CRJ-900 restriction on pax electronics during ILS CAT II?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRJ-900 restriction on pax electronics during ILS CAT II?
Hello, pax here. I recently flew with a SAS CRJ-900. When nearing landing, cabin crew informed us to completely turn off all electronics and a specific sign for this was also lit. Unfortunately(?) the cabin announcement was a bit, shaky, and not very informative. The phrase "we have a situation" was used, which to me isn´t the best. Cue various pax that talked amongst themselves, speculating about why we should have to turn everything completely off. I didn´t bother chatting with them, but just wanted to verify my own thoughts as for the cause.
Basically I assumed that the reason was that we did a ILS CAT II landing. From my view I could see that we broke out of the clouds fairly close to the ground. Since there even was a specific sign for this over each seat I guess that there is some restrictions regarding pax electronics during this type of ILS approach?
We landed at Arlanda (ESSA) at around 1830z 2018-11-23.201811231920 METAR COR ESSA 231920Z 26005KT 4000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020
R01L/09//95 R08/09//95 R01R/09//95
TEMPO 2500 BR=
201811231850 METAR ESSA 231850Z 28004KT 5000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020 R01L/09//95
R08/09//95 R01R/09//95 NOSIG=
201811231820 METAR COR ESSA 231820Z 24006KT 6000 OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020
R01L/09//95 R08/09//95 R01R/09//95
NOSIG=
201811231750 METAR ESSA 231750Z 26005KT 6000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020 R01L/09//95
R08/09//95 R01R/09//95 NOSIG=
Basically I assumed that the reason was that we did a ILS CAT II landing. From my view I could see that we broke out of the clouds fairly close to the ground. Since there even was a specific sign for this over each seat I guess that there is some restrictions regarding pax electronics during this type of ILS approach?
We landed at Arlanda (ESSA) at around 1830z 2018-11-23.201811231920 METAR COR ESSA 231920Z 26005KT 4000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020
R01L/09//95 R08/09//95 R01R/09//95
TEMPO 2500 BR=
201811231850 METAR ESSA 231850Z 28004KT 5000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020 R01L/09//95
R08/09//95 R01R/09//95 NOSIG=
201811231820 METAR COR ESSA 231820Z 24006KT 6000 OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020
R01L/09//95 R08/09//95 R01R/09//95
NOSIG=
201811231750 METAR ESSA 231750Z 26005KT 6000 BR OVC002 M06/M07 Q1020 R01L/09//95
R08/09//95 R01R/09//95 NOSIG=
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working for several Airbus operators we had the same restriction for low visibility approaches, I believe it it an EASA requirement. For any such approach (and indeed departure) mobile devices should be completely switched off, not only into flight mode as the processors and circuitry inside still produces electromagnetic noise. I believe it is simply a try to reduce any even improbable interference, well knowing that most phones/tablets will still be on...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have the same procedure when we do low visibility approaches. Pax are told to switch off phones, etc, completely, but they are told why.
SAS CRJs are operated by City Jet, and that would probably explain the «shaky» announcement.
SAS CRJs are operated by City Jet, and that would probably explain the «shaky» announcement.
Flying the CRJ900, not for CityJet though. No specific restrictions for CATII and personal electronic devices, for crew they should be off anyway. And pax can have them in flight mode, also for CATII. Only restrictions in FCOM are for aircraft status/malfunctions etc.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 737 here.
This to me is total rubbish, sorry to say.
There is only a requirement for any device to be in " Airplane Mode".
Our iPad in the flight deck is on, how else do we navigate. JeppyBag gone!!
Someone has taken a bit to much Møllers Tran as we say in Norway. ( A concept of a bit over the top on the codliver oil)
Would love to see ANY written reference.
Surely this must be aircraft specific as a standard ILS beam and a standard ILS receiver is NOT influenced by modern phones.
Standing by to be corrected.
Regards
Cpt B
This to me is total rubbish, sorry to say.
There is only a requirement for any device to be in " Airplane Mode".
Our iPad in the flight deck is on, how else do we navigate. JeppyBag gone!!
Someone has taken a bit to much Møllers Tran as we say in Norway. ( A concept of a bit over the top on the codliver oil)
Would love to see ANY written reference.
Surely this must be aircraft specific as a standard ILS beam and a standard ILS receiver is NOT influenced by modern phones.
Standing by to be corrected.
Regards
Cpt B
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 737 here.
This to me is total rubbish, sorry to say.
There is only a requirement for any device to be in " Airplane Mode".
Our iPad in the flight deck is on, how else do we navigate. JeppyBag gone!!
Someone has taken a bit to much Møllers Tran as we say in Norway. ( A concept of a bit over the top on the codliver oil)
Would love to see ANY written reference.
Surely this must be aircraft specific as a standard ILS beam and a standard ILS receiver is NOT influenced by modern phones.
Standing by to be corrected.
Regards
Cpt B
This to me is total rubbish, sorry to say.
There is only a requirement for any device to be in " Airplane Mode".
Our iPad in the flight deck is on, how else do we navigate. JeppyBag gone!!
Someone has taken a bit to much Møllers Tran as we say in Norway. ( A concept of a bit over the top on the codliver oil)
Would love to see ANY written reference.
Surely this must be aircraft specific as a standard ILS beam and a standard ILS receiver is NOT influenced by modern phones.
Standing by to be corrected.
Regards
Cpt B
Can I use my PEDs during my next flight during all phases of flight?
Not necessarily. Safety is always a priority. Under the EASA provisions, once the airline has shown that its aircraft can safely handle interference from PEDs, it may allow the use of such devices. At certain times — for example, during a landing in reduced visibility — the airline crew may instruct passengers to turn off their devices to make absolutely sure these do not interfere with the aircraft’s communications and navigation equipment. The airline crew has the right at any time to restrict use of PEDs according to airline policy.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I don’t see any problems with phones in flight mode, but this is what EASA says about this.
Can I use my PEDs during my next flight during all phases of flight?
Not necessarily. Safety is always a priority. Under the EASA provisions, once the airline has shown that its aircraft can safely handle interference from PEDs, it may allow the use of such devices. At certain times — for example, during a landing in reduced visibility — the airline crew may instruct passengers to turn off their devices to make absolutely sure these do not interfere with the aircraft’s communications and navigation equipment. The airline crew has the right at any time to restrict use of PEDs according to airline policy.
The best comment i got during a recent spat of CAT III approaches was from the colleague on the flightdeck on me commenting that i forgot i actually switched my phone off "you must have been the only one on the plane". And that is probably the statistical truth.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK
I stand corrected.
It is strange that there is no common practice.
I assume the electronic flight bag, a normal iPad in most cases, is still on in Flight Modus ?
Charming!
The 737.800 for sure has no restrictions.
I stand corrected.
It is strange that there is no common practice.
I assume the electronic flight bag, a normal iPad in most cases, is still on in Flight Modus ?
Charming!
The 737.800 for sure has no restrictions.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the implementation of EFB, there are many, many validations that take place before the airline can put them into use. With each airframe, there is significant testing to see if the use on the flghtdeck interferes with any of the electronics or systems. With this testing, there can be certain requirements necessary to protect the systems. These will vary between airfames and even between same variants, depending on the combination of equipage. Most of the time, it is the charger that is the problem, so there are special outlets that shield the flightdeck from interference if there is any.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had the same rule back when we had 737s in the fleet, 700s and 800s.
And yes, the EFBs needed a lot of checking, certification and re-certification on each software iteration. And again, yes, the charger was a bigger issue, but other stuff had to be tested as well, depressurization, effect of direct sun onto the device, readability and of course software compatibility. Which in the term of the airbus suite was a headache, as they do not use one integrated piece of software but rather a suite of different apps that do interact. Which in the case of the EQRH was a real disaster. By the way, the use of bluetooth was approved, both between both iPads, between each iPad and the aircraft (interface box installed) and between both the aircraft and the other iPad. Back now with an operator that does not use iPads and is still in the business of cutting trees rather than doing everything electronically. Feels like a step back in time by 15 years...
And yes, the EFBs needed a lot of checking, certification and re-certification on each software iteration. And again, yes, the charger was a bigger issue, but other stuff had to be tested as well, depressurization, effect of direct sun onto the device, readability and of course software compatibility. Which in the term of the airbus suite was a headache, as they do not use one integrated piece of software but rather a suite of different apps that do interact. Which in the case of the EQRH was a real disaster. By the way, the use of bluetooth was approved, both between both iPads, between each iPad and the aircraft (interface box installed) and between both the aircraft and the other iPad. Back now with an operator that does not use iPads and is still in the business of cutting trees rather than doing everything electronically. Feels like a step back in time by 15 years...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti, yes, the Bluetooth connection was quite a challenge. Connecting to, yet remaining separate from the IFE system was enough of a headache. The Blutooth connection, as well as Wifi, was a big problem with Apple products (not with Android) as the Apple product is always searching for connections, even when connected. This placed a significant drain on the battery. There is worry that it may attempt to connect to a stronger source while on final approach, hence restriction on use on FA. (especially if the device has been used on the ground with said connection and auto connect is enabled)
It really does take quite a bit of testing and validation before it is even considered to be trained to the crew.
That being said, there are many apps that are taking advantage of the connectivity, especially sharing winds aloft, FMS winds, and FA conditions between the ac in the network. Pretty strong stuff once it gets sorted.
It really does take quite a bit of testing and validation before it is even considered to be trained to the crew.
That being said, there are many apps that are taking advantage of the connectivity, especially sharing winds aloft, FMS winds, and FA conditions between the ac in the network. Pretty strong stuff once it gets sorted.
