Some top posts recently and not that I want to continue to promote a thread drift, especially on the rather contentious issue of PEDs in flight, on ground or whatever… but here is a copy of a post from a UK forum (2011):
I have just been doing some digging around to see what I can find on the Internet about the issue.
While the following document from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is completely inconclusive, it may give you some "what ifs" to think about in relation to mobile phone and flight (note that it does not deal with the issue of mobile phone on the ground - my feeling/guess is that the issues with the ground is more 'nuisance' and the potential distraction and the resultant loss of situational awareness should interferences occur, e.g. on the radio).
WARNING: the following link will open a 112 page PDF file, close to 4MB in size: www.atsb.gov.au/media/24535/AO200402797.pdf
Specifically, 1.18.2 Other Occurrences which states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Other occurrences
A search of occurrence data bases held by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the US National Transportation Safety Board did not find any similar occurrences. There were numerous reports by crews experiencing GPS problems where receivers had stopped navigating for a period of time. Failure of the GPS receiver was reported to have been coincident with the discovery of mobile telephones or other personal electronic devices (PED) operating in the aircraft at the time. However, electronic interference from those devices was not established. One accident, where a pilot had turned onto a heading that was different from the GPS approach procedure being flown, was attributed to the pilot’s loss of situational awareness.
There was only one occurrence in the ATSB data base that presented similar characteristics to the accident flight. On 9 February 2003 (Occurrence 200300587) a Bombardier Dash 8 was observed on radar to diverge 9 NM left of track during a flight from Emerald to Brisbane. The aircraft’s crew reported that the aircraft was navigated by GPS and that the autopilot was engaged. No GPS warnings or error indications were observed and it was not determined if the receiver was navigating by DR. When the controller informed the crew of the track divergence, they reverted to ground-based navigation aids and continued to Brisbane. After landing, the GPS indicated a position 59 NM to the north of Brisbane.
The GPS receiver in the Dash 8 was a Trimble TNL 2101 I/O Approach receiver, similar to that installed in TNP. An examination of the receiver found no fault and after ground and air testing, the receiver was returned to service. The operator speculated that possible interference from a crew member’s active mobile phone may have caused the divergence. Subsequent testing in the same aircraft and with the same mobile phone, but using another identical GPS receiver, could not repeat the fault.
The operator advised that crews had reported numerous other GPS anomalies involving the Dash 8. Between February and September 2003, there were three occasions when the aircraft turned and tracked well left of the intended flight path while being navigated by GPS. In two of those occurrences, the cabin crew detected passengers using laptop computers and compact disc players. Following each of those events a functional test of the receiver was unable to detect any faults. The GPS receiver was replaced with a different unit each time, but the problems persisted until May 2005, when the operator replaced both the GPS receiver and the GPS antenna.
Subsequent testing, by the manufacturer of the receiver installed in the Dash 8 at the time of the first occurrence, was reported to have been unable to find any fault that would have affected the navigation resolution. No explanation was given for the receiver not displaying a warning during the event. The antenna was manufactured by a different manufacturer from that installed on TNP. It was tested and found to operate to its design specifications.
In other words, while they could not prove that the mobile phone caused any problems, it appears that they were not able to rule that out either.
Earlier in the same report, it also states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Unintended signal interference from radio frequency transmissions emitted by personal electronic devices such as mobile phones, compact disc players or laptop computers can result in the loss of satellite signals and stop the GPS receiver from navigating.
The fact that an aviation safety investigation agency of reasonable repute has taken the trouble to look into the matter seriously is good enough for me to feel that it would be reasonable (whether that is technically correct or not) to request that the mobile telephones are turned off.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1289763-use-phones-ground-why-ba-so-agressively-rigid-11.html
Although the ATSB report is inconclusive in regards to PEDs and in reality the Dash 8 incident probably has more to do with a dodgy GPS unit, it is an example for the DAS to reference for ‘previous incidents’ along with this NASA report.
However the bigger issue here (as other posters point out) is the fact that we have another perfect example (to add to the considerable list) of where the RRP leaves a safety risk matter outstanding for the best part of a decade. As Creamy points out ‘ad nauseum’ the re-writing of the regs will drift forever and real safety issues that should have been addressed a long, long, long time ago remain as latent safety risks to aviation.
So back to the Hansard and there was another interesting comment made by Senator X in regards to the recent release of the FRMS regs:
Mr Boyd: As far as I am aware, the only feedback we have from pilots, for example, on the fatigue regulations is to do with the representation of the pilots' groups on the safety action groups that we have in the regulations for consultation around fatigue risk management systems.
Senator XENOPHON: Who represent thousands of pilots.
Mr Boyd: Indeed.
Senator XENOPHON: They are saying that these rules stink and that there is a real risk in terms of fatigue and with it aviation safety. So why would you not put a lot of weight on what the pilots are saying?
Mr Boyd: Senator, the feedback we are getting is not that the rules stink, as you put it.
Senator XENOPHON: But it is that they do pose a risk to aviation safety.
Mr Boyd: The only feedback we have from the pilots association is about that particular issue.
Senator XENOPHON: And will you be acting on that particular issue?
Mr Boyd: We have replied to the association to say that we are taking the ICAO approach, and that is what we have taken all the way through this development of the fatigue regulations.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide us with details of documents with respect to that?
Mr Boyd: Absolutely.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide those documents as a matter of urgency, because there may be a disallowance motion that might go down that path; I am not sure. Mr McCormick, I will put a number of questions on notice. In relation to the recent inquiry, I think you told the inquiry that you instigated the Chambers report. Is that right?
Being an ignorant knuckledragger I decided to look up ‘disallowance motion’??
"Notices of motion for disallowance
Many Acts of Parliament delegate to the executive government the power to make detailed rules and regulations (legislative instruments). Instruments made in this way are subject to the power of either House to veto or disallow them.
In most cases, within 15 sitting days after tabling a senator may give notice of a motion to disallow the legislative instrument. If the motion is agreed to, the instrument is disallowed and ceases to have effect. If a notice of motion to disallow a legislative instrument has not been resolved or withdrawn within 15 sitting days after having been given, the instrument is deemed to have been disallowed and automatically ceases to have effect."
No. 1 - Disallowance
Hmm interesting….I wonder if Senator X will follow through with that threat?
Doin a Sundy Kelpie…!