I hope they didn't pay for this study...

[munitalP]

From no news:

'Electronic devices' can interfere with jets
Passengers 'not fully aware of the danger'
New technology will combat the issue
THE use of electronic devices such as mobile phones, tables and iPods in mid-air may create a "perfect storm" of conditions that can have disastrous consequences, aviation experts have warned.

Read the rest of this tripe here...
How your mobile phone could bring down a plane | News.com.au

 

[anat0l]

Aaaah...spelling mistakes...the bane of all No News articles (along with grammatical, misquoting, etc.)

Main article is a NY Times one located here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html?_r=1

'Electronic devices' can interfere with jets

A real dilemma in this crux argument. On one take, there have been claims of interference but they can't be proven beyond a doubt. Then you have many cases where people obviously don't turn of their devices but the aircraft lands successfully.

Which situation (devices on or devices off) is the status quo? One thing is for sure that current bans on devices only represent the risk adverse action.

Passengers 'not fully aware of the danger'

Of course they aren't. Unless they are electrical / communications engineers.

More importantly they are not aware in any way of the potential danger or the insignificance of any potential danger, i.e. some may purport that there is no chance of potential interference but they will be hard pressed to accurately explain why this is the case.

New technology will combat the issue

No idea what new technology and no idea how. They obviously aren't rushing for it.

THE use of electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets and iPods in mid-air may create a "perfect storm" of conditions that can have disastrous consequences, aviation experts have warned.

This is a bit extreme. If a group wanted to create the perfect electronic storm on board, that would have to be for malicious purposes, not accidental.


In any case with this whole debate, if there aren't any safety considerations with using electronic communication devices on board an aircraft then there are certainly going to be social ones (i.e. how many people will be yakking away on their mobile phones or Skype whilst in the air...)

 

[ColinP]

Aaaah...spelling mistakes...the bane of all No News articles (along with grammatical, misquoting, etc.)



Which situation (devices on or devices off) is the status quo? One thing is for sure that current bans on devices only represent the risk adverse action.

Oops! I suspect you mean 'averse' :shock:

Pet peeve

 

[nlagalle]

THE use of electronic devices such as mobile phones, tables and iPods in mid-air may create a "perfect storm" of conditions that can have disastrous consequences, aviation experts have warned.

OK I promise not to take the table on the plane anymore! :shock:

 

[anat0l]

Oops! I suspect you mean 'averse' :shock:

Pet peeve

Do'h! (sorry, no good emoticon for that expression)


Although, if you pervert the meaning a little bit, it can make some sense

 

[simongr]

Oops! I suspect you mean 'averse' :shock:

Pet peeve

Don't get me started on loosing rather than losing....

This is a bit extreme. If a group wanted to create the perfect electronic storm on board, that would have to be for malicious purposes, not accidental.

I think they are saying that with the proliferation of devices the likelihood of the perfect storm of consequences given the number of flights per day around the world is an increasing probability.

 

[drron]

On our just completed trip I took my kindle.On JQ,QF you are told to turn it off for take off and landing.On DJ,NZ I am allowed to continue reading.On the QF flight AKL-BNE the Jet Connect staff looked at it and said it was OK to continue reading.
I do love consistency.

 

[JohnK]

I am not sure about the effect of electronic devices during a flight. A few months ago I totally forgot to tun off my mobile phone and noticed when we touched down that I had received an sms. The sms was from a few minutes earlier but at some point in time on the descent or landing the mobile phone did pick up a signal.

Don't get me started on loosing rather than losing....

How about eligable and eligible.... Oh not quite the same as that is a clear spelling mistake as the first word does not exist....

 

[samh004]

I am not sure about the effect of electronic devices during a flight. A few months ago I totally forgot to tun off my mobile phone and noticed when we touched down that I had received an sms. The sms was from a few minutes earlier but at some point in time on the descent or landing the mobile phone did pick up a signal.

Don’t even get me started on all the flights I forget to turn my phone off on, and not to jinx it *touch wood* but I haven’t crashed yet

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

i seem to remember the myth busters pretty much busted the myth of consumer devices being able to interfere with a plane's navigation system - they even went up to their usual extreme mythbuster tests:mrgreen:

 

[mannej]

i seem to remember the myth busters pretty much busted the myth of consumer devices being able to interfere with a plane's navigation system - they even went up to their usual extreme mythbuster tests:mrgreen:

Myth Busters... Great for Entertainment value. Absolute zilch scientific credibility.

There was a plane crash in Switzerland early last decade that may have been caused by mobile interference.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

possibly, but when you see them using extremely high powered equipment trying to cause interference on a small jet nav system, and it has nil effect, seems a reasonable test to this lay person.

the only way i could see portable electronics causing an issue is if the shielding on the avionics has been damaged. if that kind of damage is missed during inspections, well there's prob plenty of other reasons why the plane fell out of the sky :shock:

Myth Busters... Great for Entertainment value. Absolute zilch scientific credibility.

There was a plane crash in Switzerland early last decade that may have been caused by mobile interference.

 

[Boof1]

Whilst I can see both sides of the argument my dentist rang me as we lined up on finals into MEL a couple of years ago. I was sitting about half way down the cabin and the guy next to me couldn't work out why I jumped up so quickly!

If anything it proved that my phone being left on throughout the flight didn't effect the nav equipment, as I was booked to fly to MEL. If we landed in ADL maybe I'd have second thoughts....

Cheers,

Boof

 

[SimonM]

In the early days of cell phones, certainly pre-GSM, my computer's CRT monitor always alerted me to an incoming call before the phone rang.

The screen would show some interference and there would be three rough sounds from the speakers.

Moving the phone a couple of meters away from the screen fixed the problem, but I've always assumed that manufacturers/airlines had experienced the same sort of problem, thus the caution.

20 years later, my iPhone and LCD monitor seem to be fine.

 

[medhead]

In the early days of cell phones, certainly pre-GSM, my computer's CRT monitor always alerted me to an incoming call before the phone rang.


20 years later, my iPhone and LCD monitor seem to be fine.

It might be ok with an LCD but I have noticed interference with other things that have speaker from my iPhone. I also know that testing has been done with medical equipment (about 5 years ago) that showed dangerous interference for some equipment.

 

[tuppaware]

Myth Busters... Great for Entertainment value. Absolute zilch scientific credibility.

There was a plane crash in Switzerland early last decade that may have been caused by mobile interference.

I think they did point out that under some circumstances signals can affect analogue instruments but not digital - more likely to have a computer failure in the digital world (or pitot tubes failure) then problems with interference*

* My opinion not fact

 

[el_rooto]

My understanding for the electronic devices turned off and no headphones independent of ife rule was so pax wern't overly preoccupied in case of an emergency evacuation.

 

[NM]

Unless you understand the issues associated with radio frequency Inter-modulation and its impacts (and it is obvious that Mythbusters don't or they chose to ignore it) then I suggest it is folly to discount the potential hazards involved here.

Inter-modulation occurs across and within all frequency bands and is very difficult to accurately predict unless you know ALL possible RF sources that may exist at any given time. Inter-modulation issues increase dramatically as the number of RF sources increase. While third order inter-modulation has the most significant interference impact, fifth order impacts should also be considered (seventh and below are generally low enough magnitude to be ignored). Inter-modulation possibilities increase exponentially as the number of RF sources increase.

While its generally the navigation systems that receive comment with regards to RF interference, it can affect many things in any frequency band. What about the impact of two RF sources (in any frequency band) causing a third-order intermodulation impact on the aircraft radio receiver such that the pilots miss an important ATC message? While very difficult to predict or even to simulate in a lab, the possibility is real and not a risk I consider to be negligible enough to ignore.

I have too much first-hand experience with RF inter-modulation to ignore the risk. I have spent many hours determining radio frequencies to use across multiple bands to minimise the impact of inter-modulation. Its quite a nightmare to find 36 unique radio frequencies across four bands that will not cause inter-modulation interference with any combination. My latest example required 16 channels in the 760-782Mhz band, 6 channels in the 692-698MHz band, 8 channels in the 655-665MHz band, 6 channels in the 648-676Mhz band, 8 channels in the 632-640Mhz band, and 2 channels in the 576-582MHx band, all operating concurrently without inter-modulation. That is one hairy Excel spreadsheet.

While use of narrow-band transmitters makes life much more predictable, the aircraft and systems designers have no control over RF sources carried onto the aircraft by passengers. My experience is not with aircraft systems, but the RF inter-modulation principle applies to any RF source. In my case its large numbers of wireless microphones, digital TV transmission, two-way radios/comms, cordless telephones and Wireless LAN systems in close proximity.

Naturally the RF power generated by a non-transmission device (like an iPod) is very low and any third-order inter-modulation is negligible. But take a device designed to be a transmitter (a phone, iPad, even a Nintendo DS-Lite) and the power of a third-order inter-modulation may well be sufficient enough to have an impact on other radio receivers.

 

[anat0l]

....big text here...

So.....what you're basically saying is that certain devices should still be banned but we can allow some freedom on others?

Or the current rules are justified?

 

[NM]

So.....what you're basically saying is that certain devices should still be banned but we can allow some freedom on others?

Or the current rules are justified?

I am saying its a very complex area and as such I do not believe a flight attendant is suitably qualified to determine what may or may nor constitute a risk. So I am happy with the rule that all electronic devices be turned off during take-off and landing as it is the one ruling that minimises the risk. I don't believe anyone's need to be operating any electronic device at those times is more important than the safety of the entire aircraft.

And yes, this is an ultra-conservative approach. And yes I am very much aware that many airlines have a more relaxed ruling than I have suggested here. If all passengers turn off all their electronic devices during take-off and landing, then there is zero chance that a passenger's electronic device will cause a problem. Any other situation poses some risk level higher than zero.