Mobile Phones & Electronic Items on planes

[simongr]

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....

This is one thing I do not understand in this debate - why are some people selfish if they want to use their phone and others are not because they want peace and quiet? A lot of the anti-mobile brigade are focussed purely on their own self interest rather than other people's freedoms.

 

[oz_mark]

This is one thing I do not understand in this debate - why are some people selfish if they want to use their phone and others are not because they want peace and quiet? A lot of the anti-mobile brigade are focussed purely on their own self interest rather than other people's freedoms.

Depends where you define freedom. The freedom to talk on a mobile phone or the freedom to not have to listen to someone rabbit on. At the moment, it seems the majority (based on surveys I have seen) are on teh side of not having to listen to people rabbit on.

The pro-mobile brigade are as equally focussed on their self interests as well.

 

[Natt]

This is one thing I do not understand in this debate - why are some people selfish if they want to use their phone and others are not because they want peace and quiet? A lot of the anti-mobile brigade are focussed purely on their own self interest rather than other people's freedoms.

My concern is purely safety related. If its a risk (and it looks the jury is out on this) - I want them off.

Babies on planes can be a lot more annoying for example, and its just a fact of flying.

I had a thought last night. If a passenger is given a safety instruction, which they promptly ignore, is this an indicator that they will also ignore other safety instructions as well.

Possibly I would think.

And is it appropriate for a passenger to pick & choose the rules they will follow?

 

[docjames]

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.

I dont see how it's lieing. Mobile phones can cause fire - it's hardly a stretch to see them igniting something (such as overflowed fuel on a forecourt.) Whether it's happened or not shouldnt matter - perhaps we should wait until a servo gets blown up and then ban them.

BP Australia - Products and services - On the road - The driving experience - Playing it safe

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_int...riving_experience_BP_fuel_Safety_Brochure.pdf

Shell in Australia - Shell Safe - Think Safe Stay Safe


You'll note it's mostly warning if you drop them and cause a spark, not the "normal" operation of the phone itself.

 

[serfty]

This is one thing I do not understand in this debate - why are some people selfish if they want to use their phone and others are not because they want peace and quiet? A lot of the anti-mobile brigade are focussed purely on their own self interest rather than other people's freedoms.

This thread is not about using "Mobile Phones & Electronic Items"; it is about PAX using them when they have been instructed not to.

As I posted earlier:

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

On boarding (before the door is closed) and on arrival (when advised by CSM) I have no problem with mobile 'phone calls or use of electronic equipment; often do it myself. Nor do have I any problem with using non transmitting electronic equipment when permitted to do so in flight.

 

[simongr]

Noted serfty - there have been a few general comments about inconsiderate pax as is ever the case when this topic comes up here though.

 

[JohnK]

This is one thing I do not understand in this debate - why are some people selfish if they want to use their phone and others are not because they want peace and quiet?

Going OT slightly but apart from the safety factors involved I think people should be able to expect some peace and quiet even if it is public transport.

I don't know about others but I certainly do not want to listen to someone yapping on the phone or constantly sending sms'es with polyphonic keypads. I also consider iPods to be an intrusion when all you can hear is squeals, scratches and boom boom boom coming from the headphones.

A lot of the anti-mobile brigade are focussed purely on their own self interest rather than other people's freedoms.

Everyone has a right to do what they want. But I am not asking for much in expecting to have some peace and quiet....

 

[2muchplastic]

Just to drag this old topic up again, I was on an SQ flight coming into SGN on Monday morning when the guy the other side of the aisle and forward one row reached into his pocket when we were still at about 2000ft, pulled out his mobile and switched it on. It definitely was not being switched on in flight mode, as the SMSs started rolling in a few seconds later, though he tried to disguise the noise it was making.

My first thought (besides what an arrogant p***k!! Why couldn't he wait 5 minutes? Too important??) was to call the FAs, but they were strapped down in landing positions. So what would all have done here?

 

[samh004]

Just to drag this old topic up again, I was on an SQ flight coming into SGN on Monday morning when the guy the other side of the aisle and forward one row reached into his pocket when we were still at about 2000ft, pulled out his mobile and switched it on. It definitely was not being switched on in flight mode, as the SMSs started rolling in a few seconds later, though he tried to disguise the noise it was making.

My first thought (besides what an arrogant p***k!! Why couldn't he wait 5 minutes? Too important??) was to call the FAs, but they were strapped down in landing positions. So what would all have done here?

Well apart from a little noise because his texts started rolling in, which he might be able to muffle, or mute quickly, what was the problem?

If he'd phoned someone that would of been a little too much I suppose, but picking up messages? I know it's against the rules, but so are many things and was he hurting you somehow by breaking the rules this time?

If the plane had crashed then you'd have something to go on, but I don't think phones have any effect.

 

[bambbbam2]

Well I see lots of people that don't turn their mobile off these days.

I often now just leave my iphone in flight mode - it's not transmitting, so no big deal IMO.

 

[straitman]

Well apart from a little noise because his texts started rolling in, which he might be able to muffle, or mute quickly, what was the problem?

If he'd phoned someone that would of been a little too much I suppose, but picking up messages? I know it's against the rules, but so are many things and was he hurting you somehow by breaking the rules this time?

If the plane had crashed then you'd have something to go on, but I don't think phones have any effect.

samh004,

I'm not going to run through all the arguments again :!:

Suffice to say I suggest you do a little research before you come out with sweeping statements that 'you don't think phones have any effect' Just because you think it does not mean they don't. :evil:

The ATSB, CASA, NTSB, FAA, etc have all recently reported their thoughts (again) that the possibility/probability of interference is far too great and the consequences far too severe to get this wrong.

I'll go with them rather than your opinion.

 

[samh004]

samh004,

I'm not going to run through all the arguments again :!:

Suffice to say I suggest you do a little research before you come out with sweeping statements that 'you don't think phones have any effect' Just because you think it does not mean they don't. :evil:

The ATSB, CASA, NTSB, FAA, etc have all recently reported their thoughts (again) that the possibility/probability of interference is far too great and the consequences far too severe to get this wrong.

I'll go with them rather than your opinion.

And it was just that. An opinion.

I think you'll find on the average flight quite a few pax turn on their phones and other disallowed gadgets too early, and most planes do stay up in the air.

When you think about cellular and wireless networks, they're all around us all the time, you don't need to turn the phone on for them to be passing through the plane, through your body, through the air all the time.

I think the problem is how they isolate the main systems, not from interference, but from devices tapping in and screwing things up. There's all sorts of stuff at the front of the plane that's getting more and more advanced and more and more likely to be susceptible to being hacked into or abused in some way.

No I don't have a reference for my sweeping statement, but it seems paranoia is the best thing to drive this issue.

 

[bambbbam2]

There are some good points there.

I am just saying that from my untrained observations:

a) Nobody bothers too much about mobile use pre-takeoff and post-landing and it doesn't seem particularly enforced

b) I don't see why flight mode is not acceptable.. it's this kind of 'cry-wolf' syndrome that has led to peeople not following the seat belt rules (and not enforced on US planes much, either)

 

[straitman]

There are some good points there.

I am just saying that from my untrained observations:

a) Nobody bothers too much about mobile use pre-takeoff and post-landing and it doesn't seem particularly enforced

b) I don't see why flight mode is not acceptable.. it's this kind of 'cry-wolf' syndrome that has led to peeople not following the seat belt rules (and not enforced on US planes much, either)

I agree entirely.

If anyone wishes to PM me a fax number I'll send a very recent article about mobile phones, laptops and the risk to aviation safety. Unfortunately I don't have an electronic copy.

 

[oz_mark]

I agree entirely.

If anyone wishes to PM me a fax number I'll send a very recent article about mobile phones, laptops and the risk to aviation safety. Unfortunately I don't have an electronic copy.

I'll get a fax number for you to send it to me on! I would be interested.

As an aside, we can be fortunate that safety is as good as it is in aviation, and complacency about safety in many industries kills.

 

[2muchplastic]

Straitman, I would certainly appreciate a copy, PM with fax number on it's way.

As for current safety records, and the doubt springing into many people's minds about the validity of the total ban during flight of transmitting devices, surely the current very good safety records are because of the ban. As only a few people break the ban, it's probable that the "perfect" conditions for affecting the aircraft's electronics are not created.

Imagine though, if all 300 passengers on an A333 switched on their mobile phones at 3000ft when coming in to land. Surely, such a large number concentrated in one area (and the more powerful pulses created atswitch on time) would have the power to have an adverse effect on the aircraft systems? It's all very well saying that these electromagnetic waves are around us, and that's true, but not such a concentration in one area at one time.
For me, until the safe use of transmitting devices is proven to be 100% safe, and in the situation I've used above, the ban should stay

 

[samh004]

Imagine though, if all 300 passengers on an A333 switched on their mobile phones at 3000ft when coming in to land. Surely, such a large number concentrated in one area (and the more powerful pulses created atswitch on time) would have the power to have an adverse effect on the aircraft systems? It's all very well saying that these electromagnetic waves are around us, and that's true, but not such a concentration in one area at one time.
For me, until the safe use of transmitting devices is proven to be 100% safe, and in the situation I've used above, the ban should stay

That's a good point and personally I wouldn't want to travel with everyone always on the phone. What a nightmare... probably be almost as bad as in the old days when everyone smoked.

But I do think even though it would probably cost a fortune (especially if there was a problem) they should test it. Obviously not with people, but with a full mock up plane, with phones that turn on at different times. Or maybe there's a way of doing this on the ground, either way, a test needs to be made.

As for the avionics and etc, they need to be insulated sufficiently against these devices, because if they're not, someone will eventually exploit it. Better to do do the research and protect everything than wait till someone comes along and kills everyone.

 

[nlagalle]

But I do think even though it would probably cost a fortune (especially if there was a problem) they should test it. Obviously not with people, but with a full mock up plane, with phones that turn on at different times. Or maybe there's a way of doing this on the ground, either way, a test needs to be made.

As for the avionics and etc, they need to be insulated sufficiently against these devices, because if they're not, someone will eventually exploit it. Better to do do the research and protect everything than wait till someone comes along and kills everyone.

Samh004,

Plenty of testing has been conducted by various agencies over the last 15-20 odd years into Mobile phone and the effects it can have on aircraft systems. I suggest you do some reading up on it, if you had your last 2 paragraphs wouldn't be there.

 

[samh004]

Samh004,

Plenty of testing has been conducted by various agencies over the last 15-20 odd years into Mobile phone and the effects it can have on aircraft systems. I suggest you do some reading up on it, if you had your last 2 paragraphs wouldn't be there.

If they'd done testing within the last 15-20 years you'd think they'd have sufficiently insulated systems by now for it not to be a problem.

I don't have enough money or time to buy journal subscriptions and read them to realise what tests they've been doing over those years.

But as just an everyday person, I would assume they've had enough time. Maybe I'm wrong, clearly I am as this isn't the first time in this thread I've been told off.

But it is my opinion that they're clearly not doing enough. Seriously, 5 or 6 people turn on their phones (or don't turn them off) per flight. Is that number going to increase or decrease! It's rhetorical.

Personally, I turn my phone off, and don't even have it to hand till customs most times I fly. But maybe I'm not Joe Public that flies every so often.

And you know, if I am wrong, don't just point at me and say it. I'm not good enough to back up my facts with an article, but if you want to moan to me, please, link to something that might show me the light.

Thanks.

 

[nlagalle]

If they'd done testing within the last 15-20 years you'd think they'd have sufficiently insulated systems by now for it not to be a problem.

Technology changes in that time too. There has been over 4 different mobile phone technologies in that time that operate on different frequencies, power etc. You can't insulate everything, how will you receive the signals you are supposed to receive

I don't have enough money or time to buy journal subscriptions and read them to realise what tests they've been doing over those years.

Then you can't really say your opinion is right if you haven't researched it??

But it is my opinion that they're clearly not doing enough. Seriously, 5 or 6 people turn on their phones (or don't turn them off) per flight. Is that number going to increase or decrease! It's rhetorical.

And you know, if I am wrong, don't just point at me and say it. I'm not good enough to back up my facts with an article, but if you want to moan to me, please, link to something that might show me the light.

Why don't you PM Bill and get a fax of the article he is referring to. I had articles as well from Flight safety Magazines, but I don't always keep the hard copies. I had posted somewhere in the past an electronic article.

Here is a couple:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/2003/sep/33.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/2006/apr/13-15.pdf

If you want to look into it further, do a search on the CASA website and also FAA.

Nick