Cell phones on planes!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cell phones on planes!!
The next time a flight attendant asks you to switch off that handheld computer phone, keep smiling - and pull out a copy of the latest plane safety guidelines.
Clever computer and handset makers offer an option called "flight mode," which disables the radio. As a result, the British Civil Aviation Authority has decided passengers in planes under its jurisdiction should be allowed to use these portable devices as a calendar or photo viewer because they do not interfere with the electronic circuits and radio systems used by the pilots.
The CAA says airlines should let travelers write messages, read documents and perform all other nonphone functions on phones that double up as computers, just as they can now work on a laptop, play on a GameBoy or listen to music on an iPod at cruising altitudes.
But some flight crews still fume when they spot a passenger toying with a computer phone. Airlines from no-frills JetBlue to United and British Airways have their crews scanning the aisles for them.
"How do we know which mobile is on, and which isn't?" a British Airways spokeswoman said. "It's not for our crew to decide which mobile can be switched on and which not."
In fact, the CAA says it is. Airlines would do well to train their crews to make sure "intentionally transmitting devices" like cell phones, remote control toys and two-way pagers are operated in their "safe" modes, the agency said in a recent circular.
"Any operation of these devices when the transmitter has not been turned on, should be controlled in the same manner as for any unintentionally transmitting device," the CAA added.
Unintentionally transmitting devices like radios, laptop computers and pacemakers emit negligible signals from electronics circuits.
The CAA does demand that electronics companies make it clear when the radio is turned off. Sony Ericsson's P900 smart phone, for instance, has "FLIGHT MODE" plastered over its display.
The US Federal Aviation Administration did not return calls requesting comment.
No Reason To Fear Cell Phones
In any case, flight crews are fighting a losing battle against cell phones.
About half of the world's largest airlines plan to offer wireless Internet and mobile phone access on board within two to four years, according to a survey commissioned by WirelessCabin. This consortium of large European technology companies and the German Aerospace Center is working to bring these services to planes.
"We will do a test flight (with a wireless network) on an Airbus A340-600 this summer," said Axel Jahn, a spokesman for WirelessCabin, which expects a trial run on a commercial airline next year.
Boeing Co.'s Connexion is working on a similar system.
It may be 18 to 24 months before planemakers and airlines offer such services, Jahn said, as the technology still needs licenses and approval from aviation and telecommunications regulators in Europe and North America.
The imminent approval of mobile phones on flights prompts the question whether the decade-long ban against them was ever justified.
Aviation authorities admit that mobile phone radiation poses only a modest threat. The worst incidents include setting off a false smoke alarm in the baggage compartment or interrupting communications in the flight crew headphones.
"...Many (including pilots) ... question whether a genuine problem exists," the CAA says in a cell phone safety study.
However, at maximum distance from a radio base station, say 30,000 feet above the Earth, many mobile phones will transmit at maximum power to make contact. This can disrupt a compass or a positioning system if it is 12 inches away from the phone.
The WirelessCabin systems remove that risk by putting a radio base station on board the plane. Because of its close proximity, it will force cell phones to "whisper" at 1,000th their normal output power.
"With this approach," Jahn said, "we minimize interference with the aircraft and even terrestrial networks."
As a result, flight attendants may soon shift their attention to passengers who shout into their mobile phones, interfering not with the pilot's radio system but with their fellow travelers' privacy.
Clever computer and handset makers offer an option called "flight mode," which disables the radio. As a result, the British Civil Aviation Authority has decided passengers in planes under its jurisdiction should be allowed to use these portable devices as a calendar or photo viewer because they do not interfere with the electronic circuits and radio systems used by the pilots.
The CAA says airlines should let travelers write messages, read documents and perform all other nonphone functions on phones that double up as computers, just as they can now work on a laptop, play on a GameBoy or listen to music on an iPod at cruising altitudes.
But some flight crews still fume when they spot a passenger toying with a computer phone. Airlines from no-frills JetBlue to United and British Airways have their crews scanning the aisles for them.
"How do we know which mobile is on, and which isn't?" a British Airways spokeswoman said. "It's not for our crew to decide which mobile can be switched on and which not."
In fact, the CAA says it is. Airlines would do well to train their crews to make sure "intentionally transmitting devices" like cell phones, remote control toys and two-way pagers are operated in their "safe" modes, the agency said in a recent circular.
"Any operation of these devices when the transmitter has not been turned on, should be controlled in the same manner as for any unintentionally transmitting device," the CAA added.
Unintentionally transmitting devices like radios, laptop computers and pacemakers emit negligible signals from electronics circuits.
The CAA does demand that electronics companies make it clear when the radio is turned off. Sony Ericsson's P900 smart phone, for instance, has "FLIGHT MODE" plastered over its display.
The US Federal Aviation Administration did not return calls requesting comment.
No Reason To Fear Cell Phones
In any case, flight crews are fighting a losing battle against cell phones.
About half of the world's largest airlines plan to offer wireless Internet and mobile phone access on board within two to four years, according to a survey commissioned by WirelessCabin. This consortium of large European technology companies and the German Aerospace Center is working to bring these services to planes.
"We will do a test flight (with a wireless network) on an Airbus A340-600 this summer," said Axel Jahn, a spokesman for WirelessCabin, which expects a trial run on a commercial airline next year.
Boeing Co.'s Connexion is working on a similar system.
It may be 18 to 24 months before planemakers and airlines offer such services, Jahn said, as the technology still needs licenses and approval from aviation and telecommunications regulators in Europe and North America.
The imminent approval of mobile phones on flights prompts the question whether the decade-long ban against them was ever justified.
Aviation authorities admit that mobile phone radiation poses only a modest threat. The worst incidents include setting off a false smoke alarm in the baggage compartment or interrupting communications in the flight crew headphones.
"...Many (including pilots) ... question whether a genuine problem exists," the CAA says in a cell phone safety study.
However, at maximum distance from a radio base station, say 30,000 feet above the Earth, many mobile phones will transmit at maximum power to make contact. This can disrupt a compass or a positioning system if it is 12 inches away from the phone.
The WirelessCabin systems remove that risk by putting a radio base station on board the plane. Because of its close proximity, it will force cell phones to "whisper" at 1,000th their normal output power.
"With this approach," Jahn said, "we minimize interference with the aircraft and even terrestrial networks."
As a result, flight attendants may soon shift their attention to passengers who shout into their mobile phones, interfering not with the pilot's radio system but with their fellow travelers' privacy.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try. Don't forget that airlines are perfectly free to impose restrictions that are more restrictive than the CAA / FAA if they choose.
e.g many airlines use crew hours limitations that are more restrictive that CAA - no good waving a piece of paper at them when the crew say they are out of hours.
e.g many airlines use crew hours limitations that are more restrictive that CAA - no good waving a piece of paper at them when the crew say they are out of hours.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the safety speal on my BA UK domestic flight on Monday morning the CSD said regardless of your phone or other device having a "flight mode" to turn it off until you are off the aircraft at the other end. Didn't realise what a flight mode was until I read this post.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, the CAA says it is. Airlines would do well to train their crews to make sure "intentionally transmitting devices" like cell phones, remote control toys and two-way pagers are operated in their "safe" modes, the agency said in a recent circular.
Looks like the last haven of no mobile phones is being slowly eroded.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may come a day when all aircraft have equipment and wiring screened from pulse interference. There may come a day when the cellular network can accept signals from above. Until that day comes why should we take the slightest risk of missing what may be one vital word on the radio being blanked by a 'dibi-dit' or one spurious deviation of the ILS at minima.
As some modern equipment appears to cope with digital interference that is no reason to take a risk with all aircraft, just because a few spoilt brats can't be parted from their toys for a brief part of their lives.
As some modern equipment appears to cope with digital interference that is no reason to take a risk with all aircraft, just because a few spoilt brats can't be parted from their toys for a brief part of their lives.
Another reason to avoid flying ba then!
Please let's not permit the use of cellphones in flight EVER! In-flight internet with 802.11b enabled laptops is reasonable; idiots yattering away endlessly on mobiles would be infuriating.
I was on a train the other day in a 'quiet' carriage which prohibits the use of mobile phones. Some woman must have got up 5 times to answer her phone (but not in the carriage) when it rang...noisily. Another kid answered her phone twice despite the clear signs indicating prohibition of use.
Please let's not permit the use of cellphones in flight EVER! In-flight internet with 802.11b enabled laptops is reasonable; idiots yattering away endlessly on mobiles would be infuriating.
I was on a train the other day in a 'quiet' carriage which prohibits the use of mobile phones. Some woman must have got up 5 times to answer her phone (but not in the carriage) when it rang...noisily. Another kid answered her phone twice despite the clear signs indicating prohibition of use.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reason to avoid flying ba then! Please let's not permit the use of cellphones in flight EVER!
Sorry, NoD I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant that, w.e.f. 22 Apr, ba was allowing passengers to use cellphones on board - though not in flight.
A sat-phone 'kiosk' away from the rest of the pax - fine. But having to sit next to someone yapping away "Yeah, 'ello Chris. We met the clients, they want more payment details.....yeah, nah - told 'em we couldn't.....OK..." etc for hours on end?
I hope not!
A sat-phone 'kiosk' away from the rest of the pax - fine. But having to sit next to someone yapping away "Yeah, 'ello Chris. We met the clients, they want more payment details.....yeah, nah - told 'em we couldn't.....OK..." etc for hours on end?
I hope not!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here & there
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any UK operators changed their procedures yet??
bmi, wef 19 jan '04
SUBJECT: Use of Cellular Telephones during Aircraft Refuelling
FODCOM 30/2003 states:
The CAA is satisfied that fuel vapour ignition, due to the use of cellular telephones on the aircraft, is unlikely when passengers are onboard during fuelling operations.
As a result, it is now bmi policy to permit the use of cellular telephones by passengers during fuelling operations.
Roger Miller
bmi, wef 19 jan '04
SUBJECT: Use of Cellular Telephones during Aircraft Refuelling
FODCOM 30/2003 states:
The CAA is satisfied that fuel vapour ignition, due to the use of cellular telephones on the aircraft, is unlikely when passengers are onboard during fuelling operations.
As a result, it is now bmi policy to permit the use of cellular telephones by passengers during fuelling operations.
Roger Miller
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle...
BA have allowed PAX to use phones, when engines not running except during re-fuelling. As of 22 Apr, the refuelling issue will be removed...
However, in that most BA notices are re-issued, clarified and corrected 2-3 times we'll see what the final rules says. Seems from the above post that BMI were somewhat quicker off the mark
Yes - but more and more seats, certainly towards the premium cabins, have a phone in each IFE controller. US airlines have had them for years... The only disincentives were the very high charges...
ATB
NoD
BA have allowed PAX to use phones, when engines not running except during re-fuelling. As of 22 Apr, the refuelling issue will be removed...
However, in that most BA notices are re-issued, clarified and corrected 2-3 times we'll see what the final rules says. Seems from the above post that BMI were somewhat quicker off the mark
A sat-phone 'kiosk' away from the rest of the pax - fine
ATB
NoD
Quite apart from the obvious 'safety' aspect there are two reasons not to allow h/p to be used on planes:-
- The ringing of the infernal machines is highly irritating at the best of times. In an enclosed space (lets say a well loaded cattle class cabin) having to put up with the ringing and then the inane chatter (usualy a good few decibels above normal conversation) will be just one more added misery.
- Air rage will know new bounds as some half drunken fool decides they have to call all their mates waking up people trying to sleep 6 hours into that long haul (hell) flight.
Please let the aircraft cabin be an area of relative peace.
- The ringing of the infernal machines is highly irritating at the best of times. In an enclosed space (lets say a well loaded cattle class cabin) having to put up with the ringing and then the inane chatter (usualy a good few decibels above normal conversation) will be just one more added misery.
- Air rage will know new bounds as some half drunken fool decides they have to call all their mates waking up people trying to sleep 6 hours into that long haul (hell) flight.
Please let the aircraft cabin be an area of relative peace.
Wirelesscabin and Connexion may well use an on-board base station which allows mobiles to work on minimum power. But what happens when it fails ? All the phones will go up to maximum strength looking for a signal and we will be back at the old problem again.
And of course once the rollout is announced there will be the "know alls" who say "BA allow mobiles now" and just switch them on everywhere.
And of course once the rollout is announced there will be the "know alls" who say "BA allow mobiles now" and just switch them on everywhere.
So is this 'anti-mobile 'phone' because they're a safety hazard, or just 'anti-mobile 'phone'? If it's simply that you'd like the use of mobile 'phones to be discouraged don't use Flight Safety as an excuse - it weakens that powerful argument like the boy crying wolf.
Unfortunately, in flying aircraft that are older than me to aircraft where I have more hours than they do I've yet to encounter a flight safety issue caused by the use of mobiles.
They are d@mned annoying though.
Unfortunately, in flying aircraft that are older than me to aircraft where I have more hours than they do I've yet to encounter a flight safety issue caused by the use of mobiles.
They are d@mned annoying though.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brussels
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with BEagle and propulike on this one. Let us not get involved in Flight Safety here. The bottom line is that in the confined space of an aircraft cabin, just as in a train, mobile phones can be a nuisance and intrusive.
You see it every day. On landing as soon as the seatbelt sign is off there is a rush to switch on the mobile phones. What is that important that it cannot wait until disembarked. It is as if there is a need for a phallic symbol to be clutched to the ear in a "look how important I am" gesture!
If there is a Flight Safety hazard it will be due to an increase in 'air rage'.
I understand it is possible to purchace 'jammers' that cause interference at short(ish) range on mobiles. They have been used with success on trains and coaches. Now there might be a Flight Safety hazard.........!
You see it every day. On landing as soon as the seatbelt sign is off there is a rush to switch on the mobile phones. What is that important that it cannot wait until disembarked. It is as if there is a need for a phallic symbol to be clutched to the ear in a "look how important I am" gesture!
If there is a Flight Safety hazard it will be due to an increase in 'air rage'.
I understand it is possible to purchace 'jammers' that cause interference at short(ish) range on mobiles. They have been used with success on trains and coaches. Now there might be a Flight Safety hazard.........!
Too mean to buy a long personal title
NigelOnDraft: BA have allowed PAX to use phones, when engines not running except during re-fuelling. As of 22 Apr, the refuelling issue will be removed...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the PAs say, I do not know. The CC books on PAs change so often, I am not surprised you get mixed messages.
As an aside, BA (and your fellow PAX) would probably rather you disembark first, and then use your mobile, than hold everyone up in the aisle, trying to conduct a conversation with one hand, and also collect your 3 items of handbaggage with the other (but that's another story !)
NoD
As an aside, BA (and your fellow PAX) would probably rather you disembark first, and then use your mobile, than hold everyone up in the aisle, trying to conduct a conversation with one hand, and also collect your 3 items of handbaggage with the other (but that's another story !)
NoD
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember from my days on the BALPA Airworthiness Study Group that there are devices available that can detect mobile phone signals and one company even produced a device that would flash the overhead light in the PSU nearest to the source of a mobile phone signal, alerting crewmembers so that they could investigate. Can't remember the name of the company that produced it but it was already certified and available for installation in several different PSU's.
A quick Google produced the 'Stealth Mobile Phone Detector and there are other companies that produce these items. Anyone care to explain why devices similar to these cannot be adapted to use in aircraft?
To be honest, apart from the annoyance factor of selfish loudmouths who are too ignorant to realise that their overheard, one-sided conversations are the equivalent of someone invading your space, I don't think that there is much risk of cell phones being left on inadvertently or otherwise. In hospitals in the UK there is a paranoia about cell phones being able to upset the machines that automatically add drugs to intravenous drips or will throw heart/lung machines into runaway mode. In the USA and Canada, the mobile phone usage in hospitals restriction was removed years ago after none of the urban myths associated with the cell phones was able to be proved or repeated.
So far, there never has been any reported accident or incident involving an aircraft and cell phones. There are many urban myths and much speculation but no substance. No doubt the 'no phones at any cost' brigade will demand full and complete testing before the removal of any ban should be considered and there will be others who will weigh up the statistics and odds and tell us the there is a much higher probability of an aircraft being brought down by a bird strike or something and therefore can be considered an acceptable risk.
At the end of the day, cell phones of the type we all carry with us don't work much above about 3,000' and at normal cruising levels of most jets are useless and will show no signal at all. If anyone claims that they have used their cell phone much above 3,000' then they are probably making it up or badly mistaken. How many of you pilots have forgotten to turn off your cell phone before a flight only to have it go off during the approach with a 'welcome message' from the local mobile telephone service provider?
A quick Google produced the 'Stealth Mobile Phone Detector and there are other companies that produce these items. Anyone care to explain why devices similar to these cannot be adapted to use in aircraft?
To be honest, apart from the annoyance factor of selfish loudmouths who are too ignorant to realise that their overheard, one-sided conversations are the equivalent of someone invading your space, I don't think that there is much risk of cell phones being left on inadvertently or otherwise. In hospitals in the UK there is a paranoia about cell phones being able to upset the machines that automatically add drugs to intravenous drips or will throw heart/lung machines into runaway mode. In the USA and Canada, the mobile phone usage in hospitals restriction was removed years ago after none of the urban myths associated with the cell phones was able to be proved or repeated.
So far, there never has been any reported accident or incident involving an aircraft and cell phones. There are many urban myths and much speculation but no substance. No doubt the 'no phones at any cost' brigade will demand full and complete testing before the removal of any ban should be considered and there will be others who will weigh up the statistics and odds and tell us the there is a much higher probability of an aircraft being brought down by a bird strike or something and therefore can be considered an acceptable risk.
At the end of the day, cell phones of the type we all carry with us don't work much above about 3,000' and at normal cruising levels of most jets are useless and will show no signal at all. If anyone claims that they have used their cell phone much above 3,000' then they are probably making it up or badly mistaken. How many of you pilots have forgotten to turn off your cell phone before a flight only to have it go off during the approach with a 'welcome message' from the local mobile telephone service provider?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt you'd be able to hold a conversation for any length of time anyway, if at all.
The terrestrial base stations have their antenna coverage patterns based around ground clutter, so the majority have down tilted antenna. So coverage not be contiguous, as you expect on the ground.
The other point is that GSM was, I believe tested up to a maximum handover speed of 150mph (I recall the testing was based around trainbourne radios at that time), before the system can't cope with the changes (we are looking at coverage radius of about 5 - 10Km max), therefore with the speed of the aircraft I doubt the network would catch up.
The handset, when it loses radio coverage starts to scan on all frequencies (no transmissions at this point) for a signalling channel, once it finds this it will try and communicate with the network, so even it found a cell, locked on and started the negotiation, it would still be out of range of that cell by the time the network responds.
Therefore, if it rings during cruise then someones left their alarm switched on........
The terrestrial base stations have their antenna coverage patterns based around ground clutter, so the majority have down tilted antenna. So coverage not be contiguous, as you expect on the ground.
The other point is that GSM was, I believe tested up to a maximum handover speed of 150mph (I recall the testing was based around trainbourne radios at that time), before the system can't cope with the changes (we are looking at coverage radius of about 5 - 10Km max), therefore with the speed of the aircraft I doubt the network would catch up.
The handset, when it loses radio coverage starts to scan on all frequencies (no transmissions at this point) for a signalling channel, once it finds this it will try and communicate with the network, so even it found a cell, locked on and started the negotiation, it would still be out of range of that cell by the time the network responds.
Therefore, if it rings during cruise then someones left their alarm switched on........