mobile phones in aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mobile phones in aircraft
Are they really a danger to the safety of an aircraft.
I can't imagine an aircraft being certified with the possibility of its safety being compromised by someone operating a mobile phone
I have heard that the service providers have problems charging the users because the phone will pull in multiple cells at the same time to relay the signal.
Otherwise Osama and the boys would be major share holders in Nokia.
I can't imagine an aircraft being certified with the possibility of its safety being compromised by someone operating a mobile phone
I have heard that the service providers have problems charging the users because the phone will pull in multiple cells at the same time to relay the signal.
Otherwise Osama and the boys would be major share holders in Nokia.
We operated several types of phone, analogue, CDMA, and digital. All were hard wired into the system, with audio coming through on button 4, and pull the transmit trigger to talk.
Analogue worked OK, but didn't have the fancy features and was phased out in OZ some years ago. CDMA was the replacement, but its performance is patchy, and often it would show 3 signal strength bars, but when you hit send it would drop off.
Digital is OK around major centres, but not enough coverage where choppers go. Probably not a problem in Hong Kong, though...
Never had a comment from any service provider, they just sent their bills and we paid them.
Now running a satellite phone. Despite the sales blurb from the supplier that it was a complete kit, it wasn't, and the stuff they did provide shorted out some components. It only works now because our engineer discarded some bits and created some new bits.
The only real danger with a phone in the cockpit is answering it when it rings at the wrong time. Heard tell of a pilot in a retractable who answered a call while joining the circuit, and didn't put the wheels down, did a gutser. Somehow didn't react to the warning noises and lights. Must have been a call from 1800-suck-my-t1ts or something!
Analogue worked OK, but didn't have the fancy features and was phased out in OZ some years ago. CDMA was the replacement, but its performance is patchy, and often it would show 3 signal strength bars, but when you hit send it would drop off.
Digital is OK around major centres, but not enough coverage where choppers go. Probably not a problem in Hong Kong, though...
Never had a comment from any service provider, they just sent their bills and we paid them.
Now running a satellite phone. Despite the sales blurb from the supplier that it was a complete kit, it wasn't, and the stuff they did provide shorted out some components. It only works now because our engineer discarded some bits and created some new bits.
The only real danger with a phone in the cockpit is answering it when it rings at the wrong time. Heard tell of a pilot in a retractable who answered a call while joining the circuit, and didn't put the wheels down, did a gutser. Somehow didn't react to the warning noises and lights. Must have been a call from 1800-suck-my-t1ts or something!
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try a search, think it was in Tech Log, as there was a long thread on this a few months back with a fair bit of technicial input.
In the UK I think you would be in breach of the airtime providers contract. As to the safety - read the thread and make your own judgement. As to the last comment of Asend Charlie, try reading the post on Jetblast about driving and mobiles.
In the UK I think you would be in breach of the airtime providers contract. As to the safety - read the thread and make your own judgement. As to the last comment of Asend Charlie, try reading the post on Jetblast about driving and mobiles.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
On some aircraft, such as the S-76 it can cause spurious baggage bay smoke / fire warnings.
In our aircraft, carrying a switched on phone causes heavy interference on intercom, whether in use or not, so we can always tell if a passenger hasn't complied with our directive in the safety brief to turn them off.
Also, regarding the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a pilot in flight, the UK ANO states that a hand held mike is prohibited from use in PT aircraft during takeoff and landing, or inside CAS below FL150, even for communication inside the aircraft. I'm sure if you use a h/h mobile phone it comes under the same remit, so expect a visit from your local CAA legal branch man if you get found out, possibly for endangering the aircraft if you have a silly turn like the no gear down man.
In our aircraft, carrying a switched on phone causes heavy interference on intercom, whether in use or not, so we can always tell if a passenger hasn't complied with our directive in the safety brief to turn them off.
Also, regarding the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a pilot in flight, the UK ANO states that a hand held mike is prohibited from use in PT aircraft during takeoff and landing, or inside CAS below FL150, even for communication inside the aircraft. I'm sure if you use a h/h mobile phone it comes under the same remit, so expect a visit from your local CAA legal branch man if you get found out, possibly for endangering the aircraft if you have a silly turn like the no gear down man.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shy Torque has it right. The issue of using any emissive device on a flying machine is one of EMI, electromagnetic interference. We flight and ground test all equipment on the aircraft to see what is affected, and we either shield, placard or restrict the offending devices.
Because we haven't tested at all, some chance of improper operation of ship's equipment is possible when the cell phone (or computer, PDA, calculator, etc.) is used. The worst offenders are the emitters by design - radios and cell phones - so these are prohibited throughout the flight. Other electronic devices send out weaker signals, and so are allowed during cruise, but not when on approach or departure (where a wiggly ILS needle could get serious).
In reality, the chances are small, and the threat is tiny, but since we pay tickets to be passengers, not lab rats for the guy next to us, public safety makes it easier to ban the devices than to qualify the aircraft with all manner of posible toys.
When we test for EMI, lots of funny stories are generated. the HF radio is especially a problem due to its high emissive power and the wide frequency range. Many wires and lines on the aircraft become antennas, and if the wire length matches the wave length of the emmitter, funny things can happen. I had the gear drop on one aircraft each time I talked on the HF, and on another, the nav displays began flipping seriously. To prevent or cure EMI, we overbraid the harnesses and run that braiding to aircraft ground to shield the wiring. In severe cases, we use special band pass filters in the wire to block offending frequencies (filter pins).
Note that your computer emits, and the steel plates that mount on the holes in the case should be fitted to prevent stray signals from interfering with TV and radio reception (again a remote possibility.)
Because we haven't tested at all, some chance of improper operation of ship's equipment is possible when the cell phone (or computer, PDA, calculator, etc.) is used. The worst offenders are the emitters by design - radios and cell phones - so these are prohibited throughout the flight. Other electronic devices send out weaker signals, and so are allowed during cruise, but not when on approach or departure (where a wiggly ILS needle could get serious).
In reality, the chances are small, and the threat is tiny, but since we pay tickets to be passengers, not lab rats for the guy next to us, public safety makes it easier to ban the devices than to qualify the aircraft with all manner of posible toys.
When we test for EMI, lots of funny stories are generated. the HF radio is especially a problem due to its high emissive power and the wide frequency range. Many wires and lines on the aircraft become antennas, and if the wire length matches the wave length of the emmitter, funny things can happen. I had the gear drop on one aircraft each time I talked on the HF, and on another, the nav displays began flipping seriously. To prevent or cure EMI, we overbraid the harnesses and run that braiding to aircraft ground to shield the wiring. In severe cases, we use special band pass filters in the wire to block offending frequencies (filter pins).
Note that your computer emits, and the steel plates that mount on the holes in the case should be fitted to prevent stray signals from interfering with TV and radio reception (again a remote possibility.)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Haggisland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember an in-line filter fitted on the S76 position lights at the rear of the tailboom. I'm sure that it was to stop HF interference and any other nasties. The easiest way to prevent HF interference (especially on the AFCS) is to remove the HF form the aircraft.
There are rumours that one particular helicopter has a problem with its FADEC eng computer and mobile phones in the cabin. But I'm sure the manufacturer concerned has sorted all this out by now...
There are rumours that one particular helicopter has a problem with its FADEC eng computer and mobile phones in the cabin. But I'm sure the manufacturer concerned has sorted all this out by now...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick's response to the question is certainly how I understood the position re: the aircraft. However, I believe that the network operators do not like phones connected to their network being used at altitude because one phone can "occupy" more then one of their cells.
I am a bit worried by the current position though. Mobiles are now so common, and it is inevitable that some will be left on aboard aircraft (intentionally or otherwise). If Nick is correct that any phone being left on has a small risk of affecting aircraft systems, all those cases must eventually lead to a phone affecting flight critical systems with a disastrous result. Shouldn't the critical systems be designed to be resistant to such effects??
I am a bit worried by the current position though. Mobiles are now so common, and it is inevitable that some will be left on aboard aircraft (intentionally or otherwise). If Nick is correct that any phone being left on has a small risk of affecting aircraft systems, all those cases must eventually lead to a phone affecting flight critical systems with a disastrous result. Shouldn't the critical systems be designed to be resistant to such effects??
It's not just the EMI from mobile phones which causes a problem.
It's the phone itself and gaps in the floor panel allowing lose phones to slide down and obstruct things.
Isn't that right, whatsarunway ?
It's the phone itself and gaps in the floor panel allowing lose phones to slide down and obstruct things.
Isn't that right, whatsarunway ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: W'n. USA--full time RV
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
illegal because early cell-co's bugged FCC bugged FAA
When cellphones first came out, the service providers discovered one phone at 39,000 feet could utterly confuse the cell-transmitter-computers by logging on--every few seconds--from 50 cities simultaneously.
So they went to FCC and said "Stop them!"
And the FCC went to the FAA and said "Simon Says Stop Them!
And the FAA said "Stop!"
And nobody paid any attention,.
So the carriers improved their computers to alleviate the problem.
But no law once on the books ever gets retracted . . .
('struth--my dad worked for Bell Labs for 35 years, got the inside track . . .)
So they went to FCC and said "Stop them!"
And the FCC went to the FAA and said "Simon Says Stop Them!
And the FAA said "Stop!"
And nobody paid any attention,.
So the carriers improved their computers to alleviate the problem.
But no law once on the books ever gets retracted . . .
('struth--my dad worked for Bell Labs for 35 years, got the inside track . . .)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are well documented cases of aircraft systems being affected by use of cellphones, typically fire warnings.
Most of these aircraft systems will have been designed before cellphones were invented (how long has the B747 been in service?) so it's not a case of designing them so they resist it.
Standards vary around the world with different frequencies and power outputs being used in different countries so you would in any case be trying to hit a moving target all the time, akin to trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Since there is no imperative to use a cellphone while airborne and since the network operators don't want it done then banning their use in flight seems eminently sensible IMHO.
I used to be in Royal Signals and we were operating a 350watt HF set. My radio operator had rigged up a wire aerial but it was not connected and so not in use, he was using a vertical whip instead. When he reached out to move the (disconnected) wire the shock blew him off the top of a one ton truck. Don't underestimate the amount of power that can be picked up by a pice of wire that just happens to be the right length to make it resonate at the frequency in use.
I also remember many years ago the story of someone living near the Crystal Palace TV transmitter who rigged up a chickenwire contraption in his back garden and gathered enough power to light his house, at the same time blacking out TV reception over a large chunk of Kent!
Mike
Most of these aircraft systems will have been designed before cellphones were invented (how long has the B747 been in service?) so it's not a case of designing them so they resist it.
Standards vary around the world with different frequencies and power outputs being used in different countries so you would in any case be trying to hit a moving target all the time, akin to trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Since there is no imperative to use a cellphone while airborne and since the network operators don't want it done then banning their use in flight seems eminently sensible IMHO.
I used to be in Royal Signals and we were operating a 350watt HF set. My radio operator had rigged up a wire aerial but it was not connected and so not in use, he was using a vertical whip instead. When he reached out to move the (disconnected) wire the shock blew him off the top of a one ton truck. Don't underestimate the amount of power that can be picked up by a pice of wire that just happens to be the right length to make it resonate at the frequency in use.
I also remember many years ago the story of someone living near the Crystal Palace TV transmitter who rigged up a chickenwire contraption in his back garden and gathered enough power to light his house, at the same time blacking out TV reception over a large chunk of Kent!
Mike
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the correct answer is ...
have heard that the service providers have problems charging the users because the phone will pull in multiple cells at the same time to relay the signal.
When cellphones first came out, the service providers discovered one phone at 39,000 feet could utterly confuse the cell-transmitter-computers by logging on--every few seconds--from 50 cities simultaneously.
So they went to FCC and said "Stop them!"
And the FCC went to the FAA and said "Simon Says Stop Them!
And the FAA said "Stop!"
When cellphones first came out, the service providers discovered one phone at 39,000 feet could utterly confuse the cell-transmitter-computers by logging on--every few seconds--from 50 cities simultaneously.
So they went to FCC and said "Stop them!"
And the FCC went to the FAA and said "Simon Says Stop Them!
And the FAA said "Stop!"
PS: Other than being a Pilot I am also a Mobile Network Dealer and have "inside gen"
This is what happened when I overflew Baghdad the other day
Last edited by Gunship; 9th Apr 2003 at 20:31.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: poor gps coverage
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nr Fairy 
Correct , have now taken to posting the phone to my destination , It takes so long for me to get my passengers together that the phone usually gets there before me
Still , nothing a new set of skid shoes couldnt fix.
Incedently , I had a few texts on my phone once we removed the phone on the ground, giving me advice on how to handle the problem !! Ironic really !
Fly Safe
Correct , have now taken to posting the phone to my destination , It takes so long for me to get my passengers together that the phone usually gets there before me
Still , nothing a new set of skid shoes couldnt fix.
Incedently , I had a few texts on my phone once we removed the phone on the ground, giving me advice on how to handle the problem !! Ironic really !
Fly Safe
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a relatively new French helicopter in service, that IS affected by mobile telephones. I have been informed by 2 engineers who work on them, that if an outgoing call is made from the pilot/co-pilot seat, (while aircraft is on ground, before start-up) it will cause interference on intercom and radio transmissions.
Why risk it?, would you want to be in the back of a large fixed wing, coming into land on a stormy night, knowing that there is a very slight possibility that the person sitting next to you could cause a problem with the ILS or autopilot, by calling for a taxi.
I know modern aircraft wiring is well shielded, but it doesn't take much for this shielding to break down.
Autopilot and ILS systems operate with tiny inputs in the millivolt range, which I'm sure it's possible for mobile phone to emit.
Mr G
Why risk it?, would you want to be in the back of a large fixed wing, coming into land on a stormy night, knowing that there is a very slight possibility that the person sitting next to you could cause a problem with the ILS or autopilot, by calling for a taxi.
I know modern aircraft wiring is well shielded, but it doesn't take much for this shielding to break down.
Autopilot and ILS systems operate with tiny inputs in the millivolt range, which I'm sure it's possible for mobile phone to emit.
Mr G
Nick,
Get back to the "wiggly ILS needle" for a moment....mine have been that way ever since I first started doing the things....and that was way before Cell Phones....heck...that was before touch tone phones....hell...that was before Princess phones! I would suggest some "wiggling" is good....confirms the needle isn't stuck or you haven't lost signal....and not got an off flag. Have I been doing something dangerous all these years? Tell me it ain't so?
Get back to the "wiggly ILS needle" for a moment....mine have been that way ever since I first started doing the things....and that was way before Cell Phones....heck...that was before touch tone phones....hell...that was before Princess phones! I would suggest some "wiggling" is good....confirms the needle isn't stuck or you haven't lost signal....and not got an off flag. Have I been doing something dangerous all these years? Tell me it ain't so?
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Risk it ...
Mr Greenie ...
.... "Why risk it?, would you want to be in the back of a large fixed wing, coming into land on a stormy night, knowing that there is a very slight possibility that the person sitting next to you could cause a problem with the ILS or autopilot, by calling for a taxi. ...... "
.... "Why risk it?, would you want to be in the back of a large fixed wing, coming into land on a stormy night, knowing that there is a very slight possibility that the person sitting next to you could cause a problem with the ILS or autopilot, by calling for a taxi. ...... "
Wise , very wise words ... WHY RISK IT ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Definitely the distraction caused by radio/intercom noises when a mobile is in use are a flight safety hazard. Some of the noise-cancelling headsets in use are particularly sensitive to this effect.
Also I've known the 76 Aft Bag Smoke warning to illuminate when there's a laptop computer close to the detector in the Baggage Bay; annoying when you have to land to investigate.
I've never seen any effect on the digital engine controls but I've had the GPS unlock when some bright spark can't bear to be disconnected for a few minutes. Also annoying in bad weather...
Finally some of us believe that strong rf from an outside source (ie a cellphone network) MAY be able to trigger the floats after they have been armed; Sikorsky denies this but I suspect they have not fully tested for this possibility. I stress this is not from an individual mobile but from a nearby cellphone network; interference can sometimes be heard on radios and i/c's around this spot too.
Very welcome back Nick; any comments on the above?
Also I've known the 76 Aft Bag Smoke warning to illuminate when there's a laptop computer close to the detector in the Baggage Bay; annoying when you have to land to investigate.
I've never seen any effect on the digital engine controls but I've had the GPS unlock when some bright spark can't bear to be disconnected for a few minutes. Also annoying in bad weather...
Finally some of us believe that strong rf from an outside source (ie a cellphone network) MAY be able to trigger the floats after they have been armed; Sikorsky denies this but I suspect they have not fully tested for this possibility. I stress this is not from an individual mobile but from a nearby cellphone network; interference can sometimes be heard on radios and i/c's around this spot too.
Very welcome back Nick; any comments on the above?
