Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is such a concept as a "blanket licence". We have them to listen to Radio 4 on FM. Your cellphone, I suspect, has a blanket licence. As to what the terms of that licence may be, or whether or not it specifies where you may or may not use it, I know not.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Keef, but licences for home radios were abolished in 1971. There is no such thing as a "blanket" licence. There are exemptions for some devices such as WLAN, bluetooth devices, car remote central locking devices, etc.
Fuji, I am sure you are correct that the phone is approved by EASA. That does not mean that it is approved or licensed by OfCom, who have responsibility under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Not all rules and laws that cover what goes on in an aircraft are contained within the ANO or CAA regulations. It is illegal to murder your wife in an aircraft, but that law does not appear within the ANO.
Katamarino, you may be sceptical about the ability to petition to change out-of-date laws. That does not justify breaking them.
Fuji, I am sure you are correct that the phone is approved by EASA. That does not mean that it is approved or licensed by OfCom, who have responsibility under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Not all rules and laws that cover what goes on in an aircraft are contained within the ANO or CAA regulations. It is illegal to murder your wife in an aircraft, but that law does not appear within the ANO.
Katamarino, you may be sceptical about the ability to petition to change out-of-date laws. That does not justify breaking them.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who actually cares?
What has brought about this dead horse?
Has Captain Stable had an airprox with another plane whose pilot was talking on a mobile phone? If not, who cares? See and avoid doesn't work anyway; the best protection (based on midair stats) is to fly above about 2000ft and avoid < 1000ft at all costs.
What has brought about this dead horse?
Has Captain Stable had an airprox with another plane whose pilot was talking on a mobile phone? If not, who cares? See and avoid doesn't work anyway; the best protection (based on midair stats) is to fly above about 2000ft and avoid < 1000ft at all costs.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Who actually cares?
So, if a rule (to take an example) is demonstrably detrimental to flight safety in a particular circumstance (say, total radio failure, and you need to contact ATC on your phone...), you're saying that because it would be breaking a rule, you should plow on regardless into a hillside? Or maybe an pilot with a lapsed IR should scud-run when he hits bad weather, and then a cliff, instead of climbing to a safe height and using his instrument skills, because it's against the rules?
Adhering blindly to any rule, no matter how inappropriate it may be in the situation, is the mark of a mindless drone. Do you honestly think the kind of people who get into the position to make these rules are capable of thinking through every possible situation? Even people with *more* than two braincells couldn't do that.
I hope I never find my safety relying on a singleminded rule-lover; I'd far rather rely on someone who has enough brainpower to take the rules with a pinch of salt, and make an intelligent decision about what the best course of action is given possibly unforseen circumstances. Isn't coping with situations not covered by the rules, or where applying them might be dangerous, what being a good pilot is all about?
Captain Stable; do you by any chance work as an accountant, or for the government?
Adhering blindly to any rule, no matter how inappropriate it may be in the situation, is the mark of a mindless drone. Do you honestly think the kind of people who get into the position to make these rules are capable of thinking through every possible situation? Even people with *more* than two braincells couldn't do that.
I hope I never find my safety relying on a singleminded rule-lover; I'd far rather rely on someone who has enough brainpower to take the rules with a pinch of salt, and make an intelligent decision about what the best course of action is given possibly unforseen circumstances. Isn't coping with situations not covered by the rules, or where applying them might be dangerous, what being a good pilot is all about?
Captain Stable; do you by any chance work as an accountant, or for the government?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I know what CS does for a living. He is an ISO9000 quality manager 
But I could be totally wrong, in which case I owe him an unreserved apology. He might be an RoHS Compliance Officer
OTOH he might be doing something really worthwhile, safeguarding the world for our children and our childrens' children: he might be a WEEE Compliance Officer.
Need to be careful though; he might be a REACH Compliance Officer and I have just been emailing with a bunch of those, working for one of my biggest customers
Actually, CS, I can tell you I am entirely satisfied with my attitude, but if one day I die in a CFIT while doing something not on my Radio License (oops that should be Radio Licence, with a "c") then here's my permission for the accident to be dissected freely here on pprune
But I could be totally wrong, in which case I owe him an unreserved apology. He might be an RoHS Compliance Officer
OTOH he might be doing something really worthwhile, safeguarding the world for our children and our childrens' children: he might be a WEEE Compliance Officer.
Need to be careful though; he might be a REACH Compliance Officer and I have just been emailing with a bunch of those, working for one of my biggest customers
That appears to sum up your attitude to the rules, particularly those affecting flight safety. What a sad indictment. Thank god most people I know in aviation have a rather more responsible and professional attitude.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Katamarino
So, if a rule (to take an example) is demonstrably detrimental to flight safety in a particular circumstance (say, total radio failure, and you need to contact ATC on your phone...), you're saying that because it would be breaking a rule, you should plow on regardless into a hillside? Or maybe an pilot with a lapsed IR should scud-run when he hits bad weather, and then a cliff, instead of climbing to a safe height and using his instrument skills, because it's against the rules?
I can quite see circumstances in which it would be really quite sensible to use a mobile phone whilst airborne. Not in the above circumstances, no. In the first place, R/T failure is covered by other actions - perhaps you might like to read up on them to refresh your memory - or don't you brush up your skills with an instructor from time to time? In the second place, why would he be scudrunning in the first place? Sounds like piss-poor planning and preparation to me.
IO540, you will find if you take the trouble to look in a dictionary, that licence is a noun and license is a verb. Hence the different spellings. Sorry if that confused you.
Actually, CS, I can tell you I am entirely satisfied with my attitude
In the meantime, if all you can do is throw insults, this conversation is over. In the meantime, thank you to all the people who have PM'd me about this thread, including the studes who, unlike a few of the contributors, value their safety and that of other user of our airspace.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the good thing about having low standards is that I can easily exceed them. This is much more satisfying than merely reaching them. We should all strive to do our very best in all our endeavours 
Ah, of course CS, a sky-god like you *never* gets caught out by unexpected weather...anyone who does must be a mere pleb. Your arrogance is astounding.
I hope the numerous studes who are evidently in awe of your superior state of being are not led in the direction of complete inflexibility that you seem from your posts here to be advocating.
As for IO540 and I, I suspect we'll both stick to our own, carefully thought out, instructor-advised, and experience-gained ways...
I hope the numerous studes who are evidently in awe of your superior state of being are not led in the direction of complete inflexibility that you seem from your posts here to be advocating.
As for IO540 and I, I suspect we'll both stick to our own, carefully thought out, instructor-advised, and experience-gained ways...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought things had carmed down a bit. Clearly not.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
So said John Selden.
The problem CS is that even if you are correct, for laws to be effective they must be promulgated in a reasonable way to those that might be expected to obey the law.
I cant help feeling that if the CAA was concerned about this matter they would have introduced enabling legislation to outlaw their use in the ANO, the first place a pilot would look for an issue of this sort, whereas your analogy with murdering your wife is not relevant, because a pilot would not look in the ANO to see if this was legal to do so.
Moreover, it would seem reasonable to test pilots specifically on such an important issue (if indeed it was as important as this thread suggests) in the PPL, or CPL writtens, whereas I have never seen such a question.
Whoever was writing to the CAA might like to also bring this to their attention.
I love these smiles - hopefully it will bring peace, tranquility etc etc to all concerned.
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
So said John Selden.
The problem CS is that even if you are correct, for laws to be effective they must be promulgated in a reasonable way to those that might be expected to obey the law.
I cant help feeling that if the CAA was concerned about this matter they would have introduced enabling legislation to outlaw their use in the ANO, the first place a pilot would look for an issue of this sort, whereas your analogy with murdering your wife is not relevant, because a pilot would not look in the ANO to see if this was legal to do so.
Moreover, it would seem reasonable to test pilots specifically on such an important issue (if indeed it was as important as this thread suggests) in the PPL, or CPL writtens, whereas I have never seen such a question.
Whoever was writing to the CAA might like to also bring this to their attention.
I love these smiles - hopefully it will bring peace, tranquility etc etc to all concerned.
There's a difference between 'safe' and 'legal' in many walks of life. It is legal for me to drive at 250 kph on certain German autobahns, even though at times it's not always safe. Whereas it's illegal to drive at 71 mph on a deserted UK motorway even under perfect conditions where it would be entirely safe to do so.
However, I dispute the notion that a pilot's first resort would be to the ANO. I suspect that a quick trawl through the AICs would come first.
AIC 1/2004 (pink 62) does refer to use of PEDs, but is clearly aimed more at commercial operators and the CAA needs to come up with something unequivocal which cannot be misinterpreted by the barrack room lawyers of the GA world who will try to twist them into their own interpretation.
CB radios are now 'licence exempt', as are PMR446 transceivers. Hands up all those who think this means that they may legally be used in aircraft?
Katamarino, the situations you describe are covered under the principle of force majeure.
However, I dispute the notion that a pilot's first resort would be to the ANO. I suspect that a quick trawl through the AICs would come first.
AIC 1/2004 (pink 62) does refer to use of PEDs, but is clearly aimed more at commercial operators and the CAA needs to come up with something unequivocal which cannot be misinterpreted by the barrack room lawyers of the GA world who will try to twist them into their own interpretation.
CB radios are now 'licence exempt', as are PMR446 transceivers. Hands up all those who think this means that they may legally be used in aircraft?
Katamarino, the situations you describe are covered under the principle of force majeure.
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Aug 2009 at 17:25.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for IO540 and I, I suspect we'll both stick to our own, carefully thought out, instructor-advised, and experience-gained ways...
If you can't tell the difference between use of a mobile phone in a genuine emergency situation (when all rules go out of the window anyway in the interests of safety) and flying with the intent of using a mobile phone, to the extent of buying an adaptor so you can chat to your mates, then there's not a lot of hope.
I am very far from being a skygod. I have been caught out by unexpected weather, once. It was about 20 years ago. I learned from that. I leanred not to get into such situations, and in situations such as you describe, press-on-itis is the worst reaction possible. Yet, strangely, it is the only course you describe.
Fuji, I don't particularly care where "the first place a pilot would look" is. The CAA and the government are not bound to place rules in "the first place" a pilot would look. As has already been pointed out, there is a lot of legislation that affects aviation that is elsewhere than the ANO. If someone can't be bothers to look elsewhere, then that is their lookout.
Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it. Such action is clearly beyond those here who insist upon being spoonfed.
And, incidentally, PPL/CPL written exams are not the last word on any subject, either. We have found two incorrect answers to exam questions in the last week.
Katamarino, if you wish to continue the conversation further, please refrain from the insults.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Stable
Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it. Such action is clearly beyond those here who insist upon being spoonfed.
Has it entered your head that the student in question was asking to be "spoon fed" as you put it? Would it not have been in said student's better interests to advise which publications to trawl through & see how he/she got on?
Furthermore I think if it takes two days of searching by several instructors? to locate some piece of legislation then it is high time the whole outdated system was overhauled.
As for your attitude towards anyone who has an opinion, I seriously would not like to be based on your airfield let alone be one of your unfortunate students.
Some of us who are not quite so "professional", nevertheless are responsible adults. You seem believe that we are all a bunch of numpties that need educated?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been caught out by unexpected weather, once. It was about 20 years ago
Yesterday and today, on behalf of one of my students, I was searching through EASA, ICAO and other legislation, even to searching through the Chicago Convention itself, for something that appeared covered by the ANO. There was a suspicion by several of us that other legislation applied, so we went looking for it
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the catfight, has anyone answered Keefs question?
Where does it say that you cannot use a mobile phone in a GA aircraft. Not an airliner with radio navigation instruments but a plain old VFR GA aircraft.
I can see that if you have a VOR or ADF for navigation then the interference that you can hear (the mobile mating call) could cause an erroneous reading on the VOR, glideslope or ADF.
However, if you have a VFR aircraft without all of these, then how is it dangerous? apart from the attention required to operate it?
ZA
Where does it say that you cannot use a mobile phone in a GA aircraft. Not an airliner with radio navigation instruments but a plain old VFR GA aircraft.
I can see that if you have a VOR or ADF for navigation then the interference that you can hear (the mobile mating call) could cause an erroneous reading on the VOR, glideslope or ADF.
However, if you have a VFR aircraft without all of these, then how is it dangerous? apart from the attention required to operate it?
ZA
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS
I am afraid you have missed the point. Strictly I agree with you - and said so, but if the law is buried, few will be aware and even fewer will comply with the law. Such legislation is poor, particularly when "directed" at people who have no legal training.
In that far it is rare for the authorites to seek a civil remedy, the more so when the law is not clear. A civil remedy will very rarely be sought unless the prosecuting authority consider their chances of success are good and in this instance I doubt they would "persuade" a barrister to give that opinion. Now please dont get carried away I am not suggesting the law should be abused simply because it cannot be prosecuted.
To the extent that the use of a mobile 'phone is clearly entirely legal if it forms part of an approved installation (as in the case of Avidyne's Iridium system) I doubt anyone would rush to prosecute a case for using exactly the same equipment simply because it is not approved.
If you wire a GPS into the aircraft it is an illegal installation unless approved as a minor or major mod. At what point the unit is wired into the aircraft is debatable but many such "installations" are strictly illegal. I dont see a rush on the part of the CAA to prosecute.
Your obsession with the law is misplaced. You have been put to proof on citing the legislation, and the legislation is not clear. Far more important is whether or not the use of a mobile 'phone in the cockpit is dangerous.
Frankly I am feed up with a society in which we think we can legislate for every human activity. We must learn to accept personal responsibility. We must learn to assess what it is reasonable and unreasonable to do. Is it reasonable to make a call in VMC whilst not relying on radio navigation equiment using a quick dial function on a phone attached to a self muting headset - if it worked I think it is entirely reasonable. I dont see it as a distraction any more than head down time punching up an approach on the FMS. Is it reasonable to use a 'phone during an approach in poor weather - clearly it would not be. I am in little doubt people spend plenty of head down time dealing with all sorts of cockpit tasks these days - a mobile 'phone is just one more potential distraction but in an entirely different way than for the driver of a car. We spend time using our audio facalties regardless. I am sure you have monitored guard on box 2 as well as listening out on box 1, or had the ATIS on box 2 and the active frequency on box 1. Add into the mix a mobile call, when you are in open FIR and not talking to anyone and the workload of that call is less than either of the two former scenarios.
In short a call for common sense, the excercise of command responsibility, an understanding of what might and might not be distracting and why, rather than blind obedience to unclear legislation.
That is me done - we may well disagree, which is the joy of PPRuNe, but that is the way I see it having read each side of the debate.
FWIW in terms of your students I wouldnt bother spending hours on some obtuse piece of legislation - unless I am mistaken you are not a lawyer and they are not attending law school. Unless you have adequate training you are in danger anyway of not understanding the legislation or knowing whether or not you have fondd something that appears to support your case and missed those elements that dont. If it were that simple we would neither have these debates or PPRuNe nor would Barristers command the fees they do. In my game if I had a pound for every time a client told me he had studied the legisaltion and come to the conclusion what he was doing was entirely legal I would be a great deal wealthier than I am. If you are a FI your time would be far better spent ensuring they understand why it might not be prudent for them to use a 'phone in the cockpit.
I am afraid you have missed the point. Strictly I agree with you - and said so, but if the law is buried, few will be aware and even fewer will comply with the law. Such legislation is poor, particularly when "directed" at people who have no legal training.
In that far it is rare for the authorites to seek a civil remedy, the more so when the law is not clear. A civil remedy will very rarely be sought unless the prosecuting authority consider their chances of success are good and in this instance I doubt they would "persuade" a barrister to give that opinion. Now please dont get carried away I am not suggesting the law should be abused simply because it cannot be prosecuted.
To the extent that the use of a mobile 'phone is clearly entirely legal if it forms part of an approved installation (as in the case of Avidyne's Iridium system) I doubt anyone would rush to prosecute a case for using exactly the same equipment simply because it is not approved.
If you wire a GPS into the aircraft it is an illegal installation unless approved as a minor or major mod. At what point the unit is wired into the aircraft is debatable but many such "installations" are strictly illegal. I dont see a rush on the part of the CAA to prosecute.
Your obsession with the law is misplaced. You have been put to proof on citing the legislation, and the legislation is not clear. Far more important is whether or not the use of a mobile 'phone in the cockpit is dangerous.
Frankly I am feed up with a society in which we think we can legislate for every human activity. We must learn to accept personal responsibility. We must learn to assess what it is reasonable and unreasonable to do. Is it reasonable to make a call in VMC whilst not relying on radio navigation equiment using a quick dial function on a phone attached to a self muting headset - if it worked I think it is entirely reasonable. I dont see it as a distraction any more than head down time punching up an approach on the FMS. Is it reasonable to use a 'phone during an approach in poor weather - clearly it would not be. I am in little doubt people spend plenty of head down time dealing with all sorts of cockpit tasks these days - a mobile 'phone is just one more potential distraction but in an entirely different way than for the driver of a car. We spend time using our audio facalties regardless. I am sure you have monitored guard on box 2 as well as listening out on box 1, or had the ATIS on box 2 and the active frequency on box 1. Add into the mix a mobile call, when you are in open FIR and not talking to anyone and the workload of that call is less than either of the two former scenarios.
In short a call for common sense, the excercise of command responsibility, an understanding of what might and might not be distracting and why, rather than blind obedience to unclear legislation.
That is me done - we may well disagree, which is the joy of PPRuNe, but that is the way I see it having read each side of the debate.
FWIW in terms of your students I wouldnt bother spending hours on some obtuse piece of legislation - unless I am mistaken you are not a lawyer and they are not attending law school. Unless you have adequate training you are in danger anyway of not understanding the legislation or knowing whether or not you have fondd something that appears to support your case and missed those elements that dont. If it were that simple we would neither have these debates or PPRuNe nor would Barristers command the fees they do. In my game if I had a pound for every time a client told me he had studied the legisaltion and come to the conclusion what he was doing was entirely legal I would be a great deal wealthier than I am. If you are a FI your time would be far better spent ensuring they understand why it might not be prudent for them to use a 'phone in the cockpit.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and Crash One to answer your question please do a quick search on mobiles and aviation. You will see there have been a few studies. I cited earlier one by Boeing in which they found no (note zero) evidence of any interference caused to radio navigation equipment in consequence of a mobile phone. They even purchased a number of 'phones form passengers on flights where the 'phone had been the only 'phone left switched on and was alledged to cause interference - they could not reproduce the problem on a single occasion. Draw your own conclusions.
So far as radios are concerned I regularly forget to turn my 'phone off these days - you will often hear a series of short beeps on the radio during the climb as the 'phone "attempts" to remain connected to the network.
Personally I always made a point of turning off my phone before every flight - I never make a point these days but I try to remember to do so. That inevitably means I often fly with it on, but I have never had an issue. If the flight was in IMC I still ensure all phones are tunred off - why, well it just makes me more comfortable to eliminate a possible risk however small I believe it may be.
If you have a problem with the radios check you have turned off your 'phone - it is not rocket science, if that doesnt work try something else.
In recent months I have had far more problems with serious interference from illegal ground based installations - I suspect the authorities time would be far better spent prosecuting those concerned or at least indentifying the culprits and asking them to desist because their actions are dangerous and have nearly caused me to go elsewhere recently during an IP
So far as radios are concerned I regularly forget to turn my 'phone off these days - you will often hear a series of short beeps on the radio during the climb as the 'phone "attempts" to remain connected to the network.
Personally I always made a point of turning off my phone before every flight - I never make a point these days but I try to remember to do so. That inevitably means I often fly with it on, but I have never had an issue. If the flight was in IMC I still ensure all phones are tunred off - why, well it just makes me more comfortable to eliminate a possible risk however small I believe it may be.
If you have a problem with the radios check you have turned off your 'phone - it is not rocket science, if that doesnt work try something else.
In recent months I have had far more problems with serious interference from illegal ground based installations - I suspect the authorities time would be far better spent prosecuting those concerned or at least indentifying the culprits and asking them to desist because their actions are dangerous and have nearly caused me to go elsewhere recently during an IP
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound
I must confess to being a little flippant, I didn't think it did & I saw the report by Boeing. Though I too used to make sure it was off, & have lately become lax, & the radio seems to have got worse lately.
Pure coincidence.
Ground based stations may be a possibility, 119.*** freqs seem to be more of a problem?
I have no other radio nav kit other than a PDA memory map GPS.
I must confess to being a little flippant, I didn't think it did & I saw the report by Boeing. Though I too used to make sure it was off, & have lately become lax, & the radio seems to have got worse lately.
Pure coincidence.
Ground based stations may be a possibility, 119.*** freqs seem to be more of a problem?
I have no other radio nav kit other than a PDA memory map GPS.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have my copy of the official (1971? - not sure of the exact date) document up here with me, but I recall some "wording" along the lines of ""General Exemption Terms" which covered sound broadcasting, standard frequency services, and others. You didn't need to "buy" a licence: you were "deemed" to have one. That may have changed in the intervening years - I haven't bothered to follow it up. My amateur radio licence has recently become "fee free" - but I still have to have one.
You do need a licence to listen to aircraft radio: those are issued to the aircraft. The operator needs a FRTOL to use the radio. Away from the aircraft, there is no licence and in theory it's illegal to listen to airband. Nobody has been prosecuted for that in living memory.
I'm sure a lawyer could tell us whether a licence is needed (and deemed to exist) for cellular phones, sound broadcast, etc. Personally I'm not bothered - but it could have a bearing if we really care about the legality of using a cellphone in an aircraft.
Anyway, the horse is very dead. Time to stop flogging it.
