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
Paxboy
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.
If that is all it was, I'd agree with you but it isn't, it's remorseless "telling you what to do".
I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.
The reality is that flying is 99.9%safe and I'll take my chances if something goes wrong.
That is why I have stopped flying with BA and Virgin and now fly to the States with Eos or Silverjet where service is paramount and the whole experience is as it should be...pleasant and free of unnecessary safety drivel.
If you have the opportunity to experience this new level of service, I'd advise you to have a go..it's business flying as it should be
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.
If that is all it was, I'd agree with you but it isn't, it's remorseless "telling you what to do".
I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.
The reality is that flying is 99.9%safe and I'll take my chances if something goes wrong.
That is why I have stopped flying with BA and Virgin and now fly to the States with Eos or Silverjet where service is paramount and the whole experience is as it should be...pleasant and free of unnecessary safety drivel.
If you have the opportunity to experience this new level of service, I'd advise you to have a go..it's business flying as it should be
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a shame to miss an opportunity to pick the mind of such a knowledgeable and capable individual as strake.
I therefore hope he will bear with me.
You deduce that on millions of hours of flight, thousands of mobile phones will have been left on. What methodology did you use to arrive at that number?
On those flights where phones were left on what was the lowest and highest numbers encountered, and how where they distributed in the cabin? On those flights, how did the frequency of aircraft technical log entries concerning equipment and systems malfunctions compare to those flights where no phones were left on?
I also note that you have conducted your own experiments concerning EM interference.
What was the power output and frequency of the phone used and how did the measured EMF strength compare to the specifications described in the design and test standards applicable to the tested avionics? Where the tested avionics analogue or digital?
Furthermore I would like to know how those standards compare to the design and test standards of avionics designed since the 1970s and used in commercial passenger aircraft today.
Thank you.
I therefore hope he will bear with me.
You deduce that on millions of hours of flight, thousands of mobile phones will have been left on. What methodology did you use to arrive at that number?
On those flights where phones were left on what was the lowest and highest numbers encountered, and how where they distributed in the cabin? On those flights, how did the frequency of aircraft technical log entries concerning equipment and systems malfunctions compare to those flights where no phones were left on?
I also note that you have conducted your own experiments concerning EM interference.
What was the power output and frequency of the phone used and how did the measured EMF strength compare to the specifications described in the design and test standards applicable to the tested avionics? Where the tested avionics analogue or digital?
Furthermore I would like to know how those standards compare to the design and test standards of avionics designed since the 1970s and used in commercial passenger aircraft today.
Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore I would like to know how those standards compare to the design and test standards of avionics designed since the 1970s and used in commercial passenger aircraft today.
I refer you to the article above from the company going to install mobile phone systems in commercial aircraft.
Drop 'em a line, I'm sure they'll talk techy to you....
I refer you to the article above from the company going to install mobile phone systems in commercial aircraft.
Drop 'em a line, I'm sure they'll talk techy to you....
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to the airlines I think their policies regarding the use of mobile telephones are based on the assumption they can't be 100% sure that there is no inteference with the aircrafts avionics.
I'm quite happy with this type of approach to flight safety, or risk management if you like.If an airline approached flight safety on the basis that a number of things are probably, or 99.9%, ok they'd run into a lot of problems, or crashes if you like. As of yet I've yet to see an in depth report which proves 100% that the use of mobile phones poses no threat to flight safety. All of the reports in the public domain use terms like 'no evidence to suggest' or 'nothing to indicate such a problem' It may well be safe to use such devices on an aircraft but until I see something which proves this 100% I'm quite happy for their use to be banned.
I'm quite happy with this type of approach to flight safety, or risk management if you like.If an airline approached flight safety on the basis that a number of things are probably, or 99.9%, ok they'd run into a lot of problems, or crashes if you like. As of yet I've yet to see an in depth report which proves 100% that the use of mobile phones poses no threat to flight safety. All of the reports in the public domain use terms like 'no evidence to suggest' or 'nothing to indicate such a problem' It may well be safe to use such devices on an aircraft but until I see something which proves this 100% I'm quite happy for their use to be banned.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SXB:
What you are citing is, of course, the cautionary approach.
The problem is that you can never prove that something, anything, is 100% safe or immune from failure. It's the same as Chief Medical Officers and cellular phones/WiFi in schools. Because he cannot give a 100% assurance (in the scientific sense) that little Johnny or Jill won't be affected by a few milliwatts of RF, he opts to say "might be best avoided" or some such. And promptly scares the willies out of a whole bunch of people who are not scientists and don't understand the context.
Thus it is with phones and aircraft.
Having said all of this, I, for one, am quite happy to sit there, glass of wine in hand, fat, dumb and happy, with everybody's damn phone firmly off.
derekl
What you are citing is, of course, the cautionary approach.
The problem is that you can never prove that something, anything, is 100% safe or immune from failure. It's the same as Chief Medical Officers and cellular phones/WiFi in schools. Because he cannot give a 100% assurance (in the scientific sense) that little Johnny or Jill won't be affected by a few milliwatts of RF, he opts to say "might be best avoided" or some such. And promptly scares the willies out of a whole bunch of people who are not scientists and don't understand the context.
Thus it is with phones and aircraft.
Having said all of this, I, for one, am quite happy to sit there, glass of wine in hand, fat, dumb and happy, with everybody's damn phone firmly off.
derekl
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek
Yes, I believe the cautionary approach to be the best when addressing flight safety, I also think it's the reason why the air travel industry has reached safety standards unmatched by other forms of transport.
Yes, I believe the cautionary approach to be the best when addressing flight safety, I also think it's the reason why the air travel industry has reached safety standards unmatched by other forms of transport.
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other point, It is possible to prove that certain pieces of equipment, in the right testing environment, have no effect on the other.If tests are inconclusive then they are exactly that, inconclusive. Unproven.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mobile phone use question has arisen here many times - opinion is always divided as to the safe use, or otherwise of mobiles at various stages of flight and ground operations. A variety of supposedly expert opinions are usually summoned to support whatever position the person posting may choose to take. The situation is further muddied by inconsistencies between carriers usage policies as airlines attempt to keep up with both fast-changing technologies and slower paced legislative requirements that vary by nationality, overlaid with the quest for commercial advantage. It is not surprising that there is confusion amongst customers, especially frequent flyers, and some irritation at the lack of clarity. Interestingly, there is not only a disparity of views amongst the airlines and safety authorities, but also amongst airline passengers themselves: For every traveller to whom the use of a mobile in-flight is a perceived benefit, there is another to whom the idea of unfettered mobile conversation on an aircraft is anathema. In short, what I'm suggesting is that there is a very wide range of opinion on the subject, and if you find yourself posting a comment on this subject that you regard as being in some way a definitive solution, you would be well-advised to take one step backwards before hitting the "Submit Reply" key and reconsider.
Strake - I've sat on my hands while you suggested that Safety briefings are inappropriate because accidents rarely happen (questionable), and again when you suggested that there is no evidence of PED interference (incorrect, and apparently partly based on un-approved and un-monitored experiments on a small private aircraft). You were politely and intelligently challenged to provide technical support for your position and declined to do so, an embarrassment that has been noted by others on this thread, if not by yourself. Tonight I've just got back from another flying duty working hard with some of the crew that you appear to hold in such cold contempt, and I'm off the hands. Your tirade against Cabin Crew appears to relate to a desire to avoid being told what to do, a situation that creates frustration given that you claim a much better understanding of what needs doing than any of the professionals that actually do the job daily (both air and ground based). An exaggerated sense of self-importance is rarely attractive, especially when combined with arrogance. It may be that EOS & Silverjet are well-placed to meet your needs in these areas, in which case one can only wish both you, and them, a long business relationship in the future, although I suspect that ultimately either party may become disenchanted. I would suggest that how you are measured in life is not by the manner in which you treat the big people that matter and can fight back, but the little people that matter less and can't - but that is only my opinion, and I may not be important enough to pay attention to.
Deep Breath...
This thread has drifted a little from the original question - in my view, quite an interesting one, namely, if you observe a fellow passenger ignoring a safety instruction should you intervene or ignore it? A dilemma that I'm sure crops up more frequently than we imagine. How should this best be handled on a full aircraft when you may have to sit next to the other person for several hours? It seems to me that chrissw behaved both correctly and bravely in this instance - discuss?
Strake - I've sat on my hands while you suggested that Safety briefings are inappropriate because accidents rarely happen (questionable), and again when you suggested that there is no evidence of PED interference (incorrect, and apparently partly based on un-approved and un-monitored experiments on a small private aircraft). You were politely and intelligently challenged to provide technical support for your position and declined to do so, an embarrassment that has been noted by others on this thread, if not by yourself. Tonight I've just got back from another flying duty working hard with some of the crew that you appear to hold in such cold contempt, and I'm off the hands. Your tirade against Cabin Crew appears to relate to a desire to avoid being told what to do, a situation that creates frustration given that you claim a much better understanding of what needs doing than any of the professionals that actually do the job daily (both air and ground based). An exaggerated sense of self-importance is rarely attractive, especially when combined with arrogance. It may be that EOS & Silverjet are well-placed to meet your needs in these areas, in which case one can only wish both you, and them, a long business relationship in the future, although I suspect that ultimately either party may become disenchanted. I would suggest that how you are measured in life is not by the manner in which you treat the big people that matter and can fight back, but the little people that matter less and can't - but that is only my opinion, and I may not be important enough to pay attention to.
Deep Breath...
This thread has drifted a little from the original question - in my view, quite an interesting one, namely, if you observe a fellow passenger ignoring a safety instruction should you intervene or ignore it? A dilemma that I'm sure crops up more frequently than we imagine. How should this best be handled on a full aircraft when you may have to sit next to the other person for several hours? It seems to me that chrissw behaved both correctly and bravely in this instance - discuss?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: E/E Bay
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.
Hell, my pathway to avionics enlightenment has taken 21 years, with well over 4 years of that purely in training, but that doesn't seem to stop some here thinking they know better.
I'm outta here!
P.S. Yes, Chrissw, you did do the right thing.
P.P.S. Very well articulated TS. Not bad for "6 weeks training", eh Strake?
I am not paying £3500+ return to be treated like a moron and lectured to by someone who has had 6 weeks training, during which time they have been brainwashed into thinking they are the most important person on the aircraft and a newspaper or pillow on my seat for landing is going to lead to untold tragedy and we're an hour from landing so sit up straight, stop watching the movies and behave yourself...!.
Hell, my pathway to avionics enlightenment has taken 21 years, with well over 4 years of that purely in training, but that doesn't seem to stop some here thinking they know better.
I'm outta here!
P.S. Yes, Chrissw, you did do the right thing.
P.P.S. Very well articulated TS. Not bad for "6 weeks training", eh Strake?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Luton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple really
I believe that it is as simple as this. Passengers must not ignore a lawful command given by the Commander, crew or signage!
If I see someone using there mobile phone I ask them to switch it off and stand there till they have, I have had a similar situation as the first one as in someone seemed to switch the phone off but hadn't, lucky for me I was only 5 rows away when it started ringing. So walked back, politely interrupted the phone call and informed the passenger that the phone had to switched off now. After he had I asked to look at the phone's screen and confirmed it myself. The phones I hate at the moment are the ones with an integral MP3 player.
Also on the point of airlines that are having the "new" system of allowing mobile phone use on board and in flight! Forgive me if I am wrong but aren't they fitting an internal receiver for the mobiles, linked to an external ariel. The avionics bay being shielded from this so the signal shouldn't go any further than the passenger cabin?
If I see someone using there mobile phone I ask them to switch it off and stand there till they have, I have had a similar situation as the first one as in someone seemed to switch the phone off but hadn't, lucky for me I was only 5 rows away when it started ringing. So walked back, politely interrupted the phone call and informed the passenger that the phone had to switched off now. After he had I asked to look at the phone's screen and confirmed it myself. The phones I hate at the moment are the ones with an integral MP3 player.
Also on the point of airlines that are having the "new" system of allowing mobile phone use on board and in flight! Forgive me if I am wrong but aren't they fitting an internal receiver for the mobiles, linked to an external ariel. The avionics bay being shielded from this so the signal shouldn't go any further than the passenger cabin?
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
Funny really mobile phones have been around (in a usable form anyway) for round about 12 years or less!
Before they existed the world still went on, buisness still existed but non of the controvosy surrounding them did!
Rules are put in place to hopefully protect us from actual or perceived safety risks so live with it.
There is mayhem going on in this country about youths not obeying the laws/rules if you are one of those concerned about this, what right then have you to ignore any other "legally" imposed rule
And yes I have been known to ignore rules, lots of us do, but I will accept
1/ I do
and 2/ not to justfy myself by questioning the rule with those who are there to enforce them.
Don't like the rule take it up with those who made it.
Airlines would be better investing in devices on the market that a/ warn of phones being used & b/blocking their signals IMHO
In one of the D&G forums there was a post recently where the use of one caused a major error with a/c electronics it does happen
Before they existed the world still went on, buisness still existed but non of the controvosy surrounding them did!
Rules are put in place to hopefully protect us from actual or perceived safety risks so live with it.
There is mayhem going on in this country about youths not obeying the laws/rules if you are one of those concerned about this, what right then have you to ignore any other "legally" imposed rule
And yes I have been known to ignore rules, lots of us do, but I will accept
1/ I do
and 2/ not to justfy myself by questioning the rule with those who are there to enforce them.
Don't like the rule take it up with those who made it.
Airlines would be better investing in devices on the market that a/ warn of phones being used & b/blocking their signals IMHO
In one of the D&G forums there was a post recently where the use of one caused a major error with a/c electronics it does happen
Paxing All Over The World
iain8867 Your question at the end of your post: My post #136 refers.
Strake
Any chance you could book on the .1%? 
Strake
The reality is that flying is 99.9%safe
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance you could book on the .1%?
Oh well, I was just posting my view which is what this forum suggests we do as passengers. Now it seems someone is hoping I check onto a flight that crashes...
Well, you may be upset at my views but I would suggest that whilst they are robust, they are somewhat less vicious that those on the charmingly named "Thick Passenger Comments" thread on another forum.
A stall has been set out here which requests comment. As a very regular premium fare paying passenger I have inferred that safety is taken too far given the statistics of flying. I believe that the majority of premium fare passengers want service first and safety in proportion to the risk...(that does not mean I think it should be ignored). The major airlines, are not doing this and some passengers are moving to business only services where, by talking to the crew, it appears that their training is based primarily on service.
Despite what Tightslot thinks, I do not for one moment belittle cabin crew and am always unfailingly polite and friendly to them as, in the main, they are to me. However, that does not mean that I have to like being treated as an annoying piece of baggage as a result of their training.
I am aware that my comments appear to have moved this thread off of it's original subject and I apologise for this. However, I do believe these are important issues and I am willing to defend them here or elsewhere.
Oh well, I was just posting my view which is what this forum suggests we do as passengers. Now it seems someone is hoping I check onto a flight that crashes...
Well, you may be upset at my views but I would suggest that whilst they are robust, they are somewhat less vicious that those on the charmingly named "Thick Passenger Comments" thread on another forum.
A stall has been set out here which requests comment. As a very regular premium fare paying passenger I have inferred that safety is taken too far given the statistics of flying. I believe that the majority of premium fare passengers want service first and safety in proportion to the risk...(that does not mean I think it should be ignored). The major airlines, are not doing this and some passengers are moving to business only services where, by talking to the crew, it appears that their training is based primarily on service.
Despite what Tightslot thinks, I do not for one moment belittle cabin crew and am always unfailingly polite and friendly to them as, in the main, they are to me. However, that does not mean that I have to like being treated as an annoying piece of baggage as a result of their training.
I am aware that my comments appear to have moved this thread off of it's original subject and I apologise for this. However, I do believe these are important issues and I am willing to defend them here or elsewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
west lakes:
"Funny really mobile phones have been around (in a usable form anyway) for round about 12 years or less!"
I take it you're quite young ;-)
Oh dear. I had my first cellular phone in the UK in 1984 - so that's 23 years. It was pretty usable, although it did cost £1500. I think you may be inferring that it's in the last 12 years that they have become a mass-market item. Then you would be right. In my day, only gentlemen and rich criminals had them.
Before 1984 I used a 70MHz System 4 car phone.
"Funny really mobile phones have been around (in a usable form anyway) for round about 12 years or less!"
I take it you're quite young ;-)
Oh dear. I had my first cellular phone in the UK in 1984 - so that's 23 years. It was pretty usable, although it did cost £1500. I think you may be inferring that it's in the last 12 years that they have become a mass-market item. Then you would be right. In my day, only gentlemen and rich criminals had them.
Before 1984 I used a 70MHz System 4 car phone.
Paxing All Over The World
strake My irritation was directed not at what you said but the way that you said it. I take your word that you are polite to CC however, it seemed to me, the way in which you described them in this forum was anything but. We all have moments of 'ranting'.
A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one. Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984? Nowadays, they often get slagged off but I reckon their service is as good as it was then, it's just that folks have got used to it. The new style carriers that you mention can specialise in service but, possibly, their service levels will be seen to have fallen in another ten years.
Talking of 1984, derekl, if I recall correctly - cellular radio telephony started in the UK in January 1985? Vodafone on 1st and Cellnet on 17th, but I might be one year out. Unfortunately, neither O2 nor Vodafone's websites talk about when they started.
A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one. Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984? Nowadays, they often get slagged off but I reckon their service is as good as it was then, it's just that folks have got used to it. The new style carriers that you mention can specialise in service but, possibly, their service levels will be seen to have fallen in another ten years.
Talking of 1984, derekl, if I recall correctly - cellular radio telephony started in the UK in January 1985? Vodafone on 1st and Cellnet on 17th, but I might be one year out. Unfortunately, neither O2 nor Vodafone's websites talk about when they started.
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
derekl
Yes the mass market easy to put in pocket type. Yes I was using a "brick", remember them, in 1990 - not easy to carry round though
Yes the mass market easy to put in pocket type. Yes I was using a "brick", remember them, in 1990 - not easy to carry round though
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vintage year for Cellphones
PAXboy and west lakes:
I stand corrected, 1985 it is and Vodafone did indeed pip Cellnet (now O2) to the post.
Of course, in the US, I'm also aware that I can use Amateur Radio "with the permission of the aircraft's commander" although that typically applies to general aviation. I imagine that the receiver desensing problems on the adjacent airband associated with using even 5W on 144MHz might be more worriesome than 850MHz and up cellular. (Sorry, either I, or the thread, drifted for a moment.)
Regards
Derek
I stand corrected, 1985 it is and Vodafone did indeed pip Cellnet (now O2) to the post.
Of course, in the US, I'm also aware that I can use Amateur Radio "with the permission of the aircraft's commander" although that typically applies to general aviation. I imagine that the receiver desensing problems on the adjacent airband associated with using even 5W on 144MHz might be more worriesome than 850MHz and up cellular. (Sorry, either I, or the thread, drifted for a moment.)
Regards
Derek
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Marston Moretaine, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cabin crew _are_ more important than an individual PAX
Strake clearly believes he's more important than just about anyone else. I have always believed the CC are in fact responsible for all the PAX, individual PAX being responsible for themselves.