PAX trying to use his mobile phone - was I right or wrong?

[chrissw]

I was on a KLM flight from LHR to AMS recently, and the gentleman in the seat next to me was clearly trying to use his mobile.

This was after the PA announcement that all mobiles must be switched off, while the plane was still on the ground. After that announcement he was using it quite openly, until the purser saw him and told him very firmly to switch it off.

At that point he replied that he wasn't using it to send anything, just to look at texts he'd received; the purser again told him to switch it off, and said she was waiting for him until it was switched off.

Once the purser had gone, he again was looking at his mobile which was clearly not switched off.

It was at this point that I said to him: "If you do not switch that off, I will call the cabin crew and tell them what you are doing."

The gentleman in question was somewhat upset by this, saying that I had no right to talk to him like that, etc. but he didn't try to use his mobile again.

So was I right to do this? Or should I have actually called the cabin crew to deal with it?

[PAXboy]

A question oft discussed in this salubrious cabin ... my view is Yes and I have done the same, although it was on arrival. Potentially, he is putting your life at risk and one might say, "You can endanger your own life but the Captain and this airline has asked you not to endanger all of our lives."

If he persists then, in my view, a call to CC is the only course of action. If he then makes a loud protest or really starts to object, he will find that he is threatened with being removed from the flight. If he still continues, then ejection from the a/c and his return ticket will be torn up. In some countries, when a person gets ejected from an a/c before departure for unruly behaviour - they call the Police. Yaaay!!! :D

[TightSlot]

chrissw - You did the right thing, and just in case nobody from the crew thanked you - I will :)

[apaddyinuk]

Ill thank you too!!!

I have a cheeky (yet polite) little PA which I make which usually goes along the lines..."Please now switch off all mobile phones/Remain seated/No Smoking (whatever the situation really).......if not for your own safety then please consider the safety of those around you!"!!!! Usually guilts the offenders into obeying the rules! lol

[groundhand]

Can someone please explain how it is acceptable for flightcrew to use their mobiles during a flight but not the paying punter?

I've been on flights when the cabin crew (a UK carrier) are on their mobiles and I've been on a jump seat (non UK carrier) when the flight deck were talking to Crewing about their future rosters during a flight. The FO even interrupted his call to make a PA to the passengers.

[db16]

It ain't! No one should - poor example

[derekl]

I am now going to put myself at horrible risk. Not by using my mobile, but by stating the simple fact that use of a mobile telephone on an aircraft poses no known risk. I won't go into this chapter and verse -- it's all too long and boring -- but this is yet another myth.

Having said that -- and all those who are about to flame me please read this bit -- there is no excuse for failing to obey the instructions of the flight/cabin crew. So I always obediently do as I am told, for it is not my place to argue.

DerekL, sitting quietly, with his mobile firmly off, awaiting incoming.

[PAXboy]

derekl Yes, this subject has been discussed here on many, many occasions in the short time I have been reading PPRuNe. I took/take an interest in the matter as I worked in telecommunications for 27 years and started working with radio telephony in 1981.

I have read all the threads, including pilots telling us of unusual instrument responses and so forth. My own mind is still open, I have heard both sides and I believe both sides are sincere but, if a carrier has decided to ban mobile (cellular) telephones on their aircraft, then they are banned.

The same goes for hospitals where they are concerned about equipment being affected by the signal. Currently, I am regularly visiting a friend in hospital and it seems that everyone is using phones all over the place, despite instructions to the contrary.

Call me old fashioned, I do not use my phone in hospitals or aircraft, once instructed not to do so.

[BD1959]

derekl "the simple fact that use of a mobile telephone on an aircraft poses no known risk. I won't go into this chapter and verse -- it's all too long and boring -- but this is yet another myth."

CASA's myth-Centre (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2003/03-09-15.htm) Has research moved since 2003?

BD

[apaddyinuk]

Iv sat on the flightdeck while taxiing once and overheard that familiar mobile interference (which you hear if a mobile is receiving a signal next to a radio or Computer) come through the earpieces in the flightdeck. I imagine that in critical situations this could be highly dangerous!!!

[Bullethead]

There are several instrument approach plates around at the moment which have a 'loss of communication' procedure instructions to phone this number for further instructions. You'd have to use your mobile phone.
I've forgotten to switch my phone off several times before a sector and about the only effect I've seen is a flat battery caused by the phone constantly searching for an active cell. When you first switch your phone on it transmits at max power until it establishes contact with a useable cell, then powers down to what it needs to remain in contact. In any case it's only a couple of watts.
Now having said all that, on the odd occasion where you end up in a holding pattern during your descent, and are therefore going to be late, is the time when the punters get out their phones to let their friends know about the delay. The phones will work ok as you are more or less over the same bit of dirt, but this is when you sometimes get strange autopilot behaviour such as twitches through the controls and unusual responses to autoflight inputs. A quick PA to cease using the phones instantly stops the odd aeroplane behaviour.
I do believe however that despite fairly extensive testing, under controlled conditions, replication of the problem has been all but impossible, so nothing has been proven, but interference does happen from time to time.
Regards,
BH.

[FHA]

The point a lot of you miss is that there most certainly will be dozens of mobile phones on board. So I'm afraid it's one rule for one, one rule for all.
So derekl, your mobile may not pose a risk at a given time, but if the other 100 cell phones sharing the same metal tube with you join the party, you sure as hell are going to multiply the risk of, for example, the flight directors going off in different directions.

[derekl]

apaddyinuk:

"Iv sat on the flightdeck while taxiing once and overheard that familiar mobile interference (which you hear if a mobile is receiving a signal next to a radio or Computer) come through the earpieces in the flightdeck. I imagine that in critical situations this could be highly dangerous!!!"

I'll lay you odds that the phone in question was about the person of someone on the flightdeck . . . :}

[Beer_n_Tabs]

I know this drifts away slightly from the main point of the thread, but anyhow....

Mobile phones are not supposed to be used in petrol stations either (same goes in the vicintiy of aircraft refuelling), due to the apparent 'risk' of explosion. Yet a few years ago in the UK press it was revealed that some mobile phone masts were actually located in the signage outside the petrol station forecourt.

So the explosion 'risk' was obviously not a huge concern when the petrol companies were being paid to have masts in the signs.

[derekl]

Beer_n_Tabs:

Another urban myth. When asked, the reason given is always a "filling station blew up in Aamerica/Australia/Germany . . .". No known incident has been recorded.

It's well-nigh impossible to build a fuel/air mix in the open air that will ignite. If sparks caused by metal to metal contact in the presence of an RF field are alleged to be the cause, the max 2 watts from your phone would pale to insignificance beside the 50 watts from the base antenna in the filling station's "tombstone" sign.

If it were easy to blow up filling stations, many other sources of ignition would have come into play by now: hot exhaust manifolds, "sparky" electric door locks and so on.

Shell filling stations typically have T-mobile bases (50W at 1.8Ghz) in them.
As for aircraft refuelling -- ever seen the guys using their radios during the process?

[Beer_n_Tabs]

Right with you there derekl

As for aircraft refuelling -- ever seen the guys using their radios during the process?

Been there my friend..... I spoke to the fuel farm on my mobile while standing with the fueller and his bowser under the wing of a 747F. Funnily enough Mr Refueller didn't seem to panic much, neither did I, nor the flight engineer and our eyebrows didn't even get lightly charred !

[eastern wiseguy]

Iv sat on the flightdeck while taxiing once and overheard that familiar mobile interference (which you hear if a mobile is receiving a signal next to a radio or Computer) come through the earpieces in the flightdeck

A well known carrier flying into NI is often heard to have a "mobile" dit dit ditting in the background when they respond to my instructions on the RT.

Secondly (and no defence for disobeying a direct instruction) could the chaps phone been in "Flight Safe" mode?

Final input here. A pal of mine who is a captain for a very well known British airline once told me of HIS phone ringing just as they got airborne abroad...no sin? cast the first stone!

:):)

[Beer_n_Tabs]

What about 'Sat Phones' in the flight deck....are they not considered a risk?

[PAXboy]

Sat phones that are installed in the A/c have been integrated with the electrical and electronic systems. They use aerials that are supposed to be used and are a known device.

Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.

derekl I dare say that the phone in question may sometimes belong to flight or cabin crew, but the request is switch off all phones, to minimise risk. In due time, the risk may be better quantified and reduced. I agree that petrol (gas) stations are another example of undue precaution that has more to do with lawyers than reality. Until we know more about these devices on a/c, I am happy to help enforcing the ban.

[Beer_n_Tabs]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear previously...

Although I do think that the restrictions on mobiles are bu:mad:it, I am a good boy and comply at all times, and certianly wouldn't consider getting into a discussion with CC's regarding usage.

Anyway, sometimes its nice to have an excuse to turn the damn thing off for a while just so it doesn't bloody ring

PAX, thanks for the info on Sat Phones too

Cheers
B_n_T

[strake]

This old story runs and runs.....
OK, if the airline say turn off the phone, you have to do it. However, these are also the people who are required to waste our time with in-depth safety briefings that are completely disproportionate to the risk involved. If you question this you will be given all sorts of scare stories and be told that you are a nasty unreasonable person for daring to raise the issue.
However, the fact remains that 99.99% of all aircraft journeys take place with out fuss or any form of danger. That's way above busses and trains
who just leave us alone with our risk.
Now, mobile phone interference:
1. Since mobile phones have been brought onto aircraft, how many hours have been flown? Answer: Millions.
2. Statistically, how many pasengers during that time THOUGHT they had turned off their phones and put them in their bags but actually left them on by mistake? Thousands..at least.
3. How many planes have therefore been proven to have crashed or experienced strange phenomen during this time attributable to mobile phones? Answer None.
4. Virgin have allowed use of mobile phones while switched off for the last 6 months or so. They must know that even in error, some of those phones will be left on. Problems? None.
Hospitals
News announced last week that NHS is allowing people to use mobiles in Hospital.
Interference 2
I have a TB10. I and my passengers have used mobile phones in it for the last 5 years. As an experiment, we passed the phones over and around the ILS/VOR/ADF and compass (while on the ground) numerous times. Effect? None. My car keys had more effect on the compass.
I don't think I want to bother about exploding petrol stations:)

[Pax Vobiscum]

IMHO a significant factor in banning in-flight use of mobiles was to maximise revenue from carriers offering in-seat sat phones. Now that airlines can make money by providing an on-board 'picocell', use of mobile phones will be encouraged :uhoh:

PAXboy is as usual spot on:Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.
Not a great idea, but this will be exactly what happens the first time the in-flight picocell fails or is accidentally switched off.

[west lakes]

The incident mentioned earlier as I understand it occured in the states many years ago and was caused by the usage of a vehicle fit radio with an external bare wire aerial.
As an example the one fitted to my car is 25W output. (at these outputs you can, apparently connect a flourescent tube between the aerial & earth and light it whan you transmit - or so I'm told)
As I am sure airline staff know you can get a nasty surprise if you touch the aerial of a higher powered radio.:=

In the usual insurance we're scared of the world syndrome this risk was transferred to mobiles & filling stations.

The issue doesn't arise IMO where the aerial of any radio or phone is fully shielded

[strake]

PAXboy is as usual spot on:
Quote:
Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.
Not a great idea, but this will be exactly what happens the first time the in-flight picocell fails or is accidentally switched off.
Sorry to be blunt Pax but that is just uninformed nonsense that perpetuates the myth.
Once and for all, here is the current status. I'm not saying that it pleases me personally to think of an a/c full of chatterers but it is what's happening:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:qSt99pBpIUMJ:www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/business/mobile.php+mobile+cell+phones+on+aircraft&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&ie=UTF-8
Europe opens the door to in-flight phoning
By Thomas Crampton Published: June 19, 2007
PARIS: European regulators have cleared use of mobile phones and BlackBerry devices for passengers while flying, Airbus announced Tuesday.
Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency means that, from September, passengers aboard Airbus aircraft outfitted with the OnAir system will be able to send and receive phone calls, SMS messages and e-mail messages while flying at altitudes above 3,000 meters, or 9,840 feet.
The first aircraft to go into operation with the system will probably be a short-haul Airbus A318 operated by Air France. The British airline BMI, the Portuguese airline TAP and the budget airline Ryanair have also signed up to offer the services, said Graham Lake, chief commercial officer of OnAir, a joint venture between Airbus and SITA, a communications services company.
"We are absolutely delighted by this news," Lake said. "Passengers will soon be able to use their own phones while in a flying aircraft."
"Instead of roaming in a country, you are effectively roaming in the sky," Lake said. "We send your call via satellite down to the GSM network."
Call charges will appear on customer phone bills in an identical way to international roaming, with revenue shared between the airlines, OnAir and the customer's own phone company.
Approval to use mobile phones in aircraft contradicts draconian anti-telephone procedures often undertaken by cabin staff before takeoff.
In studying the use of mobile phones on aircraft, OnAir determined that somewhere between 10 percent and 25 percent of passengers and crew onboard aircraft leave their telephones turned on despite explicit warnings.
"If mobile telephones were unsafe on aircraft, we would have already had many incidents," Lake said. "Just listen to all the beeps of people receiving SMS messages as any aircraft approaches landing."
One of the biggest issues regarding the use of mobile phones on aircraft will be changing the habits of airline staff.
"The use of mobile phones is more a cultural than a safety issue," Lake said. "In some countries that are very opposed to the use of mobile phones in flight, I think we will have trouble changing the habits of airline crew."
One argument that OnAir used to seek approval is that a mobile phone inadvertently left on by a passenger will increase the power output of its signal and potential to disrupt other radio frequencies when out of range of a network.
Mobile phones increase signal-searching output to one watt when looking for a network, compared with the one milliwatt level of a phone connected to the OnAir network.
The only restriction on the OnAir system is that it can be used only above the altitude of 3,000 meters, which is attained roughly four minutes after takeoff and maintained until 10 minutes before landing. This restriction is in part the result of mobile phone operators' concerns about disruptions that can be caused when a single cellphone attempts to connect several land-based cellphone towers.

[Avman]

A well known carrier flying into NI is often heard to have a "mobile" dit dit ditting in the background when they respond to my instructions on the RT.

You sure that's not your (or your colleagues') mobile in your ops/appr room? ;)

We sometimes had the same until we realised it was our own ops staff (who had their phones on silent but still switched on) receiving texts!

[fernytickles]

With the flights I do now, I explain to the pax that leaving their phones on won't cause me any problems (nothing fancy enuf in the aeroplane for a mobile phone to affect it), but as the phone spends the whole time above about 2 or 3000' hunting for a signal, their batteries will be pretty flat upon arrival. Very few of them have been aware of this, and instantly turn their phones off. Perhaps if this was explained to the more "resistant" pax, they would be more agreeable to abiding by the airline's rules?

Tho' having said that, half of me thinks if they are that grumpy, let them have dead batteries upon arrival....

As has been said before, if the airlines ever do change the regs, I can hardly wait for 200+ people saying loudly "I'm on the plane, we just flew over the Alps/Rockies/NY/Atlantic" etc, etc..... :{

[groundhand]

...and who will be the first to offer 'quiet cabins'. No doubt someone will offer this as an 'extra' at an additional cost.

Re the Hospital/mobile questions - my missus has just been issued with one for her work - the local NHS hospital!

[eastern wiseguy]

You sure that's not your (or your colleagues') mobile in your ops/appr room


Completely. It is the same carrier ...same aircraft type.:)

[AdamC]

Okay, i'm guilty of using my phone during a flight.. I sent a text about 10 seconds after rotate - Bad of me I know but it was very urgent.

However, other than that one time I've always followed CC and safety demo instructions to turn mobile phones off, apart from the once or twice I've totally forgot it's switched on and end up getting about 10 texts from T-Mobile on final approach! - Has anything ever happened during these flights, im sure we all know the answer.. Nothing!

I'd imagine it wouldn't be long before we're actually aloud to use mobiles onboard.

[FlyerFoto]

It would be nice, though, if air travel could be the one last haven from loud-mouthed morons wanting to talk about last night's Big Brother' or who their friends have just slept with/dumped/fancy/hate - PLEASE???

[k3lvc]

Okay, i'm guilty of using my phone during a flight.. I sent a text about 10 seconds after rotate - Bad of me I know but it was very urgent.

Sorry but as a potential fellow pax I don't care how urgent it is - unless it involves the lives of 150+ people surely it can wait.

[derekl]

k3lvc: Sorry, but if you've read the rest of this thread, you have to see that it did not risk "the lives of 150+ people".

It did, in all probability, break the rules, which is different. Using it in a filling station would also break the rules.

[FHA]

"It's well-nigh impossible to build a fuel/air mix in the open air that will ignite."

Oh no it's not! It depends upon (very) localised temperature, pressure and wind conditions, as well as terrain.

Also, with respect Strake, your TB10 probably relies less on software than an A330. Don't forget that's a commercial officer you're quoting there: he's out to generate revenue and what he says is a teeny bit irresponsible. I know of at least one incident where the flight directors conflicted due to mobile phone use: not every incident is made public.

[derekl]

FHA: We're talking filling stations here . . . not fuel depots.

[FHA]

I'm not even talking about filling stations.:)
In the military, we were pretty hot(!) on this. I remember one training film showing how to get yourself barbequed out in the field. Something to do with fuel vapour, an adjacent dip and a primus stove. Anyone else remember this?
Anyway! Back to mobiles! As an avionics engineer, I look forward to the arrival of picocells like a hole in the head.

[PAXboy]

strakeHowever, the fact remains that 99.99% of all aircraft journeys take place with out fuss or any form of danger. That's way above busses and trains who just leave us alone with our risk.Yes indeed they do. The rules of safety instruction are still, largely, in place from when flying was very dangerous and rules were taken on from boats. On boats they have lifeboat drill and we get 'life jackets under your seats' drill. No one is going to tell the carriers to stop doing this and, if anyone in authority DID, then 99% of airlines would continue doing it.

Strake, where you quote the story (via Google) it includes the statement Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency means that, from September, passengers aboard Airbus aircraft outfitted with the OnAir system will be able to send and receive phone calls ...The OnAir system is, once again, integrated with the aircraft electrical and electronic systems, using aerials that are known quantities.

The cabin will have a series of Pico Cells, which are mini base stations. When given permission by the CC to switch on mobiles, the phones will 'find' this base station and it will handle all calls through special equipment that will be electrically shielded from the rest of the aircraft systems (Faraday cage).

The phones will work at low power. The system will only connect calls if the a.c is above 3,000m. At other times, as I understand what I read in technical press a couple of years ago, the Pico Cell will be active but will block calls. This means that a passengers mobile (cell) phone will register to the on board base station but not be able to make or receive calls, thus 'trapping' any phone that is on. Other refinements may also be in place. These systems have been thoroughly tested by the aircraft manufacturers and all involved.

So, I don't think that I am giving uninformed nonsense that perpetuates the myth.Do I want these Pico cells on a/c in which I am travelling? No.
Do I want people talking on their effing mobiles? No.

[Bangkokeasy]

I am a fan of that Discovery Channel programme, "Myth busters". I recall one they did on the urban myth of the mobile phone and petrol stations. They experimented with progressively more extreme combinations of fuel/air and mobile phones until they had a tank filled with the most saturated vapour they could create and a stripped down old Ericsson phone (removing all the plastic and exposing all the wiring), which they then called. It still refused to ignite. The myth was well and truly busted.

The point here is that it should not be up to pax to decide what is safe or not and they should obey CC instructions. However, the airlines and by association, CC, have a duty not to "cry wolf" and thus detract from any otherwise vital safety duties they have to perform. BE had a particularly frustrating time onboard an SQ flight some time back, when we were stuck on the gate after arrival, with engines shut down, because of a technical fault with the airbridge mechanism. I was on a tight schedule and had to inform someone what was happening and I have to confess I lost my cool with the CC who took me to task for trying to use my mobile to call that person, saying that the phone would interfere with navigation systems. Whether or not a phone will interfere with systems while flying is a moot point, but on the ground when stationary after a flight has been completed? Sorry. On your bike!

[bri1980]

][/B]
I am a fan of that Discovery Channel programme, "Myth busters". I recall one they did on the urban myth of the mobile phone and petrol stations. They experimented with progressively more extreme combinations of fuel/air and mobile phones until they had a tank filled with the most saturated vapour they could create and a stripped down old Ericsson phone (removing all the plastic and exposing all the wiring), which they then called. It still refused to ignite. The myth was well and truly busted.


Busted or not, the reason for not allowing phones on petrol station forecourts is simple enough. The garage has a document (a safety case) detailing how it is to be operated. That case will include an an assumption-a statement to the effect of mobile phones are not to be used on the station forecourt. If someone is using a mobile and the place goes up then it's not insured because the operating assumption has not been complied with-simple as!

The argument as to weather a mobile should be considered a credible ignition source is protracted, but just in case it could be, it is assumed that it will be-if you get me.

Bri

[AdamC]

Sorry but as a potential fellow pax I don't care how urgent it is - unless it involves the lives of 150+ people surely it can wait.

Nope, it involved one though and it couldn't wait or I would have waited until we'd landed..

Although I am confident mobile phones do not and will not effect aircraft systems, I did break a rule, for that I appologise :)

[10secondsurvey]

Whether or not mobiles cause problems for aircraft isn't really relevant. The airline owns the aircraft and they let you pay to use it under their terms. If they say you can't pick your nose, then you need to adhere to that or get off. It really is that simple.

I congratulate the original poster for his actions. I would have done the same.

As to whether or not mobiles DO actually cause aircraft problems, that is a completely separate issue.

[Skintman]

We're all big boys and girls here, so why not just do what we have been politely asked to do. There is usually a good reason for the rule.

Easy really.

[strake]

Paxboy
The rules of safety instruction are still, largely, in place from when flying was very dangerous and rules were taken on from boats. On boats they have lifeboat drill and we get 'life jackets under your seats' drill. No one is going to tell the carriers to stop doing this and, if anyone in authority DID, then 99% of airlines would continue doing it.
If that is all it was, I'd agree with you but it isn't, it's remorseless "telling you what to do".
I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.
The reality is that flying is 99.9%safe and I'll take my chances if something goes wrong.
That is why I have stopped flying with BA and Virgin and now fly to the States with Eos or Silverjet where service is paramount and the whole experience is as it should be...pleasant and free of unnecessary safety drivel.
If you have the opportunity to experience this new level of service, I'd advise you to have a go..it's business flying as it should be :)

[Clarence Oveur]

It would be a shame to miss an opportunity to pick the mind of such a knowledgeable and capable individual as strake.

I therefore hope he will bear with me.

You deduce that on millions of hours of flight, thousands of mobile phones will have been left on. What methodology did you use to arrive at that number?

On those flights where phones were left on what was the lowest and highest numbers encountered, and how where they distributed in the cabin? On those flights, how did the frequency of aircraft technical log entries concerning equipment and systems malfunctions compare to those flights where no phones were left on?

I also note that you have conducted your own experiments concerning EM interference.

What was the power output and frequency of the phone used and how did the measured EMF strength compare to the specifications described in the design and test standards applicable to the tested avionics? Where the tested avionics analogue or digital?

Furthermore I would like to know how those standards compare to the design and test standards of avionics designed since the 1970s and used in commercial passenger aircraft today.

Thank you.

[strake]

Furthermore I would like to know how those standards compare to the design and test standards of avionics designed since the 1970s and used in commercial passenger aircraft today.

I refer you to the article above from the company going to install mobile phone systems in commercial aircraft.

Drop 'em a line, I'm sure they'll talk techy to you....

[SXB]

To be fair to the airlines I think their policies regarding the use of mobile telephones are based on the assumption they can't be 100% sure that there is no inteference with the aircrafts avionics.

I'm quite happy with this type of approach to flight safety, or risk management if you like.If an airline approached flight safety on the basis that a number of things are probably, or 99.9%, ok they'd run into a lot of problems, or crashes if you like. As of yet I've yet to see an in depth report which proves 100% that the use of mobile phones poses no threat to flight safety. All of the reports in the public domain use terms like 'no evidence to suggest' or 'nothing to indicate such a problem' It may well be safe to use such devices on an aircraft but until I see something which proves this 100% I'm quite happy for their use to be banned.

[derekl]

SXB:

What you are citing is, of course, the cautionary approach.

The problem is that you can never prove that something, anything, is 100% safe or immune from failure. It's the same as Chief Medical Officers and cellular phones/WiFi in schools. Because he cannot give a 100% assurance (in the scientific sense) that little Johnny or Jill won't be affected by a few milliwatts of RF, he opts to say "might be best avoided" or some such. And promptly scares the willies out of a whole bunch of people who are not scientists and don't understand the context.

Thus it is with phones and aircraft.

Having said all of this, I, for one, am quite happy to sit there, glass of wine in hand, fat, dumb and happy, with everybody's damn phone firmly off.

:)

derekl

[SXB]

Derek
Yes, I believe the cautionary approach to be the best when addressing flight safety, I also think it's the reason why the air travel industry has reached safety standards unmatched by other forms of transport.

[SXB]

One other point, It is possible to prove that certain pieces of equipment, in the right testing environment, have no effect on the other.If tests are inconclusive then they are exactly that, inconclusive. Unproven.

[TightSlot]

The mobile phone use question has arisen here many times - opinion is always divided as to the safe use, or otherwise of mobiles at various stages of flight and ground operations. A variety of supposedly expert opinions are usually summoned to support whatever position the person posting may choose to take. The situation is further muddied by inconsistencies between carriers usage policies as airlines attempt to keep up with both fast-changing technologies and slower paced legislative requirements that vary by nationality, overlaid with the quest for commercial advantage. It is not surprising that there is confusion amongst customers, especially frequent flyers, and some irritation at the lack of clarity. Interestingly, there is not only a disparity of views amongst the airlines and safety authorities, but also amongst airline passengers themselves: For every traveller to whom the use of a mobile in-flight is a perceived benefit, there is another to whom the idea of unfettered mobile conversation on an aircraft is anathema. In short, what I'm suggesting is that there is a very wide range of opinion on the subject, and if you find yourself posting a comment on this subject that you regard as being in some way a definitive solution, you would be well-advised to take one step backwards before hitting the "Submit Reply" key and reconsider.

Strake - I've sat on my hands while you suggested that Safety briefings are inappropriate because accidents rarely happen (questionable), and again when you suggested that there is no evidence of PED interference (incorrect, and apparently partly based on un-approved and un-monitored experiments on a small private aircraft). You were politely and intelligently challenged to provide technical support for your position and declined to do so, an embarrassment that has been noted by others on this thread, if not by yourself. Tonight I've just got back from another flying duty working hard with some of the crew that you appear to hold in such cold contempt, and I'm off the hands. Your tirade against Cabin Crew appears to relate to a desire to avoid being told what to do, a situation that creates frustration given that you claim a much better understanding of what needs doing than any of the professionals that actually do the job daily (both air and ground based). An exaggerated sense of self-importance is rarely attractive, especially when combined with arrogance. It may be that EOS & Silverjet are well-placed to meet your needs in these areas, in which case one can only wish both you, and them, a long business relationship in the future, although I suspect that ultimately either party may become disenchanted. I would suggest that how you are measured in life is not by the manner in which you treat the big people that matter and can fight back, but the little people that matter less and can't - but that is only my opinion, and I may not be important enough to pay attention to.


Deep Breath...


This thread has drifted a little from the original question - in my view, quite an interesting one, namely, if you observe a fellow passenger ignoring a safety instruction should you intervene or ignore it? A dilemma that I'm sure crops up more frequently than we imagine. How should this best be handled on a full aircraft when you may have to sit next to the other person for several hours? It seems to me that chrissw behaved both correctly and bravely in this instance - discuss?

[strake]

Tightslot
For a moderator, that's a rather personal attack with some pretty sweeping accusations and as it happens, completely incorrect conclusions.

[FHA]

Quote:

I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.


Hell, my pathway to avionics enlightenment has taken 21 years, with well over 4 years of that purely in training, but that doesn't seem to stop some here thinking they know better.
I'm outta here!

P.S. Yes, Chrissw, you did do the right thing.

P.P.S. Very well articulated TS. Not bad for "6 weeks training", eh Strake?

[iain8867]

I believe that it is as simple as this. Passengers must not ignore a lawful command given by the Commander, crew or signage!

If I see someone using there mobile phone I ask them to switch it off and stand there till they have, I have had a similar situation as the first one as in someone seemed to switch the phone off but hadn't, lucky for me I was only 5 rows away when it started ringing. So walked back, politely interrupted the phone call and informed the passenger that the phone had to switched off now. After he had I asked to look at the phone's screen and confirmed it myself. The phones I hate at the moment are the ones with an integral MP3 player.

Also on the point of airlines that are having the "new" system of allowing mobile phone use on board and in flight! Forgive me if I am wrong but aren't they fitting an internal receiver for the mobiles, linked to an external ariel. The avionics bay being shielded from this so the signal shouldn't go any further than the passenger cabin?

[west lakes]

Funny really mobile phones have been around (in a usable form anyway) for round about 12 years or less!
Before they existed the world still went on, buisness still existed but non of the controvosy surrounding them did!
Rules are put in place to hopefully protect us from actual or perceived safety risks so live with it.
There is mayhem going on in this country about youths not obeying the laws/rules if you are one of those concerned about this, what right then have you to ignore any other "legally" imposed rule

And yes I have been known to ignore rules, lots of us do, but I will accept
1/ I do
and 2/ not to justfy myself by questioning the rule with those who are there to enforce them.
Don't like the rule take it up with those who made it.

Airlines would be better investing in devices on the market that a/ warn of phones being used & b/blocking their signals IMHO

In one of the D&G forums there was a post recently where the use of one caused a major error with a/c electronics it does happen

[PAXboy]

iain8867 Your question at the end of your post: My post #136 refers.

Strake The reality is that flying is 99.9%safeAny chance you could book on the .1%? :hmm:

[strake]

Any chance you could book on the .1%?
Oh well, I was just posting my view which is what this forum suggests we do as passengers. Now it seems someone is hoping I check onto a flight that crashes...
Well, you may be upset at my views but I would suggest that whilst they are robust, they are somewhat less vicious that those on the charmingly named "Thick Passenger Comments" thread on another forum.
A stall has been set out here which requests comment. As a very regular premium fare paying passenger I have inferred that safety is taken too far given the statistics of flying. I believe that the majority of premium fare passengers want service first and safety in proportion to the risk...(that does not mean I think it should be ignored). The major airlines, are not doing this and some passengers are moving to business only services where, by talking to the crew, it appears that their training is based primarily on service.
Despite what Tightslot thinks, I do not for one moment belittle cabin crew and am always unfailingly polite and friendly to them as, in the main, they are to me. However, that does not mean that I have to like being treated as an annoying piece of baggage as a result of their training.
I am aware that my comments appear to have moved this thread off of it's original subject and I apologise for this. However, I do believe these are important issues and I am willing to defend them here or elsewhere.

[derekl]

west lakes:

"Funny really mobile phones have been around (in a usable form anyway) for round about 12 years or less!"

I take it you're quite young ;-)

Oh dear. I had my first cellular phone in the UK in 1984 - so that's 23 years. It was pretty usable, although it did cost £1500. I think you may be inferring that it's in the last 12 years that they have become a mass-market item. Then you would be right. In my day, only gentlemen and rich criminals had them.

Before 1984 I used a 70MHz System 4 car phone.

[PAXboy]

strake My irritation was directed not at what you said but the way that you said it. I take your word that you are polite to CC however, it seemed to me, the way in which you described them in this forum was anything but. We all have moments of 'ranting'.

A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one. Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984? Nowadays, they often get slagged off but I reckon their service is as good as it was then, it's just that folks have got used to it. The new style carriers that you mention can specialise in service but, possibly, their service levels will be seen to have fallen in another ten years.

Talking of 1984, derekl, if I recall correctly - cellular radio telephony started in the UK in January 1985? Vodafone on 1st and Cellnet on 17th, but I might be one year out. Unfortunately, neither O2 nor Vodafone's websites talk about when they started.

[west lakes]

derekl

Yes the mass market easy to put in pocket type. Yes I was using a "brick", remember them, in 1990 - not easy to carry round though:ugh:

[derekl]

PAXboy and west lakes:

I stand corrected, 1985 it is and Vodafone did indeed pip Cellnet (now O2) to the post.

Of course, in the US, I'm also aware that I can use Amateur Radio "with the permission of the aircraft's commander" although that typically applies to general aviation. I imagine that the receiver desensing problems on the adjacent airband associated with using even 5W on 144MHz might be more worriesome than 850MHz and up cellular. (Sorry, either I, or the thread, drifted for a moment.)

Regards

Derek

[chrissw]

Strake clearly believes he's more important than just about anyone else. I have always believed the CC are in fact responsible for all the PAX, individual PAX being responsible for themselves.

[13Alpha]

There are three main reasons why I don't use my mobile phone on planes:

1. I've been told not to. The pilot is in command of the aircraft, and by law I must follow his or her instructions, and, by extension, those of the cabin crew.

2. My employer might think I'm important enough to routinely pay several thousand pounds to fly me across the world, but when I'm on an airliner I'm in an environment I don't fully understand, and as with any other alien environment it's probably in my best interests to follow the instructions of those who designed that environment or were trained for and spend their working lives in it.

3. I might not have any detailed technical understanding of the factors which lead mobile use on phones to be banned, but I can hear for myself the interference caused when my switched-on mobile is next to a radio, telephone, television. There have been instances of airliners crashing due in part to inadequate, missed or misunderstood communications between pilots and ATC (a terrible crash in Tenerife in 1974 being a prime example). I don't want my mobile to add to that risk.

And I'm quite keen on my fellow pax in 13B and 13C not adding to it either. So chrissw, you've got my full support. :ok:

13Alpha

[MuttleyJ]

"I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself"

Oh Strake. You've shown exactly what kind of person you are! Eos and Silverjet are welcome to you! With regards to the 0.1% as mentioned earlier, I'm not hoping you'll be on that, your comments and tone hint that you'd not cope awfully well.

[strake]

strake My irritation was directed not at what you said but the way that you said it.
Ah, OK. That makes your desire for my early demise so much more acceptable.:p
A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one.
Why?
Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984?
OK, I recall them. They are very different to the levels available today.
I think the competition have seen that and are exploiting it.
The new style carriers that you mention can specialise in service but, possibly, their service levels will be seen to have fallen in another ten years.
In which case, one takes one's money and goes elsewhere.
Look, £3500+ is an enormous amount to spend in 14 hours and people want value for money...just like any other product.
For my hard earned money, I'd like to think the engineers are highly trained professionals who have proven that they can keep the aircraft together, a very experienced and well qualified commander and fight crew who can safely get us where we are going and a cabin crew who provide service comensurate with the advertising.
It just seems to me that major airlines, for whatever reason, are pushing the service aspects down the priority list and over-exaggerating safety.
Now those are my genuine thoughts. They are not personal attacks on anyone or any function nor are they intended to inflame people to the point of verbal violence.
I also think the answer to the original question is "Yes", you did the right thing. No matter how much one disagrees with a situation, if there is a requirement to comply, one should. Just as I do, despite what people here might think.
See, no thread drift here...

[Clarence Oveur]

I was going to ask strake a series of questions concerning safety on-board commercial aircraft. However, as I suspect the answer would be similar to the one given to my previous questions, it would achieve nothing but further embarrassment.

I believe the phrase used was "uninformed nonsense". Very apt.

[strake]

Oh come on Monsieur Oveur, are you such a wilting flower?
You formed your question in a highly facetious way and received an answer comensurate with its flavour.
Now, ask me any question you like...go on, you know you want to.

Ask me about ditching at sea..that's my favourite.

[pacer142]

The biggest (still minor) explosion risk of using a mobile phone while fuelling your car is not so much the use in itself, but if you drop the phone, detaching the battery and thus causing a spark.

[drichard]

I always thought that the cell phone at the petrol pump was because of a single incident in New Zealand where there was a fire at a pump, and they were unable to rule out (Note : not prove that) that the 'phone caused the spark. Also, they don't like you using radio transmitters at the pumps (cell, CB etc) because they can interfere with the circuitry within the metering system causing the pump to under-read.

By the way, I always turn off my phone at doors closed (or sooner if instructed by the CC). Well done Chrissw, I hope I have the bottle to do the same should I find myself in similar circumstances.

Now, if anyone out there (i.e. those who will make the decision to allow mobiles in flight) wants to know what this humble PAX thinks about using mobile 'phones in flight - No I don't want them. I have enough of having to listen to ignoramuses on the 07:05 to London and their banal, onesided conversations. I reckon in 1 hour, there must be over 30 calls , and that's in a carriage of only 70 persons, imagine what it would be like on an A330 for 5-9 hours (Air rage anyone?)

[derekl]

pacer142:

The battery detach thing is yet another Red Herring. It's not true either, other things are much more likely to cause a spark -- how about static discharge from car to key -- or human being? It happens all the time.

Is it OK if I use an Apple iPhone? (The battery is soldered to the motherboard :))

drichard:

You're back at the urban myth -- read my post much earlier in this thread where I said that it is always because of a story that a filling station in America/Australia ... etc blew up. Yet there is no such recorded incident.

The RF energy from a cellphone (max 2 Watts) is insufficient to create an RF field energetic enough to cause a metal-to-metal spark in nearby equipment.

And if it were so, why would Shell stuff 50 Watt T-mobile base stations on their forecourts in the UK (as they do)? Shouldn't all those filling stations have blown up by now?

Regards to all

Derek

[rubik101]

All I know is that my mobile doesn't pick up a signal when I'm airborne above about 10.000 feet!
Stories of pilots chatting to crewing in the cruise are a bit suspect in my experience.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

We did an informal survey amongst company pilots once. The question, possible answers to the question and % of the pilots' responses went something like this:

Question: How many mobile phones did you think are left on by passengers on a typical Sydney-Melbourne sector?

Answers:

(a) None. Survey response: 0%
(b) 1-2. Survey response: 10%
(c) 3-10. Survey response: 20%
(d) Who knows - sometimes I forget to turn mine off. Survey response: 70%

:)

A phone being inadvertently left on is as risky as a bottle of water being brought onto an aircraft...............

[GrahamB73]

The battery detach thing is yet another Red Herring. It's not true either, other things are much more likely to cause a spark -- how about static discharge from car to key -- or human being? It happens all the time.


Quite right - just as a side note, it's actually pretty difficult to ignite petrol (or the fumes). Even a cigarette is unlikely to do it, believe it or not. (NB - rest of this post isn't in direct response to you, Derek, was just latching on to that thought).

However, it is still possible, regardless of the likelihood. Just as it's theoretically possible that a signal being broadcast from one or many mobile phones could cause an issue with other electronics (to whit the previously mentioned interference we've all heard on landlines or speakers etc when a mobile is nearby).

So, to the wider point - given the possible outcomes of both ignited petrol near a car being refuelled and an aircraft's systems being compromised (regardless of the % chance of anything happening) , it's surely in everyone's best interests to comply with the procedures laid out? It's not really that much of a hardship to turn off a phone is it?

And to those who think it is...you're really not that important you know ;) The world won't stop turning if you can't make a phonecall. And if it was that important to your company/family/whatever...then it's important enough for you to miss the flight and not get on the plane in the first place.

[Three Yellows]

Calm down boys and girls!

I think the chances of ONE phone crashing the plane.... NIL
The chances of 300 phones crashing the plane... close to NIL, but not zero.

However the main reason for obeying the airlines' rules is because I just couldn't cope with all those "I'm on the plane" conversations.... given the potential for a more exotic destination than Kings Cross, all the "I'm just popping down to Montego Bay" conversations would see me borrowing the axe from the flight deck.:{

[strake]

The chances of 300 phones crashing the plane... close to NIL, but not zero.
That's nowhere near good enough Three Yellows...we require detailed technical proof of your findings.:E

[GrahamB73]

Both Three Yellows and strake - you've missed the point.

I don't care how likely it is. Someone, somewhere has decided it's in our (pax and aircrew alike) best interests to turn phones off. Someone who has looked into the matter far more than you or I.

So turn them off.

Rocket science, it ain't.

[TightSlot]

Just as a side note - my flight this evening (just got back).

Training Captain called me on flight deck and advised of some odd autopilot behaviour, and suspected PED interference from the Cabin. Made a PA asking folks to check - much checking through bags and pockets, shortly after which, the interference stopped. One mobile phone admitted to as being on. Interesting...

[10secondsurvey]

Actually, I have experienced a similar scenario to Tightslot.

On take off from Barcelona, on Iberia flight, pilot started circling, and came over tannoy that it was believed that a mobile phone was on in the cabin, and was interfering with flight deck.

All bags etc.. were checked, and I believe a phone was found to be on (inadvertently). After this, flight continued as normal.

It is interesting to note, that the pilot indicated, that if the phone could not be found, they would need to return to the airport (BCN), due to problems on flight dec instruments. I'm assuming he would not consider this option for no good reason.

Either way, it doesn't matter, if the rule is 'switch off phones', then just do it. Easy.

[MuttleyJ]

.... And the time you really don't want this interference to be happening is during an emergency.... if you are behind the flight deck door, you have no clue what's going on with the flying and when the pilots have problems. If there's the remotest chance that mobile phones could interfere with flight deck instruments and therefore my safety, I for one would much rather just leave 'em switched off!

[Capt Pit Bull]

As a latecomer to the thread:

For those who believe mobile pose no risk, and its all a myth / conspirary to charge for comms etc, I can categorically assure you that mobiles DO interfere with aircraft systems. I've observed events when strange system events have coincided with mobile use, and whilst the formal scientist within me accepts much of this could be coincidental some interference over the audio systems is distinctive.

pb

[flyinthesky]

Having read 'some' of this thread (couldn't bring myself to trawl through 6 pages!)

It is interesting to note that there are some 'informed' people out there who insist PED do not interfere with systems based on their scientific knowledge. They WILL NOT accept any other facts.

FACT; certain PED (especially mobiles) CAN and DO sometimes interfere. Not all the time, but on occasion. You never know which system maybe affected, but I for one do not want to find out at FL410 at 30W with 2000nm to go. Not a good time. Why isit no-one these days can just do as told?

There are some on this forum belittling the safety instructions given by the crew. I would admit that the chances of surviving a ditching are slim, but believe it or not, the crew do not brief you all for the good of their health. After all, they have a door close by to jump out of first. It is a requirement of the CAA and forms part of an airlines AOC certification. Just because you are a frequent flier does not exempt you from the brief nor does it make you an expert.

If you have a problem listening to repeated safety briefings, there are 2 solutions;
1. Take it up with the CAA - but I know what their answer will be.
2. Find an alternative mode of transport.

Being made to clear loose articles up around you in the cabin is actually a safety fundamental. If I have to stop the a/c using max braking, you would NOT want a loose bottle of water hitting you on the back of the head from 5 rows behind.

[10secondsurvey]

Flyinthesky I agree with you, but Quote "I would admit that the chances of surviving a ditching are slim"

This is a common mis-conception. Around 80% and upwards of pax survive airline crashes according to the NTSB (I guess we're just looking at the USA here). I'm sure survivability may be higher or lower in other parts of the world.

See more detail here; http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/former/hall/jhc990127.htm

In particular, this is why knowing your exits and listening to safety briefings really CAN save your own life when the sh*t hits the fan. In an emergency if you really KNOW your exits, and how to open them quickly, it makes all the difference. I just hope I'm never sitting next to someone like strake.

But I'm kind of getting off topic.

[strake]

I just hope I'm never sitting next to someone like strake.

Very wise. I am fond of remembering my old flying instructors advice, "If we have to get out in a hurry, be quick son, unless you want the coroner to find my boot mark on your neck..."

[TightSlot]

I'm closing this thread now as it seems to have run its' course and also because we may soon become weary of observing strake's character flaws unfold with each new post like some terrible reverse origami. He has now had the last word on the subjecct, as I'm sure he'd wish.