Mobile phone se on board before the door is closed?

[man in black]

For business travellers, the last few minutes before the door is closed are often used to tie up lose strings with the office or a client before the flight takes off and we go incommunicado for the length of the journey. This period of time is often long in Europe owing to the near certainty that you will sit at the gate until well after your appointed time.

There is no consistent pattern between the airlines on the question of whether you can use your cell phone (or for that matter, your laptop)once on board, but BEFORE they close the door to begin to pull away. Certain airlines yes, others make you turn it off the minute you cross the threshold.

Questions:

(1)Is there an international standard?

(2) Do the carriers have the discretion to adopt another practice?

I am curious as I still can't understand the relevance of potential interference with navigation instruments when the plane is parked at the gate.

[ExSimGuy]

Possibly a valid point about the nav instruments when parked - but these days there's all sorts of digital signals buzzing around the a/c. (Thinks of mobile phone ringing and the emergency floor lights flashing on and off in time with my speech :) )

But do you really need to make calls in that last half hour? I make a point of turning off mine as I walk down the ramp - every time. If somebody has to call me back in an hour or two, is it such a problem?

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[man in black]

Preference would be to chuck the phone altogether (at times), but yes there are times when being able to continue on a business call is necessary / helpful and the incidence of protracted waits (one good one last week was 2 1/4 hours!) on the tarmac make the policy bothersome. For example, BA, CX and SQ to name a few, allow phone use up to the door closing, whilst IB for example won't.

Back to the question: answers anyone?

[upupnaway]

MIB, I witnessed an incident on SQ out of Jakarta recently where an obnoxious passenger sitting next to me was using mobile whilst at gate waiting to leave, door open. He refused crew request to turn it off, only when other pax got involved did he grudgingly submit.
We now have a problem on our golf course where mobiles can be heard ringing, club is going to ban the use of mobiles on course and execs are whining about "how are they going to conduct business without them"
My question is what did people do before mobile phones!!!!!

[OO-AOG]

With the nice ATC slots that are more and more frequent on european flights, it's handy to have a mobile phone switched on to inform that you will be late on arrival.

[BRUpax]

These days it often happens (well with BA anyway) that you get boarded so that they can report "fully ready" to ATC hoping for an improved slot. It's only once you're aboard that the Captain informs you of this and if no earlier slot materialises you can be sitting at the gate for anything up to one hour. At Brum we even taxyed to the loop by runway 15 and shut down whilst awaiting our slot. Under these circumstances I can understand pax wishing to make a quick call with a revised ETA. Same happened in the USA when we had to hold off gate due to a groundhold imposed on traffic inbound to our destination. Engines were shut down and the Captain explained the problem and then went on to tell the pax that they could use their mobils until the engines were re-started.

[OneDotLow]

Here is a question?

If you are that important, should you really be that contactable??

Anyway, those points aside, would you really like to phone the other end and tell them you are going to be 45 mins late, risking possible malfunction of aircraft equipment (YES- We do things before moving from the gate, such as aligning the Inertial Reference System - used for navigation, etc)
or would the office junior they send to pick you up at the other end be happy enough to wait 45 mins, so long as it means you get there ok??

:) Just a few thoughts

ODL

[BRUpax]

ODL,

I don't understand your first question. I tried to read it standing on my head but still no joy! Am I thick?

You should have aligned the IRS long before the pax board. And what about all the radios and mobiles ground crews use??? Come off it mate, you're going to have to do better than that ;)

[MD90jockey]

Hi there, MIB - It actually is a pain, when pax uses cell-phones onboard. First of all it can interfere with the nav.computer, I`ve experienced a shutdown just minutes before commencing take-off roll and then having to reset the entire route and performancefigures, before we could take off. It also interferes on the VHF-COM radios, just as you have probably noticed when you are driving in your car and receive and incoming call, a strange rumble in the loudspeakers.
An finally, but absolutely not least, my company has had false cargo bay fire warnings caused by a combination of too sensetive fire detectors and incoming signals to cell-phones !!! I tell you, you wont be very popular if your phone triggers a firewarning, and thereby leading to an evacuation of the aircraft on ground :mad:
Having said that I agree with you that the airlines should have uniform procedures on this issue, and it must be pretty hard for passengers to find out when it is ok and when it`s not :)

------------------
In thrust we trust

[Nihontraveller]

Cell phones should be switched off on boarding. Not only on safety grounds but also for the convenience of other pax. Who enjoys sitting next to someone who is engaged in a cellphone call? Bloody inconsiderate!

22nd March SQ from KL-Singapore (Forgot the flight no.) With about 3 miles to touchdown, on the ILS, hanging out there over the bay with full flaps and wheels down, seat 48K`s handphone rings and he starts a conversation! Finally switched it off only after pax next to him shouts at him.

Is there really any chance to enforce the handphone ban?

[flypastpastfast]

British Midland oops!, BMI, let you gas on the phone until the door is closed. People on phones dont bug me, its people who try to fully open large newspapers whilst sitting next to you. Or even worse, the people sitting behind who rest the newspaper on the top of your head.

As regards mobile phones I'm all for it, it is truly amazing the business info you can pick up from people in business lounges on mobile phones. Some people have not yet clicked to the idea that most of the people around them are in business too, and some are in the same business.

[man in black]

To the gymnastics expert (aka standing on his head), the first question was has IATA or some similar body issued a directive or other notice on the subject (clear now????)

On the questions orginally posed - putting aside the issues of telephone courtesy, security, etc. - is there an international directive or other notice on the subject and what discretion do the airlines have? Or why do CX allow you to use the phone until the door closes as opposed to Iberia who won't allow a phone on even walking down the corridor to the airbridge?

[Marge]

I may be corrected on this but :

I do not believe their is any international standard on this subject.

I do believe the airlines have the right to adopt whatever practice they feel is prudent. Their Captains would be required to enforce such a practice generally. Since it is a legal requirement to obey all lawful commands given by the Captain the rest is academic.

It may also be a consideration that aircraft are often being refuelled during pasenger embarkation and that might influence the decision of some carriers to restrict the use of mobile phones during ground operations. My local gas station restricts their use on its premises !

Love Marge

[man in black]

Marge..thanks for the clear response. This makes sense as there is not a consistent approach amongst the carriers and there have been times when the chief will advise the pax that "the captain has allowed...".

Out of curiousity....can an innocent little cellphone ignite fuel?

mib

[pax domina]

Don't really have an answer for you mib, but as I recall most petrol/gas/filling stations where I live (Central Florida) have warnings against cell phone use while standing at the pump.

For years my state professional association has had a policy that cell phone/pager ringers are to be switched off while in continuing professional education (CPE) courses. It's amazing how many of these so-called professionals are the sort of complete idiots who's phones ring during the session. (Even worse if the idiot starts talking before he/she leaves the room.) I can think of only one CPE course in the past eight years that has not been interrupted by the sound of someone's mobile or pager ringing/beeping - and this was after I (feeling a bit bolshie that day) added to the "restatement of policy" delivered by the instructor by telling all and sundry that their phones surely have a silent and/or vibrating mode, so why don't they use it?

pax d (grumpy old lady, knows how to set her phone to silent mode, so it flashes instead of rings and she can get up quietly and walk outside the room to take a call - rare, because she tries to run a department without crises, so no one should need her that desperately)

[MD90jockey]

Allright MIB - here´s a few facts for you...
Presently there is no IATA-rule against cell phones, however a number of states within the EU has local laws . According to the information on the subject in my Flight Manual (SAS) the use of cell phones onboard aircraft is prohibited in Finland and Germany and allowed only with the doors open in Italy and Switzerland. In the rest of the EU there isn´t any local laws against cell phones.
However many airlines have companyrules which are more strict than local law require and these rules must be obeyed while onboard the aircraft. I remember having read somewhere about a flight returning to the gate recently to kick off a passenger who refused to turn-off his cell phone before the aircraft was on the take-off roll. He was pretty heavily fined :) :) :)
In my opinion cell phones should be forbidden whenever onboard the aircraft: they are a pain to fellow travellers, they can have an influence on the Flight Management System, they can (and does) disturb VHF-communication , incoming signals to cell-phones which are turned on is known to have triggered firedetectors and finally it is still not clear if it was cellphones or not which lead to tragic Crossair SAAB 340 last year.


------------------
In thrust we trust

[SLF]

Regarding filling station pumps and mobile phone usage, I believe that there is no fire hazard, the reason is that the phone can interfere with the metering of the fuel.



------------------
29A please!

[man in black]

MD90...thanks. Clear and interesting.

To set the record straight for my friends in the audience: I probably have had need or desire to use my phone during the boarding / unboarding phase of the flight 1 time out of 20, if that much and do realize and respect the need for courtesy to one's fellow passengers and caution when discussing sensitive topics around the competition. However, I have found in Europe since we moved here after many years in Asia that the incidence of unscheduled and protracted delays on European flights (far more numerous than in Asia) necessitate advising clients and office of delays, etc. and the inevitable use of the phone!

[information_alpha]

as a controller at an airport, we are not really told why the mobile phone rule is in force. However, a departing plane recently reported hearing a distress call on his frequency (as a morse code signal) and asked us if we knew anything - we didn't. After quite a few telephone calls to neighboring units and the distress and diversion cell we ascertained that there was no distress traffic in the area. A few minutes later the pilot called us again to report that a mobile phone on the plane had beeped "message received" using a long series of beeps (that we would all recognise). The phones actually beep SMS in morse code but this is only one dash different from SOS. This caused us a lot of work at the time when our attention could have been spent elsewhere - getting better slots etc!!!!

[PaulDeGearup]

The big problem with any portable electrical device (PED) is that it generates an electromagnetic field which then intereferes with the aircarft systems. The telephone, when it checks in with the nearest base station, produces a search signal which is audible through our headsets. Laptop computers genertae enormous EM fields; the 2 computers the jet uses to continuously monitor the aircraft systems is particularly susceptible to interference. This produces false warning signals which can result in unnecessary delays, if on the ground, while we resolve them or inconvenience for you and the other pax if we have to divert.

[Mr Creosote]

It's a shame that mobile phones don't have a standard antenna socket. That way they could be plugged into a standard socket on each seat of the a/c, and the RF signal taken by cable to an external antenna, rather than an air path. Alternatively, aircraft operators could agree on a standard socket, and mobile phone manufacturers encouraged to make adaptors for their phones (like they do with cars). The a/c could even operate as its own cell, allowing mobile calls in cruise.

SLF

As a radio engineer, I can tell you that there is a conceivable (albeit tiny) risk of a digital phone inducing enough current to produce a small spark. This is the reason behind turning them off at petrol stations, though I'm not totally discounting the possibility of affecting the metering.

[ExSimGuy]

Mr. Creosote,

Not a bad thought - but there would be the problem of the mobile "logging in" to quite a lot of cells and putting a strain on the electronics that sorts out which cell is the best reception (remember that on the ground you are probably never within range of more than two or three cells, but at 10,000 feet you could be in range of most of them in a small city!)

As for the aircraft being "its own cell", there would have to be a lot more elecronics to connect the aircraft to the ground network (a "T1" radio link to connect 24 cellphones?)

The mention of "T1" also brings to mind the question of international standards - T1 for USA and E1 for most of the rest of the world, (for the aircraft/ground link) 900/1800MHz GSM cellphones for most of the world and 1900MHz GSMs plus several non-GSM "standards" for N. America. You'd probably have US standard equipment on Boeings and GSM900/1800/E1 on ScareBusses :)

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 12 April 2001).]

[cabbagehead]

I can certainly see how cell phone could interfere with electronic equipment and with the time it takes to make a quick call to say I'll be departing 25 minutes late, I think there is little legimate use on departure when once they close the door.

I'm sorta curious though why Qantas told me to turn off my laptop computer on the 747 while the CRT monitors were turned on feet from me, don't they know what sort of electomagnetic radiation a CRT creates? And at frequencys much more likely to prove harmful.

As far as cell phones causing a fuel fire, it is possible that a transmitter could cause a spark somewhere, but it is much more likely that dropping the receiver and it shattering could, but still not likely enough for me to worry about. The best reason to not use a cell phone at a gas station is so you are paying attention when you walk across the lot to pay the attendant and don't get hit by car.

[martyn_uk]

I think that the use of a mobile (obviously not during the flight) on the plane depends on the actual crew. I fly fairly regualary with British Regional Airlines. After landing, with the usual "welcome to Aberdeen....." some times they say "mobile phones should not be used until well into the terminal building" yet with the same airline, same route, etc we are sometimes told "mobile phones should not be used until the aircraft engines have been switched off".

Martyn

[Iz]

Goodness, is there any need to call the office that you'll be late? Hey, you're on an airline flight, they shouldn't be surprised if you caught a delay.

Our airline has policy that cellphones must be off when the doors close. If there's a significant ground delay, the captain may give permission to turn them on for a short while.

The displays in aircraft are all certified and shielded. Don't know what the price of an entertainment unit is, but it's a lot more expensive than your setup at home.

Actually, with our company, use of laptop etc (all electronic equipment without antennas, send/receive capability) are usable during cruise.

By the way, if you're on a long business flight, there's probably a sattelite phone in the aircraft somewhere. You can also have your biz associates check the internet, for a flight tracker to see if you're late or not. (www.trip.com has a nice one) If it's a short flight, the person who's supposed to pick you up will notice it from the arrival displays at the airport.

[ExSimGuy]

CabbageHead,

Don't mean to be picky, but there is not a "crt" in the seatback, it's a liquid crystal display (as your laptop is) which causes very little radiation. But as pointed out above, they are designed with aircraft avionics very much in mind, and also they don't have a Pentuim III clocking away at a very high uhf frequency inside them either :) (around the same frequency as a mobile phone in some cases http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif )

"Trust the Professionals" !

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[Pax-man]

The ban on mobile phone use in filling stations started after an incident in the UK some 18 months (or so) ago.

I believe it was like this. The driver of a Jaguar exited his car to fill up, and was using his mobile phone. It is believed that the phone's signal interfered with wiring, creating a spark in the petrol tank, and the car exploded on the forecourt. Fortunately the driver was not seriously hurt.

It makes you think. Although this would seem to have been an isolated incident, the prospect of it occuring on a packed 747 with 30+ tonnes of fuel is alarming to say the least. Especially when the TWA 747 is believed to have been downed by a fuel tank spark (of another source).

[RATBOY]

In our part of the states they have put stickers on all the gasoline pumps saying turn off cell phones, possible spark ignition hazard. Suspect the spark in question would be very rare and then mostly from the battery contacts and such on the cell phone. This is the same sticker that tells people to put gasoline in approved containers on the ground, not while the containers are in vehicles because of static electricity discharges.

If the re would be a way to make money at it the airlines could put a cell site in the aircraft and then link it to the satcom/ARINC and charge everyone for it. Might pay enough to actually shield the cabin properly so the rf doesn't mess up the a/c nav and com and other systems.

[JB007]

At a very recent lunch I had at the Royal Aeronautical Society (don't mean to name drop but I kind of gatecrashed!) about Air Safety in general...a very interesting chap was speaking of the next generation of mobile phones...that don't actually turn off but are on a permanent SB....!!!!!

Anyone come across any of these yet ?

Needless to say the CAA employees around me started scribbling notes desperatly !!!

007


------------------
A smile is a curve that puts things straight.

[This message has been edited by JB007 (edited 10 May 2001).]

[Seat 22C]

There are bulletin boards upon bulletin boards, and reams of records at ASRS full of anecdotal evidence of cellular interference with ILS, INS or other acronym systems. Yet it's all anecdotal - Not one piece of scientific, duplicatable evidence exists ...

Then there are hundreds (make that hundreds of thousands) of GA pilots in the US (myself included) who fly with cellular phone, CDPD modems and whatever, and again, zero evidence of documentable problems.

Here are two very important factors to consider in the war againt cellular:

1) The previous poster is correct - Many of the new cellular (and Bluetooth and 802.11b) products do poll periodically while in standby mode, and ...

2) If you, as Pilot-in-Command, don't have confidence in your $100M Boeing/Airbus to have proper electrical shielding to protect against a milliwatt (!) cellular telephone, then you should ground the thing and refuse to fly. It's really that simple ...


[This message has been edited by Seat 22C (edited 11 May 2001).]

[radeng]

I quite agree with seat22c. However, the electromagnetic immunity of even military aircraft can be a problem - Tornadoes especially. I was involved with producing some standards for wirelss LAN equipment:Hiperlan operates in the band adjacent to MLS, so we made sure that it could be definitely turned off when flying. Bluetooth can be turned off; so can IEEE802.11 - I was on that standards committee, too. Self preservation of the slf......!

But consider this: if a cellphone radiating about 1/2 watt is a problem, how do you feel about flying out of airports with radar? LHR for example, produces a field strength of 107 volts/metre at 1 mile. The cellphone can only do that at 1-1/2 inches! Even allowing for the aircraft skin attenuation, there's still a fair amount of RF energy floating around.

Still, people buying mobile phones keps me in a job - just rarely ever switch mine on!

[JMD352000]

well, as a frequent traveller reading this forum I can only conclude that no one knows for sure. So best is to switch it off.

Good and not so good airlines have sometimes common points:

SR: during taxiing gentlemen next to me in BC talks on his phone for a good 10 minutes. I had to scream to get him to stop. I suspect he was SR staff since crew didn't seem to care (chief purser).

Vietnam Airlines (where I live): doing HAN-SAI often as soon as we land all Vietnamese switch their phones on and start calling.

As usual it will take a crash to get things put right. Same learning curve as my 4 year old daughter: when you hit the wall, you know the wall is there.

------------------
jmd

[Jaffa777]

Using mobile phones can create much more serious problems than merely interfering with radios and nav equipment.
On a recent 757 trip one passenger became rather irate when told to turn his phone off and it was only after the intervention of other passengers that he agreed. Shortly afterwards he went to one of the front toilets where it later became evident that he had used his phone.
Positioned inside the fuselage wall by the front toilets are some air conditioning intake valves which were affected by the phone. This caused the air-con packs to surge and large fluctuations in the EGT resulted. This could have ended in a flameout and subsequent engine failure.
THINK!!!! Is you phone call worth your life and the life of everyone else on the aircraft?
I think not!

Jaffa

[johntrav69]

I seem to remember signing a contract for my orange phone and I think it specifically said that use in aircraft was forbidden by orange as it can affect the network, I assume by trying to talk to too many masts at once.

[Self Loading Freight]

This is a continued interest of mine...

Speaking as a pax, I really don't mind having my phone off whenever onboard, even if the doors are open and it's a long wait. Delays are part of air travel, and business efficiency can live with them.

However, it's very easy to forget to turn your phone off, have it turn on in flight when you sit on the button or have it turn itself on because a preset diary entry has triggered an alarm. This happened to me earlier this week five minutes out of Salzburg. Ooops. That's going to get worse -- it's all very well making sure there's an option to disable your PDA's Bluetooth or 802.11b transceiver, but these things have all sorts of ways of turning themselves back on. Even assuming everyone's smart enough to know where and when their particular set of personal gizmos have their RF disable function set.

Why not have a remote disable function? It would add very little to the cost of implementation if the spec for a network or cellphone transceiver included some 'disable on receipt of coded signal' function. The a/c would have a low-power transmitter that covered the inside of the cabin; when the captain wants radio silence, just press a button. Obviously not an instant panacea, as there has to be a way to stop jokers building similar transmitters and jamming public areas or your company's WLAN, and as it will take years for the current, non-compliant systems to be upgraded or replaced. But the principle would be useful for other areas where cellphones aren't wanted, there'd be no problem with backwards compatibility during transition and in most cases I'd guess it would just need a software update.

It's a reasonably messy solution (anyone who's seen the Bluetooth spec will know that elegance is very optional), but it does take most of the responsibility for safety out of the hands of the pax and incompetent cellphone users such as myself... which sounds like a good thing to me.

R

[X-QUORK]

JB007,

"a very interesting chap was speaking of the next generation of mobile phones...that don't actually turn off but are on a permanent SB....!!!!!"

The phones he was referring to are GPRS, General Packet Radio Service for the spotters. They're being rolled-out by all UK networks over the next 12 months and, in theory, will be a vast improvement on WAP phones.

Indeed, they will be 'on' at all times, users will be billed for quantity of data RX'd/TX'd rather than seconds of airtime.

[SussexPSR]

Those of you who are complacent enought to use your 'phones after door closure should look into the Crossair Saab 340 crash at ZRH....all dead. Do a search on PPrune...interesting reading

[Flybnite]

The issue here is that most of the aircraft we fly around on today were designed (and built?!) against an electronic interferance standard set before mobile phones and lap top computers were around. Without extensive testing I doubt if Boeing could tell you if all the mobile phone frequencies in the world would or would'nt affect all the different avionics fits on all their a/c in the world. (Imagine the law suites if they got it wrong!!)
However, apron / aircraft radio frequencies and Radar Frequencies have'nt altered that much since the standards were set and therefore the aircraft remain immune.
The simple answer is that which is echoed throughout this thread......Switch it off rather than risk finding out the messey way!

:) :) :)

[radeng]

Generally speaking, problems due to radio transmitters affecting other electronics are not particularly frequency sensitive. So it's extremely unlikely that if the aircraft's DME doesn't affect things, cellular phones on a frequency very close to the bottom of the DME band will.

My worry is that if a cellular phone can screw the flying bit (as opposed to the nav/com) up, there's far too many radios operating outside the airplane for comfort.
If it can screw the nav/com, then the nav/com is so crap that it isn't safe to fly with, since uyou cannot guarantee communication.

Hopefully, Boeing, Airbus etc will be looking for building in reasonable levels of immunity. It's strange to think a relatively modern airliner such as a 737 or an A300 is probably more at risk from EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatability) problems than the Viscounts of 50 years ago!

Cellular phones are by no means the worst offenders. Portable VHF broadcast receivers are deadly - they can interfere with nav/coms. Portable CD players can produce stuff to interfere with ADF receivers, and there aren't any meaningful limits on radiation for these equipments.

Personally, I'm a believer in switching off everything electronic except the hearing aid, wristwatch and heart pacemaker that the slf are carrying as soon as they get on the jetway. For some of the more awkward slf I've shared a cabin with, switching off the pacemaker wouldn't be a bad idea, either!

[PAXboy]

A few points on this if I may, although cautiously so as this is my inaugural flight after some months of watching PPRuNe from the public gallery ...

1) The new generations of mobile (aka Cell) phones are of two kinds in the U.K. GPRS is also referred to as 2.5Generation and then there will be 3G. Both will have the ability to be permanently 'on', however this refers to their ability to collect data NOT their power setting. Like any other phone they will have an 'Off' button.

What it means is that, when powered on, the phone can receive lengthy data messages at a low bit rate and the user is charged by volume of data. Essentially, this is no different to a GSM phone receiving SMS messages, which are charged per msg. Consequently, you switch the phone's power off - it is off!

2) Sparks induced by a mobile and the warnings on petrol forecourts: I am always amsued by this. Yes, there is a possibility that the phone will generate a spark due to faulty wiring but ONLY if the phone transmits. So - in the time that I am on the forecourt and paying for the fuel - the phone MIGHT receive a call or MIGHT sense a new cell and re-register to it. However, if I switch the phone off it WILL transmit!!

Accordingly, the warnings about paying attention when dispensing fuel and it interfering with the metering system of the pump are more valid! I see it as part of the CYA (Cover Your A***) mentality, evidenced by other lawyer structured warning notices.

3) The perennial question, "How can one teeny-weeny phone affect a massive aircraft more than ground radar?"

The point is not what can one phone do but what can 150 do? Let us guess that not even half of the pax on a 'heavy' have their phones on. If there is a fault with a local transmitter, or whilst moving (like the horror story of the SQ on approach to SIN) then dozens of phones might re-register to a new transmitter and THAT will be even more noticeable! This concern was from a man who worked on software development for AI.

4) LH request phone to off when boarding. Currently, I am shuttling LTN-EDI a lot on EZY and they allow phone usage until doors, which is probably a reasonable compromise. That is, some people are going to use them anyway!

It always amazes me when I hear people turning them on before we are at the stand. I agree with the view, we have to have a black hole with a smoking mobile phone before pax will learn.


------------------
A window seat on the sunny side of the aircraft, please!

[This message has been edited by PAXboy (edited 27 May 2001).]

[radeng]

There is a standard for flammable atmosphere ignition - BS4556. A Mobile Radio Conference some years ago had a paper on ignition at fuelling stations from RF, and considered it quite a valid possibility, but not a cellular telephone power levels. 5 watts or more, depending on frequency.....

Strictly, the ban on transmitters on forecourts should stop people using the remote door locking while they go to pay......

There was a very good article on commercial aircraft EMC in the IEEE Spectrum magazine a few years ago. At that time, there had been about 65,000 possible cases listed, so it's probably more now.

Lack of EMC immunity has been compared to saying 'my roof leaks, so I want it to stop raining'. Worries about aircraft EMC immunity have led to a European code of practice being introduced for Electronic News Gathering (ENG) systems when deployed to airports. All of this is hopefully 'belt and braces' - in an ideal world, we have totally immune a/c systems and nobody with a cellphone on.

As slf, I'd rather not run the miniscule risk - especially as so few of the phone calls are that necessary anyway.

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

Boeing have done quite a lot of research on the effects of Portable Electronic Devices on aeroplane systems and acknowledge that there is a lot they don't yet know.

See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_story.html for more details.

---PPRuNe Dispatcher

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher (edited 30 May 2001).]

[Fast Jet Wannabe]

Interesting topic.

I was on an EZY flight from GLA to LTN recently, and shortly after we had pulled on stand at LTN and the doors had been opened, it became evident that we were going to have a long wait for pax busses.

After about 10 minutes of sitting there the Captain suddenly picked up the PA and announced "Will the passenger that has just turned their mobile phone on, please turn it off as it is interfering with our systems". Click. He was (understandably) unhappy.

I don't know how he knew, but that seems pretty conclusive!

[X-QUORK]

Here in the UK our politicians are travelling the country as they campaign for the General Election on June 7th. A lot of this travelling is in chartered aircraft which have enough space for the press to tag along.

I wonder if all the journos are restricted from using mobiles/laptops/cameras/recording equipment whilst in-flight ?

[flapsforty]

FJWannabe, a Mob on stand-by gives a distinctive sound on the headphones in the cockpit.

Thanks for that link P-Dispatcher; interesting reading!

[Evening Star]

Went NCL to LHR and return today, and witnessed an interesting use of what I assume was the Captain’s discretion. While delayed for 10 minutes on the stand at NCL this morning thorough “heavy traffic” the Captain said we could use mobile phones until engine start. (Aircraft was an A319.) As mostly a business flight, noticed a number of people taking the opportunity. The 10 minutes did not worry me, but think it certainly defused any irritation some people had at the delay.

(By the way, cabin crew on out and return flights - BA1325 and BA1336 - were friendly and polite. Much appreciated by yours truly, so credit where credit due.)

[ExSimGuy]

SLF,

Forgive me if I'm mis-reading your post, but the point is well worth making anyway.

You refered to "hitting a button by accident" to make a call". The point is that cellfones should be poweredoff in an aircraft. The only button that can affect that is the on/off one!

Even when you are not making a call, the cellphone sits there "pinging" the nearest tower. If the nearest tower is a fair distance away (or partially screened by an aircraft's skin) the "power saver electronics" cranks up the output to a point where it can get through - at 30,000 feet it will use all the transmit power it can generate!

The point is (and I see this all the time where I live) that the rule is not "don't make calls" - it's turn the damn thing off - right off - if in doubt remove the bl00dy battery!

Yes, if the skipper is happy with you using the phone, that's fine - otherwise, turn it off at the jetway. (The Skipper knows best http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif )

[PAXboy]

That is an important point but, as the aircraft moves vertically out of range, the phone will lose the network and then ping every 'n' minutes, depending on what the manufacturer and network have decreed. Once a minute is typical.

I have noticed that phones are being made with better power buttons that need to be pressed and held for a distinct time, rather than just press and On.

------------------
A window seat on the sunny side of the aircraft, please!

[Red or green?!]

Dear people who can't be disconnected from the world.

I think the airlines are just trying to annoy their pax by banning the use of cellphones during the flight, don't you? :rolleyes:

Come on!!! Almost everybody (certainly the people owning them) must know the sound of a cell phone pinging or receiving a signal near the stereo/fixed phone/pc-speakers/another cellphone! It's not in your brain. It's not the result of too many beers the other night. It's interference!!! There are many examples in this thread proving the flightcrew notice the use of cellphones on board by minor or major problems in the instruments. In my opinion it's not so hard to imagine that this interference can (in a very coincidental and unfortunate way) cause an airplane to crash.

If your flight home drills into a field due to a phonecall I wouldn't like to be the one who made the call, would you? (In the unlikely case you would, please wait until the aircraft has come to a complete stop before you call home to tell your loved ones that you won't be able to be home before dinnertime!)

Regards,
Rog?!

[radeng]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the reason you hear the burst of a cellphone on speakers, radios etc is because the equipment receiving the interference lacks immunity to the electromagnetic environment. Systems should be designed to operate in the expected environment - certainly if they're going to meet the requirements of UK and EU law. One problem is that domestic equipment has a required performance standard that is far too low. The approach of switching off the interferer is similar to saying 'I'm not going to fix my roof, so it's got to stop raining!'.

A lot of (especially older) aircraft do not have the necessary degree of immunity designed in. (Tornado fighters are a good example). So it's necessary to be doubly sure. But correctly designed electronics does not suffer interference, and the problem should gradually disappear over the next 20 years or so. In the meantime, switch the b***** thing off!

Interestingly, even without considering cellphones, the performance of some aircraft electronics would appear a bit marginal in respect of immunity, although this could be because the authorities are over cautious. I have no complaints about that, though I can imagine the 'penny a line journos' being upset when they can't use their satellite link because they're too close to an airport.

[pilotwolf]

Couple of points of interest...

Many years ago (!) when I trained as a merchant navy radio operator any form or RF transmission was banned whilst fuelling. The reason being that a (static) discharge from an antenna could possibly ignite the fuel vapour. Also high power RF antennas can get hot and will burn if you touch them again assume the risk of fire was the reason for the ban.

A Managing Director Information Notice at Gatwick actually forbids the use of private mobile phones whilst airside....

Similar posts and arguements have been rumbling in the medical profession for several years but again as far as I know there is no PROOF that there really is a problem.

But try this - call your mobile and puit it near a MW radio or your computer monitor and see what happens!

[pilotwolf]

..also on a similar topic.

Most of the emergency services standing orders for bomb incidents is to turn off all radio devices about 400 metres away to avoid accidently triggering the device.

I ve always asked what about mobiles, taxis, CB'ers, amateur radio, press, local buses, utilities, etc....

BANG?!!