Ask The Pilot

[SeatBackForward]

Interesting re Bluetooth as QF allow Bluetooth and CX don't...

Hmm Interesting. As I have recently bought some bluetooth noise cancelling headphones expressly for use on aircraft, as I thought they met QF policy. Now I'll have to rethink the bluetooth aspect and stick to the old cabling.

 

[jb747]

If the ability to quickly scan the cabin (say using a hand held meter) and detect where transmitting devices were to enforce the "off" policy, would you encourage the use of such a device?

I doubt that you could actually detect all of the various forms of transmission within a reasonable time frame. And we end up with occasional incidents between passengers and crew already...I can't see that that would help at all.

The most likely outcome is that the risk will be accepted as alternatives are unworkable.

 

[jb747]

Hmm Interesting. As I have recently bought some bluetooth noise cancelling headphones expressly for use on aircraft, as I thought they met QF policy. Now I'll have to rethink the bluetooth aspect and stick to the old cabling.

The issue that has recently come up (and resulted in a ban of the equipment) was the use of bluetooth GPS modules in the coughpit. When operated in conjunction with some of the aviation software on a laptop or ipad, these systems can give results that exceed the usefulness of the built in systems (in the way they integrate Jeppesen data).

The ban does not extend to the cabin, but they shouldn't be used take off or landing phases.

Having said that, the safety PA always says that transmitters are banned at all times, and yet every one of these systems involves a transmission of some sort.

 

[simongr]

My BT headphones only on when electronic devices are allowed to be on. Much easier than having cords everywhere.

Also good with the small boy...

 

[SeatBackForward]

Having said that, the safety PA always says that transmitters are banned at all times, and yet every one of these systems involves a transmission of some sort.

The introduction of On-baord Wifi streaming, rather than seat-back entertainment systems, will only increase the amount of "noise"..

 

[jb747]

The introduction of On-baord Wifi streaming, rather than seat-back entertainment systems, will only increase the amount of "noise"..

Very true, and it tends to water down the entire message about phones, etc.

On the other hand, the risk from the entire wifi exercise is quite likely less than that caused by the existence of the in seat video systems (which have already caused one aircraft loss), so perhaps the balance is positive.

 

[QF029]

I'm not sure if this has been asked before but I assume that the reason that devices can't be used in flight mode during take off and landing is that it could prevent passengers hearing instructions (eg if they were listening to their own music) in the event of an emergency?

 

[jb747]

I'm not sure if this has been asked before but I assume that the reason that devices can't be used in flight mode during take off and landing is that it could prevent passengers hearing instructions (eg if they were listening to their own music) in the event of an emergency?

That will be part of it, but I expect that the electrical noise that all processors create is also a factor.

 

[simongr]

I'm not sure if this has been asked before but I assume that the reason that devices can't be used in flight mode during take off and landing is that it could prevent passengers hearing instructions (eg if they were listening to their own music) in the event of an emergency?

I find this one a little amusing. I know it comes down to a question of whether we want to increase a risk unnecessarily by allowing the use. The thing is that some people are deaf, others wear ear plugs, other don't speak the language over the PA and some could be so high/drunk that they wouldn't realise they were in an emergency until someone started the eulogy.

Frankly if I was listening to my headphones and couldn't hear the PA and saw a lot of people in front of me leaning the seat in front of them I would probably turn off the iphone...

 

[harvyk]

I doubt that you could actually detect all of the various forms of transmission within a reasonable time frame. And we end up with occasional incidents between passengers and crew already...I can't see that that would help at all.

The trick would not be detecting all forms of transmissions within a reasonable time frame, that part can be done easily and very quickly (have the FA's walk up and down the plane with little detectors in their pocket which beep if it detects any sort of radio transmission).

I'd imagine the trick would be ensuring that the aircraft's own systems do not trigger the detector as well.

 

[jb747]

I find this one a little amusing. I know it comes down to a question of whether we want to increase a risk unnecessarily by allowing the use. The thing is that some people are deaf, others wear ear plugs, other don't speak the language over the PA and some could be so high/drunk that they wouldn't realise they were in an emergency until someone started the eulogy.

Frankly if I was listening to my headphones and couldn't hear the PA and saw a lot of people in front of me leaning the seat in front of them I would probably turn off the iphone...

You mean the iPhone that you had already turned off....

The sad part about all of this is that people don't generally listen to safety Pas, and live in a world in which things won't happen to them.

Even when I have the seat belt signs on, I've always figured that a couple of percent of the passengers will simply ignore it. Their rationale generally seems to be that they've seen the sign a zillion times, and never yet had a nasty encounter, so, therefore we turn the sign on when it isn't needed.

Look around at the passengers next time you're on an aircraft. How many do you think have the slightest idea of where an exit, other than the one they boarded through, is located? From experience, I know that a lot of people won't be able to use the oxygen masks.

Aircraft aren't buildings that shake. They're machines, and in any other industry, anyone near a machine so powerful would be wearing all sorts of safety gear....

 

[jb747]

The trick would not be detecting all forms of transmissions within a reasonable time frame, that part can be done easily and very quickly (have the FA's walk up and down the plane with little detectors in their pocket which beep if it detects any sort of radio transmission).

I'd imagine the trick would be ensuring that the aircraft's own systems do not trigger the detector as well.

No, the trick would be managing the fights that would ensue.

 

[harvyk]

No, the trick would be managing the fights that would ensue.

But wouldn't you as the captain be able to say "turn it off or your not flying today"?
I have always been under the impression that the captain has such powers and the ability to back it up by getting the local authorities to remove people from a plane which don't comply.

 

[anat0l]

The sad part about all of this is that people don't generally listen to safety Pas, and live in a world in which things won't happen to them.

Even when I have the seat belt signs on, I've always figured that a couple of percent of the passengers will simply ignore it. Their rationale generally seems to be that they've seen the sign a zillion times, and never yet had a nasty encounter, so, therefore we turn the sign on when it isn't needed.

Look around at the passengers next time you're on an aircraft. How many do you think have the slightest idea of where an exit, other than the one they boarded through, is located? From experience, I know that a lot of people won't be able to use the oxygen masks.

Aircraft aren't buildings that shake. They're machines, and in any other industry, anyone near a machine so powerful would be wearing all sorts of safety gear....

Someone suggested that people should have to pass a "test" and get a "license" before they are allowed to travel by air. Somehow I don't think that is such a bad idea. (Just like if you had to go work on a site like you're alluding to slightly, you'd have to pass a safety induction).

I'd advocate the idea that the right to air travel be embedded with one's passport (i.e. a passport would be required for any air travel - domestic, international, chartered or otherwise). Violations of air travel regulations or safety directives risk revoking or cancelling one's passport and thus loss of air travel rights.

It'd be unfortunate if it came to that because the golden age of flying relied on the honesty of passengers, which was generally forthcoming (this helped in both safety and etiquette, e.g. seating, baggage etc.). Now you're lucky if the pax care about safety of themselves (cf. they place no responsibility on themselves for safety and rely fully on the crew, even if it means they willfully endanger their lives).


That all said, do you think, jb747, that airlines need to do more about safety of passengers (i.e. make it safer for passengers, redesign directives for passengers, etc.) or do you think that passengers need to do a lot more to support a safe culture (e.g. and this will be achieved through tougher regulation, penalties, restrictions etc.)?

 

[Skyring]

Look around at the passengers next time you're on an aircraft. How many do you think have the slightest idea of where an exit, other than the one they boarded through, is located? From experience, I know that a lot of people won't be able to use the oxygen masks.

I've seen footage of emergency egress testing on the A380. Half the exits are randomly selected as inoperable and yet the entire human load manages to escape within an impressively short time. All the people aboard must know what they are about to do, they would be alert, pumped, prepared.

I can't help but feel that if these things have to be used for real, there's going to have to be a lot of prior warning and preparation by the cabin crew. Half the passengers on takeoff seem to be asleep, and have dozed through the safety briefing. And the other half have just enough understanding of the theory of flight to know that planes fly because their wings make them too wide for the highways.

Heaven forfend that an A380 - or any other aircraft - should seriously need to be evacuated in a hurry, but I wonder, based on actual situations, how feasible is it to get everybody out of a large airliner in a hurry?

 

[NM]

I live near a small local airport. I noticed that at my home (about 2km away) I can see a reasonably strong and constant radio signal right on 660.0MHz. Is that likely to be associated with something from this airport? Some sort of beacon?

I have no way of "listening" to this transmission, just note it on an RF scanner I use for identifying radio frequency issues or interference with radio microphones, which typically operate in several bands between 520MHz and 820MHz. Of course digital TV is also in the middle of that range, but the signal I am seeing is very narrow band and just the one stable frequency. I was looking at a radio microphone interference issue on the weekend (venue is even closer to the same airport than my house) and noted the two microphone that was experiencing the issues (out of 8 in use) was operating on 659.900MHz and 661.550MHz, so the problem is likley to be associated with the 660.0MHz signal my scanner has picked up in this area. I reprogrammed those two mics away from the 660MHz "problem" and they seem ok now.

So curious to know the 660.0MHz is likely to be coming from the airport or something else. Is that a frequency range that is used in aviation? Obviously all I need to know is that its there and to avoid that frequency, but that does take some effort when we have a show like tonight with 22 radio mics in use (school Drama Department trying to ensure all the students have lines and need to be heard).

 

[anat0l]

I've seen footage of emergency egress testing on the A380. Half the exits are randomly selected as inoperable and yet the entire human load manages to escape within an impressively short time. All the people aboard must know what they are about to do, they would be alert, pumped, prepared.

That indeed it is. It looks spectacular on show, but reality is usually different. (Thankfully, we probably don't have too many real life cases for the A380 as of yet.)

For the engineering side, one would be running such testing to create a best case scenario I would imagine. No one expects that the plane will evacuate this fast (unless everyone is really switched on) - not to mention you'll have a few too many freak pax who will insist on bringing their laptop, real Gucci handbag, etc. - with them when they shouldn't be. But if they can't get a plane load of switched on people out within a given reasonable fast time frame, then that doesn't brood well for a real evacuation time when it happens in a real emergency.

 

[simongr]

You mean the iPhone that you had already turned off....

The sad part about all of this is that people don't generally listen to safety Pas, and live in a world in which things won't happen to them.

Even when I have the seat belt signs on, I've always figured that a couple of percent of the passengers will simply ignore it. Their rationale generally seems to be that they've seen the sign a zillion times, and never yet had a nasty encounter, so, therefore we turn the sign on when it isn't needed.

Look around at the passengers next time you're on an aircraft. How many do you think have the slightest idea of where an exit, other than the one they boarded through, is located? From experience, I know that a lot of people won't be able to use the oxygen masks.

Aircraft aren't buildings that shake. They're machines, and in any other industry, anyone near a machine so powerful would be wearing all sorts of safety gear....

I was working on the presumption that we were allowed to have the devices on in this example

I completely agree about the disdain for the safety briefing - I was like that in the past but turned over a new leaf some time ago and now always make a point of closing my magazine for the briefing. Not only does it mean I am appropriately prepared for an emergency, it shows respect to the person giving the briefing which tends to lead to happier service.

I find I am the only one in the first three rows of economy watching. I even made the 3 1/2 year old watch it on Sunday.

 

[jb747]

But wouldn't you as the captain be able to say "turn it off or your not flying today"?
I have always been under the impression that the captain has such powers and the ability to back it up by getting the local authorities to remove people from a plane which don't comply.

Oh, that's the easy part. But, I also have to have their luggage removed, and that can take a while. It can take long enough that I'll miss a slot, or crew duty can become an issue. So, whilst it's a tool I have available, it's not going to be the first one that I rush to use.

Sadly a lot of people know that I can't go with their luggage on board, and actually make use of that knowledge, so that they can finish the champagne in the lounge, or perhaps complete that duty free purchase. It can be a dangerous practice though, as occasionally the bag you want happens to be the first one to hand.

 

[jb747]

So curious to know the 660.0MHz is likely to be coming from the airport or something else. Is that a frequency range that is used in aviation? Obviously all I need to know is that its there and to avoid that frequency, but that does take some effort when we have a show like tonight with 22 radio mics in use (school Drama Department trying to ensure all the students have lines and need to be heard).

No idea, but I don't think anything of an aviation nature operates there.