|
Intercepted's post is reproduced here as it just says it all.
"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." 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....:\ |
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 ! |
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. |
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. |
being naughty in the privacy of their own plane where nobody is going to catch them. |
but I am still waiting for the law which says one cannot use a mobile on a private flight in a GA aircraft.
|
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. |
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. |
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 |
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Have you ever seen your aircraft's Radio licence? Does your mobile phone appear on it? No. End of story. |
(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. |
...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? :ugh: too late. |
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: |
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. |
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. |
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!) |
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. |
From http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil2002_03.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. 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. |
Keef :
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 ...:ugh:) 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!). :ok: |
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. |
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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by IO540
Why not?
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. |
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. |
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! |
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.:ok: |
Beagle :
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. |
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). |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
Beagle :
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. 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 ? |
Pompous Fungus Colonel Mushroom Wing Commander Toadstool Ad |
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. |
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'.
|
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. :) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:35. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.