mobile phones

[Dry wretched thunder]

Opinions or advice, either are fine. I was on an Air Canada flight last night out of YEG, it was a Dash 8 and full all but 2 seats, all the usual pre flight briefs were done and mobile phone use etc were covered. However this :mad: 1 seat forward and diagonal to me persisted to send and recieve emails right the way through take off and landing. Yes i did challenge him but by then we were airborne. I told the stewardess who said, "what can i do, i told them twice" and just left it. My blood was boiling at the ignorance of the guy who cared not a jot for anybody, i could clearly see his phone and it was fully on and not in a FS mode.......what do you or can you actually do when crap likethat happens :=

[Load Toad]

Walk up, take it off him. Break it.

[Solar]

Annoying it is, but you should try some of the Russian flights, they ignore everything when it comes to mobiles, seat belts or remaining seated. You do wonder at times.

[Load Toad]

Likewise in China. I don't care if some numpty jumps up the second the wheels hit the tarmac, I don't care if they open the overhead bin, a heavy case lands on their daft head & they are thrown forward at high velocity and smash into a bulkhead.

I do care if their nobber actions hurt me or anyone else.

I suggest an action group is formed (with meetings to raise awareness in airline lounges):

'Oi! We Paid for Our Tickets Too!'

Why should fair minded passengers suffer because numpties can't be ordered tio follow the rules....?

[ExXB]

Or hit him with your iPad, oh ... that has to be stored too. :*

Hit him with your Steve Jobs biography (2.1 lbs, 0.95kg) that's OK to have out. :ok:

Or don't worry about it. Regulations on cell phone use are there because of the interference they cause with ground stations (cells).

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. This ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground. Wireless Devices on Airplanes | FCC.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes)

In theory he should be reported to the police for not following crew instructions. He is breaking the law, but so will be the guy hitting the G&Ts with the intention of driving later. :hmm:

If flight safety was involved I'd be more concerned, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest there is. The US FAA is re-re-re-reviewing it

[TightSlot]

If flight safety was involved I'd be more concerned, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest there is. The US FAA is re-re-re-reviewing it
And so the Hamster-Wheel revolves once more...

Please ensure that you contact the FAA immediately: They await your learned opinion.

For everyone else - Please ensure that this doesn't become yet another thread on "Why can't I use my iPhone/iPad/Kindle/Laptop/Bluetooth where and when I want to when I know that the evil airlines are preventing me from doing so for no valid reason at all?"

[Octopussy2]

I'm quite surprised by the attitude of the Cabin Crew. Surely what she could do is threaten to have the police waiting for him on arrival for failure to obey her/the pilot's lawful orders?

I have no idea whether using a mobile in flight is actually dangerous. But people who have thought longer and harder about it than me consider it may be. That's quite enough for me. Even if the chance is absolutely remote, why should one d!ckhead decide he knows better?

IMHO it was the flight attendant's job to enforce this rule - I wouldn't be impressed if they simply didn't bother (in the absence of other extenuating circumstances, eg. drunk, aggressive passenger who might constitute a more immediate threat if told to turn the phone off, then it may be a question of balancing one risk against another).

[Load Toad]

If CC don't 'bother' about the turning off of a phone where is the line to be drawn about 'bothering'?

[Gibon2]

If CC don't 'bother' about the turning off of a phone where is the line to be drawn about 'bothering'?

That's just the thing - the line seems to be steadily evaporating. Thanks for starting this thread Dry Wretched Thunder, it is timely. I've noticed more and more follow SLF using their mobiles, often quite openly, during taxi and takeoff, and sometimes in flight, and fewer and fewer CC picking them up on it. Sometimes it seems as if the CC are deliberately trying not to notice. I used to regularly challenge passengers and/or alert CC, but there are so many transgressors now, I no longer bother. I think we may have reached a point of no return, and in due course the rules will be amended to accommodate a fait accompli.

[radeng]

With the avdnet of G4 and G5 and what is called 'LTE' (Long Term Evolution), the potential for a problem is increasing. Especially as what are known as 'Out of Band' emissions for devices using the 'white spaces' are likely to be even more of a problem.

[ExXB]

Let's not forget that the FAA is reviewing the policy on emitting devices. We now have, approved, use of some devices in cockpits and I understand someone today thinking there's a rule for them and a different rule for us. However let's see what they decide for us plebs in the back of the plane.

I even understand that Emirates is going to use Windows 8 enabled devices in the cockpit (even though W8 was only released into the wild a few weeks ago) - but I suppose they do know what they are doing.

Until then, the rule is turn it off until you are told otherwise, and that rule should be followed.

[radeng]

They need to be very careful. There are now mobile 'phone services in the band above 2.5GHz, and they are known to cause severe interference to certain types of S band air surveillance radar.

[Skipness One Echo]

On an easyJet flight into Luton (don't ask!) I was in the window seat and there was a random between me and the rather important fat Indian business man on the aisle. You know the type, likes to be seen, make a point of asking the crew slightly annoying questions. "Why do I have to put my tray table up?"

Phone comes out on finals, I, thumping headache after a bad day at the office asked him politely to put it off. He immediately launched into why he thought it was perfectly safe but I pointed out I would simply take it off him, switch it off and hold onto it until the Police were summoned at the gate. I was in no hurry by this point... That seemed to work. I apologised later to the poor chap between us who looked benignly ahead the whole time.

Just turn it off for five minutes for the love of God.....

[Agaricus bisporus]

I wonder how many lives lie at the foot of the ludicrously irrational assumption, "It hasn't done us any harm yet so it must be safe"?

Low bulkheads on merchant ships
Insufficient lifeboats ditto
Hydrogen in Airships
Boxcutters on aeroplanes
DDT
Thalidomide
Launching Shuttles in freezing conditions
Living on volcanoes - dozens of times
Building nuc plants on the San Andreas fault
Or on a coast subject to Tsunami
Putting oxygen generators in the hold
Letting Iran get the Bomb

Need I go on?

[Tableview]

I was delighted to see an obnoxious self-important Frenchman removed by the Bundesgrenzschutz Polizei from a Lufthansa flight at FRA. He was told twice by crew to stop using his 'phone after the doors were closed as we were taxiing to the runway. He refused.

His parting words as he was 'gently' removed from the aircraft were : "I will never fly wiz ze Lufthansa again."

The cabin director's response, to cheers, was : "That is korrect, Sir. You will be banned."

[PAXboy]

Tableview That is one of the MOST encouraging stories I have ever heard. makes me want to use Lufty all the time.

SOE :ok:

[Maddie]

Hi, I had a related situation a few months ago.

I had suspicions the passenger beside me had his phone still switched on as we taxied down the run-way. He had appeared to be sleeping during the safety briefing, so I politely asked him had he remembered to turn his phone off. He snapped at me that he had. Mid-flight he took his phone out and started surfing. (I wasn't deliberately looking but the distinctive BBC news website came on and that is the truth, how he picked up a signal I do not know.)

I went down the aisle to the flight attendants who were serving refreshments and explained the situation. They said they would talk to the gentleman. As it happened, as they came by the 'ten minutes' to land bell sounded, so they asked him simply to turn off his device because we would be landing shortly.

Two minutes later he got out of his seat and went to speak to the flight attendants. He complained that he felt he had been singled out!!

I found this out after we landed when the flight attendant came to speak to me and told me what had happened.

Unfortunately, this isn't just an issue about following 'house safety rules', but it is also about basic courtesy and respect and unfortunately, there are a few folk around who don't have these simple qualities.

Usually if I see somebody whose phone I suspect is switched up I simply explain that I am a nervous flyer(the truth) and that I'm sure they don't want to make me even more nervous. Most folk are very polite and re-assure me that their phone is off, but there is always the exception...

My 'solution, is that where crew find somebody with their phone switched that they should confiscate the phone. The phone should be passed to ground staff on arrival and the passenger in question should be asked to follow the ground staff to the terminal, where details of the 'incident' are recorded on the customer's notes (in the event that there is a return flight pending and/or they are a frequent flyer). The passenger should then be given a written caution and told that if this situation arises again, they shall be banned from flying with the airline in question

[jetset lady]

Mobile phones on planes. The bane of my life! :{

But anyway, radeng raised something I also have been wondering about. What about the new G4 enabled devices? I'm the first to admit, I know nothing about the science behind it but from what I've seen and from the recent publicity there has been regarding the signals used, this has the potential to be a pretty serious issue. Let's face it, many of those that switch on their phones, declaring "Well nothing has ever happened in the past" know about as much as me. They are doing it because everyone else does. And because they've never crashed so "it must be safe". What happens when they switch on their new upgrade?

For radeng and all those that do understand how it all works, do these new signals have the potential to seriously affect the aircraft? And in what way? And if they have, how the heck do we stop the 'we know better' brigade from hiding their phones and ignoring the rules, particularly when even the FAA and CAA can't seem to agree on the risks during certain phases such as taxiing. And how do we do all that before the possible worst case scenario hits the headlines? Or is that what it is going to take? :(

[55Jay]

Keep a tally of news reports on planes falling out of the sky due to mobile/cell phone use. Keep it next to the tally of those who drown because they went swimming within 30 minutes of eating. :=

I find that enforcement is very different when sitting in J or F compared to Economy.

[Avionker]

@ Maddie

Just because the BBC news website appeared on this guys phone does not mean he was on line. With Flight Mode selected on, my phone will still show the web site front page, and I can still read the stories which are held in cache on my phone. It just won't update.

[ExXB]

Passengers must follow the instructions of the crew. There is no excuse for not doing so. But today people no longer will follow instructions if they don't see anything in it for them, particularly when they think its a stupid rule. "They use iPads in the cockpit, why can't I use my android here?"

On the other hand FAs are not policemen/women (or class monitors). I don't see their role as including the seizing of passenger's (expensive) property. If you want to cause a disruption this will do it. That individual may be a jerk, but s/he could also be a commercially important customer for that airline. (or a retired bum like me :ok: )

It is almost impossible to tell if a device is in airplane mode even at a short distance. Yes, there's a little icon but every device is different. I bet you can find an app that will toggle that little icon. On my iPad I can save web pages to a reading list intended to allow you to read it when off-line. It looks like I accessed the net, but I didn't.

I think the industry, and the regulators, need to face reality. These devices will be inadvertently, and intentionally, left on and people will attempt to use them in all phases of the flight. Starting from there they need to consider what needs to be done to ensure safety. I'm not going to suggest what that may be. However I will note that the current rule and procedures are not accomplishing the stated goal.

[radeng]

The problem is the proliferation of frequencies that can be used make the environment very difficult to predict. Especially with some of the things appearing which can have second harmonics in the radio altimeter band, and have fundamental signals in the surveillance radar band.

Probably the best answer would be to fit the aircraft with a multi band jammer for all mobile bands......

The situation gets more complex as the aircraft gets older. Cables flex, and the screening gets partially broken and so the immunity is reduced. So a 'good' aircraft can become a 'bad' one over the lifetime. You can get enough problems from the radios fitted to the aircraft, let alone extraneous ones.

[ExXB]

Radeng,
What's causing the problem you have identified? Is it devices, unable to contact a cell, are increasing and increasing their power output which in turn causes interference with aircraft equipment?

Rather than jamming (i.e. adding more noise into the spectrum) wouldn't it be better to add pico-cells to the aircraft? Then these devices would have something to connect to at low output.

To be effective during all phases of flight these would need to be always on, which is not the practice today (for those airlines providing the service).

[radeng]

Where do the pico cells connect to? There are other complications too, such as aircraft speed. So you would need to put the pico cells in place for 700MHz (White space), 900 MHz (GSM) 1800 MHz (GSM), 2.3 - 2.4 GHz (G5 downloading), 2.6 - 2.7 (G4) and possibly something at 3GHz or so. Then you need make sure that whatever you relay to, the distances don't exceed the maxima that the systems can handle (GSM has a maximum of 40 to 50km becasue after that the timing runs out)

So now you need a ground station system....... plus a lot more weight in aircraft avionics. Of course, when you charge £1 a minute or whatever, it would pay for itself until consumers caught on - I gather that already, people are wondering about the cost to them of G4. I suspect that there will be some heartache when the bills come through - perhaps even for the corporate 'phone users.

[Load Toad]

Do you not get this....

We don't care about the technicalities - we don't want to have to hear telephone conversations when we are in forced, close proximity.

You would not believe how unimportant your phone conversations are to us.

[ExXB]

Picocell is described here (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/in-flight-mobile-phone-services1.htm). Existing technology to connect any and all cell phone frequencies, via a satellite, to ground networks. It's like putting a cell tower in the airplane.

Load Toad, who's talking about conversations? You are the first to mention it.

In any case inflight use of cell phones is the reality now. Many non-US airlines have already deployed it. And you know what? Because they charge $2+ a minute, hardly anybody ever uses it. Much higher use of texting and surfing.

I remember when almost every airplane had a phone in the seat back. Airfone or something like that. Also expensive to use, so they rarely were. I did once when my SR flight was diverted from LHR to LGW, due to the T1 Burger King fire. Airlines pulled them out due lack of use.

[John21UK]

I've turned back to stand twice after cabin crew gave a passenger several warnings (incl formal written warning) to stop using it. On one occasion I stopped on the taxiway, picked up the mic for a PA and stated quite clearly that 'we had stopped on the taxiway due to a passenger refusing to get of his mobile phone when asked several times by the cabin crew. Because this passenger seating in row x was still refusing we were about to return back to stand with a subsequent delay for us all.' As quick as lightning he backed down and switched it off within seconds and we left again. It showed a clear signal to all about who's in charge... (c/c) We got an applause from lots of pax...

That was in the UK. Now in the Middle East and you can just as well forget all rules...:ugh: It's a different mentality here.

[SMT Member]

Same-same, but different.

I was giving a SMS course in JFK a couple of years ago, attended by some fairly senior managers. One lady found it very, very hard to focus on the training and not on her sodding Blackberry. I politely asked her to put it away once, then twice. Third time I told her "last warning". Fourth time she was stabbing the screen with her index finger I went to the table she was sat, took it off her hands, removed the back cover and took the battery out, then handed the phone (sans battery) back. Told her she'd be getting the battery back, not at the end of this session (this was just after lunch), but at the end of the day.

She went ballistic, claiming the company (a company of 100K people it should be noted) would more or less cease to function if she was not permanently on her phone. Told her she could get the battery back, but then she'd have to excuse herself from the course. As the course was mandatory for managers, that wasn't really an option for her. So she went to the SVP and cried her heart out. That lasted around 30 seconds, then she was handed her pink slip and escorted off the premises.

I got an "attaboy" from the SVP; he'd been looking for an excuse to get rid of her obnoxious arse for a while.

Serves the b1tch right.

[+TSRA]

Opinions or advice, either are fine. I was on an Air Canada flight last night out of YEG, it was a Dash 8 and full all but 2 seats, all the usual pre flight briefs were done and mobile phone use etc were covered. However this http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif 1 seat forward and diagonal to me persisted to send and recieve emails right the way through take off and landing. Yes i did challenge him but by then we were airborne. I told the stewardess who said, "what can i do, i told them twice" and just left it. My blood was boiling at the ignorance of the guy who cared not a jot for anybody, i could clearly see his phone and it was fully on and not in a FS mode.......what do you or can you actually do when crap likethat happens :=

First, a couple people have replied to you with FAA regulations in mind. While close, the Transport Canada Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) are in use here in Canada. There are three main regulations pertaining to this situation that the Flight Attendant would have been well aware of:

Compliance with Instructions
602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.
(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

and

Portable Electronic Devices
602.08 (1) No operator of an aircraft shall permit the use of a portable electronic device on board an aircraft, where the device may impair the functioning of the aircraft's systems or equipment.
(2) No person shall use a portable electronic device on board an aircraft except with the permission of the operator of the aircraft.

Additionally, from CAR 705.40:

(4) For the purposes of Section 602.08 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-602-2436.htm#602_08), no air operator shall permit the use of a portable electronic device on board an aircraft unless the air operator has established procedures that
(a) meet the Commercial Air Service Standards (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part7-standards-725-2173.htm); and
(b) are specified in the air operator's company operations manual.

Now, I cannot speak directly to the Air Canada Company Operations Manual, however, not many Canadian airlines have gone through to identify which cell phones do not interfere with the aircraft functions. There are, of course, pace makers, hearing aids, et cetera, which do not interefere, and they state that in their briefing. At my airline, we blanket all cell phones just in case.

Do they do anything? I'll leave the scholarly research to others, but I know if I forget to turn my cell phone off, I can hear it trying to connect to the network through my headset - a distracting sound that has me looking through the cockpit to try and turn the damned thing off! I fly Dash 8 aircraft, similar to the one you would have been on. I also remember hearing of an Air New Zealand 767 that was given false glideslope information into Fiji or Rarotonga once, until they found a passenger with a cell phone turned on; they turned it off, and like magic, no more false glideslope.

So, to answer your question, what could this Flight Attendant have done?

Well, if he or she wanted, they could have notified the PIC through the "Interference with Crew Members" program that all CAR 705 airlines have had to adopt. A passenger failing to heed the instructions of a crew member twice would be a level two incident which, depending on Air Canada procedures, may require notification to the company (mine does). Now, all air operators are required to report incidents to Transport Canada on a bi-annual basis, and on the occurence of all level three and four incidents. It is possible, however, that Transport would take enforcement action on a level two incident just to prove a point. What is the enforcement for failing to heed crew member instructions with a portable electronic device, you may ask? Well, CAD$3,000 for using the device, and another CAD$3,000 for failing to listen to a crew member - plus some potential jail time if you've done this before (CAR 103, Schedule II). Not to mention, if you're still at the gate, they could throw you off the flight.

So, for the travelling public, yes - there is something your crew can do. For updating your Facebook status to say "Im on a plane!" you may be removed from the aircraft, obtain a $6,000 fine, or face some jail time! Not to mention, evil looks from other passengers! ;)

[Dry wretched thunder]

Thanks +TSRA very informative and reassuring indeed, truth is I have read all of the posts and its a real disappointment that this occurrence which clearly has potential is so common, in my case there was nothing unknown or misunderstood or possibilities of per loaded data, the guy was a prize ass that knew exactly what he was doing and didn't give a hoot, it's sad but clear also that there can be a contagious knock on effect too where people see somebody 'getting away with it' and think they can do it too, very disappointing indeed, thanks so much for the very informative a positive feedback folks

[ExXB]

... and there are one or two of us that have forgotten about turning off their phones. I admit that this has happened to me a couple of times. Yes I should know better.

Can any airline guard against idiots like me? :{

[grounded27]

Bottom line is if C/C asks the man to turn it off and he does not, 2nd step is for CC to advise the captain. It should be the captains responsibility to resolve the issue on the ground, in the worst case scenario return to the gate and eject the passenger. This is the only proper course of action. If anything happened as a result of the passenger operating a mobile phone (not at all ever likely), the Airline would be completely liable.

You would be a fool to take any action upon yourself other than persistent notification to the dizzy blond F/A who just wants to get home (or the hotel) as soon as possible. If you really wanted to be persistent you could threaten to report the C/C to the CAA and airline. If she had notified the captain and the flight continued, the airline and CAA would place the blame on the captain. If you really wanted to be persistent you could probably march down to your local CAA office and ask to complete a flight safety report or equivalent.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I agree, that the local view to enforcement of the aviation rules and regulations is at best tinted.

It does not matter just how serious the infringement, there is a local view that it does not really matter, this view is reflected on the road in the air or even in the shopping mall.

glf

[Tableview]

One of the many reasons I refused to go to Egypt to do some work for Egyptair was that I was not willing to fly on them, having experienced the discipline of some of their management during meetings and presentations, including constant use of mobiles even when instructed to turn them off, I felt discipline and standards on board were likely to be the same or lower.

[Cymmon]

I recently had an incident on Cebu Pacific.

A loud brash American was told as leaving Butuan to turn off his phone. He waved the attendant away as his call was important. She returned to the front as we were on pushback. Once taxying along the runway she returned and asked him a second time. Again his reply was to wave her away as it was an important contract.

As the aircraft turned around on the runway she returned, took the phone from his hand, threw it to the floor (5 pieces of mobile) and told him to continue the call when we landed in Manila as the safety of the flight was more important than any call.

Result!

[radeng]

So the pico cell has to re-format the data so the delay through the satellite link doesn't screw up the GSM timing?

Makes me remember what the acronym ISDN really meant - I Smell Dollars Now!

But there's no reason if you spend enough money on the aircraft equipment, you can't fix the problem. You can then CHARGE - how much before the use dropped off too much would be interesting, but something between €1 to €1.5 a minute would probably fairly rapidly recoup costs. However, when you use a satellite, latency is a problem, which is why overseas telephone calls use fibre optic undersea cables. That's why you want a direct connection to a ground network.

[Pax Vobiscum]

When I was flying US domestic in the 90s, quite a few airlines (Northwest was definitely one) had handsets in the armrests. You could swipe your plastic through them and they charged $1/min - I assume they used a satellite link from the plane. I rarely saw them used, except for the occasional 30 sec "guess where I'm calling from".

You're unlikely to be able to conduct a mobile phone conversation in flight, because even if you could get a signal from the nearest cell (their aerials are angled to keep their reception focused on the ground, not at 30,000') you'd be travelling too quickly for a successful hand-off to the next cell as you moved out of range. I hate the idea of on-board picocells, as I spend quite enough time on trains listening to self-absorbed bozos broadcasting their business to the world.

But I don't have any safety concerns, since I'm sure that every flight with more than 100 people on board will have at least one (probably several) mobile that has been left on inadvertently, and ill effects are extremely rare (to say the least). None of which is an argument for disobeying the lawful instructions of the crew, of course.

[radeng]

The US domestic system in the '90s used ground stations, not satellites: the frequency was around 900 MHz, and used single sideband with a low level carrier for dealing with fading, frequency error and doppler. I can't remem ber too much about it, but they were using some integrated circuits from my employer, and I was the applications engineer helping them out with one or two problems.

Satellites have the problem of the delay...

[Piltdown Man]

We ask politely passengers to stop using their phones, iPads etc. They will comply. No discussions or negotiation.

PM

[Pax Vobiscum]

Thanks radeng. You've piqued my interest, I will have to find out more about this system. I wonder how many ground stations were needed to cover the continental US ...

[GrahamO]

The airlines own the aircraft so we should respect the rules under which we are permitted to fly with them - and no excuses.

I do however think that the danger is massively hyped, and if aircraft are that sensitive to the emanations of a mobile phone with extremely low power, flying in a spectrum which is saturated by many orders of magnitude more of transmissions from the ground, then they should be dropping out of the air every day.

Yes, I am an engineer with a communications background. I am more worried about a drunken pilot than a stray mobile phone.

[TightSlot]

For what it's worth, I would agree that the problem is over-hyped. One thing to remember though is that there may be a difference between the effects associated with up to a dozen mobile phones inadvertently left on and 330+ deliberately left on.

For the time being, the regs say no, although change is in the air (boom-boom).
For the meantime, I remain fascinated that so many people can become so massively cross because they are unable to use their phone for a few hours, or in the case of pico-cell aircraft, for a few minutes on departure and approach.

I'm not being cute - It really is a mystery to me. I'm coming to believe that for some, any kind of restriction is an unacceptable imposition. As I get older and grumpier (it'll happen to all of you in the end, believe me) I find that there are more and more things, and people, that are genuinely unacceptable: The use of mobile phones is some way down my list and has several noughts after it.

[GrahamO]

Some good point there Tightslot.

If the approval were to be granted, I think it would significantly improve the flying experience if passengers were only able to text and email/IM during the flight as it would mean most of them were silent throughout the entire flight.

You can cram an awful lot of email/text/IM on a small internet link but one loudmouth audio user could cause 'disruption' :)

[ExXB]

TS, I see an aircraft equipped to handle connections with mobile devices to be better than one that isn't. In the first case the devices won't ramp up their power searching for a connection, in the second that's exactly what they do. (which is what happens when I forget my phone is on).

The airlines can limit the connections, if they choose, to text and internet but I don't think it's necessary as the cost per call is a major limiting factor.

Of course there are idiots who may disrupt a flight, but they will do so anyway. I was on a Squeezy flight the other day where a passenger was having a conversation with his buddy two rows back, shouting in dialect! One of the FAs asked them to be quiet during the safety briefing and they ignored him. They did this the whole flight.

I think it's ludicrous that on the BA LHR-SNN-JFK flight you can text and connect to the internet once at altitude, but they have to shut it down when the enter US airspace, long before they begin decent. Why is it OK in British, Irish, Icelandic and Canadian airspace but not in the US? (Rhetorical question).

People will leave their phones on, and some will try to use them, that is a given. Knowing that, regulators should be ensuring that the aircraft is as safe as possible.

[radeng]

Texting can put up with the delay through a satellite. GSM for example, has a range limitation because of the time it takes the signal to reach the base station - from memory about 40 or 50 km.

Just to help matters, there are hearing aids with radio transceivers in them. I helped with systems engineering of an integrated circuit for that application, and also for radio transceivers in pacemakers - over 500,000 of them in use world wide. Bit hard to turn those off, of course, but the power is very low - in both cases, under 1 mW. Plus, if the pacemaker transmits while in an aircraft, it's because there's a cardiac emergency.

[strake]

I'm not being cute - It really is a mystery to me. I'm coming to believe that for some, any kind of restriction is an unacceptable imposition. As I get older and grumpier (it'll happen to all of you in the end, believe me) I find that there are more and more things, and people, that are genuinely unacceptable: The use of mobile phones is some way down my list and has several noughts after it.
I think it simply comes down to restrictions people think are "fair and sensible" against those they don't - rightly or wrongly. For instance, sitting down on take-off and when landing is a "restriction" but people can obviously work out why they should do it. However, no matter how hard authorities try to say otherwise, the majority of people just don't believe a mobile phone (or indeed 200) can cause a serious problem to an aircraft's ability to operate. I've observed the restriction gradually being eroded in the USA. I'm absolutely sure that a good percentage of the people I watch texting and calling "before the door shuts", just put their phone away without turning it off and then pull it out again just after the wheels touch down.
I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, just my thoughts on why it's such an issue for some. For me, equally older and grumpier, I can't be bothered using the thing anyway and save my vitriol for important things like why do I have to spend 12 hours in the close company of people who invariably irritate me by being noisy, smelly, ugly or in fact, just "there"?
See, I told you I was grumpy.

[radeng]

There is of course the point that you have no idea for any 'phone of where 'unwanted emissions in the spurious domain' fall in the spectrum, nor their level. Or even if the level meets the relevant standard (-36dBm below 1GHz, -30dBm above 1GHz) that it won't cause a problem.

[Bill4a]

A couple of years ago BA from Gatwick to Izmir a cabin announcement was made along the lines of " will the passenger using his mobile phone please switch it off, we can hear your conversation!" Result - One very surprised and red faced Turkish businessman, who had 'forgotten' he couldn't use his mobile in flight. :ugh:

[Sunnyjohn]

I remain fascinated that so many people can become so massively cross because they are unable to use their phone for a few hours It seems to be almost an addiction. I read recently that young people (In Spain, that takes you up to age 50!) are unable to refrain from using their mobile devices for longer that ten minutes. And as for the number of people I nearly bump into because they are gazing at the things . . .

Off- thread, and apologies mods, but yesterday I saw the lot. A chap on a bike riding no-hands with one hand working his mobile and an iPod in his ears. The other hand was in his lap but I couldn't see what that was doing! No wonder they get killed on level crossings.

[CafeClub]

Apart from having to listen to someone discussing their irritable bowel syndrome aside, mobile phone use (and implications on safety) in flight is one of those rules that is a "we don't know so....."

Thing is it is not cut and dried. Having flown a lot in Asia especially the subcon, IF mobiles impacted flight systems, then aircraft would be falling out of the sky like flies. Fact is they are not. The number of phones chirping and cheeping as you descend into (say) Mumbai is pretty amazing.

The FAA is unsure too...

Are Cell Phones Dangerous In Flight? (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/are-cell-phones-dangerous_n_2426668.html)

And with people like EK allowing in flight usage....

So next time, before you get all panicky while sitting on a DASH and some teen is sexting his/her friend, just plug your ipod in and listen to some soothing music.

[radeng]

You only need ONE incident......As a professional radio engineer, involved with EMC and having worked on mobile phones amongst other things, I KNOW that there is a finite possibility of them causing a problem. There's always a number of people with little or no knowledge of the technology who think they know best. They get away with it for a time......

[Tableview]

Electronic devices on planes: Turn off your iPad now, please | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/01/electronic-devices-planes?fsrc=nlw|gul|1-8-2013|4556954|36004083|)

[Hartington]

It's only just occurred to me that I wear one of those watches that get their time on a long wave frequency from various transmitters round the world. I'm told it wakes itself up around 2 in the morning, verifies the time and then goes back to sleep.

Quite apart from how many more people wear those I wonder how many other low power radio devices people bring on board.

[Tableview]

Those radio-controlled watches/clocks are passive (i.e. non-transmitting) devices and should not pose any risk.

[radeng]

They do some radiating, but it is much lower power - partly because you don't want to run down the battery.

[t1grm]

Here's an interesting variation. We've just been asked to switch mobile phones and all electronic devices off during refuelling (at the airport doors open). What's that all about then? Can electromagnetic waves ignite jet fuel as well now?

[CafeClub]

I think it has been tested enough. :E

Lets use india for example. Say 1500 flights a week domestically? 300,000 pax? Even if just 5% of the weekly 2.1 million pax left their phone/ipad/gps/nintendo turned on, that's still over 100,000 mobile devices buzzing away on planes every week for what, the last 5 or 10 years?

And that's just beer coaster calc. Anyone who has flown in the subcon knows that it would likely be many more per aircraft than 5%, and then add Africa, China, Russia, and those recalcitrant travelers on Air Canada... :rolleyes:

All on every version of every aircraft type, all using a multitude of transmitting devices...

How many have plummeted earthwards? None that i am aware of. :oh:

I was one of those that religiously turned mine off, but now it is an afterthought. If there is a serious, burn in purgatory risk, then at security they would be binned, disabled and their owners would have their cavities searched. :\

And pprune would be full of news of the latest crash caused by a sexting teen.

Instead, the onus is on the airline, who in turn dump this task on the hapless cabin crew, who after surviving a few dozen flights where phones have been on, probably get tired of starting their work with an argument with a phone user. :ugh:

I say again, plug in your ipod and worry about other stuff, like which movie you are going to watch off the rack of electromagnetic radiating hard drives in the IFS.:ok:

[Capot]

Quote from that Economist article...

at that point the prospect of taking a cut of the sky-high calling charges will miraculously cause our safety concerns about mobile phones to evaporate.Or, last time I flew on Norwegian, the airline's wish to offer a fantastic, free, wifi service on board, to which one's mobile/smartphone/tablet/laptop/netbook/whatever can connect when switched on and not in "Flight Mode", for the the benefit if its customers, and of course to attract them in the first place.

The service terminated at 10,000ft, but I understood this was not for safety but to allow CC to get the cabin in shape for landing.

Presumably EASA, Boeing, and the Norwegian CAA, to name but a few with the power to prevent this happening have not found a need to do so. And so far as I know the new Norwegian Boeings do not have special wiring and electronics protected against mobile phones etc.

[radeng]

CafeClub:

How many 777 flights had there been before YMMM?

t1grm

There are some British Standards for the RF intensity level allowed before ignition occurs, based on some Sheffield university work. There's also a DEF STAN on allowable RF levels around munitions and fuel - I can't remember which one, and I'm not at home to look it up. But it's lot higher than you get from a mobile 'phone. The limitations you see on garage forecourts around petrol pumps came from the discovery by illegal CBers running around 50 or 100 watts led to the petrol pump under registering, rather than ignition problems.

It's thought by many that an arc can cause ignition, but in fact, the arc has to have a certain amount of energy, depending on air/vapour mix. Unless there is enough energy, it won't catch.

More of a problem, is that the person using the 'phone gets distracted and does something silly (like texting while driving!), or if the thing is dropped and the battery sets fire to some of the bits, maybe because of a short circuit.

[Rawtenstall]

coming home on a flybe flight after christmas, my daughter was reading her new iPad, in flight safe mode. When the "10 minutes to landing" announcement was made she turned the device off by pressing the button on top of the device, and the screen turned off. However a passing flight crew saw this and insisted that the device be fully powered down. We didn't really know what she was on about, the device was turned off, but the stewardess made a point of showing us that we had to hold down the top button then slide the icon that appeared on screen.

So when is "off" really "off" with these gadgets - when the screen is black or with a full power down?

[CafeClub]

Don't quite get your beef, redang. :8

Are you saying that for years airlines had been warning pax flying on aircraft fitted with trent 800 engines that the FOHE were suspected of being a problem under very specific conditions...

And that on bulletins/forums the "experts" were constantly cautioning about flying in aircraft using the trent 800 with those FOHE... :}

Seriously, sure i understand your point, but surely that is the point.

Surely the empirical evidence is that it has been proven to be "effectively safe" and until even ONE incident that can definitively be blamed on mobiles as the SPECIFIC cause or causal factor... we can presume its ok. :O

(i could actually argue that the sample size of the "pax with mobiles on aircraft" since invention of the mobile, would be several hundred orders of magnitude higher than sample size of 777s with Rolls trent 800 flying in the conditions that effected BA038. Quite simply, i can assert with absolutely no doubt -or proof- that EVERY time one of those trent 800 equipped 777s was in the air there was always someone on board with their mobile turned on. Add ALL the other aircraft types to this statistical analysis, plus the dozens of types of transmitting electronic consumer items, and i think the weight of evidence suggests that really, this is all much mobile-ado about nothing. Lol the OP with his ipad operational deficiency even adds weight to this argument!!)
:ok:

[TightSlot]

So when is "off" really "off" with these gadgets - when the screen is black or with a full power down?

Welcome to PPRuNe - And the answer is, with a Power Down. The FA was correct. One of the concerns is about wi-fi/phone signal interference: The iPad continues to use both functions with a dark screen unless it is switched off.

May I repeat the earlier question - Why is it such a significant imposition on so many people to ask for electronic devices to be switched off for 20 minutes? Is it really worth all the sound and the fury?

[CafeClub]

No fury here, though some mirth. :D

Unfortunately mobiles are now just a part of most people's life (even, almost, their anatomy). Asking them to be switched off? Nah, the point of this thread is telling them....

While i will agree 100% about the annoyance of an apparent inability of some people to exist for even a few minutes without their life's inanities being imposed aurally on everyone around them... That discussion is completely different from the one that started this thread, viz "we're all going to die because 12A STILL HAS HIS MOBILE SWITCHED ON...AAAARRRGGGHH"

I humbly suggest TS that you merge this with the "obese" thread if you wish to introduce the "intruding on others' space/sensibilities!" angle!! :ok:

What would those posters do if one of their "larger" co-pax was also chatting on the phone... :=

[pwalhx]

The point is the rules as they are is that you are required to turn off such devices and therefore should do so.

If airlines such as EK allow the use at certain times and periods that is at their choice. (Seem to recall though on my recent flight on EK it was not during the take off or landing phase).

The fact that people in India, China, Russia or wherever ignore the rules does not automatically entitle everyone else to do so, two wrongs do not make a right.

So until such times as rules are changed, if you are told to turn off electronic devices then you should do it, if not then face the consequences of your actions. Therefore people have the right to complain or criticise people who think they are above these rules.

Sorry but seems fairly simple to me.

[CafeClub]

Oh the brits! :rolleyes:

It is a RULE, therefore do it. :ugh: Kinda like standing in a queue. :D

Actually this discussion was about the reasons / need for the "rules". Rather than questioning if there was a rule. the original poster was concerned about the safety risk.

The point about India et al, was simply to indicate that this request is frequently disregarded, either deliberately or accidentally, and i daresay it is as commonly transgressed everywhere - without any apparent impingement on safety.

suggest you have a poke at the cabin crew forum here on pprune (can't post the link, the tablet makes that a huge chore and the pax on my left is glaring at me :p) discussing the use of a GoPro in the cockpit. GoPros (can) use GPS.

:)

[Load Toad]

Any other safety rules we can ignore and forget about because some numpties are too ignorant and arrogant to pay them attention?

[strake]

Is it really worth all the sound and the fury?

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/30200-should-mobile-phones-banned-cabin.html

14 years and many millions of flying hours on, it would appear rightly or wrongly...yes.

[YorkshireTyke]

I find that enforcement is very different when sitting in J or F compared to Economy.

Why ? I don't want to die because some God Almighty has paid a bit more for his ticket and thinks he runs the Universe.

[laz219]

I was on a flight recently where the lady across the aisle from me was playing games on her phone as we taxied out to the active. Every time a flight crew member walked by, she quickly hid it. I found that quite frustrating because if you feel it necessary to hide it, you probably shouldn't be using it.

I figure in the case of not being able to switch things on until a certain height/time- Wouldn't this make sense in regards to forced landings? Say in the case of an EFAT, would you really want the extra step of trying to get peoples attention when they are all busy playing angry birds with headphones in?

Even if there isn't much to show they do affect things, just being asked should be good enough reason to turn it off.
I'm sure it's not just me but- Isn't it nice to be able to disconnect yourself from you phone occasionally anyway? Between phone calls, SMS, Email, Facebook, Ebay and news....my phone just about never shuts up. I love getting to turn the thing off when I don't need to be contactable.

[Wannabe Flyer]

On a 14 Hour Non Stop, I forgot to switch the BB off in my hand luggage (actually if you switch it off you apparently have to wit till it turns off before returning to holster otherwise it does not turn off).

Needless to say I had roaming charges (BB mails kept flowing so got charge a daily charge for every country it logged into) from Iceland to Afghanistan on my Phone. Don't think I will ever forget that.

As far as talking on the phone. I prefer switching it off as soon as i am about to board and on again after I have my luggage. The few hours of peace in between from the talking and ringing is delightful. :zzz:

[EEngr]

... consider allowing the use of noise canceling headphones during takeoff/landing.

I like to put mine on immediately upon being seated so I can listen to the audio program as well as the announcements over children howling. But if the CC spots the little green LED, I get told to shut the off. Not take them off, just switch them off. So now I can't hear the PA system announcements.

I suppose a small piece of black electrical tape could solve the problem. But I'd like to comply with the rules.