Mobile Phone interference
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotial Evidence at best...
Forgive me for NOT taking this "report" too seriously.
....
Pilots and engineers have identified 75 incidents which may be linked to signal interference from passengers....OK. I have had numerous "unexplained" electrically manifested incidents, from autopilots disengaging uncommanded, circut breakers tripping, ect. Any many of these ended up signed off as, "system bit test Ok", or "could not duplicate, checks OK". Nary a passenger ( ALL Cargo ), and YES, checked no-one ( Crew ) had inadvertantly left anything on. If I were to throw in a few passengers, Shizzam, now that explains what happened, someone must have left their IPad on!!!!!
As I understand it, every incident in the past in which an specific device was identified, the "offending device" was bought ( from the passenger ), and then tested in controlled conditions. Never able to duplicate said incident. So, can you see why the "MAY be linked" in the referenced article is only about as convincing as the typical scare-mongering liberal media usually is.
....
Pilots and engineers have identified 75 incidents which may be linked to signal interference from passengers....OK. I have had numerous "unexplained" electrically manifested incidents, from autopilots disengaging uncommanded, circut breakers tripping, ect. Any many of these ended up signed off as, "system bit test Ok", or "could not duplicate, checks OK". Nary a passenger ( ALL Cargo ), and YES, checked no-one ( Crew ) had inadvertantly left anything on. If I were to throw in a few passengers, Shizzam, now that explains what happened, someone must have left their IPad on!!!!!
As I understand it, every incident in the past in which an specific device was identified, the "offending device" was bought ( from the passenger ), and then tested in controlled conditions. Never able to duplicate said incident. So, can you see why the "MAY be linked" in the referenced article is only about as convincing as the typical scare-mongering liberal media usually is.
Mythbusters did a test using a mobile phone and a panel-full of typical light-aircraft avionics and found that the mobile very definitely created a heck of a lot of interference. They then discovered that the wiring they used had none of the insulation that aircraft wiring has that stops external radio interference, and once they'd swapped all the wiring over to the correct type the interference from the mobile phone stopped.
Now all you have to do is convince me that 100% of the insulation on 100% of the aircraft is perfect and you'll convince me that mobiles don't occasionally cause interference with the avionics.
Now all you have to do is convince me that 100% of the insulation on 100% of the aircraft is perfect and you'll convince me that mobiles don't occasionally cause interference with the avionics.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that electronic devices do NOT cause interference for 99% of the flight, and can only do so during takeoff or landing? 
If they did cause interference, then they'd be banned the ENTIRE flight.
The real reason for switching off during *CRITICAL PHASES OF FLIGHT* is for safety.
ECAM Actions.
If they did cause interference, then they'd be banned the ENTIRE flight.
The real reason for switching off during *CRITICAL PHASES OF FLIGHT* is for safety.
ECAM Actions.
