What's the Mobile Phone rules????

[happyone]

Returning to LHR on a flight with Air Malta last week, we were taxying after touch-down and had to halt to allow 5 or 6 other aircraft to take off (we were taxying across their runway). During this halt, 4 gentlemen (in the seats next to me)powered up their mobile phones and started 'phoning home'... When we had safely stopped at the sky steps, I informed the gentleman beside me that it was NOT permitted to use mobiles until safely stopped and the engines (aircraft) turned off. Am I correct? What surprised me was, this gentleman said that they HAD asked a crew member whether they could use their mobiles and he told them to go ahead!!! I must say, I'm pretty certain that the announcement at the start of the flight (safety) not to use during take off or landing was not made. Can someone advise on this one? I'm not flight crew, so please excuse the terminology I've used if incorrect.

Thanks

Happyone (but not on this flight)!!!!!:confused:

[Lost_luggage34]

Excellent question - as a pax would love to hear the reply. Personally hate the damn things ! Job dictates that I carry one but it gets powered off before boarding and not powered back up until off the plane - but I'm just a good guy !!

[Brown eyes]

In the airline i work for, we do not let pax use mobile phones at all. Despite announcements being made to tell them this, some people still break the rules. Many a time when boarding or disembarking pax turn on the phones and try to use their phones on the ramp, this is not allowed either. It even tells you in your mobile phone handbook that your phone must be switched off prior to boarding an aircraft.

Hope this clears this matter up for you.

[happyone]

this is as I thought. Should someone make Air Malta aware then, that this is possibly a safety hazzard? Should their crew members know of the dangers using mobiles on an 'active' aircraft? Any Air Malta crew members want to comment?

[christep]

There's a lot of variation here between airlines... some examples, as I understand them:

Cathay - OK to use phones until the cabin doors are closed and after they are opened

Qantas - not allowed to be switched on even on the airbridge (as I was told by a QF FA this is because of a risk of fuel explosions - is Aussie fuel more volatile or something? :) )

Dragonair - I think this is "no phones on while the engines are running"

BA - I think that they have the same as Cathay, but I'm not sure

China Eastern - you can have them on anytime you want as far as I can tell from the crew reactions

All in all it is hugely confusing for pax - and then once of twice I have felt very guilty when the phone has switched itself on because it is in the top of my bag and other people stuff bags against it tightly, thereby pressing the switch. This then flattens my phone battery over the next 12 hours as the phone constantly hunts for networks and does some very high-speed handovers all the way from HKG to LHR :( The only way to ensure phones are off and stay off is to physically separate the battery.

[Confirmed Must Ride]

At least one aircraft accident has been attributed to use of a mobile on landing. Also all petrol garages in UK do not permit use of mobile phones on forecourts because radio signals can cause sparking, this would probably why good not to use them on ramp?

[willflyforfood]

I flew with QF on the 5am ish flight outta BNE to SYD on 737-800 a while back. There certainly seemed to be a fair bit of confusion as to when they could be used amongst the FAs. When the boarding had been completed, one of the FAs announced that new policy allowed passengers to continue the use of mobile phones until the aircraft was ready for take off, and the signal for the FAs to take their seats had been given. Also that as soon as the aircraft lands, they can be used.
After touchdown in SYD, as the FA was giving his 'welcome to sydney, stay in your seat, watch the overhead bins if you dont want a concussion' speech, he added that he had been told by the captain that the policy was actually only until the doors were closed, and then after they were opened, and not from takeoff to landing.
Virgin blue, and QF Dash8 services instruct passengers to have them off as they board, before passing the gate.
I remember jumpseating on an Ansett A320 outta TSV, and the Captain got one of the Ground crew to pounce on a fella walking towards the aircraft, still half in the terminal, talking on his mobile phone.
Is there a right and wrong procedure. Certainly seems to be better to be safer than sorry??

[chilled]

Hi all,

The airline I work for will not allow mobile phones to be used on board the aircraft at any time.

Despite the fact that we annouce that mobiles must remain switched off after landing we still have to tell at least 2 people on every flight to turn their phones off. :mad:

As for the ramp area, I think that under ther health and safety rules airports do not allow mobiles to be used because of the amount of aviation fuel fumes around;)

One day the something will happen and then, just maybe the pax will listen to us!


happy flying all

[christep]

Sorry to be dumb about this, but can someone tell me what is the significant difference (frequency, power, ...) in terms of liability to ignite fuel fumes between the two-way radios that many of the ground crew carry and a mobile phone?

[stewardess007]

Willfly, rule is phone use until door closes on 737-800. All other aircraft off at all times. Try wrestling phones out of peoples hands though, as far as most flight crew are concern policy should never have changed. Look at the confusion that has resulted.

[Someone Else]

christep

Trying to move discussion about mobile phones from folk law on to a scientific basis! - Are you mad?

However when the medical devices agency, an arm of the British National Health Service, tested to see if medical equipment was affected by radio sources. It placed the radio source one metre from the equipment and determined if the equipment was affected by the transmissions. From memory the results were that 12% of medical equipment was affected by mobile phones, but 26% was affected by the radios used by hospital administrators and porters. While a staggering 44% was affected by the sort of radios used by the emergency services (police, ambulance etc).

Also the source of largest radio transmission of filling station forecourts is the ignition system of petrol engines. Yet they aren't banned. Are there any restriction on the use of petrol engined vehicles near re-fueling aircraft?

From a pax point of view the two announcement I hear most offen are "...during the entire stay on board" and "...whilst the engines are running". But who cares about that its easier just to turn off the ringer rather powering off the phone. ;)

[PAXboy]

I have been in telecommunicatiosn for 22 years and been through this kind of discussion on many occasions. There are four areas that have been raised: Hospitals, Garage forecourts, the Ramp and the Aircraft.

What follows is my personal conclusions not fact. Not least because fact is very hard to come by in this area. Mainly because the biggest variable is the radiating device itself - how much power it outputs. Also mobile (cell) phones vary the amount of radiated power even during a single call.

Firstly aircraft. According to a pal who is in telecomms and programming and worked on systems development for Airbus 320 family, the greatest risk is NOT from a single cell phone but when you have a large group of them. On an a/c, if 20 pax switch on their phones as the machine taxis to the apron, the combined radio emissions are significantly greater. When a cell phone is turned on, it searches for a base station and uses it's maximum power to do so. If you are arriving in a foreign land, the phone may have to interrogate several base stations until it finds the one that will accept it, due to 'roaming' agreements between networks.

It is this combined effect that carries the maximum risk. But everyone recognises that most men will not listen to instructions! Hence a number of carriers saying, "Only whilst the doors are open." as a compromise.

The ramp and garages: The amount of fuel vapour on the ramp is thought to be lower than on garages as the hoses are all sealed. The moment you disconnect the hose from the a/c both are sealed. Whereas on a petrol forecout, the pump nozzle and the filler tube of the car are both open. BUT the fuel on the ramp is more volatile. Take your pick!

The observation about the spark risk from a car ignition system is valid and I believe that garages have the signs as a legal cover your @rse. Do not forget that, if I am on the forecourt and pay staion for five minutes, my phone may - or may not - transmit during that time. However, if I switch it off and switch it on, then it WILL transmit on both occasions! That is why it should be switched on/off only whilst in the car. However, if it is an open top car in the summer ... ?

Hospitals: In my opinion, this is also cover your @rse time. Once again, interferance CAN be demonstrated but could not be PROVED. If a medial device was affected by a phone, since the phone tranmission was transitory and unrecorded, no one could prove that it was the phone. Hence the ban.

If you want to 'hear' a mobile, place it near a switched on radio (home or car) and then power up the phone.

I have said in both this forum and the SLF on previous occasions, that PAX will not change until an a/c crash (or ramp fire) is PROVED to have been caused by a phone. Loss of life usually needs to take place, before humans learn. Once again, because the phone tx is transitory and unrecorded, we shall have to wait until a CVR notes the flight crew 'hearing' a mobile phone tx on their headphones or similar, seconds before the incident.

[jayne]

Well said. As if the general public wern't confused enough? Now on all city flyer qantas flights you can turn your phone on when ther seatbelt sign has been switched off. Why did they change the rules? Can't people just hang on that extra 2 huge minutes of there life? Now it makes the rest of us look like idiots when they say " well I was on a qantas flight the other day and was allowed to have my phone on!". Very silly decision making on qantas's behalf.....

[A300Man]

I once flew as a pax on a Glasgow-Heathrow BA Shuttle Service, last flight on a Tuesday night. Boeing 757. Only 12 passengers on board.

After take off, we were invited to move around the cabin and sit anywhere. I chose the exit row at L3 for the extra legroom.

Two crew jumpseats port and starboard are located there. However, and NOT in contravention with any regs with such a light load, one of the FA's occupied the jump seat whilst the other selected the passenger seat (window) on the opposite side of the a/c from me.

Not only did the FA not fasten his seat belt for either the take off or landing, but upon landing at LHR and even before we exited the runway, he switched on his mobile phone and made a call.

Bloody idiot saw me watching and tried to hide his phone, but night time flight, dark outside and the illuminated telephone screen reflected on the aircraft window for all to see.

OK, we work in the industry and we are not children and we all know that this was probably a very low risk part of the flight, but we cannot blast the pax for using their phones when we as so called professionals have the audacity to use a mobile phone on a near empty aircraft in full view of pax.

The BA CSD of course refused to give me the name and staff number of the crew member involved, when I complained to her upon disembarkation.

One rule for some and another rule for others, it would seem..........

[Shlong]

Got a call off my mate from the left hand seat of the ATR the other day. He was at FL200 as well! I guess if anyone knew whether it was safe at the time it was him though. ;)

Shlong.

[AdamUK]

If the cabin doors are open then passengers can use their mobiles.

If doors are closed, then mobiles must remain switched off.

[RamAirTurbine]

Until it can be proven that a phone cant cause the fuel vapours to ignite then in no way should they be used inside a plane.....i think most people would be surprised how close that centre wing tank is to your feet, and how little insulation there is.....

[AdamUK]

The problem of fuel vapous is only a secondary reason.

The main reason to disallow mobile phones is beacuse
they can cause severe interference to avionics !

[QFboi_MEL]

Well the rules for mobile phones have changed... yet again.

The rule is now as cabin doors close, phones must be either switched off or put in flight mode, and mobile phones can be switched on once on the taxiway.

I don't know if this is just for cityflyer flights or all QF flights, but i've worked a 3 day cityflyer trip and that's what we've been told.

[ChewyTheWookie]

Shlong,

I take it you're joking about using the phone at FL200. There is no way a normal mobile could get a signal at that sort of altitude...

[christep]

Chewythe Wookie,

Sorry, but 3 miles is a perfectly reasonable range for a phone to talk to a base station.

Since my earlier post (3 years ago) I think most people have realised just through the accidental or disobedient use of mobiles that in fact they aren't going to drop planes from the skies. It is often said that the average transatlantic flight carries 10 mobiles that aren't switched off.

AA is probably the most liberal that I know now on this: phones off at pushback, and can be used as soon as you leave the runway after landing.

Since AA has the biggest fleet in the world and no problems have been caused it is fair to assume that the only reason all other carriers don't follow suit is just political inertia.

(Or in the case of Australians, the cork up the backside that seems to be a national affliction :-) )

[The Greaser]

We regularly get woken up on the flightdeck by text messages saying such things as 'welcome to Austria' - doh!!!!!!!!

[Ranger One]

christep:

AA are liberal *at times*.

Phones on until pushback - yes.

Phones on when off the active on arrival - yes, sometimes.

But I've heard recent AA arrival PAs that say 'phones must remain switched off until you exit the *terminal*(!!)'.

I think the latter case has more to do with paranoiac US Customs & Immigration wanting to keep pax incommunicado until processed...

Anyone else heard this one?

R1

[El Grifo]

Relating to the Spark from Mobile phones causing forecourt explosions, it is clear that not many folks here watch - - - MYTHBUSTERS - - - .

They recently did extensive tests, taking things to the absolute extreme and failed on every count to ignite even the heaviest of petrol fume filled atmospheres !!!

They found that the greatest risk came from Women, who get out of the car to pump their fuel and return into the car during the process to retrieive their purse. The resulting static created by their underwear rubbing on the seat fabric, caused a spark of much greater intensity than any mobile phone ever produced.

Men, for their part tend not to wear nylon underwear and usually have their cash or cards in their pocket and do not return to the car during pumping.

The test also included varios types and models of female underwear, but Mrs Grifo clearly thought it was too much for me and flicked channels.



:ok: :cool: :ok:

[Dogs_ears_up]

Aaaaaaaaaah KunnDize - It's hard to know whether your post is some sort of attempt at a wind up, or whether you are genuinely as challenged as it makes you appear.

The arrogance is simply breathtaking - You will, it appears, decide which "rulz" apply to you and which don't, regardless of the advice given by those whose professional opinion renders them qualified to make a judgement. By this, I refer not only to your technical and cabin crew, but also the national aviation authorities of many countries. You judge your personal convenience to be sufficiently important that you will risk possibly jeopardising the safe conduct of the flight, and the wellbeing of all others on board.

Not content with that, you then appear on PPRuNe to crow about your own superior intellect, whilst sneering at those who seek merely to perform the duties that they have been assigned by their employer.

I could continue, but it is very clear that you will not tolerate any opinion except your own, and therefore this would not be productive. PPRuNe users will hold the high ground however, because EVERYBODY who reads your post will have quietly thought to themselves:-

"Cretin"

You see we've all met you before KunnDize - the face is different every time, but the attitude remains the same.

:yuk:

[tart1]

I agree. If I'd been the cabin crew member you caused to become flustered, I'd have reported you to the flight deck and asked the Captain to deal with you, either by speaking to you himself or having the police meet the flight. You have no right to disobey a rule which is in place for the safety of the aircraft.

During the last flight I was on, someone quite near to me kept receiving text messages but we couldn't determine who it was. After landing several people turned on their phones during taxiing and also received messages. The airline had specifically stated that mobile phone use was prohibited until inside the terminal building.

Soem people do love to flout the rules .......... or maybe they just feel that the rules should apply only to everyone else but not them.

Breathtaking arrogance! :mad:

[kokpit]

Paxboy,

BUT the fuel on the ramp is more volatile. Take your pick!

Aviation fuel (Avtur, not Avgas) is nothing more than kerosine, with addatives such as FSII, far less volatile than petrol.

I've seen cigarettes dropped into pools of avtur without incident, it needs to be vapourised (a function within the engine) to burn unless at very high temperature.

Precautions are of course taken, such as bonding bowser and aircraft on refuel, to mitigate against static, but again, a small leak at pressure to vapourise the fuel would most likely be needed to achieve combustion.

[tart1]

Whatever your opinion, you should obey the rules that have been put in place for the safety of all on board the aircraft.

I really cannot stand those people who think that they should be the one to decide which rules apply to them and they disobey the rules they don't agree with.

These sort of people would be the first to make a hell of a lot of noise if anything happened to them or their families as a result of someone else ignoring the safety rules.



People like that make me :yuk:

For goodness sake .... is it so difficult to be out of contact for a few hours?? It used to be the norm till a few years ago.

[sydney s/h]

Ok...here are the rules for on Qantas.

For flights QF400 and above as of 7 June 2005.

If the aircraft is connected to an aerobridge the following applies;

As the final pax are boarding, as part of your welcome onboard PA this should include .....

"Mobile phones and Portable Electronic devices must now be switched off. If your mobile phone of Portable Electronic Device can operate in 'flight mode' please switch it to 'flight mode' before turning it off.

Radio transmitters may not be used at anytime during the flight.
Portable Electronic devices including laptop computers, toys and handheld games can interfere with our navigation instruments. They may not be switched on until the seatbelt sign has been extinguished and must be switched off prior to descent.

On arrival into _____ we will advise you when you may switch on your mobile phone.


Then...as part of the Arrival PA....

Ladies & Gentlemen, Welcome to ________ where the time is _____.

If your mobile phone is within your reach you may now switch it on. and it goes on.....

Hope this clears up the latest QF policy!




:ok:

[captainbritboy]

OK. So would you all like to learn the REAL truth about using a mobile phone at a filling station or onboard an aircraft?

1) Using a mobile phone at a filling station takes the customer
longer time in refuelling the car, thus causing a delay to other
customers, who may well 'drive on' to the next filling station
which ain't good for business.

2) Using a mobile phone in any public environment whether it be
on a train, restaurant, or airplane is irritating to other travellers
who have to listen in to your 'plans for Friday night with Dave'.


There is, and never has been, any conclusive evidence that the use of mobile telecommunications equipment poses any threat to safety in the above circumstances.

I would, however, like to point out that the most serious threat to public health regarding the use of mobile phones comes from those who are using the new 'frog' ring tone.

Any passengers who allow this ringtone to sound beyond a maximum of five seconds anywhere at Gatwick will get my boot up their @rse!



:ooh:

[HoHum]

To all those people out there who say that mobile phones do not interfere with the Aircrafts navigational instruments and does not pose as a real threat to safety consider this ............

Flying one day while doing service in cruise, aircraft distinctly moved and changed course. Captain called myself to F/Deck and advised that aircraft had the auto pilot disengage by itself and it appeared that there was some sort of interference for this to happen. This happened twice on the flight and had never happened before.
Second time, the Captain requested crew to check all Pax mobiles to see if any were switched on. ....... After thorough check of pax who were travelling with mobiles ( this took a little time, but all pax were understanding) NO mobiles found to be switched on (Amazing, I hear you gasp!!! :hmm: ) This was reported back to Captain.

After flight - crew disembarked aircraft and it was noted that one of their phones was still on!!!! ( yeah , I know.....we forgot to check the most usual suspects!!!!)

So explain why a new aircraft which has never had any problems before all of a sudden disengages auto pilot twice and the only electical device found to be on was a mobile .......... :uhoh:

And remember this was just one phone - what if there were more on - maybe the aircraft would have ended up anywhere...........



Until conculsive tests can prove beyond a doubt that mobile phones do not interfere in ANY way with an aircraft, I see no reason why we need to have them on while in flight...... afterall, no - one is THAT important that the world cannot continue to revolve without people being able to reach them on their mobile for the short time that they are on an aircraft. (Talk about a big self worth that some people have of themselves!!!:suspect: :suspect: )


And to those who turn their phone on while taxiing or before getting off the aircraft - I mean really !!! - what is an extra 2 miutes wait going to do???? Surely the fact of being free of those annoying mobiles constantly ringing is enough encouragement to keep it off for just that little longer!!!???

What DID we do before Mobile phones came along - how on earth did we survive ???!!!???

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :confused:

[tart1]

Good post HoHum! :D

Surely it is better to be safe than sorry until we know for absolutely certain that mobiles on aircraft inflight are safe.

And I quite agree with your thoughts on why people need to use the bl**dy things anyway and can't wait for an hour or two to make/receive calls or messages.

Totally sad!! :rolleyes:

[RaverFlaver]

What is the deal with "inflight" mode on mobiles?

I had a CM tell me that phones with inflight mode still have to be turned off as even in inflight mode the phones still search the network for signals ect.

Anyone know how true this is?

AO is different to QF, mobiles turned off upon entering aircraft, and not turned on until inside the terminal.

Cheers,

Raver :o)

[dwshimoda]

Backing up what Kokpit says, I run my paraffin patio lgihts on Jet-A1 I bought from local airfield...

"I love the smell of jet fuel in the morning, smells like, victory"

Misquoted deliberately - but it does make the garden smell like the airport! You could throw a match in the container and it would go out - they only light once the wick has had loads of time to soak up what is, essentially, diesel

[italianjon]

I was led to believe, and I must say that this seems the best reason for not being aloowed to use a mobile on board, especially after seeing countless people at petrol pumps, and of course the odd one on board using a phone is that...

If people had mobile phones switched on; on board... the phone networks would crash as they could not handle switching between transmitters of that number of phones.

Think about it. Say 150 people per aircraft have phone switched on (as an average guess) and the number of aircraft movements over the UK per day.

It's not like a car where it would be a new transmitter every few minutes, in a plane it would be every few seconds.

I think the base stations they would like to fit lower the switching by factors of thousands, as each aircraft has to switch every few seconds, not the entire passenger load.

If mobiles were that bad they would surely stop cars and things, the amount of electrics in them today.

For the record I am not a fan of phones on planes... I hope that if they do allow them they provide an area to use them.

Maybe a sound proof box on the wing?

[Dave Gittins]

Mobile phones DO affect aircraft instruments as Mike Jenvey says. I have lost my transponder signal (call from ATC . we just lost your transponder signal) ... at the precise moment that the headset started the familiar noise to tell me the phone was still switched on in my shirt pocket.

If it affects two electronic RF devices (VHF comms and transponder), I am quite sure it will also affect other electronic devices.

Can also vouch for the effect on other non radio electronics in this case analytical equipment (which was supposed to pass a BS standard and be RF immune). In a previous life had a lot to do with water treatment equipment and the chemical analysis equipment went haywire everytime a mobile phone rang ... on many occasions I saw, the peron holding the phone was more than a metre away from the equipment affected.

Thus .. keep them switched off near safety critical electronic equipment.

As far as igniting fumes is concerned .. I have never had any evidence presented to me that demonstrates a likelihood. Have only been told that there is a basic theoretical support for the problem.

(In the same way, I have never found anybody who can explain to me why we earth aeroplanes to refuel them, when we don't earth cars !!!)

DGG

[QFboi_MEL]

In regards to flight mode, as far as I am aware it is only available on Blackberry phones. To say the least if flight mode was going to interfere with navigational equipment, then I don't think the trail of PDA's used by CSM's for QF would have proven to be successfull. All crew for QF that reads the cabin crew news should know what i'm talking about.

[sixmilehighclub]

Flightmode is available on many phones, not just blackberries. I have a SonyEricsson which has flightmode, however, this allows passengers to think that when putting their phone in flight mode they can leave it switched on (as an electronic item) for take off.

This is the CAA advice/ruling:

"Mobile phones and personal electronic equipment"

The CAA has conducted research which provided evidence that a mobile phone transmission on-board an aircraft may interfere with equipment including communications, navigation and flight control systems. There is circumstantial evidence that portable electronic devices such as CD players and computer games can also cause interference. As a result there is a requirement that:

The use of mobile phones on board aircraft is prohibited while the aircraft's engines are running.
In addition, the use of personal electronic equipment by passengers, such as laptop computers, electronic games, calculators, CD players, cassette players, radios, TVs, video cameras and remote controlled toys, is prohibited during take-off and landing phases, when the passenger seat belt sign is on, and whenever the aircraft commander suspects that their use may be the cause of interference."

In line with this, BA prohibits passengers to have their mobile phones switched on whilst the engines are running. This obviously includes taxying. Seatbelt signs go off when the engines have been shut down on the ground.
They may use phones whilst refuelling but its always wise to keep an ear out incase of the need to leave quickly.

I've been led to believe by various avionic engineers that on some aircraft, dury taxy, mobiles can confuse sensors and signals to the flight crew in equipment like engine fire extinguishers and verbal communication with the tower on the ground.

What does make me laugh however, is the reports that more mobile phone masts are cropping up in the petrol stations concealed in the price tariff tower.

[Miles Magister]

The current UK CAA policy is detailed in AIC1/2004 Pink 62. I am not sure how to post a link as you need to register on this site http://www.ais.org.uk to access it.

Six Mile High, from some of your previous posts I believe it is your employers who have been instrumental in developing the on board mobile phone system for airliners.

Personally, I am grateful I have to turn it off!!!

MM

[tonkatechie]

Having flown half way round the world (from the Falklands) without a hitch, I was amazed at the attitude of passengers on the flight from Heathrow to Edinburgh - one woman, despite being the last to get on board - wandered down the aisle to her seat whilst having a banal conversation on her mobile, despite the cabin crew asking her to hurry and switch it off. As the crew went about their checks she started another call, at which point my travelling companion tapped her on the shoulder and asked her to switch the phone off. She huffed "I travel every week and it never causes any problems, there's no risk", to which my mate said "I'm an Avionics Engineer, there are several risks, the biggest of which is me shoving that phone up your :mad:". Much laughing from all the other passengers, and one phone swtiched off!

I think the bigger problem is the way that hardly anyone pays attention to the safety brief (which is why I always try to get a seat near an exit - damned if I'm going to fight my way out). I'm sure the crew doing the demonstrations could stand there pulling faces and no-one would notice!

Dave Gittins:

In the same way, I have never found anybody who can explain to me why we earth aeroplanes to refuel them, when we don't earth cars !!!)
It's to do with the levels of static that build up with the air passing over the airframe - the tyres should earth it all on landing, so it's just a bit 'belt-and-braces' really. You'd only need to do it on your car if it went 500mph....

[near enuf is good enuf]

It is obvious that mobile phones do pose a risk "during flight" as several contributors have already mentioned and backed up by evidence from the CAA.
Would it not be correct to say that those systems affected are no longer in use once the runway has been cleared except of course the radio comms?

[Distinctly]

I don't know whether the rules are all really worthwhile but I do as I'm told when flying as do most people I expect. I had to smile recently though on NZ1 on the LA to Auckland leg when a young chap received a tongue lashing from the FA for trying to send text messages on his mobile. I just wondered how on earth he thought the signals would be picked up over the middle of the Pacific, when we were just about as far from land as it's possible to be!

[Speedpig]

There are several posts here giving instances of cell phones actually causing instrument failure or at least glitch. How can the crew then be 100% positive that the instrument is then functioning correctly even when they have standby systems?

Why are so many posters doubtful that there is a possible risk to aircraft safety, or the possibility of a spark at a filling station?

Place your ON cell phone near your PC and call it then tell me that it does not interfere with your precious system... go on try it.... or be on a land line when someone else is using a cell. You will all have to admit that there is interference caused.
What causes that? It is an electro magnetic pulse, I believe.
If it causes the remotest flicker to your PC or the slightest blip on your phone, imagine what it could do to the highly sensitive instruments on board an aircraft.

I don't care if there has been no crash as a result of cell phone use..... if I'm told there MAY be a risk then I want them switched off. Better still, hand them in on boarding to be handed back on disembarkation.

Apart from that, how dare anyone put me and my colleagues, family and friends at risk... however slight, because they think the rule doesn't apply to them

[LH2]

I'm surprised none has mentioned yet the passenger on Saudi Airlines who got flogged for talking on his mob during a flight. Read that on Arab News a couple of years ago.

Now that's a policy.

P.S. for those unfamiliar with Saudi: "flogged" means flogged. Literally.

[Pilot747]

I always thought it depended on which country you are in. In the states you can use the phone while taxiing but not during take off or landing, in the UK you cannot use whilst taxiing takeoff or landing but you can use it while on a stand. Basically as soon as the doors shut to the moment the engine shuts down. i believe these are legal requirements
when i flew with United last year the captain made an announcement to this effect so thats how i understand it

[Middle Seat]

Policy in the US does vary. As earlier mentioned, AA allows from doors closed until pushback. Upon landing, as soon as the plane has exited the runway, an announcement is made that pax can use phones, so long as they are accessible, and it doesn't involve lugging out carry on bags. Alaska follows the same policy. Northwest was the last trip I took, and I don't seem to recall what exactly their policy was.

Frankly, I hope they don't extend this "priviledge" any further. The airplane is the only place I'm away from the infernal things. I am tired of listening to people talk about dates, colon blockages, big business deals, tennis games, and last night's party ("UHm, like Oh. My. Gawd! Did you like see Corey last night at Britney's party? He was like uhm, looking so fine in those tight pants..")

but I'm sure I'm not alone in those feelings. So if any of you have input to company policies, on my behalf. NO. PHONES. EVER.

[hin316]

think someone mentioned the fact that no one pays the slightest bit of attention to the saftey demo's anymore, I often find mysel staring at row upon row of news papers! on the last sector of a 4 sector day i can't help feeling like Baisl fawlty and shouting "i don't know why i bother we should let you all burn" if we had to do the demo with 150 mobile phone conversations going on at once.......... i dread to think what would happen in a real emergency!

[Roadster280]

Hi all,

I'm a new poster to Pprune, I do not work in the aviation industry, but I do fly an awful lot (Gold with BA and silver with Delta). I work in the telecoms industry and used to be in the army, working with helicopters. I have read a lot of uninformed rubbish in this thread. My observations:

1. Aviation fuel more volatile than gasoline (petrol) - bollox. It is a derivative of kerosene (paraffin). An oily liquid. Yes it burns, but it isnt anything like as volatile as the lighter oil fractions, such as gasoline.

2. In the US, with Delta, AA, Comair, ASA and Airtran it is normal to turn the phone off when the door closes and turn it on again after exiting the runway (whilst still taxying). Gave me a heart attack the first time I saw this happen, until the PA saying it was Ok to use cellphones.

3. Techy stuff. The modulation of the carrier in GSM phones is extremely "noisy". It generates harmonics and subharmonics widely. The intermodulation products of these can cause yet further frequencies to be radiated upon. Net effect is interference all over the place. As previously posted, you can hear the mobile transmitting if next to a speaker. Or the wires connected to it. Modern aircraft use fly-by-wire technology. The interference generated by the phone is sufficient to screw the communication between the various components of the systems. Not good in flight. Hence why you cant use them in hospitals either. As for garages, the same applies, but not in the obvious way. The spikes of noise can cause havoc with the metering system on the pumps (digital, after all). Not so much to do with spark hazard as money hazard. I remember a demo in the army of a spark jumping 3 inches between a radio antenna and a pencil. The radio was transmitting 30W CONTINUOUSLY at a low frequency. Anyone ever seen a plastic cased Nokia spark? No. Nor is it going to. But the old 20W analogue "transportables" could.

4. Yes, the cellphone is going to work at 30,000 feet. I reckon the horizon is about 200 miles at 30000 feet. Best hill top site ever invented. Might cause havoc in the GSM system, with a handset trying to determine the best base station out of several thousand. Not to mention moving over the ground at in excess of 500 miles per hour.

5. The mobile does not look for the best base station at full power. It is RECEIVING when it is doing that, and it can take a quad-band mobile some time to scan all potential frequencies. Once it has worked out the best station, it attempts to talk to it. Only at that stage is it at full power. It then gets admitted to the network, and undergoes power control regulation so it always transmits at the minimum necessary power to conserve battery life and not swamp the base station in unnecessary power.

Using mobiles in flight is just plain stupid, and not to be recommended. The rest of it is just management of f***wits who cant be trusted. "Dont do it at all" is not open to interpretation. Anything else is.

Just my 2p.

(Awaits being flamed to death for speaking the truth!!)

[radeng]

There's been various papers published on volatility and the probability of Radio Frequency induced explosions in petrol vapours. Sheffield University did a lot of work on this about 20 odd years ago: there's also a whole load about it in the Defence Standard on RF Radiation Hazards(I can't remember the number - Def Stan 74??). Mobile phones do not have enough power - you have to have a certain amount of energy in the spark - to cause a fire unless you short the battery. There's a British Standard on the subject, too. What started the ban in petrol stations was the discovery by CBers with illegal high power amplifiers that running the CB set while filling up sent the petrol pump mad, and they could get away without paying full whack for the petrol. That sort of power level also had the energy levels necessary to ignite petrol from a spark. Strictly, if you enforced the 'no radio transmissions' rule in a garage, you have people locked out of their cars..........So as others have said, it's an urban myth, perpetuated in many cases by people knowing not why. They even apparently teach the myth in Health and Safety training. I got taught it in the RF Radiation Hazards course I did.

As far as mobile phones when in aircraft (besides being anti-bloody-social) the evidence is there that aircraft systems are nowhere near as EMC proof as they really ought to be. What does slightly surprise me is that no one has ever reported problems as they fly through the beam from the surveillance radar at LHR. Maybe the effects are so transient they don't get noticed. Another difficulty is that as aircraft age, the screening on cables tends to get less effective, because of flexing leading to metal fatigue in the screening, corrosion, etc. Not forgetting screwdrivers and so on stuck into cable runs as a tool holder......So the capability of putting up with interference decreases with time.