Mobile Phone ringing on Take Off
 

I am flying a PA32-300 in Saipan.
Everyflight we have to make a briefing to passenger such as Seat belt,No smoking, emergemcy exit and "No Electronic Device".

But funny things here they seems to be never understand English or can't hear.

Few days ago :
1 passenger on my flight and I am taxi out and receive TO Clearance from ATC. On the tak-off roll that passenger phone is ringing. So I idle my engine and stop my aircraft and wait for her on the runway. An ask her to turn off the bloody phone. But my flight towards to dest. After touch down not more than 30 sec, that pax take the phone out and make a call.

Any good idea that I can deal with those passenger???????????????????

Please give me an idea :mad: :mad:

Easy.

When the phone rings on the ground, do as you did, stop.

In the air, when it rings (a PA32 I assume!) just roll on 90 degrees of bank and pull the power back - nose falls, recover from the dive.

Then turn around and say - "please turn your phones off - it interferes with the electrical systems - as I told you prior to take off".

That'll do it. Peaceful flying from then on!

Or..Shoot them.

I like the roll and dive option!

Tell them it costs $20 a minute to use a phone in the air, as the signal they are picking up is been transmitted via your airframe, which the Airline charges to the telephone company and they in return charge the mobile user. If it doesnt stop them, it will certainly reduce their usage!

BIK, early cellular phones did have a tendency to cause electro magnetic interference with AM radio signals, but nowadays with the digital networks and closer monitoring of radio telephone frequencies it isn't much of a problem.
I suppose if the Pilot in question were navigating with his ADF and the pax were to be using an early analog phone there may be troubles. I think the regulations haven't changed because nobody has seen fit to do the research necessary to determine how much interference handheld electronic devices can cause with basic VHF/UHF equipment. Not to mention the fly by wire, and auto pilot/throttle systems on so many aircraft in use these days ( I see you mentioned that at the end of your post ). :)

The real restrictions on the use of mobile phones while flying has to do with the interference to the mobile phone network by transmissions from altitude. Some antennas are directional and would not receive the signal correctly. Signals can be received by two or more stations at once and that also confuses the system. In the worst case it can close down the entire cellphone network, although that is unlikely now. In the US it was made illegal to use a cellphone on an airplane only to protect the network.
It is incidental that some airplane systems are affected, although to an airplane driver it might be more important.

I know someone who crossed the Atlantic 2 days after America reopened their airspace.
At check-in,when everyone was being very cautious,they were not allowed to take their original hand luggage on board.In the rush to pack everything away into the hold luggage, the mobile phone was quite simply forgotten about.It therefore remained on for the entire 10 hours 45 minutes of the flight. As the peson made it back to the U.K. to recount the story,what is the problem? :rolleyes:

I figure that if the CAA and the FAA can conduct studies into this (and they do) and from those make it a requirement that mobiles are switched off during the flight then that is a good enough reason in my book!

And anyway, flying is the only time when you can get away from the bloody things! "HI. I'M IN THE PLANE. HOLD ON WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH A THUNDERSTORM! I SA.. W..'RE.. J.S. GOI.. TH..UG. A.. brrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

Bad news is that BAe Systems are developing a system whereby an airliner will have an aerial system in the cabin and you'll all be able to use your own mobiles on a "roaming" agreement with the provider. I can't think of anything worse than sitting next to someone on the phone for the entire flight - it's bad enough you have to share one armrest and (well, practically) one seat - never mind a conversation too!

Grab it and drop in the nearest Vodka-Tonic or beer...that should do it! Oooops, sorry old chap, it slipped.. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't it just be simpler to fit a jamming system like they now do in some restaurants so that the bloody things don't work. ;)

Mind you, The unfortunate pax on board the ac on Sept 11th did manage to furnish some usefull info with them. And possibly helped to stop the fourth one from crashing into a building :(

One of the problems with the use of mobile phones within aircraft occurs when the handset is first switched on. The phone sends a ident message on maximum power. Agreed, maximum power does not amount to more than about 2 watts but the potential for interference to aircraft systems is always there. Particularly if the handset is not functioning correctly.

Under normal circumstances (for example on the ground) the local cells which are in range will then send acknowledgements. Handshaking takes place to establish the nearest cell and the minimum amount of power necessary for communication.

If a jamming system is installed in an aircraft it would have to not only jam signals, but also prevent the handset from sending these high powered data pulses.

By providing a pseudo-cell inside an aircraft, a digital mobile phone would recognise the presence of a strong local signal and would, as a consequence, turn down its RF power to a minimum thus reducing the chance of RF interference with poorly protected aircraft electronic systems. The 'aircraft cell' could be set to allow phones to be used on the ground, but block them prior to engine start. That would require the airtime service providers to enable 'roaming' on an 'aircraft cell'; such cells should have a sufficiently high calling tarriff to dissuade on-aircraft usage. But although this might be suitable for GSM, the chaotic 'Tower of Babel' system in the USA with its multiplicity of systems and operating modes would be more difficult to cater for.

BEagle makes a good point...

But does it not occur to anyone that these 'poorly protected' aircraft systems OUGHT to be protected anyway.....??

Suppose the Terrorists got hold of a Jammer and used it near an airport....... :eek: :eek:

The possibility of one or two phones interfering with anything on the plane is very small, but if it were to be allowed, the prospect of tens or hundreds of phones all with their 2 watts in use on one aircraft really could create havoc. And who hasen't heard that bip-diddy-bip diddy-bip over the com or nav at some time or other by some GSM phone left on, inadvertently or otherwise? It even interferes with my car radio if leave the phone on the dashboard.

I have to agree that it is extremely annoying when a mobile goes off on Rotate - I just never know whether it's mine or a pax's....

Let he who is without sin etc.Who hasn't forgotten to switch off their own or the company phone at some time?.My safety brief often includes"Up to 80kts we will stop for any warning,caution or phone call.After 80kts we will only stop for fire,failure or a phone call from the DFO "

According to the article some time back in the IEEE Spectrum magazine, one problem is that although the cabling and so on is adequate for protection of aircraft systems when new, it doesn't always maintain that integrity.

Because of the large number of different designs of 'phone, it's also hard to tell whether or not the spurious emissions will cause trouble - even though they are low eneough to meet the specifciations, they could still cause trouble if they were on certain frequencies.

You don't need to think about jammers causing trouble. How about airfield radars - like that big one at LHR? That's more than 2 watts - nearer 2 gigawatts effective radiated power.

A couple of weeks back while on a training exercise in my 2-seat thing with a fan on the front, my instructor had his cellphone sat on top of the instrument housing.

While practicing tracking a course I heard a loud buzzing through the I/C and saw a deflection on the magnetic compass or 6 or 7 degrees and the GPS display became distorted. Not two or three seconds later the phone beeped with the tell tale sign of a text message then everything returned to normal. I believe the phone was polled by the ground station and in response belted out a high power Tx that caused the problems.

Of course I can't speak on behalf of you parrafin powered boys, but my cellphone is going to stay switched off as soon as I walk out onto the apron. It's not worth risking anything else as far as I'm concerned.

Aq

How did everyone communicate 10 years ago before the widespread use of these cell phones?

Right now the safest place to stand with you guys is on the bomb target at the bombing range! You’re missing the point arguing about the finer points of whether a cell phone will interfere with the aircraft navigation system or electrical system. The point is the CAPTAIN INSTRUCTED THE PASSENGER TO TURN OFF THE CELL PHONE! PERIOD! Who are you going to allow to be in charge of YOUR aircraft? You the Captain or the passengers? An airplane moving across the ground at 3 to 8 miles a minute is no place to have a IEEE committee meeting!