The guy with the mobile phone
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy with the mobile phone
Guy sitting next to me yesterday on a Ryanair flight, he's happily fiddling with his mobile phone on for the entire journey from take off to touchdown, he intercepted the ILS on his Nokia 6230 and took us down safely. 
What to do ? Gently remind him it should be switched off, or just be a proper travelling gentleman and mind my own ?
Or maybe there's some new bits of regulation I am not aware of ?
Cabin crew were too busy looking after our comfort and safety, and selling scratchcards and raffle tickets !
On an earlier flight, easyjet lost my bag (on a point to point journey !!) with Christmas presents for relatives abroad. Doubt I'll see it before the new year. Anyone in the same situation ?
c'mon let's fly !
What to do ? Gently remind him it should be switched off, or just be a proper travelling gentleman and mind my own ?
Or maybe there's some new bits of regulation I am not aware of ?
Cabin crew were too busy looking after our comfort and safety, and selling scratchcards and raffle tickets !
On an earlier flight, easyjet lost my bag (on a point to point journey !!) with Christmas presents for relatives abroad. Doubt I'll see it before the new year. Anyone in the same situation ?
c'mon let's fly !
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call the cabin crew and get them on the case. If they are bothered about the minimal risk to safety casued by smokers in the toilets ie Smoke Detectors they should certainly be interested in people hazarding safety by using mobile phones in flight.
Last edited by A2QFI; 25th Dec 2006 at 13:37. Reason: typos!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O’Leary’s response was “we flights we don't allow anybody to sleep because we are too busy selling them products." Dont mock the Irish one, he is the future! You get what you pay for or are prepared to pay for? Since fares have come down, the demands and expactations have gone up? 15 years ago, you would have had an uprising for suggesting non smoking flights, now it is the norm. Phones are the future. He is in to make money, and he will once again be a leader where others will follow. We only have ourselves to blame.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The safety risk is only there if everyone on the flight switched their mobiles on at the same time. This sudden surge in power might possibly upset something but its a very big might. Normal use is not a flight risk. I have tested all of the sensitive systems including the HIRF checks on certain wiring looms and never turn my mobile off and have never had any trouble at all. It's only the increase in power trying to connect to a base station that multiplied many time might give a problem. It is probably safer to leave things on rather than have them all switched on at the same time. 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CAA Paper 2003/03
Observations and Conclusions
6.1 The tests revealed various adverse effects on the equipment performance from simulated cellphone interference. Although the equipment demonstrated a satisfactory margin above the original certification criteria for interference susceptibility, that margin was not sufficient to protect against potential cellphone interference under worst case conditions.
6.2 As recorded on the worksheets reproduced in Annex 1, the following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
• Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
• Instability of indicators.
• Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
• VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
• VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
• Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
• Background noise on audio outputs.
6.3 Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
6.4 For the general case, and depending on the other aids available to the flight crew, the consequences of the observed anomalies could include crew distraction, confusion, and loss of confidence in the equipment. The degraded navigation precision could result in an inability to meet required navigation performance with potential adverse effects on aircraft separation and terrain clearance.
6.1 The tests revealed various adverse effects on the equipment performance from simulated cellphone interference. Although the equipment demonstrated a satisfactory margin above the original certification criteria for interference susceptibility, that margin was not sufficient to protect against potential cellphone interference under worst case conditions.
6.2 As recorded on the worksheets reproduced in Annex 1, the following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
• Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
• Instability of indicators.
• Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
• VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
• VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
• Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
• Background noise on audio outputs.
6.3 Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
6.4 For the general case, and depending on the other aids available to the flight crew, the consequences of the observed anomalies could include crew distraction, confusion, and loss of confidence in the equipment. The degraded navigation precision could result in an inability to meet required navigation performance with potential adverse effects on aircraft separation and terrain clearance.
Mobiles and other wireless devices left switched on inadvertently has hopefully been a managed risk in aviation for some years now.
Ryanair's aircraft are all pretty much the same now and I guess that without exception, their fleet's manufacture might postdate the CAA report, and that a fleet such as theirs might be as close to an ideal "control" group in an experiment as any other fleet flying.
Many kinds of wireless devices get carried about the person in a typical aircraft thesedays - a couple of weeks ago I carried four such devices: 2 wireless capable Wiis, a bluetooth mobile and a WiFi / bluetooth mobile into the cabin. Only the latter was part active because it always is I think unless I remove the battery (which I didn't - should I have done? - it's a Nokia 9500.)
Other people will have carried laptops onboard with various types of Wireless connectivity - some will no doubt be part active throughout the flight whether used or not ... and hopefully not a problem.
If it IS a problem then it needs managing because as the OP has indicated, it isn't managed at the moment.
Edit: Actually a search of the CAA document repository for the word "cellular" shows that at least two fairly half-hearted attempts at describing the continuing problems dated November 2005 (CAP 756) and December 2006 (CAP 768) have been published and both put the responsibility on the shoulders of the airlines themselves.
We know what that means then. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
I think I'll just creep back under a light covering of straw and hope for the best again...Squeak Squeak
Last edited by late developer; 25th Dec 2006 at 22:59.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prospect of sitting next to another pax who spends the whole flight jabbering on to their mobile phone is enough to send me scatty. Its bad enough when pax have their laptop PC's on the go for an entire flight but to have a mobile going just isn't on! Its bad enough on the train having to put up with some bird telling one and all about their business/ love life. Will O'Leary have part of a cabin that doesn't enable mobile phone calls to be made and then charge the pax a premium for the peace & quiet?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what Im really worried about is when the likes of FR and EK install their mobile phone transmitters onboard, its going to be much harder for the rest of us to justify to our passengers that mobiles phones are still a danger to our aircraft. Most passengers would not be interested in hearing the technical nitty gritty!!! Id say most FR crew couldnt care less now about the mobile ruling because their training is so minimum that they probably now too think its safe to fly with phones on...after all FR are to allow it in the new year!!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest on mobile phone onboard useage is that signals to the outside will be effectively cut and all will have to be routed through an onboard station which will then charge at a highly inflated rate to connect via a ground station to the phone networks. This apparently is being researched at present by several major airlines.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many airlines seem to tolerate use of mobiles onboard right up to the point of engine start up. I have often wondered whether there's any risk that any GPS/IRS coordination might be compromised in some way by perhaps 100 active mobile phones transmitting text messages during the setup.
I don't understand why PPs haven't been more outspoken about the risks generally. I suppose the reason is that they only know what they are told about the problems, which if the CAA website is anything to go by, isn't much. What they don't know, I guess they imagine they'll deal with by isolating any malfunctioning system and continuing with the nearly full bag of unsullied goodies that's left. That is if they spot the problem early enough to avoid upset ...
... what problem?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuselage is made to act like a giant earthed screen as in a screened cable. This stops interference going outwards which means it doesn't get to the antennas. It's this interference that causes the problems if any. All sensitive internal wiring is screened to keep out interference. Unless you've got 100 people in the flight deck all transmitting then all is hunky dory.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuselage is made to act like a giant earthed screen as in a screened cable. This stops interference going outwards which means it doesn't get to the antennas. It's this interference that causes the problems if any. All sensitive internal wiring is screened to keep out interference. Unless you've got 100 people in the flight deck all transmitting then all is hunky dory.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here.....there.......
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been a smoker so I don't know what the risks are, apart from to one's health! How could it be more risky to smoke in the toilet (with smoke detectors fitted) than in the main passenger cabin, if it was still permitted? Whatever the risks I suggest that they are less than those of a mobile phone's alleged ability to disrupt navigations sytems, GPS and FBW controls, and which is the basis for the restriction/ban on their use.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here.....there.......
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been a smoker so I don't know what the risks are, apart from to one's health! How could it be more risky to smoke in the toilet (with smoke detectors fitted) than in the main passenger cabin, if it was still permitted? Whatever the risks I suggest that they are less than those of a mobile phone's alleged ability to disrupt navigations sytems, GPS and FBW controls, and which is the basis for the restriction/ban on their use.
People die from fires on aircraft, it's a known fact.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke Detectors
Well the cabin announcements I hear say, roughly, "Do not smoke in the toilets, it is forbidden and smoke detectors are fitted in the toilets." The implication is that it is to detect cigarette smoke and it would obviously detect a burning waste bin as well.
Both acts, smoking in toilets and using mobile phones, are illegal and to some degree dangerous. I don't think we are going to get anywhere arguing which is the more dangerous or anti-social! In either event call the cabin crew who will have a laid down procedure to follow.
Aircraft may have crashed from electrical inteference; systems have been affected to a degree noticed by the crew perhaps some "Cause Undetermined" crash has been caused by this?
Both acts, smoking in toilets and using mobile phones, are illegal and to some degree dangerous. I don't think we are going to get anywhere arguing which is the more dangerous or anti-social! In either event call the cabin crew who will have a laid down procedure to follow.
Aircraft may have crashed from electrical inteference; systems have been affected to a degree noticed by the crew perhaps some "Cause Undetermined" crash has been caused by this?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimal risk to safety caused by smokers in the toilets?? What if a smoker didn't put their cigarette out properly and chucked it in the bin? I doub't you'd be calling it a minimal risk then.