New FAA Ruling ?

[Mike M]

Bill, these are professionals reporting their experiences. It is clear that your mind is closed on this subject, which is unfortunate. My mind is definitely open to the idea that PEDs don't bother airplane equipment, but I am also not going to discount the occasional report that may point otherwise.

COS, Nov 1992, snowstorm but above precision approach minimums. Me as PF using ILS. After passing outer marker the LOC and GS needles started going awry. Slow, erratic meandering is my best description. Not like my normal foul-ups. Went around. Tried again, FO flying, me NF. All well until nearly to MM, then happened again. Went around again, and as we did I noticed pax behind FO was using cellphone. Told him to turn it off and keep it off. Next try, me PF, LOC and GS worked correctly all the way. I reported it to mgmt, as per company rules; don't know if it was ever reported to FAA or FCC.

Granted, this is only ONE example and it was a long time ago. But it happened to me. Technology changes so I don't know if it would work the same on an airliner today. There's a procedure for checking devices before approval. After they do the checks required, fine, they can allow operation of whatever has been proved to work. And I'm sure that's what they do. But when I am PIC for IFR, any non-FAA-approved PED on which I did not personally do the full inflight EMI check must be off. Your mileage may vary.

[Bill Greenwood]

Des Moines, Iowa 1985, me flying Ils in Imc conditions. Verified audio I D of localizer when cleared for approach. Glideslope needle did not work, even if lateral needle worked fine for localizer. Flew to higher minumums and landed ok. The airliner ahead of me had no trouble with the ils nor the plane after me. The avionics shop checked all systems when I got home 2 days later. No problem could be found on any frequency.
It never occured to me to blame it on someone using a cell phone, if they were in fact even in use by then.

Ryan, do you know how the NASA system works? If something goes wrong, let's say a plane on an Ifr clearance deviates 400 feet from his assigned altitude. He may have just made a mistake, heard and set the autopilot wrong or whatever. Now he can accept blame for himself or his airplane system or he can file a NASA report and two things happen. One the problem may be something that can be changed and improved like controller being very clear when he gives an altitude and two the pilot gets imunity from the mistake under most circumstances.
What do you think the pilot is going to do?

Next as for these "experinces" that you put so much faith in, the pilot is in the cockpit, not the cabin. He may see a mistake or even something he thinks is an instrument anomally, but he is not in the passenger cabin, and can't know if someone has a cell phone on or not. And the stews are supposded to be seated on takeoff and landing, so they can't see all the passengers either, and they sure can't see through the cockpit door to see an instrument malfunction.
When someone tells me they believe something on faith ; I recall what Mark Twain wrote, that "Faith is believing in something when you know it ain't true."

When the NTSB report comes out on the recent crash at San Fransisco, do you think it will find that the pilots flew the plane into the ground , too low, too slow, and not enough throttle or do you think they will blame it on the kid in the cabin with a cell phone?

And what happened in the recent fatal crash of the Fedex plane? No passengers aboard, just crew. Maybe a previous passenger left a cell phone turned on in the seat pocket? Hey it's possible isn't it?

[Flyfalcons]

Bill, I'm not going to debate you. You have no reason or information to discredit these reports, yet you try so hard to. Chances are you didn't even read the ASRS report summaries, otherwise you wouldn't have made the statement about the terminal phase of flight, since reports were generated during cruise and FA's were in fact involved. This is the thinking of a closed-minded person, who refuses to acknowledge evidence contrary to their opinions. You're certainly entitled to do that, but I prefer conversing with folks who wish to examine both sides of an argument.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I read your ARSA reports and now I am scared to fly. I have a reservation on Southwest on Oct. 9, to go the Ft. Worth for the FAA summit. What do you think I should do?
I have also seen a movie where a drunk pilot flies his airplane upside down and crashes, and also one where a plane is full of snakes.
Anybody that thinks airline flight is safe, just because that is what the facts say, must not understand the full ramificatons of the possible problems.

[CDS]

Hi Bill,

Over many years of 121 operations, I've experienced several problems with interference from electronic devices. In the classic 737s, it seemed that the best clue to an operating cell phone was a "CHK FUEL QTY" message on the CDU. I can only remember one exception, where a cell phone apparently was not the cause of that message. Such a message was a nuisance, but hardly a threat to safety. Yes, I reported some of those incidents to the NASA ASRS system.

Later and newer aircraft, again in my experience, seem to be less susceptible to such interference. Or maybe it's that the cell phones are somewhat less powerful. At any rate, the situation seems to be getting better.

I've been commuting for 20 or so years (flying for the airline for nearly 30) and these days, I see passengers operating electronic devices before landing somewhat regularly. Mostly, I wonder what voicemail could be so important that you would just HAVE TO turn your phone on? It reminds me of smokers who just HAVE TO have a cigarette (I've had one passenger set a trash can on fire with a lit cigarette during a low IFR approach, but that's another story).

Based on my experiences, I'd support a partial lifting of the all-out ban now. For example, I'd permit the use of cameras (no doubt, you have seen the numerous videos on YouTube, etc.) and other non-transmitting devices. Cell phones still concern me, though and it's not possible to test every possible combination for interference. Before my last Cat III approach, I asked the flight attendants to be very vigilant for any cell phone use and to report it immediately; that approach went well, fortunately.

Blue skies,
CDS

[RV8505]

I looked for the Fox and MSNBC stories and didn't find them. But I found this that supports the idea of no electronic devices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piu5FcgJb_o . I respect what the BOEING engineers have to say. They built it! As far as the general pulblic goes they don't know sugar from shineola. Collective public opinion of preceived safety should not be taken into consideration for the removal of this restriction untill the BOEING engineers give their blessing.

[Bill Greenwood]

CDS, maybe, but not so fast. You had a fuel check light malfunction. But how do you know it was from a cell phone? Did you do anything to verify that, like bring the cell phone up to the cockpit after landing and turn it on and off next to the instruments to see if you could duplicate the cause and effect action? Probably not, you likely just assumed it was a cell phone cause. It might have just as well been internal to the airplane or from flying over one of those giant power transmission lines the emit a lot of EMFs.

I have had low fuel lights in 3 different planes. First time, I was almost out of fuel in one tank. Other time, the mechanical float valve was stuck, and then freed itself.
3rd time and several others in my Bonanza the fuel gauge was found to be erractic and often indicating too high. The problem was found to be a bad electrical ground. No cell phones, no boogey men.

The news stories were on MSN and Fox this morning, Fri. and previously on AOPA site. I don't see them now Fri. night.
The issue has been researched by a 26 man FAA committee and tested using Kindels in cabin, and no danger found. It is not just public opinion.

If I was a Boeing exec I would be ashamed to admit that my company, one of the largest airline manufacturer in the world history, was building a plane that could be damaged by one little cell phone. Notice that their cute little lab demo produced some wavy lines on a screen, but THERE WAS NO DEMO OF CELL USE ACTUALLY AFFECTING A REAL AIRPLANE IN FLIGHT OR EVEN TAXIING.

Once the gear in my T-34 did not lower as it should. Passenger in the rear seat had a cell phone. Turns out to be a short in wiring to gear switch in rear cockpit.
Once in another plane, had mechanical indicator of gear down ok, but no green lights. No cell phone on board, turns out to be a broken wire perhaps caused by taxiing over rough ground.

[RV8505]

Probably the start of it was right here! http://nypost.com/2009/12/16/schumer...l-phone-bitch/. Chuck probably did some arm twisting at the FAA.

This is what Boeing has to say about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piu5FcgJb_o

I guess it comes down to who you believe !?

[CDS]

CDS, maybe, but not so fast. You had a fuel check light malfunction. But how do you know it was from a cell phone? Did you do anything to verify that, like bring the cell phone up to the cockpit after landing and turn it on and off next to the instruments to see if you could duplicate the cause and effect action? Probably not, you likely just assumed it was a cell phone cause. It might have just as well been internal to the airplane or from flying over one of those giant power transmission lines the emit a lot of EMFs.

Bill,

No, there was cause and effect. The first time it happened (at a high cruise altitude), after investigating the situation, interference as a possible cause, came to mind. So I asked the flight attendants to check for a cell phone and she replied, "How did you know?" Once the cell phones were turned off, the message went away (the customer was transferring phone numbers from his old phone to his new phone; neither had an airplane mode).

This particular scenario presented itself several more times, each time - save one - turning the phone off (all located in First Class, by the way, so above/over the E and E bay) eliminated the message. That's more than enough proof for me.

As I said, it's clear that it was cause and effect. I'd estimate that this particular scenario happened about 15 times (in 12 years of flying 737s). 14 out of 15 times, when the cell phone was turned off, the message went away. 14 out of 15 - cause and effect.

Having said all of that, the issues do seem to be diminishing. Given the growth of cell phones, that's an achievement.

Blue skies,
CDS

[Frank Giger]

The research seems to point to new airliners being very cell phone resistant, which is a very good thing.

I do wonder sometimes about the difference between an undamaged ones (which are used in testing) versus some of the "amazing it still works" models I see people using with broken screens and tape holding them together.

Personally I'd like to see the ban remain in place so that I don't have to hear inane conversations while trapped in the metal tube.

"Yeah, we just landed and are pulling up towards the gate. Is Marge at the house? Her boyfriend [terrible relationship details best left to the Springer show] was in the hospital for [heinous medical condition] where they [horrible procedures]."

I never understood the sense of urgency with making calls while on a flight. If one is to be met, either they're already there waiting (and therefore not need to be told one has arrived as it's announced on information boards throughout the airport) or they aren't, in which case one would find out the minute they got to baggage claim. When I was flying on business, a call when I had obtained the rental car to confirm agendas was more on point as that was when I was in a position to act on any changes.

I'm convinced, however, that 90% or more of cell phone conversations is because the caller is bored and wants to be entertained in some way by another. This is why I rarely carry a cell phone and keep conversations very brief - it is not my job to be imposed on for the sake of keeping someone from being bored.