What is SO important ?

[tezzer]

That peoplecompletely ignore the "mobile phones must now be switched off" and "A reminder that mobile phones must not be used until we reach our parking stand" announcements ?

Ok, I admit to being tired having just endure Air Chance's flights from Santo Domingo - Paris - Amsterdam but why must people use their phones / blackberrys etc during the banned phases of the flight. On approach to Paris, the lady next to me as soon as the seatbelt sign went ON switched on her iPhone and downloaded all of her SMS messages and emails while we were on long finals. The steward completly ignired it until I gave him a stare when he asked her to switch it back off. She pretended to, and put it in her bag, but as soon as his back was turned, out it came again. Grrrrr! Rules are rules for all.

On the Paris Amsterdam flight the taxi and take of run were accompanied by Blackberry email notifications from all around the business cabin. The guy over the aisle from me even had his on at touchdown, and made two or three calls while we were taxying in.

Until the airlines get tough on this, my blood will continue to boil, prosecute a few for "disobeying a lawful request from a crew member" or some such law, and make examples of them, big fines, banned from that airline etc.

Rant mode off. Unless there is one on my next flight to Humberside in an hour !

[Chuchinchow]

Ok, I admit to being tired

All the more reason to delay posting a message until you are refreshed - and perhaps a little less truculent in your mood!

Nevertheless, I agree one hundred per cent with the content of your rant.

[tezzer]

Unfortunatly, I'm always grumpy these days. My boss see's travel as a bit of a bonus. Yeah, right.

[Torque Tonight]

Drives me crazy, as do those who cannot obey the seatbelt signs. Many people just do not respect the environment they are in or the crew that work there. I've seen people standing up trying to get luggage out of the overhead lockers while we're still doing about 60kts on the runway. My airline is very good at ordering people, if necessary, to follow the crew's lawful instructions. After that, anything they do is at their own risk. The aircraft has very powerful brakes, so you really should keep your belt on!

[radeng]

There are some things other PAX do that REALLY annoy me.

1. Ignore the safety briefing. Doesn't matter how many times you have heard it (and most have never LISTENED), it needs to be ingrained. Plus, it's only polite.

2. Ignore the seatbelt sign. Occasionally, I can understand that after take off and waiting for it go off, a toilet visit may be really necessary, but ignoring it completely is possibly slightly more prevalent on US domestic flights. It annoys me because such idiots are a danger to me if they go flying about the cabin as a result of turbulence.

3. Using mobile 'phones, blackberries etc. There's something to be said for fitting aircraft with mobile 'phone jammers. They wouldn't need a lot of power...

4. Not keeping the seat belt fastened when seated. If you hit sudden turbulence, unsecured pax flying round the cabin are a danger to others. Anyone not believing in CAT or sudden drops in altitude needs to look at the blood over the inside of the Qantas one that made an emergency landing in NW Oz the otehr year after hitting turbulence.


OK, I'm a miserable grumpy old fart!

[strake]

The answer to your question may well be found in the sticky at the top of this forum - ad nauseum. :)

[SpringHeeledJack]

Hell is other people :mad::ugh::{

The simple truth is that being cooped up with several hundred people in an aluminium tube will open up the possibility of annoyance from others, I've always had the mind-set that when in a shared space to be as amenable as possible to the people around me and (hopefully) they of mine. Do i get a lollipop ? I observe the safety precautions to the best of my ability and wouldn't dream of turning on my phone before getting off the flight. Even if the multi-million deal needs my immediate attention, it can wait a few minutes, nothing i could do will change anything between seat and baggage claim. I'd say that the main reason the 'can't waits' can't wait is psychological and they fear being out of the loop. Who would want to be living inside someone like that ? :}

[Load Toad]

Nowadays when I get on a 'plane I try to get myself sat by a window. As soon as I get on I try to shut my eyes, lean against the side of the 'plane and at least act asleep. Certainly I try to ignore the other passengers because for sure many will be doing things that contradict the requests made by cabin crew, show no respect for fellow passengers or will do something that just gets on my goat (one thing that does my head in is people talking loudly on their handphones well after the request has gone out to switch the damn things off).
Apparently empathy and respect for others are not fashionable nor applicable anymore.

I like being out of contact for a few hours and an extra minute or two at the end of a flight without mobile communication is to me a glorious bonus that should be advertised as a plus point of air travel.

'I'm really very sorry I could not respond to your tedious, self-important and inane message of little urgency or importance earlier but I was unfortunately stuck on an aeroplane...'

[speke2me]

Well nothing is SO important that you can't be able to follow a few simple rules?

I wonder if certain PAX (the vast minority in my experience) display this kind of arrogance (if it's not just ignorance) to assert some kind of self important 'badge of authority'?

It's indeed annoying, but since I know what people are like, I expect it and stop it short of making my 'blood boil'.

Doesn't make it right, but perhaps gives me an easier trip?

[robtheblade]

"I wonder if certain PAX (the vast minority in my experience) display this kind of arrogance (if it's not just ignorance) to assert some kind of self important 'badge of authority'"

I think it is neither arrogance, ignorance or "badge of authority". I view these people as rats on a treadmill, who are in fear of their jobs. I, as my own boss, turn on my phone when I want to.

It is soooo nice not to have to answer to anyone.

[Mr Mac]

I too agree with comments about people just feeling they have to be in touch ALL THE TIME - do they get lonley, can they not be out of touch for what in the scheme of things is a very short time.

As for the Crackberry the first time I came across one was in the Maldieves in 2003, as it skimmed across the water where I had just started snorkling - I thought it was a fancy calculator as it sank passed me !. Turned out to belong to some Master Of The Universe who had taken it on honeymoon, who,s then new wife decided after numerouse calls to test it,s water proofing - it failed, as I would put money on their marriage doing.

[radeng]

For those who insist on walking about with the seat belt sign illuminated.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20737-600,%20LN-RPH%2003-11.pdf

[Smoketrails]

I was suprised when we arrived on BE in DUS last week, even though we had to wait a couple of minutes for the engines to shut off, nobody got up! Everybody respected the fasten seatbelt sign, something I did not witness in the States a couple of months ago!

[Jarvy]

Its got nothing to do with any problems with the GPS or anything else. Its the same reason that the IFE is turned off whilst on the ground, so that people can hear instructions from the crew.

[Rush2112]

I agree with the comments about people being lonely without the reassurance of speaking to someone or just hearing something in their ears. No one in Singapore for instance seems comfortable on any public transport unless they have something in their ears, or they are jabbering on the phone, or stroking their bl**dy iPhone. No one is happy just to sit with their own thoughts - maybe they don't have any?

When flying, I turn the phone and BB off when I leave the lounge, and don't switch them back on until I am off the plane and ready to deal with whatever's there. I am bombarded with calls and questions all day so the period of peace on the plane is really, really pleasant. I know I am quite important, and I don't feel the need to show other people how important I am.

[Load Toad]

So what did they do before mobile phones....fondle themselves?

[NZScion]

At risk of repeating myself, as this topic has already been done to death on this thread (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/443138-legalities-using-camera-during-take-off-landing.html), anybody who uses unauthorised electronic devices in flight is probably breaking the law and could potentially be charged with an offense. Furthermore, failure obey the instructions of the crew is also illegal.

For those of you who read this and decide to continue to flout the regulations, I'd guess that the judge wouldn't accept the excuse that "someone on an internet blog said that interference isn't actually an issue." As this Flightglobal Article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/354179/wi-fi-interference-with-honeywell-avionics-prompts-boeing.html) shows, electromagnetic interference is an ongoing issue. Note how in this case, Wi-Fi (and possibly cellular) signals adversely affect one particular version of Display Units from a major manufacturer, (display units are the screens which display instrumentation, engine, navigation, and other data on modern aircraft to the pilots).

The rules are in place for the protection and safety of the aircraft and all of its occupants. Whilst you (SLF) may find it an inconvenience to turn off your devices at the specified times, trust that a lot of work does go in to allow you maximum freedom to use your devices. Unfortunately no-one can currently ensure that certain devices will not have effects at times that adversely affect the safety of the aircraft. In the aviation industry, safety is always paramount, end of story.

[radeng]

NZScion,

As a professional radio engineer for the last 47 years, it still amazes me that people can make displays and so on that are NOT immune to unwanted radio signals! Radio as in comms, nav etc is another matter. I rarely turn my mobile 'phone on anyway, and NEVER on an aircraft.

Interestingly, though, things like pacemakers, hearing aids, and other medical devices are increasingly having radio transceivers in them. Very low power, though - at the most, a few milliwatts, and in many cases, less than a microwatt.

[speke2me]

""I think it is neither arrogance, ignorance or "badge of authority". I view these people as rats on a treadmill, who are in fear of their jobs. I, as my own boss, turn on my phone when I want to.

It is soooo nice not to have to answer to anyone.""

It's also sooo nice not to be sat next to an 'own businessman' that thinks his business overrides the considerations of anybody else, let alone any 'silly' rules that might be imposed upon him.

Sorry if I used the word 'arrogance' in my OP

:)

[clareprop]

Do you think that maybe, deep down, we know that the phone probably isn't going to cause us all to crash and burn but what really irritates us all is that whilst we are all "good little passengers" and do what we are told, the "loud-mouthed git" across the aisle is getting away with it....

[TightSlot]

Also true of life in general...


:O

[Load Toad]

Indeed - there is nothing more annoying than trying to be 'respectful' only to see some ass hole three seats away get away with being a '2-@'.

I look forward to the day that the '2-@' is grabbed by the ear and led off the 'plane.

[wowzz]

LT - Totally agree!!!!

[Torque Tonight]

It's probably fair to say that the aircraft isn't going to crash, but that doesn't mean that unauthorised use of electronic equipment isn't going to cause any problems. What get's on my nerves are those passengers who decide that they know better than the crew and think they are exempt from following the crew's lawful instructions.

I've experienced interference from electronic devices in various different classes of aircraft that has had effects ranging from severe difficulties with navigation and communications to simple distraction. If passengers are told to switch off their toys there is a damn good reason for it.

The last thing I want when approaching minima on an approach at night in crappy weather, tired on my fourth flight of the day and needing clear comms and no distraction, is to hear the buzz-buzz-b-b-buzz of a GSM phone trying to get a signal because someone can't wait a few minutes until we've arrived and shut down. If the individual stopped to think about it, he probably wouldn't want that either.

[One Outsider]

It's probably fair to say that the aircraft isn't going to crash

One aircraft already did.

The last thing I want when approaching minima on an approach at night in crappy weather, tired on my fourth flight of the day and needing clear comms and no distraction, is to hear the buzz-buzz-b-b-buzz of a GSM phoneWhat can happen and did happen in such a situation is described here: Air Accidents Investigation: OO-TND Report Sections (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/5_2008_oo_tnd/oo_tnd_report_sections.cfm)

[Pax Vobiscum]

I can't see where the accident report mentions mobile phones, One Outsider, the pilot was distracted by a company R/T message.

Statistically, any flight with more than a few dozen pax is very likely to have at least one active (probably inadvertently so) mobile on board. Since we don't regularly hear of resulting problems, I conclude that any risk is minimal. This view is further reinforced by the fact that airlines that can make money from it have actually encouraged the use of mobiles by providing on board connectivity.

Despite this, I try to remember to turn mine off, both because it's a reasonable requirement of the airline and to avoid annoying/inconveniencing fellow pax.

[TightSlot]

at least one active (probably inadvertently so) mobile on board
Agree - can anybody advise if the number of active handsets has any influence on possible interference. In other words, if there was no restriction at all, and therefore every handset was on, is this more like to negatively affect the aircraft: I would assume so, both because the number of potential sources of interference is higher, and also because the level of electrical energy (in total) would be higher - but I don't know for sure.
Since we don't regularly hear of resulting problems, I conclude that any risk is minimal
You wouldn't hear of them here on PPRuNe, but that doesn't mean that the problems are not there. If interference was proved a contributory factor in an accident report, then you would hear about it in these forums: However, you would not necessarily know about the more numerous day-to-day reports of suspected interference that are logged by pilots, but do not result in an accident.
airlines that can make money from it have actually encouraged the use of mobiles by providing on board connectivity.
My understanding is primitive, so please correct me if I am wrong - Here goes... Airlines can enable the use of mobiles in-flight by installing something called a "Pico Cell" on the aircraft. This means that passenger mobile phones connect to the local aircraft cell at a very low power setting, thereby avoiding repeated blasts of potential RM interference to the aircraft as multiple phones send out relatively high-power pulses in the fruitless search for a station (Cell?) to connect with. In short, airlines that enable mobile phone use in-flight, aren't simply allowing people to switch phones on and connect as normal, but have paid for equipment that enables the safe use of mobile phones to be installed. This cost is recouped by the cost of the in-flight calls, and in the hope of making an eventual profit.

I haven't actually met any pilots of large passenger aircraft that are comfortable with unrestricted use of passenger electronic devices in flight. I have met many pilots who have relayed experiences of suspected interference: The industry experts and legislators are similarly cautious. This combined opinion really ought to trump the anecdotally based scepticism of the opposing lobby. People enjoy the convenience of using their mobile phones, and resent restrictions on use: In order to justify non-compliance in their own mind, a fictitious web of semi-truths, soft facts and apocryphal incidents are spun together in an attempt to muddy the water sufficiently.

PV - I'm not referring to your post above, or any other specific person - I just happened to use your quotes as being the closest to hand. :):)

[radeng]

Tightslot,

Your understanding is correct. Strange as it may seem, the engineering fraternity responsible for mobile 'phone standards are generally against any mobile 'phone use because it's so annoying - and they spend a lot of time flying! I was told by a CAA guy that ICAO had come out against it because of fears of 'aircraft rage'.

The difficulty is that because aircraft age and wiring harnesses chafe and the shielding of cables decreases, an aircraft that was OK when new may not be two or three years later. Typically, a 737 has about 70 radio antennas of various sorts, scattered around it. Now you can hear on R/T the 'ticking' caused by a mobile 'phone, but you could have the radio altimeter go unhappy, or the ILS receiver or the VOR, and you would know (maybe) that there was a problem - but not what. If you were doing a CATIII autoland, you certainly wouldn't want any chance of the altimeter going t*ts up!

So having reported as a fault that something didn't work, engineering would get involved and the result would be 'no fault found'.

[One Outsider]

Pax Vobiscum,

You are quite right in noting that no mobile phone is mentioned in the report, but that is missing the point completely. Whether the missed/not understood radio call, that ultimately led to the accident, was due to poor language skills, tiredness or mobile phone interference mattered not for the outcome.

It is a clear example of what on the surface might look like an insignificant and trivial matter leading to a serious accident. Passengers who leave their phones on, either mistakenly or deliberately, have no means of quantifying the risks and it appears that for most passengers the only frame of reference on whether something is safe or not is whether the aircraft crashed or not.

The reality is that it is a much more complex matter.

[ExXB]

airlines such as DL, are seeking approval to use iPads in the cockpit ? One assumes they would be used during takeoffs and landings, as well as on the ground and in-flight.

See here (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-17/apple-ipads-in-cockpits-may-mean-end-of-paper-charts.html).

[One Outsider]

There is nothing ironic about it. DL, or any other carrier intend on using iPads as EFBs, will have to go through an approval process which will address all safety issues.

Class 1 and 2 EFBs, which an iPad will fall under, are subject to the same restrictions as PEDs and will be used accordingly. They will also be what is known as controlled devices, meaning each individual device's software and hardware standards will be under company control.

The only way a passenger can comply with the regulations is to switch off and stow their PED.

This was all discussed at length recently. If you are interested the thread should be easy to find.

[Nicholas49]

The best solution I have seen to the problem of passengers who know best and use their mobile phones when they are not permitted to was demonstrated by a BA shorthaul crew after landing at Heathrow.

1) During taxi to the gate, a very important businessman turns his mobile phone on and calls his wife to say he will be late home because of our awfully long delay.
2) His unnecessarily loud conversation is overheard by cabin crew (and most of the cabin for that matter).
3) Cabin crew tell him to turn it off, as instructed.
4) He ignores them.
5) A few minutes the later, aircraft stops on the taxi-way.
6) Announcement from the First Officer explaining firmly that we will continue our taxi once the gentleman has turned his phone off and complies with crew instructions.
7) Lots of tutting from passengers.
8) Lots of blushing from Mr Important.
9) Phone is switched off.
10) We resume taxi to the gate.
11) Mr Important is rather sheepish and surprisingly quiet when gathering his belongings to make his way off the aircraft.

[Load Toad]

Lewis CK:

YouTube - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

[Pax Vobiscum]

You're quite correct TightSlot (as radeng, who knows far more about the subject than I, has confirmed). I do have one concern about Picocells, though. Some day, a mechanical/electrical problem or simple inadvertence will cause a failure. At this point, all the active mobiles will (fairly) rapidly ramp up to their maximum power levels in a (probably vain) attempt to contact the next nearest base station. This should provide an excellent test for the shielding of the on-board electronic systems, though you'll forgive me if I don't wish to be there when this experiment takes place :ok:

[Crepello]

I can understand some confusion - US norm's to switch off as the door closes, switch on when clear of the landing runway. Idiots do rankle - once saw somebody power up during finals in bad wx. Offered my opinion from across the cabin on that one.

Very limited patience for "please keep your phone off until you leave the transfer bus and enter the terminal building". :confused: