Why won't PAX turn off their mobiles when instructed

[mannej]

Citation needed.

You ask for citation yet your comments are based on opinion ;-)

 

[opusman]

Citation needed.

GSM can be up to 2W, 802.11n is usually around the 100-200mW range. If you want a citation try google.

 

[Skyring]

You ask for citation yet your comments are based on opinion ;-)

My comments are based on whatever I remember from high school physics, and practical experience with early microcomputers and their effects on other electronic equipment. My Osborne 1 used to produce a burst of interference on nearby television screens with every key press!

 

[Skyring]

GSM can be up to 2W, 802.11n is usually around the 100-200mW range. If you want a citation try google.

well, where are you getting your numbers from? If I ask for a source I don't expect to be told to go find it. It's not a secret, surely?

 

[JohnK]

and he notes it is also a little about crowd control. something I have said I don't understand why some AFF'ers are so willing to get involved with.

So you are saying let them play with their toys?

Sorry but I disagree. It cannot be that hard to be without text, phone or internet for a few hours. Can it?

Who is controlling who again?

 

[markis10]

What makes wifi and bluetooth signals any less dangerous than cell calls, I don't know, but I suspect there's very little difference.

Bluetooth is a PAN technology, or personal area network, so it's very low power, WIFI is a LAN technology, still low power but more than Bluetooth with a limit of 4W EIRP on 2.4 & 5.8 GHz bands and 1W EIRP on 5.4, portable devices get nowhere near those limits. Cell phones are a MAN technology or metro area network.

You can actually look at the emissions for any device tested by the FCC for all the bands it operates in, a iPhone 4 S is a good example for your comparison:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...ame=N&application_id=134990&fcc_id=BCG-E2430A

 

[Skyring]

Bluetooth is a PAN technology, or personal area network, so it's very low power, WIFI is a LAN technology, still low power but more than Bluetooth with a limit of 4W EIRP on 2.4 & 5.8 GHz bands and 1W EIRP on 5.4, portable devices get nowhere near those limits. Cell phones are a MAN technology or metro area network.

after looking at the reports for the iPhone provided, I am no wiser.

Better informed, perhaps!

Okay, thanks to all. We're really talking about emission power, rather than emission type. Cellphone calls are putting out more radio than wifi or Bluetooth. Which makes sense. Your cellphone tower might be on yonder hill, whereas your wireless router is only in the next room.

 

[opusman]

Cellphone calls are putting out more radio than wifi or Bluetooth.

Always amazes me how people who clearly know nothing about a given subject nonetheless feel qualified to speak on that subject with absolute certainty...

 

[markis10]

after looking at the reports for the iPhone provided, I am no wiser.

Better informed, perhaps!

Okay, thanks to all. We're really talking about emission power, rather than emission type. Cellphone calls are putting out more radio than wifi or Bluetooth. Which makes sense. Your cellphone tower might be on yonder hill, whereas your wireless router is only in the next room.

Dont forget dBm is a logarithmic scale, if you look at the table the mobile emission power is circa 31-33dBm which equates to a Watt of power, wifi is 17dBm which is 50mW or 1/20th of the output, Bluetooth is 10dBm or 10mW ie 1/100th the power of the cellular output.

 

[Skyring]

Always amazes me how people who clearly know nothing about a given subject nonetheless feel qualified to speak on that subject with absolute certainty...

Interesting opinion. Do you see this in your own life?

 

[Skyring]

Dont forget dBm is a logarithmic scale, if you look at the table the mobile emission power is circa 31-33dBm which equates to a Watt of power, wifi is 17dBm which is 50mW or 1/20th of the output, Bluetooth is 10dBm or 10mW ie 1/100th the power of the cellular output.

Very diplomatic!

Thanks. OK, I understand now.

I think.

Nevertheless, cellphones aren't a huge threat, because if that were the case, airlines (and airports) would put a lot more effort into ensuring that they were off. There would be detectors at the gates, and if anyone tinkled during flight, they'd be for the high jump.

 

[opusman]

Nevertheless, cellphones aren't a huge threat

Phew! Glad we have your expert analysis to rely on.

<redacted>

 

[markis10]

Nevertheless, cellphones aren't a huge threat, because if that were the case, airlines (and airports) would put a lot more effort into ensuring that they were off. There would be detectors at the gates, and if anyone tinkled during flight, they'd be for the high jump.

In Aviation a threat is a threat, hence the policy even when the likelihood is small in most cases. Its not so small in aircraft that were made before such devices were invented, and we have quite a few airliners in Australia that fall into the category, one of the reasons why F100 travellers are not permitted mobile use at ANY time for instance. The regional and FIFO fleets are the worst in this case, many of their aircraft are end of production a long time ago:

MSN

[TD="width: 12%"]Type [/TD]
[TD="width: 22%"]Airline[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]First flight[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%"]Registration[/TD]
[TD="width: 19%"]Status [/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 1 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 100[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] De Havilland Canada [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 20/06/1983[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] C-GDNK [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Scrapped[/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 2 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 100[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] De Havilland Canada [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 26/10/1983[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] C-GGMP [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Stored[/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 3 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Presidential Airways [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 22/12/1983[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] N810LR [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active[/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 4
[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Skytrans Regional [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 03/04/1984 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] VH-QQB [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active [/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 5 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Skytrans Regional [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 14/06/1984 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] VH-QQA [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active [/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 6 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Airlines of PNG [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 10/1984 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] P2-MCG [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active [/TD]

[TD="colspan: 6"][/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 7 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Aircraft Leasing Services [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 12/1984[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] 5Y-BVO [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active[/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 8
[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Skytrans Regional [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 03/1985 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] VH-QQC [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active [/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 9 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Piedmont [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 04/1985[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] N906HA [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active[/TD]

[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 17%"] 10 [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 12%"] DHC-8 102[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 22%"] Unknown [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 16%"] 04/1985[/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 13%"] 5Y-CAU [/TD]
[TD="class: tdtexten, width: 19%"] Active[/TD]

 

[Skyring]

Phew! Glad we have your expert analysis to rely on.

LOL! Nah, just common sense. If they were a realistic threat, appropriate steps would be taken. Cellphones would be confiscated at security, along with knives and things.

 

[Skyring]

In Aviation a threat is a threat, hence the policy even when the likelihood is small in most cases. Its not so small in aircraft that were made before such devices were invented, and we have quite a few airliners in Australia that fall into the category, one of the reasons why F100 travellers are not permitted mobile use at ANY time for instance. The regional and FIFO fleets are the worst in this case, many of their aircraft are end of production a long time ago:

I'm thinking vintage planes, such as warbirds, would be especially vulnerable. A bit of unplanned interference, a stray signal: anything could happen.

 

[opusman]

If they were a realistic threat, appropriate steps would be taken.

Appropriate steps are taken, it's just that people who think they know better choose to ignore the rules.

 

[Skyring]

Appropriate steps are taken, it's just that people who think they know better choose to ignore the rules.

That's like saying that asking passengers to check in knives and guns is an appropriate security step. As you yourself have indicated, some people don't appreciate the danger, so why do you want them making safety decisions?

 

[markis10]

I'm thinking vintage planes, such as warbirds, would be especially vulnerable. A bit of unplanned interference, a stray signal: anything could happen.

Unlikely, they dont have any electronics in the control systems, so electronics have nothing to interfere with, unlike the 80s made aircraft that do have electronic auopilots/flight directors etc, and 100s of kilometres of wiring that in certain parts can induce EMR. The first fly by wire commercial airliner was the A320.

 

[Skyring]

Unlikely, they dont have any electronics in the control systems, so electronics have nothing to interfere with, unlike the 80s made aircraft that do have electronic auopilots/flight directors etc, and 100s of kilometres of wiring that in certain parts can induce EMR. The first fly by wire commercial airliner was the A320.

Well, I was thinking vintage jets actually, where you've got all sorts of electrically controlled equipment. There's quite a few ex-military aircraft from the Cold War era, sometimes from Eastern Bloc nations, flying around. Don't want your canopy opening in flight, for example.

Your average Spitfire or Mustang is pretty much mechanical, apart from the radio, and you expect a bit of crackle and static.

 

[markis10]

Well, I was thinking vintage jets actually, where you've got all sorts of electrically controlled equipment. There's quite a few ex-military aircraft from the Cold War era, sometimes from Eastern Bloc nations, flying around. Don't want your canopy opening in flight, for example.

Your average Spitfire or Mustang is pretty much mechanical, apart from the radio, and you expect a bit of crackle and static.

I think your mixing up electrics with electronics, given production electronics only came out in the mid 60s your vintage jets would not use them! Electrics are not affected by EMR simply because its a physical switch doing the switching, no electronic switching. Regardless warbirds would not have the wiring an airliner has which is where the issues lie.