Why won't PAX turn off their mobiles when instructed

[Boris spatsky]

Maybe you should reword that to say 'We know it doesn't affect the systems on some planes'

Read the Ask the pilot thread. jb747 has had electronic interference cause him problems. I have had electronic interference cause navigation aid interference.

Now these were older aircraft and it may not be an issue on the newer aircraft but the problem is still with what might happen and then with what the consequences might be.

Likewise, i have had spurious ECAM indications, smoke detectors going off in the cargo hold whilst hearing the 'drr d drr d drr' of the phone through the headset (which is annoying enough as is) and other navaid issues. It might not crash a plane outright, but it just adds one more contributing factor.

 

[spentan]

Hi Spentan,
Whilst I'm not getting into the debate about whether these devices do affect aircraft systems...your comment re Wifi and Bluetooth on A380 and B747 got me curious. Excluding the various trials, my understanding from the Qantas website currently ( Inflight Communications | Qantas ), and my 2 A380 flights last week (where the usual flight mode then off announcements were made), was that it is still Qantas policy to have all transmitting devices, like mobiles, to be in flight mode before switching off at takeoff for all their aircraft. When switched on after takeoff all the transmitting components of the phone are not powered so are disabled (2g/3g/Wifi/Bluetooth). I'm not having a go at you, but more curious if I understand you are saying Qantas DOES allow Wifi/Bluetooth to be activated? I also agree with you 100%...reading a kindle/tablet (within flight mode) at take off and landing should be allowed. I guess there would be too many people who don't follow that instruction and don't activate flight mode etc...so we all get tarnished with the same brush?

Ash

Quoting directly from your link ( Inflight Communications | Qantas )

Portable electronic equipment such as laptop computers (including WiFi and Bluetooth enabled devices), PDAs (without mobile phones), personal music (for example, iPods) iPads, Ebooks and electronic game devices may be used when the aircraft seat belt sign is extinguished after take-off and can now be used until we prepare the cabin for landing.

I personally interpret this to say that my Bluetooth enabled headphones connected to my WiFi iPad can be used mid-flight, just not during take-off and landing. It is also the reason why you can switch Bluetooth and Wi-Fi (independently) on while Flight Mode is active.

Bluetooth is specifically banned by some carriers and on the majority of QF aircraft it is allowed. It wasn't allowed on a 738 trans tasman but it is allowed on a 738 domestic.

Yeah, its weird how it works. There doesn't seem to be any kind of law, its more of a case of Airline Policy.

 

[Thai-Kiwi]

Similar discussion on the NZ thread of FT. My thoughts/opinion follow.

Thai-Kiwi[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]The most common flouting of the requirement to 'comply with crew instructions', which is indeed a more serious offence under NZ law than jaywalking, is the very common practise of switching off the screen on the mobile phone or tablet rather than selecting flight mode and turning the thing off.

Without a 100% check by crew this is very hard to police and so requires passengers to cooperate for the requirement to be met.

I'm with Markhm, in that there is a requirement under law to comply. If I am unhappy with the law, then there are proper process to the matter looked into and changed if deemed appropriate.

As a professional pilot and qualified air safety investigator, the requirements for mobile devices to be turned off are probably less about inference with systems (although this remains contentious), and more about passengers not being distracted in the event of an emergency - and I for one do not want my egress impeded by some person who is busy texting or taking video as the events unfold.

This actually happened to me as I was departing CHC terminal during the Feb 11 earthquake , where two idiots had stopped to record the damage to the Duty Free stock partially blocking the emergency egress that was underway.

Indeed, for those who may have wondered, the reason why mobile phones must remain off when disembarking ATR and similar services and walking via the apron to the terminal is to prevent distracted passengers straying in hazards.

I, for one, will continue to politely remind those around me to 'turn off' without compunction; my own life may depend on it one day.....
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

kiwibigdave[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Quote:

[TD="class: alt2, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Originally Posted by scruggs Clowns using cellphones can cause loud interference with the coughpit radios.
[/TD]

Personally I don't believe this, because a. if were true then surely it would be a genuine safety hazard, and more would be done by the airlines to enforce. And b. Thai-Kiwiprobably would have mentioned it. Furthermore, some airlines / airports allow mobile phone use after touch-down and I can only assume that coughpit radios are pretty darn important on the tarmac.

Of course at other times / places mobile phone use is "not permitted until well inside the terminal building".

And thus the challenge; a rule that most people don't understand the rationale behind, and that can be frequently flouted without consequence, is a rule not worth having ...
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Thai-Kiwi[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Cellphones produce electric-magnetic noise which can produce interference with radio-navigational equipment. This can be protected against in part by shielding, moving the phone further away, or having it switched off.

Anyone doubting this just needs to place their phone near the car radio (usually AM band produces the best effect) and drive from, say Canberra to Melbourne (asI had cause to often) and then listen to the 'tickety-tick-tick-tickety-tick' as the phone syncs with the nearest cell tower.

Or even better, get from Taiwan (or wherever) an LED sticker for the back of your phone that lights up when calling/texting using solely the electrical energy emitted. Admittedly, phone emissions have reduced markedly since I saw this device about 10 years ago.

There used to be an issue with airborne cell phones confusing the cell towers as I understand the switching softeware was based on land based 'rate of change', as well as the problem of simple overload. There is also a limit to the number of connections that the system can cope with, which although it has almost certainly increased in recent years. I have experienced cell phone overload at concerts, tsunamis, and coups in Thailand. And in the immediate aftermath of the CHC quake (I was in the CHC KC at 12:51...). Once clear of the terminal, I managed to send and receive around a handful of texts before we all swamped the system. Yep I guess I too contributed to the overload in those first 15 minutes...

Overall, it is clear that many of the issues with cell use in flight have diminished or have been eliminated. Using a phone on the A320 is allowed, but it is likely that most here will not have seen the source-victim testing requirements and results (I can report that on another type that I have been involved with, that the process is exhaustive from an engineering and operations perspective ). Doesn't matter though, because as self loading freight we already place total reliance the groundrew and aircrew training and procedures to ensure that we safely get back on the ground, and ideally to where we are going.

kjnangre. The bit about phones needing to be off whilst walking from aircraft across the apron is not my 'rule'! I just wished to pass on the reason as advised to me by Air NZ and others. That said, even walking around most large cities I have been more at risk from colliding with walking txters Operating in a 30cm bubble of awareness, than with drunks, crossword addicts or the just plain tired.

kiwibigdave makes a key point in regard of compliance - and that really is the nub of the issue. Getting people to stick to the rules, where the social norm is out of step, is an issue. If indeed authorities are convinced that the safety of the civil aviation transport will not be affected, then I will patiently await the necessary changes to be implemented.

However, the attitude that some folk take whereby they ignore the 'rules' (CAA requirement) and can do as they wish becomes an issue when their actions (or inactions) could potentially affect other travellers. They are welcome to fly by themselves and do as they wish, providing it is outside of the systems designed to protect the majority of travellers.

Right enough from me. I'll step back and continue to comply...

Cheers, TK

Disclosure. I have, like many, inadvertently left my phone switched on during a flight. I'm still around, but I felt bad about it.


[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[samh004]

I've only been on one flight lately where I've encountered a mobile phone that's caused trouble in the coughpit, and it wasn't mine as I had turned mine off. It was explained that the 2G signal (dunno if just on an older phone or on a new phone in 2G mode because 3G or LTE wasn't available) was interfering with the radio signals between the coughpit and ground, causing some feedback. This was a Dash-8 though

Never heard any other issues on all my other flights, and I predominantly fly Dash-8's.

 

[JohnK]

Even though I have heard the safety announcements 100s of times, I will still always stop reading and look up at the crew member and pay some sort of attention

I have also heard the announcements countless times but unfortunately I forget them by the time I am off the aircraft so the announcements are important to me and I pay full attention. I hate it when people around me are having a full on conversation oblivious to what is going on around them.

As for allowing mobile phones to be used in flight, I should not have to be the one to have noise cancelling headphones so that I do not listen to the mobile phones conversations. It is actually quite simple. I do not want to listen to anyones mobile phone conversation in flight. It is bad enough having to put up with it everywhere else.

 

[opusman]

Bloke in front of me in 1E MEL-SYD the other day spent the last half of the flight trying to get a signal on his iPhone so he could send a text!

 

[Boris spatsky]

Bloke in front of me in 1E MEL-SYD the other day spent the last half of the flight trying to get a signal on his iPhone so he could send a text!

Wish they would charge him - it's against the law.

 

[opusman]

I had an even better one tonight coming back from BNE. DYKWHI in 3A (he was in a sharp suit and SG so obviously pretty important you know) pulled out his iPhone (which had obviously never been set to flight mode let alone turned off) the minute the hosties sat down for landing, and spent the whole landing sending texts, checking his email and making a call to his voicemail.

 

[mkentwell]

What an cough! That is just taking the urine! He is why the rest of us can't officially listen to music, watch videos and read eBooks!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

if he was in 3A then he's not impeding anyone's exit to the aisle in an emergency. so probably no harm done safety wise.

i think people should stress less and not worry.

 

[tuapekastar]

if he was in 3A then he's not impeding anyone's exit to the aisle in an emergency. so probably no harm done safety wise.

i think people should stress less and not worry.

Nah. Complete c0ckhead!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Nah. Complete c0ckhead!

hmmm... guess I don't get the whole 'I need to control other people' thing

just got off a flight now, not full, the guy in 2D reclined before take off, so I moved from 3D to 3C. problem solved

 

[opusman]

It's not about controlling other people, it's about other people thinking they are above the rules that everyone is supposed to follow.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's not about controlling other people, it's about other people thinking they are above the rules that everyone is supposed to follow.

and this I don't understand... unless they are preventing YOU from reaching an exit, or unless they are somehow else preventing your quick exit or ability to adopt the brace position etc... why does it matter if some people think they are above the rules? what does it matter to you? why do you get frustrated at that? instead if just relaxing and not caring?

the guy I referenced above... affecting no one (after I moved)... why should I have cared?

 

[opusman]

why does it matter if some people think they are above the rules? what does it matter to you? why do you get frustrated at that?

I care because his actions potentially put my safety at risk. Mobile devices with transmitters have been deemed a risk to flight safety. Whether you personally agree with that or not is irrelevant.

Which other safety rules do you think it's ok for passengers to ignore? Would you mind if I took a gun onboard a flight you were on? I have no intention of using it so my actions aren't putting you at risk, are they? Chill, bro, I'm not going to set this bomb off, honest.

 

[serfty]

if he was in 3A then he's not impeding anyone's exit to the aisle in an emergency. so probably no harm done safety wise.

i think people should stress less and not worry.

Has your attitude changed in the last 30 days?

From April 1:

...

And even if the airline could call on any legal authority to enforce an action, it would only be for disobeying official crew instruction (which in many jurisdictions is probably not a legal offence; only something which breaches an airline's contract of carriage), of which it would be difficult and lengthy to instigate an offload of said passenger, and the likely legal penalties faced by any such passenger would be near negligible (e.g. a warning, proverbial slap-on-wrist, and off you go - no jail, no blacklisting, etc.). In other words, there's no effective deterrent or encouragement for people to do the right thing, apart from the sake of courtesy and co-operation, so naturally some will put ahead their email / important business call / last round of Angry Birds over any such directive to comply.

That's the long and short of the arguments.

Personally I think people should just follow the crew instructions because it's the right thing to do.

good overall summary and balanced on the competing views.

except for the part about whether or not it is an offence. It is an offence to disobey lawful crew instructions. 'Lawful' is most likely to occur when you are being issued a direction with regards to safety. As the current aviation thinking (rightly or wrongly) is that mobiles could be dangerous/cause interference, then an instruction not to use them would be lawful. It's not just a CoC violation - it's a violation of federal law.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Has your attitude changed in the last 30 days?

From April 1:

not at all.

there is a difference between establishing the legal position - and who can enforce it - vis-vis whether or not I personally care.

only if there was a situation that directly impacted on my safety would I be inclined to alert the crew (or if this is not possible I will say something myself). the only major time I have said anything was to point out a man sleeping (heavily snoring) at an exit during taxi. he was the only pax at an overwing exit and the crew moved him. (the exit was my closest exit)

 

[samh004]

All the iPad's on those 767's aren't turned off, ever. They're in flight mode sure, but they're running full time, and might I add, with wifi on, despite Q Streaming not active till the crew turns it on after take-off (and off before landing), the devices are all searching for a network.

Sending texts, making calls and actual internet usage aside, if 250 iPad's can all be in flight mode and not OFF, why do personal devices need to be turned off? I get the argument that you shouldn't use them (eg. to play music) as it could be distracting, but unless I'm mistaken, you can use the supplied headphones to listen to an audio channel anyway.

So the main question is why do we need to turn devices completely off (assuming in flight mode already) when there's 250 iPad's spread throughout the plane that are not? I don't think we do, but it's a slippery slope from there of course.

Probably further helps that the 767's are old, and older planes are more susceptible to interference as they weren't designed or built with the kind of interference we encounter today, in mind. So if a 767 has no worries, most of the rest of the fleet should be fine. Of course, that's a side topic.

 

[NM]

not at all.

there is a difference between establishing the legal position - and who can enforce it - vis-vis whether or not I personally care.

only if there was a situation that directly impacted on my safety would I be inclined to alert the crew (or if this is not possible I will say something myself). the only major time I have said anything was to point out a man sleeping (heavily snoring) at an exit during taxi. he was the only pax at an overwing exit and the crew moved him. (the exit was my closest exit)

So you are implying that you are qualified to make the determination that the use of a mobile phone during flight does not directly impact on your safety? I assume this qualification includes detailed studies of the effects of radio frequency intermodulation, particularly in the odd numbered orders (even orders unlikely to impact due to the frequencies involved with mobile phone transmitters).

My experience and knowledge of RF intermodulations tells me that there will always be intermodulation when multiple transmission sources are present. Without a thorough analysis of the frequencies involved, the frequencies at which the intermodulation will occur (and the third order intermodulation will be most significant to consider). And the more frequencies involved, the more complex the analysis needs to be. And every change in transmission frequency will result in different intermodulation results. So I fail to see how the in-flight user of a mobile phone can know that his phone is not going to cause intermodulation interference with the radio signals needed for the safe operation of the aircraft.

I suggest that anyone who says "I have used my phone before and it didn't cause any problems", or "Mythbusters proved its safe to use my phone on an aircraft" clearly have no understanding of RF intermodulation and its possible impacts. While it may not cause any issues 99.99% of the time (or whatever number of 9's you want to use), I don't want to play the odds when it comes to allowing someone else not abiding by the rules. There are way too many variables involved to make a categorical conclusion that there will not be any impact.

In my opinion, someone using a mobile phone in flight IS compromising my safety. While the risk is low, the impact of that small probability of the swiss cheese holes aligning may be very significant. So its not a risk I want to accept, and I should not be forced to accept it by someone who believes their need to communicate with others outside the aircraft is more important than the safety of all onboard.

And yes, I am aware and concerned that almost every flight operates with mobiles phones left turned on (accidentally or on purpose). But why increase the risk by knowingly breaking the rules and increasing the radio transmission outputs from the device above the "passive state" when the idle device is left turned on but not sending texts, emails or making calls (and still transmitting occasionally of course).

And I regularly recall the in-flight incident reported by JB747 where a child's game in use in the aircraft cabin directly resulted in a Boeing 767 making uncommanded flight control changes. That tells me there is a risk.

 

[Boris spatsky]

All the iPad's on those 767's aren't turned off, ever. They're in flight mode sure, but they're running full time, and might I add, with wifi on, despite Q Streaming not active till the crew turns it on after take-off (and off before landing), the devices are all searching for a network.

Sending texts, making calls and actual internet usage aside, if 250 iPad's can all be in flight mode and not OFF, why do personal devices need to be turned off? I get the argument that you shouldn't use them (eg. to play music) as it could be distracting, but unless I'm mistaken, you can use the supplied headphones to listen to an audio channel anyway.

So the main question is why do we need to turn devices completely off (assuming in flight mode already) when there's 250 iPad's spread throughout the plane that are not? I don't think we do, but it's a slippery slope from there of course.

Probably further helps that the 767's are old, and older planes are more susceptible to interference as they weren't designed or built with the kind of interference we encounter today, in mind. So if a 767 has no worries, most of the rest of the fleet should be fine. Of course, that's a side topic.

Sam - because QF have probably done EMI testing on their 767s with those exact iPads and software. They haven't done it on your specific (insert electronic device here). Been through this argument plenty of times before - end of story.