Take-off aborted over mobile phone interference

[NM]

From News.com.au

Take-off aborted over mobile phone interference

THREE passengers on an Alitalia airline flight from Milan were arrested on Saturday after they failed to heed requests to turn off their mobile phones.

 

[Andyc]

Try this link: Take-off aborted over mobile phone interference | NEWS.com.au

 

[Mal]

About time some examples of this behavior were found and arrested.

Annoys me to see people texting/calling or anything else with their phones while taxiing (to the runway, not after Qantas/other airline has allowed you to switch them on) or taking off.

Can we get some similar arrests going in Australia?

 

[NM]

Try this link: Take-off aborted over mobile phone interference | NEWS.com.au

Thanks. Not sure why my original Cut&Paste didn't work. And its not the first time that has happened.

 

[Commuter]

On flights to some airports in Europe, it appears exceedingly common for some passengers to talk on their mobile during final approach. When told off by flight attendants, a lot of them (shockingly) argue with them! Some passengers' behaviour continue to amaze me.

 

[docjames]

I flew QF BNE --> MEL mid january.

Kids in middle block of seats were playing psp and the flight attendants walked past about a million times and didnt do anything. Same occurred on landing.


Methinks it's about gettng your attention quickly rahter than navigation interference. I guess with Kids they didnt bother.

 

[simongr]

I just wonder how this would play out in Oz - I just don't see the Australian crew that interested in this.

 

[Josh]

What I wonder about is the presumably dozens and dozens of people who have mobile phones who for some reason simply forget to turn their phones off (not because they're being stubborn) - in fact I have even done this on a couple of occasions. Obviously there's not a lot you can do about this, but presumably this could have the same effect on the navigation systems as the stupid tools who flat-out refused to turn their phones off.

A second question - i don't want to open a can of worms here, but has there been much research done into the effects of electronic devices on aircraft systems? I can totally understand radio transmitting devices, but what about small electronic devices like PDA's, PSPs, and iPods? I find it hard to believe that these kinds of devices could potentially interfere with navigation systems. Or is this just a case of the airlines going 'over the top' in the name of safety (Just like the no mobile phones and petrol stations rule..)

Cheers,

Josh

 

[simongr]

I believe the no mobiles at petrol stations is not about safety and has been debunked - I have heard that it is about the potential for the mobile to interfere with the recording of how much fuel is pumped thus reducing gas company profits.

 

[NM]

What I wonder about is the presumably dozens and dozens of people who have mobile phones who for some reason simply forget to turn their phones off (not because they're being stubborn) - in fact I have even done this on a couple of occasions. Obviously there's not a lot you can do about this, but presumably this could have the same effect on the navigation systems as the stupid tools who flat-out refused to turn their phones off.

A mobile phone that is turned on but idle does transmit on occasion. You can hear the effects if you place a GSM phone next to a radio or speaker phone or similar. Plut it next to your clock/radio/alarm at night and you could be woken by the noise picked up through the radio when the phone "phones home" to the service provider. I am not sure how often a GSM phone does this, but it seems to be every hour or two.

Similarly, have the GSM phone next to the radio when it receives an incoming call. You will know about 3 seconds before it starts to ring that there is an incoming call. And if you are on a call and near a similarly sensitive device (like a radio) you can hear the interference.

Now the debate is whether this radio interference can actually cause problems to an aircraft's flight controls. To me that is totally irrelevant. It certainly could cause interference to the audio system in the flight deck such as the radios being used to convey information to/from ATC, just as it can cause disruption to a domestic clock/radio device. And I am not at all keen for the pilots of an aircraft I am on (or another aircraft near the one I am on) missing an important part of their ATC communications at a critical time. So that alone is a good enough reason for all phones to be turned off.

Now we do know that on some aircraft it is permissible to use a phone during flight. Qantas has one of their 767's flying around Australia with a Pico Cell installed. Such aircraft have undergone rigorous tests to ensure all the systems installed are not susceptible such interference. I don't know if Qantas had to make any engineering changes to the onboard systems to ensure they were not affected by the phones.

And yes, there has been considerable research into the affects of mobile phone transmissions on flight systems.

For me its all a matter of minimising the risk and I much prefer to have all risks minimised as much as possible. And turning off phone is a simple one.

A second question - i don't want to open a can of worms here, but has there been much research done into the effects of electronic devices on aircraft systems? I can totally understand radio transmitting devices, but what about small electronic devices like PDA's, PSPs, and iPods? I find it hard to believe that these kinds of devices could potentially interfere with navigation systems. Or is this just a case of the airlines going 'over the top' in the name of safety (Just like the no mobile phones and petrol stations rule..)

All electronic equipment will have some level of radiated energy. However, for devices that are not designed to transmit radio signals, its most unlikely their radiation is going to cause any issues with even the most sensitive devices around them. But many devices do have radio transmission capability, such as a PDA with WiFi and/or Bluetooth.

I think the airlines find it is much easier to enforce a blanket ban on all electronic equipment rather than expect the FAs to know which are safe and which may not be. Again its a matter of risk minimisation.

I have seen FAs ask passengers to turn off their Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones for take-off. There is no way the electronics in such a device is going to cause any interference. But I can be confident in that because I have tertiary education in communications systems. I don't expect an FA to be similarly educated in understanding the radiation capabilities of various electronic devices, so a blanket ban on all of them is fine by me. Of course a passenger wearing such headphones is possibly not paying attention to the safety briefing so that may also explain why an FA would want them turned off.

 

[rwatts]

I have seen FAs ask passengers to turn off their Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones for take-off. There is no way the electronics in such a device is going to cause any interference. But I can be confident in that because I have tertiary education in communications systems. I don't expect an FA to be similarly educated in understanding the radiation capabilities of various electronic devices, so a blanket ban on all of them is fine by me. Of course a passenger wearing such headphones is possibly not paying attention to the safety briefing so that may also explain why an FA would want them turned off.

I've never had a FA ask me to turn off my NC headphones but have had one ask when checking the cabin on descent what it was plugged into. She was quite happy when I showed it plugged into the seat outlet.

I do drop the headphones around my neck though when the safety demo is on - even when plugged into the IFE - it just seems polite.

Richard.

 

[munitalP]

I believe the no mobiles at petrol stations is not about safety and has been debunked - I have heard that it is about the potential for the mobile to interfere with the recording of how much fuel is pumped thus reducing gas company profits.

If your mobile works from 30,000F (which is unlikley), the cellular repeaters are unable to pin point a location - hence - wait for it - FREE CALLS!

My mate who's a communications tech for the largest cellular network in the world has said to me that unless each aircraft becomes a cellular repeater - mobile (cell) phones will never be allowed to operate in planes.

It's all about the dollar - not safety as we are told. My iPod has no RiF measurable, my iMate - RiF measurable up to approx 200mm. This coincides with studies done in Europe that very powerful (unregulated output) cell phones could cause interference with "some" older electronic components on aircraft however in modern aircraft, "very unlikely".

The fly TV offered on virgin flights emits over 100,000 times greater RiF than a mobile phone - go figure everyone...

RiF - RADIO INTERFERENCE

 

[mainly tailfirst]

If your mobile works from 30,000F (which is unlikley), the cellular repeaters are unable to pin point a location - hence - wait for it - FREE CALLS!

My mate who's a communications tech for the largest cellular network in the world has said to me that unless each aircraft becomes a cellular repeater - mobile (cell) phones will never be allowed to operate in planes.

Hmm, I'm not sure about the 'free calls' aspect, but I do agree that Telco's would prefer to see microcells in planes as being the only way for mobiles to operate in flight.

Your phone will actually work happily at 30,000 feet assuming you can get line-of-sight to a basestation (i.e. not through the wing) and the telco will certainly be able to charge you. Once you register with a basestation, they have you and can charge appropriately. Now at 900km/hr, you may not be camped on that tower for long, but probably enough to send an SMS or a short call.

It's all about the dollar - not safety as we are told. My iPod has no RiF measurable, my iMate - RiF measurable up to approx 200mm. This coincides with studies done in Europe that very powerful (unregulated output) cell phones could cause interference with "some" older electronic components on aircraft however in modern aircraft, "very unlikely".

The fly TV offered on virgin flights emits over 100,000 times greater RiF than a mobile phone - go figure everyone...

RiF - RADIO INTERFERENCE

While I agree that's it's largely about money, there are some genuine concerns about network stability with mobile phones at 6 miles up. Since a phone can (and usually does) register with every tower it can see, certain assumptions about tower placement and spacing fall over. The overall effect is that an airborne phone can potentially tie up slots on more basestations than a ground based one would. This leads to less efficient reuse of the spectrum and increased congestion. Plus, the fast handover from one station to the puts more load on the signaling backplane that tracks all this.

Since it appears that no-one wants to spend any money improving the robustness of the wireless network from airborne phones (telcos) or do comprehensive studies to prove that regular FCC Class 'B' devices cause no interference on planes (CASA, FAA , ICAO et al), I think we're going to be stuck with the "The captain has now turned on the seat belt sign. So please turn off..." for years to come.

mt

 

[simongr]

But at least when aircraft become broadband capable again (i.e. when QF gets its A380s) we will be able to use skype for our free calls (after paying the connection fee to use onboard broadband)

 

[mainly tailfirst]

But at least when aircraft become broadband capable again (i.e. when QF gets its A380s) we will be able to use skype for our free calls (after paying the connection fee to use onboard broadband)

Sadly, even that is not guaranteed. AA are rolling out wireless broadband this year that specifically blocks VOIP. Not entirely sure why VOIP is singled out ($$$ are probably involved). I'd expect wireless on aircraft to be very restricted in protocols and bandwidth so probably only good for web and mail. In any case, most links (not AA's) will be via satellite which is not VOIP friendly anyway.

CrunchGear » Archive » Aircell rigs up first American Airlines Boeing 767-200

Of course, once you VPN into a site somewhere, not a lot they can do with packet inspection so I expect all sorts of proxying services to start up. Shall be very interesting to see what applications develop.

mt

 

[NM]

But at least when aircraft become broadband capable again (i.e. when QF gets its A380s) we will be able to use skype for our free calls (after paying the connection fee to use onboard broadband)

I doubt it will work very well if it is allowed through a firewall. The in-flight systems generally use Satellite connections back to a central ground station. The latency alone (and ignoring jitter etc) would make any VoIP call crumble.

 

[serfty]

American Airlines have published information about thier in-air (>10,000') Broadband facility:

• American Airlines And Aircell Begin Broadband Connectivity Installation

There's a thread on FT about it and posts indicate that it's quite easy to prevent VoIP, more so than simply latency/jitter. Methods suggest range from utizing short bursts, not enough to interfere with internet access but totally useless for voice transmission to FAs simply policing it!

• Inflight Broadband- anyone try it yet?

 

[simongr]

Interesting that an option for this has at least opened up - shame its on teh 762s though - rarely fly them

 

[NM]

There's a thread on FT about it and posts indicate that it's quite easy to prevent VoIP, more so than simply latency/jitter. Methods suggest range from utizing short bursts, not enough to interfere with internet access but totally useless for voice transmission to FAs simply policing it!

Oh there are plenty of way to block all types of VoIP, not just Skype .

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Oh there are plenty of way to block all types of VoIP, not just Skype .

Does have a theory as to why VOIP has been singled out? Apart from pax killing other pax (which never stopped airphones in the past), I can't think of a decent reason. I suspect VOIP is not the only thing blocked - BT at 30k ft is perhaps a tad optimistic
If I get to test it this year, I shall fire up the port scanner and see what we can see...

mt