Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh, I have no problem with anyone who argues that such-and-such a law is out of date and should be changed/repealed.
Where I tend to have a problem is with people who say "I disagree with such-and-such a law and therefore I intend to ignore it".
If law has been outdated by the continuous roll of technology, then it is up to us as pilots to present the facts to whichever authorities (Govt., CAA, whomever) and demand that the law be changed. Until then, it remains the law.
When I flew the airlines, there were always a few pilots who said "I disagree with the company's SOPs so I intend to do such-and-such". Other pilots flying with them then didn't know whether they were coming or going half the time. My argument to such pilots is "If your argument is so strong, then present it to the Training Committee or the Fleet Managers, and suggest SOPs be changed, because if you have had such a good idea, then perhaps everyone ought to be doing as you do". But you know what? They never did.
Where I tend to have a problem is with people who say "I disagree with such-and-such a law and therefore I intend to ignore it".
If law has been outdated by the continuous roll of technology, then it is up to us as pilots to present the facts to whichever authorities (Govt., CAA, whomever) and demand that the law be changed. Until then, it remains the law.
When I flew the airlines, there were always a few pilots who said "I disagree with the company's SOPs so I intend to do such-and-such". Other pilots flying with them then didn't know whether they were coming or going half the time. My argument to such pilots is "If your argument is so strong, then present it to the Training Committee or the Fleet Managers, and suggest SOPs be changed, because if you have had such a good idea, then perhaps everyone ought to be doing as you do". But you know what? They never did.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain S
I am glad things have carmed down a bit.
As to the debate, whilst I agree with your last comment, the fact remains that specific legislation banning the use of mobiles in light aircraft has yet to be cited.
It is a little like the discussion we have had in the past about the IMC rating. There are many who like to argue the minima are different between IMCr and IR holders - however recommendations are just that, they are only recommendations. It may well be sensible to follow those recommendations but more often than not they are also recommendations for a reason - to give the pilot some flexibility. The Regulator is very unlikely to prosecute successfully because a pilot did not comply with the recommendations.
In terms of the accident report you reproduce I guess most of us would instantly deplore any pilot talking on a mobile during the final stages of an approach in IMC. However inevitably accident reports reveal the consequences when things go wrong. To flip the coin, and perhaps to play devils advocate, you will not read the report about the pilot that arrived at an unmanned airport in weather conditions worse than forecast, made a call to a mate on the ground to establish whether or not an approach was possible and, on the strength of their report, went some where else and landed safely.
I suspect one of the reasons GA operates in a more liberal enviroment is partly in recognition that many flights operate into an out of unlicensed and unmanned fields. We dont always have the luxury of manned towers, automated weather systems and approach and tower control.
Please dont misunderstand - I am neither advocating the use of mobile 'phones in the situation you cite, nor am I promoting home made approaches, I am simply pointing out that sometimes their are reasons why even experienced and usually law abiding pilots consider their are extenuating circumstances for following a particular course of action as much as their are occasions when their actions can be considered negligent.
I am glad things have carmed down a bit.
As to the debate, whilst I agree with your last comment, the fact remains that specific legislation banning the use of mobiles in light aircraft has yet to be cited.
It is a little like the discussion we have had in the past about the IMC rating. There are many who like to argue the minima are different between IMCr and IR holders - however recommendations are just that, they are only recommendations. It may well be sensible to follow those recommendations but more often than not they are also recommendations for a reason - to give the pilot some flexibility. The Regulator is very unlikely to prosecute successfully because a pilot did not comply with the recommendations.
In terms of the accident report you reproduce I guess most of us would instantly deplore any pilot talking on a mobile during the final stages of an approach in IMC. However inevitably accident reports reveal the consequences when things go wrong. To flip the coin, and perhaps to play devils advocate, you will not read the report about the pilot that arrived at an unmanned airport in weather conditions worse than forecast, made a call to a mate on the ground to establish whether or not an approach was possible and, on the strength of their report, went some where else and landed safely.
I suspect one of the reasons GA operates in a more liberal enviroment is partly in recognition that many flights operate into an out of unlicensed and unmanned fields. We dont always have the luxury of manned towers, automated weather systems and approach and tower control.
Please dont misunderstand - I am neither advocating the use of mobile 'phones in the situation you cite, nor am I promoting home made approaches, I am simply pointing out that sometimes their are reasons why even experienced and usually law abiding pilots consider their are extenuating circumstances for following a particular course of action as much as their are occasions when their actions can be considered negligent.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 26th Aug 2009 at 14:18.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the initial report has found several factors which they believe are pertinent to the accident. The pilot was using GPS for navigation, and they believe that the precision of the GPS information gave him an excess of confidence in his ability to find the aerodrome in the conditions.
Had he been flying an NDB approach, would they have written
but the initial report has found several factors which they believe are pertinent to the accident. The pilot was using the ADF for navigation, and they believe that the precision of the ADF information gave him an excess of confidence in his ability to find the aerodrome in the conditions.
Discuss
Their maximum transmitted power is in the range of typically 1 to 5 watts
Indeed, there is a theoretical possibility of bringing down a cellular network by making loads of base station connections concurrently. Better ban airline travel then, or strip search the embarking passengers and confiscate any phones. I wonder why this doesn't happen?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Why not?
Discuss
Discuss
An NDB approach exists to provide a non-precision approach (i.e. with no glidepath information) to a specified minimum descent height/altitude above a runway, either at or before the missed approach point (MAP), at which point if there is no visual contact with the runway, the pilot must carry out a missed approach.
All the above is laid out in promulgated information. None of this equates to a pilot stumbling around at low level in IMC with temperatures below freezing without a radalt or radar coverage hoping he can find a runway somewhere in the murk, whilst talking to a mate on his mobile.
Incidentally, I hope you saw that the CAA are conducting tests on GPS interference/jamming, and I am sure you will be keen to read the results at your earliest opportunity.
I've tried to explain that there is no need for any specific law concerning use of cellphones in aircraft as a de facto one already exists.
All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed. There is an exmption to this requirement that allows the use of 1800 MHz GSM cellphones in aircraft fitted with pico-cell terminals. Hence no other use of cellphones is lawful in aircraft registered in the UK or flying in UK airspace.
It's quite simple - but perhaps not sufficiently so for some, it would seem.
All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed. There is an exmption to this requirement that allows the use of 1800 MHz GSM cellphones in aircraft fitted with pico-cell terminals. Hence no other use of cellphones is lawful in aircraft registered in the UK or flying in UK airspace.
It's quite simple - but perhaps not sufficiently so for some, it would seem.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because an NDB approach is not designed to help a pilot to find the airport.
Of course, the real reason for NDBs is to enable IR candidates to be checked out on NDB holds.
All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed
I think this area is more tricky than might appear.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a very, very basic failing that many of the Meldrews on this thread are conveniently ignoring.
The law is there for a purpose, it is intended to be precise for very obvious reasons. Thus unless there is a specific provision which accurately describes the situation it does not apply - the activity is 'legal'.
Strangely this is why laws are actually drafted with a great deal of care.
The complete failure of a direct reference to not using portable devices in an aircraft does show the difficulty the Meldrews face. If may be illegal to wash a hackney cab in the street on a Sunday but not it is not illegal to use portable devices in a light aircraft.
So this is the usual huffing and puffing!
The law is there for a purpose, it is intended to be precise for very obvious reasons. Thus unless there is a specific provision which accurately describes the situation it does not apply - the activity is 'legal'.
Strangely this is why laws are actually drafted with a great deal of care.
The complete failure of a direct reference to not using portable devices in an aircraft does show the difficulty the Meldrews face. If may be illegal to wash a hackney cab in the street on a Sunday but not it is not illegal to use portable devices in a light aircraft.
So this is the usual huffing and puffing!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have noticed that it is possible to get a headset which allows the pilot to connect there mobile phone/ mp3 player does anyone know if you can get an adapter that lets you connect a phone with out having to change headset?
Stay safe and remember that communication comes third after flying and navigating.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle :
Beagle, I think what confuses me is this. A mobile phone is a licensed device. So presumably you mean that all emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed for use in aeroplanes ? And what I cannot see is which part of the act says that ?
All emitting devices used in aeroplanes must be licensed. There is an exmption to this requirement that allows the use of 1800 MHz GSM cellphones in aircraft fitted with pico-cell terminals. Hence no other use of cellphones is lawful in aircraft registered in the UK or flying in UK airspace.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember (wearing another hat) being bullied some years ago by someone who kept telling me I had to let them do X because that was the law. I kept asking to be shown the law, or for a reference to it. None was ever provided.
Eventually, I asked an expert lawyer myself. No, he said, there is no such law. Your answer "No" to their request made it unlawful for them to do X. (X was to do with gravestones).
I've not seen any law on cellphones in GA aircraft in the UK, or any reference to anything that fits. Maybe it is forbidden, maybe not. I just don't know.
I don't plan to use my cellphone in the aircraft anyway - under IFR certainly not, for reasons set out above. I fly with two COM sets and a handheld (which IS covered in the aircraft radio licence).
Eventually, I asked an expert lawyer myself. No, he said, there is no such law. Your answer "No" to their request made it unlawful for them to do X. (X was to do with gravestones).
I've not seen any law on cellphones in GA aircraft in the UK, or any reference to anything that fits. Maybe it is forbidden, maybe not. I just don't know.
I don't plan to use my cellphone in the aircraft anyway - under IFR certainly not, for reasons set out above. I fly with two COM sets and a handheld (which IS covered in the aircraft radio licence).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about if you are flying in an aircraft with no radio or navigation gear? I assume it is technically illegal but why should it be the case? I have never noticed but will have a go to find out if I use my mobile when airbourne will I be charged accurately for the call. When you consider the number of passengers that fly out of UK airports each year how many cases of mobile phones interfering with the aircraft systems are there? I would hazard a guess that 10% of passengers forget to turn their phones off. When I use my mobile phone near my computer, tv, toaster etc these items all operate perfectly normally, I hope that aircraft systems are more secure than any of these but maybe I am wrong.....
Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.
So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.
Anyway, I've had enough of this. So tomorrow I will be writing both to Ofcom and the CAA to obtain a clear statement which even the most ridiculous barrack room lawyer will be able to understand.
So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.
Anyway, I've had enough of this. So tomorrow I will be writing both to Ofcom and the CAA to obtain a clear statement which even the most ridiculous barrack room lawyer will be able to understand.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would that achieve, Beagle?
Let's say the CAA says bluetooth is illegal for airborne use.
Am I going to chuck out my bluetooth GPS receiver, which sends NMEA data to my tablet computer, and replace it with a clumsy cable connected unit? Obviously not.
Come to think of it, my tablet computer is probably illegal too. It contains a wifi radio, which isn't enabled but it could be, couldn't it? It also has a bluetooth radio. And an inductive touch screen which necessarily radiates otherwise it could not find the pen.
What about my satellite phone? It is not CAA approved. Is there any satphone that is CAA approved? I don't think so. Is the MLX770 Iridium radio sold by Avidyne CAA approved?
The whole radio approval business is still stuck in post-WW2 days which is why nobody takes much notice of it. Like it is illegal to record aviation radio exchanges - how ludicrous.
Let's say the CAA says bluetooth is illegal for airborne use.
Am I going to chuck out my bluetooth GPS receiver, which sends NMEA data to my tablet computer, and replace it with a clumsy cable connected unit? Obviously not.
Come to think of it, my tablet computer is probably illegal too. It contains a wifi radio, which isn't enabled but it could be, couldn't it? It also has a bluetooth radio. And an inductive touch screen which necessarily radiates otherwise it could not find the pen.
What about my satellite phone? It is not CAA approved. Is there any satphone that is CAA approved? I don't think so. Is the MLX770 Iridium radio sold by Avidyne CAA approved?
The whole radio approval business is still stuck in post-WW2 days which is why nobody takes much notice of it. Like it is illegal to record aviation radio exchanges - how ludicrous.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go for it Beagle!
A definitive ruling from the CAA? You will not live long enough to receive it. By the time it emerges from the Belgrano`we'll be using an entirely different technology. Remember that building is populated by Meldrews - none of whom got where they are today - by ever making a definite ruling that could be traced back to them! (to mix my quotes).
Keef has a useful (and very relevent!) observation. There are many legal roles which do have the ability to set precedence or rulings. Hence not granting permission for something would make things illegal through that authority - much air traffic legislation works on this principle for instance.
So do ask the CAA for the definitive legal reference which prohibits to use of mobile phones - of all the Meldrews they should be the most capable!
A definitive ruling from the CAA? You will not live long enough to receive it. By the time it emerges from the Belgrano`we'll be using an entirely different technology. Remember that building is populated by Meldrews - none of whom got where they are today - by ever making a definite ruling that could be traced back to them! (to mix my quotes).
Keef has a useful (and very relevent!) observation. There are many legal roles which do have the ability to set precedence or rulings. Hence not granting permission for something would make things illegal through that authority - much air traffic legislation works on this principle for instance.
So do ask the CAA for the definitive legal reference which prohibits to use of mobile phones - of all the Meldrews they should be the most capable!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.
So doesnt that mean it is illegal to use a portable GPS receiver or does it only become illegal if it is transmitting?
Anyway, I've had enough of this. So tomorrow I will be writing both to Ofcom and the CAA to obtain a clear statement which even the most ridiculous barrack room lawyer will be able to understand.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle :
Now you're obviously a very bright chap, and I assume a lawyer to boot. So what confuses me is that, when you say something needs to be licensed before it can be used in an aeroplane, and I invite you to be explicit and say that this means it must be licensed explicity for use in an aeroplane, you just repeat that it must "have a licence".
Do you not see why this is confusing for us mere mortals? And despite what you may think, I'm really not trying to be cute or have a pop - it's just that it seems to me to be vague in the extreme ?
Anything which uses RF and is used in an aeroplane must be licensed unless it has a specific exemption for such use.
So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.
So whether you use a hand-held transceiver, cellphone, blue tooth fashion toy or even you car key fob in an aeroplane, it would require a licence irrespective of whether or not it is licence exempt elsewhere.
Do you not see why this is confusing for us mere mortals? And despite what you may think, I'm really not trying to be cute or have a pop - it's just that it seems to me to be vague in the extreme ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh, IO540 and others...
If the device appears on your aircraft's radio licence you are entitled to use it in the aircraft.
If it does not appear on the aircraft's radio licence it is not licensed, and you may not use it. Check the relevant Act, which BEagle has already quoted, and then stop trying to squirm out of the regulations.
And IO540, if you can point to any document stating that you mobile phone is licensed I will be most astonished. I have bought many mobile phones in my time and I have never seen, nor applied for, nor been given, sold or otherwise obtained a licence for any of them.
If the device appears on your aircraft's radio licence you are entitled to use it in the aircraft.
If it does not appear on the aircraft's radio licence it is not licensed, and you may not use it. Check the relevant Act, which BEagle has already quoted, and then stop trying to squirm out of the regulations.
And IO540, if you can point to any document stating that you mobile phone is licensed I will be most astonished. I have bought many mobile phones in my time and I have never seen, nor applied for, nor been given, sold or otherwise obtained a licence for any of them.
I have to laugh at the naiivety of those that think that idiotic laws can be changed by petitioning the powers that be. Do you really, honestly think any of them give a flying **** what a few GA pilots think? These are the kind of people that brought us Part M, licenses that have to be re-paid for every 5 years, and a host of other 'sensible regulations' based on no evidence other than 'they felt like it'.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it does not appear on the aircraft's radio licence it is not licensed, and you may not use it.
Moreover the phone can be used at any stage of flight including sending SMSs.
Perhaps all Iridium 'phones are licensed.