Cell phone nonsense

[Bill Greenwood]

For 20 years or so, the airlines and the FAA have been telling people the fantasy that they had to turn off cell phones and I pods and the like when flying or even taxiing on airlines, for safety reasons.
If you take a moment to think clearly about this, it is pretty obvious that this is nonsense which never had any basis in fact and certainly is not true now.

It doesn't take much common sense to realize that if you really could make a plane crash or deviate from an ILS , just by turning on a small, common electrical device, then it would be pretty easy for a few terrorist passengers to take advantage of this. Never happened.
And now not a week after American Airlines had actor Alec Baldwin denied a flight because of his device , their pilots were approved to use I pads in the cockpit; a lot closer to the nav radios than any passenger phone.


Despite this, there are still a few people that are fearful of flying and will believe any ridiculous story they are fed, if it confirms their paranoia.

Now it is announced that the FAA is "going to study the issue again".

I don't think they like to admit they are wrong, as a matter of fact in 30 years of flying, I have only once heard an FAA guy admit that, and then it was only when I had the printed copy of an official NOTAM in my hand.

Or I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some supposed new justification that a cell phone can affect a plane.

[Todd copeland]

And you can't use your cell phone while gassing up your car because it can cause an explosion.......

[kscessnadriver]

You do realize that the FCC is more behind it than the FAA. The system is not designed to be used at altitude, and massive use of such devices at altitude could cripple the system. Additionally, there is interference, as I've seen it 1st hand while flying.

[CarlOrton]

Well, it really doesn't matter anyways. Just last week I was on a commercial flight and none of the folks next to me, across from me, or diagonal from me bothered turning them off. And they didn't put them on airplane mode either, cuz soon as we landed, they all came out and immediately made calls. I'm sure they were all RF avionic engineers who knew what they were doing. (sarcasm, if you didn't get it...)

[Janet Davidson]

Why leave the cell phone switched on after take off anyway? As soon as it is out of range of a signal, it starts hunting for a signal & runs the battery down. I'd have thought that would be more annoying than having someone ask/tell you to switch it off?


massive use of such devices at altitude could cripple the system

How could there be "massive use" if all they are doing is searching for a signal? And if most folks are forgetting to switch their phones off, as often happens, why hasn't the system been crippled already?

[JimRice85]

I read something recently which said typically only about 20% of passengers actually turn their cellphones off. I only put my iPhone on Airplane Mode, despite stews (yeah, politically incorrect) say it must be turned completely off. I fly commercially several times each month and nothing bad had happened...yet.

[Bob Dingley]

Good points Bill. The history that I recall was that a Sony Walkman tuned to certain FM freqs could harmonize with certain localizer freqs and cause full scale deflections of the CDI. I recall seeing some video confirming this. As of this date, all Walkmans are in museums. You get your tunes through other non interfering devices these days. I welcome the FAA doing more studies.

The cell phone angst was that it would tie up entire area codes because every tower would respond to a single phone at altitude. Eventualy not proved. But wait, there's more:

About 10 years ago, the baggage compartment FIRE WARNING lights of new aircraft employed new technology. The old technology was the same as home smoke detectors. Maintenance tested them with a cigar. Don't ask me to explain the new technology, I just flew them. When I checked out at Flight Safety in the latest variant of the Sikorsky 76, the Charlie plus, we were told of the new FW problem. Cell phones set off the alarm every time. MAKE SURE CELLS WERE TURNED OFF!

When out of range of land based cell towers like 200 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, A cell phone shifts to high power searching for a signal. The current fire detectors in the baggage compartment are sensitive to cell freqs and illuminates a big red light and horn. This brings the emergency check list into play and it says "land immediately." This requires landing back, searching all passengers, confiscating all cells and taking names. If you've gone through this drill a couple of times, You bear down on the passenger briefing real hard. This costs the client big $$$. A 76C+ ran $3,800 to $4,000/hr last I heard. More today. 15 minutes wasted in a turn around is not tolerated. All the legacy A/C have the old smoke detectors and work just fine. I don't know what Airbus and Boeing use. FAA must not trust the old stuff. Progress. Signs in the passenger terminal never truly explain this. Just banned the cells.

If only they would let us fly with a horn blaring and a fire light blazing away.

Bob

[Kyle Boatright]

The odds of a cell phone interfering with avionics are pretty small, but it is a possibilty. I have an MP3 player that causes my portable GPS to lose its mind if they are both sitting in the passenger's seat... That caused an interesting moment when I was in the vicinity of a restricted area one upon a time.

[Bill Greenwood]

Cessnadriver, Cell phones may cause some problem for the towers or for FAA, but that is not the warning given by the FAA and airlines.
And I pads and Game boys etc, don't affect cell towers.
I'd be wililig to bet you have never seen ANY interferance with airplane avionics like an ILS from a cell phone in the cockpit, and I'll bet $100 you can't demonstrate that.

When all this baloney came out years ago, Aviation Consumer did a flight test using a Lear and with a number of passengers using phones in the cabin. They found no interference at all, they couldn't even make a needle budge.

Kyle, no I don't think cell phones and the like have ever interfered with an avionics. Only possible about like Amelia flying at Osh next year.

Furthermore if you have a handheld GPS, go fly an ILS approach on the panel and have a co pilot try to affect the needles with the handheld. Nothing will happen.

[steveinindy]

You do realize that the FCC is more behind it than the FAA. The system is not designed to be used at altitude, and massive use of such devices at altitude could cripple the system. Additionally, there is interference, as I've seen it 1st hand while flying.

How dare you suggest the FAA is not to blame for all that ails us with regards to anything remotely involved with aircraft! [/sarcasm]

You hit the nail on the head. The FCC has much more to do with this.

[steveinindy]

Cessnadriver, Cell phones may cause some problem for the towers or for FAA, but that is not the warning given by the FAA and airlines.
Honestly, I think they use safety as an argument because it shuts most rational folks up. You tell them its to avoid problems that don't directly affect them and your typical selfish American is going to go "So?".


And I pads and Game boys etc, don't affect cell towers.

You know the "shut everything off" attitude is simply a way to prevent folks from arguing with the flight attendant whether or not it is approved, etc. Also to keep people from being distracted/obstructed (such as by a laptop) during phases of flight where a rapid evacuation might be likely.


and I'll bet $100 you can't demonstrate that.

At least not legally. Mythbusters wanted to test this in flight and the local FSDO told them that if they did it off the ground, there would be issues.

[Bob Dingley]

Right on Steve. You can be hit by lightning with no effect on the avionics and autopilot.

Bob

[weiskopf20@gmail.com]

As usual half of you are right and half are wrong. The others I don't know about. In the old days of AM/FM radios, there was a good chance that a spurious emmission "could" interfere with the ILS. Most radios of the superhetrodyne type mix combine the desired frequency with one about 10.7 MHZ away to get the desired IF frequency. The problem is/was that when this generates the desired Frequency, there are now 4 frequencies: the sum, difference and two original frequencies. In the case of sloppy design and accidental choice of frequencies, an ILS could be blocked. For those of you who are doubtful, I did the math once and came up with several combinations which were tested in the lab on military aircraft radios installed in a bench. I am in agreement wrt cell phones. Keeping mine on, even in a cub at 1000ft, just runs down the battery.

[weiskopf20@gmail.com]

deleted by poster - added to the above. The original was created on an IPAD. and posted before I was ready...

[rosiejerryrosie]

I really, really feel sorry for the folks who couldn't think far enough ahead that they were forced to make a vitally important phone call while in flight. They must have had a really rough time before cell phones were invented..... How did civilization ever survive when it was not possible to stay in constant communication with everyone you knew? Turn the darn thing off and enjoy the flight.....

[Joe LaMantia]

Jerry,

I can't speak for Steeler fans but I know that many "Cheeseheads" need to know the scores of all the Packer games in real time! This is not a SMALL issue!


Joe
;)

[martymayes]

I really, really feel sorry for the folks who couldn't think far enough ahead that they were forced to make a vitally important phone call while in flight. They must have had a really rough time before cell phones were invented.....

Not really, back to at least the '70's, "flight phones" have been installed on aircraft, the most recent versions were the ones in the seat back.


With regard to the FAA, there's been quite a few reports generated by NASA ASRS and airline ASAP programs that suggest a host of problems with PEDs. Should they just igore it and say it's not a problem? Not sure how anything but "more study" is the most correct answer.

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty,
"Quite a few reports" and "that suggest"?

That sounds like Michele Bachman giving medical advice for teen girls.
There have also been "reports" "that suggest" bigfoot sightings and kidnapping by alien spaceships.
Where is the govt warning on those?

And do you wear some bigfoot repellant if you go out in the woods?

And while peds may have a host of problesms, interfering with airline avionics is not one of them. The govt via the FAA should not have a policy of lying to people. And it is actually illegal to lie to Congreesiona inquires, should it be not only legal , but standard policy to have a govt agency lie to us?

It degrades what little respect people have for the govt. and rightly so.

[kscessnadriver]

I'd be wililig to bet you have never seen ANY interferance with airplane avionics like an ILS from a cell phone in the cockpit, and I'll bet $100 you can't demonstrate that.


I hear the effects of GSM cell phones all the time in the aircraft I fly. All it takes is interference while tower is trying to communicate something with you and you miss it. Some of us here fly for a living and aren't the type who just go fly on the weekend for fun. We spend tons of time in the air to hear/see interference.

[rwanttaja]

Marty,
"Quite a few reports" and "that suggest"?
If you read the ASRS reports, they're usually of the form, "XXX interference was noted. FA went into the cabin and found passenger using a YYY. The YYY was shut down, and the interference stopped."

Not scientific, but you don't want to be running a science experiment with 300 passengers. And as long as these kinds of report persist, the FAA will resist risking passenger safety.

I think we can all agree that a brand-new Ipad, smart phone, Gameboy, etc. right out of the box probably doesn't cause interference. But what about that Gameboy after the kid has dropped it in the toilet a few times? What about a smart phone where the owner read about increasing the range by soldering a piece of foil to the circuit board? What about the Ipad with a stack-up of aftermarket gadgets attached?

If an accident DOES happen, if people ARE hurt, will the families of the deceased sue the kid with the Gameboy, or the guy with the sloppy soldering iron? Nope. They'll sue the airline that allowed these people to use the devices in flight. From the airlines' point of view, there's no advantage to lifting the ban, and plenty of downside.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Very timely: (and read the last line)




AVFLASH NEWS

http://eaaforums.org/images-avweb/bluetabcorner.gif










August 28, 2012
FAA To Study Electronics Use Aloft


http://eaaforums.org/images-avweb/mailtoicon.gifEmail this article (http://eaaforums.org/cgi-bin/udt/im.send.story.prompt?client_id=avflash&story_id=207269) |http://eaaforums.org/images/printicon.gifPrint this article (http://eaaforums.org/avwebflash/news/FAAToStudyElectronicsUseAloft_207269-1.html?type=pf)



By Mary Grady (http://eaaforums.org/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?client_id=avflash&story_id=207269&title=FAA%20To%20Study%20Electronics%20Use%20Aloft&author=Mary%20Grady&address=http%3A//www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAToStudyElectronicsUseAloft%5F207269%2D1.html&summary=The%20FAA%20said%20on%20Monday%20it%20will %20form%20a%20working%20group%20to%20study%20wheth er%20it%20might%20be%20okay%20to%20allow%20airline %20passengers%20to%20use%20personal%20electronic%2 0devices%20during%20flights.%20%22We%27re%20lookin g%20for%20information%20to%20help%20air%20carriers %20and%20operators%20decide%20if%20they%20can%20al low%20more%20widespread%20use%20of%20electronic%20 devices%20in%20today%27s%20aircraft%2C%22%20said%2 0Acting%20FAA%20Administrator%20Michael%20Huerta.% 20%22We%20also%20want%20solid%20safety%20data%20to %20make%20sure%20tomorrow%27s%20aircraft%20designs %20are%20protected%20from%20interference.%22%20The %20government%2Dindustry%20group%20will%20examine% 20a%20variety%20of%20issues%2C%20including%20the%2 0testing%20methods%20aircraft%20operators%20use%20 to%20determine%20which%20new%20technologies%20pass engers%20can%20safely%20use%20aboard%20aircraft%20 and%20when%20they%20can%20use%20them.), Contributing editor




http://eaaforums.org/images-avweb/clearpixel.gif







http://eaaforums.org/newspics/ipadairplane1.jpgThe FAA said on Monday it will form a working group to study whether it might be okay to allow airline passengers to use personal electronic devices during flights. "We're looking for information to help air carriers and operators decide if they can allow more widespread use of electronic devices in today's aircraft," said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. "We also want solid safety data to make sure tomorrow's aircraft designs are protected from interference." The government-industry group will examine a variety of issues, including the testing methods aircraft operators use to determine which new technologies passengers can safely use aboard aircraft and when they can use them.
The FAA policies regarding passenger devices were first established in the 1960s, the agency said, when studies showed that portable FM receivers could interfere with VOR navigation signals. More recently, the FAA has been concerned about potential interference with fly-by-wire controls and electronic cockpit displays. The FAA provides guidance about the use of the devices, but has left it up to the airlines to set and enforce their own rules. The new working group will be established this fall and will meet for six months, the FAA said. The group is seeking comments (PDF (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/PED_RFC_8-27-2012.pdf)) from aircraft operators, flight crews, passengers, and manufacturers of personal electronic devices within the next 60 days. The FAA added that the group will not address the use of cellphones in flight.

[steveinindy]

Right on Steve. You can be hit by lightning with no effect on the avionics and autopilot.

Bob

Well, if you design, build and maintain the system correctly. I seriously doubt that many experimentals could take a direct hit and not suffer catastrophic failures especially in the composite aircraft.

[Flyfalcons]

One of our Lears had a lightning strike a while back (before we bought it). It still has electrical gremlins.

[martymayes]

Marty,
"Quite a few reports" and "that suggest"?

That's correct.


And while peds may have a host of problesms, interfering with airline avionics is not one of them.

Where is your evidence to support that claim?

One group is says yes, one group is says no. The yes group has data. The no group doesn't. Are we to believe the absence of data from the 'no' group means they are correct?

[steveinindy]

Are we to believe the absence of data from the 'no' group means they are correct?

It depends on whether you see our group as being based around science or nothing more than a bunch of zealots to whom evidence or the lack thereof means nothing.

[steveinindy]

One of our Lears had a lightning strike a while back (before we bought it). It still has electrical gremlins.

So you have more than one Lear AND a Stinson? Can I come hang out with you? Do you need/want an adopted adult son? LOL

[Bill Greenwood]

Cessnadriver, So you don't fly on the weekend for fun. Gosh , are the rest of us uniformed or we just luckier than you. I am glad that I don't fly just to make living.

Ron ,just like the federal war on marijuana, at the same time subsidizing tobbaco and alcohol; I agree with you on one thing, the feds and proponents of bogus rules don't want to do any scientific experimentts that might make them look even more foolish.

And guys, since you seem to believe the FAA version of the Bogey Man ,how can you safely even get on an airliner, much less allow your family and loved ones to ride on one, all the while knowing that some passenger in the back somewhere might turn on a cell phone or I pad, resulting is loss of control that would make a Patty Wagstaff show look like straight and level by comparison.

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, do you belive in ghosts? If not, do you have any factual eveidence that they don't exist?

There is lot's of data, all about lot's of things from a whole industry built around Santa Claus. Millions of folks belive women should cover their heads, and 40 years ago Baylor U in Waco used to say dancing was a sin and boys, but not girls could wear pants.

Lot's of "data " on Bigfoot, lot's on space aliens coming to Roswell.

So let's get serious on data. I"ll pay you $1000 for every official NTSB report that states the cause of an accident was interfereence from a cell phone or I pad; IF you will pay me $100 for every NTSB report that lists other causes and not a cell phone( and I mean interference, not as a distraction). How about it, I am offering 10 to 1 odds!
Want to back up your opinion, hollow though it may be?

[Bill Greenwood]

And for those who say the govt. must be right ,if there is a Bogey Man, even though none of you can produce anything more than hearsay on it, Remember this; the Govt. are the folks though the FAA that told us for 5 or 6 years that Bob Hoover was unsafe to fly, and that airline pilots would become unsafe it they flew a day over age 60.

Not the FAA, but other govt branches license alcohol sales( is there any doubt that many accidents, drivng or flying are from alchhol) Bernie Madoff to sell investments, and at the highest level of govt told us extensive and contniueous lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. By the way, they had "data" also, even photos of aluminum tubes, that looked about like what you's store a fly rod in.

As Mark Twain said. "Faith is beleiving something that you know ain't true".

[Flyfalcons]

So you have more than one Lear AND a Stinson? Can I come hang out with you? Do you need/want an adopted adult son? LOL

"Our" being my employer. Though you can find 20-series Lears for about what a Stinson goes for these days! :D

[Flyfalcons]

Marty, do you belive in ghosts? If not, do you have any factual eveidence that they don't exist?

There is lot's of data, all about lot's of things from a whole industry built around Santa Claus. Millions of folks belive women should cover their heads, and 40 years ago Baylor U in Waco used to say dancing was a sin and boys, but not girls could wear pants.

Lot's of "data " on Bigfoot, lot's on space aliens coming to Roswell.

So let's get serious on data. I"ll pay you $1000 for every official NTSB report that states the cause of an accident was interfereence from a cell phone or I pad; IF you will pay me $100 for every NTSB report that lists other causes and not a cell phone( and I mean interference, not as a distraction). How about it, I am offering 10 to 1 odds!
Want to back up your opinion, hollow though it may be?

Here Bill, why don't you chew on this for a while.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf

[rwanttaja]

So let's get serious on data. I"ll pay you $1000 for every official NTSB report that states the cause of an accident was interfereence from a cell phone or I pad; IF you will pay me $100 for every NTSB report that lists other causes and not a cell phone( and I mean interference, not as a distraction). How about it, I am offering 10 to 1 odds!
Ah, but that's the beauty of it, you see: It doesn't leave much, if any evidence. There's nothing "recording" the background envionrment that could be looked at afterwards to "prove" the crash was caused by interference from a cell phone. "Pilot Error," the NTSB will rule. "For some reason, they deviated from the glide path."


Ron ,just like the federal war on marijuana, at the same time subsidizing tobbaco and alcohol; I agree with you on one thing, the feds and proponents of bogus rules don't want to do any scientific experimentts that might make them look even more foolish.

I'm strongly in favor of science-based decisions. But... science cannot reproduce every possible condition; every potential brand of electronic device, every potential location in the cabin, every combination of aircraft type, every configuration and flight mode. And the only thing we have against PED (Personal Electronic Device) use in aircraft is anecdotal evidence: The ASRS reports. I agree, the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'data.'

But we are not talking about Joe Citizen observing something in the street that he has no knowledge about. These are reports by professional pilots, who observed a condition that they felt may have impacted the safety of flight, who could have just stayed quiet. Do we dare ignore them?

So all right, Bill, you call it: Let's say we have 10 scientists study the matter and announce there's no way PEDs can interfere with aircraft systems.

- If one pilot reports a potential interference case, do you continue the ban on PEDs?
- If ten pilots report potential interference cases, do you continue the ban on PEDs?
- If one hundred pilots report potential interference cases, do you continue the ban on PEDs?
- If one thousand pilots report potential interference cases, do you continue the ban on PEDs?

Again, you have to consider the risks along with the benefits. The only benefit is the elimination of an inconvenience, and for most PEDs, the actual time of inconvenience is short (takeoffs and landings). Remember, the reason for this most recent flare-up of this issue is because a celebrity wanted to continue playing a GAME. Boo ******* hoo.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Okay, you guys win. There really is a Bogey Man, if not under the bed, at least in the passenger cabin, and he/she/it may strike at any time!

So what do I do now?
I was supposed to catch Southwest out of Denver Sat morning the 1st at 9:40 to go down to Austin for the game, but now, after reading all these ever so logical explanations of what might happen, I am afraid to fly?

What do I do? Do I start two days early and drive?

And by the way, some people use GPS when they drive a car. What if I am headed to Texas with my GPS on the dash and someone nearby turns on a cell phone? I could end up in L A?