Mobile Phone ringing on Take Off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why the latest generation of phones aren't designed so that they can be switched off remotely. I’m not talking about jamming. I mean design the phone so that it switches itself off when it receives a specially coded message. You could then put a small “killer” transmitter on every plane or right near the gate. If on the plane it would only need to be on for a second or two before take off and perhaps again briefly when it detected a phone being switched on in the air. You could even design the phone so that it couldn’t be turned on again (for 24 hours?) if it’s deliberately switched on when onboard an aircraft.
Northern Monkey
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newcastle, England
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GSM protocol information
did you know.....
That there is a pert of the GSM protocol (available publicly) which shows that all gsm phones can be switched on so that the microphone becomes active, and transmits, and this can be activated by the relevant authourities (SP) even when the phone appears to be switched off. Therefore the only way to make sure that your phone is definately not active is to take the battery out.
If you dont belive this, then you can read the published protocols, but i can promise you that it is exeedingly dull reading
NB
That there is a pert of the GSM protocol (available publicly) which shows that all gsm phones can be switched on so that the microphone becomes active, and transmits, and this can be activated by the relevant authourities (SP) even when the phone appears to be switched off. Therefore the only way to make sure that your phone is definately not active is to take the battery out.
If you dont belive this, then you can read the published protocols, but i can promise you that it is exeedingly dull reading
NB
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FADEC
Dont forget, ladies and gents,
Large commercial aircraft use FADEC systems to regulate engine controls and fuel flows...
FULL AUTHORITY DIGITAL ENGINE CONTROL...
As in, static hardward system telling the engine how to work...
and it HAS been tested and proven that mobile phone ident transmissions can input erranous data into a FADEC system by electromagnetic induction...
strange but true
--> CHIKENS ARE RESTLESS!!!
Large commercial aircraft use FADEC systems to regulate engine controls and fuel flows...
FULL AUTHORITY DIGITAL ENGINE CONTROL...
As in, static hardward system telling the engine how to work...
and it HAS been tested and proven that mobile phone ident transmissions can input erranous data into a FADEC system by electromagnetic induction...
strange but true
--> CHIKENS ARE RESTLESS!!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Asia
Age: 61
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile Phone research
The CAA have a research paper on mobile phones, see this web site.
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...ils.asp?id=751[/URL]
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...ils.asp?id=751[/URL]
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chickenscanfly,
I do not wish to argue with you sir, so please look upon my comments as more of a discussion point.
I know a 'jet' engine is not the same as a 'car' engine, but I do know a little about the latter. In as much as the 'jet' engine is an 'internal combustion engine' the control function of it's computer (ECM) cannot be all that different from a cars ECM. Air/fuel ratio's must be controlled, barimetric pressure, throttle position, internal temperatures must all be monitored, adjustments made etc. My point is most cars made today use what is, to all intents and purposes, a FADEC engine control system. Even the throttle is a drive by wire. Yet they remain unaffected by mobile phone use (sadly the same cannot be said of the phone user). Most of the time these phones are in use a very few feet from the engine ECM, and also close to the many other microprocessors used to operate a multitude of other systems installed in modern cars, including GPS navigation systems.
Surely an aero engine, it's ECM, and associated wiring harness are built to a much higher quality standard than a mass produced car? The use of shielded wiring to prevent unwanted R/F incursions from it's own onboard systems, much more powerful than a mobile phone, must be a given. One would expect them to be as unaffected as the above mentioned mass produced car.
One related question I have is this. What happens when a group aircraft are lined up awaiting takeoff clearence? All have their very powerful systems turned on, strong radio transmissions going to and fro, weather radar, and I'm sure many other systems I know nothing about, all up and running. At this point many aircraft are only a few hundered feet apart. Surely if an aircraft's system's are going to be affected, then with so many aircraft, so close together, and so many powerful systems all operating at the same time, in the same place, this might represent a worst case scenario for unwanted R/F input. Is there any evidence to suggest this happens?
If not, and given the mobile phone is a tiny little transmission in this crowded environment of high powered equipment, how could such a weak signal represent such a large threat?
Regards,
White Bear.
I do not wish to argue with you sir, so please look upon my comments as more of a discussion point.
I know a 'jet' engine is not the same as a 'car' engine, but I do know a little about the latter. In as much as the 'jet' engine is an 'internal combustion engine' the control function of it's computer (ECM) cannot be all that different from a cars ECM. Air/fuel ratio's must be controlled, barimetric pressure, throttle position, internal temperatures must all be monitored, adjustments made etc. My point is most cars made today use what is, to all intents and purposes, a FADEC engine control system. Even the throttle is a drive by wire. Yet they remain unaffected by mobile phone use (sadly the same cannot be said of the phone user). Most of the time these phones are in use a very few feet from the engine ECM, and also close to the many other microprocessors used to operate a multitude of other systems installed in modern cars, including GPS navigation systems.
Surely an aero engine, it's ECM, and associated wiring harness are built to a much higher quality standard than a mass produced car? The use of shielded wiring to prevent unwanted R/F incursions from it's own onboard systems, much more powerful than a mobile phone, must be a given. One would expect them to be as unaffected as the above mentioned mass produced car.
One related question I have is this. What happens when a group aircraft are lined up awaiting takeoff clearence? All have their very powerful systems turned on, strong radio transmissions going to and fro, weather radar, and I'm sure many other systems I know nothing about, all up and running. At this point many aircraft are only a few hundered feet apart. Surely if an aircraft's system's are going to be affected, then with so many aircraft, so close together, and so many powerful systems all operating at the same time, in the same place, this might represent a worst case scenario for unwanted R/F input. Is there any evidence to suggest this happens?
If not, and given the mobile phone is a tiny little transmission in this crowded environment of high powered equipment, how could such a weak signal represent such a large threat?
Regards,
White Bear.
If mobile phones really are a safety threat to aircraft (as airlines and many here claim) then allowing them on planes in the first place is quite irresponsible. If they really are dangerous take them off passengers (and crew) at the security check, switch them off and hand them back at the other end.
Of course this would add significant time to loading/unloading, but safety is the first priority isn't it? On the other hand, if profitability is the first priority then carry on.
Of course this would add significant time to loading/unloading, but safety is the first priority isn't it? On the other hand, if profitability is the first priority then carry on.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huh?
The original poster had a problem with a cell phone in a CHEROKEE SIX??. Come on folks this is ridiculous. He obviously knows nothing about his aircraft. What is he afraid of? The miniscule wattage from a cell phone interfering with the coil in the magneto. Maybe he thinks the RF from a cell phone is so furious that it is going to melt his throttle control cable in it's housing.
very very silly thread.
BD
very very silly thread.
BD
