[canucklad]

I know its not avionics but I do know that they affected satellite tv boxes. When a lot of us ended up in Vilnaus after a Scotland game got moved to Kiev.

The British Ambassador organised a pub to show the game. The picture continually froze or broke up until I rembered that mobile phones affect the box

Once everyone switched off their phones. We could enjoy the game. Or not as it turned out!

[bacrew1]

hmmm.. interesting times ahead… It can sometimes be a nightmare securing the cabin already with head phones off… yet alone headphones on AND IFE playing… roll on December! :s

[AnthonyDunn]

@ canucklad – 27/11/2012 16:55 GMT

After your Flyanscare exploits, you’re now ‘fessing up to watching Scotland’s (ahem) footie team! What’s wrong with the Vancouver Canucks…?

[Stringfellow]

I stopped turning off my phone ages ago and when flying in Europe often find it will make a data connection when flying over large cities. It all depends on the height of the aircraft at the time. Flying over Swiss major cities is usualy a good chance to pick up emails etc because they position aerials on mountain tops to ensure coverage for rural communities.

[canucklad]

Well AD……This is more of a separate Friday thread but…I consider myself a wee bit of a global citizen, and I’m also a massive sports fan……..so I have my heart tugged by various allegiances…however my first love is the Canucks……or ****ups as their known locally !

Spent quite a bit of time and brain cells ,a couple of years ago to predict when to go home so I could be in the city, to see them lift the Stanley Cup!!! My faith was almost rewarded, beaten by Boston in game 7….And no; I didn’t participate in the famous riot afterwards!!

Following Scotland abroad has brought me many happy, if not blurred memories of fantastic places, but more importantly, welcoming and hospitable locals!!

To sum me up, I fully enjoy the HK 7’s…because I support the following teams…

1)Scotland –where i live and paid up SRU boy
2) Canada —where my heart lies and teddy bears live
3) Kenya—Step family connections and HK , almost a 2nd home away from homey…..Now off to Wan Chai , oh bugger I’m still in frosty Scotland

And, the one thing I can never be accused of is being a glory seeker !!! :+)

[SimonS1]

As pointed out elsewhere Emirates have always allowed IFE use from getting on to getting off.

With regard to mobile phones, do you really think people would be allowed to take phones on board commercial aircraft (and perhaps forget to them off) if there was any serious risk to flight navigation systems. I can’t believe people take this old chestnut seriously. In fact what evidence is there that there has ever been a single incident of this nature on a commercial flight?

[Stringfellow]

The interesting thing is how the issue becomes one of regulation based on very little evidence. My brother in law works for Shell and he told me how we ended up with the ban on mobile phone use at petrol stations. Seems in the early days of popular mobile usage an engineer at Delft University was asked if phones could produce a spark, his written reply was that in theory any electronic device could – that was read by Shell’s insurance company and they mandated signs saying that phones were banned. When it was pointed out that starter motors and alternators already produce much larger sparks every time a car is started that was ignored. The signs went up, the ban was in place, other fuel companies followed and we find ourselves in the present position of something being banned that represents no risk whatsoever.

[FormerlyDoS]

“In fact what evidence is there that there has ever been a single incident of this nature on a commercial flight?”

Yes, lots of incidents involving electronic equipment, but it is random, thus the caution. An autopilot disconnect is potentially serious stuff.

See the test where 16 types of phone did not cause a problem on the ground in the link below.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html

[Papillion53]

Stringfellow – thanks for sharing the mobile phone ban story – very interesting.

SimonS1 – still not convinced about not taking “that old chestnut” seriously!!!! 😉 🙂

[SimonS1]

Come on then FDOS, tell us when in the history of civil aviation has there been an incident of a passenger being killed, injured (however minor) or in some way affected as a result of a mobile phone being left on during a flight?

And if it really is a serious issue why don’t airlines take a more serious approach towards either banning phones from aircraft?

[FormerlyDoS]

Simon

Why don’t you ask the CAA, FAA etc? They have the data.

Risk management is about future events, just because they MAY not have yet occurred (and I don’t have the data to know if a mobile has resulted in an injury), doesn’t mean it is not a risk worth managing.

An autopilot disconnect near to coffin corner and resulting jet upset is not a pleasant thought.

[SimonS1]

You can be sure that if there was risk or potential risk we would not be getting on board planes with mobiles in our pockets. It’s as simple as that.

There is no evidence of a commercial flight having been affected in a way that passengers have been placed at risk.

[FormerlyDoS]

Simon

Please reference the data to justify your last para.

Your first is over simplifying things; regulators allow passengers to take laptops with Li-on battery packs. Li-on battery packs do have a track record of catching fire and this could obviously be very dangerous on an aircraft.

BA has a policy of not allowing people to charge devices on board, for this very reason and this is risk management in action, so is switching off electronic devices at critical phases of flight, as the link from Boeing that I posted makes very clear.

We are looking at a risk with very low probability, but very high severity of impact, that requires a mitigation to lower the probability even further. That lowering seems unreasonable to some people, but the airlines have to manage the risk every flight and the risk has only to get ‘lucky’ once to occur.

It won’t be an issue in another 15-20 years (maybe sooner), once all of the older aircraft are retired and the fleets that are left are screened from the interference.

[SimonS1]

How is it possible to reference the data if there hasn’t been an example?

If you search the web there aren’t any cases where the use of mobile phones has been found to be the cause of the accident. There are one or two mentions, for example there was an accident in NZ as recently as 2003 (!) where it was suggested that use of a mobile phone by the pilot could have been a factor, then again the fact that the pilot was calling home during the descent meant it could just have been stupidity.

There was also the Crossair crash in 2000 where it was alleged (and led to airlines banning use of mobiles) however it was subsequently recorded as pilot error not least due to the pilot having taken, and being in possession of, drugs.

Maybe you could offer up some examples of where it has been a cause?

As far as risk mitigation is concerned, there are risks everywhere. You can be sure if there was any serious risk we would not be able to take these instruments on board, in the same way that we are not allowed to take on sealed bottles of water etc.

[FormerlyDoS]

Simon

You have your point of view, so do I.

Not a lot of point keeping on banging the same drums?

[Author]

Posts