Why won't PAX turn off their mobiles when instructed

[Skyring]

I think your mixing up electrics with electronics...

Well, no. I was thinking of some of these "fighter jet" thrill experiences on offer. L-39 Albatross. BAC-167 Strikemaster, A-37 Dragonfly and so on.

 

[gogo419]

Just come off a big SC run on AA around LOTFAP. I noticed that AA crew do not specifically say that you must switch to flight mode before turning off.. It was unbelievable how many people will switch their phone or iPad off. And then turn it back on in the air and not bother about turning on flight mode..

 

[mkentwell]

OK guys, lets get serious here... if our phones could effect navigation and control of the aircraft, don't we all secretly want to sit in 5A, turn on the phone and play the most exciting Flight Sim ever! Come on, look into yourself, you would all be giggling like loons as you got the jet to do a loop-de-loop over Parliament House and then fly low and slow over your own house while waving to your kids/significant other!

 

[straitman]

Well, no. I was thinking of some of these "fighter jet" thrill experiences on offer. L-39 Albatross. BAC-167 Strikemaster, A-37 Dragonfly and so on.

Skyring,

I still believe you are way off target with this. There is more than sufficient evidence that electronics can and do effect aircraft on occasions. As I have said before the risk is low (we all agree) but the potential outcome is totally unacceptable.

As time moves on and we have all new generation (and appropriately shielded) aircraft the issue will go away but for you and I to try and define the lines is never going to work as we don't have all the facts.

An example is the BAC-167 Strikemaster which you quote. The Strikemaster is derived from the 1950s Jet Provost. At what point did it go from no perceivable risk to being a risk. The same example works in reverse. The B767 first came off the production line in 1982 and is still being produced. At what point did the B767 go from being and electronic risk to no longer being a risk?

 

[oz_mark]

I still believe you are way off target with this. There is more than sufficient evidence that electronics can and do effect aircraft on occasions. As I have said before the risk is low (we all agree) but the potential outcome is totally unacceptable.

The bit that I think is missed by a lot of people is that during take-off and landing, a pilot realy does not need to deal with mysterious things happening, or rat-a-dat-dat noises in the headphones that may result in an ATC instruction being missed. At 36,000 feet, there is a bit more scope to deal with things.....

 

[Mrmaxwell]

It really seems to be getting worse lately - or maybe I am just noticing it more. The full Mon/Fri SYD-MEL shuttles on QF is full of suits trying to complete that last email before take off and...well, don't ever complete it so are still typing while hurtling down the runway. Also heard a few people bark at the FAs that there will be no interference etc. Who cares? It's a coughpy rule but needs to be followed.

 

[Skyring]

Skyring, I still believe you are way off target with this. There is more than sufficient evidence that electronics can and do effect aircraft on occasions. As I have said before the risk is low (we all agree) but the potential outcome is totally unacceptable.

There's no dispute about electronic interference. My background there is in military applications when I became interested in the subject of electronic warfare. From the early 70s onwards electronic means were used to interfere with enemy operations. (Earlier yet if you look at WW2 examples such as The Battle of the Beams.) Missiles could be deflected in flight, radar could be made to show spurious targets, communications could be interfered with. It's a fascinating period of military technological development. All sorts of beasts were spawned during that time. Wild weasels and Tempest cages.

I've already mentioned the electronic noise put out by early microcomputers, and I am sure we are all familiar with the distinctive noise of incoming mobile phone calls being picked up on a car radio. So yes, these things do emit electronic noise which can have unwanted or unforeseen effects on other electronic equipment. No debate there.

And yes, nobody knows exactly what interactions are possible as both aircraft and consumer electronics continue to evolve. Or electrics, for that matter - some simple sex toys can put out interference easily detectable on a radio.

What I'm saying is that mobile phone use on modern airliners is obviously not viewed as being a sufficient danger that steps must be taken to prevent this use entirely, such as by screening passengers, or by detecting clandestine use in-flight. Instead we are told to turn off our phones at certain times and most passengers comply.

Though of course we see the odd person who is too important to listen to instructions, or people forgetting or being distracted, or even just having a cellphone in checked baggage, out of reach. Do these exceptions cause airliners to fall out of the sky or perform unplanned aerobatics over Parliament House? Well, I haven't heard of any such cases, and I am sure that if there were a real danger airlines would move from verbal warnings to more direct measures.

NOBODY has all the facts. I certainly don't. Nor do the regulatory agencies, the makers of cellphones, the builders of aircraft, the developers of sextoys - or fitness trackers such as the gadget I'm wearing on my wrist. That's the way things go in an environment of rapid technological development. The introduction of new devices and the possible interactions between these devices is an exciting field of study. Nobody's in charge. Put out a definitive manual and it will be obsolete by the time it is printed.

Anybody who pretends to have the full story is certainly wrong.

But isn't that how life works? We can never know the whole truth about everything. It's like trying to find a definitive translation of Lao Tzu.

 

[Skyring]

The bit that I think is missed by a lot of people is that during take-off and landing, a pilot realy does not need to deal with mysterious things happening, or rat-a-dat-dat noises in the headphones that may result in an ATC instruction being missed. At 36,000 feet, there is a bit more scope to deal with things.....

As an avid reader of jb747's posts, I agree wholeheartedly. Things can happen very quickly indeed at such times, and distractions of any sort are dangerous.

 

[markis10]

Do these exceptions cause airliners to fall out of the sky or perform unplanned aerobatics over Parliament House? Well, I haven't heard of any such cases, and I am sure that if there were a real danger airlines would move from verbal warnings to more direct measures.

As an avid reader of jb747's posts, I agree wholeheartedly.

Perhaps you missed JB747s post on the very subject, rocking side to side on a flare would not have been great :

Like everything in aviation, it's a game of odds. Will they cause a problem on a given flight? Almost certainly not. But they can, and the problem is that it could be almost anything. I've seen a child's toy, which, when turned on, caused the 767 to gently rock from side to side. Only happened within a few feet of a specific seat..

 

[Skyring]

Perhaps you missed JB747s post on the very subject, rocking side to side on a flare would not have been great :

Of course. However, are we searched for cell phones in the same way we are searched for pocket knives?

We are not.

 

[markis10]

Of course. However, are we searched for cell phones in the same way we are searched for pocket knives?

We are not.

We are not searched for large lithium batteries either , security checkpoints are for things that are harmful when used with intent, not for all things that might affect an aircrafts safety, otherwise they would have a RBT there as well for the crew for instance.

 

[opusman]

Of course. However, are we searched for cell phones in the same way we are searched for pocket knives?

We are not.

That's a straw-man argument. Knives are confiscated at the security checkpoint and not returned. Quite obviously it would be impossible for the same approach to be taken with $1000+ mobile phones. Instead the airline has a rule (which some self-important people choose not to follow) that the devices are not to be used during flight. They rely on people following the rules to improve their own safety and that of their fellow passengers. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to comprehend this point. If you don't like the rule, don't fly.

 

[Skyring]

We are not searched for large lithium batteries either , security checkpoints are for things that are harmful when used with intent, not for all things that might affect an aircrafts safety, otherwise they would have a RBT there as well for the crew for instance.

So are you saying that a cell phone may be used with intent to affect safety? That seems a little extreme.

 

[Skyring]

That's a straw-man argument. Knives are confiscated at the security checkpoint and not returned. Quite obviously it would be impossible for the same approach to be taken with $1000+ mobile phones.

No it wouldn't. If cellphone emissions were dangerous to aircraft, passengers would happily surrender them to be placed in a Faraday cage.

If the alternative is dying, people will make any number of sacrifices to comfort and convenience.

 

[opusman]

Sigh. Low risk does not mean no risk. And when I'm flying I'd rather the risk was as low as possible, and not marginally higher just because you or some other self-important twit decides they can't possibly wait 20 minutes to make a phone call.

 

[Skyring]

Sigh. Low risk does not mean no risk. And when I'm flying I'd rather the risk was as low as possible, and not marginally higher just because you or some other self-important twit decides they can't possibly wait 20 minutes to make a phone call.

LOL! I might make five phone calls in a year. None of them from aircraft. I religiously comply with all safety instructions, especially those to do with electronic devices. The first thing I do in my seat is reach for the safety card and read it, even if its the same seat in the same plane I had on my previous flight. You may call me obsessive.

I'm saying that airlines, airports, civil safety authorities around the world don't view the combination of cellphones and modern airliners as dangerous enough to take effective steps to absolutely prevent their use.

Any traveller can work this out for themselves.

 

[codash1099]

Just come off a big SC run on AA around LOTFAP. I noticed that AA crew do not specifically say that you must switch to flight mode before turning off.. It was unbelievable how many people will switch their phone or iPad off. And then turn it back on in the air and not bother about turning on flight mode..

Also plenty of DYKWIA's who seem to think that it applies to everyone but them.

 

[simongr]

Please people stop...

 

[serfty]

The OP's question has basically been answered - this thread my have run its course.

Closing for review.