Mobiles ring out air warning

[Wirraway]

Mon "The Australian"

Mobiles ring out air warning
By Ian Gerard
September 15, 2003

Passenger interference on our airlines

It's official: mobile phones and other electronic devices can significantly interfere with a plane's navigational equipment.

That's the finding of the first comprehensive study of such use, carried out by the British Civil Aviation Authority, and it has prompted a fresh warning to Australian airlines and passengers that using a mobile during take-off or landing can be disastrous.

It is a Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirement that airlines ban the use of mobile phones and other equipment such as lap-top computers during flights, but some passengers continue to use them.

Interference from portable electronic devices or mobile phones has resulted in more than 100 air safety incidents in the past 10 years, according to the Australian Air Transport Safety Bureau.

In one incident last year, pilots on a NSW flight became concerned when the plane started rocking slightly from side to side while under the control of the autopilot.

Cabin crew found a passenger was using a lap-top computer and when it was turned off all problems stopped.

The British study, which involved using mobile phones on passenger-less flights, found that electrical equipment could cause compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.

Cabin crew have the power to make passengers turn their electronic equipment off, confiscate it or have them charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft if they refuse to comply.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said most incidents were a result of passengers simply forgetting their mobiles were turned on.

"It's a manageable problem but it does show that the potential for something to go seriously wrong does exist and it's just not a request for some spurious reason," Mr Gibson said.

"Using them during take-off or landing is a concern because that's a time when the pilots are really busy and relying on their equipment."

Virgin Blue spokesman David Hutton said the overwhelming majority of passengers co-operated with instructions to turn off their mobile phones or hand-held computers.

"We do our utmost to make sure, both through announcements and doing a final check of the cabin to make sure that nobody is using their mobile telephones on the aircraft," he said.

"They emit a signal, as anyone who has their car radio on would know, that it's not only important that people are not talking on the phone but they are actually switched off."

==========================================

Switched-on devices court disaster

Passenger electronic interference on Australian flights:

February 8, 2003: On take-off from Sydney, pilots on 737-300 found the flight - management system map display kept changing, rendering it useless. Passenger using electronic device.

September 2, 2002: Pilots on 737-800 leaving Sydney noticed uncommanded pick- up and thrust reduction at 18,000ft. Passenger forgot to turn mobile off.

June 8, 2002: Flight crew on 767-200 found auto-pilot switched off and plane swaying 5 degrees left and right for 10 to 15 seconds. Passenger using laptop computer.

May 1, 2002: Proximity warning system terrain alert sounded on twin-engine plane flying at 5000ft, 22km southwest of Sydney. Passenger using mobile.

April 23, 2002: Pilots on 767-300 from Brisbane experienced unexpected flight management computer readings. Passenger using laptop.

February 9, 2002: Pilots flying 767-300 from Manila to Sydney experienced the disconnection of the auto-pilot and auto-throttle. Passenger using electronic translator.

==========================================

CASA Media Release - Monday, 15 September 2003

New warning: Turn off mobiles in the air

A fresh warning has been issued to aircraft passengers to switch off mobile telephones and other electronic devices during flights.

This follows mounting evidence of interference to aircraft instruments and systems caused by electronic devices.

More than 100 air safety incidents related to interference from portable electronic devices have been reported in Australia in the last ten years.

A recent report from the crew operating a 737 aircraft out of Sydney linked an uncommanded pitch up and reduction in thrust to an active mobile telephone.

Other incidents linked to portable electronic devices include:

Interference to radio transmissions
Autopilot malfunctions, including uncommanded climb, oscillations and disengagement
False readings from flight management computers
GPS navigation system failures
False alerts from engine warning systems.
The dangers of using mobile telephones and other electronic devices in-flight are set out in an article in the latest edition of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Flight Safety Australia magazine.

The article says that while proving a link between electronic devices and in-flight incidents has been difficult in the past, evidence is increasing and is being supported by controlled testing.

The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority has just carried out the most definitive study of electronic interference, finding a range of problems caused by mobile telephone transmissions.

In a controlled test environment mobile telephone radiation caused compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.

The Flight Safety Australia article calls on aircraft cabin crew to take firm action where passengers use electronic devices when they are prohibited and to make a detailed report of all incidents.

Current CASA regulations give aircraft crew the power to prohibit the use of any device which can threaten the safety of an aircraft.

Under proposed new regulations the use of mobile telephones and other electronic transmitters will be prohibited at all times, while devices such as laptop computers, video cameras and electronic games will be prohibited during take-off and landings or at the direction of crew.

Media contact
Peter Gibson
Ph 0419 296 446
Ref: MR0346

=============================================

[pullock]

What a load of CRAPOLA

Alarmist, un founded, unproven superstition

Proof that alittle knowledge can be dangerous

If the EMF contained within electronic components can effect electronic components of aircraft can effect their systems, then god help us if we ever get a solar flare (oh how silly of me we get them all the time :{ )

Radiated EMR from a transmitting device sucha as a mobile telephone is unlikely in the extreme to interfear with aircraft systems. If it did, then it would only be for a very short period, whilst it attempts to log on to a cell, as conversations on digital mobiles (the only ones that are at all likely to cause interference)are not possible in flight under the vast majority of circumstances. Short transmissions such as these WOULD SIMPLYH NOT interfear with systems for more than the duration of the transmission (maybe as much as one second).

CLAPTRAP

UNPROVABLE

ALARMIST

MEDIA GRABBING.

DONT FALL FOR IT.

[Continental-520]

Well, it does sound convincing, especially bearing in mind that they've researched this at length.

That having been said though, I can personally verify that neither use of a mobile or laptop has any effect on a C210...but you didn't need me to tell you that. :=


520.

[Capt EFIS]

I think that the question that is not getting asked is why are these aircraft systems so susceptible to electronic radiation from Mobile Phones and Laptops.

[18-Wheeler]

CLAPTRAP

UNPROVABLE

ALARMIST

MEDIA GRABBING.

DONT FALL FOR IT.

Oh really.

I'm glad you're so positive about it, because I am equally sure that I really did see the outflow valves on the 747 classic I was on, on the ground, shut all by themselves. The FE ran back to the upper deck and found a passenger that was talking on a mobile and got him to turn it off. At the same time he did that, the outflow valves both opened up again.
This is a known occurance with 747 Classics.
I also have spoken with the ex-boss of Air Safety in Fiji who saw in person the needles on the VOR in his light plane go beserk when his passenger used a mobile on the plane. Again it stopped as soon as the phone was turned off.
There's a LOT more examples if you care to extract your head.

However, Boeing have made an effort to improve the internal protection from RF interference - They have tested the 777 when full of employees that were asked to carry everything electrical they could with them, and then use it.
There were no effects on that flight.

Mobiles + aeroplanes = bad, period.

[Eurocap]

In NZ the cabin crew only have the power to ensure that passengers are seated and have their belts on, although this may change in the near future.

Under NZCAR's the pilot in command is the one with the power.
:O :cool:

[Pharcarnell]

I put it to you that if the max signal strength of 600mW from a mobile phone interferes with aircraft systems, then they must get a real belting from approach radar sweeps.
Haven't heard of any serious incidents caused by flying through a radar lobe on approach anywhere.
If the systems are so susceptible from internal EMF sources, I suggest the systems are in a serious state. My mobile phone can ring while sitting on my laptop and neither interferes with the other.

[airsupport]

I was going to reply, and also say that this is the biggest load of rubbish ever, however I just read it again and the way it is worded, it could be true? :confused:

It does say "passenger" interference. :rolleyes:

Certainly does not apply to Crew, as I have personally spent many hundreds of hours in flight in Cockpits, with at least one and sometimes all three of us, using mobile phones with NO problems at all. :ok:

It's those pax you have to watch. ;)

[18-Wheeler]

I put it to you that if the max signal strength of 600mW from a mobile phone interferes with aircraft systems, then they must get a real belting from approach radar sweeps.

Good question, and I think the answer is that it's because like a lightning bolt it comes from outside the aeroplane. The structure of the plane acts like a faraday cage, and so very little energy goes into the plane.
Something like a mobile phone transmits all its energy from inside, so it can't go anywhere else.

FWIW, had a mate who worked at the radar section of either Williamtown or Richmond, can't remember, and he told me of the times that they used to vector F-18's towards incoming airliner flights over the Pacific, just for intercept practice. They'd break away many miles away so the pax couldn't see the jets and get worried, but they had to stop the prcatice because some of the airliners were reporting interference with the avionics - The fighters were locking on with the intercept radar - and with a typical Boeing they could get down to (say) 15 miles before it was a problem, about double that for the Airbus's.
That's focused energy onto the plane, so more relevent than a general radar sweep.

[Av8r]

:yuk:


I think it’s a bunch of crap too.

I fly with a four man crew in helicopter, so it’s a small area, it has an FMS, EFIS screens, tens of black boxes, 4 axis autopilot, auto hover systems, and 4, no, make that 5 (the machine has one integrated as well) mobile phones… all turned on. It all works perfectly.
Why doesn’t a 100 watt VHF radio interfere? Radar? Nav stations? TV stations? Think of all the radio / HF / side band emissions out there.

The only radio type interference I have ever seen is, on one machine, if you transmitted on the HF whilst hooked up, the nose would pitch up slightly….but of course that will also light up a fluro tube next to the aerial, so I can understand that that may interfere. But 600 millwatts? I don’t think so.

I would suggest mostly coincidence and it also makes a good story in the engineer’s office at smoko.

:ok:

[18-Wheeler]

I think it’s a bunch of crap too.

It's been missed, so I'll write it again -

I have actually seen it happen.
It wasn't my imagination.
It was a coincidence.

It's real, though hard to reproduce and no doubt not as common as some people think.

[airsupport]

IF mobile phones could really do half the things to Aircraft that some people would have you believe, then it is THOSE Aircraft that should be grounded, not the mobile phones. :rolleyes:

[OzExpat]

In my mind, the jury is still out on this issue. I can tell you, however, that I recently flew as SLF from Perth to Sydney on a QF A330. It wasn't until I was in the terminal at Sydney that I reached into my bag to turn my mobile on that I discovered it had been on the whole time! :eek:

The bag it was in was in the luggage bin above my head right throughout the flight. There were no untoward oscillations during the flight. There was no search for an electronic device. Nothing but a hassle free and mostly enjoyable flight. :ok:

The flight DID arrive in Sydney a tad early... maybe it was my phone that made the aeroplane fly faster? :p

[Av8r]

:confused:

That’s a good point.

Wonder what percentage of flights have a mobile on inadvertently. I bet it’s better than 50%, and IF that’s the case, why isn’t this HUGE problem.

I think they link the two together,
“..gee we had some problems with the autopilot today”

..”lets rummage around and look for a mobile to blame”

50% of the time they can probably find one.

And the other thing, what sort and how much Electro Magnetic Force is emitted by a bloody lap top?? Have to be 5/8 of f*ck all wouldn’t it?
:confused:

[Torres]

I wonder whether the frequency of the RF emitted by a cell phone is not the critical factor, rather than the signal strength? From memory, cell phones are around 400 Mhz - probably won't affect radar (around 4 Ghz?) but may affect navigational devices in the UHF range, and through first and second harmonics, devices in the VHf range?:confused:

[airsupport]

Another thing too, IF these mobiles are as bad as is being made out, including causing outflow valves to run uncommanded on the ground, why is it that they are (unless the rules have changed recently), allowed to be in use in the USA right up until takeoff and again immediately on landing. ;)

[Pharcarnell]

GSM (digital) mobiles are generally in the 900Mhz band (860 to 920Mhz) with some small cells in the 1800Mhz band to fill holes in the concrete jungles.
I can see where some of the aruments are coming from and suspect the interference may come from sideband and digital slew products
BUT
if the aircraft systems are effected by the miniscule power levels involved they should be subjected to a very serious EMF susceptabliity check and have the faults rectified PDQ.
I for one would not be happy flying in an electronically controlled box so easily interrupted by stray pulses.

[pullock]

MY GOD 2RN IS A RADIO TRANSMITTER, A VERY VERY POWERFUL ONE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF AN AIRCRAFT FLEW NEARBY IT:confused: :uhoh: :=

[Blastoid]

It would be interesting to find out who has been "sponsoring" the research.

I heard a rumour a while back that mobile phone companies were promoting the "turn off" principle in the air because they couldn't triangulate your position on the ground and therefore couldn't charge you. Sounds like a load of cr@p.

I'm not a pilot so I can't vouch for the frequency (or lack thereof) of such occurrences, though they do get reported from time to time. I have certainly heard the "polling" of a mobile on the air from time to time but have never seen it affect their performance :eek:

I would guess that, on average, at least one pax leaves their mobile phone on on every flight - just forgetting to turn it off. Don't hear of too many problems out there at the moment.

Not sure exactly of the power ratings of mobile phones, but don't underestimate their power either. Remember that they have enough power to transmit a modulated voice signal (digitally here in OZ anyway) for, say 50km, which is quite a remarkable device for its size.

[chicken6]

More on the "seen it happen" front...

Flew with a student doing VOR approaches a while back and at about 4 miles the CDI went hard right to the stop over about 3 seconds. Student turned right as it went fully left, student turned left as it came back to centre. Start to finish, about 20 seconds.

On the ground, OOPS says I,

'1 missed call'

Dumb student didn't check phones off in the preflight pax brief;)

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

The WestWinds flying on the nightshifts SY-ML, ML-AD, SY-AD etc obviously had girlfriends/wives/mistresses who kept late hours as well. Most nights at least one of their calls would be accompanied by the static from their operating mobile. I don't know about the Lap tops but I wouldn't be surprised if mobile phones screw around with all sorts of things. Recieving a call just now sitting at the computer has caused the static sound to come through the speakers. Not an engineer so not qualified to have an opinion though.

[Chocks Away]

I think there's a couple of possibly critical factors here, not yet discussed.

1) The proximity of the TRANSMITTING mobile, to critical aircraft control and navigation wiring lumes running alongside the cabin... ? (more detail from any engineers out there?)

2) A mobile remains dormant (so to speak), when out of range, such as in high altitude cruise etc but has maximum output/interference when sending and recieving calls, once in range. This appears to be when the most trouble documented has been encountered.

Safety first!:ok:

[airsupport]

I still do NOT believe this is a problem. :rolleyes:

On the Aircraft I mentioned before, where sometimes all 3 people in the cockpit would be on mobile phones at once, there was also a normal mobile phone (well I guess not actually a mobile ;) ) fitted to the rear wall of the cockpit and powered from the Aircraft's electrical system, and NONE of these phones ever caused any problems. :rolleyes:

The only difference with the "fixed" phone, although always powered, was that the ringer was disabled during flight so as not to startle the Crew at a critical stage of flight. :eek:

[PPRuNe Towers]

As the reports and ensuing discussion are based on a UK CAA report I thought I'd step in with some background from us here in blighty.

For the cynics especially you should be aware of this:

Two years ago I attended a CAA conference on additional 'glass' in the flight deck. This meant imported glass - they wanted to encourage, improve and 'de-impede' :} :} the adoption of laptop and PDA devices for performance planning, nav plates Etc. New guy in charge and new attitude. We all held hands and had a group hug. Question regarding cell phones came up and boffins wheeled out to say that the basic principles of how the phones poll, lock on and the power transmitted were a total non event but they were going to carry out a formal study.

Roll forward 18 months and the report comes out - total change of attitude. The things many have noted over the years occured under rigorous test conditions.

Yes, they may not have ever happened to you in the aircraft you fly but they are now proven. For the truly cynical you have to ask this question of the report: What's in it for them?? Mobiles are already completely banned in all phases of flight. Other electronics in certain phases.

This damascene conversion is embarrassing to them and I'm so much more cynical than you guys because I wonder what was edited out of the original drafts!!!!!

Regards
Rob

[TAY 611]

Used to fly a surveillance aircraft that had a whopping great digital pulse radar strapped to it alongside a whole host of other electronic goodies that never seemed to have any effect on the nav equip. After reading the aircraft certification notes for the surveillance mod I was surprised as to how little effort had been put into countering the effects of EMF. BTW I have produced only Girls!

[pullock]

Having been an engineer responsible for installing the most vast array of unusual electronic systems in to aircraft, I have only on one ocasion had an ocurrence of RFI. It was an IDME interfearing with a GPS RX due to proxcimity of the antennas. This is of course a well known problem now, and is usually avoided at installation.

The number of computers, and telephones, and radio transmitters that I have installed ain't small, and it has been my experience that very little upsets aircraft systems.

My experience has seen all sorts of electronic equipment used at all sorts of locations in the most electronically complex of aircraft and I have never seen a systems performance effected. Laptop and mobile telephone in the cockpit or the E&E bay, both in use, no problem. Digital imaging computers in aircraft with hills hoists strung around them to pulse massive em pulses in to the ground, no problem.


What I see surrounding the EMI/RFI claims of interference to aircraft systems is a whole lot of anecdotal evidence, linking system malfunctions to a coincidence. eg. the autopilot malfunctioned, and there was a laptop turned on in the cabin nowhere near the INS or the autopilot, but since the laptop was there it must have caused the malfunction!!

As for the study, from what I know of EMI RFI on aircraft trhough experience, I would love to get a copy of the methods, if anyone can point me in the right direction, please do!!

[scramjet]

Ive had GSM Phones caused bad ( Oh **** turn that off NOW) static on VHF radio's in, Tobago's, C210, C182 & C172's. CDMA phone dont have any noise whatsoever on C210, C310, PA31.

Wasnt there a report out not long ago that said that these problems had only been found in Boeing- No reports of interferance problems in Airbus????

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

The CAA report titled " Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment "here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/capap2003_03.pdf)

The term "avionics" equipment should be noted as this is exactly what was tested.

The testing involved simulation of electronic equipment, including mobile phones operating 30cm from avionics equipment. The conclusion:

-Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
-Instability of indicators.
-Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
-VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal. VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
-Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
-Background noise on audio outputs.

The equipment covered in testing was:
"...VHF communications, VOR Navigation, Localiser and Glide Slope equipment, together with a gyro- stabilised remote reading magnetic compass."

I wonder what effect, when held 30 cms from such equipment, a ferromagnetic material would have?

[pullock]

Perpetual Hold File,

Thanks for posting the link. I have read the lab report, and over the next couple of days will critically analyse it, and report back to here, but the good news is that just on the surface of it, it won't take me too much effort to completely discredit their findings. Straight off, the equipment that they tested is old GA stuff, not installed in any fashion like it would be in an aircraft, they blasted the equipment with exaggerated levels of RF radiation from directional antennas. They failed to re-create a realistic senario, and more over made no attempt to duplicate an airliner style situation. What you said about generating the same effects with a piece of iron is correct in the case of the compas, and also I have to ask, what about all the equipment that they didn't test, those that are actually likely to be truly effected by RFI from telephones, that is GPS, DME, TCAS, Transponder, autopilot, IRS............

:yuk: :}