PAX trying to use his mobile phone - was I right or wrong?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three main reasons why I don't use my mobile phone on planes:
1. I've been told not to. The pilot is in command of the aircraft, and by law I must follow his or her instructions, and, by extension, those of the cabin crew.
2. My employer might think I'm important enough to routinely pay several thousand pounds to fly me across the world, but when I'm on an airliner I'm in an environment I don't fully understand, and as with any other alien environment it's probably in my best interests to follow the instructions of those who designed that environment or were trained for and spend their working lives in it.
3. I might not have any detailed technical understanding of the factors which lead mobile use on phones to be banned, but I can hear for myself the interference caused when my switched-on mobile is next to a radio, telephone, television. There have been instances of airliners crashing due in part to inadequate, missed or misunderstood communications between pilots and ATC (a terrible crash in Tenerife in 1974 being a prime example). I don't want my mobile to add to that risk.
And I'm quite keen on my fellow pax in 13B and 13C not adding to it either. So chrissw, you've got my full support.
13Alpha
1. I've been told not to. The pilot is in command of the aircraft, and by law I must follow his or her instructions, and, by extension, those of the cabin crew.
2. My employer might think I'm important enough to routinely pay several thousand pounds to fly me across the world, but when I'm on an airliner I'm in an environment I don't fully understand, and as with any other alien environment it's probably in my best interests to follow the instructions of those who designed that environment or were trained for and spend their working lives in it.
3. I might not have any detailed technical understanding of the factors which lead mobile use on phones to be banned, but I can hear for myself the interference caused when my switched-on mobile is next to a radio, telephone, television. There have been instances of airliners crashing due in part to inadequate, missed or misunderstood communications between pilots and ATC (a terrible crash in Tenerife in 1974 being a prime example). I don't want my mobile to add to that risk.
And I'm quite keen on my fellow pax in 13B and 13C not adding to it either. So chrissw, you've got my full support.
13Alpha
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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"
Oh Strake. You've shown exactly what kind of person you are! Eos and Silverjet are welcome to you! With regards to the 0.1% as mentioned earlier, I'm not hoping you'll be on that, your comments and tone hint that you'd not cope awfully well.
Oh Strake. You've shown exactly what kind of person you are! Eos and Silverjet are welcome to you! With regards to the 0.1% as mentioned earlier, I'm not hoping you'll be on that, your comments and tone hint that you'd not cope awfully well.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
strake My irritation was directed not at what you said but the way that you said it.
Ah, OK. That makes your desire for my early demise so much more acceptable.
A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one.
Why?
Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984?
OK, I recall them. They are very different to the levels available today.
I think the competition have seen that and are exploiting 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.
In which case, one takes one's money and goes elsewhere.
Look, £3500+ is an enormous amount to spend in 14 hours and people want value for money...just like any other product.
For my hard earned money, I'd like to think the engineers are highly trained professionals who have proven that they can keep the aircraft together, a very experienced and well qualified commander and fight crew who can safely get us where we are going and a cabin crew who provide service comensurate with the advertising.
It just seems to me that major airlines, for whatever reason, are pushing the service aspects down the priority list and over-exaggerating safety.
Now those are my genuine thoughts. They are not personal attacks on anyone or any function nor are they intended to inflame people to the point of verbal violence.
I also think the answer to the original question is "Yes", you did the right thing. No matter how much one disagrees with a situation, if there is a requirement to comply, one should. Just as I do, despite what people here might think.
See, no thread drift here...
Ah, OK. That makes your desire for my early demise so much more acceptable.
A new entrant in the market will always be able to offer better levels of service than an established one.
Why?
Consider the service levels that VS was lauded for when they launched in 1984?
OK, I recall them. They are very different to the levels available today.
I think the competition have seen that and are exploiting 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.
In which case, one takes one's money and goes elsewhere.
Look, £3500+ is an enormous amount to spend in 14 hours and people want value for money...just like any other product.
For my hard earned money, I'd like to think the engineers are highly trained professionals who have proven that they can keep the aircraft together, a very experienced and well qualified commander and fight crew who can safely get us where we are going and a cabin crew who provide service comensurate with the advertising.
It just seems to me that major airlines, for whatever reason, are pushing the service aspects down the priority list and over-exaggerating safety.
Now those are my genuine thoughts. They are not personal attacks on anyone or any function nor are they intended to inflame people to the point of verbal violence.
I also think the answer to the original question is "Yes", you did the right thing. No matter how much one disagrees with a situation, if there is a requirement to comply, one should. Just as I do, despite what people here might think.
See, no thread drift here...
Last edited by strake; 28th Aug 2007 at 08:44. Reason: To try again to make my point-peacefully
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to ask strake a series of questions concerning safety on-board commercial aircraft. However, as I suspect the answer would be similar to the one given to my previous questions, it would achieve nothing but further embarrassment.
I believe the phrase used was "uninformed nonsense". Very apt.
I believe the phrase used was "uninformed nonsense". Very apt.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on Monsieur Oveur, are you such a wilting flower?
You formed your question in a highly facetious way and received an answer comensurate with its flavour.
Now, ask me any question you like...go on, you know you want to.
Ask me about ditching at sea..that's my favourite.
You formed your question in a highly facetious way and received an answer comensurate with its flavour.
Now, ask me any question you like...go on, you know you want to.
Ask me about ditching at sea..that's my favourite.
Last edited by strake; 28th Aug 2007 at 09:20.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest (still minor) explosion risk of using a mobile phone while fuelling your car is not so much the use in itself, but if you drop the phone, detaching the battery and thus causing a spark.
Thread drift ...
I always thought that the cell phone at the petrol pump was because of a single incident in New Zealand where there was a fire at a pump, and they were unable to rule out (Note : not prove that) that the 'phone caused the spark. Also, they don't like you using radio transmitters at the pumps (cell, CB etc) because they can interfere with the circuitry within the metering system causing the pump to under-read.
By the way, I always turn off my phone at doors closed (or sooner if instructed by the CC). Well done Chrissw, I hope I have the bottle to do the same should I find myself in similar circumstances.
Now, if anyone out there (i.e. those who will make the decision to allow mobiles in flight) wants to know what this humble PAX thinks about using mobile 'phones in flight - No I don't want them. I have enough of having to listen to ignoramuses on the 07:05 to London and their banal, onesided conversations. I reckon in 1 hour, there must be over 30 calls , and that's in a carriage of only 70 persons, imagine what it would be like on an A330 for 5-9 hours (Air rage anyone?)
By the way, I always turn off my phone at doors closed (or sooner if instructed by the CC). Well done Chrissw, I hope I have the bottle to do the same should I find myself in similar circumstances.
Now, if anyone out there (i.e. those who will make the decision to allow mobiles in flight) wants to know what this humble PAX thinks about using mobile 'phones in flight - No I don't want them. I have enough of having to listen to ignoramuses on the 07:05 to London and their banal, onesided conversations. I reckon in 1 hour, there must be over 30 calls , and that's in a carriage of only 70 persons, imagine what it would be like on an A330 for 5-9 hours (Air rage anyone?)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pacer142:
The battery detach thing is yet another Red Herring. It's not true either, other things are much more likely to cause a spark -- how about static discharge from car to key -- or human being? It happens all the time.
Is it OK if I use an Apple iPhone? (The battery is soldered to the motherboard
)
drichard:
You're back at the urban myth -- read my post much earlier in this thread where I said that it is always because of a story that a filling station in America/Australia ... etc blew up. Yet there is no such recorded incident.
The RF energy from a cellphone (max 2 Watts) is insufficient to create an RF field energetic enough to cause a metal-to-metal spark in nearby equipment.
And if it were so, why would Shell stuff 50 Watt T-mobile base stations on their forecourts in the UK (as they do)? Shouldn't all those filling stations have blown up by now?
Regards to all
Derek
The battery detach thing is yet another Red Herring. It's not true either, other things are much more likely to cause a spark -- how about static discharge from car to key -- or human being? It happens all the time.
Is it OK if I use an Apple iPhone? (The battery is soldered to the motherboard
)drichard:
You're back at the urban myth -- read my post much earlier in this thread where I said that it is always because of a story that a filling station in America/Australia ... etc blew up. Yet there is no such recorded incident.
The RF energy from a cellphone (max 2 Watts) is insufficient to create an RF field energetic enough to cause a metal-to-metal spark in nearby equipment.
And if it were so, why would Shell stuff 50 Watt T-mobile base stations on their forecourts in the UK (as they do)? Shouldn't all those filling stations have blown up by now?
Regards to all
Derek
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I know is that my mobile doesn't pick up a signal when I'm airborne above about 10.000 feet!
Stories of pilots chatting to crewing in the cruise are a bit suspect in my experience.
Stories of pilots chatting to crewing in the cruise are a bit suspect in my experience.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did an informal survey amongst company pilots once. The question, possible answers to the question and % of the pilots' responses went something like this:
Question: How many mobile phones did you think are left on by passengers on a typical Sydney-Melbourne sector?
Answers:
(a) None. Survey response: 0%
(b) 1-2. Survey response: 10%
(c) 3-10. Survey response: 20%
(d) Who knows - sometimes I forget to turn mine off. Survey response: 70%
A phone being inadvertently left on is as risky as a bottle of water being brought onto an aircraft...............
Question: How many mobile phones did you think are left on by passengers on a typical Sydney-Melbourne sector?
Answers:
(a) None. Survey response: 0%
(b) 1-2. Survey response: 10%
(c) 3-10. Survey response: 20%
(d) Who knows - sometimes I forget to turn mine off. Survey response: 70%
A phone being inadvertently left on is as risky as a bottle of water being brought onto an aircraft...............
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 50
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by derekl
The battery detach thing is yet another Red Herring. It's not true either, other things are much more likely to cause a spark -- how about static discharge from car to key -- or human being? It happens all the time.
However, it is still possible, regardless of the likelihood. Just as it's theoretically possible that a signal being broadcast from one or many mobile phones could cause an issue with other electronics (to whit the previously mentioned interference we've all heard on landlines or speakers etc when a mobile is nearby).
So, to the wider point - given the possible outcomes of both ignited petrol near a car being refuelled and an aircraft's systems being compromised (regardless of the % chance of anything happening) , it's surely in everyone's best interests to comply with the procedures laid out? It's not really that much of a hardship to turn off a phone is it?
And to those who think it is...you're really not that important you know
The world won't stop turning if you can't make a phonecall. And if it was that important to your company/family/whatever...then it's important enough for you to miss the flight and not get on the plane in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down boys and girls!
I think the chances of ONE phone crashing the plane.... NIL
The chances of 300 phones crashing the plane... close to NIL, but not zero.
However the main reason for obeying the airlines' rules is because I just couldn't cope with all those "I'm on the plane" conversations.... given the potential for a more exotic destination than Kings Cross, all the "I'm just popping down to Montego Bay" conversations would see me borrowing the axe from the flight deck.
I think the chances of ONE phone crashing the plane.... NIL
The chances of 300 phones crashing the plane... close to NIL, but not zero.
However the main reason for obeying the airlines' rules is because I just couldn't cope with all those "I'm on the plane" conversations.... given the potential for a more exotic destination than Kings Cross, all the "I'm just popping down to Montego Bay" conversations would see me borrowing the axe from the flight deck.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chances of 300 phones crashing the plane... close to NIL, but not zero.
That's nowhere near good enough Three Yellows...we require detailed technical proof of your findings.
That's nowhere near good enough Three Yellows...we require detailed technical proof of your findings.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 50
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both Three Yellows and strake - you've missed the point.
I don't care how likely it is. Someone, somewhere has decided it's in our (pax and aircrew alike) best interests to turn phones off. Someone who has looked into the matter far more than you or I.
So turn them off.
Rocket science, it ain't.
I don't care how likely it is. Someone, somewhere has decided it's in our (pax and aircrew alike) best interests to turn phones off. Someone who has looked into the matter far more than you or I.
So turn them off.
Rocket science, it ain't.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a side note - my flight this evening (just got back).
Training Captain called me on flight deck and advised of some odd autopilot behaviour, and suspected PED interference from the Cabin. Made a PA asking folks to check - much checking through bags and pockets, shortly after which, the interference stopped. One mobile phone admitted to as being on. Interesting...
Training Captain called me on flight deck and advised of some odd autopilot behaviour, and suspected PED interference from the Cabin. Made a PA asking folks to check - much checking through bags and pockets, shortly after which, the interference stopped. One mobile phone admitted to as being on. Interesting...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I have experienced a similar scenario to Tightslot.
On take off from Barcelona, on Iberia flight, pilot started circling, and came over tannoy that it was believed that a mobile phone was on in the cabin, and was interfering with flight deck.
All bags etc.. were checked, and I believe a phone was found to be on (inadvertently). After this, flight continued as normal.
It is interesting to note, that the pilot indicated, that if the phone could not be found, they would need to return to the airport (BCN), due to problems on flight dec instruments. I'm assuming he would not consider this option for no good reason.
Either way, it doesn't matter, if the rule is 'switch off phones', then just do it. Easy.
On take off from Barcelona, on Iberia flight, pilot started circling, and came over tannoy that it was believed that a mobile phone was on in the cabin, and was interfering with flight deck.
All bags etc.. were checked, and I believe a phone was found to be on (inadvertently). After this, flight continued as normal.
It is interesting to note, that the pilot indicated, that if the phone could not be found, they would need to return to the airport (BCN), due to problems on flight dec instruments. I'm assuming he would not consider this option for no good reason.
Either way, it doesn't matter, if the rule is 'switch off phones', then just do it. Easy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... And the time you really don't want this interference to be happening is during an emergency.... if you are behind the flight deck door, you have no clue what's going on with the flying and when the pilots have problems. If there's the remotest chance that mobile phones could interfere with flight deck instruments and therefore my safety, I for one would much rather just leave 'em switched off!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a latecomer to the thread:
For those who believe mobile pose no risk, and its all a myth / conspirary to charge for comms etc, I can categorically assure you that mobiles DO interfere with aircraft systems. I've observed events when strange system events have coincided with mobile use, and whilst the formal scientist within me accepts much of this could be coincidental some interference over the audio systems is distinctive.
pb
For those who believe mobile pose no risk, and its all a myth / conspirary to charge for comms etc, I can categorically assure you that mobiles DO interfere with aircraft systems. I've observed events when strange system events have coincided with mobile use, and whilst the formal scientist within me accepts much of this could be coincidental some interference over the audio systems is distinctive.
pb
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Duxbai
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read 'some' of this thread (couldn't bring myself to trawl through 6 pages!)
It is interesting to note that there are some 'informed' people out there who insist PED do not interfere with systems based on their scientific knowledge. They WILL NOT accept any other facts.
FACT; certain PED (especially mobiles) CAN and DO sometimes interfere. Not all the time, but on occasion. You never know which system maybe affected, but I for one do not want to find out at FL410 at 30W with 2000nm to go. Not a good time. Why isit no-one these days can just do as told?
There are some on this forum belittling the safety instructions given by the crew. I would admit that the chances of surviving a ditching are slim, but believe it or not, the crew do not brief you all for the good of their health. After all, they have a door close by to jump out of first. It is a requirement of the CAA and forms part of an airlines AOC certification. Just because you are a frequent flier does not exempt you from the brief nor does it make you an expert.
If you have a problem listening to repeated safety briefings, there are 2 solutions;
1. Take it up with the CAA - but I know what their answer will be.
2. Find an alternative mode of transport.
Being made to clear loose articles up around you in the cabin is actually a safety fundamental. If I have to stop the a/c using max braking, you would NOT want a loose bottle of water hitting you on the back of the head from 5 rows behind.
It is interesting to note that there are some 'informed' people out there who insist PED do not interfere with systems based on their scientific knowledge. They WILL NOT accept any other facts.
FACT; certain PED (especially mobiles) CAN and DO sometimes interfere. Not all the time, but on occasion. You never know which system maybe affected, but I for one do not want to find out at FL410 at 30W with 2000nm to go. Not a good time. Why isit no-one these days can just do as told?
There are some on this forum belittling the safety instructions given by the crew. I would admit that the chances of surviving a ditching are slim, but believe it or not, the crew do not brief you all for the good of their health. After all, they have a door close by to jump out of first. It is a requirement of the CAA and forms part of an airlines AOC certification. Just because you are a frequent flier does not exempt you from the brief nor does it make you an expert.
If you have a problem listening to repeated safety briefings, there are 2 solutions;
1. Take it up with the CAA - but I know what their answer will be.
2. Find an alternative mode of transport.
Being made to clear loose articles up around you in the cabin is actually a safety fundamental. If I have to stop the a/c using max braking, you would NOT want a loose bottle of water hitting you on the back of the head from 5 rows behind.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyinthesky I agree with you, but Quote "I would admit that the chances of surviving a ditching are slim"
This is a common mis-conception. Around 80% and upwards of pax survive airline crashes according to the NTSB (I guess we're just looking at the USA here). I'm sure survivability may be higher or lower in other parts of the world.
See more detail here; http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/former/hall/jhc990127.htm
In particular, this is why knowing your exits and listening to safety briefings really CAN save your own life when the sh*t hits the fan. In an emergency if you really KNOW your exits, and how to open them quickly, it makes all the difference. I just hope I'm never sitting next to someone like strake.
But I'm kind of getting off topic.
This is a common mis-conception. Around 80% and upwards of pax survive airline crashes according to the NTSB (I guess we're just looking at the USA here). I'm sure survivability may be higher or lower in other parts of the world.
See more detail here; http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/former/hall/jhc990127.htm
In particular, this is why knowing your exits and listening to safety briefings really CAN save your own life when the sh*t hits the fan. In an emergency if you really KNOW your exits, and how to open them quickly, it makes all the difference. I just hope I'm never sitting next to someone like strake.
But I'm kind of getting off topic.