Air Safety and Mobile Phones??

[propjockey]

All,

as a student PPL I am rather interested in the CPL view of this!

On a BA flight frm LHR to GLW last week as soon as the a/c had touched the ground and entered the taxiway the number of mobile phones going off was ridiculous.

I was quite amazed that the flightcrew did not say anything and that they seemed to do was glare at the couple of idiots who can't seem to understand a few simple instructions regards phones.

So whats the scoop here ?? This is getting worse every flight and no one seems to bother too much!

It bothers me as I was always under the impression that this strictly a no no and I am kinda touchy about flight safety anyway as I can appreciate it more as a PPL!


One thing that did annoy me on last nights flight up was the ground crew at the top of the jetty telling everyone to switch off their phones with no explanation - I twigged that they were refueling but when I asked the a/c crew when onboard what the story was - they looked at me blankly and started looking for the tanker - 'oh yeah - we might be fuelling she says'!

Not making a big deal of this but I am interested in the views of you guys.

Regards

[missioncontrol]

Propjockey- I was interested to read your remarks ref. mobile phones.

My airline has a policy of no mobile phones, laptop computers or electronic devices to be used from when the aircraft doors are closed until they are opened, ie after the Air-jetty is attached.

Unfortunately this relies on the cabin crew to make announcements and to actively police the cabin,-quite difficult during take-off and landing whilst they have to remain strapped to their jump-seats.

I personally have been involved in 3 incidents, one as a passenger, and twice as crew where mobile phones have been the primary suspected cause of interference with the navigational capabilities of the aircraft.

In one more serious case a series of unusual autopilot/flight instrument indications led to a level bust.Although it was not proven, a mobile phone was suspected.

From this I deduce that the public are arrogant beyond belief to the point where they will jeopardize their own safety, so as to continue to have their banal conversations.

Fact: it will take a serious accident ( note I do not use the word incident) directly attributed to a Mobile phone before "The Authority" will legislate and force the airlines to rigourously enforce this ban.

Till then I can only suggest that you bring the attention of the cabin-crew to the offenders/chancers and in turn to the Captain of the aircraft.

[Captain Stable]

There has been a thread running on this subject for some time on the Safety, CRM & QA Forum.

[Midnight Blue]

Sorry propjockey, that my answer is a little bit sarcastic, but it seems, the safety of commercial flight operation is more impaired by flight crew, that are in possession of nail scissors and bottle openers.

Poor westerly world.

It looks, that bin Laden has reached his goal,
not by killing innocent people in a terroristic act,
but by driving the governments of almost the whole world to treat everybody as potential terrorist, annoy the own citizens and damage the own economy worldwide.

And of course diverting the attention from real safety issues to real nonsense.


To answer your question in a more serious way, if we turn over a violator of the "no mobile phone-rule" to police, because he endangers the flight operation, we get no backup by German Court, even not the own company.
So we keep on telling them: "you bad, bad boy, don´t do this again, or... (...or... what?)"

So the "important phone users" do not care, because they do not have to fear any consequences. :(

[propjockey]

Thanks All,

yes it really worries me too esp at the level of it.

I actually was in two minds to bring it to the attention of the crew but then what happens when unhappy passenger starts an argument and then you end up in a potential airrage situation! I fly every week at least twice and its kinda of concerning at the level of stupidity of some! I have even heard phones beeping text messages during finals! scary!

Thanks for the feedback and to the moderator too - will go have a look at that.


Regards

[gofer]

Is it not time for some enterprising company or entrepreneur to create a portal or archway that you walk through that scans for and detects mobile phones.

Ideally this would be all phones, on or off, and it would result in you handing over your phone in an off state into a bag you get 1/2 a tag and the other half is marked with your seat number. The phones are impounded (given to the chief purser or Captain) and returned on the jetway or at the bottom of the stairs when you produce the 1/2 of your tag and show your boarding card stub.

Worst case it would only catch the phones that were on. Those that were off would get on board OK, and the announcements should threaten instant confiscation (with fine) if used before arriving in the terminal building.

When being handed you boarding card you should receive a slip warning of the rules and indicating the fine (suggest something interesting - 1st offence 500 US$ - repeat offence 5000 US$ and blacklisting.

Offences should be reported by the airlines to a Database run by SITA or IATA and paid for partially by the fines.

Interested in comments (especially from SITA & IATA).

[Kalium Chloride]

The simple answer is a localised jamming unit. There must be a scrambling signal that could kill the mobile's carrier frequencies without affecting the avionics.

[gofer]

Jamming signals yes but why risk conflicts with the avionics.

Discarded a phone distructing jam signal on the jetway because you know how the legal eagles would love to have their Fone Killed - and who would get taken to the cleaners - the airlines.

No I still think a sensing device up near the start of the jetway, catch them while boarding best fits the common sense and learning patterns of "log headed" PAX.

[PAXboy]

This is an old chestnut in PPRuNe and has been discussed many times in the short time that I have been here. Firstly, I am in telecommunications and have been so for 22 years.

Jamming of Signals: Equipment available now. Being considered by libraries, theatres etc. Objections likely to bew that many folks do keep their phone on silent so that they can receive notification of calls via SMS. Doctors on call out etc. Problem in the cabin is, of course, possible interfence of valid signals.

Without looking at the specification of the jamming device, and reference to each AND EVERY airport and airline, it is not possible to comment. My guess is that the chance of it happening is zero. Carriers will say that it is the technical problems but actually it is the cost. Across a fleet it would be VERY expensive - not so much the actual box/es of tricks but the certification that it does not interfere with valid signals.

The same goes for a detector on the air bridge. It is not possible to detect a piece of electronics that is switched off, so it would only find live units. The cost would be prohibitive and the airports would say that it is the airlines problem!!

Possible solutions?
On the air bridge, have automated speaker announcements. If the airbridges already have speakers for emergency use, then the lost is low, perhaps one thousand pounds per bridge. If they do not have speakers, the cost jumps and the airports will not do it. Bear in mind that BAA is the most parsimonious of companies and have a stranglehold on the UK and influence elsewhere in the world.

In the cabin:
As soon as Pax start loading, automated announcement:
Please switch off all mobile telephony equipment. Use of any such equipment endangers this aircraft and all it's passengers and crew. This will enable (empower) pax to tell their neighbour to switch it off. The announcement gets repeated until doors closed and then repeated in safety show.

Upon arrival, it must be played during final approach and taxi. The announcement must be made in several languages, particularly the ones of countries visited on the flight. At a guess, eight to ten languages which will help to relieve the monotony of hearing the same thing over again in your own language. If the a/c has TV monitors then it can be shown on them as well.

Cost? When compared to providing the latest news bulletin every day on long haul? Practically zero. Can be implemented without any legislation etc.

I agree with missioncontrol that a major prang has to happen before anyone 'in authority' does anything. I have said so myself every time this subject comes up for discussion. After all, no one will agree to enforce (not legislate but enforce) a ban on the use of mobile/cell telephones for those driving cars, where the danger is more immediate and more evidence exists!

[bodstrup]

I received the latest SAS news today.

The Mobile 'ban' has now been lifted slightly, it goes into effect when the crew announces it and ends at gate parking/seatbelts off.

The idea is to allow passengers to talk if delayed. The captain can also lift restrictions after the announcement, if the A/C is waiting for an extended time on a taxyway.

So, still no phoning when taxying towards the gate.

Regards
Michael

[cwatters]

Are other RF devices also a problem...

Laptop computers fitted with wireless LAN cards?

Laptop fitted with a Bluetooth card talking to a mobile phone left switched on in stowed bags?

[HALFPINT]

Last year a colleague was flying into Rekyavik (on a 757) and
was in the jump seat for the landing.

About 5 minutes before touchdown the captain pulled out
a mobile phone and called his wife to say he was about to
land - see you soon, etc.

Was he better informed or bonkers?

I think we should be told.

[gofer]

The crew can see the direct effect on their instruments - and in that case know what the cause is. When the SLF do it they don't know what is causing a potential error, problem, distortion or whatever.

That is the difference. When your radio is on the blink in many cases it is your only backup !!!

So we are in this case NOT talking about the drivers - but the rest of the souls inback. (I know its very much a case of 'do what I say' and don't 'do what I do' - but that is the way it crumbles cookiewise - as the transpudlians say).;)

[Pax Vobiscum]

cwatters raises a very good question - signal strength from wireless LAN equipment (which can include PDAs as well as laptops) is several times that from a mobile phone (but on a higher frequency, 2.5GHz). Bluetooth is a much weaker signal, designed to operate over distances of a few feet/metres. Wireless LAN capability is now being built in to laptops - it can be software disabled, but how many users will know/think to do that?

Do galleys make use of microwave ovens (which also operate at 2.5GHz)?

As I've observed before - while I make every effort to switch my mobile off, very occasionally I forget. If I remember during the flight, I'll get up and switch it off, but what if it's in my checked baggage? With dozens or even hundreds of mobiles on every flight, it's a virtual certainty that one or more will be on (that doesn't excuse us from making every effort to switch as many off as possible).

If this is a real problem then we either need:
(a) a foolproof detection system (difficult with devices that by design are radio-silent for minutes at a time); or
(b) hardened aircraft avionics that aren't affected (unlikely to be retrofitted).

[Few Cloudy]

Just bought a Fiat Punto and read the book. It says that mobile phones without a proper external antenna can interfere with electronically controlled items, which could result in danger to the occupants. (There was no list but this may include engine control and possibly the electrical power steering as now fitted.)

Taking it that this is true and not just to forestall eager lawyers, aircraft have quite a few more systems, which it would be as well not to have interfered with.

Fiat may have suggested a good solution - a proper external antenna fitted to passenger aircraft, with a shielded connection for mobile phones.

[cwatters]

There is at least one report from 1995 of a mobile phone setting off an airbag sensor. You can just imagine it... Ring.. Ring.. <driver picks up phone>... BANG... and mobile phone exits rapidly through hole in roof.

[timzsta]

Wasnt there a 747-400 that experienced major fluctuation in EICAS fuel quantity indication whilst taxing at KLAX a few years ago, traced to a mobile phone (only after it taxied back on stand and a major delay was caused while leak checks/tank dipping/system diagnosis etc was carried out).

Oh and another thing that is very annoying. When passengers come to check in and expect you to check them in whilst they carry on with their mobile phone conversation. It is downright rude - I have had enough of it. I sit there silent until they finish their conversation now.

[3db]

PAX boy
Jamming devices. In the passenger compartment, nobody should have a cellphone switched on – hence no worry about doctors etc. I feel this is the way to go, but agree most airlines won’t on a cost/weight verses benefit argument- at least until the AAIB/NTSB cite a cellphone as the likely cause of the major accident.

I don’t think it would be difficult to get approved, around the world you probably only have about 6-8 spot frequencies for the data channel to be swamped with a local signal. Accepted that any approval is expensive – but so is an accident.

Airbridge or cabin announcements request compliance, don’t force it like jamming devices. I prefer having the flight deck in control, rather than the SLF ask to comply.

As an aside PAX boy, my background is similar to yours – radio comms. However, about 6 years ago I worked for a company calibrating ILS’s. I use to calibrate the kit used to flight test the ILS in a workshop. It was interesting to have the kit on the bench and go walkabout with a cellphone switched on, I think this was an old analogue cellphone- not the more modern digital. I could make the glide slop go from centred to full up or down just by walking up and down the workshop! OK, I know its not a scientific report, but it convinced me SLF should have all cellphones switched off!

[Young Paul]

Now let me think. The problem with mobile phones is transmission on radio frequencies that might interfere with aircraft systems. So this proposed solution is to stick a transmitter on board the aircraft that interferes with the mobile phones transmitting on those frequencies that might interfere with the aircraft systems.

I think there might be a little design flaw here.

[3db]

Young Paul.
No design flaw. The equipment would only need to operate on 6-8 spot frequencies, hence would have a relativly small range to be tested against the A/C kit for interferance. The alternative is SLF bringing different makes/models of cellphones operating over a very wide frequency range - practically impossible to prove no interferance is caused to A/C kit. You could always harden the A/C kit to MIL standards - very expensive, but would stop interferance to A/C kit. Modern civilian A/C are much better protected against EMI than old, but not to MIL standards.

[smiling monkey]

I thought this article from yesterday's Singapore Straitstimes (http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/cybernews/story/0,1870,139417-1030312740,00.html?) would be of interest to this thread ....

US airlines allowing use of PDAs that can connect to Net

By Ng Hui Hui

THE use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) that enable wireless connection to the Internet is allowed if you travel on an American airline.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates aviation safety in the United States, does not ban the use of a PDA - even one that can connect to the Internet through a cellular network, a spokesman for the FAA told USA Today recently.

But most of the major airlines operating in the Asia-Pacific region told The Sunday Times they do not allow the use of PDAs.

USA Today cited two examples where passengers had used their PDAs to receive e-mail messages.

When contacted, United Airlines spokesman Sophia Mah said the use of PDAs is allowed, as long as they do not transmit radio waves, which are known to interfere with an aircraft's navigation system.

But experts say it is premature to dismiss PDAs with communication functions as harmless.

'A PDA may use less bandwidth to check e-mail, but you are using the same frequency as a cellular phone, and in much the same way,' Mr Terry Wiseman, an expert on in-flight communication systems and editor of Airfax.com, told USA Today.

While this remains a grey area for American airlines, other major airlines in Asia-Pacific have definite guidelines - PDAs with communication capabilities will be treated like mobile phones, which are banned.

The five airlines are Singapore Airlines (SIA), Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Qantas and British Airways.

'While there is no risk of some PDAs interfering with the plane's navigation equipment because they have relatively basic functions, others have more advanced functions that may cause some interference,' said SIA spokesman Karen Liaw.

However, if the communication functions on the PDAs can be disabled, passengers are allowed to use them for other purposes such as text editing, so long as it is not done during take-off and landing.

All electronic equipment have to be switched off during take-off and landing.

According to USA Today, Mr Wiseman suggested that the FAA's policy on PDAs may be outdated, given the convergence of phones and computing devices.

For example, he asked, should the Nokia Communicator 9110, which allows users to send e-mail messages and has other note-keeping functions, be considered a PDA and its use be allowed on aircraft?

Or, should the BlackBerry 5810, which has a built-in phone, be considered a cellular phone and be banned from use?

There are also sceptics who asked airlines to prove that mobile phones interfere with flight navigation systems.

'Make them prove it. I am an electrical engineer, and I cannot see how a mobile phone is going to mess up with aircraft navigation systems,' frequent flyer John Turner told USA Today.

[outofsynch]

I will be the first to agree that mobiles used in flight are not a good idea.

What aggravates me is why there is all this fuss about them being used while on the ground. Why shouldnt you be able to use them before takeoff, or after landing?

And certainly this cr@p about not using them when walking across the apron, is pure tosser-ville! Who stops the engineers and despatchers, refuellers, security etc usung radios on the apron?
No one!

I would suggest that if the rules were a bit more feasible/believable, you mind find a few more folks respecting them!

:mad:

[Young Paul]

Yes, restrictions on mobile phones on the apron are possibly excessively cautious. However, they are higher power than radios or even short range network phones, and might produce arcing.

There are some really unexpected EMI effects - even within aircraft systems. To the extent that an apparently insignificant area of damage on a piece of cable in (e.g.) the transponder system can cause a significant failure in a totally unrelated system such as pressurisation outflow valves. The point is that aircraft are large and complex with lots of electrical systems interacting in very subtle ways. Even establishing that EMI for particular frequencies is not a problem on an aircraft off the factory floor doesn't guarantee that it won't be for other aircraft off the same line, or the same aircraft when somebody has made a nick in a piece of cable somewhere.

I'd go with hardening the aircraft to military EMI standards. Then we'd not be able to put so many passengers on, because of the increase in weight, and nobody would want to fly because tickets would cost 30% more. That would improve turnaround times too.

Seriously though, outofsynch, I'm not too bothered about potential pax grumbling about excessive safety restrictions. If you really have a problem about being told not to use your mobile phone on board or on the apron, then go by car. That's one less whiny passenger that my crew will have to deal with.

[cwatters]

A company I worked for once took a call from a school. They rang to tell us that a pupil with a pacemaker felt unwell whenever he used a computer that we had supplied. Boy did that put the wind up the directors! A team was dispatched and they found that the problem was cause by emissions from the computer monitor. The monitor met all current EMC standards (or at least thats what the labels said) and lucky for us it wasn't one we had supplied. We gave them one of ours and last I heard this fixed the problem. It's easy to be complacent about EMC until you have an incdent like this.

Recently I read a report that suggested mobile phones are capable of corrupting the content of computer memory devices (specifically EEPROM or battery backed CMOS RAM). The report indicated that this was thought to have been the cause of an aircraft crash (Ok it was a model aircraft crash but I had you going there!).