Mobiles ring out air warning
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobiles ring out air warning
Mon "The Australian"
Mobiles ring out air warning
By Ian Gerard
September 15, 2003
Passenger interference on our airlines
It's official: mobile phones and other electronic devices can significantly interfere with a plane's navigational equipment.
That's the finding of the first comprehensive study of such use, carried out by the British Civil Aviation Authority, and it has prompted a fresh warning to Australian airlines and passengers that using a mobile during take-off or landing can be disastrous.
It is a Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirement that airlines ban the use of mobile phones and other equipment such as lap-top computers during flights, but some passengers continue to use them.
Interference from portable electronic devices or mobile phones has resulted in more than 100 air safety incidents in the past 10 years, according to the Australian Air Transport Safety Bureau.
In one incident last year, pilots on a NSW flight became concerned when the plane started rocking slightly from side to side while under the control of the autopilot.
Cabin crew found a passenger was using a lap-top computer and when it was turned off all problems stopped.
The British study, which involved using mobile phones on passenger-less flights, found that electrical equipment could cause compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.
Cabin crew have the power to make passengers turn their electronic equipment off, confiscate it or have them charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft if they refuse to comply.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said most incidents were a result of passengers simply forgetting their mobiles were turned on.
"It's a manageable problem but it does show that the potential for something to go seriously wrong does exist and it's just not a request for some spurious reason," Mr Gibson said.
"Using them during take-off or landing is a concern because that's a time when the pilots are really busy and relying on their equipment."
Virgin Blue spokesman David Hutton said the overwhelming majority of passengers co-operated with instructions to turn off their mobile phones or hand-held computers.
"We do our utmost to make sure, both through announcements and doing a final check of the cabin to make sure that nobody is using their mobile telephones on the aircraft," he said.
"They emit a signal, as anyone who has their car radio on would know, that it's not only important that people are not talking on the phone but they are actually switched off."
==========================================
Switched-on devices court disaster
Passenger electronic interference on Australian flights:
February 8, 2003: On take-off from Sydney, pilots on 737-300 found the flight - management system map display kept changing, rendering it useless. Passenger using electronic device.
September 2, 2002: Pilots on 737-800 leaving Sydney noticed uncommanded pick- up and thrust reduction at 18,000ft. Passenger forgot to turn mobile off.
June 8, 2002: Flight crew on 767-200 found auto-pilot switched off and plane swaying 5 degrees left and right for 10 to 15 seconds. Passenger using laptop computer.
May 1, 2002: Proximity warning system terrain alert sounded on twin-engine plane flying at 5000ft, 22km southwest of Sydney. Passenger using mobile.
April 23, 2002: Pilots on 767-300 from Brisbane experienced unexpected flight management computer readings. Passenger using laptop.
February 9, 2002: Pilots flying 767-300 from Manila to Sydney experienced the disconnection of the auto-pilot and auto-throttle. Passenger using electronic translator.
==========================================
CASA Media Release - Monday, 15 September 2003
New warning: Turn off mobiles in the air
A fresh warning has been issued to aircraft passengers to switch off mobile telephones and other electronic devices during flights.
This follows mounting evidence of interference to aircraft instruments and systems caused by electronic devices.
More than 100 air safety incidents related to interference from portable electronic devices have been reported in Australia in the last ten years.
A recent report from the crew operating a 737 aircraft out of Sydney linked an uncommanded pitch up and reduction in thrust to an active mobile telephone.
Other incidents linked to portable electronic devices include:
Interference to radio transmissions
Autopilot malfunctions, including uncommanded climb, oscillations and disengagement
False readings from flight management computers
GPS navigation system failures
False alerts from engine warning systems.
The dangers of using mobile telephones and other electronic devices in-flight are set out in an article in the latest edition of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Flight Safety Australia magazine.
The article says that while proving a link between electronic devices and in-flight incidents has been difficult in the past, evidence is increasing and is being supported by controlled testing.
The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority has just carried out the most definitive study of electronic interference, finding a range of problems caused by mobile telephone transmissions.
In a controlled test environment mobile telephone radiation caused compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.
The Flight Safety Australia article calls on aircraft cabin crew to take firm action where passengers use electronic devices when they are prohibited and to make a detailed report of all incidents.
Current CASA regulations give aircraft crew the power to prohibit the use of any device which can threaten the safety of an aircraft.
Under proposed new regulations the use of mobile telephones and other electronic transmitters will be prohibited at all times, while devices such as laptop computers, video cameras and electronic games will be prohibited during take-off and landings or at the direction of crew.
Media contact
Peter Gibson
Ph 0419 296 446
Ref: MR0346
=============================================
Mobiles ring out air warning
By Ian Gerard
September 15, 2003
Passenger interference on our airlines
It's official: mobile phones and other electronic devices can significantly interfere with a plane's navigational equipment.
That's the finding of the first comprehensive study of such use, carried out by the British Civil Aviation Authority, and it has prompted a fresh warning to Australian airlines and passengers that using a mobile during take-off or landing can be disastrous.
It is a Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirement that airlines ban the use of mobile phones and other equipment such as lap-top computers during flights, but some passengers continue to use them.
Interference from portable electronic devices or mobile phones has resulted in more than 100 air safety incidents in the past 10 years, according to the Australian Air Transport Safety Bureau.
In one incident last year, pilots on a NSW flight became concerned when the plane started rocking slightly from side to side while under the control of the autopilot.
Cabin crew found a passenger was using a lap-top computer and when it was turned off all problems stopped.
The British study, which involved using mobile phones on passenger-less flights, found that electrical equipment could cause compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.
Cabin crew have the power to make passengers turn their electronic equipment off, confiscate it or have them charged with endangering the safety of an aircraft if they refuse to comply.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said most incidents were a result of passengers simply forgetting their mobiles were turned on.
"It's a manageable problem but it does show that the potential for something to go seriously wrong does exist and it's just not a request for some spurious reason," Mr Gibson said.
"Using them during take-off or landing is a concern because that's a time when the pilots are really busy and relying on their equipment."
Virgin Blue spokesman David Hutton said the overwhelming majority of passengers co-operated with instructions to turn off their mobile phones or hand-held computers.
"We do our utmost to make sure, both through announcements and doing a final check of the cabin to make sure that nobody is using their mobile telephones on the aircraft," he said.
"They emit a signal, as anyone who has their car radio on would know, that it's not only important that people are not talking on the phone but they are actually switched off."
==========================================
Switched-on devices court disaster
Passenger electronic interference on Australian flights:
February 8, 2003: On take-off from Sydney, pilots on 737-300 found the flight - management system map display kept changing, rendering it useless. Passenger using electronic device.
September 2, 2002: Pilots on 737-800 leaving Sydney noticed uncommanded pick- up and thrust reduction at 18,000ft. Passenger forgot to turn mobile off.
June 8, 2002: Flight crew on 767-200 found auto-pilot switched off and plane swaying 5 degrees left and right for 10 to 15 seconds. Passenger using laptop computer.
May 1, 2002: Proximity warning system terrain alert sounded on twin-engine plane flying at 5000ft, 22km southwest of Sydney. Passenger using mobile.
April 23, 2002: Pilots on 767-300 from Brisbane experienced unexpected flight management computer readings. Passenger using laptop.
February 9, 2002: Pilots flying 767-300 from Manila to Sydney experienced the disconnection of the auto-pilot and auto-throttle. Passenger using electronic translator.
==========================================
CASA Media Release - Monday, 15 September 2003
New warning: Turn off mobiles in the air
A fresh warning has been issued to aircraft passengers to switch off mobile telephones and other electronic devices during flights.
This follows mounting evidence of interference to aircraft instruments and systems caused by electronic devices.
More than 100 air safety incidents related to interference from portable electronic devices have been reported in Australia in the last ten years.
A recent report from the crew operating a 737 aircraft out of Sydney linked an uncommanded pitch up and reduction in thrust to an active mobile telephone.
Other incidents linked to portable electronic devices include:
Interference to radio transmissions
Autopilot malfunctions, including uncommanded climb, oscillations and disengagement
False readings from flight management computers
GPS navigation system failures
False alerts from engine warning systems.
The dangers of using mobile telephones and other electronic devices in-flight are set out in an article in the latest edition of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Flight Safety Australia magazine.
The article says that while proving a link between electronic devices and in-flight incidents has been difficult in the past, evidence is increasing and is being supported by controlled testing.
The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority has just carried out the most definitive study of electronic interference, finding a range of problems caused by mobile telephone transmissions.
In a controlled test environment mobile telephone radiation caused compass freeze, navigation instrument errors, communication interference and false warning reports.
The Flight Safety Australia article calls on aircraft cabin crew to take firm action where passengers use electronic devices when they are prohibited and to make a detailed report of all incidents.
Current CASA regulations give aircraft crew the power to prohibit the use of any device which can threaten the safety of an aircraft.
Under proposed new regulations the use of mobile telephones and other electronic transmitters will be prohibited at all times, while devices such as laptop computers, video cameras and electronic games will be prohibited during take-off and landings or at the direction of crew.
Media contact
Peter Gibson
Ph 0419 296 446
Ref: MR0346
=============================================
Last edited by Wirraway; 15th Sep 2003 at 13:47.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: aus
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of CRAPOLA
Alarmist, un founded, unproven superstition
Proof that alittle knowledge can be dangerous
If the EMF contained within electronic components can effect electronic components of aircraft can effect their systems, then god help us if we ever get a solar flare (oh how silly of me we get them all the time
)
Radiated EMR from a transmitting device sucha as a mobile telephone is unlikely in the extreme to interfear with aircraft systems. If it did, then it would only be for a very short period, whilst it attempts to log on to a cell, as conversations on digital mobiles (the only ones that are at all likely to cause interference)are not possible in flight under the vast majority of circumstances. Short transmissions such as these WOULD SIMPLYH NOT interfear with systems for more than the duration of the transmission (maybe as much as one second).
CLAPTRAP
UNPROVABLE
ALARMIST
MEDIA GRABBING.
DONT FALL FOR IT.
Alarmist, un founded, unproven superstition
Proof that alittle knowledge can be dangerous
If the EMF contained within electronic components can effect electronic components of aircraft can effect their systems, then god help us if we ever get a solar flare (oh how silly of me we get them all the time
)Radiated EMR from a transmitting device sucha as a mobile telephone is unlikely in the extreme to interfear with aircraft systems. If it did, then it would only be for a very short period, whilst it attempts to log on to a cell, as conversations on digital mobiles (the only ones that are at all likely to cause interference)are not possible in flight under the vast majority of circumstances. Short transmissions such as these WOULD SIMPLYH NOT interfear with systems for more than the duration of the transmission (maybe as much as one second).
CLAPTRAP
UNPROVABLE
ALARMIST
MEDIA GRABBING.
DONT FALL FOR IT.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it does sound convincing, especially bearing in mind that they've researched this at length.
That having been said though, I can personally verify that neither use of a mobile or laptop has any effect on a C210...but you didn't need me to tell you that.
520.
That having been said though, I can personally verify that neither use of a mobile or laptop has any effect on a C210...but you didn't need me to tell you that.
520.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the question that is not getting asked is why are these aircraft systems so susceptible to electronic radiation from Mobile Phones and Laptops.
CLAPTRAP
UNPROVABLE
ALARMIST
MEDIA GRABBING.
DONT FALL FOR IT.
UNPROVABLE
ALARMIST
MEDIA GRABBING.
DONT FALL FOR IT.
I'm glad you're so positive about it, because I am equally sure that I really did see the outflow valves on the 747 classic I was on, on the ground, shut all by themselves. The FE ran back to the upper deck and found a passenger that was talking on a mobile and got him to turn it off. At the same time he did that, the outflow valves both opened up again.
This is a known occurance with 747 Classics.
I also have spoken with the ex-boss of Air Safety in Fiji who saw in person the needles on the VOR in his light plane go beserk when his passenger used a mobile on the plane. Again it stopped as soon as the phone was turned off.
There's a LOT more examples if you care to extract your head.
However, Boeing have made an effort to improve the internal protection from RF interference - They have tested the 777 when full of employees that were asked to carry everything electrical they could with them, and then use it.
There were no effects on that flight.
Mobiles + aeroplanes = bad, period.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In NZ the cabin crew only have the power to ensure that passengers are seated and have their belts on, although this may change in the near future.
Under NZCAR's the pilot in command is the one with the power.
Under NZCAR's the pilot in command is the one with the power.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Darwin, Mostly.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interferrence??
I put it to you that if the max signal strength of 600mW from a mobile phone interferes with aircraft systems, then they must get a real belting from approach radar sweeps.
Haven't heard of any serious incidents caused by flying through a radar lobe on approach anywhere.
If the systems are so susceptible from internal EMF sources, I suggest the systems are in a serious state. My mobile phone can ring while sitting on my laptop and neither interferes with the other.
Haven't heard of any serious incidents caused by flying through a radar lobe on approach anywhere.
If the systems are so susceptible from internal EMF sources, I suggest the systems are in a serious state. My mobile phone can ring while sitting on my laptop and neither interferes with the other.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to reply, and also say that this is the biggest load of rubbish ever, however I just read it again and the way it is worded, it could be true? 
It does say "passenger" interference.
Certainly does not apply to Crew, as I have personally spent many hundreds of hours in flight in Cockpits, with at least one and sometimes all three of us, using mobile phones with NO problems at all.
It's those pax you have to watch.
It does say "passenger" interference.
Certainly does not apply to Crew, as I have personally spent many hundreds of hours in flight in Cockpits, with at least one and sometimes all three of us, using mobile phones with NO problems at all.
It's those pax you have to watch.
I put it to you that if the max signal strength of 600mW from a mobile phone interferes with aircraft systems, then they must get a real belting from approach radar sweeps.
Good question, and I think the answer is that it's because like a lightning bolt it comes from outside the aeroplane. The structure of the plane acts like a faraday cage, and so very little energy goes into the plane.
Something like a mobile phone transmits all its energy from inside, so it can't go anywhere else.
FWIW, had a mate who worked at the radar section of either Williamtown or Richmond, can't remember, and he told me of the times that they used to vector F-18's towards incoming airliner flights over the Pacific, just for intercept practice. They'd break away many miles away so the pax couldn't see the jets and get worried, but they had to stop the prcatice because some of the airliners were reporting interference with the avionics - The fighters were locking on with the intercept radar - and with a typical Boeing they could get down to (say) 15 miles before it was a problem, about double that for the Airbus's.
That's focused energy onto the plane, so more relevent than a general radar sweep.
Good question, and I think the answer is that it's because like a lightning bolt it comes from outside the aeroplane. The structure of the plane acts like a faraday cage, and so very little energy goes into the plane.
Something like a mobile phone transmits all its energy from inside, so it can't go anywhere else.
FWIW, had a mate who worked at the radar section of either Williamtown or Richmond, can't remember, and he told me of the times that they used to vector F-18's towards incoming airliner flights over the Pacific, just for intercept practice. They'd break away many miles away so the pax couldn't see the jets and get worried, but they had to stop the prcatice because some of the airliners were reporting interference with the avionics - The fighters were locking on with the intercept radar - and with a typical Boeing they could get down to (say) 15 miles before it was a problem, about double that for the Airbus's.
That's focused energy onto the plane, so more relevent than a general radar sweep.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it’s a bunch of crap too.
I fly with a four man crew in helicopter, so it’s a small area, it has an FMS, EFIS screens, tens of black boxes, 4 axis autopilot, auto hover systems, and 4, no, make that 5 (the machine has one integrated as well) mobile phones… all turned on. It all works perfectly.
Why doesn’t a 100 watt VHF radio interfere? Radar? Nav stations? TV stations? Think of all the radio / HF / side band emissions out there.
The only radio type interference I have ever seen is, on one machine, if you transmitted on the HF whilst hooked up, the nose would pitch up slightly….but of course that will also light up a fluro tube next to the aerial, so I can understand that that may interfere. But 600 millwatts? I don’t think so.
I would suggest mostly coincidence and it also makes a good story in the engineer’s office at smoko.
I think it’s a bunch of crap too.
It's been missed, so I'll write it again -
I have actually seen it happen.
It wasn't my imagination.
It was a coincidence.
It's real, though hard to reproduce and no doubt not as common as some people think.
It's been missed, so I'll write it again -
I have actually seen it happen.
It wasn't my imagination.
It was a coincidence.
It's real, though hard to reproduce and no doubt not as common as some people think.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF mobile phones could really do half the things to Aircraft that some people would have you believe, then it is THOSE Aircraft that should be grounded, not the mobile phones.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my mind, the jury is still out on this issue. I can tell you, however, that I recently flew as SLF from Perth to Sydney on a QF A330. It wasn't until I was in the terminal at Sydney that I reached into my bag to turn my mobile on that I discovered it had been on the whole time! 
The bag it was in was in the luggage bin above my head right throughout the flight. There were no untoward oscillations during the flight. There was no search for an electronic device. Nothing but a hassle free and mostly enjoyable flight.
The flight DID arrive in Sydney a tad early... maybe it was my phone that made the aeroplane fly faster?
The bag it was in was in the luggage bin above my head right throughout the flight. There were no untoward oscillations during the flight. There was no search for an electronic device. Nothing but a hassle free and mostly enjoyable flight.
The flight DID arrive in Sydney a tad early... maybe it was my phone that made the aeroplane fly faster?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s a good point.
Wonder what percentage of flights have a mobile on inadvertently. I bet it’s better than 50%, and IF that’s the case, why isn’t this HUGE problem.
I think they link the two together,
“..gee we had some problems with the autopilot today”
..”lets rummage around and look for a mobile to blame”
50% of the time they can probably find one.
And the other thing, what sort and how much Electro Magnetic Force is emitted by a bloody lap top?? Have to be 5/8 of f*ck all wouldn’t it?
I wonder whether the frequency of the RF emitted by a cell phone is not the critical factor, rather than the signal strength? From memory, cell phones are around 400 Mhz - probably won't affect radar (around 4 Ghz?) but may affect navigational devices in the UHF range, and through first and second harmonics, devices in the VHf range?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing too, IF these mobiles are as bad as is being made out, including causing outflow valves to run uncommanded on the ground, why is it that they are (unless the rules have changed recently), allowed to be in use in the USA right up until takeoff and again immediately on landing.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Darwin, Mostly.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
GSM (digital) mobiles are generally in the 900Mhz band (860 to 920Mhz) with some small cells in the 1800Mhz band to fill holes in the concrete jungles.
I can see where some of the aruments are coming from and suspect the interference may come from sideband and digital slew products
BUT
if the aircraft systems are effected by the miniscule power levels involved they should be subjected to a very serious EMF susceptabliity check and have the faults rectified PDQ.
I for one would not be happy flying in an electronically controlled box so easily interrupted by stray pulses.
I can see where some of the aruments are coming from and suspect the interference may come from sideband and digital slew products
BUT
if the aircraft systems are effected by the miniscule power levels involved they should be subjected to a very serious EMF susceptabliity check and have the faults rectified PDQ.
I for one would not be happy flying in an electronically controlled box so easily interrupted by stray pulses.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to find out who has been "sponsoring" the research.
I heard a rumour a while back that mobile phone companies were promoting the "turn off" principle in the air because they couldn't triangulate your position on the ground and therefore couldn't charge you. Sounds like a load of cr@p.
I'm not a pilot so I can't vouch for the frequency (or lack thereof) of such occurrences, though they do get reported from time to time. I have certainly heard the "polling" of a mobile on the air from time to time but have never seen it affect their performance
I would guess that, on average, at least one pax leaves their mobile phone on on every flight - just forgetting to turn it off. Don't hear of too many problems out there at the moment.
Not sure exactly of the power ratings of mobile phones, but don't underestimate their power either. Remember that they have enough power to transmit a modulated voice signal (digitally here in OZ anyway) for, say 50km, which is quite a remarkable device for its size.
I heard a rumour a while back that mobile phone companies were promoting the "turn off" principle in the air because they couldn't triangulate your position on the ground and therefore couldn't charge you. Sounds like a load of cr@p.
I'm not a pilot so I can't vouch for the frequency (or lack thereof) of such occurrences, though they do get reported from time to time. I have certainly heard the "polling" of a mobile on the air from time to time but have never seen it affect their performance
I would guess that, on average, at least one pax leaves their mobile phone on on every flight - just forgetting to turn it off. Don't hear of too many problems out there at the moment.
Not sure exactly of the power ratings of mobile phones, but don't underestimate their power either. Remember that they have enough power to transmit a modulated voice signal (digitally here in OZ anyway) for, say 50km, which is quite a remarkable device for its size.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on the "seen it happen" front...
Flew with a student doing VOR approaches a while back and at about 4 miles the CDI went hard right to the stop over about 3 seconds. Student turned right as it went fully left, student turned left as it came back to centre. Start to finish, about 20 seconds.
On the ground, OOPS says I,
'1 missed call'
Dumb student didn't check phones off in the preflight pax brief
Flew with a student doing VOR approaches a while back and at about 4 miles the CDI went hard right to the stop over about 3 seconds. Student turned right as it went fully left, student turned left as it came back to centre. Start to finish, about 20 seconds.
On the ground, OOPS says I,
'1 missed call'
Dumb student didn't check phones off in the preflight pax brief