Pilot on short-final screams 'turn off electronics'
 

Pilot on short-final screams 'turn off electronics'

I was recently on an American Eagle flight between Toronto and Chicago. On short final the pilot came over the speaker and in a flustered voice told us someone still had a phone on and that it was causing problems in the cockpit.

Upon landing the pilot said that if they had not had visual contact with the runway they would have had to go around. I asked upon existing and apparently, whatever was on stayed on.

After 1000s of flights I had never actually heard of a a device actually causing interference that mattered. Actually, my cousin, that is a commercial pilot, says he routinely keeps his phone on for whole flights.

So if you hadn't continued to exist, you wouldn't have asked?

Maybe not in so many words... ;)


I totally and true believe that electronics do not cause any interference in the real world, but I guess in one lab test under specific circumstances on a Tuesday night with a full moon and temperatures below 43 degrees the FAA noticed a voltage spike of negligible amounts and freaked out and passed an all encompassing rule.

I usually never turn my phone off during a flight and I continue to exist and exit planes....

The Conventional Wisdom on FT seems to be that the threat of interference is BS because "I kept my phone on during the flight and we didn't crash". Not exactly a scientifically rigorous line of argument.

I did read an article in an electrical engineering journal several years ago that examined the issue. If I remember correctly, the issue was a real one, particularly for equipment that had been repaired (factory-installed shielding was often compromised/damaged during repairs). TV's and FM radios were the biggest concern due to the internal frequencies they used.

I guess I hope I am never on a flight with you on a Tuesday night with a full moon below 43 degrees...

Is it really worth it even if the chance of interference is negligible -- really?

Irrespective of whether electronic equipment interferes with the plane's systems or not, I think it's great that there are people who think they know better and blatantly flout the safety rules. Fine if something goes wrong and you just kill yourself but unfortunately you'll take everyone else out with you.

AAaaahhhh... another electronics thread.

In addition to personal electronics there can also be a few other things causing the issue you experienced and it's not accurate for the pilot to place blame on some personal electronics stuff.

For example, heavy rain can result in static buildup on the airframe if they diffusers aren't connected properly. Or the radio might have chosen that particular moment to die. Or another airplane may have taxied too far and was partially intruding into the IFR caution zone. Or the radio was mistuned. Whatever. I would hope that the AE plane has better electronics than the Cessna 172 that I have pleasure of driving, but if I've been flying using the GPS tuned into the VOR display and then try to land using the ILS but forget to push the "NAV/GPS" toggle button, it will appear as if my ILS is broken. It's been known to happen.

As far as going around... that seems like the prudent thing to do. And assuming that your plane was trying to use an ILS approach, assuming they had been using VORs or GPS to navigate to ORD without problems, they could have then (presumptively) initiated one of those approaches without issue albeit with potentially higher minimums.

Having worked for a company that offered radiation test services, you're right in thinking damaged casing on phones and PC's is a real concern, as are leads hanging off the side of units for headphone, mice, portable storage etc. FWIW most Notebook PC's will radiate some interference in the GHz bands.

Ummm, the guy who left his phone on causing his plane to crash and explode in a fireball on landing sends his regrets that he is unable to access Flyertalk from the other side to contradict your reasoning

I am appalled at the unofficial testing program evidently going on to prove that cell phones do not interfere with aircraft navigation, and I want to go on record as saying that the first airline to allow cell phone use during flights WILL lose my business, even if it's AA.

What I don't understand is, why can't people turn their electronics off just because it's the rule? Regardless of whether it interferes or not, it's a very simple request that doesn't disrupt anyone's life. You're asked to turn it off, turn it off. The whole idea that people think they're above the rules, or just choose to ignore them, really bothers me. Would you cheat a friend just because he wouldn't find out, or because he doesn't really need the money?

It doesn't hurt anything to play by the rules.

BA allows texting on its JFK-LCY flights.

As an instrument rated pilot myself and as as the original poster I do NOT believe electronics cause any problems and if I had to guess this problem was cause in the ground or with the airplane, not with anything passengers did.

The pilot said the problem was with the COM radios, not the GPS or ILS (instrument landing system). My un-expert opinion is that cell phones had nothing to do with this, but it did make me wonder enough to ask the pilot what would cause him to worry[?] that much.

I do think cell phones / voice can eventually be allowed on-board. HOWEVER, technology needs to be developed (and I believe it can) so it is not disruptive to other passengers. I hope that generic laws preventing the market from developing technologically are NOT passed.

Who was that guy, or is your post just hyperbole?

This is interesting, because over the holidays, I was on an EZ flight from LHR to PFO. As we began our landing approach (read 3-5 minutes before touching down), the flight attendant made an announcement that we needed to make sure that all mobile phones and electronics needed to be off, because they could interfere with our ability to land safely.

Now, I don't know much about any of it and whether or not it will interfere, but nothing burns me up more than watching someone actively ignore this request. I was sitting next to a jerk in first on an AA flight last year who was ON THE PHONE as we were on approach, and the flight attendant just sat there and watch them. I was on a WN flight last month where two girls turned on their iphones and called as we were beginning to accelerate and take off.

The bottom line? There's a reason for these rules, whether I understand it and agree with it or not... and I don't want to be the one to find out whether or not they interfere with take off and landing. Your phone call is not that important.

What were the weather conditions at ORD at the time of the screaming? Sky & Temp.

No,not hyperbole at all but clearly the nuance of my post has escaped you - merely to point out that using the reasoning that "I have left my phone on and my plane has not crashed, therefore there is no danger in leaving my phone on" really doesn't allow contradiction because if someone left their phone on and did crash they probably wouldn't be in a position to tell us.

+1.

Ahh, another "trust me, I'm an armchair expert." :rolleyes:

That's not nuance, but made-up hyperbole that contributes nothing to a rational discussion, IMHO.

If you can show that use of a cell phone has contributed to any fiery crashes, please do so.

Agree, compared to what you must go through at Security and being limited to 3 ounces this is nothing. Believe it or not, there was a time in the world that cell phones and the Internet did not exist and somehow the world made it by.

I'm just glad posters on FT are more educated in the field of frequent flyer miles than electronics - although the level of speculation, unencumbered by facts, is about equal.

Howdy,

I've not nothing better to do at the moment (well - lots of stuff - but that would mean walking out of my office and my wife would likely make me fix something or do some sort of chore - so I'll hide up here and post to FT).

Anway -

1. I looked and there does not appear to ever have been a test of any kind conducted by the FAA pointing to interfearance on a plane from a cell phone.

2. A wide variety of airlines do allow cell phone calls while in-flight.

3. Most electronics are never actually turned off (see the guy who's laptop is on - and he shuts the lid - it's still on, just sleeping).

Sounds like I'm in favor of cell phones in flight? Nope - in all likely hood if AA allows it, I'll switch airlines or switch jobs. This is the one time of day when no one can talk to me - I relish it.

So I don't want cell phones being used on planes. I'm the guy who annoys you - I'm on my phone until the FA asks me to turn it off. It's how I make my living - and I spend so much time away from home - that when I do have 5 spare minutes to talk to the wife or kid - I'll take advantage of it.

And God knows - if my bosses see that I've got 10 seconds spare - they'll start up a conference call...

I'm OT here...

Point initial was - there's no evidence that cell phones can disrupt anything.

Me - I'd vote we disallow them being used once you step on the JetBridge...but that's just my thought.

Please I would ask you - the next time you are sitting next to a person who either forgot to turn it off - or is finishing up just after or before it should be off - you don't need to assult them - it's not going to crash the plane.

If you want to be the class room monitor - press your call button, the FA will make rude comments, the guy will finish his conversation, apologize to the FA and feel like .....

If it makes you happy - go for it.

Keep the faith,

Pakse

What's the big deal:confused:? The Federal Aviation Regulations mandate that cell phones be turned off so just do it and carry on.

some people follow rules blindly because they are the rules and someone in authority told them to.

some people refuse to follow rules where they see no reasonable benefit to doing so.

While this is undoubtedly true, the physics of the situation don't support the interference idea. Spiff has done more detailed calculations, but a few immediate things come to mind:

First, the actual amounts of radiated power are small, and the energy falls off with the square of the distance. So, even from the first row of F, the amount of energy reaching the cockpit is reduced substantially by distance.

Second, leaked power is generally radiated spherically. So, the small amount of energy is being sent in all directions. Only a small fraction is radiated "at" the cockpit, and this declines with distance as well as the sphere gets larger.

Finally, the equipment in the cockpit is not designed to receive signals. Sure, all electronic equipment can pick up interference, but the efficiency in doing so is substantially reduced.

As a concrete example, consider the spherical radiation profile. Let's say one is about 3 meters (~10 feet) from the sensitive equipment. That's closer than one would be,of course. The sphere at 3 meters has a surface area of about 113 square meters. Let's say that the sensitive area is even as large as 4 sq. meters (it's likely smaller). This means that only 3% of the small amount of radiation even reaches the equipment. And this doesn't even factor in the degradation with distance of the signal itself.

Highly unlikely, and not just because "some people of FT have left their phones and the plane didn't crash."

I agree 100%, and I always turn mine off. The FAs are required to have me to that- under penalty to themselves- and I have no reason to inconvenience them. I'm not going to use it, and there's no reason to have it on. So, I just turn it off because they has asked me to.

And some do it out of respect for the FA who is required to enforce this rule under penalty of fine. I don't follow rules that don't make sense as long as I'm not jeopardizing someone else, or causing my self undue inconvenience. This one is stupid, but there's no advantage to me to fail to follow it.

I decide whether to follow rules based on convenience, not just to buck those in authority.

Cheers.

Wow. This may be the best post ever on FT :D^

Clearly the nuance has escaped you once again because you seem convinced that my point is that a cell phone has contributed to a fiery crash when that is not my point at all.

Perhaps we have a different concept of rationality.

Yes, and more use of 'irrespective'......and more bloviating. Basically, nothing new or useful. ;)

Some already do:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/membe...-img-4014a.jpg

RJ at AMM on Oct 28

Happy Travels

[QUOTE=emma dog;12930305]AAaaahhhh... another electronics thread.
[QUOTE]AAaaahhh...another thread not airlline specific misposted in the wrong forum.
We will spirit it off to TravelBuzz for participation by all FlyerTalkers not just those who might trip over it in the AAdvantantage forum.

~magic111

No, but the British Civil Aviation authority did and demonstrated a risk of interference.

Citation? Cell phones don't really work while flying. And, assuming that they do, are any modifications made to the plane prior to this?

And, do they allow the use of cell phones during take off and landing?

You realize things like WiFi radios that they're worried about shut down while in sleep mode?

No, nothing has escaped me. I learned the difference betwen nuance and hyperbole a long time ago.

Is it possible the next airplane take over will be done electronically?Seems as if could be done either by something in your check on or in the cargo or perhaps even from a ground station that could cause problems with the A/Cs electronic system

I was very careful to say that electronic equipment radiates unwanted energy, and to avoid speculation about how important it is. The specific point I was implicitly addressing is the equipment as designed (typically a shielded box for a PC) has to meet certain standards by design HOWEVER commercial equipment is not 100% tested in production, PLUS all bets are off as soon as the enclosure has been compromised. There can also be significant amounts of radiation from wires connected to the box, which are not even type tested.

FWIW I'm not as concerned about radiated energy interferring with cockpit equipment so much as I am about it disturbing the various navigational antenna, which are sprinkled all over the outside of the airframe. There's an extra furrow outside AMS which provides ample demonstration of how a faulty radio altimeter can contribute to an accident, and the amounts of energy detected by these instruments, and by the SatNav equipment is so small that it takes relatively little to interfere with them.

The way I see it, the aircraft is most vulnerable as it's preparing to land where the workload is high and the pilots have relatively little scope to react if something goes wrong. From what I know I feel a lot happier if all the unnecessary junk is switched off and stowed for landing, and the FAA seems to feel the same so why do people keep bringing this up time and time again?

Let's look at the logic of what you said.....

It seems that the likelyhood of an electronic device effecting a plane is very small but not nil

The result of the plane being affected by an electronic device may be catastrophic

There is little or no benefit to the individual in keeping the electronic device switched on during the flight

So, as I see it, by keeping a phone switched on, the individual gains no benefit but induces a very small risk of a catastrophic event.......so why not just switch it off?

Just because you comply with a rule that you think to be worthless does not make you a weaker man

nickyboy

Anyone ever got asked to switch off the cameras ?

There are airlines consider cameras as "electronics". Japanese carriers do not say from the PA you have to switch off the cameras, but if there is a FA saw you taking pictures when the plane leave the gate til at the cruising altitude, they would come to you and ask you to switch it off.

Here's a fun experiment.

Take a GSM phone. If it has 3G, turn off 3G so that you're on EDGE only.
Place your phone near something that doesn't have specific shielding for it, e.g. computer speakers that are not branded "Works with iPhone."
Start making phone calls or accessing the data network.

Hear that bzzzt-bzzzt-bzzzzzzt?

I don't know what the specific interference concerns are or whether planes are designed to shield against GSM noise, but I do know that *this* in particular is very annoying when I'm sitting at my desk. I can't imagine how distracting it must be for a pilot if they happen to hear it.

Thus, I turn off my phone during takeoff and landing.

Preface: I turn off my cell phone as per the rules.

The pilot appears to have experienced a glitch in the plane's electronics or in signals. The pilot ascribed it to a cell phone, but that does not constitute evidence that a cell phone is what caused the problems; it represents an anecdotal claim.

I have an anecdote that does raise a question about whether some devices do interfere with the cockpit instruments. On a transatlantic flight last year (this was a repositioning ferry flight with no passengers or cargo so the potential for other possible sources of interference were a lot less) I was filming in the cockpit using my mobile phone in "flight" mode. During the mid-Atlantic section we were experiencing significant disturbance on HF when trying to contact either Piarco or Dakar Oceanic (we were crossing on a Southern track around 10N). A friendly JetBlue out of Santo Domingo was able to copy and kindly offered to play relay for us, but we simply could not communicate directly. After an hour or so, we were able to communicate with Cape Verde on VHF and I turned off my phone about the same time. Suddenly, the HF link with Dakar was functional again. Now, I know there could be plenty of explanations for this (solar activity, geographic anomalies, range, etc....) but the coincidence was too much to simply write off. I've flown hundreds of hours on that very airframe (indeed, our westbound crossing the previous night had no hassles whatsoever), but this was the only time I saw any comms problems.

I used to be a subscriber to the school of "much ado about nothing" but after that experience, I now have my doubts. People often don't realise how sensitive the equipment that guides ILS approaches can be to even tiny interference and in low-vis conditions, any responsible pilot has to err on the side of caution if he has any doubts about sources of interference.