BStrauss3

There is also the verified Honeywell incident, although AS eventually retracted part of the original statement, the rest remains. Can anyone point to the Boeing service bulletin?


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...boeing-354179/

slickvik

If the cell phone has no SIM in it, wouldn't it be unable to transmit any signal?

JamesS

Even without a SIM, the handset is still capable of making emergency calls, meaning it does still communicate with any available GSM network. That's exactly what it does when you seem "emergency calls only": your SIM card isn't valid for any network within range, but there is another network available which will accept you for emergency calls only, regardless of SIM.

The audible interference on speakers is interfering directly with the speakers themselves, and only works within a few feet. I recall a GCHQ presentation some years ago by one of their specialists, going into great detail about radios and aircraft, with a very large gap between the maximum power output possible from phones and the minimum noise floor aircraft have to accept. (Which, of course, does not mean there are no systems out there which fail to meet that requirement, by accident or corner-cutting, as the vulnerable batch of Honeywell displays and the 1987 Black Hawk issues demonstrate - and in both cases, it seems to have been the vulnerable equipment which was considered faulty and changed to fix the problem.)

Incidentally, mobile phones use frequencies just either side of the L-band used for long range air traffic control radar: if you find any aircraft systems disrupted by that, you have a problem!

Someone earlier mentioned 'dry shaving' - I'd love to see someone try a wet shave in-flight. Particularly in turbulence...

kenish

OK, so you were on a 787 with a ton of crew who were in training/familiarity mode. There may have been a very senior crew member in the cabin or cockpit. If so, the "working" crew may have felt pressure to do things by the book. If a FAA check pilot or inspector was aboard (or the crew suspected their presence), that would turn up the heat even more. Worst case, the FAA could take action against UA and crew members who knowingly allowed the flight to operate while a violation of FAR's existed.

Lastly, keep in mind the 787 is new to the crew where day-to-day operation is concerned and several UA flights have diverted after minor issues or alerts. The flight crew was probably in an elevated state of awareness to everything going on...similar to your first week driving your new car.

Just speculating on a possible explanation for the unexpected crew reaction.

reamworks

I'd think long and hard before marrying this woman.

jgcii

Guilty

chollie

Whether or not I agree with it, I do it because the potential repercussions (met at gate by police) aren't worth it if an FA decides to take an aggressive approach.

Just once, I was in the bulkhead row, so everything stowed overhead. We're already taxiing down the runway and I realized I hadn't turned my phone off. If someone called/texted, the FAs in the jumpseats were bound to hear it. I think the one FA saw the sudden look of horror on my face before I even made eye contact or said something. I pointed agitatedly, said 'my phone, my phone, in the green bag, I forgot to turn it off!'. I didn't dare undo my seatbelt and stand up myself at that point. She just laughed, got up, opened the bin, handed me my bag, I shut the phone off, reverse process as we lifted off, and said "Don't worry, I've done it too".

Backseatpilot

The issue was far from ridiculous in the 60s when most navigation was radio based. As GPS navigation takes over it is becoming ridiculous and the policy will likely change.

The issue is that electronic devices can potentially interfere with, say, the localizer during an ILS approach (the type of approach you do on any major airport when viz is low). The pilot--autopilot, more likely--thinks it's coming down ok but the plane is not where it should and slams into an obstacle (not likely a mountain, but perhaps an antenna, still, everyone dies). The stakes are high. The probability is very low. The device has to be in the wrong place in the plane and it must interfere in the wrong way, into an obstacle.

I've checked on my own plane (it's a small one) on different occasions and I've found such big interference that I decided to become a pain to my fellow electronic-device-user-while-landing passengers in times when I think it could be an issue: landings and takeoffs in poor visibility. With good visibility it's a non-issue. Sooner rather than later most landings at mayor airports will switch to GPS, then it's no longer an issue for sure. In the meantime, why risk it?

AlohaDaveKennedy

Indeed it is about eliminating distractions. Today my US Airways flight landed with smoke in the cabin and before we touched down the passengers were told the minute we land do not take anything, get into the isle, exit out the front door to the right, and move forward away from the plane. The firefighters, police and TSA folk were already there when we landed and you could smell smoke.

About 30% of the female passengers took bags or purses, despite the declaration of an emergency. Many cell phones came out of the purses to take pictures even before the passengers were clear of the plane. Purses were under seats during landing so that retrieval process delayed passengers exiting the plane as did the use of the phones during the evacuation.

jgcii

Seems to me it was not that long ago that the flight crew was there to serve passenger's needs - not issue orders. While the times have changed, I am leery of giving yet another group of folks "power" (think the ever popular TSA).

jgcii

http://gma.yahoo.com/woman-forced-of...ws-travel.html

Forewarned.... play nice

bstndance

As an FA we are required to ask for compliance if we see/hear something out of compliance (cell phone on at wrong time, passenger up when seat belt sign on, bag not proper stowed).

If we are caught not doing this it could mean our jobs. It's real hard for a union to back you up when FARs are violated.
I like my job; therefore my job is more important than your text message or last minute email.

Also, we have iPhones and iPads, we know that clicking the top silver button without holding it only puts the device in standby.

Next time, if you don't want an FA harassing you about your electronics, don't let us catch you. At my airline, the FA has to tell walk through and check before telling the captain that we are secure for taxi. It makes everything go so much faster when we walk through and everything is off, things are stowed and belts are fastened. Each time we have to stop is time that we're not pushing from the gate. You're only delaying yourself.

bstndance

We are there for safety. Believe me if the FAA did not require us, there would be a vending machine in the galley.

sfspec

While it appears that the FA was over the top, The FA may have had it for the day. Almost every flight I've been on there is at least one person that the FA has to repeatedly ask to turn off the phone. The rule is stupid but it is still the rule. However I see nothing wrong with putting the phone in airplane mode.

Why? once you're airborne, you cant receive calls or texts. All you can do is play games, read books, or watch videos.

WillCAD

Noise in your headphones?

I'm thinking that you probably use older, unshielded headphones. Are any of your instruments affected? If there any effect on the aircraft itself?