Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

Takeoff and Landing - Regulation / Etiquette

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,681
Points
1,530
Flew VA J PER-SYD yestrday and a coupla things rteally struck me - would appreciate input from others.

Part 1.

After all pax loaded and doors closed - FS announced that doors are closed now and all mobile phones should now be turned off - pretty standard huh?

As we are taxiiing to runway FS and other FA's walk through J cabin and tidy it up - you now unused blankets / pillows up into bins - any pax bags on floor lifted into bins also - pretty standard huh?

But sitting in 3E is a tool still playing with his mobile phone - sending and receiving msg's and incoming msg alert clearly audible - FS clearly sees him and indeed watches him for 5 secs or so then wanders off.

My query is this - announcement is made that all mobile phones should be turned off because they can interfere with navigation equipment - is this true or not?

There can pnly be 3 scenarios with this matter:
1. Mobile phones DO NOT interfere with navigation equipment.
2. Mobile phones MAY or MAY NOT interfere with navigation equipment.
3. Mobile phones DO interfere with navigation equipment.

If 1. is correct - why bother even making the announcement?

So I am assuming it's either 2. or 3. - well WTF - why is not the 'turn off your phone' regulation enforced 100%?

As I said above - guy was clearly a tool - hence other part of thread heading 'etiquette'. He also turned on his phone as soon as descent commenced and was clearly receiving msg's prior to announcement to turn phones back ON.

Part 2.

J pax offered pre takeoff drinks - lovely - we were served by the vivacious Alyssa who assured me plenty Lanson on board this trip we would not run out - and if you want a second champers pre-takeoff no problem - my kinda girl.

So I drink 2 glasses - Cruiserette struggles to finish 1 - then FS doing final swoop through cabin asks Cruiserette if she would like him to take glass or her hold it during takeoff - no take it please she replies - he then offers same to others still drinking.

WTF - first time I have EVER heard this - pax may hold - HOLD glass - not plastic cup - GLASS during takeoff. I cannot believe I heard this - never EVER seen that before even on Chinese carriers - or PAL - or Garuda or whoever.

Am I overreacting with these points?
 

CWM

Intern
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
86
Points
0
Point 1 is correct - mobile phones do not interfere with navigation equipment. Indeed my general aviation headset incorporates bluetooth so I can make / receive calls while flying, bit of background noise but works OK.

But you must still comply with the request of the airline of course. I suggest you are probably overreacting and may need to relax a bit...;)
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Point 1 is correct - mobile phones do not interfere with navigation equipment. Indeed my general aviation headset incorporates bluetooth so I can make / receive calls while flying, bit of background noise but works OK.

But you must still comply with the request of the airline of course. I suggest you are probably overreacting and may need to relax a bit...;)

Point 1 is incorrect, mobile phones are radio transmitters and can interfere with aircraft, while its a proven phallacy that their use at a fuel station is dangerous, it's a proven fact that they do interfere at times with the electrical navigation systems of aircraft. One or two phones in a Cessna may not make much difference, 200 in a Boeing 767, different story!
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10


LOL, entertainment versus reality:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF

A confidential report from the International Air Transport Association's safety data sharing program (STEADS) that shows over the past seven years, airlines around the world reported seventy five events in which portable electronic devices. As this only covers a quarter of the world's aircraft, it is expected that the real figure is, at a minimum, at least 300 incidents.
Although the disturbance was never sufficient to crash a plane, and always vanished when the Cell Phone or MP3 player was switched off - the main area of concern is that the distractions causes by the failures could lead to pilot errors, which at low altitudes could be fatal.
The concept is that with sufficient altitude, there is time to address any error messages that might wind up being transmitted to the cockpit by interference from the passenger devices.
Back in 2001, Swiss aviation inspectors who had been studying a light aircraft crash that killed all ten people said that the lead suspect was interference from a cell phone being used during the flight.
In 2003, the UK's aviation regulator, the CAA carried out tests on a stationary Aircraft and was able to trigger inference in a range of aircraft systems from communications, navigation to even triggering the No Smoking signs.
A flight in 2008 from Miami to the UK had to report problems to the Caa after the pilot reported the plane turned to the right on three occasions when directed to turn left. A passenger was seen using a mobile phone at the time the problem occurred and was unwilling to switch it off.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/48243.php
 

CWM

Intern
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
86
Points
0
mobile phones are radio transmitters and can interfere with aircraft....it's a proven fact that they do interfere at times with the electrical navigation systems of aircraft. One or two phones in a Cessna may not make much difference, 200 in a Boeing 767, different story!

Of course, that would be why airliners divert around commercial radio towers and relay stations thousands of times more powerful than cell phones.
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Of course, that would be why airliners divert around commercial radio towers and relay stations thousands of times more powerful than cell phones.

I suspect your knowledge of radio and ERP is a tad lacking, especially the use of the term relay stations! ERP is measured in a logarithmic scale where power dissipates as a function of distance, there is also to issue of frequency harmonics, not to mention the faraday cage effect of an aircraft. In terms of harmonics, a cell phones frequency at 900 or 1800/2200 MHz is a lot closer to say the receive frequencies used for GPS while commercial AM is a long way from it at 500-1500khz.
 

TonyHancock

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
5,547
Points
10
....but cellular phones are allowed to be used in flight in some countries? Presumably when aircraft reach cruising altitude, or some predefined "safe" status? This would appear to suggest that in the right circumstances cellular phones are OK to use. Does that mean cellular phone use during take off and landing poses the greatest threat?
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
Of course, that would be why airliners divert around commercial radio towers and relay stations thousands of times more powerful than cell phones.

If the mobile phone was 100s of metres away, like commercial radio towers, your comment might have some validity. Distance is important. There are radar sources that will turn people black and crispy, at the source, that doesn't mean people have to avoid the beam km away from the source.
 

Boeta

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
117
Points
0
I believe that on any given day " 2. Mobile phones MAY or MAY NOT interfere with navigation equipment. ", would most likely apply.

Despite the evidence given by both markis10 and opusman's links, the case experienced by Cruiser Elite here appears to be a flight steward not enforcing a policy/procedure that doesn't directly effect them in their duties.

Sure you could argue at the end of the day, the FS is responsible for consistency and ensuring the safety of the passengers, but perhaps they had made up their own mind about all the evidence and decided to enforce accordingly? They wouldn't be the first person in this world who hasn't followed procedure to the letter of the law?
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
I believe that on any given day " 2. Mobile phones MAY or MAY NOT interfere with navigation equipment. ", would most likely apply.

Despite the evidence given by both markis10 and opusman's links, the case experienced by Cruiser Elite here appears to be a flight steward not enforcing a policy/procedure that doesn't directly effect them in their duties.

Sure you could argue at the end of the day, the FS is responsible for consistency and ensuring the safety of the passengers, but perhaps they had made up their own mind about all the evidence and decided to enforce accordingly? They wouldn't be the first person in this world who hasn't followed procedure to the letter of the law?

It should have been enforced as its a company policy, unlike other countries CASA does not currently enforce a ban on such things, and leave it to airlines to make their own policies.
 

eastwest101

Established Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
3,146
Points
705
My opinion is:

Point 1: Whatever the case about mobile ph interference, crew directions should be obeyed, would be up to the OP to confirm if the crew had to ask the guy in 3E to turn off his phone specifically...

Point 2: Not sure about glassware in hands for take-off or landing, probably no specific regulation about it but should be part of any prepare cabin procedure, maybe someone else is more familiar with this?
 

eastwest101

Established Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
3,146
Points
705
It should have been enforced as its a company policy, unlike other countries CASA does not currently enforce a ban on such things, and leave it to airlines to make their own policies.

Has anyone ever seen someone offloaded because of mobile phone use?
 

CWM

Intern
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
86
Points
0
Relay = commonly microwave these days. But AM / FM / VHF / digTV transmitters can equally generate EMI / RFI or course. As does lightning.

BTW to show how much of a crock this is the FAA have authorised the use of iPads and other tablet computers in the cockpit as an 'electronic flight bag', yeah non TSO'd electronic equipment right next to the nav instruments.
 
Last edited:

serfty

Veteran Member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
43,250
Solutions
5
Points
3,275
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Platinum
If had pt 2 on CX and even AA, but never on QF or DJ.

If course this was in First/Business and it is rare.
 

mannej

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
9,833
Solutions
2
Points
985
Myth busters. A sound scientific source!
 
Credit cards which earn frequent flyer points is a popular way to earn frequent flyer points. You can receive thousands of points on everyday spend. And, many of these cards offer generous signup bonuses! Compare to find the credit card that best suits your needs.

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Relay = commonly microwave these days. But AM / FM / VHF / digTV transmitters can equally generate EMI / RFI or course. As does lightning..

I think you mean backhaul (the last relay stations went with OTC), 6/12/18 & 23 Ghz Microwave with 2 degree beamwidth antennas with an EIRP often less than most cell phones (made by Ceragon/Dragonwave/Motorola etc), and again a long way frequency wise from aircraft navigational equipment frequencies for harmonic interference even if you were to ignore the faraday cage effect.
 

richie9x

Active Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
974
Points
0
Of course, that would be why airliners divert around commercial radio towers and relay stations thousands of times more powerful than cell phones.

Electromagnetic radiation follows the inverse square law. The strength of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. For instance if you double the distance you the signal strength is decreased by a quarter.

A typical cellphone transmits about 1 watt, for the sake of example a commercial radio station mast 1km away that might transmit at 50kilowatts. For the sake of example say there is an antenna in the plane that is 1 metre away. The signal observed in the plane from the cellphone would be 20 times that of the radio station.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Community Statistics

Threads
86,618
Messages
2,100,810
Members
53,916
Latest member
martinmathews
Top