Takeoff and Landing - Regulation / Etiquette

[markis10]

What does male genitalia have to do with it? Moderator

I blame the iPad, or perhaps it was an indirect intentional use of the phrase indicative of things thought but not written!

 

[Nigelinoz]

I blame the iPad, or perhaps it was an indirect intentional use of the phrase indicative of things thought but not written!

Or even a Freudian slip.:!::mrgreen:
Cheers
N'oz

 

[medhead]

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

What? With the "radios" turned on? Because if not, it really isn't relevant. This thread is about a mobile phone turned on and transmitting. Not an iPad in flight mode being used to display stored information.


Sent from the Throne

 

[AVC]

If cabin cell phone usage was such a risk, then why would they not shield the flight deck (or rather the bulkhead specifically).
That would provide protection form unauthorised mobile phone use. If were indeed a problem.

Cellphones causing faults in smoke alarms? Oh come on! A large commercial office tower could have more operating cellphones than alarms. You don't see them setting off the detectors every 5 minutes.

What about the aircraft's own transmitters? Why are they introducing WiFi transcievers in cabins? The list goes on.

I see the problem more about the fact that the phone-using PAX is distracted, when they require to be listening to instructions from FAs in the event of an emergency.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

If cabin cell phone usage was such a risk, then why would they not shield the flight deck (or rather the bulkhead specifically).
That would provide protection form unauthorised mobile phone use. If were indeed a problem.

Cellphones causing faults in smoke alarms? Oh come on! A large commercial office tower could have more operating cellphones than alarms. You don't see them setting off the detectors every 5 minutes.

What about the aircraft's own transmitters? Why are they introducing WiFi transcievers in cabins? The list goes on.

I see the problem more about the fact that the phone-using PAX is distracted, when they require to be listening to instructions from FAs in the event of an emergency.

In another thread, I asked JB747 a similar question. He had interferance on a flight he was piloting years ago. They (pilots), managed to isolate the source (a girl playing wit ha toy l think) and it was disrupting wires running underneath the J Cabin.

 

[markis10]

If cabin cell phone usage was such a risk, then why would they not shield the flight deck (or rather the bulkhead specifically).
That would provide protection form unauthorised mobile phone use. If were indeed a problem.

Cellphones causing faults in smoke alarms? Oh come on! A large commercial office tower could have more operating cellphones than alarms. You don't see them setting off the detectors every 5 minutes.

What about the aircraft's own transmitters? Why are they introducing WiFi transcievers in cabins? The list goes on.

I see the problem more about the fact that the phone-using PAX is distracted, when they require to be listening to instructions from FAs in the event of an emergency.

Next time you fly have a look at where the antennas are on an aircraft, shielding the coughpit would not do much, it's quite possible a passengers pocket is very close to an internal wire run and the signal induction could be significant, from memory there is 100-200 miles of wires on a plane as a rough guesstimate.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Next time you fly have a look at where the antennas are on an aircraft, shielding the coughpit would not do much, it's quite possible a passengers pocket is very close to an internal wire run and the signal induction could be significant, from memory there is 100-200 miles of wires on a plane as a rough guesstimate.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons why the A380 was delayed was the complexity of the wiring harnesses,I seem to remember a
figure of something like 500km's of wiring being necessary with about 40,000 different connectors.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[TonyHancock]

.....but on some airlines, and TAM is one where I have experienced this first hand, the use of cellular phones is allowed. So for all of the technical boll@*ks discussed here why or how is this possible?

(Please bear in mind I have the technical capability of a jellyfish, and am just interested to hear, in layman's terms, why it is possible on some airlines to use cellular phones, but not for example here in Australia.)

 

[markis10]

.....but on some airlines, and TAM is one where I have experienced this first hand, the use of cellular phones is allowed. So for all of the technical boll@*ks discussed here why or how is this possible?

(Please bear in mind I have the technical capability of a jellyfish, and am just interested to hear, in layman's terms, why it is possible on some airlines to use cellular phones, but not for example here in Australia.)

Obviously they have assessed the risk to be low enough to take it on.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Do you honestly believe all 200, or 300 passengers have switched off their phone on a typical flight. I guarantee there is at least half a dozen left on in peoples cabin and hold baggage, yet aircraft are not dropping out of the sky because of this. This would apply to every flight, around the world, every day. Aren't some airlines already installing mobile phone networks on board to make more cash out of people? They are at least planning to .

 

[markis10]

Do you honestly believe all 200, or 300 passengers have switched off their phone on a typical flight. I guarantee there is at least half a dozen left on in peoples cabin and hold baggage, yet aircraft are not dropping out of the sky because of this. This would apply to every flight, around the world, every day. Aren't some airlines already installing mobile phone networks on board to make more cash out of people? They are at least planning to .

There are also plenty of red light camera pictures of those who forgot to stop, and survived, but you can imagine the chaos if everyone ignored the lights!

 

[TonyHancock]

Obviously they have assessed the risk to be low enough to take it on.

I know I am a bit of an a#*e but that is a particularly glib answer from someone who is clearly very technically competent.

The easy thing to suggest is that TAM is an airline with a poor safety record and has failed to carry out an appropriate risk assessment. I can't help believe that there is more to it than that though.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

There are also plenty of red light camera pictures of those who forgot to stop, and survived, but you can imagine the chaos if everyone ignored the lights!

Yes I can.

 

[markis10]

I know I am a bit of an a#*e but that is a particularly glib answer from someone who is clearly very technically competent.

The easy thing to suggest is that TAM is an airline with a poor safety record and has failed to carry out an appropriate risk assessment. I can't help believe that there is more to it than that though.

Not a glib answer at all, just recognition that different airlines have different tolerances when it comes to safety, a fact we see play its role in many an incident time after time.

 

[TonyHancock]

Not a glib answer at all, just recognition that different airlines have different tolerances when it comes to safety, a fact we see play its role in many an incident time after time.

We'll have to agree to differ then.

 

[markis10]

We'll have to agree to differ then.

Yes, along with a few airlines as well .

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Interestingly, when you land at LHR, on BA you can't use your mobile until your at the gate, but on QF/EK you can...(well, that was the talk that was going on over on the BA FT forum recently).

 

[TonyHancock]

Yes, along with a few airlines as well .

Another glib answer. I'm not criticising I'm looking for a genuine understanding here. The problem is that answers like this mask what might be serious issues.

I know my answers are glib and silly, but I admit to being fundamentally incompetent.

 

[Austman]

.....but on some airlines, and TAM is one where I have experienced this first hand, the use of cellular phones is allowed. So for all of the technical boll@*ks discussed here why or how is this possible?

(Please bear in mind I have the technical capability of a jellyfish, and am just interested to hear, in layman's terms, why it is possible on some airlines to use cellular phones, but not for example here in Australia.)

I believe it's a micro-cell like base station that is installed on the aircraft. GSM handsets are transmit power adaptive. If they are 10km or more away from a base station (eg on a plane), they will transmit at a high power. But if there is a base station just metres away, they will transmit at a much lower power. With a local micro-cell base station in use on a plane and taking into account the inverse square law, the transmission output of even many handsets is small.

Edit: OK it's a pico-cell! (just smaller range)

 

[TonyHancock]

I believe it's a micro-cell like base station that is installed on the aircraft. GSM handsets are transmit power adaptive. If they are 10km or more away from a base station (eg on a plane), they will transmit at a high power. But if there is a base station just metres away, they will transmit at a much lower power. With a local micro base station in use and taking into account the inverse square law, the transmission output of even many handsets is small.

That seems to make sense to my limited intellect. The instructions on the TAM flight involved the need to have global roaming enabled, even if you had a Brazilian sim card. I assume that TAM is making some decent cash out of this too.