclusions. Look at it! [DRB]

The general public's unease about this horror machine won't be helped by the fact that it's large enough to saw large ships in half, and gobble up a bulldozer without so much as flinching. [Wikimedia]

Old Soviet military hardware is incredibly interesting—a vestige of a time when both of the world's superpowers applied their distinctively different philosophies to a race to design some of the most ridiculous machines ever created. But surely this photo of a Typhoon Class submarine is just the victim of some zoom lens distortion, right? [DGIBNET]

Ha ha, not at all. Those there are humans, see? [Webpark.ru]

The Space Shuttle Conveyor is a literally-named, track-driven machine that you've probably seen before, saddled with one of NASA's various, now-dormant spacecraft. But it's hard to even judge how big the shuttle is, much less its ride. [NASA]

As you probably guessed, it's inconceivably gigantic.

The B-2 Bomber is another familiar piece of hardware, but one that is usually pictured without comparison, flying through the air, looking secretive. It's a stealth plane, and it's shaped like a Styrofoam glider, so I always imagined it as fairly lithe. [Af.mil]

It's actually startlingly large, with a wingspan of over 172ft. [OklahomaCity on Flickr]

Anyone with knowledge of power generation can tell you that it's no wimpy windmill that can pump out six megawatts of power, and that this windmill must be fairly substantial.

Whether they'll be able to find the words to fully describe how substantial it is is another matter entirely. Those orange specks peeking out of the fan's face like insects? Those are maintenance workers. [Giz]

At first glance the Knock Nevis supertanker, with its weird name and goofy-large "No Smoking" sign below the officer's deck, looks like your average cargo ship: Pretty big, pretty flat and and pretty boring. [Wikimedia]

Far from it: The largest ship in the world, measuring in at over 1,500 feet long, ole' Nevis is a floating city. [DamnCoolPics]

The Mil Mi-26 is one of the classic sense-of-scale killers, since its proportions are almost exactly like a regular helicopter, just bigger. How much bigger? [Wikimedia]

That little black thing hanging from the Mi-26's hook there is a Chinook, which is nearly a hundred feet long. [Aerospaceweb]

Last week the Seattle Times reported that the damage observed during a ground test of the Dreamliner happened very late in the test, more specifically:

Just beyond "ultimate load." That is defined as 50 percent higher than the in-service limit load and is the Federal Aviation Administration's test target.

That would've been just fine and dandy, except that it turns out that they were just a little bit off and the damage actually occurred "well below the load the wings must bear to be federally certified to carry passengers." Whoops.

The structural flaws are described as

Stresses at the ends of the long rods that stiffen the upper wing skin panels caused the fibrous layers of the composite plastic material to delaminate.

Those long rods lead to the joints of the wings which connect to the body of the plane which lead to a fuselage box where excess load is transferred—-who cares how everything is connected? "Delaminate" as in "to split into thin layers"! Somehow I'm not reassured by being told that the delamination of the wing skin "isn't likely to lead to catastrophic failure of the airplane," though obviously they're not changing the design because it's not an issue. What's that? They are? Ah, well. What's another delay when the plane is already two years late? [Seattle Times]

As of now, plane designs that were certified before 1988 are permitted to have seats that can withstand just 9x gravity. And airbags are pretty much only found in cars. But beginning October 27, newly manufactured planes with these old designs will need the incorporate the new seats and airbags in places like first/business class where seats are far apart and exit rows where passengers can simply hit a wall.

So do these standards actually matter, or do they just placate nervous fliers? We'll let this particularly humorous passage from the NYT answer that question:

In some airline crashes, the strength of the seats is irrelevant because the crash is not what the engineers call "survivable." In other crashes, still violent but not as much so as exploding in midair or breaking up in flight, the passengers' survival depends on suffering little or no injury in the first phase of the accident, as when a plane runs off the runway, and then getting out of the plane quickly to avoid a postcrash fire.

Ahh, those witty engineers. [NYT]

Anyone who's ever rafted or kayaked will probably recognize the fundamentals at play. Air moving along a mountainside causes an eddy right below the ridge on the mountain's leeward side—a tumbling whirlpool of low pressure air. The glider precariously circles between the eddy and main air current before slingshotting out at speeds up to 8x the surrounding air. (There's a flash animation that explains it better.)

The feat requires both technique and a hearty glider constructed of strong materials...along with several broken planes during the learning process, too. But it sure looks fun. [DS Zone via Wired]