Mobile Phones & Electronic Items on planes

[JohnK]

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

Qantas do this as well but the only way they can tell if the device is still switched on is if it is visible. How would they know the device is still switched on if the device is in your pocket or in a bag somewhere?

 

[straitman]

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.

As someone who works for one of the major oil companies I can say that it is NOT urban myth :!:

When we are talking about service stations then static electricity is the major issue but transmitted signals and electrical interference is also an issue. For what it's worth the offshore workers are banned from having mobile phone whilst on the offshore platforms.

From an aviation perspective I have seen many safety alerts about what mobile phone interference can/might do to aircraft navigation and electronic flight control systems. Remember that the airbus fleet have electronic flight controls.

A lot of the information is a few years old but never the less is still valid. It really is a case of ensuring against the unknown but with some knowledge that some major issues have occurred in the past and normally the risks are not justified.

 

[straitman]

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.

The signs at each pump at the servos do mention turning off the engine and not using mobile phones (and a host of other things)

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.

I've never heard of the signal interference issue before and it certainly does not get a mention in the company I work for.

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?

Not correct. See my previous post. I don't have the examples right here and now but they do exist.

 

[medhead]

For what it's worth the offshore workers are banned from having mobile phone whilst on the offshore platforms.

Which is due to the environment they work in and the potential for explosive atmospheres. For this same reason there are many solvent extraction mineral processing plants where workers are not allowed to carry mobile phones.

 

[russ]

Just came back from a trip and yet again observed a few passengers blatantly ignoring the "safety" rules:

ipods on all the way through take off/ascent
mobiles on when landing

Should I actually be worried about this. It seems negligent of airline carriers to trust passengers to do the right thing, if it really was a safety risk I mean. There are always people who think it is incredibly important for them to do something and they are an exception to the rule.

Is it even a risky activity?

My understanding is that its impossible to check every type of electrical equipment, and so they ask you to turn everything off.

Should I be worried when I see this happening. Or just bite my tongue

It can't be that risky, because if it was, airlines would have electronic detectors for devices that cause interference. Think about it: if a device causes interference at a distance, it must be easy to detect!

I regularly use my NextG phone in-flight (in a light aircraft over both densly populated areas and out in the bush) and it's fine. I used to get the da-dada-dada noises in my headset with GSM but now that I've moved to NextG, they have gone. The aircraft flies fine, too, however, I am flying visually and not relying on any fancy electronics.

As a passenger on RPT aircraft, my view is that the pilot in command is in charge of managing the risks on the aircraft, and if he or she wants all mobile phones off, I respect that decision or get on another aircraft!

As someone who works for one of the major oil companies I can say that it is NOT urban myth :!:

This is at odds with the Snopes article at snopes.com: Cell Phone Use at Gas Pump so I'm interested in seeing some evidence of this.

 

[straitman]

Which is due to the environment they work in and the potential for explosive atmospheres. For this same reason there are many solvent extraction mineral processing plants where workers are not allowed to carry mobile phones.

medhead,

Partially correct.

For a long time mobile phones were deemed as suitable so long as they were not used outside the quarters. This was changed as mobile phones are deemed as being an issue on two fronts.

1. They are deemed by the helicopter manufacturer to be a potential issue to the electronic flight control systems (there are documented examples) and
2. They are not intrinsically safe so cannot be used even indoors. On a production or drilling platform the areas where there is possibly an explosive atmosphere is minimal and this is risk assessed and mitigated in many other ways. -- Workers all wear gas monitors etc.

 

[straitman]

It can't be that risky, because if it was, airlines would have electronic detectors for devices that cause interference. Think about it: if a device causes interference at a distance, it must be easy to detect!

Yep, sure is easy to detect. Which is why (see my previous post) aircraft manufacturers, where appropriate put the information in the aircraft flight manual. Much more appropriate to say NO mobile phones than 'Mr russ, could you please turn off your phone as we are having trouble with the flight controls :?:' You can't differentiate between types as often people don't know or recall which type they are flying :!:

I regularly use my NextG phone in-flight (in a light aircraft over both densly populated areas and out in the bush) and it's fine. I used to get the da-dada-dada noises in my headset with GSM but now that I've moved to NextG, they have gone. The aircraft flies fine, too, however, I am flying visually and not relying on any fancy electronics.

Not an issue. It may upset some instrumentation but who really cares for VFR flight. It is/can be an issue for electronic flight controls though. If you are IFR would you like the crew to have to come and find you and ask you to turn off the phone :?:

As a passenger on RPT aircraft, my view is that the pilot in command is in charge of managing the risks on the aircraft, and if he or she wants all mobile phones off, I respect that decision or get on another aircraft!

Absolutely :!: The captain also has legal responsibility at that point.

This is at odds with the Snopes article at snopes.com: Cell Phone Use at Gas Pump so I'm interested in seeing some evidence of this.

What can I say :?:

I would tend to believe the collective research of Shell and ExxonMobil etc over snopes.com. They don't issue the warnings just for fun. In any case is the possible outcome worth the risk :?:

 

[russ]

Re aircraft: If it is such a safety issue, why aren't aircraft fitted with mobile phone detectors? It would be a trivial exercise.

Re petrol stations:
1. What is this "collective research"? I am a bit cynical about "research" carried out by a company that pushes risk mitigation onto a third party. As always I am happy to change my mind based on some evidence!

2. "In any case is the possible outcome worth the risk?": That question is answered thousands of times each day when people fill up their petrol tanks without turning their phones off! I haven't read of too many petrol stations blowing up!

 

[serfty]

Russ, it does not matter whether you are right or whether you are wrong.

What does matter are the airlines' regulations. Comply with them you must, or don't fly!

 

[straitman]

Re aircraft: If it is such a safety issue, why aren't aircraft fitted with mobile phone detectors? It would be a trivial exercise.

Because as serfty says 'What does matter are the airlines' regulations. Comply with them you must, or don't fly!'

Re petrol stations:
1. What is this "collective research"? I am a bit cynical about "research" carried out by a company that pushes risk mitigation onto a third party. As always I am happy to change my mind based on some evidence!

2. "In any case is the possible outcome worth the risk?": That question is answered thousands of times each day when people fill up their petrol tanks without turning their phones off! I haven't read of too many petrol stations blowing up!

1. The words collective research are mine. I'm not sure where your comment 'a company that pushes risk mitigation onto a third party.' comes from because the oil company I work for does it's own full, comprehensive and detailed risk analysis on just about everything you can imagine and this take a huge number of people an enormous amount of time and are all reviewed at pre determined times.
2. If people wish to take the risk that's up to them however I've done the risk training and have no second thoughts in pointing people to the regulations printed on the pumps beside them. I've even had a policeman pull his head in and apologise.

 

[russ]

serfty and straitman, please refer to my post of 8:53am when I said "my view is that the pilot in command is in charge of managing the risks on the aircraft, and if he or she wants all mobile phones off, I respect that decision or get on another aircraft"

I am merely saying that the risk can't be that high because there's no robust check to ensure that the passengers have complied. We have luggage weight scales, metal detectors, X-ray machines, smoke detectors and even cabin attendants who walk down the aisle sighting every seatbelt buckle, but no robust way of monitoring mobile phone compliance.

On a more general note, can't I try to understand or make an observation about the reasoning behind the rules without simply being told that I must obey them? The attitude of "it does not matter whether you are right or whether you are wrong" fosters ignorant compliance, which I don't think is a very fruitful approach to life!

straitman, perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes about the petrol research. I was referring to filling up a petrol tank without turning off a mobile phone. It seems you are talking about other research.

 

[serfty]

... fosters ignorant compliance ...

And what's wrong with that!

Look, there are several other threads discussing this topic on this very board. Many more on many others. Most go into three camps - they do, they don't and "can't we just travel in peace".

FWIW, noise canceling headphone are not to be used during these times either.

I am very aware of the probabilities in all this and I am not concerning myself about rights or wrongs. It just makes flying more enjoyable if people comply with the rules - ignorant or not!

My wife is a nervous enough flyer; coming back from Europe to Gatwick last year; two rows up from us a child was enthusiastically operating a Nintendo DS with attendant beeps and noise.

Preparing to land the we were told to turn off electronic devices - the child continued to play. The FA saw this and asked the child to turn it off - who did so sulkily. The seat belt sign came on and the FA's strapped down and as we made the approach to land the beeps and noise from the DS could again be heard. My wife was white as a sheet - she was really concerned about with this device may do. We landed safely and my wife made a beeline for the Head FA as soon as she could. She and asked about the game being played during, the FA shrugged and basically stated the obvious - that there was nothing she could do at that stage. It took some hours for my wife to get over it all.

 

[russ]

For the third time, I'm not advocating non-compliance with the rules.

What I saying that it is useful to understand the logic behind the rules, and the fact that there is no robust compliance check shows that the risks are considered to be low.

I am sorry to hear of your wife's ordeal. Given that you have asked me what's wrong with ignorant compliance, I think you might have part of the answer right there: that if someone is merely being ignorantly compliant, they have no idea how serious the breach of any rule is and may overreact.

 

[nlagalle]

It can't be that risky, because if it was, airlines would have electronic detectors for devices that cause interference. Think about it: if a device causes interference at a distance, it must be easy to detect!

I regularly use my NextG phone in-flight (in a light aircraft over both densly populated areas and out in the bush) and it's fine. I used to get the da-dada-dada noises in my headset with GSM but now that I've moved to NextG, they have gone. The aircraft flies fine, too, however, I am flying visually and not relying on any fancy electronics.

As a passenger on RPT aircraft, my view is that the pilot in command is in charge of managing the risks on the aircraft, and if he or she wants all mobile phones off, I respect that decision or get on another aircraft!

It's all about minimising risks. there are known instances of phones casuing problems in flight.

In regards to using them in light aircraft, there aren't too many electronic systems in older aircraft, but a lot of newer ones have glass coughpits (like the Garmin G1000) and I'd still be wary about using it as all the instrumentation are in on the panel display.

I've actually just completed a conversion onto the glass coughpit this morning and it's a whole new world..

 

[serfty]

... shows that the risks are considered to be low. ...

There is quite the difference between low risk and no risk ...

 

[Moody]

So to summarize the facts.

We should all turn off electronic devices when asked (even those that don't transmit significant electro-magnetic radiation) not because they pose a documented risk, but because paranoid passengers will soil their undies if they hear that they are on. Fair enough.

There has been no documented case (that I know of) where the pilot of a commercial flight has lost control due to mobile phone use. Please correct me with examples if I am mistaken.

As an aside there are no documented cases of a mobile phone setting off a fire at a petrol station, but let's keep that furphy going because it's good for a laugh.

Anybody got something new to add?

 

[nlagalle]

We should all turn off electronic devices when asked (even those that don't transmit significant electro-magnetic radiation) not because they pose a documented risk, but because paranoid passengers will soil their undies if they hear that they are on. Fair enough.

There has been no documented case (that I know of) where the pilot of a commercial flight has lost control due to mobile phone use. Please correct me with examples if I am mistaken.

Anybody got something new to add?

Turning off devices also stops you from being distracted, especially if the cabin crew require your attention.

I wouldn't say the pilot lost control of the aircraft, rather the auotpilot behaved erratically. There is published findings I have read in the past, but i don't have access to them here. I'll try and find them and post links.

 

[JohnK]

We should all turn off electronic devices when asked (even those that don't transmit significant electro-magnetic radiation) not because they pose a documented risk, but because paranoid passengers will soil their undies if they hear that they are on. Fair enough.

I can see why I no longer enjoy any form of public transport including flying. People are too selfish and could care less about anyone else around them. As for the safety factor I would rather err on the side of caution....

 

[markis10]

So to summarize the facts.

There has been no documented case (that I know of) where the pilot of a commercial flight has lost control due to mobile phone use. Please correct me with examples if I am mistaken.

There have been quite a few incidents documented where loss of control or other dangerous conditions were perceived as a result of intereference from a radio transmitter, with a couple of times the incident being able to be replicated by the PIC inflight, none of these have been replicated by authorities after the flight concluded.

As someone that has had an interest in radio and aviation for the last 35 years, as a holder of a commercial pilots licence both fixed wing and rotary, as an ex air traffic controller and as a holder of an amateur radio licence, I firmly believe that the possibility of interference is real.

Why there are no scanners is simply basic RF principles, the frequency of interference could vary dramatically between devices, and the location with regard to proximity of exposed aircraft wiring that induces the signal would also vary greatly. Put simply, the noob in 52D could be using a iPOD right above the main wiring loom, with the IPODs RF Oscillator inducting signals into the primary flight management computer causing problems, while the tosser in 2A doing emails on his blackberry putting out 1W of RF may have no impact on the aircraft at all.

With that in mind, the authorities have recommended a compromise based on the fact that newer aircraft have been designed with intereference in mind and that the risk is small, but still there, switch off devices during critical flight modes rather than an all out ban that would almost be impossible to police (try locating something the size of a shuffle in a quick bag scan), its called risk management.

 

[Moody]

I can see why I no longer enjoy any form of public transport including flying. People are too selfish and could care less about anyone else around them. As for the safety factor I would rather err on the side of caution....

I am not black, JK, my comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I always turn off electronic devices when asked, even if they pose less of a danger than a pace-maker. Just like I don't use my mobile phone whilst refueling.

But people who should know better are saying there is a tangible risk behind these regulations. There is not. Not one single refueling fire caused by a mobile phone. Not one single aircraft crash caused by a mobile phone. The respective regulations are more to do with someone saying there might be a risk, which puts the respective organisations in a quandry. Should they spend the time and money to investigate these claims, or simply ban an activity that may inconvenience the public but not cost them a cent to do. No brainer really, but no need to treat us like idiots and lie about it.