What is SO important ?
Indeed - there is nothing more annoying than trying to be 'respectful' only to see some ass hole three seats away get away with being a '2-@'.
I look forward to the day that the '2-@' is grabbed by the ear and led off the 'plane.
I look forward to the day that the '2-@' is grabbed by the ear and led off the 'plane.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's probably fair to say that the aircraft isn't going to crash, but that doesn't mean that unauthorised use of electronic equipment isn't going to cause any problems. What get's on my nerves are those passengers who decide that they know better than the crew and think they are exempt from following the crew's lawful instructions.
I've experienced interference from electronic devices in various different classes of aircraft that has had effects ranging from severe difficulties with navigation and communications to simple distraction. If passengers are told to switch off their toys there is a damn good reason for it.
The last thing I want when approaching minima on an approach at night in crappy weather, tired on my fourth flight of the day and needing clear comms and no distraction, is to hear the buzz-buzz-b-b-buzz of a GSM phone trying to get a signal because someone can't wait a few minutes until we've arrived and shut down. If the individual stopped to think about it, he probably wouldn't want that either.
I've experienced interference from electronic devices in various different classes of aircraft that has had effects ranging from severe difficulties with navigation and communications to simple distraction. If passengers are told to switch off their toys there is a damn good reason for it.
The last thing I want when approaching minima on an approach at night in crappy weather, tired on my fourth flight of the day and needing clear comms and no distraction, is to hear the buzz-buzz-b-b-buzz of a GSM phone trying to get a signal because someone can't wait a few minutes until we've arrived and shut down. If the individual stopped to think about it, he probably wouldn't want that either.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Torque Tonight
It's probably fair to say that the aircraft isn't going to crash
Originally Posted by Torque Tonight
The last thing I want when approaching minima on an approach at night in crappy weather, tired on my fourth flight of the day and needing clear comms and no distraction, is to hear the buzz-buzz-b-b-buzz of a GSM phone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see where the accident report mentions mobile phones, One Outsider, the pilot was distracted by a company R/T message.
Statistically, any flight with more than a few dozen pax is very likely to have at least one active (probably inadvertently so) mobile on board. Since we don't regularly hear of resulting problems, I conclude that any risk is minimal. This view is further reinforced by the fact that airlines that can make money from it have actually encouraged the use of mobiles by providing on board connectivity.
Despite this, I try to remember to turn mine off, both because it's a reasonable requirement of the airline and to avoid annoying/inconveniencing fellow pax.
Statistically, any flight with more than a few dozen pax is very likely to have at least one active (probably inadvertently so) mobile on board. Since we don't regularly hear of resulting problems, I conclude that any risk is minimal. This view is further reinforced by the fact that airlines that can make money from it have actually encouraged the use of mobiles by providing on board connectivity.
Despite this, I try to remember to turn mine off, both because it's a reasonable requirement of the airline and to avoid annoying/inconveniencing fellow pax.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at least one active (probably inadvertently so) mobile on board
Since we don't regularly hear of resulting problems, I conclude that any risk is minimal
airlines that can make money from it have actually encouraged the use of mobiles by providing on board connectivity.
I haven't actually met any pilots of large passenger aircraft that are comfortable with unrestricted use of passenger electronic devices in flight. I have met many pilots who have relayed experiences of suspected interference: The industry experts and legislators are similarly cautious. This combined opinion really ought to trump the anecdotally based scepticism of the opposing lobby. People enjoy the convenience of using their mobile phones, and resent restrictions on use: In order to justify non-compliance in their own mind, a fictitious web of semi-truths, soft facts and apocryphal incidents are spun together in an attempt to muddy the water sufficiently.
PV - I'm not referring to your post above, or any other specific person - I just happened to use your quotes as being the closest to hand.
Tightslot,
Your understanding is correct. Strange as it may seem, the engineering fraternity responsible for mobile 'phone standards are generally against any mobile 'phone use because it's so annoying - and they spend a lot of time flying! I was told by a CAA guy that ICAO had come out against it because of fears of 'aircraft rage'.
The difficulty is that because aircraft age and wiring harnesses chafe and the shielding of cables decreases, an aircraft that was OK when new may not be two or three years later. Typically, a 737 has about 70 radio antennas of various sorts, scattered around it. Now you can hear on R/T the 'ticking' caused by a mobile 'phone, but you could have the radio altimeter go unhappy, or the ILS receiver or the VOR, and you would know (maybe) that there was a problem - but not what. If you were doing a CATIII autoland, you certainly wouldn't want any chance of the altimeter going t*ts up!
So having reported as a fault that something didn't work, engineering would get involved and the result would be 'no fault found'.
Your understanding is correct. Strange as it may seem, the engineering fraternity responsible for mobile 'phone standards are generally against any mobile 'phone use because it's so annoying - and they spend a lot of time flying! I was told by a CAA guy that ICAO had come out against it because of fears of 'aircraft rage'.
The difficulty is that because aircraft age and wiring harnesses chafe and the shielding of cables decreases, an aircraft that was OK when new may not be two or three years later. Typically, a 737 has about 70 radio antennas of various sorts, scattered around it. Now you can hear on R/T the 'ticking' caused by a mobile 'phone, but you could have the radio altimeter go unhappy, or the ILS receiver or the VOR, and you would know (maybe) that there was a problem - but not what. If you were doing a CATIII autoland, you certainly wouldn't want any chance of the altimeter going t*ts up!
So having reported as a fault that something didn't work, engineering would get involved and the result would be 'no fault found'.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax Vobiscum,
You are quite right in noting that no mobile phone is mentioned in the report, but that is missing the point completely. Whether the missed/not understood radio call, that ultimately led to the accident, was due to poor language skills, tiredness or mobile phone interference mattered not for the outcome.
It is a clear example of what on the surface might look like an insignificant and trivial matter leading to a serious accident. Passengers who leave their phones on, either mistakenly or deliberately, have no means of quantifying the risks and it appears that for most passengers the only frame of reference on whether something is safe or not is whether the aircraft crashed or not.
The reality is that it is a much more complex matter.
You are quite right in noting that no mobile phone is mentioned in the report, but that is missing the point completely. Whether the missed/not understood radio call, that ultimately led to the accident, was due to poor language skills, tiredness or mobile phone interference mattered not for the outcome.
It is a clear example of what on the surface might look like an insignificant and trivial matter leading to a serious accident. Passengers who leave their phones on, either mistakenly or deliberately, have no means of quantifying the risks and it appears that for most passengers the only frame of reference on whether something is safe or not is whether the aircraft crashed or not.
The reality is that it is a much more complex matter.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it just a little ironic that ...
airlines such as DL, are seeking approval to use iPads in the cockpit ? One assumes they would be used during takeoffs and landings, as well as on the ground and in-flight.
See here.
See here.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing ironic about it. DL, or any other carrier intend on using iPads as EFBs, will have to go through an approval process which will address all safety issues.
Class 1 and 2 EFBs, which an iPad will fall under, are subject to the same restrictions as PEDs and will be used accordingly. They will also be what is known as controlled devices, meaning each individual device's software and hardware standards will be under company control.
The only way a passenger can comply with the regulations is to switch off and stow their PED.
This was all discussed at length recently. If you are interested the thread should be easy to find.
Class 1 and 2 EFBs, which an iPad will fall under, are subject to the same restrictions as PEDs and will be used accordingly. They will also be what is known as controlled devices, meaning each individual device's software and hardware standards will be under company control.
The only way a passenger can comply with the regulations is to switch off and stow their PED.
This was all discussed at length recently. If you are interested the thread should be easy to find.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best solution I have seen to the problem of passengers who know best and use their mobile phones when they are not permitted to was demonstrated by a BA shorthaul crew after landing at Heathrow.
1) During taxi to the gate, a very important businessman turns his mobile phone on and calls his wife to say he will be late home because of our awfully long delay.
2) His unnecessarily loud conversation is overheard by cabin crew (and most of the cabin for that matter).
3) Cabin crew tell him to turn it off, as instructed.
4) He ignores them.
5) A few minutes the later, aircraft stops on the taxi-way.
6) Announcement from the First Officer explaining firmly that we will continue our taxi once the gentleman has turned his phone off and complies with crew instructions.
7) Lots of tutting from passengers.
8) Lots of blushing from Mr Important.
9) Phone is switched off.
10) We resume taxi to the gate.
11) Mr Important is rather sheepish and surprisingly quiet when gathering his belongings to make his way off the aircraft.
1) During taxi to the gate, a very important businessman turns his mobile phone on and calls his wife to say he will be late home because of our awfully long delay.
2) His unnecessarily loud conversation is overheard by cabin crew (and most of the cabin for that matter).
3) Cabin crew tell him to turn it off, as instructed.
4) He ignores them.
5) A few minutes the later, aircraft stops on the taxi-way.
6) Announcement from the First Officer explaining firmly that we will continue our taxi once the gentleman has turned his phone off and complies with crew instructions.
7) Lots of tutting from passengers.
8) Lots of blushing from Mr Important.
9) Phone is switched off.
10) We resume taxi to the gate.
11) Mr Important is rather sheepish and surprisingly quiet when gathering his belongings to make his way off the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picocells
You're quite correct TightSlot (as radeng, who knows far more about the subject than I, has confirmed). I do have one concern about Picocells, though. Some day, a mechanical/electrical problem or simple inadvertence will cause a failure. At this point, all the active mobiles will (fairly) rapidly ramp up to their maximum power levels in a (probably vain) attempt to contact the next nearest base station. This should provide an excellent test for the shielding of the on-board electronic systems, though you'll forgive me if I don't wish to be there when this experiment takes place 
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand some confusion - US norm's to switch off as the door closes, switch on when clear of the landing runway. Idiots do rankle - once saw somebody power up during finals in bad wx. Offered my opinion from across the cabin on that one.
Very limited patience for "please keep your phone off until you leave the transfer bus and enter the terminal building".
Very limited patience for "please keep your phone off until you leave the transfer bus and enter the terminal building".
