Mobile 'phones - again

[radeng]

I'm told (from some very reliable sources) that an ICAO meeting three weeks ago in Egypt had grave doubts about allowing the use of mobile 'phones in flight (and thus the development and fitting of equipment) because of worries about 'air rage'. Understandable, of course. Anybody got somewhat more 'official' news on this meeting?

[VSB via OL]

I think that concerns over possible air rage are well founded. that last thing I need is the bloke next to me jabbering away to all and sundry (especially if he is the PF.....!!:) ) Seriously, its bad enough on the train when you can listen to some bird (or bloke) spreading the office gossip...

[ILS 119.5]

Hang on, what about the inflight entertainment system which allows you to swipe your credit card and use it as a phone! You will still get someone jabbering away using this or a mobile.

[Globaliser]

Hang on, what about the inflight entertainment system which allows you to swipe your credit card and use it as a phone!Nobody does that because it's too expensive. But the mobile phone systems are supposed to be much cheaper. And then, yes, people will start.

There's also the other factor: people are more likely to pick up their own familiar phone and use it, than using "someone else's phone".

[Deano777]

My missus on the phone for 30 minutes does my head in when all I have to listen to is her yapping away let alone sat next to someone you don't know where you can't escape, as have already been stated I can see this leading to something bigger and patience wearing a tad thin, time will tell.

[Self Loading Freight]

Limit calls to one five minute burst every hour from a particular phone, and limit the seats at which it'll work to the non-numbered vacuum powered thrones in the little booths at the back. Privacy and promptness. Perfect.

R

[StarWinder]

Hang on, what about the inflight entertainment system which allows you to swipe your credit card and use it as a phone! You will still get someone jabbering away using this or a mobile.

But nobody can call you on THAT system :ok:

[Red Top Comanche]

Yep, air rage it will be.

I can see people buying those little gadgets that turns off all mobile phone within 30 metres.

Then we will have the (they interfere with flight systems) so the gadgets will be banned.

Then the first "in-flight mobile suppository" being administered on an involuntary basis, will result in the systems being shut down.


I hope:E :E

[wz662]

Finally a use for that screaming toddler that invariably gets seated near me. "Look love can you take your brat and go stand by the obnoxious man on the phone over there!"

[Two's in]

Sorry, but in an industry that has developed in flight refreshments, in flight entertainment, exit row seats, checked baggage, and slightly weighty baggage to the point of being major sources of revenue, mobile phones are the next obvious money spinner. Shareholders and CEO's don't sit next to the obnoxious person in 23D.

[Deano777]

No they don't, but the said people will have problems on their hands if planes have to start diverting due to air rage etc etc etc.

[Barkly1992]

I must admit that this is a subject which has pre-occupied me for years.

Some years back major Australian airlines (following overseas practice) banned the use of mobile phones and other devices like laptops during take-off, climb and I think descent. But they could be used in cruise - whoops - not phones - but laptops and gameboys etc.

I commenced a study of this subject (at the time I was the Manager of the then Oz CAA Safety Promotion Unit). I could find no cases of electronic interference with flight or navigation systems directly attributable to the use of these devices.

I could find a fair bit of literature mind you. The incident reports were normally along the lines of - cockpit instrument deviation - can't find cause - ask cabin crew to see whether anyone in the cabin is using a device - yes sir - a kid in row 14f is using a gameboy - report it. I used to argue that they should be asking the cabin crew whther there are any blondes on board because then you could say this was the casue.

Now I don't know the answer - but if anybody does I would love to know the answer.

[radeng]

Barkly,

My understanding is that the ICAO reluctance is not any technical grounds of problems relating to EMC, but the very real ones of some twerp busy telling everyone "I'm on the 'plane" or whatever for two hours getting the 'phone stuffed somewhere - or being punched.

It often seems to me that there's enough annoying b******* flying as SLF (I'm not one, of course!) without adding to their number.

[Barkly1992]

Radeng

Understand that the real problem with the mobile phones (back when they were bricks) was that at altitude they would communicate with about 10 cells at once and throw every else off the system.

Also understand there could be problems with transmitters but laptops, gameboys and portable playstations - has me beat.

Also I have on one occasion used a mobile phone (about 20 n.miles south of Dubbo in NSW) to contact the responsible person who was holding my SARTIME details that due weather we were running late and I expected to be on the ground and able to cancel SAR in 20 minutes - including time to taxi and tie down.

Is there are hard eveidence of interference with systems? Has anyone been able to replicate erroneous readings by triggering with transmissions from phones or other devices?

[Wodrick]

Does this qualify ? http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/389/srg_acp_00021-01-030303.pdf

[Barkly1992]

Wodrick

I have read this report now - it really says the evidence is elusive but under some circumstances some mobile phones might interefere with some part of an aircraft's systems therefore we should do something to be on the safe side.

The simpel fact is that there has been no accudent or serious incident as far as I am aware that has ever been attributed to the use of a mobile phone - not that anyone would want to use on an aircraft anyway.

And as I said earlier, this is only about telephones - the airlines, driven by lawyers rather than safety experts and engineers, always say lets go along with this nonsense.

Anyway - that how I see it.

[Globaliser]

The simpel fact is that there has been no accudent or serious incident as far as I am aware that has ever been attributed to the use of a mobile phone ...So should we wait until there's been an accident or a serious incident to prove that the research results carry across into real life, before mobile phones are banned? I didn't think that this way the way that air safety worked - although I'd be happy to be corrected when standing in a forum of experts in the safety field.

[radeng]

Barkly
>not that anyone would want to use on an aircraft anyway.<
There I venture to disagree. Just look at the wallies rabbiting away as they get on, and again as soon as the engines are switched off.
From an EMC viewpoint, I don't want to find out if there's a problem at a particular time, someplace, somewhere. Better safe than sorry. EMC is something, incidentally, that I have to handle in my professional occupation.

[ShamRoc]

I think TAP and bmi were boasting that they would be implementing a system whereby SLF could use mobile phones in "early 2006". Don't think it has happened on either airline yet!

[SelectMgt]

I think TAP and bmi were boasting that they would be implementing a system whereby SLF could use mobile phones in "early 2006". Don't think it has happened on either airline yet!

Isnt G-MIDC "enabled" or something like that for mobiles? Luffy annouced it also and i believe them more given they didnt lie about when Broadband would be on their LH fleet.

[SkyFish]

I understood the new phone capability will be via a single routing server within the plane to handle all calls. (yes/no?)

If so this is prob so all calls will attract a airline tariff on top & make it easier for the assigned phone network to track the plane and thus all calls to/from it...

Calling from the plane at low levels or 'remote' areas calls are def possible but flying at high speed above cities with multiple vendors networks would be a nightmare for providers.
At land level, just moving from one cell to another in central London at peak time on Vodafone causes calls to be dropped

Re interference - doubt this very much. I work in huge datacenters with major $$ at stake. If there was a case for potential corruption of data etc mobiles, PCs, PDAs, Digital Handhelds etc would have been banned long ago.

[radeng]

Skyfish

>If there was a case for potential corruption of data etc mobiles, PCs, PDAs, Digital Handhelds etc would have been banned long ago.,<

In the days of long ago, a computer centre somewhere near Heathrow had to have a lot of shielding put in becasue of the big L band radar at LHR. But mobiles etc are relatively low power, so data handling equipment meeting the usual EMC immunity standards is relatively OK. But unwanted emissions from 'phones can be anywhere - on the VOR channel, or the DME, or the weather radar, or the comms channels, or the secondary radar receiver frequency, or the radio altimeter frequency...............one can go on. You'd not want your TCAS receiever blocked by a spurious emission from a mobile 'phone.......

However, even the low power of a mobile can be a problem when you have an aggregation effect with several operating at the same time in a metal tube. Also, as aircraft get older, the shielding integrity around the cables doesn't always hold up, either. So other functions can have problems.

Never did trust this electronics rubbish myself......

[MyData]

Another consideration is that the ambient noise level in the cabin is quite high, so not only will there be the inane chatter there will also be those who already speak loudly when on the phone speaking even more loudly, and asking the person at the other end to "say again, sorry didn't catch what you said...". :=

[MucMuc]

Then just pray to Gods of SLF that you never sit next to a Kantonese granny happily yapping on the phone - not only they naturally speak with max volume, it goes on for hours and sounds like a massive fight.:ugh:

[SkyFish]

Radeng - supports your post as to interference of computer systems.

Long distance lorry driver Peter Orr told the Eye [Private Eye, 7 July 2006, ‘Road Rage’) how his modern truck, equipped with a high-tech engine control unit (ECU) suffered brief loss of control as it passed through areas of interference: ‘Interference from powerful radio signals is knocking out the brakes and gearbox in my truck and others. In the last two years there’s been a massive boost in radio aerial power. We’ve had serious issues with our trucks. It affects the gearbox and braking of 44 ton trucks, but it doesn’t leave a memory in the computer system. It just says: There’s a fault on your ECU’.’
He said the problem was acute in France but also occurred in Britain. including at a motorway service station, where there were communication masts either side of the road. He had reported the issue to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, the government body overseeing vehicle safety, in February 2005, but feels he was brushed off.

[radeng]

It was well documented that the early Volvos using electronic ignition had problems around Daventry, back when the BBC had a transmitting site there. So you tow the car away into a relatively EMC benign area, and of course, 'no fault found'.
Tornado fighters have their EMC problems, too......