Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intercepted's post is reproduced here as it just says it all.
Hugh, try looking up telecommunication regs, that's where the law on non ground-based transmitters is found, but do try and do it yourself, the world doesn't have an obligation to spoonfeed you like a baby.
HJ, you're making a public fool of yourself, even the PPL studes can see that...
"An attitude of being anti-authority will lead a person to regularly break rules and procedures for no very obvious reason. He or she may recent being told what to do, or may simply feel that rules and regulations are unnecessary or should not apply to him as an individual."
.....
"He generally dislike any outside interference with what he sees his 'right' to fly in any fashion he likes. All this ignores the simple truth that the vast majority of aviation rules and procedures are only enacted after a great deal of thought, and usually as a result of lessons learnt painfully by others."
.....
"He generally dislike any outside interference with what he sees his 'right' to fly in any fashion he likes. All this ignores the simple truth that the vast majority of aviation rules and procedures are only enacted after a great deal of thought, and usually as a result of lessons learnt painfully by others."
HJ, you're making a public fool of yourself, even the PPL studes can see that...
I suspect that there is no clear, single law which states "Thou shalt not use a mobile phone in an aircraft" - it's more likely to be entrenched within some weasel-wording such as 'emitting devices used in aeroplanes shall be licensed and operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of that licence' or similar.
Anyway IO540, why not make yourself famous by ringing the CAA's Enforcement Branch from your spamcan and see how your test case goes....
Anyway IO540, why not make yourself famous by ringing the CAA's Enforcement Branch from your spamcan and see how your test case goes....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Mushroom Man, I'll play along for a while ....
In and amongst your insults, you implied earlier that this "law" regarding use of mobile phones was enshrined in the ANO ("all proper pilots have read it") and now you refer me to something called "the telecommunications regs", which despite having been in the data and telecommunications business for over 25 years I appear to have neglected to come across. Hmmm, 2/10, must try harder ...
I simply want to know the reference for this statute with which you are trying to impress "PPL studes". However, it's OK, I know you don't know the answer, and the more you bluster, the sillier you make yourself look, which is fine by me!
Hardly surprising really, after all, we should never forget where mushrooms live, and what they're fed on, should we ?
Toodle pip !
In and amongst your insults, you implied earlier that this "law" regarding use of mobile phones was enshrined in the ANO ("all proper pilots have read it") and now you refer me to something called "the telecommunications regs", which despite having been in the data and telecommunications business for over 25 years I appear to have neglected to come across. Hmmm, 2/10, must try harder ...
I simply want to know the reference for this statute with which you are trying to impress "PPL studes". However, it's OK, I know you don't know the answer, and the more you bluster, the sillier you make yourself look, which is fine by me!
Hardly surprising really, after all, we should never forget where mushrooms live, and what they're fed on, should we ?
Toodle pip !
If I recall correctly, didn't someone get a year inside for using a mobile phone in an aeroplane? Prosecuted under Art. 55 of the ANO as it pertained at the time.
There's probably something within the Telecommunications Act 2003, but that's even less easy to read than the ANO.
There's probably something within the Telecommunications Act 2003, but that's even less easy to read than the ANO.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly, didn't someone get a year inside for using a mobile phone in an aeroplane? Prosecuted under Art. 55 of the ANO as it pertained at the time.
In an airliner.
The cabin crew tells you to stop it; you refuse, probably (because you've just had 3 pints of beer) make some derogatory comment about her skirt, and since the flight has not yet departed they call the police and you get taken off and "sorted out". Coppers at airports like nothing better than a bit of employment.
This is half the problem here... people are getting mixed up between being naughty on an airliner and breaking some rule which is prominently plastered all over the place, and being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them.
There is a mass of regs in the province of the Radiotelecommunications Agency which few people care about. For example you "cannot" use most of the VHF transceivers on the U.S. market because they are not CAA approved (the RTA has delegated the approvals of aviation related bits to the CAA, who probably in turn sub out the job to some commercial lab). I am sure this is true but does it relate to anything real? Some of these can record the audio and play it back; this is supposedly illegal in the UK but who actually cares?
I would not make voice calls airborne because they rarely if ever work, and I don't listen to music because I find one is busy enough with ATC (and my intercom's music input feature mutes the music when there is any radio activity so unless flying non-radio one gets constant breaks). But this is different from saying something is illegal and there is a good reason for it being illegal.
If I really wanted airborne voice calls capability I would get the satphone connected to the intercom. Can't see the point though, when one can do texting with the satphone very easily.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken an interest in this thread but I dont really see where it is going.
Is the use of mobile 'phones specifically banned on private flights? Well, if it says so in the legislation it is, but no one has yet come forward with a reference.
Is there any evidence mobile 'phones interfere with instruments? This from Boeing would suggest they dont.
Boeing performed extensive tests as reported in AeroMagazine's Interference from Electronic Devices in response to reports by flight crews of anomalies that they believed to be caused by electronic devices. The flight crews had apparently confirmed the effect by switching the "suspect" device on and off and watching the effects. Despite this, and despite the fact that Boeing in many cases was able to purchase the actual offending device from the passenger and use it in extensive testing, Boeing was never able to reproduce any of the anomalies.
In any event in light aviation a great many flights will not be navigating by reference to radio nav. equipment so the issue is redundant.
Could the use of a phone be distracting? Clearly it might, depending on the circumstances, which is why their use in cars has been banned. If it distracts you from any of the tasks involved in operating the aircraft clearly whatever the legislation says or doesnt say you would be nuts to use a 'phone in flight.
That is about it, isnt it?
Not much point in a load of posturing.
Is the use of mobile 'phones specifically banned on private flights? Well, if it says so in the legislation it is, but no one has yet come forward with a reference.
Is there any evidence mobile 'phones interfere with instruments? This from Boeing would suggest they dont.
Boeing performed extensive tests as reported in AeroMagazine's Interference from Electronic Devices in response to reports by flight crews of anomalies that they believed to be caused by electronic devices. The flight crews had apparently confirmed the effect by switching the "suspect" device on and off and watching the effects. Despite this, and despite the fact that Boeing in many cases was able to purchase the actual offending device from the passenger and use it in extensive testing, Boeing was never able to reproduce any of the anomalies.
In any event in light aviation a great many flights will not be navigating by reference to radio nav. equipment so the issue is redundant.
Could the use of a phone be distracting? Clearly it might, depending on the circumstances, which is why their use in cars has been banned. If it distracts you from any of the tasks involved in operating the aircraft clearly whatever the legislation says or doesnt say you would be nuts to use a 'phone in flight.
That is about it, isnt it?
Not much point in a load of posturing.
All emitting devices whether installed or used in aircraft are required to be licensed in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(1) of The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006
The only exemption to this law as regards cellphones is as stated in The Wireless Telegraphy (Mobile Communication Services on Aircraft) (Exemption) Regulations 2008. This basically allows 1800 Mhz cellphone use with on-board pico-cell systems above a heght of 3000m. The sort of thing which Ryanair has in some of its aircraft.
So the law you would be breaking would be a general law regarding licensing of emitting devices in aircraft, not one that specifically mentions cellphones. Whether public transport or private is nihil ad rem; your cellphone is not licensed for use in an aircraft.
The only exemption to this law as regards cellphones is as stated in The Wireless Telegraphy (Mobile Communication Services on Aircraft) (Exemption) Regulations 2008. This basically allows 1800 Mhz cellphone use with on-board pico-cell systems above a heght of 3000m. The sort of thing which Ryanair has in some of its aircraft.
So the law you would be breaking would be a general law regarding licensing of emitting devices in aircraft, not one that specifically mentions cellphones. Whether public transport or private is nihil ad rem; your cellphone is not licensed for use in an aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle, help me out if you would be so kind. Section 8 :-
8 Licences and exemptions
(1) It is unlawful—
(a) to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
(b) to instal or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by OFCOM.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a television receiver (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003) for receiving a television programme; or
(b) the installation of a television receiver for use solely for that purpose.
(3) OFCOM may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) the establishment, installation or use of wireless telegraphy stations or wireless telegraphy apparatus of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, either absolutely or subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as may be so specified.
(4) If OFCOM are satisfied that the condition in subsection (5) is satisfied as respects the use of stations or apparatus of a particular description, they must make regulations under subsection (3) exempting the establishment, installation and use of a station or apparatus of that description from subsection (1).
(5) The condition is that the use of stations or apparatus of that description is not likely to involve undue interference with wireless telegraphy
So in essence, I may not operate any mobile telegraphy which has not been duly licenced - is that correct?
But surely, mobile telephones are duly licenced already, otherwise we would be breaking the law by operating them anywhere ?
I'm sure it's obvious to you, but it's interesting !
Thanks,
Hugh
8 Licences and exemptions
(1) It is unlawful—
(a) to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
(b) to instal or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by OFCOM.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a television receiver (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003) for receiving a television programme; or
(b) the installation of a television receiver for use solely for that purpose.
(3) OFCOM may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) the establishment, installation or use of wireless telegraphy stations or wireless telegraphy apparatus of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, either absolutely or subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as may be so specified.
(4) If OFCOM are satisfied that the condition in subsection (5) is satisfied as respects the use of stations or apparatus of a particular description, they must make regulations under subsection (3) exempting the establishment, installation and use of a station or apparatus of that description from subsection (1).
(5) The condition is that the use of stations or apparatus of that description is not likely to involve undue interference with wireless telegraphy
So in essence, I may not operate any mobile telegraphy which has not been duly licenced - is that correct?
But surely, mobile telephones are duly licenced already, otherwise we would be breaking the law by operating them anywhere ?
I'm sure it's obvious to you, but it's interesting !
Thanks,
Hugh
(3) OFCOM may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) the establishment, installation or use of wireless telegraphy stations or wireless telegraphy apparatus of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, either absolutely or subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as may be so specified.
Basically anything using RF must be licensed unless it has an Exemption. So you don't need a licence for a PMR446 transceiver, a Tracker system, a WLAN router etc - or even a CB radio these days. But you do for aircraft emitters or marine transceivers, for example. The Exemptions will stipulate conditions of use.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them.
No harm, but I could care less for your 'own' privacy when we meet midair and become intertwined, all because you were too busy bopping along to McFly on your iphone than to watch out for me. Did you catch that call I made on frequency announcing my position? No?
too late.
No harm, but I could care less for your 'own' privacy when we meet midair and become intertwined, all because you were too busy bopping along to McFly on your iphone than to watch out for me. Did you catch that call I made on frequency announcing my position? No?
too late.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has an Aircraft Actually Crashed Because of Mobile Phone Emissions?
"Well, the most accurate answer is that we don't really know, but the short answer is that it probably has. On the night of Friday 6 February, 2003, a Piper Navajo Chieftain light aircraft was on approach to Christchurch, New Zealand. It was dark, and the weather was poor, so the landing was using instruments only. Some 2km short of the runway, the plane flew into a tree, killing the pilot and seven passengers. Only two survived.
Later analysis revealed that the plane had been below the correct glide path for the runway, and that the instruments were telling the pilot to descend. The instruments had malfunctioned and the pilot had, understandably, continued to follow their instructions, being unaware of the malfunction. It transpired that the pilot had made a call on his mobile just before the glide path signal was acquired. The call ceased when the plane crashed. Although the final report was inconclusive, no evidence was found to support any other theory for the crash."
Part of the conclusion in a very detailed report by the Transport Investigation in NZ:
3.10 The use of cellphones and computers permitted by the pilot on the flight had the potential to cause electronic interference to the aircraft's avionics, and was unsafe.
3.11 The pilot's own cellphone was operating during the last 3 minutes of the flight, and could have interfered with his glide slope indication on the ILS approach.
Link to full report:
Later analysis revealed that the plane had been below the correct glide path for the runway, and that the instruments were telling the pilot to descend. The instruments had malfunctioned and the pilot had, understandably, continued to follow their instructions, being unaware of the malfunction. It transpired that the pilot had made a call on his mobile just before the glide path signal was acquired. The call ceased when the plane crashed. Although the final report was inconclusive, no evidence was found to support any other theory for the crash."
Part of the conclusion in a very detailed report by the Transport Investigation in NZ:
3.10 The use of cellphones and computers permitted by the pilot on the flight had the potential to cause electronic interference to the aircraft's avionics, and was unsafe.
3.11 The pilot's own cellphone was operating during the last 3 minutes of the flight, and could have interfered with his glide slope indication on the ILS approach.
Link to full report:
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total Flapper, you are not doing too well on the accuracy stakes. Sorry.
Nowhere did I say the ANO forbids mobiloe use. Try reading the post you refer to before making inaccurate and misleading replies.
As a 25 yer veteran of the telecomms business I concur with your self-rating of 2/10, though I feel that a bit generous. If you are so experienced you'd know full well the rules regarding antenna height above the ground, wouldn't you?
No. 0/10, due to bluster. (and that's putting it politely)
PPL studes made the apposite posts themselves - nothing I said was addressed to them, let alone set out to "impress" them. You really need to pay more attention and not let your rather innacurate reading lead you into such obvious nonsenical accusations.
Paying due regard to the law is "bluster", is it? You sad, sad man.
My God, what a sick world some people live in.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Nowhere did I say the ANO forbids mobiloe use. Try reading the post you refer to before making inaccurate and misleading replies.
As a 25 yer veteran of the telecomms business I concur with your self-rating of 2/10, though I feel that a bit generous. If you are so experienced you'd know full well the rules regarding antenna height above the ground, wouldn't you?
No. 0/10, due to bluster. (and that's putting it politely)
PPL studes made the apposite posts themselves - nothing I said was addressed to them, let alone set out to "impress" them. You really need to pay more attention and not let your rather innacurate reading lead you into such obvious nonsenical accusations.
Paying due regard to the law is "bluster", is it? You sad, sad man.
My God, what a sick world some people live in.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have realised why I visit PPRuNe so rarely these days.
The forum is ruined by all this posturing.
It is a forum to discuss topics of interest - not to score points, and prove how clever you are, or to be overtly rude.
It is probably why so many old and experienced faces have disappeared from here.
The forum is ruined by all this posturing.
It is a forum to discuss topics of interest - not to score points, and prove how clever you are, or to be overtly rude.
It is probably why so many old and experienced faces have disappeared from here.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the answer to the original post was yes here for an amplified one:
Amplified Mobile (Cell) Phone Adaptor - Adaptors - Pilot Warehouse'ASCO
or here for non amplified:
GSM Cell Phone Adapter @ Flightstore Pilot Supplies
Though it comes with a note: "We do not promote or advise the use of this equipment during flight."
I wonder how many of the posters above have used a mobile phone at some point while driving where I'm sure you will agree, the consequences can be just as bad and maybe even more likely! (Not condoning use of mobiles in flight before you go off on one!)
Amplified Mobile (Cell) Phone Adaptor - Adaptors - Pilot Warehouse'ASCO
or here for non amplified:
GSM Cell Phone Adapter @ Flightstore Pilot Supplies
Though it comes with a note: "We do not promote or advise the use of this equipment during flight."
I wonder how many of the posters above have used a mobile phone at some point while driving where I'm sure you will agree, the consequences can be just as bad and maybe even more likely! (Not condoning use of mobiles in flight before you go off on one!)
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my first visit to this forum for some weeks. It reminds me why I don't come here often.
I've forgotten to turn off my mobile phone before flying a few times. I soon find out: as I pass 1000 feet or so, it loses signal and starts its "mating call" which I hear in the headset. Finger goes to top pocket, presses the "power" button and holds it for a couple of seconds, and the noise stops.
An earlier cellphone of mine couldn't be turned off in that way, so it stayed on during the (short) flight. On the ILS (in VMC, practising) in the Arrow, it burbled in my headset and at the same moment the localiser needle swept full-scale from side to side (rather like a windscreen wiper). There are several different signal paths the interference could have take to cause that, but it's irrelevant. That cellphone interfered with that ILS display. I will not fly with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft. I will certainly not fly an ILS with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft.
Despite all the bluster, I've not seen any law that says "thou shalt not use thy cellphone in a GA aircraft in the UK". If there is one, it would be useful to see the reference. Since cellphones don't need a licence for "normal" use, it would probably need a lawyer to interpret the regulations.
In the USA, use of cellphones in GA is allowed. I've been told (I've not checked it) that selected cellsites even have an antenna set angled upwards to facilitate them. But that's the USA, where they do lots of things differently.
I've forgotten to turn off my mobile phone before flying a few times. I soon find out: as I pass 1000 feet or so, it loses signal and starts its "mating call" which I hear in the headset. Finger goes to top pocket, presses the "power" button and holds it for a couple of seconds, and the noise stops.
An earlier cellphone of mine couldn't be turned off in that way, so it stayed on during the (short) flight. On the ILS (in VMC, practising) in the Arrow, it burbled in my headset and at the same moment the localiser needle swept full-scale from side to side (rather like a windscreen wiper). There are several different signal paths the interference could have take to cause that, but it's irrelevant. That cellphone interfered with that ILS display. I will not fly with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft. I will certainly not fly an ILS with a cellphone switched on in the aircraft.
Despite all the bluster, I've not seen any law that says "thou shalt not use thy cellphone in a GA aircraft in the UK". If there is one, it would be useful to see the reference. Since cellphones don't need a licence for "normal" use, it would probably need a lawyer to interpret the regulations.
In the USA, use of cellphones in GA is allowed. I've been told (I've not checked it) that selected cellsites even have an antenna set angled upwards to facilitate them. But that's the USA, where they do lots of things differently.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil2002_03.pdf
And from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200119.PDF:-
So near, and yet . . .
From a report by the BEA (the French AAIB)
The pilot of a Mooney M20J was approaching his destination. The weather had been good for the majority of the flight, but he was aware that it deteriorated considerably towards the destination and had informed his planned alternate aerodrome, which he had passed on his route, that he expected to have to turn back and land there. However the forecast was for the situation to improve.
The visibility below cloud deteriorated, and was described by witnesses as “very poor”. It seems the pilot had selected the first stage of flap, possibly to improve his forward view and increase his manoeuvrability at low speed. The aircraft disappeared from radar view and the wreckage was found in the side of a barn on the top of a hill 2 and a half kilometres from the aerodrome, which was situated in the valley beyond.
The investigation is not yet complete, 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. The cloud layer through which the aircraft was flying was broken, and probably allowed him to catch sight of the ground from time to time. He also knew the aerodrome and the surrounding area well, having flown the route many times before.
There were other factors. The temperature of the cloud was below freezing, and icing could be expected. Finally, at the moment of impact the pilot was talking on his mobile phone to a colleague on the ground at his destination, having requested an update on the weather.
From a report by the BEA (the French AAIB)
The pilot of a Mooney M20J was approaching his destination. The weather had been good for the majority of the flight, but he was aware that it deteriorated considerably towards the destination and had informed his planned alternate aerodrome, which he had passed on his route, that he expected to have to turn back and land there. However the forecast was for the situation to improve.
The visibility below cloud deteriorated, and was described by witnesses as “very poor”. It seems the pilot had selected the first stage of flap, possibly to improve his forward view and increase his manoeuvrability at low speed. The aircraft disappeared from radar view and the wreckage was found in the side of a barn on the top of a hill 2 and a half kilometres from the aerodrome, which was situated in the valley beyond.
The investigation is not yet complete, 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. The cloud layer through which the aircraft was flying was broken, and probably allowed him to catch sight of the ground from time to time. He also knew the aerodrome and the surrounding area well, having flown the route many times before.
There were other factors. The temperature of the cloud was below freezing, and icing could be expected. Finally, at the moment of impact the pilot was talking on his mobile phone to a colleague on the ground at his destination, having requested an update on the weather.
LEAFLET NO. 29 GUIDANCE CONCERNING THE USE OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ON BOARD AIRCRAFT
1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
To safeguard operations, JAR-OPS 1.110 requires an operator “..... to take all reasonable measures to ensure that no person does use, on board an aeroplane, a portable electronic device that can adversely affect the performance of the aeroplane’s systems and equipment”.
Recognising the need to avoid differences between airlines in the manner in which portable electronic device (PED) usage is controlled, this leaflet provides information to assist understanding of the issues, and it establishes common operational policy consistent with the requirements of JAR OPS 1.110.
Although the primary target audience of this leaflet is the airline community, operators of business aircraft, and operators of light aeroplanes and rotorcraft need to be alert to the risks from PED interference. These operators are recommended to adopt equivalent precautions as promoted in this leaflet.
The certification of systems and equipment is outside the scope of this leaflet. Hence it does not apply to approved equipment permanently installed in the aircraft for the purposes of passenger entertainment, or to installed telephone systems approved as satisfying airworthiness standards and licensed for air-ground radio telephone. These systems and equipment will need to satisfy applicable certification requirements and related operating restrictions. Similarly, the leaflet does not apply to permitted medical equipment which meets applicable requirements.
2 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
2.1 General
The use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) on board aircraft by flight crew, cabin crew and passengers presents a source of uncontrolled electro-magnetic radiation with the risk of adverse interference effects to aircraft systems. Given that a civil aircraft flying at high altitude and high speed in busy airspace is in an obviously hazardous environment, and given that many of the onboard systems are safety devices intended to reduce the risks of that environment to tolerable levels, then anything that degrades the effectiveness of those systems will increase the exposure of the aircraft to the hazards.
Consequently, the aircraft operator needs to take measures that will reduce the risks to acceptable limits. PEDs fall into two main categories; non-intentional transmitters and intentional transmitters. The first category includes, but is not limited to, computing equipment, cameras, radio receivers, audio and video reproducers, electronic games and toys, together with portable, non-transmitting devices intended to assist flight and cabin crews in their duties. Intentional transmitters are transmitting devices such as remote control equipment (which may include some toys), two-way radios, cellphones and satellite phones. In periods between transmissions, an intentional transmitter may radiate interference as a nonintentional transmitter.
2.2 Non-intentional transmitting PEDs
PEDs that are non-intentional transmitters will radiate emissions from internal oscillators and processor clocks, some types of motor, and power supply converters. The radio frequencies involved may fall in the bands used for aeronautical radio services, and emission levels may be sufficient to affect aircraft radio receivers through their antennas. Use of a PED on the flight deck presents a particular risk to those navigation systems having antenna systems located in the radome.
JAA Administrative & Guidance Material
2.3 Intentional transmitting PEDS
PEDs that are intentional transmitters may induce interference directly into aircraft equipment, wiring or components with sufficient power to adversely affect the proper functioning of aircraft systems. Many aircraft have non-metallic floors and internal doors that present no barrier to prevent the transmission from penetrating to the avionics equipment bays and to the flight deck. Tests (reference 8.6) have shown that demonstrated susceptibility levels of aircraft equipment, particularly equipment qualified to earlier standards, can easily be exceeded.
2.3.1 Cellphones
The rapid growth in cellphone1 usage has presented the most significant risk to aircraft safety from PED interference. Cellphones are both non-intentional and intentional transmitting PEDs, operating on spot channel frequencies in the bands of approximately 415 MHz, 900 MHz or 1800 MHz. (Some regions of the world use slightly different bands). Most use digital modulation but analogue types are still in use. Their maximum transmitted power is in the range of typically 1 to 5 watts. The actual power transmitted at a particular time is controlled by the cellular network and may vary from 20mW to maximum rated power of the cellphone depending on quality of the link between the cellphone and the network. Even in standby mode, a cellphone transmits periodically to register and re-register with the cellular network and to maintain contact with a base station.
The transmitted power and precise radio frequency of an operating cellphone is dependent on the traffic on the network, the distance of the cellphone from the nearest base station, and any obstacles or attenuation in the signal path. An aircraft on the ground at an airport is likely to be in close proximity to a base station resulting in a strong link between that station and an onboard cellphone. Under these circumstances, the cellphone would seek a free channel in the assigned communication band and its output power would be set by the network to a low level sufficient to maintain the link. Interference levels would, as a result, be low and probably harmless but this cannot be guaranteed. Closing of the aircraft doors increases attenuation in the signal path, and as the aircraft increases its distance from the base station, the output power setting of the cellphone is increased, eventually to its maximum rating. The risk of interference is then at its greatest. At altitude, the cellphone will transmit periodically attempting to register with the cellular network. The quality of the link is likely to be poor and the cellphone will radiate maximum power in these circumstances. Furthermore, since it is likely to be in line-of-sight range of multiple base stations, some degradation of the network operation may result2 and actual communication may not be possible.
The effect of this type of functioning is that, when the aircraft is on the ground near a base station, the interference risk can be low but not negligible, and it will increase as the aircraft taxies and then climbs away from the network base stations. The simultaneous use in an aircraft of several cellphones will result in transmissions at different radio frequencies leading to a more complex interference environment.
1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
To safeguard operations, JAR-OPS 1.110 requires an operator “..... to take all reasonable measures to ensure that no person does use, on board an aeroplane, a portable electronic device that can adversely affect the performance of the aeroplane’s systems and equipment”.
Recognising the need to avoid differences between airlines in the manner in which portable electronic device (PED) usage is controlled, this leaflet provides information to assist understanding of the issues, and it establishes common operational policy consistent with the requirements of JAR OPS 1.110.
Although the primary target audience of this leaflet is the airline community, operators of business aircraft, and operators of light aeroplanes and rotorcraft need to be alert to the risks from PED interference. These operators are recommended to adopt equivalent precautions as promoted in this leaflet.
The certification of systems and equipment is outside the scope of this leaflet. Hence it does not apply to approved equipment permanently installed in the aircraft for the purposes of passenger entertainment, or to installed telephone systems approved as satisfying airworthiness standards and licensed for air-ground radio telephone. These systems and equipment will need to satisfy applicable certification requirements and related operating restrictions. Similarly, the leaflet does not apply to permitted medical equipment which meets applicable requirements.
2 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
2.1 General
The use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) on board aircraft by flight crew, cabin crew and passengers presents a source of uncontrolled electro-magnetic radiation with the risk of adverse interference effects to aircraft systems. Given that a civil aircraft flying at high altitude and high speed in busy airspace is in an obviously hazardous environment, and given that many of the onboard systems are safety devices intended to reduce the risks of that environment to tolerable levels, then anything that degrades the effectiveness of those systems will increase the exposure of the aircraft to the hazards.
Consequently, the aircraft operator needs to take measures that will reduce the risks to acceptable limits. PEDs fall into two main categories; non-intentional transmitters and intentional transmitters. The first category includes, but is not limited to, computing equipment, cameras, radio receivers, audio and video reproducers, electronic games and toys, together with portable, non-transmitting devices intended to assist flight and cabin crews in their duties. Intentional transmitters are transmitting devices such as remote control equipment (which may include some toys), two-way radios, cellphones and satellite phones. In periods between transmissions, an intentional transmitter may radiate interference as a nonintentional transmitter.
2.2 Non-intentional transmitting PEDs
PEDs that are non-intentional transmitters will radiate emissions from internal oscillators and processor clocks, some types of motor, and power supply converters. The radio frequencies involved may fall in the bands used for aeronautical radio services, and emission levels may be sufficient to affect aircraft radio receivers through their antennas. Use of a PED on the flight deck presents a particular risk to those navigation systems having antenna systems located in the radome.
JAA Administrative & Guidance Material
2.3 Intentional transmitting PEDS
PEDs that are intentional transmitters may induce interference directly into aircraft equipment, wiring or components with sufficient power to adversely affect the proper functioning of aircraft systems. Many aircraft have non-metallic floors and internal doors that present no barrier to prevent the transmission from penetrating to the avionics equipment bays and to the flight deck. Tests (reference 8.6) have shown that demonstrated susceptibility levels of aircraft equipment, particularly equipment qualified to earlier standards, can easily be exceeded.
2.3.1 Cellphones
The rapid growth in cellphone1 usage has presented the most significant risk to aircraft safety from PED interference. Cellphones are both non-intentional and intentional transmitting PEDs, operating on spot channel frequencies in the bands of approximately 415 MHz, 900 MHz or 1800 MHz. (Some regions of the world use slightly different bands). Most use digital modulation but analogue types are still in use. Their maximum transmitted power is in the range of typically 1 to 5 watts. The actual power transmitted at a particular time is controlled by the cellular network and may vary from 20mW to maximum rated power of the cellphone depending on quality of the link between the cellphone and the network. Even in standby mode, a cellphone transmits periodically to register and re-register with the cellular network and to maintain contact with a base station.
The transmitted power and precise radio frequency of an operating cellphone is dependent on the traffic on the network, the distance of the cellphone from the nearest base station, and any obstacles or attenuation in the signal path. An aircraft on the ground at an airport is likely to be in close proximity to a base station resulting in a strong link between that station and an onboard cellphone. Under these circumstances, the cellphone would seek a free channel in the assigned communication band and its output power would be set by the network to a low level sufficient to maintain the link. Interference levels would, as a result, be low and probably harmless but this cannot be guaranteed. Closing of the aircraft doors increases attenuation in the signal path, and as the aircraft increases its distance from the base station, the output power setting of the cellphone is increased, eventually to its maximum rating. The risk of interference is then at its greatest. At altitude, the cellphone will transmit periodically attempting to register with the cellular network. The quality of the link is likely to be poor and the cellphone will radiate maximum power in these circumstances. Furthermore, since it is likely to be in line-of-sight range of multiple base stations, some degradation of the network operation may result2 and actual communication may not be possible.
The effect of this type of functioning is that, when the aircraft is on the ground near a base station, the interference risk can be low but not negligible, and it will increase as the aircraft taxies and then climbs away from the network base stations. The simultaneous use in an aircraft of several cellphones will result in transmissions at different radio frequencies leading to a more complex interference environment.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef :
Indeed : and that (show me the reference) was my original point. I've heard many times that it's illegal, but never seen it written anywhere.
I don't advocate using a mobile phone in flight, for a variety of reasons, including distraction, the continuous burbling in the headset - and the fact that not being continuously contactable is one of the plus factors of flying for me ! I have used mobiles elsewhere in the world with varying success, and I have used one once in the UK during an emergency whilst being sans radio (and undercarriage and flaps ...)
I used to be a very regular prooner, but I gave up for a long while largely because I got fed up with the didacts and pedants who are simply not willing to embrace the possibility that laws, rules and systems which have been around for decades can sometimes be improved or are rendered irrelevant by technological change. Witness the thread recently on which someone was praising the capabilities of a new type of battery, which immediately degenerated into an anti-GPS tantrum from the usual buffoons. These guys, coupled with those who, rather than give genuinely experienced-based advice, insist on pretending that flying at PPL level is an "art", with the complexity of brain surgery, only to be practised my those of superior moral fibre and intellect, rather than a slightly risky wholly enjoyable activity open to just about anyone who can afford it, finally drove me lose interest in coming here.
However, I've changed : whereas the old me would get annoyed, the new me is quite happy to remember that this is nothing more than an entertainment which occasionally proves useful, and to prick the odd self-righteous over-inflated ego for a bit of fun (and to have the favour returned if it's warranted!).
Despite all the bluster, I've not seen any law that says "thou shalt not use thy cellphone in a GA aircraft in the UK". If there is one, it would be useful to see the reference. Since cellphones don't need a licence for "normal" use, it would probably need a lawyer to interpret the regulations.
I don't advocate using a mobile phone in flight, for a variety of reasons, including distraction, the continuous burbling in the headset - and the fact that not being continuously contactable is one of the plus factors of flying for me ! I have used mobiles elsewhere in the world with varying success, and I have used one once in the UK during an emergency whilst being sans radio (and undercarriage and flaps ...
)I used to be a very regular prooner, but I gave up for a long while largely because I got fed up with the didacts and pedants who are simply not willing to embrace the possibility that laws, rules and systems which have been around for decades can sometimes be improved or are rendered irrelevant by technological change. Witness the thread recently on which someone was praising the capabilities of a new type of battery, which immediately degenerated into an anti-GPS tantrum from the usual buffoons. These guys, coupled with those who, rather than give genuinely experienced-based advice, insist on pretending that flying at PPL level is an "art", with the complexity of brain surgery, only to be practised my those of superior moral fibre and intellect, rather than a slightly risky wholly enjoyable activity open to just about anyone who can afford it, finally drove me lose interest in coming here.
However, I've changed : whereas the old me would get annoyed, the new me is quite happy to remember that this is nothing more than an entertainment which occasionally proves useful, and to prick the odd self-righteous over-inflated ego for a bit of fun (and to have the favour returned if it's warranted!).