Mobile Phones on Aircraft CAA Report
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Washington, DC USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly OT, but the Beamer call in which he said "Let's roll" was actually to a GTE airphone operator, I believe.
There were other cell phone calls from highjacked planes that day, including Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was on board Flight 77 which was crashed into the Pentagon.
CNN.com
There were other cell phone calls from highjacked planes that day, including Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was on board Flight 77 which was crashed into the Pentagon.
CNN.com
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe some of this thread.
How many people have to tell you that they have seen errors, discrepancies, map shifts, comms interference etc before it clicks! The fact that most of us have been on board when an active mobile didn't cause an 'apparent' problem is irrelevant.
It's like smoking in the toilet. 999 times out of a 1000 it doesn't cause a problem but would you let passengers do it. There are millions of flights a year. Use your heads. The above posters who mentioned unexplained 'events' were either vigilant or lucky or both. It's the problem that isn't picked up that is the serious one. I have seen an FMCG go sufficiently crazy to initiate a thorough search of the cabin, while aborting an Atlantic
crossing was being seriously considered. A cd-rom was found in use, within seconds of it being shut down everything returned to normal.
Most investigations into this sort of event end with " unable to re-produce on the ground" type conclusions.( I.E. The manufacturer, airline and phone company don't want it on the record so conclude the pilots were dreaming and therefore safety was not compromised ). Any pilot who has had that feeling of " what the f*** is it doing now " and identified a source in the cabin will never be amused at the thought of such equipment on board.
The question should not be " Why can't we use them if there is no concrete evidence to say they are unsafe ".
Good aviation dictates that " They should not be used until we know they are safe! "
It's like smoking in the toilet. 999 times out of a 1000 it doesn't cause a problem but would you let passengers do it. There are millions of flights a year. Use your heads. The above posters who mentioned unexplained 'events' were either vigilant or lucky or both. It's the problem that isn't picked up that is the serious one. I have seen an FMCG go sufficiently crazy to initiate a thorough search of the cabin, while aborting an Atlantic
crossing was being seriously considered. A cd-rom was found in use, within seconds of it being shut down everything returned to normal.
Most investigations into this sort of event end with " unable to re-produce on the ground" type conclusions.( I.E. The manufacturer, airline and phone company don't want it on the record so conclude the pilots were dreaming and therefore safety was not compromised ). Any pilot who has had that feeling of " what the f*** is it doing now " and identified a source in the cabin will never be amused at the thought of such equipment on board.
The question should not be " Why can't we use them if there is no concrete evidence to say they are unsafe ".
Good aviation dictates that " They should not be used until we know they are safe! "
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF, (and a very big IF) there is a problem with some designs, where are the certification authorities...I don't see any one of 'em standing up and saying...we goofed.
ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from cellphones, CD-Roms etc...
WHO in the regulatory environment will take the heat?
Short answer...they all hide under rocks when the subject is discussed.
Have to ask, is this typically an Airboos 'problem' or are Boeing products implicated as well?
ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from cellphones, CD-Roms etc...
WHO in the regulatory environment will take the heat?
Short answer...they all hide under rocks when the subject is discussed.
Have to ask, is this typically an Airboos 'problem' or are Boeing products implicated as well?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points here:
1) The "New Kid" always gets blame for unexplained things that go wrong. So skepticism is appropriate, alongside caution. It may well be true that aircraft systems that can be tweaked by cellphones have more general defects, such as shielding and power and grounding problems, that also make them succeptible to other EMF radiation hazards found in the aerial environment.
2) 411A - I'm on the slow end of a long wire & thus hardput to check it, but suspect there's ample authority already in the FAR's, etc., and the many included standards to make a case for more comprehensive and recurrent EMI testing of critical systems. Can someone confirm or refute?
This class of problems doesn't yet seem to have a very organized constituency of support in government ...or outside. The fence sitters wait for a public atrocity/catastrophe to catalyze action. It might well be an area where pilots can accelerate a constructive result.
1) The "New Kid" always gets blame for unexplained things that go wrong. So skepticism is appropriate, alongside caution. It may well be true that aircraft systems that can be tweaked by cellphones have more general defects, such as shielding and power and grounding problems, that also make them succeptible to other EMF radiation hazards found in the aerial environment.
2) 411A - I'm on the slow end of a long wire & thus hardput to check it, but suspect there's ample authority already in the FAR's, etc., and the many included standards to make a case for more comprehensive and recurrent EMI testing of critical systems. Can someone confirm or refute?
This class of problems doesn't yet seem to have a very organized constituency of support in government ...or outside. The fence sitters wait for a public atrocity/catastrophe to catalyze action. It might well be an area where pilots can accelerate a constructive result.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote From Hot Dog "same time there were about three walkie talkies of ground personnel in full blast"
Working in a ramp enviroment a few years ago all our hand helds had to be INTRINSICALLY SAFE.
This also was the case at our ESSO bulk plant. We were not supposed to use normal cell phones for reasons that were all to obvious, especially during tanker offloading operations.
I would hope that all operators of "walkie talkies" in such sensitive enviroments insure that they are INTRINSICALLY SAFE !!!
Can not say the same thing about cell phones.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...y/aa062399.htm
Working in a ramp enviroment a few years ago all our hand helds had to be INTRINSICALLY SAFE.
This also was the case at our ESSO bulk plant. We were not supposed to use normal cell phones for reasons that were all to obvious, especially during tanker offloading operations.
I would hope that all operators of "walkie talkies" in such sensitive enviroments insure that they are INTRINSICALLY SAFE !!!
Can not say the same thing about cell phones.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...y/aa062399.htm
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Fact' 747 climbing out could not engage any of the 3
autopilots. Cabin crew made a PA to check and switch
off all mobiles.1 found on switched off ,all Auto pilots Ok.
Need any more proof 747 !
autopilots. Cabin crew made a PA to check and switch
off all mobiles.1 found on switched off ,all Auto pilots Ok.
Need any more proof 747 !
No arguments about having phones switched off in flight.
QF, however, are still rabid about phones being switched on after shutdown. Recently, whilst Port Health and Immigration were on board due a cabin crew member thinking she had SARS, the rest of the crew were shouting at pax "turn that off" as they were delayed an hour on board (ground staff using phones at the time).
Fortunately the cabin crew member did not have SARS (Suspected Allergy, probably to Pax)!
QF, however, are still rabid about phones being switched on after shutdown. Recently, whilst Port Health and Immigration were on board due a cabin crew member thinking she had SARS, the rest of the crew were shouting at pax "turn that off" as they were delayed an hour on board (ground staff using phones at the time).
Fortunately the cabin crew member did not have SARS (Suspected Allergy, probably to Pax)!
The problem is in several parts, really:
1. One cellphone may not cause a problem - but the effects of several of them can add
2. The immunity of aircraft systems is a variable, because the effectiveness of cable screening changes over time, depending on the flexure, abrasion and so on that the cables get with ordinary aircraft activities. There was an article in the IEEE Sectrum magazine a couple of years ago on this.
3. Aircraft immunities to radio frequency fields are surprisingly low, especially for older designs - the RAF Tornado is well known as being remarkably poor.
A French friend of mine who flies for fun and is a professional radio engineer (although he has CPL and IR) once flew a small two engine A/C across the Atlantic for a holiday in Canada. HF was fitted but not tested because of lack of time, and when an attempt was made to use it, the autopilot went mad on him. Since when he shares my total distrust of radio - although it's been my profession for nearly 40 years!
There was an interesting paper at an IERE conference some years back on the energy needed to set off a fuel explosion. There's also info in DEF STAN 74, and the energy requirements are rather more than you would think.
As a professional radio engineer, I go along with the 'mobile phone OFF' school of thought. Not that you can turn all passengers personal electronics off - pacemakers, for example!
1. One cellphone may not cause a problem - but the effects of several of them can add
2. The immunity of aircraft systems is a variable, because the effectiveness of cable screening changes over time, depending on the flexure, abrasion and so on that the cables get with ordinary aircraft activities. There was an article in the IEEE Sectrum magazine a couple of years ago on this.
3. Aircraft immunities to radio frequency fields are surprisingly low, especially for older designs - the RAF Tornado is well known as being remarkably poor.
A French friend of mine who flies for fun and is a professional radio engineer (although he has CPL and IR) once flew a small two engine A/C across the Atlantic for a holiday in Canada. HF was fitted but not tested because of lack of time, and when an attempt was made to use it, the autopilot went mad on him. Since when he shares my total distrust of radio - although it's been my profession for nearly 40 years!
There was an interesting paper at an IERE conference some years back on the energy needed to set off a fuel explosion. There's also info in DEF STAN 74, and the energy requirements are rather more than you would think.
As a professional radio engineer, I go along with the 'mobile phone OFF' school of thought. Not that you can turn all passengers personal electronics off - pacemakers, for example!
Paxing All Over The World
With regard to the questions about which licensing authority and manufacturers are taking a close look at this? I doubt that anyone will until there are dead people and it can be proved that they are dead due to a phone.
Since few are looking to trap and record details of phone interference, it will be more difficult to prove and so the loop will continue.
I really think that it is that dead simple. Present some dead people and a 'smoking' phone and there will be an investigation and much "we told you so".
One thought, does the FDR record the headphones? I appreciate that CVR is there for spoken and ambient sound but that would miss the highly distinctive sound of a mobile phone on the intercom.
Incidentally, I can confirm that the problem of trying to reproduce the problem on the ground is because - you are on the ground! See the point about mobiles communicating with dozens of base stations, as you ascend.
For my part - I always remonstrate with any fellow pax that I see with a phone on before permission is given. The fact that I have been in telecommunications for 23 years only increases my belief that interference is not just a noise on the intercom but that it affects instrumentation and control equipment in a random manner.
I urge all f/c that if you hear that sound - make a P/A as soon as you safely can. Obvious difficulties of pax then releasing belt to look in locker.
Perhaps carriers need to develop a procedure, that the f/c advise c/c of the prob and c/c make the p/a when appropriate. The p/a to be STERN, not just the usual pretty please.
Since few are looking to trap and record details of phone interference, it will be more difficult to prove and so the loop will continue.
I really think that it is that dead simple. Present some dead people and a 'smoking' phone and there will be an investigation and much "we told you so".
One thought, does the FDR record the headphones? I appreciate that CVR is there for spoken and ambient sound but that would miss the highly distinctive sound of a mobile phone on the intercom.
Incidentally, I can confirm that the problem of trying to reproduce the problem on the ground is because - you are on the ground! See the point about mobiles communicating with dozens of base stations, as you ascend.
For my part - I always remonstrate with any fellow pax that I see with a phone on before permission is given. The fact that I have been in telecommunications for 23 years only increases my belief that interference is not just a noise on the intercom but that it affects instrumentation and control equipment in a random manner.
I urge all f/c that if you hear that sound - make a P/A as soon as you safely can. Obvious difficulties of pax then releasing belt to look in locker.
Perhaps carriers need to develop a procedure, that the f/c advise c/c of the prob and c/c make the p/a when appropriate. The p/a to be STERN, not just the usual pretty please.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I left my mobile phone on during a flight once, This was due to a stupd error on my part.
The flight had no ill effects, In fact it was a beautiful day and a lovely smooth flight.
However, When I was walking through the arrivals hall and found out that I had left my phone on I felt very stupid and make sure that it is turned OFF whenever flying.
Now, Nothing happend during that flight (or nothing that I am aware of) but my mind went through a few 'what-if' scenarios.
Quite simply, We don't know what effect mobiles will have, I don't want to be responsibile for any problems on a flight because of my phone therefore I triple-check that it is OFF.
Gary.
The flight had no ill effects, In fact it was a beautiful day and a lovely smooth flight.
However, When I was walking through the arrivals hall and found out that I had left my phone on I felt very stupid and make sure that it is turned OFF whenever flying.
Now, Nothing happend during that flight (or nothing that I am aware of) but my mind went through a few 'what-if' scenarios.
Quite simply, We don't know what effect mobiles will have, I don't want to be responsibile for any problems on a flight because of my phone therefore I triple-check that it is OFF.
Gary.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
<<ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from cellphones, CD-Roms etc...>>
With your experience you should know that you cannot protect / test / certify against the unknown.
If there were only, say, 3 mobile types, then of course systems could be tested against them... But of course, there are new models, indeed types (e.g. 3G), coming onto the market each day.. and that's before we start on CD-ROMs etc., and all the accessories that go with them....
And of course most of today's airliners were designed, built and certified prior to the widespread use of mobiles.
<<ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from cellphones, CD-Roms etc...>>
With your experience you should know that you cannot protect / test / certify against the unknown.
If there were only, say, 3 mobile types, then of course systems could be tested against them... But of course, there are new models, indeed types (e.g. 3G), coming onto the market each day.. and that's before we start on CD-ROMs etc., and all the accessories that go with them....
And of course most of today's airliners were designed, built and certified prior to the widespread use of mobiles.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: SYD
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<One cellphone may not cause a problem - but the effects of several of
them can add>>
True, but the problem is even more contrary than that. The use of only one
laptop can cause anomalies, but in a test flight Boeing had over 200 laptops
and an electronics store worth of hand-held electronic games and CD-players
all in simultaneous use. No anomalies.
<<ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from
cellphones, CD-Roms etc...>>
The difficulty with intentional emitters is that whatever their operating
frequencies they can still emit in an aircraft's comm/nav bands. Antenna-based
systems are going to be susceptible to wayward signals. How do you shield
them against frequencies they are designed to receive?
<<WHO in the regulatory environment will take the heat?>>
FCC regs make one part of it very simple:
"When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board
that aircraft must be turned off.''
As for non-intentionally emitting PEDs, FAR 91.21 makes it the responsibility
of operators to determine which PEDs cause interference and to prohibit
their use. Given the ever-changing supply of PEDs this seems sensible.
<<today's airliners were designed, built and certified prior to the
widespread use of mobiles.>>
Granted that human reliance on batteries is accelerating, the
problems were noticed with the first widespread PEDs, the mini
transistor radios that became available in the late 1950s.
them can add>>
True, but the problem is even more contrary than that. The use of only one
laptop can cause anomalies, but in a test flight Boeing had over 200 laptops
and an electronics store worth of hand-held electronic games and CD-players
all in simultaneous use. No anomalies.
<<ANY design should be PROPERLY shielded against minimal RF interference from
cellphones, CD-Roms etc...>>
The difficulty with intentional emitters is that whatever their operating
frequencies they can still emit in an aircraft's comm/nav bands. Antenna-based
systems are going to be susceptible to wayward signals. How do you shield
them against frequencies they are designed to receive?
<<WHO in the regulatory environment will take the heat?>>
FCC regs make one part of it very simple:
"When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board
that aircraft must be turned off.''
As for non-intentionally emitting PEDs, FAR 91.21 makes it the responsibility
of operators to determine which PEDs cause interference and to prohibit
their use. Given the ever-changing supply of PEDs this seems sensible.
<<today's airliners were designed, built and certified prior to the
widespread use of mobiles.>>
Granted that human reliance on batteries is accelerating, the
problems were noticed with the first widespread PEDs, the mini
transistor radios that became available in the late 1950s.
mostly harmless
In at least 2 developing countries, I have seen a high proportion of passengers making calls on their GSMs during descent. This appears to be a routine event and no attempt is made by CC to stop this behaviour.
answer=42
answer=42
Just to add complications......
Some years ago, I was involved in WLAN development. When we went for Type Approval in the US, we failed - because the brand new laptop we were using did not meet the FCC Part 15 requirements on emissions. The (Japanese) laptop manufacturer didn't want to know either.
The moral? Even a so called 'Type Approved' equipment may fail dismally on emissions if you look at a production model.
In EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatability) work, you look at two things: Emissions and Immunity. Lack of immunity cannot be safely ignored by adopting the attitude of "I'm not going to repair my roof, so you have to stop it raining": similarly, emissions must be minimised, and in many cases, that can only be done by switching off. Especially when the manufacturers of such things as portable broadcast radios insist on minimal requirements so that they can keep the price down - and FM broadcast radios are well able to cause trouble to VHF Nav and comms.
Some years ago, I was involved in WLAN development. When we went for Type Approval in the US, we failed - because the brand new laptop we were using did not meet the FCC Part 15 requirements on emissions. The (Japanese) laptop manufacturer didn't want to know either.
The moral? Even a so called 'Type Approved' equipment may fail dismally on emissions if you look at a production model.
In EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatability) work, you look at two things: Emissions and Immunity. Lack of immunity cannot be safely ignored by adopting the attitude of "I'm not going to repair my roof, so you have to stop it raining": similarly, emissions must be minimised, and in many cases, that can only be done by switching off. Especially when the manufacturers of such things as portable broadcast radios insist on minimal requirements so that they can keep the price down - and FM broadcast radios are well able to cause trouble to VHF Nav and comms.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put Radeng.
I've had some experience with designing and testing equipment to meet various EMC standards. It can be a bitch to sort out problems. I've even seen test equipment designed to be used by EMC test engineers fail to meet the standards claimed.
We would take our equipment down a salt mine so that we could be sure of a reasonably quiet background in which to carry out tests. I wonder where the airline industry take an aircraft for such tests?
I've had some experience with designing and testing equipment to meet various EMC standards. It can be a bitch to sort out problems. I've even seen test equipment designed to be used by EMC test engineers fail to meet the standards claimed.
We would take our equipment down a salt mine so that we could be sure of a reasonably quiet background in which to carry out tests. I wonder where the airline industry take an aircraft for such tests?
One problem that airport "Security" increasingly create for pax is, instead of passing mobile phones through the x-ray in those little open containers, they sometimes without warning stuff them into any side pocket they find in your hand baggage, even if you have already put them into a container. Result: The phone then gets forgotten about, compared to being on your person, and can spend the flight up in the bins switched on.
Why do security do this?
Why do security do this?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Spaniard: why is a serious attempt by a regulatory agency to investigate a potential problem "bull****"? At least they're trying to carry out a proper scientific study, instead of relying on "probably ok" or an equally inappropriate "it's a problem because we say so."