Does electronic equipment actually interfere with aircraft systems?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: At work
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does electronic equipment actually interfere with aircraft systems?
Hi all,
I was recently reminded by a safety video that "electronic devices fitted with a transmitting function may not be used unless in flight mode, and must be switched of for take-off and landing" (or something to that effect). This got me thinking - why? It seems plenty of people use their electronic devices at all stages of flight, and with some airlines introducing wi-fi onboard I'm wondering to what extent - if any - safety is compromised through their use.
I'm not trying to endorse their use in complete disregard of air law, but I'm intrigued nonetheless.
Cheers.
I was recently reminded by a safety video that "electronic devices fitted with a transmitting function may not be used unless in flight mode, and must be switched of for take-off and landing" (or something to that effect). This got me thinking - why? It seems plenty of people use their electronic devices at all stages of flight, and with some airlines introducing wi-fi onboard I'm wondering to what extent - if any - safety is compromised through their use.
I'm not trying to endorse their use in complete disregard of air law, but I'm intrigued nonetheless.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 'flight mode' I'd be extremely surprised if it has any effect. In my airline we're even flying with iPads cradled into the flightdeck with plates and manuals on the ipad.
Devices would need to be handed in if there was a real threat.
All this talk of electromagnetic interference! The plane can take a lightning strike for crying out loud.
Devices would need to be handed in if there was a real threat.
All this talk of electromagnetic interference! The plane can take a lightning strike for crying out loud.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Some do, some don't. Rather than hold up the flight try to identify which are which on a passenger flight (and sort out the ensuing arguments from disgruntled pax), a blanket ban does the job.
For one example of interference caused by an electronic device, I used to fly a helicopter type where a live mobile phone being "polled" in flight would bring on the aft baggage bay smoke warning. Because there was no fire extinguisher in that bay, the warning coming on in flight meant an immediate landing. Not easy or safe over hostile terrain, in bad weather, or at night.
The anomaly was that the manufacturers said it shouldn't / didn't happen. That was probably because they hadn't carried out trials using the European phone frequencies, only those used in USA. Descending towards the sea at night, thinking the aircraft tail is going on fire, is no time to find these things out.
For one example of interference caused by an electronic device, I used to fly a helicopter type where a live mobile phone being "polled" in flight would bring on the aft baggage bay smoke warning. Because there was no fire extinguisher in that bay, the warning coming on in flight meant an immediate landing. Not easy or safe over hostile terrain, in bad weather, or at night.
The anomaly was that the manufacturers said it shouldn't / didn't happen. That was probably because they hadn't carried out trials using the European phone frequencies, only those used in USA. Descending towards the sea at night, thinking the aircraft tail is going on fire, is no time to find these things out.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons for the restrictions on use of electronic devices during take-off and landing is that they could start flying all around the cabin during abnormal manuevers (such as rejected takeoff). And I don't think anybody wants to be hit in the head by an iPad, weighing more than 500g doing couple of m/s.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a pretty good Boeing article on this in their Aero magazine.
Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices
Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices
There have also been cases where electronic devices (mobile phones, etc.) have caused under-floor freight bay fire warnings on B747s - not proven but highly probable. As with the helicopter example in a previous post, a fire warning at a critical phase of flight or when way out over the ocean is not pleasant and is a significant cause for concern.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
ShyTorque, one of our guys had exactly the same thing happen in Australia (S-76).
I've had the phone ring on a turnaround (A320 family) and simultaneously watched "GPS primary lost" appear, and the airport and SID slew over to the side of the ND. (20 mile arc IIRC).
All came good once I answered!
All came good once I answered!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been guilty of as a captain leaving my cellphone on and it going off at 3,000 ft on approach telling me I had a missed call. I don't know if cell phones cause any interference but have had a couple of flights when all long range navigation failed in a Boeing 727 but worked when all passengers and baggage was removed at destination. Something in checked bags or carry on must have caused it.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sth of the border
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it can't be certain NOT to interfere with the flight it will be banned as no organisation will stick their neck out to say it is safe in ALL circumstances! Certain electronic devices that are tested for flight deck use only or other restricted use will be approved as testing and liability is established.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does electronic equipment actually interfere with aircraft systems?
As has been suggested testing a specific bit of kit under specific circumstances in the aircraft might allow clearance of that kit - but a blanket 'go ahead' seems unlikely.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading an article in some journal or other a few years ago about a researcher who carried a spectrum analyser in his tote bag on a number of flights to record cellphone activity (probably with authorization - he was quite an anti-electronic-devices activist).
His results showed a surprising amount of activity on each and every flight. Of course, he interpreted this as being indicative of the magnitude of the problem. But if that is the case, why aren't planes falling out of the sky like flies?
His results showed a surprising amount of activity on each and every flight. Of course, he interpreted this as being indicative of the magnitude of the problem. But if that is the case, why aren't planes falling out of the sky like flies?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not like flies, but there have been a few cases where planes ended up hundreds of feet away from the end of runway, and if the weather had been worse they might have been hitting buildings.
We've been lucky so far.
We've been lucky so far.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Airbus A320 FCOM FCB-FCB8 P 1/2
‐ Airlines often wonder whether they should allow passengers to operate electronic devices in the cabin without any limit. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) section 91.19 allows passengers to operate: • Portable voice recorders • Hearing aids • Heart pacemakers • Electric shavers • Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. It is obvious that the myriad portable devices that now exists or that may be available in the future cannot be tested. ‐ As far as aircraft specific electrical flight controls and engine control computers on Airbus aircraft are concerned, there is no chance of their operation being affected by passenger-operated electronic devices, due to the high level of protection applied to these systems. ‐ Nevertheless, this question arises for navigation and communication receivers and is applicable to any aircraft. A study has been conducted by an RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) special commitee. ‐ The conclusion is that the probability of a passenger-operated device interfering with the ILS localizer during a typical flight is about one in a million. Airbus Industrie recommendations is that no portable device should be used during take-off and landing. ‐ Concerning radio phones Airbus Industrie recommends to prohibit the use of those devices.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and with some airlines introducing wi-fi onboard I'm wondering to what extent - if any - safety is compromised through their use.
Airbus, and probably all modern aircraft, use heavily screened cables to reduce interference from external sources, but that is not a 100% guarantee. As others have said, you don't want to find out at the DH that your CatIIIB autoland is 50m off laterally. At best; a go-around and a delay, at worst...........
I remember a study in the ?80's that showed radar tracks of aircraft - and one was flying an airway in a series of 'sawtooth' steps instead of a straight line. Radio interference from a laptop, I think, was the culprit.
I remember a study in the ?80's that showed radar tracks of aircraft - and one was flying an airway in a series of 'sawtooth' steps instead of a straight line. Radio interference from a laptop, I think, was the culprit.