Mobile Phones & Electronic Items on planes

[medhead]

Sure, but a fully loaded plane on ascent or descent into say Sydney, with one plane landing every two minutes? 20 minutes climb time.

Well maybe, I don't know how keeping the connect thing works. I guess there would be plenty of switching between cells and all that....

 

[simongr]

Same as no mobile phone signs at service stations. The chance of a spark from a battery falling out of a phone (not being intrinsically safe) or RF causing ignition is extremely low, in the millions to one category, but between Australian standard 1940 and 2430, it is safer just to follow the guidelines. Same goes for the "plane refuelling seatbelt off" rule (if you've ever been on the plane when it has been refuelling).

This is an interesting one. Some bozo at a petrol station terrified my wife with this saying the phone would explode and burn off her face - we have not since been back to that petrol station.

I then did some research and found stories that this was in fact an urban legend and the real driver for this was that mobile phone signals interfered with the data flow between pumps and cash register thus potentially impacting the profits of Oil companies.

Are you aware of a single demonstrated incident where a mobile phone has caused an incident - unlike on aircraft where there are multiple reports of direct interference?

 

[pblackm]

Well maybe, I don't know how keeping the connect thing works. I guess there would be plenty of switching between cells and all that....

Correct, and therein lies the problem. In built up areas, the phone negotiates with a number of cells and the best signal wins, more or less. However, if the phone is moving, the negotiation becomes a bit more complex.

 

[oz_mark]

However, if the phone is moving, the negotiation becomes a bit more complex.

moving fast I think is more the issue - not a big deal if driving around.

 

[comint]

... just my thoughts as a total layperson.

Your thoughts seem to gel with the only major real life test of air to ground cell mobile communications (that I'm aware of) - the 9/11 hijackings. Short conversations dropping, when/if people could get through. And the most number of calls from UA 93, possibly due to it flying at lower altitudes.

 

[docjames]

This is an interesting one. Some bozo at a petrol station terrified my wife with this saying the phone would explode and burn off her face - we have not since been back to that petrol station.

I then did some research and found stories that this was in fact an urban legend and the real driver for this was that mobile phone signals interfered with the data flow between pumps and cash register thus potentially impacting the profits of Oil companies.

Are you aware of a single demonstrated incident where a mobile phone has caused an incident - unlike on aircraft where there are multiple reports of direct interference?

Knowing someone who works for one of the oil majors, I can assure you it's not an urban myth. The signal interference in rubbish, the risk of ignition (whilst extremely small) is real and has happened.

 

[Therma]

I flew from ICN to LAX recently and this obnoxious young lady next to me continued chatting on her mobile all the way through taxying and take off. She hid it under the blanket thinking that if noone saw it, everything should be ok.
She proceeded yapping on it even when I hissed at her.
Guess I am still alive to tell the story so in that case it was ok

 

[comint]

Some bozo at a petrol station terrified my wife with this saying the phone would explode and burn off her face - we have not since been back to that petrol station.

MythBusters Episode 2: "Cell Phone Destruction, Silicone Breasts, CD-ROM Shattering" - interesting stuff.

 

[simongr]

Knowing someone who works for one of the oil majors, I can assure you it's not an urban myth. The signal interference in rubbish, the risk of ignition (whilst extremely small) is real and has happened.

Was that at petrol stations or in more intense areas where oil/fuel would be more prevalent in the air?

I am genuinely interested in this. I recall Mythibusters (not the most scientifically authoratative source I admit) doing this myth and concluding there was no risk.

 

[docjames]

At a service station.

Footage exists.

 

[tuapekastar]

Interesting investigation/discussion on this (mobiles and petrol pumps) at snopes.

 

[PaulC83]

Are you aware of a single demonstrated incident where a mobile phone has caused an incident - unlike on aircraft where there are multiple reports of direct interference?

I am unaware of any specific incident of a mobile phone triggering off an explosion or ignition at a petrol station, but certainly it is well documented that static electricity has ignited petrol vapour in service stations before.

As per my original post, AS2430, which defines hazardous zones does classify petrol bowsers, and what can be operated around them. This applies to all electronic devices (like an aircraft) but the one MOST likely to be operated when at a petrol station is a mobile phone. Because the risk is so low nobody really cares, but there are guidelines for service stations, and insurance companies always look at Australian Standards for assessment (at least the good ones do).

I had a young service station operator get up me for using a mobile phone once, and I gave it all back to them (a rare thing for me to do), but there is a lot of truth to the arguement.

I get enough of that at work where torches, cameras and radios are intrinsically safe (read ignition proofed), and in certain areas need to use beryllium tools, instead of my trusty chrome ones, as they are also spark proof.

It all comes down to acceptable risk, if I drop my mobile phone (or any other non-intrinsically safe electric device) and the battery falls off and an arc forms across its terminals, and the vapour happens to be above the LEL of petrol (about 1.5% of volume, fuel->air), we have an explosion. The likelihood of that happening is probably in the millions to one, but it still can happen.

I know its about the same risk as crossing the road etc. and being hit by a car, but we all pay for that risk through our third party liability in our registration, for visiting petrol stations, or flying on a plane, they are yet to factor in (or they may even do?) the liability of a passenger and / or customer causing a fault or explosion, and without a warning otherwise, the liability falls with the airline or the service station operator.

Remember the western world has a disposition to litigiousness.

 

[Happy Dude]

Knowing someone who works for one of the oil majors, I can assure you it's not an urban myth. The signal interference in rubbish, the risk of ignition (whilst extremely small) is real and has happened.

But what about spark plugs in a car? They spark every time the ignition key is turned. Wouldn't that be more of a risk than this:

It all comes down to acceptable risk, if I drop my mobile phone (or any other non-intrinsically safe electric device) and the battery falls off and an arc forms across its terminals, and the vapour happens to be above the LEL of petrol (about 1.5% of volume, fuel->air), we have an explosion. The likelihood of that happening is probably in the millions to one, but it still can happen.

But they don't tell you to not turn on your car engine near the bowser.

 

[NM]

But what about spark plugs in a car? They spark every time the ignition key is turned. Wouldn't that be more of a risk than this:

...

But they don't tell you to not turn on your car engine near the bowser.

Last time I looked, the sparking part of the spark plugs in my engine were well contained inside the cylinder and not likely to be able to ignite vapour outside the cylinder.

now the starter motor is another story .

 

[Natt]

So I guess the verdict is better safe than sorry on a plane?



Days later and the whole thing still irks me, its not appropriate for someone else to put me at risk (albeit tiny) to listen to their music.

Ah well if the airlines were serious they would collect them or confiscate them if they were being used (hopefully permanently)

 

[medhead]

Ah well if the airlines were serious they would collect them or confiscate them if they were being used (hopefully permanently)

Are you now or have you been a teacher, perchance

 

[Natt]

Are you now or have you been a teacher, perchance

yes I have been - does it show :shock:

 

[Choopsta]

With reference back to the original comments that started this thread, it appears Natt experienced the all too familiar attitudes where there is a "couldn't give a s*** " attitude about the rules and / or the impact of the individuals actions on others.
In this particular subject, regardless of the opinions / reasons / summising over whether it is valid or if there really is a risk, why not just have the decency and respect to do what is requested. As there is potential to create a problem, albeit minor (and not so much by your own individual piece of electronic equipment), respect this fact and act accordingly. The phonecall can wait, and the inflight music can be listened to for the brief 20 min period until the ok is given - not a big deal.
Not so long back the selfish p***k beside me got a mouthful courtesy of me for his blatant use of the all so important phone not long after the requested announcement. Embarrassed him satisfactorily amongst all in earshot, made me feel better, and hopefully encouraged him to do the right thing next time.
Cheers.

 

[jsd]

Tiger Airways walk down the aisle after you are told to turn off electronic devices to double check. and from what I have seen on those flights it is pretty effective

 

[Natt]

Tiger Airways walk down the aisle after you are told to turn off electronic devices to double check. and from what I have seen on those flights it is pretty effective

Actually thats a really great idea - now I think of it this was on a Jetstar flight (had flown tiger earlier that day)

and also the ipod did not out until the flight people were seated

hmm one area where tiger may actually have a better routine :mrgreen: