Air marshal PDAs are field flop

MSNBC ^ | 07/11/03 | Brock N. Meeks

[bedolido]

WASHINGTON, July 11 — The Transportation Security Administration spent $6.9 million to outfit the federal air marshal corps with voice-capable wireless handheld computers for in-flight use and then subsequently banned any voice usage because of potential interference with cockpit functions, according to interviews with several air marshals.

THE HANDHELD DEVICES, made by Palm Inc. and commonly known as “personal digital assistants” (PDAs), have become a running joke, in part because they are unwieldy to use, according to interviews more than a dozen air marshals and administrators within the air marshal program due to the unwieldy nature of their use. Although the use of the PDAs has been heavily promoted by top officials within the air marshal program as a productivity tool, the rank-and-file air marshal corps has a much different view of the devices. Air marshal officials “were trying to say that I could have a telephone conversation while I’m at 40,000 feet with my partner,” said one air marshal who, like all interviewed for the article, requested anonymity. “Apparently the devices cause malfunctions with the [cockpit] instrument panel, so they told us not to use [the voice communication] capability,” the air marshal said. One air marshal said he didn’t know about the interference problem because “I never tried to communicate using [the PDA] because I really don’t know how to use it.” This air marshal said he received initial training on the device in September but wasn’t issued one until May “with no additional refresher training,” he said. “During the training in 2002, TSA said they were working on a glitch with the [PDAs] interfering with the cockpit transmissions, but I don’t know if they ever resolved the glitch or not,” the air marshal said. Advertisement

A spokesman for the TSA declined to discuss the use of the PDAs by air marshals or issues of cockpit interference. “We do not get into discussion of tactics or potential tactics by the [air marshals],” said Brian Doyle, a TSA spokesman. “We cannot address this question for security reasons,” he said. Doyle did say that the PDAs were an “economical, multifaceted solution to the numerous duty requirements” for the air marshals.

LONGTIME BAN The use of wireless devices, such as cell phones, on board aircraft has long been banned for fear that their use could adversely affect flight control or aviation signals. However, the use of new wireless technologies, as newer generation PDAs and laptops contain, has not been closely studied. These new devices are capable of setting up ad hoc wireless networks among themselves when they are powered up. And even though they are low-powered, their use on airplanes still concerns aviation security and flight operation managers. There are 12 to 15 types of antenna on board an airliner that are capable of picking up stray wireless transmissions. “I don’t have a sense that [electronic interference] is increasing, but I sure see the potential there,” Kent Horton, general manager of avionics engineering for Delta Airlines, said in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the subject of proliferating wireless devices being used on commercial airliners.

[bedolido]

My son is an Air Marshal. I've seen these PDAs. They are very advanced. He told me his was supplied to him and the PDA was $900.00. It's also and Cell Phone and a few other things.

[Support Free Republic]

Remember that a donation doesn't have to be large to be significant.

There are tens of thousands of FReepers. If everyone would donate just $1.00 a month, we would never have to have another of these FReepathons.

Are you doing your share?

[TheAngryClam]

THE HANDHELD DEVICES, made by Palm Inc. and commonly known as “personal digital assistants” (PDAs), have become a running joke, in part because they are unwieldy to use, according to interviews more than a dozen air marshals and administrators within the air marshal program due to the unwieldy nature of their use.

Glad we got that cleared up.

[Prodigal Son]

Another air marshal said that “because my PDA is always crashing, I don’t use it anymore.” After his device crashed twice, wiping out an extensive series of notes painstakingly input into the PDA, “I don’t use it except to play Asteroids,” the air marshal said.

D'oh!

This makes me think about Eisenhower's warnings of the military industrial complex. We've got this uncertainty- terrorism- that nags society. Into this void moves Oracle and other technology companies. Whether it be National ID cards, PDAs that might not be useful, tracking devices or Total Information Awareness d-Bases, they've all got stuff to sell us. We don't necessarily need the stuff but like the military-industrial complex, if they can point to a specific threat the device is created to counter, the lawmakers shell out the dough. Then the laws get modified to justify the expense. The portion of society criminalized by the new laws gets used to justify the original expense.

We're not quite that far along the curve yet but it's headed this direction. In many ways the "security-technology complex" is much scarier than the military-industrial variety.

[He Rides A White Horse]

In some ways I understand your point, but I have always felt that the term 'military-industrial complex' was commie prop designed to denigrate a necessary coupling (no Prodigal Son, I am not calling you a communist)..............

[He Rides A White Horse]

Harnessing American technological prowess to military development sounds like a red's worst nightmare.

Probably because it is.........I'm suspicious of this term. It seems designed to discourage something they wish they had.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Sure, it has led to 'cost overruns' and the such; it's not a perfect system.

It's also led to the likes of Kim Jong needing to look skyward periodically and wondering if a Stealth bomber isn't about to fly a greeting card right through his open mouth.

[Prodigal Son]

It's a necessarly coupling, this is true. But what Eisenhower warned about was the undue influence these industries could have on domestic and foreign policy. Take these tech companies. 9/11 happens, the Patriot Act gets rolled out and suddenly you've got software companies lining up to sell the gov't National ID cards and other software that makes it easier to track citizens. I don't think these companies are doing this out of any sort of patriotism. They're doing it because they see an opportunity to sell their products- that's the bottom line.

I believe there are companies out there that would design a system that would scan a bar code in everybody's arm if they thought they could get a juicy gov't contract out of it. Whether it be retina scanners or hi-tech cameras on every street corner or facial recognition software, I don't imagine the loss of freedom is the first item on these companies' agenda. Then after they've got their hand in the pot and are lobbying and donating heavily to Congress, they can influence what laws get passed in such a way to enhance their own ability to continue selling these products to the gov't.

That's what I'm talking about. This with the PDAs in this article, it seems to have been poorly thought out. I can well imagine the company hawking these wares has sold some gov't agency on this great new "whizz bang gadget" that will help stop terrorists in the sky. Whether the gadget is of any real use or not is beside the point from the company's viewpoint- they just want the gov't to buy their widget and later buy the upgrade and so forth and so on. In the case of these sky marshalls, I would much prefer to see that money spent on firearms training and close quarters combat techniques- stuff that might actually matter if the plane gets hijacked.