Takeoff and Landing - Regulation / Etiquette

[mosanator]

If they are going to be allowed to be used can the rule be that they can be used the user can communicate with the device telepathically (spelling?)? So that no one else on board can hear it ring and no one else can hear the conversation, any of it, period. Is it not bad enough that they rule (ruin) our lives everywhere, can you imagine a plane full of DYKWIA's, Gen Y's and just ordinary souls having unrestricted mobile access ! Talk about aircraft noise

 

[markis10]

If you are lucky enough to be flying a F100, no mobiles at any time are allowed.

 

[midcoast1]

Which ironically would mean you are breaking another rule, that of carriage of unpacked lithium batteries not installed in a device, info from QF:

• Spare Lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating greater than 160Wh, are not permitted on an aircraft under any circumstances.
• Spare lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating of between 100Wh and 160Wh are limited to two batteries per passenger. Batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only. – Operator approval is required for these prior to travel.
• Spare Lithium ion batteries and cells with a Watt hour rating or less than 100Wh have no limit to the number that can be carried, batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only
• Spare Lithium metal or Lithium alloy batteries with a lithium content of less than 2 grams have no limit to the number that can be carried, however, batteries must have terminals insulated or protected to prevent short circuit and must be carried in cabin baggage only.
• If batteries are installed in equipment such as laptop computers, camera, calculators etc – the above limits still apply, however they can be carried as checked baggage, provided the electronic device is protected from accidental activation.

Note: Conversion from Ah (Amp hours) to Wh is: Ah x Voltage = Wh.

Spare Batteries for Consumer Electronic Devices

All spare batteries for consumer electronic devices must be carried in carry-on baggage only. They must be individually protected to prevent short circuit using one of the following:

• In original retail packaging;
• Taping over exposed terminals;
• Placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch.

From the Delta website

If original packaging is not available, effectively insulate battery terminals byIf original packaging is not available, l.If original packaging is not available, effectively insulate battery terminals by isolating spare batteries from contact with other batteries and/or metal.

Had no other batteries .Phone was plastic case .Camera was in leather case .No other metal objects in bag so battery was safe.As it says " isolating spare batteries from contact with other batteries and/or metal."So therefore safe.​

 

[Boris spatsky]

I am disappointed that the thread has drifted to 'i don't get interference in my light aircraft so phones clearly don't cause problems'. That is a completely naive comment. I have personally had displays go blank on a large multi engine high capacity aircraft that i was flying (5 years ago now), that was traced back to passenger phone during the long and extensive investigation. I also have a friend who flies for Lufthansa who had it going into LAX when the FOs phone rang, and the ILS indication dropped out completely. Also investigated and the culprit? The phone.

If someone texts during takeoff or landing next to me, i get quite blunt and confrontational. When they undoubtedly say 'i know it is BS that phones cause problems in flight', i ask them if they are an aeronautical or electrical engineer. That generally shuts them up.

If you text in flight, watch out. I might be the guy sitting next to you when you do it.

 

[Boris spatsky]

As for iPads, they can test specifically for EMI with them and specific aircraft to allow their use. They cant test every phone in the world so pax phones are a no.

 

[midcoast1]

I am disappointed that the thread has drifted to 'i don't get interference in my light aircraft so phones clearly don't cause problems'. That is a completely naive comment. I have personally had displays go blank on a large multi engine high capacity aircraft that i was flying (5 years ago now), that was traced back to passenger phone during the long and extensive investigation. I also have a friend who flies for Lufthansa who had it going into LAX when the FOs phone rang, and the ILS indication dropped out completely. Also investigated and the culprit? The phone.

If someone texts during takeoff or landing next to me, i get quite blunt and confrontational. When they undoubtedly say 'i know it is BS that phones cause problems in flight', i ask them if they are an aeronautical or electrical engineer. That generally shuts them up.

If you text in flight, watch out. I might be the guy sitting next to you when you do it.

Agreed

I don't know why people want to argue the point over this.It has been proven using a mobile phone can and has caused interference with instruments .As i stated before it's a rule of air travel .Live with it or take a ship or train or coach to your destination.Most phones have flight mode now if you want to take pics or videos or play games.

 

[TonyHancock]

As i stated before it's a rule of air travel .

Sorry to be boring and state for the third time in this thread, but........some airlines allow cellular phone usage.

I have no desire to use my phone in-flight, the only benefit of long haul air travel for me is not being connected to the outside world.

I am interested in why phones can be used on some flights and not on others. Austman posted earlier in this thread about technology that would essentially allow the cell phones to use an onboard transmitter rather than the towers on the ground.

 

[midcoast1]

Sorry to be boring and state for the third time in this thread, but........some airlines allow cellular phone usage.

I have no desire to use my phone in-flight, the only benefit of long haul air travel for me is not being connected to the outside world.

I am interested in why phones can be used on some flights and not on others. Austman posted earlier in this thread about technology that would essentially allow the cell phones to use an onboard transmitter rather than the towers on the ground.

It appears it is just the decision of individual airlines but not giving a reason for or against.

Cell phones in the sky: Airlines that allow mobile use | Dialed In - CNET Blogs

 

[Boris spatsky]

My understanding is that some airlines have spent money to shield critical wiring, and then big bucks to certify the aircraft by completing EMI testing. Most airlines cannot justify the expense.

Happy to be corrected if required.

 

[thegurio]

Sorry to be boring and state for the third time in this thread, but........some airlines allow cellular phone usage.

I have no desire to use my phone in-flight, the only benefit of long haul air travel for me is not being connected to the outside world.

I am interested in why phones can be used on some flights and not on others. Austman posted earlier in this thread about technology that would essentially allow the cell phones to use an onboard transmitter rather than the towers on the ground.

Im not sure what you do for a job TonyHancock, but in my little corner of the world, we do risk assessments to see if we're comfortable/safe with the methods to do the intended job. Just the same as we may consider something unsafe - someone else may consider it safe - its all up to interpretation and being happy with your judgement. I would imagine all the airlines that allow it have done their risk assessment and decided its all safe. Clearly QF, DJ and a lot of others disagree with this and so be it.

I do it from a cortueos point of view, but my last ADL-MEL had a similiar muppet on board. I'm sorry, but your texting/emailing/facebooking etc. is not so important that I should die for it!

 

[TonyHancock]

Im not sure what you do for a job TonyHancock.....

Funnily enough part of my job is sitting on standards committees directly relating to workplace safety and risk assessment.....and attempting to take some of the subjectivity out of the risk assessment process. It is nigh on impossible because risk assessment is so subjective. It is always interesting to see different assessments of the same process from committee members from, for example, The UK and Germany. From my experience they are very different more often than not.

It seems to me that the mobile phone issue is down to the technology an airline is prepared to deploy to allow use. Is it really a case of QF/DJ disagreeing or have they just not employed, or don't want to employ the technology? I found it interesting that BA is, or has been trialling this on flights to the US.....but only from LCY.

I guess the other question I have in my mind is how does this fit with the aviation authorities in countries where mobile phone use is allowed? Is this something they would be approving?

Please don't mistake my interest for the advocacy of the use of mobile phones in flight. I am really not a fan of that. It is just about the only quiet time I can get away from work!!

 

[munitalP]

I'm not going to enter the moral debate over phones should or should not be used on aircraft, but here's a couple of FACTS I can happily demonstrate any day of the week in certain circumstances:

1. In my testing lab when my engineering crew are measuring high voltage transformers for a destructive issue called partial discharge, mobile phones, UHF radios (hand helds) and most recently our CCTV cameras have all caused interference measured in 100 to 300pc. I can repeat this as required.

2. Most power station and substation control rooms have mobile free areas as the signal output from a device can cause relay operation. Not a single person is exempt from these limitations. The aviation industry is not alone in mobile phone caused issues.

3. All this talk of shielding cables and Faraday cage effect of AC and the wiring being used as an antenna, there are some clever comments in this thread, some from people who know what they are talking about, some who have taken exerts from google or whatever other source and it does seem quite misquoted, if the love for electrical theory is that great, PM me and I will happily lend out text, but the fact is, in my industry, if the IEC or IEEE or the poor cousin Cigre offer a standard, it's not because they think "we will do this to make people's lives miserable", it's because countless hours of study have been applied to the subject and countless hours of test and retest applied to prove the standard is right. It is seldom a standard is wrong, it may have addendum, but seldom wrong. The aviation standards people have issued their recommendations regarding radio transmitting devices and until retracted, who are we to argue? I guess if any of use sit on user groups or panels regarding these recommendations and regulations, the majority will need to listen, until then however the rules must apply.

The use of very low strength transmitting device argument is where I believe inboard cellular use is permitted. On this basis as well, the AC has (I believe) 1 cellular repeater however a number of low strength repeaters throughout the AC to force low output from the said devices using the network, I.e the user at the back of the AC is not using all available transmitting power from his phone to reach the cellular repeater.

My final point is we are bound by law to follow instruction from the flight crew. We shouldn't forget that.

 

[mannej]

Tony - dont forget that QF did test out mobile phone use out on one of their 767's not too long ago.

I do wonder how the trial did go.

 

[docjames]

, while its a proven phallacy that their use at a fuel station is dangerous,

Actually, a mobile phone can ignite fuel vapour at a fuel station. It's more likely if there is a fault, or if you drop the phone and cause a short circuit, but it's also possible with a previously functioning normally phone.


(Source: I have a relative who works for a fuel major and has seen the footage. The station attendants are required to shut down all pumps on the forecourt / not release the pump you pick up if a customer is talking on their mobile at the time. Despite what the media says, the majors in the fuel game are extremely risk and safety conscious - to the point of firing staff for single breach of safety rules).


/On topic/

At the end of the day, i'd expec the cabin crew to ensure pax comply with their directions. We had a cell phone go off whilst taxiing in BNE (on QF 738 FWIW) and the CSM contacted the captain, the plane held, and the pax were asked to identify whose phone and turn it off - which was done. I'd expect DJ/VA to do the same with the joker in 3E.

 

[markis10]

Actually, a mobile phone can ignite fuel vapour at a fuel station. It's more likely if there is a fault, or if you drop the phone and cause a short circuit, but it's also possible with a previously functioning normally phone.


(Source: I have a relative who works for a fuel major and has seen the footage. The station attendants are required to shut down all pumps on the forecourt / not release the pump you pick up if a customer is talking on their mobile at the time. Despite what the media says, the majors in the fuel game are extremely risk and safety conscious - to the point of firing staff for single breach of safety rules).

I tend to believe the ATSB who analysed all petrol station fires worldwide in the 10 years leading up to 2004 (some 234 of them) and found not one was caused by a phone, as well as the American Institute of Petroleum, a representative of which was quoted as saying “We have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire since the beginning of mankind” .

http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Static_Fires.pdf

Of course I still dont use my phone at the bowser, and I still sell radio gear that's intrinsically safe with Hazloc certifications for use in such environments!

I do like the comment by the Shell study though “…portable cell phones properly used do not represent a meaningful hazard on
the retail forecourt. Without doubt, apart from the human acts of smoking and striking a match, the thing that represents the greatest hazard on the retail forecourt is the motorcar!”

 

[Austman]

The use of very low strength transmitting device argument is where I believe inboard cellular use is permitted. On this basis as well, the AC has (I believe) 1 cellular repeater however a number of low strength repeaters throughout the AC to force low output from the said devices using the network, I.e the user at the back of the AC is not using all available transmitting power from his phone to reach the cellular repeater.

I believe this is the key. GSM handsets have an maximum output power of 2W but this can reduce by as much as 100 times if the base station is close. There is no guarantee this would be the case in control rooms etc, where the handset might very well transmit at full power.

Also, when switched on and connected to a base station but not in an actual call, the handsets transmit almost nothing.

So with the picocell base station in use on an aircraft, I'd imagine the power output of even 100 handsets could be similar to the output of 1 handset on an non-equipped aircraft because that handset would be at full power trying to connect to land base stations.

Considering that there is a good chance that 1 handset in 100 is "accidentally" left on during flights today, I suppose it's a reasonably safe technology. Safe enough that several airlines allow it.

Here is a site from a service provider: FAQs | OnAir Qantas was a customer.

 

[TonyHancock]

Here is a site from a service provider: FAQs | OnAir Qantas was a customer.

Thanks for digging that out, pretty much answers my questions.

 

[markis10]

Interesting report by the ATSB today that is related to this discussion:

CONFUSION reigned among the crew of a Jetstar flight forced into a last-minute aborted landing at Singapore Airport, air safety investigators have found. Jetstar flight JQ57 was flying from Darwin to Singapore's Changi Airport on May 27, 2010, when a series of distractions forced a go-around landing.
Among them was the sound of text messages being sent to the captain’s phone as the plane came within 2000 feet (609m) from the ground, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report.

Read more: Texting captain sparks Jetstar flight drama | News.com.au
​

 

[UP4014]

If the mobile phone was 100s of metres away, like commercial radio towers, your comment might have some validity. Distance is important. There are radar sources that will turn people black and crispy, at the source, that doesn't mean people have to avoid the beam km away from the source.

Indeed, I was told not to walk in front of this thing while visiting.
Range tracking | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[docjames]

I tend to believe the ATSB who analysed all petrol station fires worldwide in the 10 years leading up to 2004 (some 234 of them) and found not one was caused by a phone, as well as the American Institute of Petroleum, a representative of which was quoted as saying “We have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire since the beginning of mankind” .

http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Static_Fires.pdf

Of course I still dont use my phone at the bowser, and I still sell radio gear that's intrinsically safe with Hazloc certifications for use in such environments!

I do like the comment by the Shell study though “…portable cell phones properly used do not represent a meaningful hazard on
the retail forecourt. Without doubt, apart from the human acts of smoking and striking a match, the thing that represents the greatest hazard on the retail forecourt is the motorcar!”

I wont say which other major it was but it wasnt Shell. Agree however the odds greatly favour being run over vs a cell phone fire!