Air Safety and Mobile Phones??
US airlines allowing use of PDAs that can connect to Net
I thought this article from yesterday's Singapore Straitstimes would be of interest to this thread ....
US airlines allowing use of PDAs that can connect to Net
By Ng Hui Hui
THE use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) that enable wireless connection to the Internet is allowed if you travel on an American airline.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates aviation safety in the United States, does not ban the use of a PDA - even one that can connect to the Internet through a cellular network, a spokesman for the FAA told USA Today recently.
But most of the major airlines operating in the Asia-Pacific region told The Sunday Times they do not allow the use of PDAs.
USA Today cited two examples where passengers had used their PDAs to receive e-mail messages.
When contacted, United Airlines spokesman Sophia Mah said the use of PDAs is allowed, as long as they do not transmit radio waves, which are known to interfere with an aircraft's navigation system.
But experts say it is premature to dismiss PDAs with communication functions as harmless.
'A PDA may use less bandwidth to check e-mail, but you are using the same frequency as a cellular phone, and in much the same way,' Mr Terry Wiseman, an expert on in-flight communication systems and editor of Airfax.com, told USA Today.
While this remains a grey area for American airlines, other major airlines in Asia-Pacific have definite guidelines - PDAs with communication capabilities will be treated like mobile phones, which are banned.
The five airlines are Singapore Airlines (SIA), Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Qantas and British Airways.
'While there is no risk of some PDAs interfering with the plane's navigation equipment because they have relatively basic functions, others have more advanced functions that may cause some interference,' said SIA spokesman Karen Liaw.
However, if the communication functions on the PDAs can be disabled, passengers are allowed to use them for other purposes such as text editing, so long as it is not done during take-off and landing.
All electronic equipment have to be switched off during take-off and landing.
According to USA Today, Mr Wiseman suggested that the FAA's policy on PDAs may be outdated, given the convergence of phones and computing devices.
For example, he asked, should the Nokia Communicator 9110, which allows users to send e-mail messages and has other note-keeping functions, be considered a PDA and its use be allowed on aircraft?
Or, should the BlackBerry 5810, which has a built-in phone, be considered a cellular phone and be banned from use?
There are also sceptics who asked airlines to prove that mobile phones interfere with flight navigation systems.
'Make them prove it. I am an electrical engineer, and I cannot see how a mobile phone is going to mess up with aircraft navigation systems,' frequent flyer John Turner told USA Today.
US airlines allowing use of PDAs that can connect to Net
By Ng Hui Hui
THE use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) that enable wireless connection to the Internet is allowed if you travel on an American airline.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates aviation safety in the United States, does not ban the use of a PDA - even one that can connect to the Internet through a cellular network, a spokesman for the FAA told USA Today recently.
But most of the major airlines operating in the Asia-Pacific region told The Sunday Times they do not allow the use of PDAs.
USA Today cited two examples where passengers had used their PDAs to receive e-mail messages.
When contacted, United Airlines spokesman Sophia Mah said the use of PDAs is allowed, as long as they do not transmit radio waves, which are known to interfere with an aircraft's navigation system.
But experts say it is premature to dismiss PDAs with communication functions as harmless.
'A PDA may use less bandwidth to check e-mail, but you are using the same frequency as a cellular phone, and in much the same way,' Mr Terry Wiseman, an expert on in-flight communication systems and editor of Airfax.com, told USA Today.
While this remains a grey area for American airlines, other major airlines in Asia-Pacific have definite guidelines - PDAs with communication capabilities will be treated like mobile phones, which are banned.
The five airlines are Singapore Airlines (SIA), Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Qantas and British Airways.
'While there is no risk of some PDAs interfering with the plane's navigation equipment because they have relatively basic functions, others have more advanced functions that may cause some interference,' said SIA spokesman Karen Liaw.
However, if the communication functions on the PDAs can be disabled, passengers are allowed to use them for other purposes such as text editing, so long as it is not done during take-off and landing.
All electronic equipment have to be switched off during take-off and landing.
According to USA Today, Mr Wiseman suggested that the FAA's policy on PDAs may be outdated, given the convergence of phones and computing devices.
For example, he asked, should the Nokia Communicator 9110, which allows users to send e-mail messages and has other note-keeping functions, be considered a PDA and its use be allowed on aircraft?
Or, should the BlackBerry 5810, which has a built-in phone, be considered a cellular phone and be banned from use?
There are also sceptics who asked airlines to prove that mobile phones interfere with flight navigation systems.
'Make them prove it. I am an electrical engineer, and I cannot see how a mobile phone is going to mess up with aircraft navigation systems,' frequent flyer John Turner told USA Today.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a load of...
I will be the first to agree that mobiles used in flight are not a good idea.
What aggravates me is why there is all this fuss about them being used while on the ground. Why shouldnt you be able to use them before takeoff, or after landing?
And certainly this cr@p about not using them when walking across the apron, is pure tosser-ville! Who stops the engineers and despatchers, refuellers, security etc usung radios on the apron?
No one!
I would suggest that if the rules were a bit more feasible/believable, you mind find a few more folks respecting them!
What aggravates me is why there is all this fuss about them being used while on the ground. Why shouldnt you be able to use them before takeoff, or after landing?
And certainly this cr@p about not using them when walking across the apron, is pure tosser-ville! Who stops the engineers and despatchers, refuellers, security etc usung radios on the apron?
No one!
I would suggest that if the rules were a bit more feasible/believable, you mind find a few more folks respecting them!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, restrictions on mobile phones on the apron are possibly excessively cautious. However, they are higher power than radios or even short range network phones, and might produce arcing.
There are some really unexpected EMI effects - even within aircraft systems. To the extent that an apparently insignificant area of damage on a piece of cable in (e.g.) the transponder system can cause a significant failure in a totally unrelated system such as pressurisation outflow valves. The point is that aircraft are large and complex with lots of electrical systems interacting in very subtle ways. Even establishing that EMI for particular frequencies is not a problem on an aircraft off the factory floor doesn't guarantee that it won't be for other aircraft off the same line, or the same aircraft when somebody has made a nick in a piece of cable somewhere.
I'd go with hardening the aircraft to military EMI standards. Then we'd not be able to put so many passengers on, because of the increase in weight, and nobody would want to fly because tickets would cost 30% more. That would improve turnaround times too.
Seriously though, outofsynch, I'm not too bothered about potential pax grumbling about excessive safety restrictions. If you really have a problem about being told not to use your mobile phone on board or on the apron, then go by car. That's one less whiny passenger that my crew will have to deal with.
There are some really unexpected EMI effects - even within aircraft systems. To the extent that an apparently insignificant area of damage on a piece of cable in (e.g.) the transponder system can cause a significant failure in a totally unrelated system such as pressurisation outflow valves. The point is that aircraft are large and complex with lots of electrical systems interacting in very subtle ways. Even establishing that EMI for particular frequencies is not a problem on an aircraft off the factory floor doesn't guarantee that it won't be for other aircraft off the same line, or the same aircraft when somebody has made a nick in a piece of cable somewhere.
I'd go with hardening the aircraft to military EMI standards. Then we'd not be able to put so many passengers on, because of the increase in weight, and nobody would want to fly because tickets would cost 30% more. That would improve turnaround times too.
Seriously though, outofsynch, I'm not too bothered about potential pax grumbling about excessive safety restrictions. If you really have a problem about being told not to use your mobile phone on board or on the apron, then go by car. That's one less whiny passenger that my crew will have to deal with.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A company I worked for once took a call from a school. They rang to tell us that a pupil with a pacemaker felt unwell whenever he used a computer that we had supplied. Boy did that put the wind up the directors! A team was dispatched and they found that the problem was cause by emissions from the computer monitor. The monitor met all current EMC standards (or at least thats what the labels said) and lucky for us it wasn't one we had supplied. We gave them one of ours and last I heard this fixed the problem. It's easy to be complacent about EMC until you have an incdent like this.
Recently I read a report that suggested mobile phones are capable of corrupting the content of computer memory devices (specifically EEPROM or battery backed CMOS RAM). The report indicated that this was thought to have been the cause of an aircraft crash (Ok it was a model aircraft crash but I had you going there!).
Recently I read a report that suggested mobile phones are capable of corrupting the content of computer memory devices (specifically EEPROM or battery backed CMOS RAM). The report indicated that this was thought to have been the cause of an aircraft crash (Ok it was a model aircraft crash but I had you going there!).
