Passengers who don't turn off their devices
Dec 13, 2006, 5:48 pm
#212
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
For what it's worth, there are some related documents at the following links. The first one is a study under controlled conditions at CAA (UK). The second is a sampling of reports of oddities possibly related to personal devices.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf
From the summary:
"Tests that exposed a set of aircraft avionic equipment to simulated cellphone transmissions revealed various adverse effects on the equipment performance. Although the equipment demonstrated a satisfactory margin above the original certification criteria for interference susceptibility, that margin was not sufficient to protect against potential cellphone interference under worst-case conditions.
[text deleted]
The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
- Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
- Instability of indicators.
- Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
- VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
- VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
- Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
- Background noise on audio outputs."
Dec 13, 2006, 5:50 pm
#213
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,339
Their work seemed pretty scientific to me. I suggest you read the entire article.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but calling either of the authors, thier work, or their organization a "hack" seems incredulous to me.
Maybe you can at least understand the the airlines cell phone use ban isn't unfounded or based on "lies" since the airlines are obviously privy to several studies from respected [normally] organizations like IEEE, CM, NASA ... all of which assert that the risk is real.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but calling either of the authors, thier work, or their organization a "hack" seems incredulous to me.
Maybe you can at least understand the the airlines cell phone use ban isn't unfounded or based on "lies" since the airlines are obviously privy to several studies from respected [normally] organizations like IEEE, CM, NASA ... all of which assert that the risk is real.
And I actually have been a referee for many IEEE articles. It is with that experience that I called that article a "hack" in comparison to the other article by the IEEE which was far most scientific and scholarly. But you are correct that this is just my opinion. In fact all discussion of this is subjective because there is no proof that cell phones can impact the safety of flying.
The day that someone proves that cell phones impact safety is the day that cell phones will be banned from the cabin. Think about it.
Last edited by stimpy; Dec 13, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Dec 13, 2006, 5:55 pm
#214
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,339
And the IEEE produces a great many technical articles through a variety of journals. There are different levels of reviews that take place and as such not all articles are as scholarly as others.
Dec 13, 2006, 6:06 pm
#216
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
You should study the history of this. Cell phones were not banned by the airlines. They were banned, long before these articles, by the FCC for reasons that have nothing to do with flight safety. There are many threads here on flyertalk going back many years on this subject. You can start your research there.
And I actually have been a referee for many IEEE articles. It is with that experience that I called that article a "hack" in comparison to the other article by the IEEE which was far most scientific and scholarly. But you are correct that this is just my opinion. In fact all discussion of this is subjective because there is no proof that cell phones can impact the safety of flying.
The day that someone proves that cell phones impact safety is the day that cell phones will be banned from the cabin. Think about it.
And I actually have been a referee for many IEEE articles. It is with that experience that I called that article a "hack" in comparison to the other article by the IEEE which was far most scientific and scholarly. But you are correct that this is just my opinion. In fact all discussion of this is subjective because there is no proof that cell phones can impact the safety of flying.
The day that someone proves that cell phones impact safety is the day that cell phones will be banned from the cabin. Think about it.
OK ... I'll bite ...as skeptical as I am ... I do try to keep an open mind:
1) Why specifically do you think that the [Strauss, Morgan, Apt, and Stancil] work is inadequate/inappropriate/misleading/wrong ?
2) link me to credible body of work that supports your zero-risk thesis.
Dec 13, 2006, 6:11 pm
#217
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
Dec 13, 2006, 6:13 pm
#218
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,339
I'm dismissive of the CAA study because it has nothing to do with real aircraft and real aircraft conditions. As a lab test, it was fine. But who cares about a lab test in this case? We are talking about an issue that occurs on thousands of flights each and every day. Also I am somewhat dismissive of studies that have an agenda and reach the conclusions that they hoped to reach. But that is a secondary issue to the test itself.
Dec 13, 2006, 6:17 pm
#219
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,339
OK ... I'll bite ...as skeptical as I am ... I do try to keep an open mind:
1) Why specifically do you think that the [Strauss, Morgan, Apt, and Stancil] work is inadequate/inappropriate/misleading/wrong ?
2) link me to credible body of work that supports your zero-risk thesis.
1) Why specifically do you think that the [Strauss, Morgan, Apt, and Stancil] work is inadequate/inappropriate/misleading/wrong ?
2) link me to credible body of work that supports your zero-risk thesis.
Dec 13, 2006, 6:22 pm
#220
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
... just kidding ... I know you didnt mean it that way.However, I have tried and am unable to find a single credible piece of work that supports the zero-risk thesis.
Dec 13, 2006, 6:26 pm
#221
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
I'm dismissive of the CAA study because it has nothing to do with real aircraft and real aircraft conditions. As a lab test, it was fine. But who cares about a lab test in this case? We are talking about an issue that occurs on thousands of flights each and every day. Also I am somewhat dismissive of studies that have an agenda and reach the conclusions that they hoped to reach. But that is a secondary issue to the test itself.
My point is that your premise is wrong, that it's ONLY a lab test, and "who cares about a lab test?"
I would make the opposite assertion. If you came up with several real life occurances of something being studied, I would say that is inconclusive data and needs to be studied in a controlled experiment.
P.S. The end of your post is a little offensive.
Dec 13, 2006, 7:38 pm
#223
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SFO
Programs: UA1P
Posts: 613
which supports if something is unknown, don't do it and not "go ahead and do it until hundreds of people die." I have to believe the dozens of cases where PED's are suspect in having interferred in millions of hours of flying versus say ten controlled experiments. Which bring sup the question, what is a controlled experiment? I'd have to say something along the lines of a cellphone that is in a wild failure mode and pumping tons of outside of the usual band on an older C206 "commercial" airplane. Of course you can come up with a million arguments against that. the problem is that there are way too many types of planes of differing design with way too many navigational frequencies with way too many antennas and way too many navigational receivers, etc. to make a probability of less than 10^-9 probability that something won't happen. It's just safer and more realistic to just ban it.
Dec 13, 2006, 7:44 pm
#224
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
I find it amusing that all of these armchair cell phone interference experts are missing the entire point:
Airlines are private enterprises. They have rules just like all other private organizations. You should follow them just as you follow other rules of private organizations.
QED.
It has nothing to do with interference. They don't want you yapping/typing on your cell phone/blackberry (neither do I).
Do you folks typically disregard rules at work that you don't agree with?
Airlines are private enterprises. They have rules just like all other private organizations. You should follow them just as you follow other rules of private organizations.
QED.
It has nothing to do with interference. They don't want you yapping/typing on your cell phone/blackberry (neither do I).
Do you folks typically disregard rules at work that you don't agree with?
Dec 13, 2006, 7:54 pm
#225
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,905
...It's just safer and more realistic to just ban it.