Using mobiles on planes.

[Alanwsg]

I guess this'll generate the usual 10 page flame war about using mobiles on planes.

Researcher hacks aircraft controls with Android smartphone ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/11/hacking_aircraft_with_android_handset/)

[alnicol]

The smartphone aspect is a bit of a red herring. He used an smartphone with an external radio. The same exploit could be done using a laptop, a tablet, or just a box of electronics.

Given that this is 'spoofing' radio messages, there's also absolutely no reason why an attacker would be on the plane. Easier for them to sit on the ground and do it remotely.

Still, it's an interesting article/presentation and nice work.

[Dont Hang Up]

Now this is half a story designed to create a scare on limited facts.

The story's only real specifics refer to interference with comms. Specifically ACARS (VHF) and ADS-B (the SSR 1090MHz frequency).

Now I am no expert on Android phones but am pretty certain they do not have capabilities on either of those frequencies. So what is Mr Teso really saying? That the device can be used to control jamming equipment on these frequencies? So could just about any other programmable device.

Whatever this story is, it is certainly not a "mobile phones on aircraft story". It simply boils down to a much older and well known issue of the vulnerability of ACARS and ADS-B. Is there seriously any aircraft that can have its systems re-programmed over ACARS without any flight crew intervention or knowledge?

[IFixPlanes]

In my eyes nothing but BS:mad:
To be exact the headline should be:
Researcher hacks virtual aircraft controls with Android smartphone

[Dont Hang Up]

In my eyes nothing but BS
To be exact the headline should be:
Researcher hacks virtual aircraft controls with Android smartphone

Yes indeed. Flight simmers should be deeply worried by this development.

:8

[DaveReidUK]

Tech Log thread already running on this:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/512304-fms-vulnerabilities-highlighed-net-security-conference.html

[Tinribs]

I flew the J41 for Eastern between age 60/65 as I was unemployable elsewhere.

We had a number of problems with the pod smoke warning system which seemed to activate whenever mobile was used in a particular seat. The wiring for the system routed under that seat. When we got stroppy with the pax the system warnings always ceased

It seems that some systems and installations, designed before mobile phones, are vulnerable to induced surged when the mobile phone goes to high power seeking a mast. Some of these older systems are still used in modern aircraft.

It seems cable shielding is the key issue

[Mark in CA]

It does appear that there have been numerous proposals for encrypting or otherwise securing ACARS messages for quite some time (i.e., a decade or more). Perhaps this will prompt swifter action.

[Wave off]

At Norwegian, wifi is proposed from and to FL 100. Passengers who have smart phones then go out of the airplane mode to connect. There has been no problem so far though the phones enter search mode in parallel with wifi.

Who is right?:suspect:

[ion_berkley]

This is a misleading thread title, largely no doubt due to the poor quality of the press coverage and the emphasis placed there on the use of a mobile phone in a demonstration. The vulnerabilities discussed by Hugo are very real and exist, but mobile phones are not a part of the potential attack vector, it just happened to be an interface he used for this demonstration.

[18-Wheeler]

I flew the J41 for Eastern between age 60/65 as I was unemployable elsewhere.

We had a number of problems with the pod smoke warning system which seemed to activate whenever mobile was used in a particular seat. The wiring for the system routed under that seat. When we got stroppy with the pax the system warnings always ceased

It seems that some systems and installations, designed before mobile phones, are vulnerable to induced surged when the mobile phone goes to high power seeking a mast. Some of these older systems are still used in modern aircraft.

It seems cable shielding is the key issue

That's a good example of proof that mobile phones can, on rare occasions, cause interference.
I also use the example of the Mythbusters test where they build a replica cockpit with a heap of instruments, used a mobile phone near it and a lot of the clocks went a bit crazy. But then they found that it happened because of the non-shielded wire they were using. They replaced all the plain wire with shielded wire and all the problems went away.
So for anyone to say that mobile phones can't affect aircraft systems, all you have to do is prove to me that 100% of the wiring on 100% of aircraft is perfectly shielded and I'll be happy.

[Capn Bloggs]

Passengers who have smart phones then go out of the airplane mode to connect. There has been no problem so far though the phones enter search mode in parallel with wifi.
Not necessarily. On Android when in Aeroplane Mode, one can activate Wifi but leave the mobile/cell part of it off. Same same Bluetooth.

[3db]

In a previous life (1997/9) I worked in flight calibration - we tested Nav aids. Our testing kit was regularly calibrated. Cellphones were analogue - they are digital nowadays. When calibrating our kit a signal generator that replicates an ILS ground station was connected via a well shielded cable to our "ILS" kit (receiver). If I walked up and down the workshop with my cell phone switched on I could watch the glide slope needle change from full fly up to full fly down, depending on my distance from our kit. I know analogue cell phones can cause interferance to an ILS. I don't know if digital ones can. Also, AC wiring is much more protected today.

[Alanwsg]

Rest of the world calls shenanigans on the original report ...

FAA: 'No, you CAN'T hijack a plane with an Android app' ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/13/faa_debunks_android_hijack_claim/)

[White Knight]

Well! At EK the pax have wifi Internet and mobile phone useage on just about all of the fleet. 380, 777, 330 and 340. Never had the aeroplane flip over into a 'death dive' yet:D:D

[3db]

Modern A/C I hope would be harden so it should not effect them. Older designs will still have unshielded wiring. Also, the technology is digital now, the old technology I referred to was analogue.

[Ian W]

alnicol

The smartphone aspect is a bit of a red herring. He used an smartphone with an external radio. The same exploit could be done using a laptop, a tablet, or just a box of electronics.

Given that this is 'spoofing' radio messages, there's also absolutely no reason why an attacker would be on the plane. Easier for them to sit on the ground and do it remotely.

Still, it's an interesting article/presentation and nice work.


Both ARINC and STIA allow messages from various devices including pagers to be uplinked as an ACARS message. See the slide 'Access Methods'. There is no need to have an ACARS radio frequency - just the capability to send a malformed message. However, Tesa also showed he obtained the ground station capability too by buying systems on ebay.

There are multiple ways this can be exploited. It makes sense to be cautious.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Using mobiles on planes.

Let's not.

( and nothing to do with interference of electronics, more to do with interference of my enjoyment of life without the damned things. )

[119.4]

If it happens lets allocate seating to all those who feel they have to use their phones "Hi, I'm on the plane" at the back, that should keep them out of the way nicely.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

The actual frequency of the radio is not what allows a signal in. It is a little bit more refined than that. The details of which I won't share here. := But as I mentioned on another thread, this is possible if you know how to approach the problem. Easier to call it bull**** :oh: and put your head in the sand.

[Dont Hang Up]

The actual frequency of the radio is not what allows a signal in. It is a little bit more refined than that. The details of which I won't share here. := But as I mentioned on another thread, this is possible if you know how to approach the problem. Easier to call it bull**** :oh: and put your head in the sand.

I shall call your bluff on that one. No interface, no access.

And kindly refrain from the finger wagging please!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

IF, no finger wagging. Do carry on. I bet you a quid you have no idea w
hat IF means

[bizflyer]

I fly regularly with SQ and have recently started to use the 'On Air' system. A confusing set-up because in order to use my phone with this system I have to have the phone out of flight mode to access the wifi - presumably all the time the phone is connected to wifi it is also hunting around for a signal, I know this is the case because (rarely) I have had txt messages during flight such as "O2 - Welcome to Kazakstan to receive calls will cost etc etc".

NB I do not - and would not for reasons posted by others - use the phone to make a call, frankly I could do without the hassle, certainly would not want anyone calling me! But using iMessage, Whatsapp etc is quite handy. Muting a phone is easy enough.

Is there any real risk of using these devices on a modern aircraft? Isn't this more about being socially inept rather than causing a hazard.

I would have thought it very simple to place messaging within an older aircraft - or a newer one - that said "this aircraft is/ isn't compatible with mobile phones on mute for messaging purposes only".

[Capn Bloggs]

A confusing set-up because in order to use my phone with this system I have to have the phone out of flight mode to access the wifi
As I said before, Android phones can be in Flight Mode (no data/mobile roaming) but the Wifi can be turned on. Go to Flight Mode then turn Wifi on.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Bisflyer. Most mobiles don't differentiate with regards to phone function and wifi. Take it out of flight mode and the phone tries to find a network as well as wifi. While it searches in passive mode, not transmitting, once it finds a decent signal it does a network update, transmits. An old post explaining how it works here http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/66460-newlywed-jailed-using-mobile-flight.html#post629768

It MAY cause problems, but experience tells me it probably won't. A bit like the ban on phones in garage forecourts, the worries were shown to be unfounded.

Receiving a text message means your phone is operating normally and connected to a network

While not boring you to death, there are a whole host of reasons why radio waves interfere with each other, and with electronic equipment in general. Previous comments about unshielded wiring is not really valid, just speculation, the power levels are too low for it to be a problem.

It comes back to the IF I mentioned, in the case of ACARS and other aviation radios, and GSM/3G they are different so cannot interact accidently - trying to do it on purpose is another issue.

Planes have not been falling out of the sky since mobiles have been around, and countless millions have forgotten to turn them off, so I think it's safe to say there is no big problem coming anytime soon. But I do still turn mine off when told to :)

[Capn Bloggs]

Most mobiles don't differentiate with regards to phone function and wifi.
Androids do! You can be in Flight Mode (disabling mobile phone function) and activate Wifi! There is no need to go out of Flight Mode to get the Wifi working.

[18-Wheeler]

Well, the thing is that 'probably' isn't really good enough.

Post #11 - which seems to be ignored so far - has the answer to that.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

My answer to you is show me a plane that has crashed due to a mobile phone? There isn't one.


Planes have not been falling out of the sky since mobiles have been around, and countless millions have forgotten to turn them off, so I think it's safe to say there is no big problem coming anytime soon.
Whilst that's true I don't think that it is a reliable indicator for the lack of future problems. A phone left on is anyway not transmitting (at least not often), you have to be actively using it for it to transmit.

You should let readers know about location updates, which happen every few KM. As you are jetting across the world, that is quite often.

But back to point one. It hasn't happened so don't be afraid.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Edited to say, I was trying to educate people about how mobiles work, and the fact they don't really cause any problems.

The other issue of accessing systems is obviously beyond some other commentators.

I have no interest in trying to argue the toss with them. They know best....

[Basil]

i-Phone can go Airplane mode and then switch Wi-Fi on.
My advice - if you see someone with their mob CLEARLY switched on to cellnet, don't bother to take direct action; just inform cabin crew and let them deal with it.

[MFgeo]

Actually, the maximum permitted transmitter power varies by both technology generation and frequency band. There is also some variation in the radio regulations of various countries, but the cellular standards attempt to define power levels by frequency band such that the resulting handsets can be used world-wide. The vast majority of cellular handsets (as opposed to vehicle-mounted cellular transmitters and fixed cellular devices such as burglar alarm transmitters, etc.) operate at maximum transmit power levels of 0.5 Watts or less. In the USA, the FCC rules limit hand-held radiotelephone devices to a maximum of 0.6 Watts EIRP.

The GSM (2G) standard does include a "power class 1" where the device is permitted to transmit at up to 2 Watts peak power. However, handsets are "power class 2" devices with a maximum transmit power of 0.5 Watts. UMTS (3G) handsets are "power class 3" devices with a maximum transmit power of 0.25 Watts . LTE (4G) handsets are also "power class 3" devices, but with max transmitter power specified as 0.20 Watts. There is also a "power class 4" (at least in some frequency bands) at 50% of the levels for power class 3, but I am not sure anybody is making class 4 devices. In 4G, the LTE specs provide for a power class 4, but as of LTE release 11 (February, 2013) only class 3 is defined (except for frequency band 14 -- uplink frequency 788MHz -- where power class 1 is also defined, but not used in handsets).

I designed controller chips for use in cellular handsets until 2010, and still consult in that field, so I have the relevant standards documents on my computer.

[TightSlot]

We've had this discussion (although less technically informed) more often than I care to remember in the Pax/SLF forum on PPRuNe.

Depressingly, the historical position has been that for some passengers, there is no acceptable authority that can prevent the continued use of electronics on-board: They simply regard the imposition as affecting others, but not themselves. There is nothing (except possibly a published accident report with the confirmed single issue cause of passenger use of electronics during a critical flight phase) that will be viewed as sufficient grounds to restrict use and those whose job it is to police compliance can therefore be treated with contempt and discourtesy, at best.

I mention this, because at least one of the same user names have turned up here, and the end result may prove to be the same, although it would be nice if it didn't.

[DaveReidUK]

We've had this discussion (although less technically informed) more often than I care to remember in the Pax/SLF forum on PPRuNe.Though not usually starting with a first post that, despite its title, had absolutely nothing to do with "using mobiles on planes". :ugh:

[Mr Optimistic]

Who wants to sit next to someone gibbering on a mobile? Mandatory jail term pls.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

We've had this discussion (although less technically informed) more often than I care to remember in the Pax/SLF forum on PPRuNe.

Depressingly, the historical position has been that for some passengers, there is no acceptable authority that can prevent the continued use of electronics on-board: They simply regard the imposition as affecting others, but not themselves. There is nothing (except possibly a published accident report with the confirmed single issue cause of passenger use of electronics during a critical flight phase) that will be viewed as sufficient grounds to restrict use and those whose job it is to police compliance can therefore be treated with contempt and discourtesy, at best.

I'm a firm believer in not allowing mobile use on planes. I've said as much before.

The reason some think it 'doesn't apply to them' comes from scare mongering that is is dangerous. In my humble opinion it isn't - no plane crashes or accidents linked to phone use is evidence enough of that. Us techie dullards can argue the toss forever, as we do on lots of things ;)

At the end of the day I really don't want everyone shouting into an iphone during the few hours a week of peace I get :)

[FlightPathOBN]

I sit in the back, and use mine to fly the airplane.

[blind pew]

Flying loco into an airfield in mountainous terrain outside cas. Pax adjacent starts playing with blackberry. Ask him to stop and explain why - turned belligerent. Five minutes later we landed and he threatened cabin crew. Flight deck member said discouraged from reporting by company. Reported to relevant authority whose ops inspector accused me of having an axe to grind against loco.
Authority IMHO absolute waste of space - and not just with this loco.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I believe that there are gadgets available to mute phones from a distance ? Be nice to have a low power one to use on ones' seat neighbours when they flout this convention, but I guess it would also mute the aircraft navigation electronics !!! and in any case, it would be regarded as a remote bomb detonator by our ever zealous TSA and their world-wide clones.

Good idea, tho'.

[FlightPathOBN]

Exsp,

Yes, they used to be legal. It was the cell blockers that were used in museums, symphony halls, movie theaters, and other public places. ACLU took it to court as violation of free speech, and won.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

There really is no point. Mobiles will kill you. Jammers will make it better :ugh: Aviation tech cannot be accessed by outsiders. Android or otherwise. I often wonder how some remember to breath.

[lasernigel]

As a fairly frequent flyer.If all airlines say on the pre flight briefing, "Turn off all electronic devices", how is it 50% just continue as if nothing has been said. Ignorance, being the objective type against all rules in society??
Last time I remonstrated with the guy in the next seat, he shouted out at the top of his voice, "What are you? The mobile phone police?"
Some people just choose to be moronic.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

The fear is :mad:. Made up.. I'm happy to listen to an intelligent argument as to why it is dangerous. Trolly dollies need not apply, most of you haven't got a clue.

[Sunnyjohn]

Yes, they used to be legal. It was the cell blockers that were used in museums, symphony halls, movie theaters, and other public places. ACLU took it to court as violation of free speech, and won. no doubt with the out-of-sight backing of the cellphone companies.

[skylimey]

Tuned new freq. can't hear ATC over squeals and pops... Check crew pockets, turn off cellphones, freq. now clear.

Happened often enough that if we couldn't hear on a freq we checked our phones. Most of the time, problem solved.

On GIISPs 2001-2003.

[tommoutrie]

The problem isn't that modern mobile phones cause modern aircraft systems to go bananas. The problem is that when a bunch of people are yabbering away on their phones they are not receptive to instructions from crew members. The general hubub and babble means that even people not on their phones don't listen either. Belts don't get put on, emergence briefs aren't listened to and the result is a herd of monkeys that don't act properly in the event of an emergency. Old analogue phones did cause problems - the transmission power of an old analogue phone was up to 4 watts and I still have a panasonic in the garage that has an output power of 4 watts. But modern digital phones transmit up to 0.5w and to preserve battery life usually transmit about a tenth of that. So other than the characteristic polling noise that is usually caused by me leaving my own phone on in the cockpit I find it hard to believe that serious technical problems can be caused by phones being switched on.

But in the event of needing to evacuate an aircraft in a hurry I can well imagine that having a significant proportion of them yabbering away to their mistresses could cause a dangerous delay. Getting the folks in the back to sit still and be alert to messages is a good idea.

The shape of a mobile phone mast transciever means that the beam is horizontally polarised and doesnt really work over a couple of thousand feet in most circumstances. So the polling for a cell by a phone increases dramatically once at height. Which runs down the battery and is bloody annoying if it causes radio interference (but to be fair, the only phone thats ever caused that on an aircraft I've been flying is my own).

Devices exist which detect a polling phone. If it was a problem the crew would sweep the cabin before take off. They don't, and there's the clue.

[gleaf]

Just think of all the business and financial data you could suck off of all of those poorly protected phones while on the plane with you.. And they could never claim privacy... after all what privacy in an over sized city bus with wings. Perhaps this should be looked at as a coming business opportunity. Fresh Insider Data for Euros.... Dollars.. etc :E

[FlightPathOBN]

Aviation tech cannot be accessed by outsiders. Android or otherwise.

Actually, that is not correct. There are several methods to gain access into the system, especially if you have permission.

[avina]

I heard recently that the FCC keeps the restriction in place because phones accessing cell towers from altitude can cause them to to all wonky? Would be funny for all of this to mainly be a ground based problem.

[3db]

The old analog & digital technology did fall over if many cell registrations were attempted from a signal mobile, such as from an aircraft where the phone can receive many base stations due to its height - it was designed as a ground based communications system. However, the whole question needs to consider that the AC is generally a well designed and maintained bit of kit. The phone is mass produced to the cheapest price and is more likely to emit spurious signals than an AC. If things do go wrong, the AC problem is more likely to be picked up at the appropriate maintenance period. When was the last time you had your mobile phoned checked/serviced? And even if you have, I would guess price was a driving force in the job, and not standards. If you want to prevent the possibility of an accident due to radio interference, mobiles need to be off (or in flight mode) during flight. Taking a domestic piece of kit into a professional AC and *never* expecting interference is "pie in the sky" - unless its in flight mode. If you wanted to test every phone ever produced against every AC ever produced, to see if they interfer, you could. However, it would be prohibativly expensive. Much safer/cheaper to require all mobiles be turned off.

[WhyByFlier]

A320 fcom fcb electronic interference from portable equipment carried on by passengers:

airlines often wonder whether they should allow passengers to operate electronic devices in the cabin without any limit. Federal aviation regulation (far) section 91.19 allows passengers to operate: • portable voice recorders • hearing aids • heart pacemakers • electric shavers • any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. It is obvious that the myriad portable devices that now exists or that may be available in the future cannot be tested. ‐ as far as aircraft specific electrical flight controls and engine control computers on airbus aircraft are concerned, there is no chance of their operation being affected by passenger-operated electronic devices, due to the high level of protection applied to these systems. ‐ nevertheless, this question arises for navigation and communication receivers and is applicable to any aircraft. A study has been conducted by an rtca (radio technical commission for aeronautics) special commitee. ‐ the conclusion is that the probability of a passenger-operated device interfering with the ils localizer during a typical flight is about one in a million. Airbus industrie recommendations is that no portable device should be used during take-off and landing. ‐ concerning radio phones airbus industrie recommends to prohibit the use of those devices.

[jackharr]

We tried a little experiment one CAVOK day by testing a mobile in flight.

The CDI bar and VOR needles went mad. “Well, there is some truth in the don’t-use-in-flight idea”.

Actually, we had flown directly over the Newcastle VOR, hence the indications! Nothing to do with the use of the phone.

[mono]

There are several systems that can be installed on aircraft, from corporate to commercial, that allow the use of mobile phones. There are several Airbus SB's for GSM on board systems for example (called OMTS). I know this as we have it installed on our aircraft (A319)

These systems install a pico cell on the 'plane that effectively vastly reduces the phones power output so that interference is less likely. The installation of these systems also requires an EMI check following installation to ensure no unexpected interference occurs.

The system works worldwide, except in the airspace of those countries where the regulatory authorities do not allow its use. In which case the on board pico cell shuts down and mobile phone signs illuminate.

I have it on good authority (the system provider) that in the vast majority of airspace where the system cannot be used (the USA is a notable exception) the reasons are financial and not due to safety concerns. In a nutshell the ground based regulators want a slice of the cake for allowing use of mobile phones in their airspace.

As has been stated before, the original thread has nothing to do with the use of 'phones on board aircraft, but refers to hacking into ground/air datalinks or interfering with navigation signals which could be done from anywhere and would require quite a bit more than a mobile phone 'app'.

[fendant]

No quality airline should allow the use of cell phones in flight because it presents a nuisance for fellow travellers! If some LCC's need the extra revenue and/or need to lure young very important consultant kids to fill their planes, ok.

Imagine a business cabin full of Italians ( or any other heavy communicating nation ) constantly using their phones on a night flight and you can clearly imagine this horror scenarion. Contrary to AI pilots I need my good sleep in flight mode and be fit on arrival.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.........because it presents a nuisance for fellow travellers !

Great Britain built an Empire before the use of cellphones, Bearers delivering messages in the cleft of forked sticks worked very well.

The fact that the actions of Carruthers at the extremity of the Empire couldn't be instantly advised to the seat of Government, was a Good Thing.

Ever since then it has been downhill.

Ban the b****dy things.

[Mr Whippy]

There was a Q400 in Australia some years ago that declared an emergency and diverted to Sydney due to a baggage compartment fire indication. Fire bottles were discharged and pax evacuated on a taxiway... the cause? Mobile phone in checked baggage that had been left on intefered with smoke detectors.

Lucky there were no animals in the hold as they wouldn't have coped too well once extinguishers were fired.

[Alanwsg]

Seems to make little difference no matter what the airlines/FAA/CAA/Pprune members decide ....

Rules, shmules: Fliers leaving devices switched on in droves ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/in_flight_devices_study/)

[radiosutch]

A lot of rubbish is spouted here from some folk that know nothing about EMI in modern kit. Cellphones should not 'interfere' with any modern aircraft receiver.

No avionics operates on cellphone frequencies
No cellphone operates on avionics frequencies

Therefore there are only two main possibilities

The airborne receiver has spurious response on cell phone frequencies or it is overloaded by the cellphone either at RF, IF or even in the audio chain.
The option is to make a better receiver, adequately filtered.
or
The cellphone has a spurious output, a spur that is slap bang on a used avionic frequency. This may be more likely as they are cheaply made but phones are certified under FCC regulations to not produce out of band frequencies above a certain level.

The possibility of the second option is low IMHO due to the nature of the emissions from cellphones. Therefore Airbus et al need to spend a few more pennies adding some caps, ferrite cores, stub filters or whatever to stop their avionics responding to out of band signals.

Simple.

[toffeez]

... because if anyone sitting near me starts yelling into one I'll grab it and use it as a blunt weapon.

[Mungo Man]

I'm always confused and amused to be told upon landing, when paxing with with easyJet, that mobiles must remain switched off until inside the terminal building. When I'm at work at the same airport there is no mention of such a rule and we use mobiles with impunity right up until push back. Not that anyone listens anyway, while said announcement is being made a cacophony of beeps and rings fills the cabin.

[llondel]

It is possible for a transmitter to interfere with nearby electronics, anyone who's held a GSM phone near their hifi has probably heard the characteristic noise it makes.

All electronic kit that has regulatory approval is tested to check that it is immune to such interference, up to a given field strength. For consumer kit that's usually 2V/m, for vehicles I think it's 50V/m. I don't know if aircraft are considered to be vehicles or whether there is a more specific standard, but there should be a documented set of tests on an aircraft with the equipment fitted.

However, it is always possible that limits can be exceeded, there are tales of the road past RAF Fylingdales where vehicles would misbehave if the radar was operational, and field strengths in excess of 50V/m have supposedly been recorded. That's over 6.6W/m^2 when expressed as a power density. A mobile phone doesn't put out much power, but if it happens to excite a resonant structure, it can generate quite a high field strength. One cannot be sure that there isn't such a structure, which could be a bit of metal trim on a suitcase in a particular place in the hold close to some of the internal wiring. A possible hole in the cheese.

There is also the fact that the test sample passed, but if someone missed a bolt, or a bit of corrosion has occurred in the wrong place, a production unit may be susceptible to a bit of RF power. One would hope that with all the checks on aircraft that this is unlikely, but for corrosion to be found it has to exist for some time between checks. It's another hole in the cheese.

On a purely practical note, GSM has a speed limit. If you're flying towards the phone mast at 500mph then it's not going to cope too well, although one off to the side will have a lower relative speed and it's going to work. If you're sticking to lower speeds under FL100 then you'll probably get away with it down that low.

To finish on a personal note, I think anyone wanting to use a mobile phone on an aircraft should be aware that the fuselage is going to degrade the signal, and also that other passengers may not appreciate the phone use, and so go outside to make the call.:}

[crippen]

'there are tales of the road past RAF Fylingdales where vehicles would misbehave if the radar was operational,'

My own car in the U.K.,a Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD used to drop into emergency get you home mode when driving past Fylingdales 'secret' Radar Station. Stop at the bottom of the hill,switch engine off,wait a few minutes,and all ok.again. Not possible with an aircraft. But their radar is POWERFULL.

[YorkshireTyke]

........and also that other passengers may not appreciate the phone use, and so go outside to make the call.

Preferably at 35,000 ft !!

There's more chance of people annoying other passengers by using a mobile phone than there is of them blowing up the aircraft as a terrorist, so let's turn all the airport security devices into mobile phone detectors - and confiscate them.

Not so many years ago passengers were totally incommunicado for up to 12 or more hours once they boarded an aircraft. The World didn't end, nothing is that important.

[skkm]

No avionics operates on cellphone frequencies
No cellphone operates on avionics frequencies


DME: 962~1213 MHz.
GSM: 800~2100 MHz.

[Yankee Whisky]

If there is the slightest possibility of these devices causing serious problems

then it makes sense to request non-use during critical aircraft flight stages.

Period !

We should not underestimate capabilities of these electronic devises,

particularly in the hands of ill intended individuals.

[asdf1234]

If you are sat next to one of those cerebrally impaired :mad: who continues to use his mobile phone once push back has started ask him/her to turn it off. If they don't then push the button above your head and get the cabin crew to confiscate it.

At the same time ask the cabin crew to remove the offending :mad: lifejacket from under his/her seat and that their cabin luggage be removed to the back of the aircraft.

Why?

1. Because if they can't read the safety card, can't understand the pre-flight safety demo or simply won't listen to it, they will in case of an emergency evacuation attempt to inflate their life jacket before exiting the aircraft or will stop to collect their belongings; both actions putting the other pax at risk. That they will do this is a certainty as they have already displayed their total disregard for safety on-board by using their mobile. In other words if they act like an idiot safety dictates that you treat them as an idiot.

2. By confiscating their lifejacket and cabin luggage people will in time understand that they have to adhere to the safety card instructions.

Irrespective it is always good fun to confront the :mad: as it is an argument they can't win. I don't think I've had a scheduled flight in the past 5 years where I've not had to ask someone to turn it off. The usual argument "are you the mobile phone police?" is met with a firm "Yes" and then a request for the cabin crew to intervene.

Although I understand the need for people to discuss here what it is about mobiles that can or cannot cause problems on-board an aircraft, the debate should happen here and not on-board an aircraft. The safety card tells passengers not to do it so please don't. If you don't like it - take a different form of transport.

[toffeez]

Here here!

Infernal devices relied upon by scatterbrains who can't get the timing of anything right.

A plane is one of the few places I wouldn't hesitate to pick an argument with someone bigger, stronger and uglier.

[Lberto]

Very interesting thread, I would like to post my thoughts in random order

-Interference from mobiles can hit not only a radio receiver but also any other electronic device from inflight entertainment to navaids,depending on distance/design/sensitivity/shielding

-I hate human-generated noises on flights , I'm even happy when nobody sitting around me either knows each other (so there is no chat) , or uses headphones at blasting level.

-Unfortunately with modern smartphone and tablets , if the connection is fast enough , you can "phone" somebody else from a wi-fi equipped ariliner ( I just texted the family with What's app from a LH flight - connection offered by LH as a gift) and yes, my fellow compatriotes are very prone to shout in a mobile regardless of the surrounding environment and/or quiet zone.

-I remind reported , if not "certified" , cases at the dawn of E-tacs cellphones, like autopilot disengagement on final beacuse of a phone call (may be incoming).

-On an Alitalia flight to Rome in short final I saw an assistant seizing the cellphone of a passenger who reiteratedly made calls while close to landing.