Why won't PAX turn off their mobiles when instructed

[robbie1984]

All the iPad's on those 767's aren't turned off, ever. They're in flight mode sure, but they're running full time, and might I add, with wifi on, despite Q Streaming not active till the crew turns it on after take-off (and off before landing), the devices are all searching for a network.

Sending texts, making calls and actual internet usage aside, if 250 iPad's can all be in flight mode and not OFF, why do personal devices need to be turned off? I get the argument that you shouldn't use them (eg. to play music) as it could be distracting, but unless I'm mistaken, you can use the supplied headphones to listen to an audio channel anyway.

So the main question is why do we need to turn devices completely off (assuming in flight mode already) when there's 250 iPad's spread throughout the plane that are not? I don't think we do, but it's a slippery slope from there of course.

Probably further helps that the 767's are old, and older planes are more susceptible to interference as they weren't designed or built with the kind of interference we encounter today, in mind. So if a 767 has no worries, most of the rest of the fleet should be fine. Of course, that's a side topic.

There is a big difference between a WiFi device on a WiFi Capable aircraft and WiFi on one that isn't and mobile transmitters on aircraft. All of the VA Aircraft that are getting WiFi installed have to be 'TPED' approved/tested. This is basically certifying that the WiFi (not mobile) devices DON'T interfere with aircraft systems. One of the early aircraft took longer to install because he failed the testing when they turned it on, result in the end was a wiring issue. So if people think its ok, then they had better do some research or maybe just listen to the airlines, they don't make up rules for the sake of it. Do people think a cabin crew member likes the confrontation? Some of the PFD's on the 737's have been known to 'flicker' due to interference from mobile phone use and through the headset, similar to when you put a mobile close to a radio.

Also, its easier to tell a phone or device is off, rather than if its on but in flight mode.

 

[horseman]

I reckon mobile phones should be confiscated and stowed at boarding

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So you are implying that you are qualified to make the determination that the use of a mobile phone during flight does not directly impact on your safety? I assume this qualification includes detailed studies of the effects of radio frequency intermodulation, particularly in the odd numbered orders (even orders unlikely to impact due to the frequencies involved with mobile phone transmitters).

My experience and knowledge of RF intermodulations tells me that there will always be intermodulation when multiple transmission sources are present. Without a thorough analysis of the frequencies involved, the frequencies at which the intermodulation will occur (and the third order intermodulation will be most significant to consider). And the more frequencies involved, the more complex the analysis needs to be. And every change in transmission frequency will result in different intermodulation results. So I fail to see how the in-flight user of a mobile phone can know that his phone is not going to cause intermodulation interference with the radio signals needed for the safe operation of the aircraft.

I suggest that anyone who says "I have used my phone before and it didn't cause any problems", or "Mythbusters proved its safe to use my phone on an aircraft" clearly have no understanding of RF intermodulation and its possible impacts. While it may not cause any issues 99.99% of the time (or whatever number of 9's you want to use), I don't want to play the odds when it comes to allowing someone else not abiding by the rules. There are way too many variables involved to make a categorical conclusion that there will not be any impact.

In my opinion, someone using a mobile phone in flight IS compromising my safety. While the risk is low, the impact of that small probability of the swiss cheese holes aligning may be very significant. So its not a risk I want to accept, and I should not be forced to accept it by someone who believes their need to communicate with others outside the aircraft is more important than the safety of all onboard.

And yes, I am aware and concerned that almost every flight operates with mobiles phones left turned on (accidentally or on purpose). But why increase the risk by knowingly breaking the rules and increasing the radio transmission outputs from the device above the "passive state" when the idle device is left turned on but not sending texts, emails or making calls (and still transmitting occasionally of course).

And I regularly recall the in-flight incident reported by JB747 where a child's game in use in the aircraft cabin directly resulted in a Boeing 767 making uncommanded flight control changes. That tells me there is a risk.

exactly.

mobile phone technology and aircraft have come a long way since those reports of 10 or more years ago that seemed to indicate mobiles possibly, maybe, might, potentially, (but no-one-is-really-sure) cause interference.

as you say... phones are accidentally left on probably for every flight, everyday. if the problem was major we'd hear about it.

i respect the request to turn off mobiles. I understand there is the possibility if interference, and I comply with crew instructions to turn them off. but at the end of the day I'm not overly concerned, to the point of stressing, if someone doesn't.

driving to the airport is probably infinitely more dangerous than a mobile being left on.

 

[NM]

exactly.

mobile phone technology and aircraft have come a long way since those reports of 10 or more years ago that seemed to indicate mobiles possibly, maybe, might, potentially, (but no-one-is-really-sure) cause interference.

The flight control incident that JB747 noted was on a Boeing 767 aircraft. I see a lot of them still operating flights (not sure if it was a -200 or -300 model). Are you implying that all aircraft flying today have been retrospectively fitted with this new technology? In the case reported by JB747, it was not a phone that caused the uncommanded flight control changes - it was a child's toy. And yes, mobile phone technology has come a long way in ten years - instead of a single radio trasmitter, they often include operation on up to 4 (or even more) mobile phone bands, dual-band WiFi, bluetooth etc. More frequencies in operation means more intermodulations at play.

as you say... phones are accidentally left on probably for every flight, everyday. if the problem was major we'd hear about it.

So are you suggesting that this is proof that there cannot be any problems caused by such devices on aircraft? While the risk is obviously very low, the airline industry goes to incredible lengths to avoid the holes in the swiss cheese aligning. Many aircraft incidents are the result of multiple concurrent events, such that if any one was not present there may not have been an incident at all. So if one of the cheese holes can be closed/filled, then in my mind that is a good thing to do.

So, as I state above, I DO see someone's use of the transmitting features of a mobile during flight as a risk to MY safety, and I do not believe that their right or need to make a phone call, send a text message or email equates to a right to compromise my safety, no matter how small the risk may be. This is especially true when they are not qualified to understand the risk factors involved.

i respect the request to turn off mobiles. I understand there is the possibility if interference, and I comply with crew instructions to turn them off. but at the end of the day I'm not overly concerned, to the point of stressing, if someone doesn't.

I am glad to hear that you personally comply. One less hole in the cheese

driving to the airport is probably infinitely more dangerous than a mobile being left on.

Indeed, statistically driving to the airport most certainly does represent a much large cheese hole, especially if drivers in the surrounding vehicles are talking or texting or emailing on their mobile phones ... hmm, perhaps we should just ban mobile phones altogether :shock:, or mandate the exclusive use of cheddar cheese in the manufacture of mobile phones to be used on aircraft?

 

[Anna]

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun Qantas called the Australian Federal Police to deal with federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus after he failed to turn off his mobile phone during a flight.

The AFP confirmed today that it had received a request for assistance from the airline during the Sydney to Brisbane flight on April 23. Officers met the plane when it landed at Brisbane Airport. Qantas staff had told one of the country’s top lawmakers to stop using his phone during the flight for fear it could interfere with the aircraft’s systems. But he refused and the airline staff called for help from the AFP mid-flight. "The AFP has been advised of an alleged incident on board a flight from Sydney to Brisbane on 23 April 2013,” an AFP spokesman said. "The incident involved a passenger allegedly failing to comply with the directions of crew.”

But when the aircraft landed the airline had withdrawn its complaint. “The AFP responded to a request for assistance from the airline when the flight landed at Brisbane Airport,” the AFP spokesman said. “On arrival the airline advised no assistance was required.”

The Attorney-General's Office has confirmed the incident happened. Mr Dreyfus denies that he ignored repeated requests to switch his phone off. His office said he was asked once by flight staff to turn his phone off but not by the captain, though the flight deck was informed of his conduct, 3AW reported.


Qantas has remained tight-lipped, saying it does not comment on individual customers.

 

[straitman]

The Attorney-General's Office has confirmed the incident happened. Mr Dreyfus denies that he ignored repeated requests to switch his phone off. His office said he was asked once by flight staff to turn his phone off but not by the captain, though the flight deck was informed of his conduct, 3AW reported.


Qantas has remained tight-lipped, saying it does not comment on individual customers.

To me that is the silliest line of the comment. Why does he need to wait to be asked by the captain when the cabin crew are working under his authority?

Re electronic devices generally it is as NM says. Aviation experts do say that it is a typical risk analysis scenario. The probability is VERY low that there is going to be an issue (though there have been quite a few documented over the years) but the problem is with the potential consequences which are totally unacceptable.

 

[under the radar]

I'M OVER ALL THIS <redacted> ..it's a REQUIREMENT..and until the AUTHORITIES CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT..JUST TURN YOUR <redacted> DEVICES OFF ....I DON'T CARE HOW IMPORTANT YOU THINK YOU ARE!! OR HOW MUCH OF AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE!!..IF YOUR DECISION HAS THE ABILITY TO AFFECT MY LIFE/OTHERS LIVES....WHO/WHAT HAS GIVEN YOU THAT AUTHORITY??.. IF THE ANSWER IS 'YOUR EGO'.......NEED I SAY MORE!! next time i see a car going over the speed limit..(which is another application of risk/benefit analysis), pass me on a road and then a few minutes later i see that car involved in an accident involving other cars..I'LL THINK OF YOU!!! )...(as i read the posts it's at least comforting to know that at least SOME out there are aware of the risk/benefit concept which is applied throughout much of our daily lives)...HAVE A SAFE WEEKEND..END OF RANT!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The flight control incident that JB747 noted was on a Boeing 767 aircraft. I see a lot of them still operating flights (not sure if it was a -200 or -300 model). Are you implying that all aircraft flying today have been retrospectively fitted with this new technology? In the case reported by JB747, it was not a phone that caused the uncommanded flight control changes - it was a child's toy. And yes, mobile phone technology has come a long way in ten years - instead of a single radio trasmitter, they often include operation on up to 4 (or even more) mobile phone bands, dual-band WiFi, bluetooth etc. More frequencies in operation means more intermodulations at play.

So are you suggesting that this is proof that there cannot be any problems caused by such devices on aircraft? While the risk is obviously very low, the airline industry goes to incredible lengths to avoid the holes in the swiss cheese aligning. Many aircraft incidents are the result of multiple concurrent events, such that if any one was not present there may not have been an incident at all. So if one of the cheese holes can be closed/filled, then in my mind that is a good thing to do.

So, as I state above, I DO see someone's use of the transmitting features of a mobile during flight as a risk to MY safety, and I do not believe that their right or need to make a phone call, send a text message or email equates to a right to compromise my safety, no matter how small the risk may be. This is especially true when they are not qualified to understand the risk factors involved.

I am glad to hear that you personally comply. One less hole in the cheese

Indeed, statistically driving to the airport most certainly does represent a much large cheese hole, especially if drivers in the surrounding vehicles are talking or texting or emailing on their mobile phones ... hmm, perhaps we should just ban mobile phones altogether :shock:, or mandate the exclusive use of cheddar cheese in the manufacture of mobile phones to be used on aircraft?

yeah... I'm saying exactly that. [i stress that while I comply] I don't perceive there to be any major threat from a cell phone. perhaps ignorance is bliss? (but I'm actually not seeing any RECENT evidence if such interference. there are reports from years and years ago... but we've moved on since then (new phones don't seem to interfere with radios and speakers and stuff like they used to)

 

[Cruiser Elite]

I do not believe that was a rant utr - rather I see it as a common sense response - I have no hesitation ever in giving pax my thoughts about their non-compliance to this very issue - and in a nice loud voice to so as other pax in adjacent seats clearly hear what the offending pax hears.

 

[Ansett]

I have had many a look that could kill when I have reminded passengers to turn off phones laptops and even faseten seat belts. But I am still alive not even a bruise from any of those looks but lots of thanks and kind words from Many an FA.

I say if that is the requirement of the airline then one should atall times comply.

Should you feel that you do not need to or want to comply with airline or federal requirements then DONT FLY.

 

[amaroo]

federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus after he failed to turn off his mobile phone during a flight.

Didn't take long for the promotion he recently received to enlarge his head :evil:

Clown :!:

 

[serfty]

Didn't take long for the promotion he recently received to enlarge his head :evil:

Clown :!:

Actaully, he may be more than a bit concerned about the result of the recent state gov. by election in Victoria.

 

[vetrade]

FWIW I have one son who is an electronics engineer and two nephews who are aerospace engineers (one works for Airbus on the A380). All concur that there is a small but definite chance of mobiles etc affecting a plane's instruments (specifically the altimeter, I think) during takeoff or landing. As someone else pointed out the simultaneous occurence of several predisposing factors is apparently required to result in a problem - but aren't significant numbers of disasters the result of the low probability vagaries of chance aka "bad luck"?

I cannot believe the stupidity of the untrained imbeciles who preach that using such devices is safe when their only source of information is their own egotistical imagination. Such tossers!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

FWIW I have one son who is an electronics engineer and two nephews who are aerospace engineers (one works for Airbus on the A380). All concur that there is a small but definite chance of mobiles etc affecting a plane's instruments (specifically the altimeter, I think) during takeoff or landing. As someone else pointed out the simultaneous occurence of several predisposing factors is apparently required to result in a problem - but aren't significant numbers of disasters the result of the low probability vagaries of chance aka "bad luck"?

I cannot believe the stupidity of the untrained imbeciles who preach that using such devices is safe when their only source of information is their own egotistical imagination. Such tossers!

and I can't believe the same people the harp on an on and on even get in a car! omg. hundreds killed my motor cars in Australia each year and thousands badly injured. deaths from mobile phone left on in an aircraft? zero.

no one is saying they are safe. just that the probability of anything happening because a single DYKWIA decides they don't want to turn their phone off is hugely small. the stress half you guys have is probably more dangerous and costing the tax payer more

 

[Warks]

What if the airlines said tomorrow everyone could use their phones all through every flight however they liked? (hypothetically of course).

The horror... the horror...


Would some airlines offer "quiet planes" like CityRail offers "quiet carriages" on interurban trains in Sydney. (Mind you they announce noisily every few minutes that they ARE quiet carriages!)

 

[vetrade]

no one is saying they are safe. just that the probability of anything happening because a single DYKWIA decides they don't want to turn their phone off is hugely small. the stress half you guys have is probably more dangerous and costing the tax payer more

OK, I get it - you are a risk taker MEL_Traveller - but if everyone just did as they were asked and turned off their phones during takeoff and landing the risk would be ZERO - and then we could say it IS safe! That can't be that much of an imposition can it? I'm certainly not "harping on and on" and the suggestion that those among us who turn off our mobiles are stress heads is quite presumptuous of you - just an example of the modern day lazy tactic of attempting to discredit ppl who hold a different opinion as being somehow neurolically unstable or irrational - along with the fuzzy logic that we are somehow costing the taxpayer money just because we don't see the need to buck the system.

 

[medhead]

Sam - IIRC someone has already posted that putting the cover over the iPads turns off the wifi.

and I can't believe the same people the harp on an on and on even get in a car! omg. hundreds killed my motor cars in Australia each year and thousands badly injured. deaths from mobile phone left on in an aircraft? zero.

no one is saying they are safe. just that the probability of anything happening because a single DYKWIA decides they don't want to turn their phone off is hugely small. the stress half you guys have is probably more dangerous and costing the tax payer more

Another who seems to have difficulty with the concepts of risk and consequence. Car accident low risk, medium consequence. Mobile interference in plane very low risk, major consequence.

BTW you mate reclining in 2D was risking the life of the person in 3F and 3D and maybe even 2F. It makes no difference if those seats were empty because the seats are not always empty. That really was a ludicrous example. Safety is about applying blanket rules for ALL situations.

 

[Happy Trails]

Sam - IIRC someone has already posted that putting the cover over the iPads turns off the wifi.



Another who seems to have difficulty with the concepts of risk and consequence. Car accident low risk, medium consequence. Mobile interference in plane very low risk, major consequence.

BTW you mate reclining in 2D was risking the life of the person in 3F and 3D and maybe even 2F. It makes no difference if those seats were empty because the seats are not always empty. That really was a ludicrous example. Safety is about applying blanket rules for ALL situations.

You seem to be confusing risk and probability.

 

[medhead]

You seem to be confusing risk and probability.

Not really, probability is one measure of risk. Eg We know that roughly 25% of all people will die of cancer. So both a population wide risk and an individual probability.

Probably confusing because risk is being used here with 2 different meanings.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

OK, I get it - you are a risk taker MEL_Traveller - but if everyone just did as they were asked and turned off their phones during takeoff and landing the risk would be ZERO - and then we could say it IS safe! That can't be that much of an imposition can it? I'm certainly not "harping on and on" and the suggestion that those among us who turn off our mobiles are stress heads is quite presumptuous of you - just an example of the modern day lazy tactic of attempting to discredit ppl who hold a different opinion as being somehow neurolically unstable or irrational - along with the fuzzy logic that we are somehow costing the taxpayer money just because we don't see the need to buck the system.

the risk will never be zero unless they make everyone take the battery out of their phones before boarding. even then you could end up with a jetstar pilot playing with their phone during landing. if it's good enough for the pilot, should be ok for the passengers right

Sam - IIRC someone has already posted that putting the cover over the iPads turns off the wifi.



Another who seems to have difficulty with the concepts of risk and consequence. Car accident low risk, medium consequence. Mobile interference in plane very low risk, major consequence.

BTW you mate reclining in 2D was risking the life of the person in 3F and 3D and maybe even 2F. It makes no difference if those seats were empty because the seats are not always empty. That really was a ludicrous example. Safety is about applying blanket rules for ALL situations.

you need to compare apples with apples. car accident is low probability, but the consequence can be anywhere from zero to catastrophic (death). the same applies to the phone in the plane... low probability and the consequences could be anything from zero to catastrophic. except we know that car accidents leading to death happen all the time. and we know it doesn't happen with phones/planes.

regarding man in 2D that was a window seat so I moved across one to the aisle. there was no one else around. if there had been then the pax probably would have put his seat upright. as far as I'm concerned, safety rules are there to protect others not the stupid. so if pax in front of me wanted to recline and I could easily move out of his way, then why bother? what am I supposed to do? tell him he needs put his seat up for his own safety?