PED's on/off during various flight stages - Why?

[eastwest101]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

To say the risk of PEDs is insignificant is both naive and ignorant of the established research..

View attachment 99119911


Would you say the risk is insignificant when they have proved interference can result in the ILS being wrong, the one and only instrument that your aircraft depends on in the final stages of landing in bad weather, as a pilot and former aviation professional I can conclusively say the risk is real.

Just for your info Markis10 - the link to the UK CAA 2003 full report does not appear to work.

And what are they talking about in the final part where:

" the research could not duplicate interference from a PED under controlled conditions, the report stated that the probability of....etc"

Does that mean, say, the 1996 tests found interference but the 2003 test couldn't replicate the results?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

haven't we gone digital since 2003?? that would seem to make a report from back then historical, rather than conclusive in the current climate.

 

[markis10]

Just for your info Markis10 - the link to the UK CAA 2003 full report does not appear to work.

And what are they talking about in the final part where:

" the research could not duplicate interference from a PED under controlled conditions, the report stated that the probability of....etc"

Does that mean, say, the 1996 tests found interference but the 2003 test couldn't replicate the results?

The 1996 tests were different to the 2003 in what was being tested, with the 2003 tests showing mobile phones interfered with an aircrafts navigational instruments.

The background info also provides good coverage of the fact the risk is not insignificant as claimed by a few:

Between March 1996 and December 2002, the number of aircraft safety-related
incidents that cited cellphones as a factor, as reported to the UK CAA in accordance
with the UK Mandatory Occurrence Reporting legislation, totalled 35.
1.2 The reports linked interference with effects including:
• False warnings of unsafe conditions (e.g. baggage compartment smoke alarms);
• Distraction1 of the flight crew from their normal duties;
• Interrupted communications due to noise in the flight crew headphones;
• Increased work load for the flight crew and the possibility of invoking emergency
drills;
• Reduced crew confidence in protection systems which may then be ignored
during a genuine warning;
• Malfunctioning of multiple systems essential to safe flight.
1.3 Similarly, NASA report, Personal Electronic Devices and their Interference with
Aircraft Systems, June 2001, recorded and analysed 118 PED related incidents,
reported under the voluntary Aviation Safety Reporting System. Cellphones were
cited in 25 as having a strong correlation with the event with 16 being classified as
associated with a critical anomaly.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF

haven't we gone digital since 2003?? that would seem to make a report from back then historical, rather than conclusive in the current climate.

The report specifically looks at digital cell phone emissions, we went digital in 93. Regardless, whether its digital or analog, that only describes the signal type, does not change the fact that RF is emitted.

The interference frequencies and modulations of interest were those used by
cellphones in the Tetra 400, GSM 900 and 1800MHz bands.

GSM1800 is very much a common thing in Australia.

 

[NM]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Well not all of them - mine doesn't have 3G so it would be a miracle if it was chatting on the cellular network...

Ditto ... and mine is always in Flight Mode on the aircraft (along with my Blackberry) to ensure I am not adding another hole to the swiss cheese.

 

[NM]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

As an engineer (electronics and communications, not aeronautical), I can say that I have reasonable level of understanding of how the various technologies may or may not interact. While I believe the risk is very low, I do believe there is some risk and as a result I always have any radio transmission devices disabled (iPad in Flight Mode, Laptop shutdown, phone radios turned off). Its well known that many aviation accidents are the result of the alignment of multiple causal factors (failures, errors, timing, weather, other external influences) and I am not going to willingly contribute to altering the probability of too many of those coming together in flight.

I am not going to rely on what may or may not be allowed through a security screening point to dictate my understanding of radio communications - I will continue to rely on my years of study of engineering facts and my practical application and experience of RF communications.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Isn't this getting a bit technical?

When people question the science behind the rules, its hardly surprising. Keep in mind aircraft standards for electronic interference were only introduced recently, and we have a fleet of 747, 767, 737, FK100 and SF340s flying in Australia build before such standards were introduced, with wiring looms that are good inductors by comparison to the more modern aircraft that are now cabled differently.

 

[straitman]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

The vast majority of people neither turn off their iPads, nor put them into flight mode. They just hit the sleep switch and stuff them into the seatback pocket.

Hence all those iPads are still merrily chatting away on the cellular network during takeoff, flight, taxi, and landing.

I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, on a flight actually turn their iPad completely off.

You are joking aren't you? I see it as the norm with a small degree on non compliance.

On what basis are you claiming to know what every other iPad on the plane is doing ?

I have the need to ask you the same question.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Would you say the risk is insignificant when they have proved interference can result in the ILS being wrong, the one and only instrument that your aircraft depends on in the final stages of landing in bad weather, as a pilot and former aviation professional I can conclusively say the risk is real.

But you're happy to fly a plane with a few hundred of them in the back, over which you have no control ?


How would you feel about a few hundred passengers with guns ?

Then you have not sat next to me! Given the limited view any one passenger has of the cabin, such analysis is statistically irrelevant regardless and would not be accepted by any educated person as being representative of reality as far as the entire cabin goes.

On any given flight I can see anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen people from my seat.

Like I said, I've never seen any of them turn their iPads (/kindles/laptops) completely off. They just "sleep" them. In fact, based on other experiences, I would go so far as to say most people don't perceive there to be any real difference between "sleep" and "off", particularly with tablets.

I see no reason to think there's anything special about these flights, nor the people I observe. I'm sure there are a few like yourself that turn things off completely (I usually do with my iPad, but occasionally forget - but I pretty much never actually shut down my laptop, just close the lid and sleep it), but I've yet to see any evidence they're a majority.

My comment re Faraday cages is in the context of links which you claim to have read, yes, some phones will not get a signal because of this, for the same reason my signal is about to drop out in a train on the ground in the next km of travel.

And how important do you think that is to interference with other electronic devices inside that faraday cage ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The report specifically looks at digital cell phone emissions, we went digital in 93. Regardless, whether its digital or analog, that only describes the signal type, does not change the fact that RF is emitted.

ooh!!

I thought phones that didn't interfere with your radio at home were only new from the last 5 years or so!!

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

You are joking aren't you? I see it as the norm with a small degree on non compliance.

But you have to admit, the trend is changing as more and more people have smartphones and iPads/Tablets...

 

[medhead]

No, they're banned because people like to engage in security theatre.

No they are banned because a liquid explosive device has been set off on an aircraft.

My comments were in the context of passengers acting on other passengers.

Keeping telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The fact remains the comment you attacked was made in the context of what a pilot's response will be if they are involved in a passenger not obey the PED rules. This fact changes the context and it is simplistic to ignore the development of the conversation.

Interesting that you reject the democracy way of changing incorrect rules by calling me simplistic but make accusations about authoritarian dreams. Now that's irony.


Sent from the Throne

 

[medhead]

From which point all devices have to be in 'flight mode' for safety reasons - except for QF's iPads.

But what power mode are the QF iPads left in at the end of each flight? The 3G radio will still be active in 'standby' mode.

As I wrote, this does not happen during take off.


Sent from the Throne

 

[drsmithy]

No they are banned because a liquid explosive device has been set off on an aircraft.

How does banning full-size toothpaste tubes help ? Or are you trying to argue no-one would ever make the massive conceptual leap from using one big tube to multiple smaller tubes ?

Interesting that you reject the democracy way of changing incorrect rules by calling me simplistic but make accusations about authoritarian dreams. Now that's irony.

I didn't reject anything.

 

[Fruitcake]

No they are banned because a liquid explosive device has been set off on an aircraft.

Plenty of lithium batteries have exploded / released intense heat and smoke on an aircraft too (and are suspected to have caused at least one cargo aircraft to crash). But instead of banning them, you are required to carry them on with you so that you can watch the fire start.

Perhaps all liquids and gels should be carried in the cabin, for safety and security reasons?

 

[Fantic125]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

But you're happy to fly a plane with a few hundred of them in the back, over which you have no control ?

How would you feel about a few hundred passengers with guns ?

There's a bit of a difference between ipads and guns. I'm not aware of anyone yet being threatened or shot to death with an ipad.....

 

[jb747]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

How would you feel about a few hundred passengers with guns?

No problem at all. I expect that they would be extraordinarily polite.

It's one or two with guns that might be an issue.

 

[jb747]

Plenty of lithium batteries have exploded / released intense heat and smoke on an aircraft too (and are suspected to have caused at least one cargo aircraft to crash). But instead of banning them, you are required to carry them on with you so that you can watch the fire start.

And presumably do something to put it out.

I think they're currently crediting lithium batteries with two 747s.....

 

[medhead]

How does banning full-size toothpaste tubes help ? Or are you trying to argue no-one would ever make the massive conceptual leap from using one big tube to multiple smaller tubes ?

If you bother to actually find out some facts on the LAGS restrictions then you might realise why you've just posed a ridiculous question.



Sent from the Throne

 

[medhead]

Plenty of lithium batteries have exploded / released intense heat and smoke on an aircraft too (and are suspected to have caused at least one cargo aircraft to crash). But instead of banning them, you are required to carry them on with you so that you can watch the fire start.

Perhaps all liquids and gels should be carried in the cabin, for safety and security reasons?

Sorry but safety and security are two very different matters. Don't get confused between the 2. Lithium batteries are carried in the cabin for safety, they also have to have the connectors electrical insulated and isolated for safety reasons. This is done because of the risk of the batteries spontaneously lighting up. That risk is being made safe.

LAGS are restricted for security reasons. There are no safety issues involved. So it is entirely wrong, ludicrous even, to lump safety and security together with respect to LAGS.


Sent from the Throne

 

[The Rok]

There's a bit of a difference between ipads and guns. I'm not aware of anyone yet being threatened or shot to death with an ipad.....

That depends on who was holding the iPad... If it were you or I then I suspect no danger, but in the hands of Russell Crowe it could be a different story! ;-)