I've experienced mobile phone interference twice on the flight deck on large commercial aircraft. Once on a Cathay Pacific Airbus 340 and again on a Cathay Pacific Boeing 747-400. Both were on approach. The Airbus was landing JNB and the Boeing at Kai Tak. As we descended, over the COM and NAV radios, we could hear GSM phones acquire the network. For those of you unfamiliar with the sound, put your phone adjacent to a radio and call it. The radio will broadcast the sounds we heard.

I spoke to the flight crews about it, and they shrugged it off as being normal and in any event, not a big deal. As I mentioned in another thread, I found it particularly troubling. As (only) a Commercial pilot myself, I would have found it distracting at the least. It also made it difficult to hear the morse code emitted by the navigation aid. Being able to hear this beacon at all phases of the approach is a requirement for making the approach in some cases.

Now, in the case of small aircraft, I have never found an aircraft where they did not experience this type of interference. For example, the Saab 340 appears to be notorious for picking up mobile phone interference from the cabin.

To your point, though, about WiFi and Bluetooth being allowed in-flight. To me, in-flight is a whole different matter than while during landing. As stimpy said, there's no evidence of any of these devices actually impacting flight systems, and even if they did, while in cruise, there would be plenty of time to investigate and shut the system and passenger devices down. No doubt Lufthansa's procedure is still to shut down that system and direct passengers to turn off their devices during the critical phases of flight.

This may be appropos of nothing, BUT when i place my blackberry cradle too close to my computer monitor at work and the email send/receive engages it does cause my screen to jump and there is static on the screen. But only at a range of about 5 inches or less.

Frankly I think this whole issue is seriously overblown. I can assure you that many, many pax leave wireless devices on in flight, either out of ignorance or obstinance and there has never ever been a single incident of a flight being interfered with, much less placed in jeopardy by same.

I believe this is an issue of erring on the side of safety beyond reason and logic.

that I always sit in F.

:-)

If we are going to get on the cell phone issue, my understanind from an FCC colleague is that the issues relate to older cell phones, which they do not know how many people might use. Older analogue devices which used to produce 1.5 to sometimes 3 WATTS, (yes we used to hold those bricks to our heads) clearly are transmitting high power, ping for a tower and sending EMF which could get anywhere,

Now, how many people are really using such a device today, don't know. They don't really know either.

It reminds me of the complete abstinance from alcohol during pregnancy, which we KNOW isn't really the case, but it will catch all the people who would be a risk group.

handheld analog cellular phones had a maximum of 0.6 watts, bag phones were 1.2 watts, and phones mounted in cars were 3 watts.

normally, when in a city and near a cell tower, they would use much less power than the maximum. in an airplane they would probably be at their maximum because the cell tower signal is weak to nonexistant.

I'll pull the moto from 84, I could swear it was 3 watts.
indeed, the car kit I had in the late 80's early 90's did 3 watts in the car, but this puppy was pretty powerfull too.

That's right -- 3 watts in the car, .6 next to your head.

This whole argument is just as absurd as the "turn your phone off while pumping gas" one. In case you're planning on telling me this is not absurd, read this.

In general, blame the lawyers for all of this nonsense.

3 watts was 3 watts, just for the phone.

the 3 watt car kit was for a later moto, from 92 that was .5 or something, but the car kit brought it up to 3 in the car.

On another note. My #1 1K GF was on a flight into SEA once, and the pilot was aborting the landing, since they said someone in row 2 was on their cell phone and it was interfering with their tower communcations.

I wasn't there, so cannot confirm that they weren't just trying to put the story onto something less serieous like, landing gear that wouldn't go down, or they really didn't like the guy in row 2, or were just trying to set and example and decided that they would scare everyone on the plane and abort a landing, but I recall the incident.

Like I said in the other thread. If there was the slightest proof that cell phones could impact the safety of the airplane, every cell phone would be confiscated at security just like they do with scissors nowadays. The fact is that many people leave their cell phones on during each flight and the planes somehow manage to avoid collisions and stay in the sky.

However, since this is a Bluetooth thread, I will mention that there are three Bluetooth transmission schemes. The common scheme only goes a few meters. But Bluetooth transmitters can go up to (and perhaps beyond) 100 meters. And Bluetooth is a frequency hopper hopping 600 times per second through the 2.4 GHz range. It can and will interfere with other 2.4 GHz devices. But again, somehow the airplanes keep from crashing when Bluetooth devices are operating on airplanes.

On a recent UA flight IAD-LHR, Bluetooth was specifically mentioned as a no use at anytime item.