Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)

[tomtom_91]

Hey All,

I have noticed that it is possible to get a headset which allows the pilot to connect there mobile phone/ mp3 player does anyone know if you can get an adapter that lets you connect a phone with out having to change headset?

Thanks

Tom

[soay]

I'm not sure an adapter, even if available, would be a good idea. Headsets with MP3/phone connectors, such as the Lightspeed Zulu, automatically mute them when the radio is receiving, so you don't miss anything important.

[DerekPerth]

Ive a Lightspeed Zulu and have made a couple of calls from the air with it. It works great. It also takes an MP3 at the same time (havent used this feature) and the radio takes priority over both. Highly recommend it.

[Roger10-4]

Yeh you can buy adapters on the standard aviation supplies websites. Here I managed to make something to get a mic input to a video camera which is tested and works. I plan on seeing if it will work on my mobile so I'll let you know if it does.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/385320-how-record-intercom-sound-flying-videos.html

[Captain Stable]

Is it legal to use a mobile phone whilst airborne?

[trex450]

in a light aircraft you can get away with just putting the phone to your ear, even a cheap hands free thingy works surprisingly well. I did hear a rumour years ago that the reason it was illegal was that phone companies find it hard to charge for the call due to the phone being in sight of numerous masts at the same time which obviously is not the case on the surface.

[Captain Stable]

AFAIK it is still illegal.

In an aircraft that does not have FM-immune systems, it is just plain stupid. What's more, to have your hands and brain occupied by making a phone call when your attention should be on flying is about as stupid as it's possible to get.

In-flight calls still on hold | CAA Newsroom | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1776)

Mobile Phones | Information for Passengers | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1770&pagetype=90&pageid=9852)

I also have serious doubts about the wisdom of listening to an MP3 player even when the radio is not receiving. I consider that it's important to be able to hear the note of the engine, any abnormal noises from airframe or engine, etc. For pax, of course, the situation is different. Keep the kiddies entertained, but don't be a kiddie yourself.

[Maoraigh1]

I can't think of anything in my group's aircraft, except the radio, which could conceivably be affected by FM.

[gasax]

Well Captain a well balanced and reasonable response!

FM immune? Chasing ghosts in the average spamcan, you're more likely to have strange effects from the portable GPS than anything else. If you had a fly by wire light aircraft with electronic autopilot if might have an effect - but event that kit is supposed to be somewhat immune.....

Yes, I listen to music occasionally when flying. I've also made a couple of phone calls - to deal with unexpected PPR and 2 VHF radio failures.... for the latter the ability to connect to a headset would have been very useful. (and no, the aircraft did not fall out of the sky, the electronics spark and fry or the engine stop).

[Captain Stable]

So, gasax, you consider that the rules are for other people and not for you?

"Unexpected" PPR? Perhaps a little more prior planning and preparation might be of assistance in preventing pi55-poor performance.

GPS doesn't transmit, so will not be a problem to the aircraft equipment.

"somewhat immune"? What is "somewhat immune"? Sorry, but either equipment is certified immune or it is not. I don't think you're ever likely to see a placard stating "THE EQUIPMENT IN THIS AIRCRAFT IS SOMEWHAT FM-IMMUNE"

In some aircraft, I grant you, it will be less of a problem than others. However, unless the CAA grant exceptions based on every airframe in the country (and every pilot's level of ability and experience) then they are naturally going to go for the safe course.

Maoraigh appears to have nothing in his aircraft but a single Nav unit - no VOR/ILS receiver, no ADF, no transponder and no pilot to get distracted from his #1 priority - flying the aircraft.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Using a mobile whie airborne is illegal - and flags up because it locks onto numerous relay stations instead of just one. Make a habit of this and you're likely to be traced, and when caught you'll not get a slap on the wrist. Breaking the Wireless Telegraphy regs is treated very seriously, and would likely involve a seperate action from the CAA for all the other offences/safety breaches you've committed.

As for the irresponsibility - the utter stupidity of doing this while flying - well, my mind just boggles. Listening to music ditto. If you think it's OK to do this what other idiocy do you indulge in whilst flying? Which of the other rules and regs do you think you can arbitarily exempt yourself from? What's up with an ego so huge and self-obsessed that it thinks it needs to make a telephone call from an aeroplane, instead of waiting a few minutes?
Saaad.

I can only say that I hope and pray you'll be caught. People who do this sort of thing are just not responsible enough the be allowed within a country mile of an aeroplane.

It's no wonder PPLs sometimes get a bad reputation when this sort of thing is being discussed on a "Professional" pilot's forum. Shame on you.

[tomtom_91]

However if it is illegal why is transair selling adaptors to allow you to do this *just found* - ?

Tom

[Hugh_Jarse]

I'm not saying the good Captain and the Pompous Fungus are wrong about the illegality, but could someone point to the document which says it is illegal for aircrew to make a call whilst in flight ? Particularly when experiencing radio failure or some other calamity ?

[Captain Stable]

I have had discussions before with Transair about their products - notably headset adaptors, but also ID lanyards with no safety break, and various others.

Sorry, but they're not a very responsible company - althought they sold me a very nice leather jacket. :ok:

I agree 100% with Agaricus' post.

There are too many PPL's with very lax attitudes to flying, thinking they know the bl00dy lot and that the rules don't apply to them.

If anyone reading this thinks "What a load of tosh", then YOU are part of the problem. You are a lousy ambassador for flying, and YOU need to clean up your attitude and professionalism.

I can just see some people here flying along with "Highway to the Danger Zone" top blast in his ears thinking he's a top gun. A couple of weeks ago I watched aghast as a PPL sat himself in a 172, inserted his iPod earphones, then put his headset on over the top and started up and taxyed off.

The mind boggles. :ugh:

[gasax]

Well said Capt Stable.

Perhaps with this rabid attention to the rules you should edit GASIL. Should reduce its readership to 1.

Your ignorance of the effects of GPS receivers is surprising - perhaps you are waiting for some legislative guidance?

Breaking the wireless telephony regs? Oh please. The expensive Radiocommunications Agency are unable to enforce commercial broadcasting rules - where transmitters genuinely pose a threat.

Making a phone call from less than 3000 ft is no different to being on a hill (well not in this neck of the woods) - from 10,000 ft it might lock up multiple cells but there are technical issues to ensure this does not happen. Was a problem 15 years ago though..... When the world was a simpler place and yuo could still send telegrams

As for the rest of these rants - typical Pprune really - do not deal with the issue simply try and shoot the messenger

Were either of you two responsible for the FM immune nonsense that resulted in such expense for so many owners?

[tomtom_91]

I guess the shops which sell these adaptors could say they are for passengers... the adapters which work with an iPod not GSM. ?

Tom

[Captain Stable]

OK, gasax - you consider that the rules don't apply to you, and you will pick and choose which ones you decide to obey.

You are a disgrace. I hope that nobody I know ever has the misfortune to fly with you. You are an accident waiting to happen. When it does happen, I hope and pray that there are no unfortunate passengers killed alongside you.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Hugh, ypour post is as offensive as it is unnecessary. How dare you call someone upholding the law, standards and safety pompous?

You, sir, like yourcolleague gasax, are an ignorant prig.

A prig because you clearly think you are above the law, and have a bad attitude towards it, even when it is manifestly obvious that you are in the wrong, yet still think it smart to argue like a chav car thief that you don't believe it bcause no one has shown it you in writing. The law says NO, end of. There is no discussion because you think you can argue a personal exemption.
Wise up.

Ignorant, because of your telling remark about radio failure/calamity. Are you really a pilot? I doubt it , somehow.

Reason?

Any proper pilot has read the ANO - heard of it?

And what does the ANO say about obeying rules in cases of emergency?
Well, what???

I'm not going to give you a reference - go look it up, and then, if you're man enough, come back here and apologise.

I maight have added daft, or worse too. Why?

Transair selling them. Think about it, go on, try!

It is illegal to shoot people, but guns can be held legally. You can buy a bottle of scotch, but up to you if you drive afterwards... and, as someone said above, they can be used by passengers. Ain't rocket science, is it?

Du'oh!

Please, stay on the ground! You're doing aviation no favours at all coming out with woolly-minded crap like this.

[gasax]

Victor Meldrew squared!

Well for bombastic *******y you have me completely beaten. I suggest you stick to debates on whether its "finals" or "final" in that radio call. Suitably important stuff where any technical knowledge is irrelevent!

[Intercepted]

As a brand new PPL i still remember the Human Factors & Flight Safety part of the syllabus:

"An attitude of being anti-authority will lead a person to regularly break rules and procedures for no very obvious reason. He or she may recent being told what to do, or may simply feel that rules and regulations are unnecessary or should not apply to him as an individual."

.....

"He generally dislike any outside interference with what he sees his 'right' to fly in any fashion he likes. All this ignores the simple truth that the vast majority of aviation rules and procedures are only enacted after a great deal of thought, and usually as a result of lessons learnt painfully by others."

Taken from J. Pratts pilot's Licence Course

[Hugh_Jarse]

Colonel Mushroom :-
A prig because you clearly think you are above the law, and have a bad attitude towards it, even when it is manifestly obvious that you are in the wrong, yet still think it smart to argue like a chav car thief that you don't believe it bcause no one has shown it you in writing. The law says NO, end of. There is no discussion because you think you can argue a personal exemption.
Wise up.

Ignorant, because of your telling remark about radio failure/calamity. Are you really a pilot? I doubt it , somehow.

Reason?

Any proper pilot has read the ANO - heard of it?

And what does the ANO say about obeying rules in cases of emergency?
Well, what???

I'm not going to give you a reference - go look it up, and then, if you're man enough, come back here and apologise.

That's an awful lot of hot air for someone who obviously can't give me a reference ... :D

If I didn't believe you and your amenuensis are firmly on the wind-up, I'd be happy to debate blind adherence to bad law by those incapable of independent thought, but I don't want to spoil your fun - I don't imagine you get out much ....

[Agaricus bisporus]

QED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Ryan5252]

I must say (as I seem to have been drawn to a response against my better judgment) I wholeheartedly with the Captain (in other threads also) and indeed the 'fungus'. Granted, I am only mid way through my PPL training; I fly for the passion and no other reason. I want to perfect my art of flying and constantly aim to better my previous flight. I take great pride in my own limited airmanship and would expect nothing but at least the same level of commitment from my fellow 'pilots'. It truly amazes me the attitudes displayed by some people here - if you can do nothing else - shut your mouth and respect those with more experience than you and perhaps you would be amazed to see that you don't know everything and, in turn, you might just learn something. The one with the guy putting his headset over his iphone earpiece... the world has gone mad and unfortunately it has spread to the skies :ugh:
I hope to have many years of flying ahead and I honestly don't know where this path will take me, but one thing I can say for sure is the day I behave in this way will be the day I will hang my headset up for good!

Yours in desperation
Ryan

[tomtom_91]

So I wont get the adapter?- Bad time for a bad joke? Sorry

[Hugh_Jarse]

Ryan5252,

With your bold text you give yourself some excellent advice, which I think you should probably follow. As long as you wait until you actually have some experience yourself before deciding if Wing Commander Toadstool actually does know everything, you should be just fine ...

Let's be careful out there, y'all ... :ok:

[IO540]

A firm in the USA called Safety Cell does headset adaptors (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/cellphoneadapter.php) for popular phones. I bought the Nokia one some years ago; it worked fine but I never used it for real because I find GSM barely works above 1000-2000ft (with some amazing exceptions like being able to get continuous 9.6k internet connection over France at FL80 once) and a text message is much better (which tends to work, eventually, anywhere in the first few thousand feet).

GPRS/3G is even worse.

In an aircraft that does not have FM-immune systems, it is just plain stupidYou ought to look up the frequencies for (a) VHF and (b) GSM ;) ;) ;)

Can somebody find the reference in the ANO which says GSM must not be used airborne, on a private flight??

The reality is that it barely works. One can send texts in general but voice calls tend to be too unreliable even when low down. I suppose one could use it for calling up some anally retarded airport re PPR (one of those who tell you on the radio to land and make a phone call - I think we know who they are).

Perhaps with this rabid attention to the rules you should edit GASIL.Love it :ok:

[Captain Stable]

For those insisting upon references, I have already posted two CAA pages which confirm that it is illegal. If that's not good enough for you, then do your own research, and phone the CAA. 01293 567171.

I find it really very telling that PPL students here are the ones defending good airmanship and good safe practice while those trying to defend breaking any rles with wehich they happen to disagree and saying they'll do as they like are (I assmue) qualified PPL's.

[IO540]

I have already posted two CAA pages which confirm that it is illegal.Those airline passenger advisory website pages are not law applicable to private flights.

For GA, you need to find a reference in the ANO. The PDF is called CAP393.PDF and you can find it at caa.co.uk. When you have found the reference, please post it so we can be suitably educated.

In a nutshell, the way the law for GA works is this

Civil Aviation Act
Air Navigation Order

and then you have

LASORS (odds and ends delegated to the CAA to fix as they wish)

Everything else is basically advisory, not law, or is simply bullsh*t :)

[Captain Stable]

When you actually study for a licence instead of playing with yourself over MS FlightSim, you'll do a subject called Air Law. In studying for that, you will find that not all the rules are contained within the ANO.

Now go away and play, and stop bothering the grownups.

[Fuji Abound]

FWIW I think you will find IO is pretty well qualified and, more to the point, probably one of the most experienced GA pilots on here.

I was flying a Cirrus last week which has a built in telephone. It uses the Iridium network of low orbit satellites rather than a ground based system common to other mobiles.

The system enables you to send SMS anywhere in Europe at any level, receive METARs and TAFs and weather radar. Its certified and, having checked the manual, there is no requirment to turn off the system when flying any approach including an ILS.

[Captain Stable]

(5) All radio communication and radio navigation equipment installed in an aircraft
registered in the United Kingdom or carried on such an aircraft for use in connection
with the aircraft (whether or not in compliance with this Order or any regulations
made thereunder) shall:
(a) be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA in relation to the purpose for which it
is to be used;Part 3, Article 20.

Fuji, approved equipment fitted to the aircraft is one thing. Plugging in your Nokia and chatting to your mates or having your ears blasted out by "Highway to the Danger Zone" is another.

It is not good enought for ANYONE, no matter their level of experience or qualifications, to decide which rules they will follow and which they will not.

[IO540]

I was flying a Cirrus last week which has a built in telephone. It uses the Iridium network of low orbit satellites rather than a ground based system common to other mobiles.I was going to suggest that too; I have used the Thuraya system myself for getting airborne weather data (tafs, metars, radar images) but not myself used it for voice (it needs a connection into the intercom to work properly).

I did once get an incoming call (I was on the ground) from a friend at FL300 over Greenland, using his Iridium phone, and while it was legible the quality was extremely poor, which I think is fairly typical of satellite phone systems. I wonder if this is normal...

installed in an aircraft
registered in the United Kingdom or carried on such an aircraft for use in connection
with the aircraft

Didn't look up the context (in the ANO context is everything) but "installed" means installed in the aircraft, and "in connection with the aircraft" means exactly what??

This is why you cannot permanently install e.g. a satellite phone in an aircraft, without a load of paperwork.

You can install the satphone rooftop antenna (e.g. page 7 here (http://www.antcom.com/documents/catalogs/CombinedL-Band_Inmarsat_Thuraya_IridiumandGPSAntennas.pdf)) easily because one can get them with Approved Data e.g. TSO. However, the phone and its "car holder" don't normally come with Approved Data so that part is normally mounted in a "temporary" manner. I am sure there are fully approvable systems and maybe the Cirrus is one such - presumably this was an N-reg Cirrus? I'd imagine getting this through EASA would be a nice gravy train for somebody. This (http://www.satphone.co.uk/networks/iridium/aviation_equipment.shtml) looks interesting...

[BEagle]

Consequently, the current CAA policy restricts the use of cellular telephones in aircraft. All crews should be alerted to the specific risk from active cellular telephones on the flight deck and should review their procedures to ensure they are switched off.

You may also find that if you used your spiv phone in flight, you would breach the contract with your provider and they would terminate your contract.

[IO540]

You may also find that if you used your spiv phone in flight, you would breach the contract with your provider and they would terminate your contract.

Has this ever happened?

The network provider cannot tell - other than through analysis of base station connections and even then airborne use will be inconclusive because there will be no altitude data.

Countless airline passengers embark with their phones ON and these phones continue to connect to base stations for the first few thousand feet up. If people were getting cut off, we'd know about it by now.

[west lakes]

Folks
A couple of technical points on mobile phones (from memory as the report I produced for someone else on this site is on my other computer)

Reception
As you know phones use UHF frequencies and transmit a digital signal. The ground antenna are set to be directional and a base will normally have an array of 3 aerials each covering 120 (with overlap) in the horizontal plane.
They are also set to "look down" so that little or no signal is transmitted upwards - which is why mobiles can be intermittent at altitude (I did work out from the specs how far from the transmitter you could get a signal at altitude - it was in excess of 40 miles)
This directional setting is the opposite to, say an, aircraft VHF aerial that broadcasts the signal through a 360deg plane.

Multiple site blocking
Can't happen, whan a phone signal is recieved by the system the ground operating system (computer) registers that phone to a particular site (the one with the highest signal).
As the phone moves it's signal is monitored and when the signal level from another base station becomes greater than the signal to the registered site the ground system then de-registers it from it's existing site & re-registers it to the new site known as handover.
Most systems are designed so that an individual phone cannot use two sites simultaniously. Though there is one system where this occurs briefly at handover only.
(We use a VHF PMR radio system at work that does the same, and can set the radio to actually display which site it is working through)
This again varies from aircraft where some national FIS services use mulltiple transmitters with offset frequencies to prevent interference if multiple sites are used.

[Captain Stable]

Thanks for that, west lakes.

As we all know, legislation always lags technology.

The fact remains, however much IO540 might want to search for loopholes and room to squirm, that it is illegal to use a mobile phone when airborne.

The fact also remains that it is very, very stupid to use a handheld when mobile, to make calls unless in case of an emergency, to send texts, to listen to music, etc. etc.

[IO540]

The fact also remains that it is very, very stupid to use a handheld when mobile, to make calls unless in case of an emergency, to send texts, to listen to music, etc. etc.

Clearly one for the post of the editor of GASIL :)

[Captain Stable]

And do you consider then that GASILs have no relevance to you? You appear to think they're a load of rubbish that you can happily ignore. If you have nothing but scorn for GASILs and use your comment as an insult, I think people can judge for themselves what your attitude to the rules and to safety is.

[Hugh_Jarse]

Captain, come on, be brave ... you can tell me, I won't breathe a word ... are you really DFC ? :eek:

[Fuji Abound]

Inevitably the law will mould how we conduct ourselves in any walk of life. With luck laws are introduced to prevent people following a course of action likely to do harm to themselves or to others. However blind obedience to the law can be dangerous; I thought it was a serious mistake when the carriage of fixed EPIRBs was mandated and wrote to the CAA to explain why. Although my aircraft has a fixed EPIRB if I had to choose between a fixed unit and a hand held unit for over water flights I would opt for the hand held every time and always carry a hand held EPIRB. Representations of this sort often cause the law to be changed for the better.

In the US it is very common for pilots to listen to music or the radio while flying – in the UK it is rare. Personally, I think rather than distract, it improves concentration so long as the music is muted whenever there is traffic over the radio. It is equally common practice for surgeons to play music during the most complicated procedures.

Sending SMS or dialling ‘phone numbers whilst flying in VMC inevitably means a certain amount of head down time which whilst OCAS is clearly not a good idea. On the other hand whatever effect the signal may have on the aircraft’s radio navigation systems is hardly relevant if these are not being used for navigation. If the mobile is connected to your headset (ignore for a moment that it will usually only work low level), and you have set up a one button dial for the number you want to call and the call cuts our if there is radio traffic then realistically doing so is neither likely to be any more hazard that changing frequency on the radio or glancing at the map. As pilots we spend a lot of our time multi tasking and prioritising – that is what we do.

I am not advocating using your mobile, I am simply pointing out that it is worth considering why the law is framed in the way that it is and why common sense should dictate that some things are safe, and other things less safe.

I think that is the more interesting aspect of PPRuNe and other such forums – the discussion that often follows about why legislation is framed in a particular way, rather than simply answering questions posted by other forumites.

I think so far as the fine publication GASIL is concerned there is more than a tendency for many of the "articles" to be written in somewhat patronising terms, hence the reaction often provocted on here and else where. Perhaps the editors would sometimes do as well to consider their own edicts on Human Factors - if you dont present the material in the best way your audience is at best likely to switch off and, at worst, not read the material at all.

So far as DFC is concerned I wonder what has happened to him - I have heard he may have become a number of recent forumites, but I wonder. :)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Intercepted's post is reproduced here as it just says it all.

"An attitude of being anti-authority will lead a person to regularly break rules and procedures for no very obvious reason. He or she may recent being told what to do, or may simply feel that rules and regulations are unnecessary or should not apply to him as an individual."

.....

"He generally dislike any outside interference with what he sees his 'right' to fly in any fashion he likes. All this ignores the simple truth that the vast majority of aviation rules and procedures are only enacted after a great deal of thought, and usually as a result of lessons learnt painfully by others."


Hugh, try looking up telecommunication regs, that's where the law on non ground-based transmitters is found, but do try and do it yourself, the world doesn't have an obligation to spoonfeed you like a baby.

HJ, you're making a public fool of yourself, even the PPL studes can see that...

[BEagle]

I suspect that there is no clear, single law which states "Thou shalt not use a mobile phone in an aircraft" - it's more likely to be entrenched within some weasel-wording such as 'emitting devices used in aeroplanes shall be licensed and operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of that licence' or similar.

Anyway IO540, why not make yourself famous by ringing the CAA's Enforcement Branch from your spamcan and see how your test case goes....:\

[FullyFlapped]

OK Mushroom Man, I'll play along for a while ....

In and amongst your insults, you implied earlier that this "law" regarding use of mobile phones was enshrined in the ANO ("all proper pilots have read it") and now you refer me to something called "the telecommunications regs", which despite having been in the data and telecommunications business for over 25 years I appear to have neglected to come across. Hmmm, 2/10, must try harder ...

I simply want to know the reference for this statute with which you are trying to impress "PPL studes". However, it's OK, I know you don't know the answer, and the more you bluster, the sillier you make yourself look, which is fine by me!

Hardly surprising really, after all, we should never forget where mushrooms live, and what they're fed on, should we ?

Toodle pip !

[BEagle]

If I recall correctly, didn't someone get a year inside for using a mobile phone in an aeroplane? Prosecuted under Art. 55 of the ANO as it pertained at the time.

There's probably something within the Telecommunications Act 2003, but that's even less easy to read than the ANO.

[IO540]

If I recall correctly, didn't someone get a year inside for using a mobile phone in an aeroplane? Prosecuted under Art. 55 of the ANO as it pertained at the time.I don't doubt it for a moment.

In an airliner.

The cabin crew tells you to stop it; you refuse, probably (because you've just had 3 pints of beer) make some derogatory comment about her skirt, and since the flight has not yet departed they call the police and you get taken off and "sorted out". Coppers at airports like nothing better than a bit of employment.

This is half the problem here... people are getting mixed up between being naughty on an airliner and breaking some rule which is prominently plastered all over the place, and being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them.

There is a mass of regs in the province of the Radiotelecommunications Agency which few people care about. For example you "cannot" use most of the VHF transceivers on the U.S. market because they are not CAA approved (the RTA has delegated the approvals of aviation related bits to the CAA, who probably in turn sub out the job to some commercial lab). I am sure this is true but does it relate to anything real? Some of these can record the audio and play it back; this is supposedly illegal in the UK but who actually cares?

I would not make voice calls airborne because they rarely if ever work, and I don't listen to music because I find one is busy enough with ATC (and my intercom's music input feature mutes the music when there is any radio activity so unless flying non-radio one gets constant breaks). But this is different from saying something is illegal and there is a good reason for it being illegal.

If I really wanted airborne voice calls capability I would get the satphone connected to the intercom. Can't see the point though, when one can do texting with the satphone very easily.

[BEagle]

being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them.

That speaks volumes.....:rolleyes:

[IO540]

but I am still waiting for the law which says one cannot use a mobile on a private flight in a GA aircraft.

[Fuji Abound]

I have taken an interest in this thread but I dont really see where it is going.

Is the use of mobile 'phones specifically banned on private flights? Well, if it says so in the legislation it is, but no one has yet come forward with a reference.

Is there any evidence mobile 'phones interfere with instruments? This from Boeing would suggest they dont.

Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) performed extensive tests as reported in AeroMagazine's Interference from Electronic Devices (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html) in response to reports by flight crews of anomalies that they believed to be caused by electronic devices. The flight crews had apparently confirmed the effect by switching the "suspect" device on and off and watching the effects. Despite this, and despite the fact that Boeing in many cases was able to purchase the actual offending device from the passenger and use it in extensive testing, Boeing was never able to reproduce any of the anomalies.

In any event in light aviation a great many flights will not be navigating by reference to radio nav. equipment so the issue is redundant.

Could the use of a phone be distracting? Clearly it might, depending on the circumstances, which is why their use in cars has been banned. If it distracts you from any of the tasks involved in operating the aircraft clearly whatever the legislation says or doesnt say you would be nuts to use a 'phone in flight.

That is about it, isnt it?

Not much point in a load of posturing.

[BEagle]

All emitting devices whether installed or used in aircraft are required to be licensed in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(1) of The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006

The only exemption to this law as regards cellphones is as stated in The Wireless Telegraphy (Mobile Communication Services on Aircraft) (Exemption) Regulations 2008. This basically allows 1800 Mhz cellphone use with on-board pico-cell systems above a heght of 3000m. The sort of thing which Ryanair has in some of its aircraft.


So the law you would be breaking would be a general law regarding licensing of emitting devices in aircraft, not one that specifically mentions cellphones. Whether public transport or private is nihil ad rem; your cellphone is not licensed for use in an aircraft.

[Hugh_Jarse]

Beagle, help me out if you would be so kind. Section 8 :-

8 Licences and exemptions
(1) It is unlawful—
(a) to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
(b) to instal or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by OFCOM.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a television receiver (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003) for receiving a television programme; or
(b) the installation of a television receiver for use solely for that purpose.
(3) OFCOM may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) the establishment, installation or use of wireless telegraphy stations or wireless telegraphy apparatus of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, either absolutely or subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as may be so specified.
(4) If OFCOM are satisfied that the condition in subsection (5) is satisfied as respects the use of stations or apparatus of a particular description, they must make regulations under subsection (3) exempting the establishment, installation and use of a station or apparatus of that description from subsection (1).
(5) The condition is that the use of stations or apparatus of that description is not likely to involve undue interference with wireless telegraphy

So in essence, I may not operate any mobile telegraphy which has not been duly licenced - is that correct?

But surely, mobile telephones are duly licenced already, otherwise we would be breaking the law by operating them anywhere ?

I'm sure it's obvious to you, but it's interesting !

Thanks,
Hugh

[Captain Stable]

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Have you ever seen your aircraft's Radio licence? Does your mobile phone appear on it? No.

End of story.

[BEagle]

(3) OFCOM may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) the establishment, installation or use of wireless telegraphy stations or wireless telegraphy apparatus of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, either absolutely or subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as may be so specified.

Mobile phone handsets are exempt under the terms of The Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/930, although I think that the exemption has now been transferred to a later 2003 Regulation.

Basically anything using RF must be licensed unless it has an Exemption. So you don't need a licence for a PMR446 transceiver, a Tracker system, a WLAN router etc - or even a CB radio these days. But you do for aircraft emitters or marine transceivers, for example. The Exemptions will stipulate conditions of use.

[Ryan5252]

...being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them.
No harm, but I could care less for your 'own' privacy when we meet midair and become intertwined, all because you were too busy bopping along to McFly on your iphone than to watch out for me. Did you catch that call I made on frequency announcing my position? No? :ugh:

too late.

[Intercepted]

"Well, the most accurate answer is that we don't really know, but the short answer is that it probably has. On the night of Friday 6 February, 2003, a Piper Navajo Chieftain light aircraft was on approach to Christchurch, New Zealand. It was dark, and the weather was poor, so the landing was using instruments only. Some 2km short of the runway, the plane flew into a tree, killing the pilot and seven passengers. Only two survived.
Later analysis revealed that the plane had been below the correct glide path for the runway, and that the instruments were telling the pilot to descend. The instruments had malfunctioned and the pilot had, understandably, continued to follow their instructions, being unaware of the malfunction. It transpired that the pilot had made a call on his mobile just before the glide path signal was acquired. The call ceased when the plane crashed. Although the final report was inconclusive, no evidence was found to support any other theory for the crash."
Part of the conclusion in a very detailed report by the Transport Investigation in NZ:

3.10 The use of cellphones and computers permitted by the pilot on the flight had the potential to cause electronic interference to the aircraft's avionics, and was unsafe.
3.11 The pilot's own cellphone was operating during the last 3 minutes of the flight, and could have interfered with his glide slope indication on the ILS approach.


Link to full report: (http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2003-004/Page/4/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=[G]skins/taicAviation/skin_aviation)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Total Flapper, you are not doing too well on the accuracy stakes. Sorry.

Nowhere did I say the ANO forbids mobiloe use. Try reading the post you refer to before making inaccurate and misleading replies.

As a 25 yer veteran of the telecomms business I concur with your self-rating of 2/10, though I feel that a bit generous. If you are so experienced you'd know full well the rules regarding antenna height above the ground, wouldn't you?

No. 0/10, due to bluster. (and that's putting it politely)

PPL studes made the apposite posts themselves - nothing I said was addressed to them, let alone set out to "impress" them. You really need to pay more attention and not let your rather innacurate reading lead you into such obvious nonsenical accusations.

Paying due regard to the law is "bluster", is it? You sad, sad man.

My God, what a sick world some people live in.

Pathetic, truly pathetic.

[Fuji Abound]

I have realised why I visit PPRuNe so rarely these days.

The forum is ruined by all this posturing.

It is a forum to discuss topics of interest - not to score points, and prove how clever you are, or to be overtly rude.

It is probably why so many old and experienced faces have disappeared from here.

[Roger10-4]

So the answer to the original post was yes here for an amplified one:
Amplified Mobile (Cell) Phone Adaptor - Adaptors - Pilot Warehouse'ASCO (http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/product27300023catno2840023.html)

or here for non amplified:
GSM Cell Phone Adapter @ Flightstore Pilot Supplies (http://www.flightstore.co.uk/prod/PILPA87/DEPT-HEAD/HAACCS/)

Though it comes with a note: "We do not promote or advise the use of this equipment during flight."

I wonder how many of the posters above have used a mobile phone at some point while driving where I'm sure you will agree, the consequences can be just as bad and maybe even more likely! (Not condoning use of mobiles in flight before you go off on one!)

[Keef]

This is my first visit to this forum for some weeks. It reminds me why I don't come here often.

I've forgotten to turn off my mobile phone before flying a few times. I soon find out: as I pass 1000 feet or so, it loses signal and starts its "mating call" which I hear in the headset. Finger goes to top pocket, presses the "power" button and holds it for a couple of seconds, and the noise stops.

An earlier cellphone of mine couldn't be turned off in that way, so it stayed on during the (short) flight. On the ILS (in VMC, practising) in the Arrow, it burbled in my headset and at the same moment the localiser needle swept full-scale from side to side (rather like a windscreen wiper). There are several different signal paths the interference could have take to cause that, but it's irrelevant. That cellphone interfered with that ILS display. I will not fly with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft. I will certainly not fly an ILS with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft.

Despite all the bluster, I've not seen any law that says "thou shalt not use thy cellphone in a GA aircraft in the UK". If there is one, it would be useful to see the reference. Since cellphones don't need a licence for "normal" use, it would probably need a lawyer to interpret the regulations.

In the USA, use of cellphones in GA is allowed. I've been told (I've not checked it) that selected cellsites even have an antenna set angled upwards to facilitate them. But that's the USA, where they do lots of things differently.

[Captain Stable]

From http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil2002_03.pdf
So near, and yet . . .

From a report by the BEA (the French AAIB)
The pilot of a Mooney M20J was approaching his destination. The weather had been good for the majority of the flight, but he was aware that it deteriorated considerably towards the destination and had informed his planned alternate aerodrome, which he had passed on his route, that he expected to have to turn back and land there. However the forecast was for the situation to improve.

The visibility below cloud deteriorated, and was described by witnesses as “very poor”. It seems the pilot had selected the first stage of flap, possibly to improve his forward view and increase his manoeuvrability at low speed. The aircraft disappeared from radar view and the wreckage was found in the side of a barn on the top of a hill 2 and a half kilometres from the aerodrome, which was situated in the valley beyond.

The investigation is not yet complete, but the initial report has found several factors which they believe are pertinent to the accident. The pilot was using GPS for navigation, and they believe that the precision of the GPS information gave him an excess of confidence in his ability to find the aerodrome in the conditions. The cloud layer through which the aircraft was flying was broken, and probably allowed him to catch sight of the ground from time to time. He also knew the aerodrome and the surrounding area well, having flown the route many times before.

There were other factors. The temperature of the cloud was below freezing, and icing could be expected. Finally, at the moment of impact the pilot was talking on his mobile phone to a colleague on the ground at his destination, having requested an update on the weather.

And from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200119.PDF:-
LEAFLET NO. 29 GUIDANCE CONCERNING THE USE OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ON BOARD AIRCRAFT

1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

To safeguard operations, JAR-OPS 1.110 requires an operator “..... to take all reasonable measures to ensure that no person does use, on board an aeroplane, a portable electronic device that can adversely affect the performance of the aeroplane’s systems and equipment”.

Recognising the need to avoid differences between airlines in the manner in which portable electronic device (PED) usage is controlled, this leaflet provides information to assist understanding of the issues, and it establishes common operational policy consistent with the requirements of JAR OPS 1.110.

Although the primary target audience of this leaflet is the airline community, operators of business aircraft, and operators of light aeroplanes and rotorcraft need to be alert to the risks from PED interference. These operators are recommended to adopt equivalent precautions as promoted in this leaflet.

The certification of systems and equipment is outside the scope of this leaflet. Hence it does not apply to approved equipment permanently installed in the aircraft for the purposes of passenger entertainment, or to installed telephone systems approved as satisfying airworthiness standards and licensed for air-ground radio telephone. These systems and equipment will need to satisfy applicable certification requirements and related operating restrictions. Similarly, the leaflet does not apply to permitted medical equipment which meets applicable requirements.

2 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

2.1 General

The use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) on board aircraft by flight crew, cabin crew and passengers presents a source of uncontrolled electro-magnetic radiation with the risk of adverse interference effects to aircraft systems. Given that a civil aircraft flying at high altitude and high speed in busy airspace is in an obviously hazardous environment, and given that many of the onboard systems are safety devices intended to reduce the risks of that environment to tolerable levels, then anything that degrades the effectiveness of those systems will increase the exposure of the aircraft to the hazards.

Consequently, the aircraft operator needs to take measures that will reduce the risks to acceptable limits. PEDs fall into two main categories; non-intentional transmitters and intentional transmitters. The first category includes, but is not limited to, computing equipment, cameras, radio receivers, audio and video reproducers, electronic games and toys, together with portable, non-transmitting devices intended to assist flight and cabin crews in their duties. Intentional transmitters are transmitting devices such as remote control equipment (which may include some toys), two-way radios, cellphones and satellite phones. In periods between transmissions, an intentional transmitter may radiate interference as a nonintentional transmitter.

2.2 Non-intentional transmitting PEDs

PEDs that are non-intentional transmitters will radiate emissions from internal oscillators and processor clocks, some types of motor, and power supply converters. The radio frequencies involved may fall in the bands used for aeronautical radio services, and emission levels may be sufficient to affect aircraft radio receivers through their antennas. Use of a PED on the flight deck presents a particular risk to those navigation systems having antenna systems located in the radome.
JAA Administrative & Guidance Material

2.3 Intentional transmitting PEDS

PEDs that are intentional transmitters may induce interference directly into aircraft equipment, wiring or components with sufficient power to adversely affect the proper functioning of aircraft systems. Many aircraft have non-metallic floors and internal doors that present no barrier to prevent the transmission from penetrating to the avionics equipment bays and to the flight deck. Tests (reference 8.6) have shown that demonstrated susceptibility levels of aircraft equipment, particularly equipment qualified to earlier standards, can easily be exceeded.

2.3.1 Cellphones

The rapid growth in cellphone1 usage has presented the most significant risk to aircraft safety from PED interference. Cellphones are both non-intentional and intentional transmitting PEDs, operating on spot channel frequencies in the bands of approximately 415 MHz, 900 MHz or 1800 MHz. (Some regions of the world use slightly different bands). Most use digital modulation but analogue types are still in use. Their maximum transmitted power is in the range of typically 1 to 5 watts. The actual power transmitted at a particular time is controlled by the cellular network and may vary from 20mW to maximum rated power of the cellphone depending on quality of the link between the cellphone and the network. Even in standby mode, a cellphone transmits periodically to register and re-register with the cellular network and to maintain contact with a base station.

The transmitted power and precise radio frequency of an operating cellphone is dependent on the traffic on the network, the distance of the cellphone from the nearest base station, and any obstacles or attenuation in the signal path. An aircraft on the ground at an airport is likely to be in close proximity to a base station resulting in a strong link between that station and an onboard cellphone. Under these circumstances, the cellphone would seek a free channel in the assigned communication band and its output power would be set by the network to a low level sufficient to maintain the link. Interference levels would, as a result, be low and probably harmless but this cannot be guaranteed. Closing of the aircraft doors increases attenuation in the signal path, and as the aircraft increases its distance from the base station, the output power setting of the cellphone is increased, eventually to its maximum rating. The risk of interference is then at its greatest. At altitude, the cellphone will transmit periodically attempting to register with the cellular network. The quality of the link is likely to be poor and the cellphone will radiate maximum power in these circumstances. Furthermore, since it is likely to be in line-of-sight range of multiple base stations, some degradation of the network operation may result2 and actual communication may not be possible.

The effect of this type of functioning is that, when the aircraft is on the ground near a base station, the interference risk can be low but not negligible, and it will increase as the aircraft taxies and then climbs away from the network base stations. The simultaneous use in an aircraft of several cellphones will result in transmissions at different radio frequencies leading to a more complex interference environment.

[Hugh_Jarse]

Keef :
Despite all the bluster, I've not seen any law that says "thou shalt not use thy cellphone in a GA aircraft in the UK". If there is one, it would be useful to see the reference. Since cellphones don't need a licence for "normal" use, it would probably need a lawyer to interpret the regulations.

Indeed : and that (show me the reference) was my original point. I've heard many times that it's illegal, but never seen it written anywhere.

I don't advocate using a mobile phone in flight, for a variety of reasons, including distraction, the continuous burbling in the headset - and the fact that not being continuously contactable is one of the plus factors of flying for me ! I have used mobiles elsewhere in the world with varying success, and I have used one once in the UK during an emergency whilst being sans radio (and undercarriage and flaps ...:ugh:)

I used to be a very regular prooner, but I gave up for a long while largely because I got fed up with the didacts and pedants who are simply not willing to embrace the possibility that laws, rules and systems which have been around for decades can sometimes be improved or are rendered irrelevant by technological change. Witness the thread recently on which someone was praising the capabilities of a new type of battery, which immediately degenerated into an anti-GPS tantrum from the usual buffoons. These guys, coupled with those who, rather than give genuinely experienced-based advice, insist on pretending that flying at PPL level is an "art", with the complexity of brain surgery, only to be practised my those of superior moral fibre and intellect, rather than a slightly risky wholly enjoyable activity open to just about anyone who can afford it, finally drove me lose interest in coming here.

However, I've changed : whereas the old me would get annoyed, the new me is quite happy to remember that this is nothing more than an entertainment which occasionally proves useful, and to prick the odd self-righteous over-inflated ego for a bit of fun (and to have the favour returned if it's warranted!). :ok:

[Captain Stable]

Hugh, I have no problem with anyone who argues that such-and-such a law is out of date and should be changed/repealed.

Where I tend to have a problem is with people who say "I disagree with such-and-such a law and therefore I intend to ignore it".

If law has been outdated by the continuous roll of technology, then it is up to us as pilots to present the facts to whichever authorities (Govt., CAA, whomever) and demand that the law be changed. Until then, it remains the law.

When I flew the airlines, there were always a few pilots who said "I disagree with the company's SOPs so I intend to do such-and-such". Other pilots flying with them then didn't know whether they were coming or going half the time. My argument to such pilots is "If your argument is so strong, then present it to the Training Committee or the Fleet Managers, and suggest SOPs be changed, because if you have had such a good idea, then perhaps everyone ought to be doing as you do". But you know what? They never did.

[Fuji Abound]

Captain S

I am glad things have carmed down a bit.

As to the debate, whilst I agree with your last comment, the fact remains that specific legislation banning the use of mobiles in light aircraft has yet to be cited.

It is a little like the discussion we have had in the past about the IMC rating. There are many who like to argue the minima are different between IMCr and IR holders - however recommendations are just that, they are only recommendations. It may well be sensible to follow those recommendations but more often than not they are also recommendations for a reason - to give the pilot some flexibility. The Regulator is very unlikely to prosecute successfully because a pilot did not comply with the recommendations.

In terms of the accident report you reproduce I guess most of us would instantly deplore any pilot talking on a mobile during the final stages of an approach in IMC. However inevitably accident reports reveal the consequences when things go wrong. To flip the coin, and perhaps to play devils advocate, you will not read the report about the pilot that arrived at an unmanned airport in weather conditions worse than forecast, made a call to a mate on the ground to establish whether or not an approach was possible and, on the strength of their report, went some where else and landed safely.

I suspect one of the reasons GA operates in a more liberal enviroment is partly in recognition that many flights operate into an out of unlicensed and unmanned fields. We dont always have the luxury of manned towers, automated weather systems and approach and tower control.

Please dont misunderstand - I am neither advocating the use of mobile 'phones in the situation you cite, nor am I promoting home made approaches, I am simply pointing out that sometimes their are reasons why even experienced and usually law abiding pilots consider their are extenuating circumstances for following a particular course of action as much as their are occasions when their actions can be considered negligent.

[IO540]

but the initial report has found several factors which they believe are pertinent to the accident. The pilot was using GPS for navigation, and they believe that the precision of the GPS information gave him an excess of confidence in his ability to find the aerodrome in the conditions.

That's what I love about the anti-GPS crowd. They are always ever so precise and scientific ;)

Had he been flying an NDB approach, would they have written

but the initial report has found several factors which they believe are pertinent to the accident. The pilot was using the ADF for navigation, and they believe that the precision of the ADF information gave him an excess of confidence in his ability to find the aerodrome in the conditions.

Why not?

Discuss ;)

Their maximum transmitted power is in the range of typically 1 to 5 watts

I want to know where I can buy a "cellphone" which emits 1 watt. For a genuine 5 watts, I'd pay real money :)

Indeed, there is a theoretical possibility of bringing down a cellular network by making loads of base station connections concurrently. Better ban airline travel then, or strip search the embarking passengers and confiscate any phones. I wonder why this doesn't happen?

[Captain Stable]

Why not?

DiscussProbably because an NDB approach is not designed to help a pilot to find the airport.

An NDB approach exists to provide a non-precision approach (i.e. with no glidepath information) to a specified minimum descent height/altitude above a runway, either at or before the missed approach point (MAP), at which point if there is no visual contact with the runway, the pilot must carry out a missed approach.

All the above is laid out in promulgated information. None of this equates to a pilot stumbling around at low level in IMC with temperatures below freezing without a radalt or radar coverage hoping he can find a runway somewhere in the murk, whilst talking to a mate on his mobile.

Incidentally, I hope you saw that the CAA are conducting tests on GPS interference/jamming, and I am sure you will be keen to read the results at your earliest opportunity.

[BEagle]

I've tried to explain that there is no need for any specific law concerning use of cellphones in aircraft as a de facto one already exists.

All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed. There is an exmption to this requirement that allows the use of 1800 MHz GSM cellphones in aircraft fitted with pico-cell terminals. Hence no other use of cellphones is lawful in aircraft registered in the UK or flying in UK airspace.

It's quite simple - but perhaps not sufficiently so for some, it would seem.

[IO540]

Probably because an NDB approach is not designed to help a pilot to find the airport.

Never a truer word said :ok:

Of course, the real reason for NDBs is to enable IR candidates to be checked out on NDB holds.

All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed

What about a bluetooth connected GPS receiver? On the ground, this is license free.

I think this area is more tricky than might appear.

[gasax]

There is a very, very basic failing that many of the Meldrews on this thread are conveniently ignoring.

The law is there for a purpose, it is intended to be precise for very obvious reasons. Thus unless there is a specific provision which accurately describes the situation it does not apply - the activity is 'legal'.

Strangely this is why laws are actually drafted with a great deal of care.

The complete failure of a direct reference to not using portable devices in an aircraft does show the difficulty the Meldrews face. If may be illegal to wash a hackney cab in the street on a Sunday but not it is not illegal to use portable devices in a light aircraft.

So this is the usual huffing and puffing!

[trex450]

I have noticed that it is possible to get a headset which allows the pilot to connect there mobile phone/ mp3 player does anyone know if you can get an adapter that lets you connect a phone with out having to change headset?

Going back to the original post and the forum that it is on I am assuming that we are talking about someone who is flying VFR in a light single as his question is very straight forward. The rules may be there to guide us but if this is the case then really what is the problem? Give him a break. I have used a mobile phone many times when airbourne, while flying solo. I have never noticed any interference to any of the (non FM immune) equipment onboard (a standard piston single), it was not anymore distracting than talking to my passengers while monitoring two radios and keeping track of the football (on Saturdays only). The only practical point was that once above about 4000ft the signal quality drops off due to the angle above the transmitter masts.

Stay safe and remember that communication comes third after flying and navigating.:ok:

[Hugh_Jarse]

Beagle :

All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed. There is an exmption to this requirement that allows the use of 1800 MHz GSM cellphones in aircraft fitted with pico-cell terminals. Hence no other use of cellphones is lawful in aircraft registered in the UK or flying in UK airspace.


Beagle, I think what confuses me is this. A mobile phone is a licensed device. So presumably you mean that all emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed for use in aeroplanes ? And what I cannot see is which part of the act says that ?

[Keef]

I remember (wearing another hat) being bullied some years ago by someone who kept telling me I had to let them do X because that was the law. I kept asking to be shown the law, or for a reference to it. None was ever provided.

Eventually, I asked an expert lawyer myself. No, he said, there is no such law. Your answer "No" to their request made it unlawful for them to do X. (X was to do with gravestones).

I've not seen any law on cellphones in GA aircraft in the UK, or any reference to anything that fits. Maybe it is forbidden, maybe not. I just don't know.

I don't plan to use my cellphone in the aircraft anyway - under IFR certainly not, for reasons set out above. I fly with two COM sets and a handheld (which IS covered in the aircraft radio licence).

[trex450]

What about if you are flying in an aircraft with no radio or navigation gear? I assume it is technically illegal but why should it be the case? I have never noticed but will have a go to find out if I use my mobile when airbourne will I be charged accurately for the call. When you consider the number of passengers that fly out of UK airports each year how many cases of mobile phones interfering with the aircraft systems are there? I would hazard a guess that 10% of passengers forget to turn their phones off. When I use my mobile phone near my computer, tv, toaster etc these items all operate perfectly normally, I hope that aircraft systems are more secure than any of these but maybe I am wrong.....

[BEagle]

Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.

So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.

Anyway, I've had enough of this. So tomorrow I will be writing both to Ofcom and the CAA to obtain a clear statement which even the most ridiculous barrack room lawyer will be able to understand.

[IO540]

What would that achieve, Beagle?

Let's say the CAA says bluetooth is illegal for airborne use.

Am I going to chuck out my bluetooth GPS receiver, which sends NMEA data to my tablet computer, and replace it with a clumsy cable connected unit? Obviously not.

Come to think of it, my tablet computer is probably illegal too. It contains a wifi radio, which isn't enabled but it could be, couldn't it? It also has a bluetooth radio. And an inductive touch screen which necessarily radiates otherwise it could not find the pen.

What about my satellite phone? It is not CAA approved. Is there any satphone that is CAA approved? I don't think so. Is the MLX770 Iridium radio sold by Avidyne CAA approved?

The whole radio approval business is still stuck in post-WW2 days which is why nobody takes much notice of it. Like it is illegal to record aviation radio exchanges - how ludicrous.

[gasax]

Go for it Beagle!

A definitive ruling from the CAA? You will not live long enough to receive it. By the time it emerges from the Belgrano`we'll be using an entirely different technology. Remember that building is populated by Meldrews - none of whom got where they are today - by ever making a definite ruling that could be traced back to them! (to mix my quotes).

Keef has a useful (and very relevent!) observation. There are many legal roles which do have the ability to set precedence or rulings. Hence not granting permission for something would make things illegal through that authority - much air traffic legislation works on this principle for instance.

So do ask the CAA for the definitive legal reference which prohibits to use of mobile phones - of all the Meldrews they should be the most capable!

[Fuji Abound]

Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.

So doesnt that mean it is illegal to use a portable GPS receiver or does it only become illegal if it is transmitting?


Anyway, I've had enough of this. So tomorrow I will be writing both to Ofcom and the CAA to obtain a clear statement which even the most ridiculous barrack room lawyer will be able to understand.


If you get such a statement you will almost certainly find you cannot disclose their statement because it will be followed by a non disclosure - unless of course you ignore their non disclosure.

[Hugh_Jarse]

Beagle :
Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.

So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.

Now you're obviously a very bright chap, and I assume a lawyer to boot. So what confuses me is that, when you say something needs to be licensed before it can be used in an aeroplane, and I invite you to be explicit and say that this means it must be licensed explicity for use in an aeroplane, you just repeat that it must "have a licence".

Do you not see why this is confusing for us mere mortals? And despite what you may think, I'm really not trying to be cute or have a pop - it's just that it seems to me to be vague in the extreme ?

[Reluctant737]

Pompous Fungus

Colonel Mushroom

Wing Commander Toadstool

Heh heh, made me laugh anyway... :ok:

Ad

[Captain Stable]

Hugh, IO540 and others...

If the device appears on your aircraft's radio licence you are entitled to use it in the aircraft.

If it does not appear on the aircraft's radio licence it is not licensed, and you may not use it. Check the relevant Act, which BEagle has already quoted, and then stop trying to squirm out of the regulations.

And IO540, if you can point to any document stating that you mobile phone is licensed I will be most astonished. I have bought many mobile phones in my time and I have never seen, nor applied for, nor been given, sold or otherwise obtained a licence for any of them.

[Katamarino]

I have to laugh at the naiivety of those that think that idiotic laws can be changed by petitioning the powers that be. Do you really, honestly think any of them give a flying **** what a few GA pilots think? These are the kind of people that brought us Part M, licenses that have to be re-paid for every 5 years, and a host of other 'sensible regulations' based on no evidence other than 'they felt like it'.

[Fuji Abound]

If it does not appear on the aircraft's radio licence it is not licensed, and you may not use it.


No, the Iridium phone that forms part of the Avidyne weather package does not appear on the radio license but the whole kit is EASA approved.

Moreover the phone can be used at any stage of flight including sending SMSs.

Perhaps all Iridium 'phones are licensed. :)

[Keef]

There is such a concept as a "blanket licence". We have them to listen to Radio 4 on FM. Your cellphone, I suspect, has a blanket licence. As to what the terms of that licence may be, or whether or not it specifies where you may or may not use it, I know not.

[Captain Stable]

Sorry, Keef, but licences for home radios were abolished in 1971. There is no such thing as a "blanket" licence. There are exemptions for some devices such as WLAN, bluetooth devices, car remote central locking devices, etc.

Fuji, I am sure you are correct that the phone is approved by EASA. That does not mean that it is approved or licensed by OfCom, who have responsibility under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Not all rules and laws that cover what goes on in an aircraft are contained within the ANO or CAA regulations. It is illegal to murder your wife in an aircraft, but that law does not appear within the ANO.

Katamarino, you may be sceptical about the ability to petition to change out-of-date laws. That does not justify breaking them.

[IO540]

Who actually cares?

What has brought about this dead horse?

Has Captain Stable had an airprox with another plane whose pilot was talking on a mobile phone? If not, who cares? See and avoid doesn't work anyway; the best protection (based on midair stats) is to fly above about 2000ft and avoid < 1000ft at all costs.

[Captain Stable]

Who actually cares?That appears to sum up your attitude to the rules, particularly those affecting flight safety. What a sad indictment. Thank god most people I know in aviation have a rather more responsible and professional attitude.

[Katamarino]

So, if a rule (to take an example) is demonstrably detrimental to flight safety in a particular circumstance (say, total radio failure, and you need to contact ATC on your phone...), you're saying that because it would be breaking a rule, you should plow on regardless into a hillside? Or maybe an pilot with a lapsed IR should scud-run when he hits bad weather, and then a cliff, instead of climbing to a safe height and using his instrument skills, because it's against the rules?

Adhering blindly to any rule, no matter how inappropriate it may be in the situation, is the mark of a mindless drone. Do you honestly think the kind of people who get into the position to make these rules are capable of thinking through every possible situation? Even people with *more* than two braincells couldn't do that.

I hope I never find my safety relying on a singleminded rule-lover; I'd far rather rely on someone who has enough brainpower to take the rules with a pinch of salt, and make an intelligent decision about what the best course of action is given possibly unforseen circumstances. Isn't coping with situations not covered by the rules, or where applying them might be dangerous, what being a good pilot is all about?

Captain Stable; do you by any chance work as an accountant, or for the government?

[IO540]

I think I know what CS does for a living. He is an ISO9000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000) quality manager :)

But I could be totally wrong, in which case I owe him an unreserved apology. He might be an RoHS (http://www.rohs.gov.uk/) Compliance Officer :)

OTOH he might be doing something really worthwhile, safeguarding the world for our children and our childrens' children: he might be a WEEE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive) Compliance Officer.

Need to be careful though; he might be a REACH (http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/) Compliance Officer and I have just been emailing with a bunch of those, working for one of my biggest customers :)

That appears to sum up your attitude to the rules, particularly those affecting flight safety. What a sad indictment. Thank god most people I know in aviation have a rather more responsible and professional attitude.

Actually, CS, I can tell you I am entirely satisfied with my attitude, but if one day I die in a CFIT while doing something not on my Radio License (oops that should be Radio Licence, with a "c") then here's my permission for the accident to be dissected freely here on pprune :)

[Captain Stable]

So, if a rule (to take an example) is demonstrably detrimental to flight safety in a particular circumstance (say, total radio failure, and you need to contact ATC on your phone...), you're saying that because it would be breaking a rule, you should plow on regardless into a hillside? Or maybe an pilot with a lapsed IR should scud-run when he hits bad weather, and then a cliff, instead of climbing to a safe height and using his instrument skills, because it's against the rules?If you can show me anywhere that I've actually said that I would be grateful. But I've actually NOT said that, nor would I.

I can quite see circumstances in which it would be really quite sensible to use a mobile phone whilst airborne. Not in the above circumstances, no. In the first place, R/T failure is covered by other actions - perhaps you might like to read up on them to refresh your memory - or don't you brush up your skills with an instructor from time to time? In the second place, why would he be scudrunning in the first place? Sounds like piss-poor planning and preparation to me.

IO540, you will find if you take the trouble to look in a dictionary, that licence is a noun and license is a verb. Hence the different spellings. Sorry if that confused you.
Actually, CS, I can tell you I am entirely satisfied with my attitudeYes, I think we could work that out. Nice to have low standards and know you'll reach them, isn't it?

In the meantime, if all you can do is throw insults, this conversation is over. In the meantime, thank you to all the people who have PM'd me about this thread, including the studes who, unlike a few of the contributors, value their safety and that of other user of our airspace.

[IO540]

Actually the good thing about having low standards is that I can easily exceed them. This is much more satisfying than merely reaching them. We should all strive to do our very best in all our endeavours :ok:

[Katamarino]

Ah, of course CS, a sky-god like you *never* gets caught out by unexpected weather...anyone who does must be a mere pleb. Your arrogance is astounding.

I hope the numerous studes who are evidently in awe of your superior state of being are not led in the direction of complete inflexibility that you seem from your posts here to be advocating.

As for IO540 and I, I suspect we'll both stick to our own, carefully thought out, instructor-advised, and experience-gained ways...

[Fuji Abound]

I thought things had carmed down a bit. Clearly not.

Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.

So said John Selden.

The problem CS is that even if you are correct, for laws to be effective they must be promulgated in a reasonable way to those that might be expected to obey the law.

I cant help feeling that if the CAA was concerned about this matter they would have introduced enabling legislation to outlaw their use in the ANO, the first place a pilot would look for an issue of this sort, whereas your analogy with murdering your wife is not relevant, because a pilot would not look in the ANO to see if this was legal to do so. :)

Moreover, it would seem reasonable to test pilots specifically on such an important issue (if indeed it was as important as this thread suggests) in the PPL, or CPL writtens, whereas I have never seen such a question.

Whoever was writing to the CAA might like to also bring this to their attention. :ok:

I love these smiles - hopefully it will bring peace, tranquility etc etc to all concerned. :)

[BEagle]

There's a difference between 'safe' and 'legal' in many walks of life. It is legal for me to drive at 250 kph on certain German autobahns, even though at times it's not always safe. Whereas it's illegal to drive at 71 mph on a deserted UK motorway even under perfect conditions where it would be entirely safe to do so.

However, I dispute the notion that a pilot's first resort would be to the ANO. I suspect that a quick trawl through the AICs would come first.

AIC 1/2004 (pink 62) does refer to use of PEDs, but is clearly aimed more at commercial operators and the CAA needs to come up with something unequivocal which cannot be misinterpreted by the barrack room lawyers of the GA world who will try to twist them into their own interpretation.

CB radios are now 'licence exempt', as are PMR446 transceivers. Hands up all those who think this means that they may legally be used in aircraft?

Katamarino, the situations you describe are covered under the principle of force majeure.

[Captain Stable]

As for IO540 and I, I suspect we'll both stick to our own, carefully thought out, instructor-advised, and experience-gained ways...Ah - now you claim that your instructors have advised you to use a mobile phone whilst airborne?

If you can't tell the difference between use of a mobile phone in a genuine emergency situation (when all rules go out of the window anyway in the interests of safety) and flying with the intent of using a mobile phone, to the extent of buying an adaptor so you can chat to your mates, then there's not a lot of hope.

I am very far from being a skygod. I have been caught out by unexpected weather, once. It was about 20 years ago. I learned from that. I leanred not to get into such situations, and in situations such as you describe, press-on-itis is the worst reaction possible. Yet, strangely, it is the only course you describe.

Fuji, I don't particularly care where "the first place a pilot would look" is. The CAA and the government are not bound to place rules in "the first place" a pilot would look. As has already been pointed out, there is a lot of legislation that affects aviation that is elsewhere than the ANO. If someone can't be bothers to look elsewhere, then that is their lookout.

Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it. Such action is clearly beyond those here who insist upon being spoonfed.

And, incidentally, PPL/CPL written exams are not the last word on any subject, either. We have found two incorrect answers to exam questions in the last week.

Katamarino, if you wish to continue the conversation further, please refrain from the insults.

[Crash one]

Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it. Such action is clearly beyond those here who insist upon being spoonfed.


Captain Stable.
Has it entered your head that the student in question was asking to be "spoon fed" as you put it? Would it not have been in said student's better interests to advise which publications to trawl through & see how he/she got on?
Furthermore I think if it takes two days of searching by several instructors? to locate some piece of legislation then it is high time the whole outdated system was overhauled.
As for your attitude towards anyone who has an opinion, I seriously would not like to be based on your airfield let alone be one of your unfortunate students.
Some of us who are not quite so "professional", nevertheless are responsible adults. You seem believe that we are all a bunch of numpties that need educated?

[IO540]

I have been caught out by unexpected weather, once. It was about 20 years agoI guess you must be an instructor, CS.

Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it

What was it?

[Zulu Alpha]

After the catfight, has anyone answered Keefs question?

Where does it say that you cannot use a mobile phone in a GA aircraft. Not an airliner with radio navigation instruments but a plain old VFR GA aircraft.

I can see that if you have a VOR or ADF for navigation then the interference that you can hear (the mobile mating call) could cause an erroneous reading on the VOR, glideslope or ADF.

However, if you have a VFR aircraft without all of these, then how is it dangerous? apart from the attention required to operate it?

ZA

[Fuji Abound]

CS

I am afraid you have missed the point. Strictly I agree with you - and said so, but if the law is buried, few will be aware and even fewer will comply with the law. Such legislation is poor, particularly when "directed" at people who have no legal training.

In that far it is rare for the authorites to seek a civil remedy, the more so when the law is not clear. A civil remedy will very rarely be sought unless the prosecuting authority consider their chances of success are good and in this instance I doubt they would "persuade" a barrister to give that opinion. Now please dont get carried away I am not suggesting the law should be abused simply because it cannot be prosecuted.

To the extent that the use of a mobile 'phone is clearly entirely legal if it forms part of an approved installation (as in the case of Avidyne's Iridium system) I doubt anyone would rush to prosecute a case for using exactly the same equipment simply because it is not approved.

If you wire a GPS into the aircraft it is an illegal installation unless approved as a minor or major mod. At what point the unit is wired into the aircraft is debatable but many such "installations" are strictly illegal. I dont see a rush on the part of the CAA to prosecute.

Your obsession with the law is misplaced. You have been put to proof on citing the legislation, and the legislation is not clear. Far more important is whether or not the use of a mobile 'phone in the cockpit is dangerous.

Frankly I am feed up with a society in which we think we can legislate for every human activity. We must learn to accept personal responsibility. We must learn to assess what it is reasonable and unreasonable to do. Is it reasonable to make a call in VMC whilst not relying on radio navigation equiment using a quick dial function on a phone attached to a self muting headset - if it worked I think it is entirely reasonable. I dont see it as a distraction any more than head down time punching up an approach on the FMS. Is it reasonable to use a 'phone during an approach in poor weather - clearly it would not be. I am in little doubt people spend plenty of head down time dealing with all sorts of cockpit tasks these days - a mobile 'phone is just one more potential distraction but in an entirely different way than for the driver of a car. We spend time using our audio facalties regardless. I am sure you have monitored guard on box 2 as well as listening out on box 1, or had the ATIS on box 2 and the active frequency on box 1. Add into the mix a mobile call, when you are in open FIR and not talking to anyone and the workload of that call is less than either of the two former scenarios.

In short a call for common sense, the excercise of command responsibility, an understanding of what might and might not be distracting and why, rather than blind obedience to unclear legislation.

That is me done - we may well disagree, which is the joy of PPRuNe, but that is the way I see it having read each side of the debate.

FWIW in terms of your students I wouldnt bother spending hours on some obtuse piece of legislation - unless I am mistaken you are not a lawyer and they are not attending law school. Unless you have adequate training you are in danger anyway of not understanding the legislation or knowing whether or not you have fondd something that appears to support your case and missed those elements that dont. If it were that simple we would neither have these debates or PPRuNe nor would Barristers command the fees they do. In my game if I had a pound for every time a client told me he had studied the legisaltion and come to the conclusion what he was doing was entirely legal I would be a great deal wealthier than I am. If you are a FI your time would be far better spent ensuring they understand why it might not be prudent for them to use a 'phone in the cockpit.

[Crash one]

Would a switched on mobile have any effect on VHF radio reception? or do I really have to get a new radio?

[Fuji Abound]

and Crash One to answer your question please do a quick search on mobiles and aviation. You will see there have been a few studies. I cited earlier one by Boeing in which they found no (note zero) evidence of any interference caused to radio navigation equipment in consequence of a mobile phone. They even purchased a number of 'phones form passengers on flights where the 'phone had been the only 'phone left switched on and was alledged to cause interference - they could not reproduce the problem on a single occasion. Draw your own conclusions.

So far as radios are concerned I regularly forget to turn my 'phone off these days - you will often hear a series of short beeps on the radio during the climb as the 'phone "attempts" to remain connected to the network.

Personally I always made a point of turning off my phone before every flight - I never make a point these days but I try to remember to do so. That inevitably means I often fly with it on, but I have never had an issue. If the flight was in IMC I still ensure all phones are tunred off - why, well it just makes me more comfortable to eliminate a possible risk however small I believe it may be.

If you have a problem with the radios check you have turned off your 'phone - it is not rocket science, if that doesnt work try something else. :)

In recent months I have had far more problems with serious interference from illegal ground based installations - I suspect the authorities time would be far better spent prosecuting those concerned or at least indentifying the culprits and asking them to desist because their actions are dangerous and have nearly caused me to go elsewhere recently during an IP

[Crash one]

Fuji Abound
I must confess to being a little flippant, I didn't think it did & I saw the report by Boeing. Though I too used to make sure it was off, & have lately become lax, & the radio seems to have got worse lately.
Pure coincidence.
Ground based stations may be a possibility, 119.*** freqs seem to be more of a problem?
I have no other radio nav kit other than a PDA memory map GPS.

[Keef]

Sorry, Keef, but licences for home radios were abolished in 1971. There is no such thing as a "blanket" licence.

I was around in 1971. I remember the day when sound broadcast licences no longer had to be bought. However, I also listen to other services (like the standard frequency transmissions put out by various agencies) and there was some discussion about how they were to be covered.

I don't have my copy of the official (1971? - not sure of the exact date) document up here with me, but I recall some "wording" along the lines of ""General Exemption Terms" which covered sound broadcasting, standard frequency services, and others. You didn't need to "buy" a licence: you were "deemed" to have one. That may have changed in the intervening years - I haven't bothered to follow it up. My amateur radio licence has recently become "fee free" - but I still have to have one.

You do need a licence to listen to aircraft radio: those are issued to the aircraft. The operator needs a FRTOL to use the radio. Away from the aircraft, there is no licence and in theory it's illegal to listen to airband. Nobody has been prosecuted for that in living memory.

I'm sure a lawyer could tell us whether a licence is needed (and deemed to exist) for cellular phones, sound broadcast, etc. Personally I'm not bothered - but it could have a bearing if we really care about the legality of using a cellphone in an aircraft.

Anyway, the horse is very dead. Time to stop flogging it.

[IO540]

Would a switched on mobile have any effect on VHF radio reception? or do I really have to get a new radio?

A GSM phone connects to a base station roughly every 10 minutes, and the connection lasts a second or two. That is the only time it is transmitting - apart of course from when a call is taking place, or a text message is being sent/received.

In the absence of the phone receiving a signal from any base station (which is the situation the vast majority of the time in an aircraft at a few thousand feet or higher) the phone does not emit anything at all.

This is contrary to what most people think - they think a phone is radiating all the time. If it did that, the batteries wouldn't last very long... the long standby times these days are achieved by the long gap in the base station connections.

One can hear the interference in an ANR headset, so yes in that sense it can interfere with a VHF radio. Other interference is also possible, if the aircraft wiring is poor (which is often the case).

But making a call during VFR conditions when instruments are not relied on for aircraft control etc should not represent a problem.

[Captain Stable]

Crash one
Captain Stable.
Has it entered your head that the student in question was asking to be "spoon fed" as you put it? Would it not have been in said student's better interests to advise which publications to trawl through & see how he/she got on?
Furthermore I think if it takes two days of searching by several instructors? to locate some piece of legislation then it is high time the whole outdated system was overhauled.
...
Some of us who are not quite so "professional", nevertheless are responsible adults. You seem believe that we are all a bunch of numpties that need educated?Let's ignore for a moment your extreme insulting tone. I did not say it was at a student's request. I said it was on a student's behalf. If you don't understand the difference, have a look in the dictionary. Next, it did not take two whole days. Nor did I say it took several instructors. As for believing you are a numpty, if you don't want to be taken for one, don't behave like one.What was it?Requirement for carriage of documents on international flight.After the catfight, has anyone answered Keefs question?Several times. Mostly, see posts by BEagleTo the extent that the use of a mobile 'phone is clearly entirely legal if it forms part of an approved installation (as in the case of Avidyne's Iridium system) I doubt anyone would rush to prosecute a case for using exactly the same equipment simply because it is not approved.There is a difference between "Approved" and "Licensed".I dont see it as a distraction any more than head down time punching up an approach on the FMS.The only time anyone should be head down" is as PNF in IFR in controlled airspace. The rest of the time it would be a major distraction and I wouldn't want to be in the same airspace as anyone single-pilot, or VFR doing anything so daft as failing to "see and avoid".Unless you have adequate training you are in danger anyway of not understanding the legislation or knowing whether or not you have fondd something that appears to support your case and missed those elements that dont. If it were that simple we would neither have these debates or PPRuNe nor would Barristers command the fees they do. In my game if I had a pound for every time a client told me he had studied the legisaltion and come to the conclusion what he was doing was entirely legal I would be a great deal wealthier than I am. If you are a FI your time would be far better spent ensuring they understand why it might not be prudent for them to use a 'phone in the cockpit.Thank you for your patronising condescension. I am not a lawyer any more. I gave that up quite some time ago. And I ensure that my students are well aware of, and practise, all requirements of good airmanship. Thank you for your advice.

[IO540]

The only time anyone should be head down" is as PNF in IFR in controlled airspace. The rest of the time it would be a major distraction and I wouldn't want to be in the same airspace as anyone single-pilot, or VFR doing anything so daft as failing to "see and avoid".

What a load of nonsense. The name of this forum is Private Flying.

[Saab Dastard]

This horse is not only dead, but it's been flogged to the bone.

If anyone has anything useful to add rather than swinging handbags, please PM me and I'll re-open it.

SD