What would you have done?
Guest
Posts: n/a
CaptHairDryer
I am with you 100%. It is Jettesen, who responded to me, that needs to worry about himself more and about your job less. I have full confidence that a little audible buzz won't bring down a $50,000,000 machine. I think that your point about not turning the phone off, the countless phones left on, by accident or ignorance prove that the phones do not have a SERIOUS adverse effect on avionics and communication equipment. I've been in cockpits where the phones rang, cigarettes were lit, FMC was changed "for a demo" and somehow we all survived. I think that we all agree the accidents are never caused by a single factor but always because several factors are compounded. I think that even the most irresponsible captain would not have answered the phone if he was landing in fog, heavy rain etc.
I am with you 100%. It is Jettesen, who responded to me, that needs to worry about himself more and about your job less. I have full confidence that a little audible buzz won't bring down a $50,000,000 machine. I think that your point about not turning the phone off, the countless phones left on, by accident or ignorance prove that the phones do not have a SERIOUS adverse effect on avionics and communication equipment. I've been in cockpits where the phones rang, cigarettes were lit, FMC was changed "for a demo" and somehow we all survived. I think that we all agree the accidents are never caused by a single factor but always because several factors are compounded. I think that even the most irresponsible captain would not have answered the phone if he was landing in fog, heavy rain etc.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
From: East of Runway 21
CaptHairDryer,
While the captain on the flight concerned might have seen fit to answer his phone while on appraoch, I doubt if CASA would have found it 'funny'. Not for the interference aspect but for the situational awareness and concentration factor. Have to say if I was jumpseating and a crew member proceeded to take a call on the flight deck, except in an emergency and ifabsolutely unavoidably necessary (i.e., in a hijacking or whatever), I'd find it necessary to report them. I don't care who they are or how 'funny' it seems. There's a reason for SOPs and until you're the guy writing and approving them...
I know I'm not a pilot, so maybe there's some aspect I've missed (do inform me if so
), but that sounds just plain idiotic.
Remind me next time my pax complain about using phones on the tarmac, to send them across to yours.
Sky
While the captain on the flight concerned might have seen fit to answer his phone while on appraoch, I doubt if CASA would have found it 'funny'. Not for the interference aspect but for the situational awareness and concentration factor. Have to say if I was jumpseating and a crew member proceeded to take a call on the flight deck, except in an emergency and ifabsolutely unavoidably necessary (i.e., in a hijacking or whatever), I'd find it necessary to report them. I don't care who they are or how 'funny' it seems. There's a reason for SOPs and until you're the guy writing and approving them...
I know I'm not a pilot, so maybe there's some aspect I've missed (do inform me if so
), but that sounds just plain idiotic.Remind me next time my pax complain about using phones on the tarmac, to send them across to yours.
Sky
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Berks, UK
"I have full confidence that a little audible buzz won't bring down a $50,000,000 machine."
"..by accident or ignorance prove that the phones do not have a SERIOUS adverse effect on avionics.."
"I think that we all agree the accidents are never caused by a single factor but always because several factors are compounded."
So that makes it acceptable to have a link or two in the chain then?
Which other SOP's and reg's do you treat with such blatant disregard?
V1? V2? MTOW? I can't believe I'm reading this...
"..by accident or ignorance prove that the phones do not have a SERIOUS adverse effect on avionics.."
"I think that we all agree the accidents are never caused by a single factor but always because several factors are compounded."
So that makes it acceptable to have a link or two in the chain then?
Which other SOP's and reg's do you treat with such blatant disregard?
V1? V2? MTOW? I can't believe I'm reading this...
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
From: About 3000 below Midhurst SID I reckon
, can you get reception at 40000'? I can't!)
Right. [Rant mode on]
Does anyone here, or indeed in any professional body, anywhere worldwide have cast-iron PROOF that the use of mobile phones on board aircraft most definitely do not, have never and will never affect any of the avionics, IFE or instrumentation on any type of aircraft in civil aviation???
No?
Then lets play it safe, keep mobiles off, unless permitted by the local licencing avition authority, commander/Captain of the aircraft you're on, or by mean of new sat comms technology via the agreed methods.
I have witnessed inteference with ILS, IFE and radio comms. The reason the interference was blamed on the mobile was because when it was discovered and switched off, the inteference ended. One occasion of which was found to be related solely to a laptop during cruise which had the WiFi selected. Once switched off, all was fine.
So please, this thread has been discussed over and over and over again, and everytime reaches no conclusion, goes nowhere.
Governing bodies, from various sources and from investigations, have decided it is possibly unsafe to use mobiles and electronic devices at certain phases of flight, therefore, keep them switched off!!!
[Rant mode off]
Last edited by sixmilehighclub; 15th March 2006 at 10:54.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Berks, UK
SMHC,
I'm with you 100%.
During my three year aircraft engineering apprenticeship, safety and compliance with rules were drummed into me over and over, and until it has been proved and approved that mobiles don't cause interference (which they do, see my earlier threads and your personal experience), they MUST NOT BE USED.
I can't believe that some of the postings on this thread have been made by so-called 'professional' aviators...
I'm with you 100%.
During my three year aircraft engineering apprenticeship, safety and compliance with rules were drummed into me over and over, and until it has been proved and approved that mobiles don't cause interference (which they do, see my earlier threads and your personal experience), they MUST NOT BE USED.
I can't believe that some of the postings on this thread have been made by so-called 'professional' aviators...
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
From: East of Runway 21
keep mobiles off, unless permitted by the local licencing avition authority, commander/Captain of the aircraft you're on
My belief is the only way you can keep things operating safely is to obey the rules and stick to them consistently until you are told otherwise or the rule is changed. We haven't got where we are in Aus aviation by breaking all the rules...
(Edited for crap typos)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Originally Posted by sixmilehighclub
Why is that relevant CHD? It's not the phone ringing that causes interference (that affects electronics more than avionics). It's the handset searching for a signal that causes the inteference as it tries to communicate with any thing thats transmitting in range at the time.
Also the phone does NOT try to "communicate with any thing thats transmitting in range at the time" -- that really is absolute nonsense. It LISTENS.
Phones are operating on 850MHz through to 2.1 GHz. That means the transmit frequencies are well above that used for conventional avionics and aircraft communications. Harmonic products from these frequencies fall at higher frequencies.
Differing systems are used worldwide. GSM (as in the UK, Europe and much of the world) uses digital encoding time-division multiplexing on 900Mhz, 1800MHz and 1900MHz (in North America). Other systems use CDMA (code division multiple access) which is a low-power spread-spectrum system). 3G uses wide-band CDMA at 2.1GHz.
None of these systems is at all likely to interfere with aircraft systems such as VORs, ILS, ACARS or whatever. Doesn't screw up your laptop, digital watch, microwave oven, television or whatever does it? Doesn't even screw up the phone of the person next to you, even though that's using the same waveband. Not likely to screw up a $150m aircraft then, surely?
What happens when an airplane is autolanding within 100 yards range of several airport based 100 watt cellular towers carrying hundreds of calls? No problem. Why would a 500mW cellular phone make it crash and burn?
The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.
Now, before you all leap down my throat, I obey the rules and instructions given me by CC even though I know it's all complete nonsense.
But rules is rules.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane
Originally Posted by SkySista
I know I'm not a pilot, so maybe there's some aspect I've missed
Hang on my phones ringing....
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,585
Likes: 0
From: UK
I debated whether or not to delete this trash: In the end, decided to leave it, since nothing I could say could possibly reveal more about how much of a **** CaptHairDryer is than a simple read of his/her own words throughout this thread.
Answer if you must, but bear in mind that in terms of intellectual challenge, a conversation with CaptHairDryer is likely to be the equivalent of a conversation with a tree stump.
Answer if you must, but bear in mind that in terms of intellectual challenge, a conversation with CaptHairDryer is likely to be the equivalent of a conversation with a tree stump.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
From: East of Runway 21
you'd be the one that calls Captains by their christian names I bet
Not much else to be said really. Coat, door, goodbye.
