Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)
 

Hey All,

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?

Thanks

Tom

I'm not sure an adapter, even if available, would be a good idea. Headsets with MP3/phone connectors, such as the Lightspeed Zulu, automatically mute them when the radio is receiving, so you don't miss anything important.

Ive a Lightspeed Zulu and have made a couple of calls from the air with it. It works great. It also takes an MP3 at the same time (havent used this feature) and the radio takes priority over both. Highly recommend it.

Yeh you can buy adapters on the standard aviation supplies websites. Here I managed to make something to get a mic input to a video camera which is tested and works. I plan on seeing if it will work on my mobile so I'll let you know if it does.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ng-videos.html

Is it legal to use a mobile phone whilst airborne?

in a light aircraft you can get away with just putting the phone to your ear, even a cheap hands free thingy works surprisingly well. I did hear a rumour years ago that the reason it was illegal was that phone companies find it hard to charge for the call due to the phone being in sight of numerous masts at the same time which obviously is not the case on the surface.

AFAIK it is still illegal.

In an aircraft that does not have FM-immune systems, it is just plain stupid. What's more, to have your hands and brain occupied by making a phone call when your attention should be on flying is about as stupid as it's possible to get.

In-flight calls still on hold | CAA Newsroom | CAA

Mobile Phones | Information for Passengers | CAA

I also have serious doubts about the wisdom of listening to an MP3 player even when the radio is not receiving. I consider that it's important to be able to hear the note of the engine, any abnormal noises from airframe or engine, etc. For pax, of course, the situation is different. Keep the kiddies entertained, but don't be a kiddie yourself.

I can't think of anything in my group's aircraft, except the radio, which could conceivably be affected by FM.

Well Captain a well balanced and reasonable response!

FM immune? Chasing ghosts in the average spamcan, you're more likely to have strange effects from the portable GPS than anything else. If you had a fly by wire light aircraft with electronic autopilot if might have an effect - but event that kit is supposed to be somewhat immune.....

Yes, I listen to music occasionally when flying. I've also made a couple of phone calls - to deal with unexpected PPR and 2 VHF radio failures.... for the latter the ability to connect to a headset would have been very useful. (and no, the aircraft did not fall out of the sky, the electronics spark and fry or the engine stop).

So, gasax, you consider that the rules are for other people and not for you?

"Unexpected" PPR? Perhaps a little more prior planning and preparation might be of assistance in preventing pi55-poor performance.

GPS doesn't transmit, so will not be a problem to the aircraft equipment.

"somewhat immune"? What is "somewhat immune"? Sorry, but either equipment is certified immune or it is not. I don't think you're ever likely to see a placard stating "THE EQUIPMENT IN THIS AIRCRAFT IS SOMEWHAT FM-IMMUNE"

In some aircraft, I grant you, it will be less of a problem than others. However, unless the CAA grant exceptions based on every airframe in the country (and every pilot's level of ability and experience) then they are naturally going to go for the safe course.

Maoraigh appears to have nothing in his aircraft but a single Nav unit - no VOR/ILS receiver, no ADF, no transponder and no pilot to get distracted from his #1 priority - flying the aircraft.

Using a mobile whie airborne is illegal - and flags up because it locks onto numerous relay stations instead of just one. Make a habit of this and you're likely to be traced, and when caught you'll not get a slap on the wrist. Breaking the Wireless Telegraphy regs is treated very seriously, and would likely involve a seperate action from the CAA for all the other offences/safety breaches you've committed.

As for the irresponsibility - the utter stupidity of doing this while flying - well, my mind just boggles. Listening to music ditto. If you think it's OK to do this what other idiocy do you indulge in whilst flying? Which of the other rules and regs do you think you can arbitarily exempt yourself from? What's up with an ego so huge and self-obsessed that it thinks it needs to make a telephone call from an aeroplane, instead of waiting a few minutes?
Saaad.

I can only say that I hope and pray you'll be caught. People who do this sort of thing are just not responsible enough the be allowed within a country mile of an aeroplane.

It's no wonder PPLs sometimes get a bad reputation when this sort of thing is being discussed on a "Professional" pilot's forum. Shame on you.

However if it is illegal why is transair selling adaptors to allow you to do this *just found* - ?

Tom

I'm not saying the good Captain and the Pompous Fungus are wrong about the illegality, but could someone point to the document which says it is illegal for aircrew to make a call whilst in flight ? Particularly when experiencing radio failure or some other calamity ?

I have had discussions before with Transair about their products - notably headset adaptors, but also ID lanyards with no safety break, and various others.

Sorry, but they're not a very responsible company - althought they sold me a very nice leather jacket. :ok:

I agree 100% with Agaricus' post.

There are too many PPL's with very lax attitudes to flying, thinking they know the bl00dy lot and that the rules don't apply to them.

If anyone reading this thinks "What a load of tosh", then YOU are part of the problem. You are a lousy ambassador for flying, and YOU need to clean up your attitude and professionalism.

I can just see some people here flying along with "Highway to the Danger Zone" top blast in his ears thinking he's a top gun. A couple of weeks ago I watched aghast as a PPL sat himself in a 172, inserted his iPod earphones, then put his headset on over the top and started up and taxyed off.

The mind boggles. :ugh:

Well said Capt Stable.

Perhaps with this rabid attention to the rules you should edit GASIL. Should reduce its readership to 1.

Your ignorance of the effects of GPS receivers is surprising - perhaps you are waiting for some legislative guidance?

Breaking the wireless telephony regs? Oh please. The expensive Radiocommunications Agency are unable to enforce commercial broadcasting rules - where transmitters genuinely pose a threat.

Making a phone call from less than 3000 ft is no different to being on a hill (well not in this neck of the woods) - from 10,000 ft it might lock up multiple cells but there are technical issues to ensure this does not happen. Was a problem 15 years ago though..... When the world was a simpler place and yuo could still send telegrams

As for the rest of these rants - typical Pprune really - do not deal with the issue simply try and shoot the messenger

Were either of you two responsible for the FM immune nonsense that resulted in such expense for so many owners?

I guess the shops which sell these adaptors could say they are for passengers... the adapters which work with an iPod not GSM. ?

Tom

OK, gasax - you consider that the rules don't apply to you, and you will pick and choose which ones you decide to obey.

You are a disgrace. I hope that nobody I know ever has the misfortune to fly with you. You are an accident waiting to happen. When it does happen, I hope and pray that there are no unfortunate passengers killed alongside you.

Hugh, ypour post is as offensive as it is unnecessary. How dare you call someone upholding the law, standards and safety pompous?

You, sir, like yourcolleague gasax, are an ignorant prig.

A prig because you clearly think you are above the law, and have a bad attitude towards it, even when it is manifestly obvious that you are in the wrong, yet still think it smart to argue like a chav car thief that you don't believe it bcause no one has shown it you in writing. The law says NO, end of. There is no discussion because you think you can argue a personal exemption.
Wise up.

Ignorant, because of your telling remark about radio failure/calamity. Are you really a pilot? I doubt it , somehow.

Reason?

Any proper pilot has read the ANO - heard of it?

And what does the ANO say about obeying rules in cases of emergency?
Well, what???

I'm not going to give you a reference - go look it up, and then, if you're man enough, come back here and apologise.

I maight have added daft, or worse too. Why?

Transair selling them. Think about it, go on, try!

It is illegal to shoot people, but guns can be held legally. You can buy a bottle of scotch, but up to you if you drive afterwards... and, as someone said above, they can be used by passengers. Ain't rocket science, is it?

Du'oh!

Please, stay on the ground! You're doing aviation no favours at all coming out with woolly-minded crap like this.

Victor Meldrew squared!

Well for bombastic *******y you have me completely beaten. I suggest you stick to debates on whether its "finals" or "final" in that radio call. Suitably important stuff where any technical knowledge is irrelevent!

Anti-Authority
 

As a brand new PPL i still remember the Human Factors & Flight Safety part of the syllabus:

"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."

Taken from J. Pratts pilot's Licence Course

Colonel Mushroom :-
That's an awful lot of hot air for someone who obviously can't give me a reference ... :D

If I didn't believe you and your amenuensis are firmly on the wind-up, I'd be happy to debate blind adherence to bad law by those incapable of independent thought, but I don't want to spoil your fun - I don't imagine you get out much ....

QED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I must say (as I seem to have been drawn to a response against my better judgment) I wholeheartedly with the Captain (in other threads also) and indeed the 'fungus'. Granted, I am only mid way through my PPL training; I fly for the passion and no other reason. I want to perfect my art of flying and constantly aim to better my previous flight. I take great pride in my own limited airmanship and would expect nothing but at least the same level of commitment from my fellow 'pilots'. It truly amazes me the attitudes displayed by some people here - if you can do nothing else - shut your mouth and respect those with more experience than you and perhaps you would be amazed to see that you don't know everything and, in turn, you might just learn something. The one with the guy putting his headset over his iphone earpiece... the world has gone mad and unfortunately it has spread to the skies :ugh:
I hope to have many years of flying ahead and I honestly don't know where this path will take me, but one thing I can say for sure is the day I behave in this way will be the day I will hang my headset up for good!

Yours in desperation
Ryan

So I wont get the adapter?- Bad time for a bad joke? Sorry

Ryan5252,

With your bold text you give yourself some excellent advice, which I think you should probably follow. As long as you wait until you actually have some experience yourself before deciding if Wing Commander Toadstool actually does know everything, you should be just fine ...

Let's be careful out there, y'all ... :ok:

A firm in the USA called Safety Cell does headset adaptors for popular phones. I bought the Nokia one some years ago; it worked fine but I never used it for real because I find GSM barely works above 1000-2000ft (with some amazing exceptions like being able to get continuous 9.6k internet connection over France at FL80 once) and a text message is much better (which tends to work, eventually, anywhere in the first few thousand feet).

GPRS/3G is even worse.

You ought to look up the frequencies for (a) VHF and (b) GSM ;) ;) ;)

Can somebody find the reference in the ANO which says GSM must not be used airborne, on a private flight??

The reality is that it barely works. One can send texts in general but voice calls tend to be too unreliable even when low down. I suppose one could use it for calling up some anally retarded airport re PPR (one of those who tell you on the radio to land and make a phone call - I think we know who they are).
Love it :ok:

For those insisting upon references, I have already posted two CAA pages which confirm that it is illegal. If that's not good enough for you, then do your own research, and phone the CAA. 01293 567171.

I find it really very telling that PPL students here are the ones defending good airmanship and good safe practice while those trying to defend breaking any rles with wehich they happen to disagree and saying they'll do as they like are (I assmue) qualified PPL's.

Those airline passenger advisory website pages are not law applicable to private flights.

For GA, you need to find a reference in the ANO. The PDF is called CAP393.PDF and you can find it at caa.co.uk. When you have found the reference, please post it so we can be suitably educated.

In a nutshell, the way the law for GA works is this

Civil Aviation Act
Air Navigation Order

and then you have

LASORS (odds and ends delegated to the CAA to fix as they wish)

Everything else is basically advisory, not law, or is simply bull!!!!! :)

When you actually study for a licence instead of playing with yourself over MS FlightSim, you'll do a subject called Air Law. In studying for that, you will find that not all the rules are contained within the ANO.

Now go away and play, and stop bothering the grownups.

FWIW I think you will find IO is pretty well qualified and, more to the point, probably one of the most experienced GA pilots on here.

I was flying a Cirrus last week which has a built in telephone. It uses the Iridium network of low orbit satellites rather than a ground based system common to other mobiles.

The system enables you to send SMS anywhere in Europe at any level, receive METARs and TAFs and weather radar. Its certified and, having checked the manual, there is no requirment to turn off the system when flying any approach including an ILS.

Part 3, Article 20.

Fuji, approved equipment fitted to the aircraft is one thing. Plugging in your Nokia and chatting to your mates or having your ears blasted out by "Highway to the Danger Zone" is another.

It is not good enought for ANYONE, no matter their level of experience or qualifications, to decide which rules they will follow and which they will not.

I was going to suggest that too; I have used the Thuraya system myself for getting airborne weather data (tafs, metars, radar images) but not myself used it for voice (it needs a connection into the intercom to work properly).

I did once get an incoming call (I was on the ground) from a friend at FL300 over Greenland, using his Iridium phone, and while it was legible the quality was extremely poor, which I think is fairly typical of satellite phone systems. I wonder if this is normal...

Didn't look up the context (in the ANO context is everything) but "installed" means installed in the aircraft, and "in connection with the aircraft" means exactly what??

This is why you cannot permanently install e.g. a satellite phone in an aircraft, without a load of paperwork.

You can install the satphone rooftop antenna (e.g. page 7 here) easily because one can get them with Approved Data e.g. TSO. However, the phone and its "car holder" don't normally come with Approved Data so that part is normally mounted in a "temporary" manner. I am sure there are fully approvable systems and maybe the Cirrus is one such - presumably this was an N-reg Cirrus? I'd imagine getting this through EASA would be a nice gravy train for somebody. This looks interesting...

You may also find that if you used your spiv phone in flight, you would breach the contract with your provider and they would terminate your contract.

Has this ever happened?

The network provider cannot tell - other than through analysis of base station connections and even then airborne use will be inconclusive because there will be no altitude data.

Countless airline passengers embark with their phones ON and these phones continue to connect to base stations for the first few thousand feet up. If people were getting cut off, we'd know about it by now.

Folks
A couple of technical points on mobile phones (from memory as the report I produced for someone else on this site is on my other computer)

Reception
As you know phones use UHF frequencies and transmit a digital signal. The ground antenna are set to be directional and a base will normally have an array of 3 aerials each covering 120 (with overlap) in the horizontal plane.
They are also set to "look down" so that little or no signal is transmitted upwards - which is why mobiles can be intermittent at altitude (I did work out from the specs how far from the transmitter you could get a signal at altitude - it was in excess of 40 miles)
This directional setting is the opposite to, say an, aircraft VHF aerial that broadcasts the signal through a 360deg plane.

Multiple site blocking
Can't happen, whan a phone signal is recieved by the system the ground operating system (computer) registers that phone to a particular site (the one with the highest signal).
As the phone moves it's signal is monitored and when the signal level from another base station becomes greater than the signal to the registered site the ground system then de-registers it from it's existing site & re-registers it to the new site known as handover.
Most systems are designed so that an individual phone cannot use two sites simultaniously. Though there is one system where this occurs briefly at handover only.
(We use a VHF PMR radio system at work that does the same, and can set the radio to actually display which site it is working through)
This again varies from aircraft where some national FIS services use mulltiple transmitters with offset frequencies to prevent interference if multiple sites are used.

Thanks for that, west lakes.

As we all know, legislation always lags technology.

The fact remains, however much IO540 might want to search for loopholes and room to squirm, that it is illegal to use a mobile phone when airborne.

The fact also remains that it is very, very stupid to use a handheld when mobile, to make calls unless in case of an emergency, to send texts, to listen to music, etc. etc.

Clearly one for the post of the editor of GASIL :)

And do you consider then that GASILs have no relevance to you? You appear to think they're a load of rubbish that you can happily ignore. If you have nothing but scorn for GASILs and use your comment as an insult, I think people can judge for themselves what your attitude to the rules and to safety is.

Captain, come on, be brave ... you can tell me, I won't breathe a word ... are you really DFC ? :eek:

Inevitably the law will mould how we conduct ourselves in any walk of life. With luck laws are introduced to prevent people following a course of action likely to do harm to themselves or to others. However blind obedience to the law can be dangerous; I thought it was a serious mistake when the carriage of fixed EPIRBs was mandated and wrote to the CAA to explain why. Although my aircraft has a fixed EPIRB if I had to choose between a fixed unit and a hand held unit for over water flights I would opt for the hand held every time and always carry a hand held EPIRB. Representations of this sort often cause the law to be changed for the better.

In the US it is very common for pilots to listen to music or the radio while flying – in the UK it is rare. Personally, I think rather than distract, it improves concentration so long as the music is muted whenever there is traffic over the radio. It is equally common practice for surgeons to play music during the most complicated procedures.

Sending SMS or dialling ‘phone numbers whilst flying in VMC inevitably means a certain amount of head down time which whilst OCAS is clearly not a good idea. On the other hand whatever effect the signal may have on the aircraft’s radio navigation systems is hardly relevant if these are not being used for navigation. If the mobile is connected to your headset (ignore for a moment that it will usually only work low level), and you have set up a one button dial for the number you want to call and the call cuts our if there is radio traffic then realistically doing so is neither likely to be any more hazard that changing frequency on the radio or glancing at the map. As pilots we spend a lot of our time multi tasking and prioritising – that is what we do.

I am not advocating using your mobile, I am simply pointing out that it is worth considering why the law is framed in the way that it is and why common sense should dictate that some things are safe, and other things less safe.

I think that is the more interesting aspect of PPRuNe and other such forums – the discussion that often follows about why legislation is framed in a particular way, rather than simply answering questions posted by other forumites.

I think so far as the fine publication GASIL is concerned there is more than a tendency for many of the "articles" to be written in somewhat patronising terms, hence the reaction often provocted on here and else where. Perhaps the editors would sometimes do as well to consider their own edicts on Human Factors - if you dont present the material in the best way your audience is at best likely to switch off and, at worst, not read the material at all.

So far as DFC is concerned I wonder what has happened to him - I have heard he may have become a number of recent forumites, but I wonder. :)