Fredd

The British Tabs - love 'em or hate 'em...

Southwest Airlines passenger restrained and arrested after refusing to turn off his cell phone

seaduck79

Hero or villian? If you saw this happening, whom would you applaud, the passenger or the crew?

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/06/a...ing-off-phone/

ursine1

Need more info. I generally turn my cell phone on as soon as we've hit the runway and are slowing down. The story says he turned it on when landing; I suspect it must have been when on final approach, otherwise I can't see how an FA would have even noticed someone's phone was on. That said, his refusal to turn it back off is really the issue.

MrHalliday

The article says:

A single Blackberry or iPad can cause the auto pilot to disengage and critical warning lights to come on, testers discovered. The instruments which guide pilots in bad weather can also be affected by the electrical signals from such devices - with potentially catastrophic consequences. A confidential study by the the International Air Transport Association, a trade group representing more 230 passenger and cargo airlines worldwide, found that over six years there were 75 separate incidents which caused concern.

That doesn't sound right.

N965VJ

I saw this story earlier today and was wondering why someone was arrested for this, now it seems there was more going on than just using a phone:

The passenger was restrained on board, she added.

Rut-roh!

707Flyer

because it's nonsense published by an airline lobbying agency

if a 2 GHz cell phone can interfere with a 110 MHz ILS signal, the airport's instrument approach system will have bigger problems than a random, clueless WN pax

they also need the things shut off on departure so they don't get sued if someone is distracted during the safety presentation

that said, was once on a plane where the guy in front of me wouldn't STFU after boarding, was very happy when the matron FA sternly demanded he shut his phone off

ByrdluvsAWACO

The crew. If you are told to turn off your phone and you don't then I'll cheer the police and crew as they drag/escort you off the plane.

707Flyer

yes, a blackberry a receiving a microwave signal in Row 27 can take out the instruments, but the ACARS messages coming into the cockpit just a few MHz above the ILS are completely safe

makes perfect sense

diablonhn

that's why the general public and politicians are complete idiots

pinworm

This study doesn't appear to have "objective" money behind it.

westau

I know you are supposed to do what the flight attendants tell you so this guy probably deserved what he got but to the general subject of cell phones on planes I present this link to an overview of a Mythbusters episode from a couple years ago.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/e..._on_plane.html

Basically says that there is almost no chance of a cell phone doing anything just that the FAA would rather just ban them then actually test it themselves.

N830MH

That's not good at all. He could get into trouble the flight. He could be banned flying on WN for the life. His behavior is not tolerable. He have to obey the federal regulations. He have to listens the flight crew instructions. He have followed the rules.

lil Gophee

WONDERFUL! So tired of jerks who think the flight is all about them. Throw the book at him and ban him from flying.

He broke the rule and refused to comply. Who knows what he was trying to do with the cell phone? Coordinate an attack? Annoy another passenger?

Don't like the rules? Buy your own private jet and do anything you want.

OPNLguy

Folks can believe what they want, as well as debate the issue all they want, but in the final analysis, it comes down to the above point in your post.

Here a few reports from the NASA ASRS Database. For those unaware, pilots and other aviation personnel submit safety-related reports into a database, so awareness of potential safety issues can be made available to the aviation community at-large. ASRS reports get "sanitized" (stripped of any airline/employee identity) and even though though they heavily use techno-geek terms, it should be pretty easy for even the layperson to get the gist of what was going on.

Hopefully, those people that disagree that cell phones can and do sometimes create interference with some aircraft systems can see that they really do happen in the real world, no matter what was shown on Mythbusters.

Narrative: 1

AT APPROX XA10 PM, MY CREW AND I WERE OPERATING FLT XX FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ1. IN ADDITION TO US THERE WERE 4 PAX ON THE FLT, SEATED IN THE REAR AREA OF THE CABIN. APPROX 10 MINS AFTER DEP WE OBSERVED THE SMOKE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATE FOR A TOTAL OF APPROX 5-8 SECONDS, AND THEN EXTINGUISH. NO SMOKE OR FIRE WAS OBSERVED. WE SUBSEQUENTLY DONNED OUR OXYGEN MASKS AND GOGGLES, DECLARED AN EMER WITH ATC, AND BEGAN A RETURN TO ZZZ. WE EXECUTED THE APPROPRIATE EMER CHKLISTS, IN THE PROCESS COMMUNICATING THE SITUATION TO THE FLT ATTENDANT. SHE SUBSEQUENTLY INFORMED US THAT NO FIRE OR SMOKE WAS PRESENT IN THE CABIN, AND NO HEAT OR EVIDENCE OF FIRE WAS APPARENT UPON EXAMINING THE BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT ACCESS DOOR. WE LANDED AT ZZZ AND TAXIED TO THE GATE WITH THE FIRE EQUIP STANDING BY. AFTER DEPLANING THE PAX, WE INSPECTED THE ACFT WITH THE FIRE CREW AND DISCOVERED NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE OR SMOKE. IN INVESTIGATING THE SOURCE OF THE INDICATION THE FLT ATTENDANT HAD ASKED THE PAX IF THEIR CELL PHONES WERE ON, THEY RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, THE FLT ATTENDANT SAID AT THE TIME THAT SHE HAD OBSERVED A PAX SEATED IN THE AFT OF THE ACFT TEXT-MESSAGING ON A CELL PHONE EARLIER DURING TAXI, AND THOUGH SHE SUBSEQUENTLY DIRECTED THE PAX TO TURN OFF ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES, SHE LATER EXPRESSED REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL MIGHT NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH HER INSTRUCTIONS. I MADE TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT. I COMMUNICATED OUR ENTIRE SITUATION TO THE MECH ON DUTY. I ALSO EXPLAINED OUR SUSPICION ABOUT THE CELL PHONE. HE AGREED WITH THAT POSSIBILITY OF CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE AND RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT WE SHOULD PERFORM THE BAGGAGE SMOKE WARNING SYS TEST, AND THAT IF THE SYS TEST WAS SUCCESSFUL THAT WE WOULD BE CLR TO CONTINUE THE FLT. I PERFORMED THE TEST AS DIRECTED IN THE FIRST FLT/POST MAINT CHKLIST, AND THE SYS TESTED NORMALLY. I THEN COMMUNICATED THAT INFO TO DISPATCH. OUR COLLECTIVE DECISION, BASED ON COM WITH MAINT, WAS THAT THE SYS WAS FUNCTIONING NORMALLY AND NO MAINT WRITE-UP WAS REQUIRED. DISPATCH THEN RELEASED US TO CONTINUE THE FLT. UPON REBOARDING THE PAX, WE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO THEM, AND REQUESTED THAT THEY PLEASE ENSURE ALL CELL PHONES REMAINED OFF FOR THE DURATION OF THE FLT. WE SUBSEQUENTLY CONTINUED TO ZZZ1 WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT.

Narrative: 2

ON TAXI OUT OF ORD, RECEIVED CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE ON RADIOS. MADE PA, INTERFERENCE STOPPED. AT CHA, FLEW ILS APCH WITH TSTMS JUST OUTSIDE FAF AND MODERATE RAIN INSIDE FAF. HEARD CELL PHONE ON COMRDO'S DURING APCH. TAXIED TO GATE WITHOUT INCIDENT. CREW COULD NOT REMEMBER IF TWR HAD SAID TAXI TO THE GATE WITH HIM OR CONTACT GND CTL. CAUSE OF CONFUSION: DISTR OF CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE DURING A DIFFICULT APCH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 695050: INSIDE FAF, CAPT NOTICED CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE ON COMRDO'S. AFTER LNDG AND CLRING RWY 20, I (FO) NOTICED CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE AND DISCUSSED WITH CAPT.

Narrative: 3

ON BEING VECTORED FOR ILS RWY 8 AT BUR, WE WERE GIVEN OUR FINAL LOC INTERCEPT HDG, AND CLRED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. I WAS THE PF AND HAD THE AUTOPLT ENGAGED. THE MCP WAS SET UP IN THE HDG MODE. ONCE I TURNED TO THE INTERCEPT HDG USING THE BUG, I SELECTED VOR/LOC TO CAPTURE THE LOC. BOTH THE PNF AND I OBSERVED LOC CAPTURED AND THE ACFT TURNING TO INTERCEPT. AS THE ACFT APCHED THE INBOUND COURSE, I GLANCED AT THE ALTIMETER TO CALCULATE WHERE MY ALT CALLOUTS WOULD BE MADE. WHEN I LOOKED BACK OVER TO MY PRIMARY FLT INSTS, I NOTICED WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH OUR INBOUND COURSE, AND THE ACFT WAS IN A 30 DEG L-HAND BANK. I NOTICED IT SHOWED CTL WHEEL STEERING IN THE LATERAL MODE. AT APPROX THE SAME TIME I WAS CALCULATING MY CALLOUTS, THE PNF WAS TUNING IN THE TWR FREQ. WE BOTH LOOKED UP TO NOTICE THE DISCREPANCY AT THE SAME TIME. I IMMEDIATELY INITIATED A 30 DEG BANK R-HAND TURN BACK TOWARD THE INBOUND COURSE. WE WERE APPROX 30 DEGS OFF COURSE. BEFORE WE COULD TELL APCH WE WERE GOING TO MISS THE APCH, THE CTLR IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED A CLB AND HDG. WE WERE VECTORED BACK AROUND AND EXECUTED AN UNEVENTFUL ILS RWY 8 AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I AM NOT SURE WHY THE MCP WENT FROM A VOR/LOC CAPTURE TO CTL WHEEL STEERING MODE. WE LATER TALKED TO THE FLT ATTENDANTS, AND THEY OBSERVED A PAX WHO MAY HAVE BEEN USING THEIR CELL PHONE. I SUPPOSE RADIO INTERFERENCE IS POSSIBLE. ESPECIALLY DURING A CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 619585: I SAW THAT THE ACFT WAS STILL IN A 30 DEG L BANK AND THE HDG HAD GONE THROUGH LOC COURSE AND WAS PASSING 030 DEGS. I NOTICED SOME LOC NEEDLE MODULATIONS ON THE MISSED APCH. IN TALKING WITH THE FLT ATTENDANTS, THEY STATED THAT THEY SUSPECTED A PAX OF HIDING BELOW SEAT LEVEL AND USING HIS CELL PHONE DURING THE APCH. I AM NOT CERTAIN THE CAUSE OF THE EVENT BUT, I SUSPECT THAT AS THE AUTOPLT HAD THE ACFT IN A 30 DEG L BANK TO INTERCEPT THE LOC, CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE CAUSED THE LOC NEEDLE TO DEFLECT FULL SCALE TO THE L. THE AUTOPLT CONTINUED THE TURN, TRYING TO INTERCEPT THE DEFLECTED NEEDLE AND WHEN THE NEEDLE SWUNG BACK TO A FULL R DEFLECTION, THE AUTOPLT REVERTED BACK TO CTL WHEEL STEERING, LEAVING US IN A 30 DEG BANKED L TURN.

Narrative: 4

APCHING ATL FROM SW TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 27L. SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED AND GIVEN ILS RWY 26R. NUMEROUS DEVS DUE TO TSTMS IN LCL AREA. APCH GAVE TURN TO 240 DEGS TO INTERCEPT LOC TO RWY 26R. CAPT PF NOTED IRREGULAR DEVS ON HIS CDI. FO LATE SWITCHING TO NEW LOC FREQ DUE TO USING WX RADAR. CAPT COMMANDED ON CDI DEVS AS FO SWITCHING TO LOC. CAPT'S CDI WENT TO FULL R DEFLECTION AND CAPT STARTED R TURN TO GO BACK. INTERCEPT VERIFIED BY FO'S CDI. AT THAT TIME, ATC DIRECTED FLT TURN TO 180 DEGS AND MAINTAIN 4500 FT DUE TO PASSING THROUGH LOC. SUBSEQUENT APCH WAS NORMAL. AFTER FLT, FLT ATTENDANT RPTED THAT ON APCH, A CELL PHONE WAS RINGING IN THE CABIN AND PAX ANSWERED CALL. SHE WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE WHICH PAX. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: WHILE ON THE INTERCEPT HDG, RPTR'S LOC NEEDLE SEEMED ERRATIC, LEADING HIM TO BELIEVE SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH HIS RECEIVER. BY THE TIME THE FO'S ILS WAS TUNED IN, THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THE LOC. AT THAT POINT ATC, DUE TO THE WX AND THE HVY VOLUME OF TFC, ISSUED A GAR. NO FURTHER INFO REGARDING POSSIBLE CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE WAS FORTHCOMING.

Narrative: 5

CONDITIONS: VMC, CLRED FOR VISUAL TO CVG RWY 18R, AUTOPLT ON, HDG MODE SET TO 150 DEGS TO INTERCEPT, RWY 18R LOC (111.55/184 DEGS) TUNED AND IDENTED, GREEN DATA SELECTED, APCH ARMED. EVENT: WHILE IN LEVEL FLT AWAITING CAPTURE OF THE LOC, THE AUTOPLT BEGAN A STANDARD RATE TURN TO THE INBOUND COURSE APPROX 7 MI PRIOR TO INTERCEPTING THE LOC. SINCE WE WERE VMC, WE IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED THE ERROR AND DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT. THE REST OF THE APCH WAS HAND FLOWN. UPON LNDG, I ASKED THE FLT ATTENDANT IF SHE NOTICED ANYBODY USING THEIR PHONE INFLT. SHE STATED THAT SHE OBSERVED A PAX IN SEAT XYZ PLACING A CALL DURING THE TIME WE WERE ON APCH TO CVG. COMMENTS: THIS TYPE OF AUTOPLT ERROR HAS HAPPENED TO ME AT OKC AND AT ANOTHER ARPT, AND DURING THOSE OCCURRENCES I SUSPECTED CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE, HOWEVER, I WAS NEVER ABLE TO PROVE THAT SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY USING THEIR PHONE INFLT. ON THIS OCCASION, IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE FLT ATTENDANT. MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THIS TYPE OF INTERFERENCE OCCURS WHILE IMC, IT COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. MISSED APCH, TFC CONFLICTS, CREW VIOLATIONS, OR EVEN CFIT COULD BE POSSIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING IF A PED IS ON DURING FLT, AND THEREFORE, HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF OUR NAV EQUIP IS BEING DEGRADED. CELL PHONES, WIRELESS PDA'S, THE NEW 'BLACKBERRY' DEVICES, AND OTHER WIRELESS DEVICES ARE COMMONPLACE AND IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT INADVERTENTLY LEFT ON OR USED WHILE AIRBORNE. (IN FACT, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, ONE OF THE TELEVISION ADS FOR A BLACKBERRY DEVICE SHOWED A PAX CHKING HIS E-MAIL WHILE INFLT.) I ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ADDRESSING THIS SIT. I AM CONCERNED BY THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS TYPE OF INTERFERENCE COULD LEAD TO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OR AN ACCIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A POSSIBLE SOLUTION. IMPLEMENT A RECEIVER/DETECTOR ON BOARD THE ACFT WHICH CAN DETECT XMISSIONS BY THESE TYPES OF DEVICES. SINCE THESE DEVICES ARE ASSIGNED FREQS, THE PRESENCE OF THESE FREQS ON THE ACFT WOULD INDICATE THAT SUCH A DEVICE IS ON AND THAT THE ACCURACY OF THE NAV EQUIP MAY BE DEGRADED. WITH THIS INFO, THE CREW WOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME INDICATION IN THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE. THE CREW WOULD THEN TAKE AN APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION. REGARDLESS OF HOW A LONG-TERM SOLUTION IS DEVISED, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT FLT ATTENDANTS IMMEDIATELY (EVEN IF STERILE COCKPIT IS IN EFFECT) ADVISE THE CREW IF THEY OBSERVE A PAX USING A PED ON APCH, OR CLBOUT, SINCE THIS IS AN ISSUE OF SAFETY.

Narrative: 6

RADAR VECTOR 180 DEGS TO INTERCEPT J6 BTWN ALB AND SAX. CDI DEFLECTION FULL L (ACFT SHOWN R OF COURSE). I LOOKED AND ADJUSTED THE ENGS AND THEN OBSERVED COURSE CAPTURE. I WAS SURPRISED HOW FAST WE HAD A CTRED CDI. I MADE A R 25 DEG BANK TURN BUT STARTED TO DRIFT FURTHER L OF COURSE. FINAL HDG 240 DEGS. I WAS THINKING THAT WE MUST BE ENCOUNTERING A STRONG XWIND. THE FO WAS TUNED INTO SAX 209 DEG INBOUND COURSE. HE NOTICED I WAS FLYING AWAY FROM HIS COURSE. I INITIATED A TURN BACK L FEELING THAT HIS WAS CORRECT, BUT NOT CERTAIN AT THIS POINT IN TIME UNTIL CTR ASKED US WHAT OUR HDG WAS. MY CDI AND FLT DIRECTOR WAS STILL CALLING FOR A R TURN, BUT WAS FLUCTUATING 8-10 DEGS OFF TO THE R. I TUNED IN SAX, BUT ALSO HAD INCONSISTENT INFO FROM THE FO'S NAV/RADIO. CELL PHONE ACTIVITY WAS SUSPECTED. A PA WAS MADE FOR PAX TO MAKE SURE THEIR PHONES WERE OFF. A COUPLE PAX MADE THE CHKS IN CARRY-ON BAGS. THE CDI STABILIZED SHORTLY AFTER THE PA. ACTUAL COURSE DEV WAS ONLY A COUPLE MI OFF (EARLY) AND NO CONFLICT OCCURRED. THIS RPT IS MADE IN CASE YOU TRACK POSSIBLE CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE IN THE B727 OR OTHER ACFT.

diablonhn

So are you saying anecdotes trump scientific evidence? It's either you believe these anecdotes or you believe in hard facts. Anecdotes are not hard facts.