Mobile Phones in flight - again (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen the outflow valve needles move (and presumably the valves) on a 747-300 when a Customer Service Officer used their radio on the flight deck.
I have also had a pressurisation problem on descent when coincidently, a F/A suspected a passenger was using his mobile in the toilet.
I have also had a pressurisation problem on descent when coincidently, a F/A suspected a passenger was using his mobile in the toilet.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke allarms in dash 8 baggage bays dont like having phones placed near them.
Several occasions when the baggage smoke light has come on in flight.
There was even a sb/mod done to place the smoke detector in a specially bonded and earthed cage. This did help but still happens from time to time.
Several occasions when the baggage smoke light has come on in flight.
There was even a sb/mod done to place the smoke detector in a specially bonded and earthed cage. This did help but still happens from time to time.
Interference from Mobiles
Can say with pretty near certainty that my mobile (in my shirt pocket) has interfered with the transponder signal. On one occasion outbound from Luton VFR in a PA-28, the mobile phone sound in the headphones corresponded with ATC saying our transponder signal had just disappeared. Turned phone off, somewhat red faced, and ATC confirmed transponder was back on. This in a well equipped FM immune aeroplane.
Don't know what else it could be as the transponder never failed before or since.
In an earlier life of mine, mobile phones reqularly played absolute havoc with water treatment works instrumentation when within 6-8 feet. The chlorine analysers instead of giving a steady 0.25 ppm readout, suddenly started giving all sorts of wierd results in the 10 - 50 ppm range. This was on triple validated equipment that was supposedly fully RF protected to some BS or other.
The effect was only noticeable over short ranges though, and on an aeroplane I would doubt that anybody more than 10 feet from the equipment racking would have any effect.
Don't know what else it could be as the transponder never failed before or since.
In an earlier life of mine, mobile phones reqularly played absolute havoc with water treatment works instrumentation when within 6-8 feet. The chlorine analysers instead of giving a steady 0.25 ppm readout, suddenly started giving all sorts of wierd results in the 10 - 50 ppm range. This was on triple validated equipment that was supposedly fully RF protected to some BS or other.
The effect was only noticeable over short ranges though, and on an aeroplane I would doubt that anybody more than 10 feet from the equipment racking would have any effect.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOBILE PHONE RESPONSE
Well people i'm the sad boy who started all this,
The CAA have evidence proving that mobile phones affect aircraft in flight, it mostly affects the navigational systems but it has been known to have other affects such as the fire alram in the hold.
The danger is only a real danger at an apparent distance of 30 cm to the wires or instrumentation, at any other distance there was very little dange of interference.
I myself left my phone on when i went to Ibiza, i did genuinely forget but when we landed i had 3 messages that i'd recived during the flight, evidently the plane didn't crash and i'm still here.
But be warned anyone wanting to keep it turned on during flight will get there arses whooped, recently a man got 8 months jail time for refusing to turn his phone off on a UK filght, i think the maximum time is 2 years imprisonment.
I personally think that there is no danger with just a handful of people carrying phones, but the problem arises when everyone could be using a phone at once, then there could be problems.......it's all or nothing
The CAA have evidence proving that mobile phones affect aircraft in flight, it mostly affects the navigational systems but it has been known to have other affects such as the fire alram in the hold.
The danger is only a real danger at an apparent distance of 30 cm to the wires or instrumentation, at any other distance there was very little dange of interference.
I myself left my phone on when i went to Ibiza, i did genuinely forget but when we landed i had 3 messages that i'd recived during the flight, evidently the plane didn't crash and i'm still here.
But be warned anyone wanting to keep it turned on during flight will get there arses whooped, recently a man got 8 months jail time for refusing to turn his phone off on a UK filght, i think the maximum time is 2 years imprisonment.
I personally think that there is no danger with just a handful of people carrying phones, but the problem arises when everyone could be using a phone at once, then there could be problems.......it's all or nothing
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
natus, I think you will agree that your anecdotal experience does not prove that mobile phones prove no danger to aircraft.
It simply establishes that, as far as you are aware, there was no catastrophic result from any interference that may have occurred on that occasion, in your phone's location on board that flight, with that particular aircraft.
I see comments time and time again on here to the effect of "Well, I've left my phone on and not crashed", but this is hardly a rigorous approach to research.
The CAA have carried out huge levels of research into the subject. It is available on their website. Go look at it.
Whether you may think it is valid or not, they are the regulatory auithority in the UK. They say it is illegal and dangerous.
Airlines follow their advice on the subject. If people ignore the airlines' and their Captain's orders to switch off, they are breaking the law. That is why people have been prosecuted.
It simply establishes that, as far as you are aware, there was no catastrophic result from any interference that may have occurred on that occasion, in your phone's location on board that flight, with that particular aircraft.
I see comments time and time again on here to the effect of "Well, I've left my phone on and not crashed", but this is hardly a rigorous approach to research.
The CAA have carried out huge levels of research into the subject. It is available on their website. Go look at it.
Whether you may think it is valid or not, they are the regulatory auithority in the UK. They say it is illegal and dangerous.
Airlines follow their advice on the subject. If people ignore the airlines' and their Captain's orders to switch off, they are breaking the law. That is why people have been prosecuted.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another link to a forum with a slightly less experienced group talking generally about this same subject:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ad.main/77210/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ad.main/77210/
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Austria
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No effect on airplane???
Anyone to tell me mobiles don't cause problems inflight would have a hard time to convince me:
A few years ago overhead a russian city suddenly my A320 PF showed something never experienced before and after again: "rhytmic" switching of the PFD side stick order indication on and off (first time ever i saw this in cruise).
This not being enough, ECAM caution "EIU failure" came on, resulting in "reverser isolation valve fault". I suspected EMI and immediately grabbed for the PA microphone, commanding ALL passenger electric appliances being switched off.
And guess what? Ten seconds later all systems back to normal...
A few years ago overhead a russian city suddenly my A320 PF showed something never experienced before and after again: "rhytmic" switching of the PFD side stick order indication on and off (first time ever i saw this in cruise).
This not being enough, ECAM caution "EIU failure" came on, resulting in "reverser isolation valve fault". I suspected EMI and immediately grabbed for the PA microphone, commanding ALL passenger electric appliances being switched off.
And guess what? Ten seconds later all systems back to normal...
Most people who drive with a mobile phone clamped to their earhole don't have crashes. That's no consolation to the poor bu99ers who get run down at a bus stop by white van man asking for directions is it?
If you get my drift.
If you get my drift.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Austria
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See,
when Niki Lauda still had his Airline, he once stated in the media that he "?will give permission to passengers soon to use the mobile phones during flight, because I have tried a few approaches with two mobile phones operating in the cockpit and nothing happened"
Clever guy he is, coincidally he had a PR-contract with a mobile phone network paying him aprox. EUR 280,ooo per year. THAT certainly wouldn't influence his opinion, no?
when Niki Lauda still had his Airline, he once stated in the media that he "?will give permission to passengers soon to use the mobile phones during flight, because I have tried a few approaches with two mobile phones operating in the cockpit and nothing happened"
Clever guy he is, coincidally he had a PR-contract with a mobile phone network paying him aprox. EUR 280,ooo per year. THAT certainly wouldn't influence his opinion, no?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was sent this today, indirectly related to topic!!
FODC 30-2003 Mobile Phones
Use of cellular telephones during aircraft refuelling
.... the CAA is satsified that fuel vapour ignition, due to the use of cellular telephones on the aircraft, is unlikely when passengers are on board during fuelling operations. This position takes account of the energy levels of the cellular phone transmissions, absorption and attenuation of that energy within the cabin and the seperation that would exist between an onboard cellular telephone and an external fuel vapour source.
... it is proposed to combine CAP74 and CAP434 "Aviation Fuel at Aerodromes" into a new document and to remove the text relating to the use of telephones by passengers on board during refuelling operations. Pending the revision, operators may relax their current restriction and permit the use of cellular phones inside the aircraft during fuelling operations":
confused:
FODC 30-2003 Mobile Phones
Use of cellular telephones during aircraft refuelling
.... the CAA is satsified that fuel vapour ignition, due to the use of cellular telephones on the aircraft, is unlikely when passengers are on board during fuelling operations. This position takes account of the energy levels of the cellular phone transmissions, absorption and attenuation of that energy within the cabin and the seperation that would exist between an onboard cellular telephone and an external fuel vapour source.
... it is proposed to combine CAP74 and CAP434 "Aviation Fuel at Aerodromes" into a new document and to remove the text relating to the use of telephones by passengers on board during refuelling operations. Pending the revision, operators may relax their current restriction and permit the use of cellular phones inside the aircraft during fuelling operations":
confused:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There really shouldn't be much confusion on the subject.
The energy required to cause ignition of fuel (btu's) is relatively high when compared to the energy required to cause RF signal disruption (milli Watts or decibels).
I'm glad at least one country's regulatory agencies are paying attention to basic physics.
The energy required to cause ignition of fuel (btu's) is relatively high when compared to the energy required to cause RF signal disruption (milli Watts or decibels).
I'm glad at least one country's regulatory agencies are paying attention to basic physics.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ask gavin
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the use of mobile phones at petrol stations, Esso Garage Portabello Edinburgh has too accidents recently, on two different occasions members of the public have set fire to themself and petrol vapors at this garage, Why would you even want to chance it?
Thats why is p**sess me off big style when pax are on their phones while sitting at the overwings, sure its only 5 tons of fuel next to you!
Thats why is p**sess me off big style when pax are on their phones while sitting at the overwings, sure its only 5 tons of fuel next to you!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a related note, cellphones have been known to upset life support equipment in hospitals. I haven't heard of anyone dying as a result though.
It would appear that any digital equipment is vulnerable to cellphone interference, provided the conditions are just right. As someone already mentioned, it looks like the older analogue cellphones, with higher energy emissions, are the main offenders.
Even if the risk of critical interference is very small, we should still take steps to control it.
It would appear that any digital equipment is vulnerable to cellphone interference, provided the conditions are just right. As someone already mentioned, it looks like the older analogue cellphones, with higher energy emissions, are the main offenders.
Even if the risk of critical interference is very small, we should still take steps to control it.
Regarding the use of mobile phones at petrol stations, Esso Garage Portabello Edinburgh has too accidents recently, on two different occasions members of the public have set fire to themself and petrol vapors at this garage, Why would you even want to chance it?
Thats why is p**sess me off big style when pax are on their phones while sitting at the overwings, sure its only 5 tons of fuel next to you!
Thats why is p**sess me off big style when pax are on their phones while sitting at the overwings, sure its only 5 tons of fuel next to you!
Here's what the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum says:
Mobile Phones and Petrol Station Safety
and here's what the Institute of Petroleum says:
Ignition of flammable vapour by mobile phones not substantiated by technical evidence
Do also bear in mind that the fuel that the pax are sitting next to is Jet A1, not petroleum spirits like 100LL or Mogas.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile RFI
Hi there,
A search with my name and `interference' will lead you to some good info. This previous thread contains a few references (including my own) of actual RFI ocurrences, including mobile phones. .........Sorry can't seem to get the link to come up directly!
Good Luck
A search with my name and `interference' will lead you to some good info. This previous thread contains a few references (including my own) of actual RFI ocurrences, including mobile phones. .........Sorry can't seem to get the link to come up directly!
Good Luck
The fact that on various occasions, having a 'phone on has been 'got away with' doesn't prove it's safe. Although the integrity of shielding of cables is good in a new a/c, that doesn't necessarily hold over the a/c life. Additionally, the effect of one mobile phone is very different to the effect of a number of them, while not even all new a/c equipment is quite as immune to EMC as might be desirable. Older ones (a well known victim is the Tornado fighter!) can be very prone to problems.
As a professional radio engineer who has been involved with the development of EMC Standards for radio, I'm very much in favour of keeping ALL mobile phones very definitely OFF while in flight. I really don't want to be SLF on the one occasion it all goes wrong! Yes, I know there's two highly trained skilled bodies up at the sharp end, but even they can get overwhelmed when things start going wrong..................
The comments about fuel dangers is a different matter - there was a paper from Sheffield University at a Mobile Radio Conference some 20 odd years ago that showed that at powers under about 5 watts, the energies available in induced sparks were insufficient to ignite petrol. I believe there's also a BS (Btish Standard) on the subject somewhere: there's a DEF STAN as well on RADHAZ that covers fuel and explosive ignition amongst the other good stuff.
As a professional radio engineer who has been involved with the development of EMC Standards for radio, I'm very much in favour of keeping ALL mobile phones very definitely OFF while in flight. I really don't want to be SLF on the one occasion it all goes wrong! Yes, I know there's two highly trained skilled bodies up at the sharp end, but even they can get overwhelmed when things start going wrong..................
The comments about fuel dangers is a different matter - there was a paper from Sheffield University at a Mobile Radio Conference some 20 odd years ago that showed that at powers under about 5 watts, the energies available in induced sparks were insufficient to ignite petrol. I believe there's also a BS (Btish Standard) on the subject somewhere: there's a DEF STAN as well on RADHAZ that covers fuel and explosive ignition amongst the other good stuff.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fish,
just to refresh your morse code ... - - - ... is SOS, the code received on mobiles is SMS ... - - ...
M = dah dah
petty I know, but I dont get the opportunity to use my morse skills nowadays
Cheers
Clubber
just to refresh your morse code ... - - - ... is SOS, the code received on mobiles is SMS ... - - ...
M = dah dah
petty I know, but I dont get the opportunity to use my morse skills nowadays
Cheers
Clubber
