PAX trying to use his mobile phone - was I right or wrong?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This old story runs and runs.....
OK, if the airline say turn off the phone, you have to do it. However, these are also the people who are required to waste our time with in-depth safety briefings that are completely disproportionate to the risk involved. If you question this you will be given all sorts of scare stories and be told that you are a nasty unreasonable person for daring to raise the issue.
However, the fact remains that 99.99% of all aircraft journeys take place with out fuss or any form of danger. That's way above busses and trains
who just leave us alone with our risk.
Now, mobile phone interference:
1. Since mobile phones have been brought onto aircraft, how many hours have been flown? Answer: Millions.
2. Statistically, how many pasengers during that time THOUGHT they had turned off their phones and put them in their bags but actually left them on by mistake? Thousands..at least.
3. How many planes have therefore been proven to have crashed or experienced strange phenomen during this time attributable to mobile phones? Answer None.
4. Virgin have allowed use of mobile phones while switched off for the last 6 months or so. They must know that even in error, some of those phones will be left on. Problems? None.
Hospitals
News announced last week that NHS is allowing people to use mobiles in Hospital.
Interference 2
I have a TB10. I and my passengers have used mobile phones in it for the last 5 years. As an experiment, we passed the phones over and around the ILS/VOR/ADF and compass (while on the ground) numerous times. Effect? None. My car keys had more effect on the compass.
I don't think I want to bother about exploding petrol stations
OK, if the airline say turn off the phone, you have to do it. However, these are also the people who are required to waste our time with in-depth safety briefings that are completely disproportionate to the risk involved. If you question this you will be given all sorts of scare stories and be told that you are a nasty unreasonable person for daring to raise the issue.
However, the fact remains that 99.99% of all aircraft journeys take place with out fuss or any form of danger. That's way above busses and trains
who just leave us alone with our risk.
Now, mobile phone interference:
1. Since mobile phones have been brought onto aircraft, how many hours have been flown? Answer: Millions.
2. Statistically, how many pasengers during that time THOUGHT they had turned off their phones and put them in their bags but actually left them on by mistake? Thousands..at least.
3. How many planes have therefore been proven to have crashed or experienced strange phenomen during this time attributable to mobile phones? Answer None.
4. Virgin have allowed use of mobile phones while switched off for the last 6 months or so. They must know that even in error, some of those phones will be left on. Problems? None.
Hospitals
News announced last week that NHS is allowing people to use mobiles in Hospital.
Interference 2
I have a TB10. I and my passengers have used mobile phones in it for the last 5 years. As an experiment, we passed the phones over and around the ILS/VOR/ADF and compass (while on the ground) numerous times. Effect? None. My car keys had more effect on the compass.
I don't think I want to bother about exploding petrol stations
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow the money
IMHO a significant factor in banning in-flight use of mobiles was to maximise revenue from carriers offering in-seat sat phones. Now that airlines can make money by providing an on-board 'picocell', use of mobile phones will be encouraged 
PAXboy is as usual spot on:
Not a great idea, but this will be exactly what happens the first time the in-flight picocell fails or is accidentally switched off.
PAXboy is as usual spot on:
Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile/Radio usage near fuel
The incident mentioned earlier as I understand it occured in the states many years ago and was caused by the usage of a vehicle fit radio with an external bare wire aerial.
As an example the one fitted to my car is 25W output. (at these outputs you can, apparently connect a flourescent tube between the aerial & earth and light it whan you transmit - or so I'm told)
As I am sure airline staff know you can get a nasty surprise if you touch the aerial of a higher powered radio.
In the usual insurance we're scared of the world syndrome this risk was transferred to mobiles & filling stations.
The issue doesn't arise IMO where the aerial of any radio or phone is fully shielded
As an example the one fitted to my car is 25W output. (at these outputs you can, apparently connect a flourescent tube between the aerial & earth and light it whan you transmit - or so I'm told)
As I am sure airline staff know you can get a nasty surprise if you touch the aerial of a higher powered radio.
In the usual insurance we're scared of the world syndrome this risk was transferred to mobiles & filling stations.
The issue doesn't arise IMO where the aerial of any radio or phone is fully shielded
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy is as usual spot on:
Quote:
Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.
Not a great idea, but this will be exactly what happens the first time the in-flight picocell fails or is accidentally switched off.
Sorry to be blunt Pax but that is just uninformed nonsense that perpetuates the myth.
Once and for all, here is the current status. I'm not saying that it pleases me personally to think of an a/c full of chatterers but it is what's happening:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:q...gl=uk&ie=UTF-8
Europe opens the door to in-flight phoning
By Thomas Crampton Published: June 19, 2007
PARIS: European regulators have cleared use of mobile phones and BlackBerry devices for passengers while flying, Airbus announced Tuesday.
Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency means that, from September, passengers aboard Airbus aircraft outfitted with the OnAir system will be able to send and receive phone calls, SMS messages and e-mail messages while flying at altitudes above 3,000 meters, or 9,840 feet.
The first aircraft to go into operation with the system will probably be a short-haul Airbus A318 operated by Air France. The British airline BMI, the Portuguese airline TAP and the budget airline Ryanair have also signed up to offer the services, said Graham Lake, chief commercial officer of OnAir, a joint venture between Airbus and SITA, a communications services company.
"We are absolutely delighted by this news," Lake said. "Passengers will soon be able to use their own phones while in a flying aircraft."
"Instead of roaming in a country, you are effectively roaming in the sky," Lake said. "We send your call via satellite down to the GSM network."
Call charges will appear on customer phone bills in an identical way to international roaming, with revenue shared between the airlines, OnAir and the customer's own phone company.
Approval to use mobile phones in aircraft contradicts draconian anti-telephone procedures often undertaken by cabin staff before takeoff.
In studying the use of mobile phones on aircraft, OnAir determined that somewhere between 10 percent and 25 percent of passengers and crew onboard aircraft leave their telephones turned on despite explicit warnings.
"If mobile telephones were unsafe on aircraft, we would have already had many incidents," Lake said. "Just listen to all the beeps of people receiving SMS messages as any aircraft approaches landing."
One of the biggest issues regarding the use of mobile phones on aircraft will be changing the habits of airline staff.
"The use of mobile phones is more a cultural than a safety issue," Lake said. "In some countries that are very opposed to the use of mobile phones in flight, I think we will have trouble changing the habits of airline crew."
One argument that OnAir used to seek approval is that a mobile phone inadvertently left on by a passenger will increase the power output of its signal and potential to disrupt other radio frequencies when out of range of a network.
Mobile phones increase signal-searching output to one watt when looking for a network, compared with the one milliwatt level of a phone connected to the OnAir network.
The only restriction on the OnAir system is that it can be used only above the altitude of 3,000 meters, which is attained roughly four minutes after takeoff and maintained until 10 minutes before landing. This restriction is in part the result of mobile phone operators' concerns about disruptions that can be caused when a single cellphone attempts to connect several land-based cellphone towers.
Quote:
Having 50/150/+ mobile (cell) phones suddenly try and acquire a signal when a delay is announced - is an unknown quantity of devices that are not integrated into the a/c systems.
Not a great idea, but this will be exactly what happens the first time the in-flight picocell fails or is accidentally switched off.
Sorry to be blunt Pax but that is just uninformed nonsense that perpetuates the myth.
Once and for all, here is the current status. I'm not saying that it pleases me personally to think of an a/c full of chatterers but it is what's happening:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:q...gl=uk&ie=UTF-8
Europe opens the door to in-flight phoning
By Thomas Crampton Published: June 19, 2007
PARIS: European regulators have cleared use of mobile phones and BlackBerry devices for passengers while flying, Airbus announced Tuesday.
Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency means that, from September, passengers aboard Airbus aircraft outfitted with the OnAir system will be able to send and receive phone calls, SMS messages and e-mail messages while flying at altitudes above 3,000 meters, or 9,840 feet.
The first aircraft to go into operation with the system will probably be a short-haul Airbus A318 operated by Air France. The British airline BMI, the Portuguese airline TAP and the budget airline Ryanair have also signed up to offer the services, said Graham Lake, chief commercial officer of OnAir, a joint venture between Airbus and SITA, a communications services company.
"We are absolutely delighted by this news," Lake said. "Passengers will soon be able to use their own phones while in a flying aircraft."
"Instead of roaming in a country, you are effectively roaming in the sky," Lake said. "We send your call via satellite down to the GSM network."
Call charges will appear on customer phone bills in an identical way to international roaming, with revenue shared between the airlines, OnAir and the customer's own phone company.
Approval to use mobile phones in aircraft contradicts draconian anti-telephone procedures often undertaken by cabin staff before takeoff.
In studying the use of mobile phones on aircraft, OnAir determined that somewhere between 10 percent and 25 percent of passengers and crew onboard aircraft leave their telephones turned on despite explicit warnings.
"If mobile telephones were unsafe on aircraft, we would have already had many incidents," Lake said. "Just listen to all the beeps of people receiving SMS messages as any aircraft approaches landing."
One of the biggest issues regarding the use of mobile phones on aircraft will be changing the habits of airline staff.
"The use of mobile phones is more a cultural than a safety issue," Lake said. "In some countries that are very opposed to the use of mobile phones in flight, I think we will have trouble changing the habits of airline crew."
One argument that OnAir used to seek approval is that a mobile phone inadvertently left on by a passenger will increase the power output of its signal and potential to disrupt other radio frequencies when out of range of a network.
Mobile phones increase signal-searching output to one watt when looking for a network, compared with the one milliwatt level of a phone connected to the OnAir network.
The only restriction on the OnAir system is that it can be used only above the altitude of 3,000 meters, which is attained roughly four minutes after takeoff and maintained until 10 minutes before landing. This restriction is in part the result of mobile phone operators' concerns about disruptions that can be caused when a single cellphone attempts to connect several land-based cellphone towers.
A well known carrier flying into NI is often heard to have a "mobile" dit dit ditting in the background when they respond to my instructions on the RT.
We sometimes had the same until we realised it was our own ops staff (who had their phones on silent but still switched on) receiving texts!
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the flights I do now, I explain to the pax that leaving their phones on won't cause me any problems (nothing fancy enuf in the aeroplane for a mobile phone to affect it), but as the phone spends the whole time above about 2 or 3000' hunting for a signal, their batteries will be pretty flat upon arrival. Very few of them have been aware of this, and instantly turn their phones off. Perhaps if this was explained to the more "resistant" pax, they would be more agreeable to abiding by the airline's rules?
Tho' having said that, half of me thinks if they are that grumpy, let them have dead batteries upon arrival....
As has been said before, if the airlines ever do change the regs, I can hardly wait for 200+ people saying loudly "I'm on the plane, we just flew over the Alps/Rockies/NY/Atlantic" etc, etc.....
Tho' having said that, half of me thinks if they are that grumpy, let them have dead batteries upon arrival....
As has been said before, if the airlines ever do change the regs, I can hardly wait for 200+ people saying loudly "I'm on the plane, we just flew over the Alps/Rockies/NY/Atlantic" etc, etc.....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and who will be the first to offer 'quiet cabins'. No doubt someone will offer this as an 'extra' at an additional cost.
Re the Hospital/mobile questions - my missus has just been issued with one for her work - the local NHS hospital!
Re the Hospital/mobile questions - my missus has just been issued with one for her work - the local NHS hospital!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 32
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, i'm guilty of using my phone during a flight.. I sent a text about 10 seconds after rotate - Bad of me I know but it was very urgent.
However, other than that one time I've always followed CC and safety demo instructions to turn mobile phones off, apart from the once or twice I've totally forgot it's switched on and end up getting about 10 texts from T-Mobile on final approach! - Has anything ever happened during these flights, im sure we all know the answer.. Nothing!
I'd imagine it wouldn't be long before we're actually aloud to use mobiles onboard.
However, other than that one time I've always followed CC and safety demo instructions to turn mobile phones off, apart from the once or twice I've totally forgot it's switched on and end up getting about 10 texts from T-Mobile on final approach! - Has anything ever happened during these flights, im sure we all know the answer.. Nothing!
I'd imagine it wouldn't be long before we're actually aloud to use mobiles onboard.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norwich, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice, though, if air travel could be the one last haven from loud-mouthed morons wanting to talk about last night's Big Brother' or who their friends have just slept with/dumped/fancy/hate - PLEASE???
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, i'm guilty of using my phone during a flight.. I sent a text about 10 seconds after rotate - Bad of me I know but it was very urgent.
Sorry but as a potential fellow pax I don't care how urgent it is - unless it involves the lives of 150+ people surely it can wait.
Sorry but as a potential fellow pax I don't care how urgent it is - unless it involves the lives of 150+ people surely it can wait.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
k3lvc: Sorry, but if you've read the rest of this thread, you have to see that it did not risk "the lives of 150+ people".
It did, in all probability, break the rules, which is different. Using it in a filling station would also break the rules.
It did, in all probability, break the rules, which is different. Using it in a filling station would also break the rules.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: E/E Bay
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's well-nigh impossible to build a fuel/air mix in the open air that will ignite."
Oh no it's not! It depends upon (very) localised temperature, pressure and wind conditions, as well as terrain.
Also, with respect Strake, your TB10 probably relies less on software than an A330. Don't forget that's a commercial officer you're quoting there: he's out to generate revenue and what he says is a teeny bit irresponsible. I know of at least one incident where the flight directors conflicted due to mobile phone use: not every incident is made public.
Oh no it's not! It depends upon (very) localised temperature, pressure and wind conditions, as well as terrain.
Also, with respect Strake, your TB10 probably relies less on software than an A330. Don't forget that's a commercial officer you're quoting there: he's out to generate revenue and what he says is a teeny bit irresponsible. I know of at least one incident where the flight directors conflicted due to mobile phone use: not every incident is made public.
Last edited by FHA; 23rd Aug 2007 at 23:40.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: E/E Bay
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not even talking about filling stations.
In the military, we were pretty hot(!) on this. I remember one training film showing how to get yourself barbequed out in the field. Something to do with fuel vapour, an adjacent dip and a primus stove. Anyone else remember this?
Anyway! Back to mobiles! As an avionics engineer, I look forward to the arrival of picocells like a hole in the head.
In the military, we were pretty hot(!) on this. I remember one training film showing how to get yourself barbequed out in the field. Something to do with fuel vapour, an adjacent dip and a primus stove. Anyone else remember this?
Anyway! Back to mobiles! As an avionics engineer, I look forward to the arrival of picocells like a hole in the head.
Paxing All Over The World
strake
Yes indeed they do. The rules of safety instruction are still, largely, in place from when flying was very dangerous and rules were taken on from boats. On boats they have lifeboat drill and we get 'life jackets under your seats' drill. No one is going to tell the carriers to stop doing this and, if anyone in authority DID, then 99% of airlines would continue doing it.
Strake, where you quote the story (via Google) it includes the statement
The OnAir system is, once again, integrated with the aircraft electrical and electronic systems, using aerials that are known quantities.
The cabin will have a series of Pico Cells, which are mini base stations. When given permission by the CC to switch on mobiles, the phones will 'find' this base station and it will handle all calls through special equipment that will be electrically shielded from the rest of the aircraft systems (Faraday cage).
The phones will work at low power. The system will only connect calls if the a.c is above 3,000m. At other times, as I understand what I read in technical press a couple of years ago, the Pico Cell will be active but will block calls. This means that a passengers mobile (cell) phone will register to the on board base station but not be able to make or receive calls, thus 'trapping' any phone that is on. Other refinements may also be in place. These systems have been thoroughly tested by the aircraft manufacturers and all involved.
So, I don't think that I am giving
Do I want these Pico cells on a/c in which I am travelling? No.
Do I want people talking on their effing mobiles? No.
However, the fact remains that 99.99% of all aircraft journeys take place with out fuss or any form of danger. That's way above busses and trains who just leave us alone with our risk.
Strake, where you quote the story (via Google) it includes the statement
Approval by the European Aviation Safety Agency means that, from September, passengers aboard Airbus aircraft outfitted with the OnAir system will be able to send and receive phone calls ...
The cabin will have a series of Pico Cells, which are mini base stations. When given permission by the CC to switch on mobiles, the phones will 'find' this base station and it will handle all calls through special equipment that will be electrically shielded from the rest of the aircraft systems (Faraday cage).
The phones will work at low power. The system will only connect calls if the a.c is above 3,000m. At other times, as I understand what I read in technical press a couple of years ago, the Pico Cell will be active but will block calls. This means that a passengers mobile (cell) phone will register to the on board base station but not be able to make or receive calls, thus 'trapping' any phone that is on. Other refinements may also be in place. These systems have been thoroughly tested by the aircraft manufacturers and all involved.
So, I don't think that I am giving
uninformed nonsense that perpetuates the myth.
Do I want people talking on their effing mobiles? No.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 64
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a fan of that Discovery Channel programme, "Myth busters". I recall one they did on the urban myth of the mobile phone and petrol stations. They experimented with progressively more extreme combinations of fuel/air and mobile phones until they had a tank filled with the most saturated vapour they could create and a stripped down old Ericsson phone (removing all the plastic and exposing all the wiring), which they then called. It still refused to ignite. The myth was well and truly busted.
The point here is that it should not be up to pax to decide what is safe or not and they should obey CC instructions. However, the airlines and by association, CC, have a duty not to "cry wolf" and thus detract from any otherwise vital safety duties they have to perform. BE had a particularly frustrating time onboard an SQ flight some time back, when we were stuck on the gate after arrival, with engines shut down, because of a technical fault with the airbridge mechanism. I was on a tight schedule and had to inform someone what was happening and I have to confess I lost my cool with the CC who took me to task for trying to use my mobile to call that person, saying that the phone would interfere with navigation systems. Whether or not a phone will interfere with systems while flying is a moot point, but on the ground when stationary after a flight has been completed? Sorry. On your bike!
The point here is that it should not be up to pax to decide what is safe or not and they should obey CC instructions. However, the airlines and by association, CC, have a duty not to "cry wolf" and thus detract from any otherwise vital safety duties they have to perform. BE had a particularly frustrating time onboard an SQ flight some time back, when we were stuck on the gate after arrival, with engines shut down, because of a technical fault with the airbridge mechanism. I was on a tight schedule and had to inform someone what was happening and I have to confess I lost my cool with the CC who took me to task for trying to use my mobile to call that person, saying that the phone would interfere with navigation systems. Whether or not a phone will interfere with systems while flying is a moot point, but on the ground when stationary after a flight has been completed? Sorry. On your bike!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bangkokeasy[B
][/B]
I am a fan of that Discovery Channel programme, "Myth busters". I recall one they did on the urban myth of the mobile phone and petrol stations. They experimented with progressively more extreme combinations of fuel/air and mobile phones until they had a tank filled with the most saturated vapour they could create and a stripped down old Ericsson phone (removing all the plastic and exposing all the wiring), which they then called. It still refused to ignite. The myth was well and truly busted.
I am a fan of that Discovery Channel programme, "Myth busters". I recall one they did on the urban myth of the mobile phone and petrol stations. They experimented with progressively more extreme combinations of fuel/air and mobile phones until they had a tank filled with the most saturated vapour they could create and a stripped down old Ericsson phone (removing all the plastic and exposing all the wiring), which they then called. It still refused to ignite. The myth was well and truly busted.
The argument as to weather a mobile should be considered a credible ignition source is protracted, but just in case it could be, it is assumed that it will be-if you get me.
Bri
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 32
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but as a potential fellow pax I don't care how urgent it is - unless it involves the lives of 150+ people surely it can wait.
Although I am confident mobile phones do not and will not effect aircraft systems, I did break a rule, for that I appologise
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not mobiles cause problems for aircraft isn't really relevant. The airline owns the aircraft and they let you pay to use it under their terms. If they say you can't pick your nose, then you need to adhere to that or get off. It really is that simple.
I congratulate the original poster for his actions. I would have done the same.
As to whether or not mobiles DO actually cause aircraft problems, that is a completely separate issue.
I congratulate the original poster for his actions. I would have done the same.
As to whether or not mobiles DO actually cause aircraft problems, that is a completely separate issue.