Jet pilot or passenger question?

[Bill Greenwood]

Does anyone here fly charter or timeshare or corporate jets? That is non airline, non military, or anyone who rides as a passenger on them?

I'd like to know if they make the same silly announcement to turn off cell phones and I pads, etc, before takeoff and landing?

I really doubt if charter customers paying $thousands are traveling without using their electronic devices.

Thanks

[Flyfalcons]

Yes we do ask them to do that. It's in the regs, we must brief them on PED use during takeoff and landing.

[Bill Greenwood]

Thanks, Ryan.

And other guy:
And no I am not familiar with all the 121&135 ops, since I have only had one short ride on a corp type jet, a small Lear.
How many Rose Parakeet hours have you got?

I was pretty dubious about the whole idea that you could affect the flight of a big jet just with a cell phone or I pad, and I read that 15% of passengers say they don't turn theirs off.
And we don't see these types of planes raining down out of the sky for the most part.

So I gave it a try, just after SWA lifted off from Denver, I snuck my cell phone on, and pointed it up about 10*. And lo and behold, we began to climb. When we got to what I guessed was over 30,000 ', I turned it off and we shortly leveled off. Then maybe 100 miles out of Austin, I turned it on and pointed it slightly downward. And no bull, soon we nosed down and started to descend. When we got a few 1000 feet AGL , I turned it off and again we flew level until final approach to the runway.
I wanted to try a barrel roll on the next flight, but the stew was really mean looking so I didn't want to have her see me.

She was a dead ringer for Geronimo's twin sister, not like the ladies that I knew who flew for the airlines in the good old days.

I guess all that FAA via the airline stew announcement is true; why did I ever doubt it?

[Green Goggles]

I fly with a Garmin 196 in my Mooney. I turned it on once on a Frontier Airlines flight from Denver to San Francisco. When the stewardess saw me with it, she told me to turn it off. When I replied, "Oh no, it's OK, these are specifically designed for aviation use," she didn't find any humor in that whatsoever. :D Like it was said earlier, airplanes are not falling out of the sky. I am not sure of the reason to prohibit use of such devices. The many times I've flow in a friend's Citation as a passenger, I operated my cell phone and handheld GPS units and we never encountered a bit of trouble.

[Bob Dingley]

Yeah I had to make that silly announcement specificaly re cell phones. I used to fly the S-76A with no problem. Then I got into the C variant that had an upgraded baggage fire warning system. Cell phones triggered the the big red light every time. I was warned about this at Flight Saftey at PBI. Progress is great.

[rwanttaja]

I fly with a Garmin 196 in my Mooney. I turned it on once on a Frontier Airlines flight from Denver to San Francisco. When the stewardess saw me with it, she told me to turn it off. When I replied, "Oh no, it's OK, these are specifically designed for aviation use," she didn't find any humor in that whatsoever. :D Like it was said earlier, airplanes are not falling out of the sky. I am not sure of the reason to prohibit use of such devices. The many times I've flow in a friend's Citation as a passenger, I operated my cell phone and handheld GPS units and we never encountered a bit of trouble.
The evidence is anecdotal, but there is a lot of it. A lot of pilots have reported that they've encountered some sort of interference that went away when the passenger shut off his phone/ipad/game, etc. Admittedly, the plural of "anecdote" is NOT "Data." But you'll have a hard time getting the powers what be to slack off as long as isolated incidents keep happening. Bob Dingley's story about the S-76 shows that there is some trackable data out there.

The problem is not with a per-spec electronic device, but with the potential problems that may arise on specific units. Ever see a guy with an smart phone or tablet that has a cracked screen but still works? Just because a new-out-of-the-box Ipad doesn't interfere with the aircraft doesn't mean the cracked-screen example won't....

Ron Wanttaja

[rosiejerryrosie]

I am absolutely amazed how we ever got as far as we have without being in constant communications! How did we ever win WWII? Or expand west - why it sometimes took weeks for a letter (you all remember what those were) to get from New York to California. That darned FAA is just trying to make our lives more complex - won't let me use my cell phone to call for a taxi to be ready for me the moment I land at my destination. How inconvenient! Why it might cost me up to fifteen minutes waiting for a taxi!

[Bill Greenwood]

Man, I was excited when I discovered by actual trial that the myth was true, despite seeming illogical and downright silly, that I really did see the 737 going where I pointed my cell phone.

I figured I was about to get rich. All I had to do was give or rather sell this information to the terrorist. Think how valuable it would be to them to know that they didn't have to waste time with underwear bombs, etc. All they needed to target an airliner was 10 guys with cell phones or maybe one guy with 10 cell phones.
And these days, even in time of high worldwide unemployment and extreme fervor for various causes, there may be some limit to the number of fools willing to wear an underwear bomb.

So I looked up Al Qaeda in the yellow pages, but no listing, then on Google but again no phone number or even email. Now I hope to visit D C this spring, so I will go look for their lobbyist there. Most everyone and every cause, no matter how antisocial has a lobbyist in DC.

Now for a few moments I has some pangs of conscience that maybe it would be a selfish act to sell this info to a foreign enemy just for profit, but then I remembered that self interest is called capitalism and is a basis of our society.

[WLIU]

You know, I work in high tech these days so I am surrounded by computer screens all day, cell phones go off even in the men's room, I can fly all the airplanes I want that have glass in the cockpit and new radios that let me monitor two frequencies at once. Against this backdrop it seems luxurious to be able to climb into a basic Pitts Special that has none of that stuff, look at the minimum number of basic steam gauges and maybe a paper chart, and go out and pull G's on my way to nothing more complicated than a hamburger at an airport that I have told no one that I will be at. The cell phone can ring all it wants back in my hangar.

Ain't "progress" wonderful?

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[WLIU]

Getting back to the subject of Personal Electronic Devices in the passenger cabin of transport category aircraft, the regulators move very slowly, but there is motion. In 2008 the RTCA that publishes standards for aircraft electronics among other things published a study regarding PED's in aircraft and electromagnetic interference. If you have access to their publications, it is DO-307. The FAA, responding at its usual swift pace, in 2010 published AC20-164 Design and Demonstrating Aircraft Tolerance to Portable Electronic Devices. Sooo..... This suggests that perhaps new transport category aircraft going forward may be built to allow you to run your cell phone while the crew flys a Cat 2 or 3 approach sometime around 2020.... Or maybe there will be enough passenger demand that Boeing and Airbus will do the analysis and test on older models sometime before that. There is a market demand so maybe they will.

Until then, perhaps the time spent cooped up in the cattle car that we call airborne transportation can be spent in your favorite mediation pose. Me, I started taking the train. Never thought I would do that but it avoids taking my shoes off for the TSA, I can get up and walk around anytime I want, they have real food available, and the seats have twice the elbow and leg room. Its only a few $$ more than airfare. This is what we call progress....

Best of luck,

Wes

[Joe LaMantia]

Hey Bill,

Just go to the Saudi embassy, I'm sure they can "hook you up" the AQUSA, they've been financing these guys for years!

Joe
;)

[Bob Dingley]

The question that Bill asked more or less was:" Do part 91/135 crews enforce the NO PED rule in 2013?" About right? Let me say again (when PEDs are used) that I have never lost nav capability of any kind. The snazzy Honeywell glass cockpit still functioned perfectly. I experienced no binding in the flight controls. The gear did not extend on its own and I did not get an ear block or vertigo.

A biggie is that it is KNOWN to a certainty that a certain type PED (cell) when used in certain newer A/C types and varients will cause a spurious emergency alarm. Cellphones deliberatly emit RF. If operating an A/C with an emergency alarm activated seems OK to you, check out FAR 91.9. Remember too that these A/C have CVR's and FDR's. These orange things that are called black boxes. An alarm will force the crew to carefully set their coffe down and deliberately pull out the emergency check list. The "fire and Smoke" section has options for the various items. All end with Land as soon as practicable - Land as soon as possible- or land immediately. That last one has at times resulted in a ditching. Have you any idea of the paperwork that involves? Remember too, that the big red warning light on the panel can be seen from the the rear passenger row. What do you say when the Chief Pilot and Dir of Ops call you to their office and ask you to explain photos of your glowing warning light? Just say that its obviosly a false alarm. Works everytime.

A read of FAR 91.21 (PEDs) para (c) says that if operating on an Air Carrier certificate, not part 91, The operator can go to para (b) (5) and determine if a device will not interfer. The operator can then permit it.

It has been asked of the FSDO " can we yank out the new, really great, improved baggage fire warning systems and retrofit the old smoke detector systems? Thereby reducing spurious alarms and permit the use of cells in flight." FSDO pointed out that first, they want the new, really great, improved baggage fire warning systems. Your A/C would no longer be airworthy when its taken out. Second, we already have FAR 91.21 in place.

Bob

[Bill Greenwood]

Bob, I don't know about Sikorsky helicopters fire alarms; that might be a pretty special case, and very few airline or even corp passengers are riding on helicopters.
So that is pretty much outside of what I was asking.

By the way, you must have gone to Flightsafety at West Palm Beach, I did my IFR training with Flightsafety at Vero Beach.

And I really did not know if these jets had the same regs as airlines on PEDs.

As for other alarms in modern jets, well let's use a little common sense. We can be pretty sure, knowing human nature and with surveys, that thousands of people everyday, not just Alec Baldwin are using their cell phones, etc, in flight. Yet, neither I who rides on the airline perhaps 8 times a year, nor any other person as far as I know, has ever seen an airline have to land due to a false alarm from such a cause. It ain't happening.

Or maybe the fires in the new 787s were just a passenger cell phone problem, nothing wrong with the plane?

Remember the hijacked airliner I think it was Flight 91. Lot's of passengers made emergency cell phone calls, and it they could have affected the flight of the airplane it would not have been necessary to attempt to break into the cockpit.

By the way, as for as hearsay type of testimony, there are dozens of people who swear they have seen Bigfoot, or were kidnapped by aliens, or if you turn on late night TV, there are preachers who claim to have healed all manner of ailements if you just pray with them, Plus a small $$$$$ donation.

[Bob Dingley]

Good point Bill and I agree more than you think. Forget about the 76 Charlie plus being a helicopter. Its just another 21st century twin turbine transport catagory aircraft. (according to the FAA.) Remember, its the PIC that has to answer.

Bob

[rwanttaja]

By the way, as for as hearsay type of testimony, there are dozens of people who swear they have seen Bigfoot, or were kidnapped by aliens, or if you turn on late night TV, there are preachers who claim to have healed all manner of ailements if you just pray with them, Plus a small $$$$$ donation.
If Bigfoot is in the cabin of a 757 playing with a Gameboy, I'm not going to be the one to ask him to turn it off for landing....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob Dingley]

Commander, you just jogged my memory. Back in the last century, I was involved in air ambulance work and my guys were looking around for suction equipment to clear patient's aiways. I called another installation where they were conducting tests on some gear. I was informed that they had a set back. The truck battery sized device somehow set up a harmonic or something and shut off the electricaly operated aircraft fuel valve. They were smart enough to be conducting initial testing on the ground.
Bob

[Bill Greenwood]

Other Guy.
"allegedly interfered"?
Man, that is some real factual data. Doesn't exactly pass the scientific method test.
And the regs have to do with use of an PED in flight interfeering with flight controls or instruments, not crushing a battery in a seat or dropping a computer on your foot.

And if these PEDs, all the way back in the passenger cabin could really interfere with flight controls, then why is it legal for pilots to use normal I pads in the cockpit? It became legal for American pilots just one week after the issue with Alec Baldwin, and I think it is legal for most other cos also. I don't think they even have to carry paper charts as a backup.

Has a pilot ever made a mistake because he was out late the night before with a crew member? Let's make em stay in separate quarters with a chaperone and a curfew.

Is coffee legal on airlines, even for the pilots?
Remember the movie where the crash was reconstructed and the very astute and savvy pilot leading the investigation, played by Glen Ford, was able, with the help of the surviving head stewardess, that the cup of hot coffee that she served to the pilot had been set down on the autopilot console and spilled into the autopilot causing it the malfunction and fly the plane into the ground.
But coffee is not banned.

And I didn't ask if flight crews were intentionally violating the law. Those are your words, not mine, even if you have them in quotes and are trying to make it seem that I wrote them. I wasn't aware if the regs applied to non airline planes in the same way. As I said, I have only had one brief jet ride, not as a pilot, and don't know what is normal there, which is why I asked the question.

[CDS]

Hi Bill,

My flying has primarily been airline flying and I've had multiple experiences with interference from PEDs.

The most common was a message from the Flight Management Computer (FMC) in a 737-300 to either check fuel quantity or that we had an insufficient fuel quantity on board. In every case, save one, it was discovered that a passenger in First Class had a cell phone on and NOT in the airplane mode.

I also recall a couple of instances of navigation interference in the 737, again caused by a cell phone in First Class. The first few rows of First Class are above the "E&E Bay" were most of the avionics are installed.

Having said that, such interference seems to decreasing, at least in my experience. One, the newer aircraft's system are a bit more "hardened" than the earlier ones. Also, I believe some of the cell phone output (power) is a bit less.

But the biggest issue of all is that very little of this has been tested. That is, it's been a conservative approach by the FAA until they - and each operator - can test all the possible combinations for interference.

The very first time I experienced interference, I took a guess that it might be a cell phone (this was about 20 years ago) and asked the flight attendant about that. She discovered that was indeed the case, but the passenger refused to turn it off. After more requests to turn it off, he assaulted the flight attendant! He was removed from the flight in hand cuffs.

Chris

[rwanttaja]

Other Guy.
"allegedly interfered"?
Man, that is some real factual data. Doesn't exactly pass the scientific method test.
Scientific method would require either:

A) The suspected equipment is turned back on, to see if the problem returns. However, I don't think the FAA will support experimenting with passengers present.
B) After landing, the passenger's equipment is confiscated for further testing. No legal method to do that, right now. Expect lawsuits.

The problem is, B is meaningless unless the original conditions can be exactly repeated. In other words, you'd need the same N-numbered aircraft, the same crew, the same baggage load and the same passengers in place with the same electronic equipment in the same state as the original occurrence. This is not likely to happen.

Until then, we have anecdotal evidence only. As you mention, it's like Bigfoot sightings in a way. But there are few, if any, Bigfoot sightings by trained zoologists. In contrast, observers in these suspected interference cases are trained professionals who can be expected to recognize anomalous occurrences with their aircraft. An airline pilot with 30 years experience and 20,000 flight hours can probably be trusted when he or she says there's something's wrong with the plane, and that it went away when the Game Boy was shut down. They can't, of course, judge whether the problem is caused by harmonics or noise injection or some sort of magical interplay. But when they raise a concern, I think we should listen.

The consequences of conservatism in this case are extremely minor. So you have to shut down the Ipad for ten minutes. Big whoop.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

...I'd like to know if they make the same silly announcement to turn off cell phones and I pads, etc, before takeoff and landing? I really doubt if charter customers paying $thousands are traveling without using their electronic devices...

yes, they comply with the regulations. anyone may read the regulations on government websites. Part 91 applies. not just pt135, not just pt121. not just jets.

[Jim Hann]

Is coffee legal on airlines, even for the pilots?
Remember the movie where the crash was reconstructed and the very astute and savvy pilot leading the investigation, played by Glen Ford, was able, with the help of the surviving head stewardess, that the cup of hot coffee that she served to the pilot had been set down on the autopilot console and spilled into the autopilot causing it the malfunction and fly the plane into the ground.
But coffee is not banned.

No, it is not banned you are correct. What is "banned" is setting open beverages on the pedestal, I along with many other 121 pilots have caught he!! for setting a coffee or soda or even an open bottle of water on there where all those important electrons are running around. I'm sure Chris has seen the same thing.

I fly freighters for a living, boarding the 747 in our main hub I noticed the floor inside the L1 door was very wet with deicing fluid. Right behind me on the steps were mechanics and they proceeded to open the E&E bay to "dry it out" because ground support had deiced the airplane with ALL the doors open. Luckily it had only filled the drip tray, but if that wasn't emptied it would have poured on the avionics when we rotated. It doesn't have to be electronic to interfere.