Good news for air passengers from the Times of London today!

Forums › Off topic › Good news for air passengers from the Times of London today!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#902740 25-Sep-2013 22:39

A friend of mine is a commercial pilot, now for BA.

In 1999 he spent NYE with me at my parents house. He could not drink as he was on standby and I hardly ever do anyway so we had a pleasant and sober NYE.

During the course of the evening I asked him whether, as had been widely suspected, we could look forward to planes plummeting earthwards as a result of the Y2K scam - sorry I mean problem.

Oh no. Definitely not he said. How come you are so sure, said I.

Ah, well BA took a plane out over the Atlantic a couple of months ago with a skeleton crew and wound the clocks on to see what would happen! He said.

What happened, I asked.

Errr, nothing at all.

ScuL

491 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Trusted

#902762 26-Sep-2013 00:04

This is a subject that I tend to get quite aggravated about for the reason that I am a frequent flyer (50 flights per year minimum) and (being a geek) have a solid understanding of small portable electronics, transmission technologies and electromagnetic fields.

The amount of times I have been lectured by a flight attendant (not knowing any better) for using a camera, walkman, noise-cancelling headphones etc is disturbing.
Then, the issue is that arguing back and explaining them why there is no danger is equal to speaking to a deaf person as they insist on obeying protocol even when they don't understand it. They have been trained to stick to protocol so I don't blame them but there is a huge issue when the protocol in question is flawed.

I'm going to outline some important points in this post to sum up why the policy is dated and should be replaced.

1) If portable electronic items were such a huge issue creating a risk for the plane or passengers they would be completely banned in their entirety as air pax safety is a huge factor for airlines
2) Pilots and airline crew regularly use their phones and tablets during flight - heck, KLM and BA are even experimenting with iPads to be used by the crew to provide better service - these do not switch off during take-off and even connect through WiFi to get information on flight connections. Also from experience I have witnessed several flight attendants using their iPhones whilst sat in the back during take-off & landing.
3) The amount of devices that are left switched on in coat pockets, trouser pockets or even hand luggage or hold baggage is immense and there is no such thing as bags being held by the luggage handlers because they detected a device emitting signals
4) The safety aspect of handling a device whilst taking off vs. holding an episode of The Lords of the Rings trilogy is silly, the latter has a much bigger weight and provides a higher risk when becoming a projectile
5) Devices that do not have radio receivers nor transmitters such as eBooks, Digital Cameras, Walkmans (especially AA battery powered) and such generate an extremely minor field of electromagnetic interference, if these devices would cause any problem to an airplane then I would strongly suggest nobody with a Canon Ixus stands next to a person equipped with a pacemaker!!
6) Airplanes are built with very advanced technology and use extreme measures to safeguard cabling & signals because they also have to withstand extreme temperature and pressure, therefore cable insulation is thick and thorough
7) Although flight mode is advisable on tablets/phones and other devices connecting through 3G/WiFi/BlueTooth etc there are many airlines that do allow using these devices during taxiing as well as during the flight with on-board Internet services (such as Emirates, Norwegian and a few others)
8) BA has now allowed electronic devices to be used whilst taxiing back to the gate after landing upon recommendation of their American partners

The key point here is that they don't want people to be distracted in case of an emergency during the most risky part of the flight.
20, 30 years ago I could still understand that for people that have never flown before as it was a luxury that only occurred a handful of times in a lifetime, however now with the Easyjets and Virgin/Jetstar flights around the world being able to go abroad for a less than a hundred quid means that air traffic has become more like public transport and the safety video quickly becomes old if it's shown to you over a hundred times

Finally, I am a strong advocate of using flight mode and would recommend everybody to use it when useful, not necessarily because of the signals transmitted but more so to save your batteries!

Haere taka mua, taka muri; kaua e wha.

gnfb

2685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 197

ID Verified

#903504 27-Sep-2013 09:00

I always find this conversation interesting. :) I have always said that if we have to rely on the safety of the guy in 21b to turn off his phone we are in trouble!

Now having said that ,and having worked on the front line of the "you cant use", "you cannot take", "we dont allow", "please remove", "I need you to turn that off" part of the conversation. It never ever cease's to amaze me how "game" people are to take a chance, believe they know better or not care about there safety in flight or that of others. Rather than sitting doing nothing for 10 minutes they want to risk there life and the lives of hundreds of others on the guess that they are right and you are wrong.. amazing!

A liitle true story not to do with the electronics but safety
We had a flight delayed out of Wellington (surprise surprise) due to wind shear at the end of the runway. I was up in the lounge which has a commanding view of the runway.

"Wind shear has a significant effect during take-off and landing of aircraft due to its effects on control of the aircraft, and it has been a sole or contributing cause of many aircraft accidents."

A very frustrated passenger approached me "Why is my flight XYZ delayed!!"
"I am sorry but we have bad weather conditions ,wind shear in fact at the end of the runway"
The passenger looked out of the window " Rubbish! It looks perfectly fine to me!"
I said "you are right it does but I think I'm going with the pilot on this one"

Me to I'm going with CAA and FCC till they tell me otherwise

Is an English Man living in New Zealand. Not a writer, an Observer he says. Graham is a seasoned 'traveler" with his sometimes arrogant, but honest opinion on life. He loves the Internet!.

I have two shops online allshop.nz patchpinflag.nz
Email Me

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#903955 27-Sep-2013 21:46

Where actually is the issue?. Is it wifi Bluetooth or 2g 3g 4g attempts. Surely someone has researched this and surely also the planes electronics use frequencies that are not half / quarter wavelengths of common electronics. Naturally we should err on the side of safety .....but then if that was the case where does that leave autopilots and automated landings.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#903964 27-Sep-2013 23:01

There have been events caused by cell phone and or Portable Electronic Device (PED) interference. The critical time is during the approach and landing phase and to a lesser extent the departure phase of flight. Times when the aircraft is close to the ground and any interference is likely to have the greatest consequence.

Cell phones manage their transmit power based on the signal strength they get from the cell tower. A phone inside a metal tube (the aircraft fuselage) is going to receive weaker signal than it would have other wise and so will transmit at a higher power and have the potential to create greater interference to the navigation equipment.

I agree that these days the chances of there being an issue due to cell phone interference is very low, however as the consequences of any interference are not worth thinking about erring on the side of caution makes sense to me.

The main reason for having cell phones turned off on the tarmac is to reduce the hazard of the cellphone owner being distracted with a phone call and walking into a spinning propeller etc.

Some posters have made it sound that it's common place for pilots to use their phones while airborne. This practice is forbidden and no pilots I know of do this. I would suggest any that did this would be in danger of losing their job if caught doing it.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

ScuL

491 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Trusted

#903975 28-Sep-2013 00:12

turnin: Where actually is the issue?. Is it wifi Bluetooth or 2g 3g 4g attempts. Surely someone has researched this and surely also the planes electronics use frequencies that are not half / quarter wavelengths of common electronics. Naturally we should err on the side of safety .....but then if that was the case where does that leave autopilots and automated landings.

Afaik when they first started debating this, the problem was that ground-radio comms from aircrew to the tower were on frequencies in the 800~900 MHz band.
When GSM started operating in the early 90's this was obviously a problem.

However when you look at the frequency spectrum nowadays with 3G, 4G, DVB-T and lots of other signals active in the band between 700 and 1000MHz it would seem foolish to try and operate mission critical communication in these bands.

Not aware what the current frequency range is but would be strongly surprised if they haven't upped it to somewhere in a GHz band to stay clear from "civilian" signals.

Haere taka mua, taka muri; kaua e wha.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#903976 28-Sep-2013 00:26

ScuL: Afaik when they first started debating this, the problem was that ground-radio comms from aircrew to the tower were on frequencies in the 800~900 MHz band.
When GSM started operating in the early 90's this was obviously a problem.

However when you look at the frequency spectrum nowadays with 3G, 4G, DVB-T and lots of other signals active in the band between 700 and 1000MHz it would seem foolish to try and operate mission critical communication in these bands.

Not aware what the current frequency range is but would be strongly surprised if they haven't upped it to somewhere in a GHz band to stay clear from "civilian" signals.

Nope, nothing to do with Air/Ground comm frequencies. It's been to do with Nav frequencies and harmonics of these frequencies.

The Air/Ground frequencies have never ever been in the 800~900 Mhz band, they've always been and still are in the 1oo~150 Mhz band.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

ScuL

491 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Trusted

#903978 28-Sep-2013 00:54

Technofreak:
Nope, nothing to do with Air/Ground comm frequencies. It's been to do with Nav frequencies and harmonics of these frequencies.

The Air/Ground frequencies have never ever been in the 800~900 Mhz band, they've always been and still are in the 1oo~150 Mhz band.

I must be confused by another in-flight communications medium as I'm very much convinced that there was a clash of signals in that spectrum with one or the other

One of my mates at uni did an internship with KLM at the time so I remember him telling me about this

Haere taka mua, taka muri; kaua e wha.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#903992 28-Sep-2013 08:23

Other than VHF the only other voice band used is HF for Oceanic or remote areas.

As I said in an earlier post the problem is with the navigation equipment, nothing to do with the communication equipment

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#904032 28-Sep-2013 10:16

Technofreak: Other than VHF the only other voice band used is HF for Oceanic or remote areas.

As I said in an earlier post the problem is with the navigation equipment, nothing to do with the communication equipment

Why is the navigation equipment on a ship not affected similarly? They don't make passengers on the Queen Mary turn all their phones off do they?

Surely a plane needs no more navigation than GPS in this day and age?

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#904132 28-Sep-2013 13:13

Geektastic:
Why is the navigation equipment on a ship not affected similarly? They don't make passengers on the Queen Mary turn all their phones off do they?

Surely a plane needs no more navigation than GPS in this day and age?

Why are ships not affected? I don't know but I do know the navigation systems used on aircraft will be very different to those use on ships, as you will see in my explanation below. So far as I know ships by and large do not use ground based radio aids for much of their navigation.

The prime reason cell phone and PED use is banned on aircraft is because of the potential risk of interference to the equipment used to provide tracking data for an aircraft to land at an airport in bad weather. This equipment provides very accurate lateral and vertical guidance to ensure the aircraft is lined up with the runway and with the correct touchdown (landing) point on the runway. Ships don't have a need for vertical guidance and so far as I know use visual aids like lights and buoys etc when operating in confined areas like harbours etc.

GPS is great technology but for aviation and some other purposes it has it's limitations so other navigation methods are required. GPS on its own cannot provide the accuracy of the navigation systems currently used at airports like Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#904154 28-Sep-2013 13:58

There is some evidence that a mobile phone may have been a factor in the 1995 Ansett Dash 8 crash on the Tararuas, but it is circumstantial and highly inconclusive.

The captain of the flight claimed that the radio altimeter suddenly flipped 1,000 ft just before impact, which is corroberated by the fact that the GPWS failed to provide the duration of warning that it's supposed to. At around the time of impact an Ansett staff member received a call of complaint from a passenger on board the flight, and this was later confirmed to have been genuine. Engineers retrieved the radio altimeter and GPWS from the wreckage and could find no fault with the equipment when they later tested it.

In my view there are some substantial unanswered questions in this scenario.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#904181 28-Sep-2013 15:04

Technofreak:
The prime reason cell phone and PED use is banned on aircraft is because of the potential risk of interference to the equipment used to provide tracking data for an aircraft to land at an airport in bad weather. This equipment provides very accurate lateral and vertical guidance to ensure the aircraft is lined up with the runway and with the correct touchdown (landing) point on the runway.

Aren't these systems directional? And in the nose of the aircraft? In which case, couldn't they be/aren't they shielded from RF interference from behind with a faraday cage type design? Just wondering. (I'm obviously no expert).

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#904216 28-Sep-2013 16:39

blakamin:
Aren't these systems directional? And in the nose of the aircraft? In which case, couldn't they be/aren't they shielded from RF interference from behind with a faraday cage type design? Just wondering. (I'm obviously no expert).

Not not directional in the sense you are meaning and not fitted in to nose of the aircraft.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#904217 28-Sep-2013 16:40

Technofreak:
blakamin:
Aren't these systems directional? And in the nose of the aircraft? In which case, couldn't they be/aren't they shielded from RF interference from behind with a faraday cage type design? Just wondering. (I'm obviously no expert).

Not not directional in the sense you are meaning and not fitted in to nose of the aircraft.

Ah, ok. I would've thought it would be sure to the fact that the signal is coming from the airport. At least directional in a 180° arc anyway.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4