Do you turn your phone off???!!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd think all this electronic stuff would be screened against static, EMF etc.
Why single out phones as the culprits?
Why single out phones as the culprits?
We have all heard the interference caused by phones next to speakers. We have read stories where phones have triggered the AFT BAG FIRE lights in helicopters. There is no doubt that mobile phones (and other electronic devices) interferere with other electrical equipment.
The rules are written not for the hundreds of types of phones (and electrical equipment) that are well made and have been tested and are within acceptable limits (say FCC), but for the thousands of makes and models which may be 'counterfeit' or simply have not been tested and approved.
If a person is using a Garmin XXX GPS or a Nokia XXX, how the hell is the captain to know whether they are FCC approved or not.
Communication technology is developing at such an alarming rate - dualband, 2G, 3G, Infrared, BlueTooth etc - that it would be impossible for them to come up with an 'Approved' list...instead they simply ban all electrical equipment in flight.
That's not to say that ALL phones would interfere. As has been stated, many do not. So whether a pilot decides to continue to use his phone or not becomes a matter of personal risk asssessment. Indeed, in the helicopter I fly, I have left my phone on (usually becuase I've forgotten to turn it off), and have had no problems thus far. But I don't want every passenger to be jabbering away on their phones, as I don't know about their phones.
So let's not slate a rule, without considering the unknown possible consequences of not having that rule.
cl12pv2s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: leicester
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you say that above a cetain level you cause a "cough" in a computer because too many towers are recieving you phone location - then from the post above (on/off merley puts the phone on standby) surley even with the phone turned off it could cause a computer "cough"
My point is a paranoid one that even if we turn our phones off - we are still being tracked and therfore must be affecting these transmitter towers?
MADY
My point is a paranoid one that even if we turn our phones off - we are still being tracked and therfore must be affecting these transmitter towers?
MADY
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, and being the ultra-sad individual that I am (I still remember the stuff I crammed for my air law exam), the relevant AIC is AIC 1/2004 (Pink 62). CAP756 (which says the same sorts of things, but in more detail) is also worth a read: see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP756.PDF
Bluetooth is apparently ok, due to it being very short range and low power (best keep that high-power bluetooth dongle unplugged, then). I remember not so long ago when commercial flights didn't mind you using a laptop in cruise, but got all upset if you used the CD-ROM in said laptop. Wi-fi is ok, so long as it's been 'certified' in some way.
Incidently, cellphone technology approx. 8 years ago (the last time I looked at it in any detail) allowed tracking of both the SIM card and the phone, so long as the SIM was in a powered phone and the relevant phone was powered (even if it didn't have a SIM in it - you should be able to make emergency calls without a SIM). Both had unique IDs, and triangulation was easily possible (and being done) back then; tracking the SIM simply required looking at a different bit of the transmitted info. While it is entirely possible that this has changed since then, I doubt it.
Bluetooth is apparently ok, due to it being very short range and low power (best keep that high-power bluetooth dongle unplugged, then). I remember not so long ago when commercial flights didn't mind you using a laptop in cruise, but got all upset if you used the CD-ROM in said laptop. Wi-fi is ok, so long as it's been 'certified' in some way.
Incidently, cellphone technology approx. 8 years ago (the last time I looked at it in any detail) allowed tracking of both the SIM card and the phone, so long as the SIM was in a powered phone and the relevant phone was powered (even if it didn't have a SIM in it - you should be able to make emergency calls without a SIM). Both had unique IDs, and triangulation was easily possible (and being done) back then; tracking the SIM simply required looking at a different bit of the transmitted info. While it is entirely possible that this has changed since then, I doubt it.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: nfa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no idea why but have noticed lately that when a plane lands they sometimes say you can turn the phones on as soon as the wheels have hit the ground and at other places they sat wait until you are inside the terminal? why the differences?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Pandalet - good point about the emergency calls and the SIM card. Since you last looked, cell phones have acquired GPS technology to "pinpoint you if you dial 911". Yeah right.
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]On the 29th April 2004, a Super Puma L2 (helicopter) was returning from offshore. As it was on the approach to it’s destination airport, a passenger used his mobile ‘phone. This resulted in the loss of all flight and navigation information on both pilot’s Integrated Flight Display System screens lasting one second during this critical phase of flight.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority carried out tests on two parked aircraft to find out the potential dangers of mobile ‘phone use. It found evidence that they produced interference levels which could disrupt aircraft systems. Faults attributed to mobile ‘phones include false cockpit warnings, malfunctioning of aircraft systems, interference in pilot’s headsets – all distracting the crew from their primary task.[Quote}
There was a CAA report issued following this investigation. When I get time, I will get the reference number, and post it.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority carried out tests on two parked aircraft to find out the potential dangers of mobile ‘phone use. It found evidence that they produced interference levels which could disrupt aircraft systems. Faults attributed to mobile ‘phones include false cockpit warnings, malfunctioning of aircraft systems, interference in pilot’s headsets – all distracting the crew from their primary task.[Quote}
There was a CAA report issued following this investigation. When I get time, I will get the reference number, and post it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
419,
That is interesting data, it does underscore the need for conservative rulings like that we are discussing. Also, the newest regs (just a few years old) call for considerable HIRF (High Intensity Radiated Field) protection on aircraft, so the 332's and all such older generation aircraft are much more susceptable. the shielding needed on the systems of the S92 and AB139 should preclude any such interactions.
That is interesting data, it does underscore the need for conservative rulings like that we are discussing. Also, the newest regs (just a few years old) call for considerable HIRF (High Intensity Radiated Field) protection on aircraft, so the 332's and all such older generation aircraft are much more susceptable. the shielding needed on the systems of the S92 and AB139 should preclude any such interactions.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Interestingly, the S-76B model doesn't have the same problem as the C+, albeit the B model having an older type of Aft Baggage fire detector.
I also hope they fix it on the S-76C++ ..........
I also hope they fix it on the S-76C++ ..........
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cellphones and Safety - A myth!
Gordy is right - it is all a cellphone ground station overloading problem - which the airlines are cooperating with the FCC to prevent.
Why confiscate nail clippers and not Nokias???
Amazing how we airline passengers all toe the line . . . . . !
Why confiscate nail clippers and not Nokias???
Amazing how we airline passengers all toe the line . . . . . !
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Originally Posted by or2rot8
I was led to believe it was the amplifier on the S76 that was affected and not the fire detectors themselves.
By coincidence, my newspaper today tells of an airliner hurriedly diverted into a minor airport, from where it could not take off again, due to a spurious baggage bay warning. I believe they suspect BEES are the culprits in this case though!
Last edited by ShyTorque; 17th Apr 2006 at 21:05.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Cases
I've spoken to two pilots, both 407's.
The problem, the Fadec.
They both on two seperate accounts came to the conclusion that it was cell phone interferrence as they both had there phone up front and promptly switched them off.
In other cases, knowing factual accounts, the governor in the R44 playing up, the one near radio masts and the other with equipment on board running a windows based program. Now how many of these cell phones are now using windows based products aswell as getting more powerfull.
The problem, the Fadec.
They both on two seperate accounts came to the conclusion that it was cell phone interferrence as they both had there phone up front and promptly switched them off.
In other cases, knowing factual accounts, the governor in the R44 playing up, the one near radio masts and the other with equipment on board running a windows based program. Now how many of these cell phones are now using windows based products aswell as getting more powerfull.
Apart from electronic interference what about the evidence of changes in brain activity that can occur?
( As warned in the leaflet from the UK Dept of Health: "Mobile phones and health". Available in all mobile phone shops, but only if you ask for one!)
( As warned in the leaflet from the UK Dept of Health: "Mobile phones and health". Available in all mobile phone shops, but only if you ask for one!)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try to remember to turn mine off, because it will deplete the battery on a long flight offshore with no cells to talk to. I've seen no problems, but I did get the spiel from FSI in WPB about the baggage compartment problem in the S76C+. I have no personal experience with any problems, but I'm not willing to take a chance while over 100NM from land.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cell phones
I also go with Gordy's statement.
Especially in densely populated area's, cell sizes are small, and from any high your phone may adress too many cells simulateously, kind of short circuiting the supposedly different frequencies, reducing effctive capacity as a result.
The operators dont like that.
Solution: fly low and slow if you do want to use it.
In less populated areas cell size are bigger so problem does not occur.
If it were so dangeraous, I really would start worrying about all the fixed ground station antennas around....
d3
Especially in densely populated area's, cell sizes are small, and from any high your phone may adress too many cells simulateously, kind of short circuiting the supposedly different frequencies, reducing effctive capacity as a result.
The operators dont like that.
Solution: fly low and slow if you do want to use it.
In less populated areas cell size are bigger so problem does not occur.
If it were so dangeraous, I really would start worrying about all the fixed ground station antennas around....
d3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe/US
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple example of what effect a mobile has in flight! Hold it close to a Standby Compass. Now imagine 8 to 350 switched on...with Blackberry's as well!
Not pretty! If you have a heli with SCAS or SAS, and some Numb Nut in the rear decides to attempt sending an email by his Blackberry...
theres a very good chance you'll know when it is transmitting...the Heli will make some uncommanded movements that will rapidly get your attention!
Follow the advice of most Authorities.......Turn the Bloody things off!!
Not pretty! If you have a heli with SCAS or SAS, and some Numb Nut in the rear decides to attempt sending an email by his Blackberry...theres a very good chance you'll know when it is transmitting...the Heli will make some uncommanded movements that will rapidly get your attention!
Follow the advice of most Authorities.......Turn the Bloody things off!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes sense to turn them off. It is easy to demonstrate that digital mobile phones can induce interference. Put one next to a Sigtronics intercom and it will be obvious when it is looking for a base station by the chirping you get in the headset. This type of interference is no more than a distracting annoyance and is unlikely to upset the simple analog systems in an older aircraft beyond a temporary blip. It sure aint going to stop my magnetos working.
Digital circuits on the other hand may interpret a segment of the interference as valid digital code and act accordingly causing unpredictable results! Properly designed, screened digital circuitry should reject this type of interference , but it can and does cause problems. I have found early digital medical equipment is easy to upset with a mobile phone so I suspect old digital designs are most at risk.
Digital circuits on the other hand may interpret a segment of the interference as valid digital code and act accordingly causing unpredictable results! Properly designed, screened digital circuitry should reject this type of interference , but it can and does cause problems. I have found early digital medical equipment is easy to upset with a mobile phone so I suspect old digital designs are most at risk.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Yes, gaseous - digital signals work on the presence of a signal and not its magnitude, so even a bit of static could easily turn a 0 into a 1.
Phil
Phil
Apologies if its been said already - i speed read the posts above.
As I understand it cellphones are only one half of the equation - the other being the network - cellphone towers.
Shouldn't we be falling out of the sky every time we fly past one? (I'm assuming that cellphone towers are more powerful and transmitting on hundreds more frequencies simultaneously?)
I've flown/hovered around loads of them and never had any problems - apart from a slight warming of the gonads...
As I understand it cellphones are only one half of the equation - the other being the network - cellphone towers.
Shouldn't we be falling out of the sky every time we fly past one? (I'm assuming that cellphone towers are more powerful and transmitting on hundreds more frequencies simultaneously?)
I've flown/hovered around loads of them and never had any problems - apart from a slight warming of the gonads...