Takeoff and Landing - Regulation / Etiquette

[oz_mark]

I wont say which other major it was but it wasnt Shell. Agree however the odds greatly favour being run over vs a cell phone fire!

The biggest hazard in using cell phones is probably not paying attention to what is happening around you, and increasing the risk of being run over!

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Thank you to ALL posters who contributed - certainly a myriad of different views.

I can't help but wonder what is the OFFICIAL POLICY of both QF and VA/DJ in relation to both these matters and how diligent they would like to be in enforcement - at the risk of dragging this thread on cause it's prolly run it's course but was wondering if any rep of either airline would care to chime in?

FWIW flew F on SQ218 MEL-SIN today then onto PEK - immediately doors closed there is announcement ALL MOBILE PHONES MUST BE TURNED OFF - whan landed similar announcement ALL MOBILE PHONES MUST REMAIN OFF UNTIL DOORS OPEN.

And ALL glassware taken from ALL pax prior to take-off.

Oh and just as an aside those members who had previously posted that Private Room in SK Lounge in SIN T3 was FABULOUS have clearly misrepresented this - I would contend that Private Room is indeed F*CKING FABULOUS - and when I entered at 6am this morn I was only pax in entire F Lounge - Private Room and main section - did I ever feel speeeeeecial - but I digress.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

the official report is now out into the incident in Singpapore... if mobile phones really are such a problem, then surely the Qantas Group captain would have realised the phone was left on far earlier than just the approach to landing... doesn't seem to have been any interference with equipment...

 

[medhead]

U

I tend to believe the ATSB who analysed all petrol station fires worldwide in the 10 years leading up to 2004 (some 234 of them) and found not one was caused by a phone, as well as the American Institute of Petroleum, a representative of which was quoted as saying “We have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire since the beginning of mankind” .

http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Static_Fires.pdf

Of course I still dont use my phone at the bowser, and I still sell radio gear that's intrinsically safe with Hazloc certifications for use in such environments!

I do like the comment by the Shell study though “…portable cell phones properly used do not represent a meaningful hazard on
the retail forecourt. Without doubt, apart from the human acts of smoking and striking a match, the thing that represents the greatest hazard on the retail forecourt is the motorcar!”

I think I've highlighted the key phrase. Surely, it's improper or accidental "use" that causes a static discharge that creates a risk. Were any of those fires cause by static due to a phone? Which is slightly different to the phone being responsible.

 

[markis10]

I think I've highlighted the key phrase. Surely, it's improper or accidental "use" that causes a static discharge that creates a risk. Were any of those fires cause by static due to a phone? Which is slightly different to the phone being responsible.

No, as I quoted and you requoted "we have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire", if you read the link I provided there is further detail that answers question:

A total of 161 reports of refuelling fires attributed to static
electricity were received between 2000 and 2004. The findings revealed that:
• there were no occurrences involving open flames, running motors, or electrical
continuity problems;
• conventional and vacuum-assisted vapour recovery nozzles were used in all
occurrences;
• there were no reports of occurrences involving balance system nozzles;
• driveway surfaces included concrete, asphalt, stone, crushed rock and dirt;
• fires occurred with a variety of nozzle types, hoses, breakaways and dispensers;
• no mobile phones were involved;
• a wide variety of clothes were worn by motorists; and
• in 94% of the occurrences, rubber-soled shoes were worn by the motorists.

My bolding

 

[medhead]

No, as I quoted and you requoted "we have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire", if you read the link I provided there is further detail that answers question:

A total of 161 reports of refuelling fires attributed to static
electricity were received between 2000 and 2004. The findings revealed that:
• there were no occurrences involving open flames, running motors, or electrical
continuity problems;
• conventional and vacuum-assisted vapour recovery nozzles were used in all
occurrences;
• there were no reports of occurrences involving balance system nozzles;
• driveway surfaces included concrete, asphalt, stone, crushed rock and dirt;
• fires occurred with a variety of nozzle types, hoses, breakaways and dispensers;
• no mobile phones were involved;
• a wide variety of clothes were worn by motorists; and
• in 94% of the occurrences, rubber-soled shoes were worn by the motorists.

My bolding

Thanks. Fly by posting in the 3 minutes before a flight so I didn't read it all. Just reflecting my experiences that investigations can sometime stop at the first cause and not dig deeper to the root cause.

As an aside I'm always very careful when filling my mower tins in thongs. Tin on the ground and I touch with my other hand before putting the nozzle in to fill. In fact I also touch the car before introducing the nozzle. Probably pointless but I'd rather not risk it.


Sent from the Throne

 

[straitman]

No, as I quoted and you requoted "we have not found a cell phone responsible for any fire", if you read the link I provided there is further detail that answers question:

A total of 161 reports of refuelling fires attributed to static
electricity were received between 2000 and 2004. The findings revealed that:
• there were no occurrences involving open flames, running motors, or electrical
continuity problems;
• conventional and vacuum-assisted vapour recovery nozzles were used in all
occurrences;
• there were no reports of occurrences involving balance system nozzles;
• driveway surfaces included concrete, asphalt, stone, crushed rock and dirt;
• fires occurred with a variety of nozzle types, hoses, breakaways and dispensers;
• no mobile phones were involved;
• a wide variety of clothes were worn by motorists; and
• in 94% of the occurrences, rubber-soled shoes were worn by the motorists.

My bolding

This may be correct but the fuel companies (certainly the biggest at least) believe it is an unacceptable risk.

 

[markis10]

This may be correct but the fuel companies (certainly the biggest at least) believe it is an unacceptable risk.

Yes, as the report explains (unlike the case with aircraft in Australia where there is no legislative requirements):

The answer is provided by Mobil Oil Australia. In 2004, the oil company issued a memo to all
retail site staff to explain the need for mobile phone warnings. It stated that, while Mobil has
no experience of fires being caused in this manner, most mobile phone manufacturers do not
certify their equipment as safe to use in hazardous areas. It explained that, in accordance
with dangerous goods regulations, it is a requirement that electrical equipment used within
hazardous areas be certified intrinsically safe and that this is not the case with most mobile
phones. In addition, the memo explained that mobile phone warnings are used to reduce the
chance of fuel spill and fire caused by motorist inattention.

 

[midcoast1]

I also touch the car after getting out before fuelling the car.It can give you quite a zap in certain weather conditions.Only takes a spark where fuel is concerned

 

[MEL_Traveller]

and always important to make sure that any occupants of the car unfasten their seatbelts while refuelling!

 

[midcoast1]

and always important to make sure that any occupants of the car unfasten their seatbelts while refuelling!

Very good point.Unbuckling a seatbelt can be difficult in an emergency whether in a car or aircraft.

 

[openskies]

Hey everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I work as cabin crew at an airline, and to my knowledge, a big reason why all electronic devices must be switched off during takeoff and landing is to ensure that the aircraft cabin is as secure as possible, as these are the most critical stages of flight where 47.5% of accidents occur. It would make sense that 'secure' from an airline's perspective also means that every passenger on board is alert to their surroundings - not distracted by music blaring out of their mp3 player/messaging on their phone - and can hear announcements made by the crew should a non-standard event occur.

It would be wrong to assume that crew rely on the voluntary compliance of every passenger on board to keep their phones switched off during takeoff and landing, so I'm not entirely sure that the electromagnetic interference argument holds water. At the same time, it never hurts to play it safe.

As for the crew member asking the J class pax whether they would like to hold their glass during takeoff - that's not standard procedure at all.

 

[openseat]

I had the experience on AA landing at LHR when upon landing and turning off the runway a passenger emerged from the J toilet and returned to her seat. It was amusing as passengers looked at each other with some incredulity, but I imagine it could be quite dangerous if something had gone wrong in the landing.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Hi openskies,
Welcome to AFF,
I look forward to reading your contributions and hope you find the forum enjoyable.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[midcoast1]

It was amusing as passengers looked at each other with some incredulity, but I imagine it could be quite dangerous if something had gone wrong in the landing.

Could have been a bit messy as well.

 

[seanpodge]

I have been led to believe to believe from other places that one of the reasons for turning off electrical equipment is so that it is put away somewhere, therefore avoiding it becoming a x00 km/h missile in the cabin in case something goes wrong.

Certainly the practise of people standing up as soon as the wheels touch the ground is one that annoys me greatly. I strongly suspect they wait until their car has been parked before they move around and get out rather than rolling out the instant they see a spot, so why do they think it's different on a plane? It's not as if they're going to get off the plane light years quicker and they're being a danger to themselves and everyone else in the cabin if the plane has an accident or even has to brake suddenly.

 

[Dismounted]

Certainly the practise of people standing up as soon as the wheels touch the ground is one that annoys me greatly.

This. I mean, YOU HAVE JUST SPENT NUMEROUS HOURS ON THIS HUNK OF METAL. An extra minute or two spent getting off relaxed is not going to kill you.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In all fairness I have never once seen anyone stand up as soon as the wheels touch he ground I have seen it during the final stages of taxi-ing, and more commonly as aircraft is just about to stop, but any other time is a rarity.

I can understand why people do it - they have been cooped up for a long time and want to get going. Standing up and getting ready is acknowledgement that you can finally get up and be on your way, that the last 22 hours in 31' inch pitch with almost no recline has come to an end. In a way, standing up does create a bit more urgency... for some reason those at the front really don't like those behind racing up the aisle - so everyone tends to jump up and hold their place!

What I do find more interesting is that others get annoyed at these practices At the end of the day does it really matter what someone else does on the plane? Some cases yes, if the other passenger is potentially endangering your safety, but when they're not... why do people care?

If, for example, a person sitting next to the window (and I'm on the aisle) decides to play their ipod during taxi take-off and landing, why should it bother me? They're not impeding my exit in the event of an emergency (different story if they were between me and the aisle). I still can't understand the actions of a fellow passenger on a flight to the states where they complained to crew that a passenger was using their mobile phone after the announcement had been made to switch off all devices... the plane was still at the gate and subsequent to the announcement the captain advised we would be delayed due to ATC and push back was now going to be in 30 minutes time. but still this guy had to complain (appropriately mocked by the crew member).

Other people get agitated when seats (not in front of them, or blocking their path to the aisle) are not returned to the upright position for landing, or that some airlines allow cabin baggage to be secured at a spare seat using a seat belt. I tend to take a more relaxed view when things are not safety critical. Makes for a more enjoyable flight being concerned only with my own world

 

[markis10]

People who dont follow directions tend to annoy people simply because they can kill, nothing surprising really! Look at what happened with US Air 1493, instructions by crew/airlines are there for a reason, and it's not to annoy.

 

[drmikki]

Alright, markis10, I give up - wikipedia has failed to enlighten me on US Air 1493, at least regards passengers ignoring crew or airline instructions. As much as I hate to quote Pauline Hanson.... Please explain?!