Electronic devices in planes: 3 questions.

[Simpo Two]

Well this brings me on to the flip side of the debate. IF you believe that mobiles can cause problems of a significant issue with the avionics, THEN you must ban all mobiles from being carried on board (just like knives, guns and bombs). That is because you cannot be 100% sure that one is not switched on, and you cannot be 100% sure that it might not interfere to a significant extent with the avionics. As you say, why take the risk?

However, BECAUSE in real life airlines DO allow mobile phones on board (300+ them probably), and simply trust not-awfully-reliable Joe Public to turn every single one of them off and keep them off, then the airlines - who don't want an accident any more than you or I - are ACTUALLY saying 'well it's OK really'. BECAUSE if there was a real risk of anything REALLY happening, they wouldn't let them on board at all.

I'm neither pro nor anti, it's just that argument, when examined, doesn't hold up. That's all

[IforB]

Simpo Two said:

Well this brings me on to the flip side of the debate. IF you believe that mobiles can cause problems of a significant issue with the avionics, THEN you must ban all mobiles from being carried on board (just like knives, guns and bombs). That is because you cannot be 100% sure that one is not switched on, and you cannot be 100% sure that it might not interfere to a significant extent with the avionics. As you say, why take the risk?

However, BECAUSE in real life airlines DO allow mobile phones on board (300+ them probably), and simply trust not-awfully-reliable Joe Public to turn every single one of them off and keep them off, then the airlines - who don't want an accident any more than you or I - are ACTUALLY saying 'well it's OK really'. BECAUSE if there was a real risk of anything REALLY happening, they wouldn't let them on board at all.

I'm neither pro nor anti, it's just that argument, when examined, doesn't hold up. That's all

Christ. Do you actually read anyone else's posts before you start mashing blindly at the key board?

I remember when I was flying freight as a sprog pilot we'd be on approach and I or the skipper would be on the phone ringing the local Chinese to get a delivery sorted so that we could get something to eat between flights.

I remember once (on a clear night on a visual approach) watching the ILS glideslope and localiser needles twitching in time with the "dit diddle dit diddle dit."
As I was flying something the same age as myself and designed long before mobiles were invented, I put it down to the decript nature of the aircraft.

Now in my job many years later, we saw a problem with phones. That problem doesn't exist if people turn their phones off and the vast majority of people do comply and so we don't have issues very often. Refusing to carry mobiles on board is a non-starter and you well know that. For a start, we always have phones on board with the crew anyway as it's a reliable method of communication so it'd be a bit rich rich to allow themm on board for crew but not pax.
We just have to be careful with them, that's all.

Personally though, I couldn't give a monkey's about your opinion. I get paid to make the procedures that you as passengers have to follow. These procedures are there for one reason, to keep you as alive at the end of the flight as you were at the beginning.
If you don't comply, you get booted off and banned from flying with us. If you're a real knob, we'll have you arrested for endangering an aircraft, which is a properly serious offence with a big minimium sentence. So if you don't agree with me, I couldn't care less since you have no choice really.

I've got all the data to back it up in the office, but if you think I can be bothered to reproduce it here for your benefit, you've another thing coming.

[eharding]

Simpo Two said:

Well this brings me on to the flip side of the debate. IF you believe that mobiles can cause problems of a significant issue with the avionics, THEN you must ban all mobiles from being carried on board (just like knives, guns and bombs). That is because you cannot be 100% sure that one is not switched on, and you cannot be 100% sure that it might not interfere to a significant extent with the avionics. As you say, why take the risk?

However, BECAUSE in real life airlines DO allow mobile phones on board (300+ them probably), and simply trust not-awfully-reliable Joe Public to turn every single one of them off and keep them off, then the airlines - who don't want an accident any more than you or I - are ACTUALLY saying 'well it's OK really'. BECAUSE if there was a real risk of anything REALLY happening, they wouldn't let them on board at all.

I'm neither pro nor anti, it's just that argument, when examined, doesn't hold up. That's all

Don't be obtuse, FFS.

Like so many things, airline safety is about managing risk whilst still maintaining a capacity to operate. Unchecked use of RF emitting equipment in the passenger cabin of a commercial airliner is asking for trouble, which is why folk are required to turn them off when asked to. What is so difficult about that concept to grasp?

[Simpo Two]

You are the ones who have been constantly saying 'Why take the risk? Why take the risk?'

I'm saying it too.

[IforB]

Yes, but I'm saying it with knowledge and data to back it up. You're just arguing for the sake of it.

[Ian974]

I wouldn't think that losing screens would be that suprising really when you consider how much it can distort reasonably simple electronics - speakers etc.
Even if as someone said it's belt and braces for takeoff and landing, that's fine by me.

[dnb]

It's a good job that the outside of planes are well shielded when they fly next to these things when taking off and landing...

http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte219.en....

And I wouldn't want to go within 100 miles of one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1

(all tongue-in-cheek before anyone climbs on their high horse )

[tank slapper]

IforB said:

Yes, but I'm saying it with knowledge and data to back it up. You're just arguing for the sake of it.

Regardless of the reason for him arguing it, he asks a valid question. If the risk is real, why are phones allowed on flights at all since you have already said that passengers can't be trusted to know how their gadgets work?

As you are a communications bod at an airline with responsibility in this area, presumably this is something you have had to objectively assess, and have data about? How many dumb passengers with active phones are allowed on a flight before the risk increases above acceptable levels? Since the passengers can't be trusted to make sure all their devices are off, there must be an assumption that at least some will be active on every flight.

I can understand how breakthrough on AM radio might occur it can be susceptible to interference, but it amuses me that apparently flight critical instruments are so poorly shielded and filtered that they can be compromised to the extent that they cease to function due to the relatively low level emissions from a phone (33 dBm, or about 2 Watts RF maximum). I strongly suspect that there are very few circumstances where a mobile phone could disrupt the aircraft systems to this extent or they simply wouldn't be allowed at all.

[IforB]

Bedazzled said:

Screens failing due to mobile interference from the cabin? Or just spreading a few urban myths to make your job easier? Go on, post the data up.

It doesn't make a single jot of difference to my job one way or the other! Really. Our procedures were written ages ago and apart from the occasional bit of updating the cabin crew speil, then it doesn't even cross my mind on a day to day basis. I spend my time worrying about how aircraft and crews communicate with the ground and how we then use that data.

Passenger mobile or mobile device use, is frankly something I don't give a monkey's about on a day to day basis. The only people who have to worry about the policies are the cabin crew who have to deal with pricks who think they know better than we do. The cc aren't allowed any discretion and nor are they going to get into a debate about it, but they get constant abuse from passengers about it.
We had one hostie reduced to tears by the tirade of abuse she got from one passenger. Though we got our own back when the aircraft returned to stand and the gentleman was escorted off and met by two chaps with uniforms on and MP5 sub-machine guns over their shoulders.

If I can make their life easier, then I will, but scare mongering is not something we do in aviation. If you cry wolf, then people disregard your warnings or rules in the future. So we like to be sure of ourselves.

[eharding]

tank slapper said:

I strongly suspect that there are very few circumstances where a mobile phone could disrupt the aircraft systems to this extent or they simply wouldn't be allowed at all.

Try to understand before one of us dies, and frankly Baldrick, my money is on the one of us which dies being you.

There are all manner of things which might result in that flimsy, pressurised aluminium tube carrying you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know, slamming into the ground at 500mph in close proximity to tons of jet fuel, thereby reducing you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know into charcoal mince.

Most of these things you have absolutely no control over whatsoever. One of the few things you can do to help is to turn off your gadgets when you're asked to. On its own, your crappy little gadget is highly unlikely to bring on the charcoal mince effect. With a few hundred other feckwits all ignoring the advice, the chances increase. Add that to the horrible, preventable, chain of events which are the invariable content of aviation accident reports - it wasn't just the interference from your crappy little gadget that killed everyone, it just helped things along - but the net effect is still the same.

[IforB]

tank slapper said:

Regardless of the reason for him arguing it, he asks a valid question. If the risk is real, why are phones allowed on flights at all since you have already said that passengers can't be trusted to know how their gadgets work?

As you are a communications bod at an airline with responsibility in this area, presumably this is something you have had to objectively assess, and have data about? How many dumb passengers with active phones are allowed on a flight before the risk increases above acceptable levels? Since the passengers can't be trusted to make sure all their devices are off, there must be an assumption that at least some will be active on every flight.

I can understand how breakthrough on AM radio might occur it can be susceptible to interference, but it amuses me that apparently flight critical instruments are so poorly shielded and filtered that they can be compromised to the extent that they cease to function due to the relatively low level emissions from a phone (33 dBm, or about 2 Watts RF maximum). I strongly suspect that there are very few circumstances where a mobile phone could disrupt the aircraft systems to this extent or they simply wouldn't be allowed at all.

Most people know how to switch their phones off and on. Ask them to go deeper and you'll soon find out the limitations of people's knowledge.

Mobile phone signals CAN be an issue, however the risk is very minimal really. We did a fairly extreme set of tests and got a result that we weren't expecting. I'm not going to go into great depth at 1am on a Monday morning about a very long and involved testing process. For a start, it's as dull as hell.

The reason we were doing it is because we were investigating whether to put a pico cell on board to allow the use of mobile phones in flight. Fortunately the idea was canned, but that was mainly after customer feedback told us passengers hated the idea of other people braying on their phones in the cabin, rather than for technical reasons.

There are very few circumstances where an aircraft could be brought down by a phone, for a start, in this case, the screen collapse was temporary and there are standby instruments that weren't affected, but the fact it happened even once was alarming not just to us, but also the aircraft and avionics manufacturers.

Don't imagine that we got this result and then just went "oh that's nice" and left it at that.

There was a reason eventually discovered that put the risk of this occuring again at a very low possibility, but I'm stuffed if I can remember exactly what that was as we weren't involved then as it involved the pico cell technology in conjunction with the mobiles on board and we dumped the idea, so it got punted to the manufacturer to deal with.

It certainly caused a few sleepless nights though.

2 Watts might sound small, but it's not an insignificant output. Though that's obviously the limit for class 1 mobiles, others are generally lower.

Aircraft are shielded pretty heavily. After all, we've some pretty hefty transmitters on board anyway, howeverm these are tested to within an inch of their lives to make sure it all plays together nicely and they are very high quality transmissions too which helps somewhat.

However, do remember that everything you are flying on now was generally designed at least 15-20 years ago and so the march of consumer technology has somewhat over taken the aircraft.

As I've already said, we don't really have a hard and fast risk level, we just design procedures to minimise the risk as much as we can, which is where we come back to the "please switch it all off" way of doing things.

Most people are happy to have some peace and quiet on board to be honest. I know I am.

[tank slapper]

eharding said:

Try to understand before one of us dies, and frankly Baldrick, my money is on the one of us which dies being you.

There are all manner of things which might result in that flimsy, pressurised aluminium tube carrying you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know, slamming into the ground at 500mph in close proximity to tons of jet fuel, thereby reducing you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know into charcoal mince.

Most of these things you have absolutely no control over whatsoever. One of the few things you can do to help is to turn off your gadgets when you're asked to. On its own, your crappy little gadget is highly unlikely to bring on the charcoal mince effect. With a few hundred other feckwits all ignoring the advice, the chances increase. Add that to the horrible, preventable, chain of events which are the invariable content of aviation accident reports - it wasn't just the interference from your crappy little gadget that killed everyone, it just helped things along - but the net effect is still the same.

Cut the emotional crap. I was asking a question from an engineering point of view. Why are you being so defensive?

Since all airline passengers are obviously "feckwits" there are going to be at least one, and probably several devices active on any given flight. Given how tightly regulated aircraft safety is, chances are that there has been work done to quantify this risk. So, considering the huge number of flights that occur daily, this must be a huge issue, with flight suffering problems all the time, no? Or is it perhaps that there is a theoretical risk that is being ever so slightly over-stated? Because, if it really were the case that aircraft were in real danger from this then again the question arises of why people are allowed any type of device aboard.

[eharding]

tank slapper said:

eharding said:

Try to understand before one of us dies, and frankly Baldrick, my money is on the one of us which dies being you.

There are all manner of things which might result in that flimsy, pressurised aluminium tube carrying you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know, slamming into the ground at 500mph in close proximity to tons of jet fuel, thereby reducing you, your nearest and dearest, and several hundred people you don't know into charcoal mince.

Most of these things you have absolutely no control over whatsoever. One of the few things you can do to help is to turn off your gadgets when you're asked to. On its own, your crappy little gadget is highly unlikely to bring on the charcoal mince effect. With a few hundred other feckwits all ignoring the advice, the chances increase. Add that to the horrible, preventable, chain of events which are the invariable content of aviation accident reports - it wasn't just the interference from your crappy little gadget that killed everyone, it just helped things along - but the net effect is still the same.

Cut the emotional crap. I was asking a question from an engineering point of view. Why are you being so defensive?

Since all airline passengers are obviously "feckwits" there are going to be at least one, and probably several devices active on any given flight. Given how tightly regulated aircraft safety is, chances are that there has been work done to quantify this risk. So, considering the huge number of flights that occur daily, this must be a huge issue, with flight suffering problems all the time, no? Or is it perhaps that there is a theoretical risk that is being ever so slightly over-stated? Because, if it really were the case that aircraft were in real danger from this then again the question arises of why people are allowed any type of device aboard.

If you were any sort of competent engineer, then you would appreciate the problem, the probabilities involved, and the resulting policies.

There will indeed be a few feckwits, the task being to keep those to a minimum. Hence the policies that are put in place, and the penalties imposed for flagrant transgressions.

[tank slapper]

IforB said:

Stuff...

Thanks - I wasn't actually objecting to the policy, merely curious about how the process of risk assessment was undertaken in that regard. It is something that there appear to be many anecdotes from people swearing that something like a bloke listening to a CD player caused navigation systems to be degraded, but not much in the way of hard evidence of. Of course assessing risk is always problematic in complex systems, and is a balancing act where it comes to events that are highly unlikely but with potentially serious consequences. I just find it a bit odd that there still seems to be so much uncertainty in this area given that mobile phones can't really be considered a new technology any more.

[King Herald]

tank slapper said:

Regardless of the reason for him arguing it, he asks a valid question. If the risk is real, why are phones allowed on flights at all since you have already said that passengers can't be trusted to know how their gadgets work?

I assume there is such a remote possibility that something bad could happen that 'they' unilaterally agreed to let phones on-board, as long as they are all turned off when required.

Knives are banned, but several airlines still hand out stainless cutlery at mealtimes. I could slip one into the bathroom and sharpen it to a razor edge with a few minutes and a small whetstone.

A quick guy could take out several people/crew with deft blows from an old heavyweight lap top, yet we can still carry them on-board.

I carefully presented this to a security guy in Scotland when he complained about a bag of stainless steel bolts I was carrying in my hand luggage. He was a reasonable chappy, quite large and in shape, so I carefully ventured the question as to what he would prefer as a weapon: a bag of 4" bolts, or a lap top. He agreed, the lap top would/could do far more damage in a terrorist/hijack/fruitcake situation.

It is all about risk management and evaluating risk potential. If they banned everything that could possibly bring down a plane, no people would be allowed on board.

[tank slapper]

eharding said:

If you were any sort of competent engineer, then you would appreciate the problem, the probabilities involved, and the resulting policies.

I do appreciate the problem, however there is an awful lot of nonsense about this (not talking about here necessarily) that seems to be uninformed scaremongering. I know how seriously the aviation industry takes safety, which is why I was asking about what had been done to quantify the risk - it would be highly unusual in any form of engineering for a risk to be identified and then not objectively tested in order to mitigate it.

[IforB]

tank slapper said:

Cut the emotional crap. I was asking a question from an engineering point of view. Why are you being so defensive?

Since all airline passengers are obviously "feckwits" there are going to be at least one, and probably several devices active on any given flight. Given how tightly regulated aircraft safety is, chances are that there has been work done to quantify this risk. So, considering the huge number of flights that occur daily, this must be a huge issue, with flight suffering problems all the time, no? Or is it perhaps that there is a theoretical risk that is being ever so slightly over-stated? Because, if it really were the case that aircraft were in real danger from this then again the question arises of why people are allowed any type of device aboard.

Not all pax are feckwits. Though when it comes to air travel. I swear even intelligent people seem to leave at least 50 I.Q points at home. If you saw it every day, you'd be amazed at how stupid people can be. It's usually a combination of nervousness and unfamiliarity not to mention a lot of people are emotionally charged when flying due to the reasons they're getting on board in the first place. Which is why we keep things as simple as possible.

This isn't about running numbers and stating that the risk of a hull loss is 1 in 100,000 flights or 1 in 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a death. YOu just can't make those calls easily and anyway, we desperately try not to ever have numbers like that since there is no such level that is really deemed to be an "acceptable" risk. Flying is a risky business of course, but the risk is managed by looking at what we do and always striving to stop doing the silly things.

Ed is spot on when he says it's not the phone in itself we're really concerned with, it incredibly rare that an aircraft accident has a single cause, there's invariably a chain of things that occurs before the poop hits the fan. A mobile phone doing something daft might just be the thing that helps the holes in the cheese line up so you can see through it.

We are in the game of risk mitigation and management, not risk removal. After all, the only way to not have aircraft crashes is to not fly and that suits no-one.

I'm sure my colleagues in the flight safety department could dig up some stats on mobile use and incidents, what we know is that they have been proven to occasionally be a problem. Not just anecdotally, but actually and that's why we have the procedures to try to mitigate the risk from them. As we have to be pragmatic and allow the things on board, then that's all we can do. Banning them being carried is simply not an option as there's simply no justification so far for doing so and our customers (i.e you) won't accept it. Would you fly with us if we banned you from taking a phone either as hand luggage or in the hold? I bet you wouldn't, so we just have to do what the passengers demand until we get a damned good reason to ban them.

However, if a serious incident happens because of them, then that will of course be reviewed and mobiles may end up getting banned, but so far, the "please turn them off" system seems to be working even though we know that mobiles can be an issue.

We prefer being proactive, but in this case, we've done as much as we can. We've tested, found an unexpected problem and so carried on with our policy of having the things off. So far so good, but there are numerous factors that mean we have to take the option of not going as far as we could in reducing the risk.

Edited by IforB on Monday 12th March 01:52

[mrmr96]

HoHoHo said:

essayer said:

I was sat on a plane before doors closed a few years ago and a tech got on, went straight to an overhead locker, pulled out a jacket and asked "whose is this jacket?"

The jacket's owner made himself known, the tech asked him if he had a phone in it, which he did, and was told to turn it off.

Tech then left plane, doors closed and we departed. This was a A320 or similar at Heathrow. Still no idea what went on there.

Sorry, sounds like complete bks to me, show me the gadget that finds a switched on phone and I'll show you a very rich man.

Like this you mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlo3lDqU34&fea...

[HoHoHo]

mrmr96 said:

HoHoHo said:

essayer said:

I was sat on a plane before doors closed a few years ago and a tech got on, went straight to an overhead locker, pulled out a jacket and asked "whose is this jacket?"

The jacket's owner made himself known, the tech asked him if he had a phone in it, which he did, and was told to turn it off.

Tech then left plane, doors closed and we departed. This was a A320 or similar at Heathrow. Still no idea what went on there.

Sorry, sounds like complete bks to me, show me the gadget that finds a switched on phone and I'll show you a very rich man.

Like this you mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlo3lDqU34&fea...

Looks very clever and clearly he's a very rich man

[anonymous-user]

HoHoHo said:

mrmr96 said:

HoHoHo said:

essayer said:

I was sat on a plane before doors closed a few years ago and a tech got on, went straight to an overhead locker, pulled out a jacket and asked "whose is this jacket?"

The jacket's owner made himself known, the tech asked him if he had a phone in it, which he did, and was told to turn it off.

Tech then left plane, doors closed and we departed. This was a A320 or similar at Heathrow. Still no idea what went on there.

Sorry, sounds like complete bks to me, show me the gadget that finds a switched on phone and I'll show you a very rich man.

Like this you mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlo3lDqU34&fea...

Looks very clever and clearly he's a very rich man

So it's not complete bks then?