Cell phones on planes

[Dr. Imago]

OK, so does this mean the hospitals really don't need you to turn off your cell phone???? I was in the hospital and waiting forever for the doctor in the emergency room with my child. I decided to make a few calls to have someone pick up my other kids, etc...

Boy, I was told I could have caused someone being treated for a heart attack to DIE! The nurse acted like I was trying to kill people.

I also remember being told by the cable people that if someone steals cable it can interfere with ambulance and police calls (????)

It's the same thing as the plane thing. If you want to understand the concern, just make a cellphone call to someone and then lean in really close to your computer. If you have your speakers on, you will hear the interference coming through them.

The concern is that you will be using your phone in the hospital near sensitive computer equipment (e.g., a remote EKG monitor, etc.) and the interference will affect the machines performance. I'm not sure whether or not this is a true concern in a practical sense, but the risk management folks will tell you that hospitals and doctors already get sued enough as it is. Imagine if someone on a cardiac step-down floor with a remote heart monitor just happens to code and die while on the cellphone, and the monitor fails to register at the central monitoring station because of interference from the phone.

Of course, I like the phone company/payphone thing too. Almost every effect has a multifactorial cause.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have worked with EKG monitors, telecommunication equipment, and EMC for ages. A common cellphone emits up to two watts of radio power. How much depends on the connection it currently has and may vary arbitrarily. Two watts of 900MHz has the potential to play havoc with ANY equipment that is not especially hardened. You cannot shield or harden all types of equipment; mesuring systems, like EKG monitors, sensitive receivers, like many types of avionics, NEED to be sensitive to signals in the outside world and are potential victims to cell-phone disturbance.

I WANT my airline and my hospital to be safety-concerned bordering on paranoid. Maybe it is only a worst-case risk, but I don't want to be on that worst-case plane, or to have any of those monitors thrown off track during an operation, just because John Doe must phone the office and inquire if everything is fine.

Hans

 

[Samus]

It seem to me that some people are becoming obsessed with their cell phones. They seem to forget that such a thing can be turned off. You hear those things in restaurants, bars, theaters, stadiums etc. ...TURN THE BLASTED THINGS OF.

Hooah!

Indeed, one of my biggest complaints about cell phones is the self-important attitude they breed. "I'm so important, I need to talk to people when standing in line at the grocery store. It simply can't wait, I'm that important!"

Although the topic was more a signals question than a cell phone usage question, I agree with your rant.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm with Ove and dwb.
The things are a social curse.
I dare say hospitals and airlines do err on the side of caution, but I know if I found myself on a six hour flight next to some loudmouthed jerk with a cellphone- or gods forfend in a hospital bed next to one, I would beat him to death myself. So yes, they are dangerous!

 

[Ove]

I dare say hospitals and airlines do err on the side of caution, but I know if I found myself on a six hour flight next to some loudmouthed jerk with a cellphone- or gods forfend in a hospital bed next to one, I would beat him to death myself. So yes, they are dangerous!

You would have to line up behind me.

BTW it reminds me of the wonderful "hysteria scene" in "Airplane" where first Leslie Nielsen cuts in "Back off, i'm a Doctor" and then slaps the woman, then he is cut of by another and you then see the line forming along the plane.......

 

[Crossbow]

I am all for safety procedures, however too much concern can cause problems of its own.

One of my favorite examples is a sign that people have seen for so long and so often that most people do not even notice it anymore. It usually goes something like:

WARNING! NOTICE TO PATRONS WEARING PACEMAKERS, THIS ESTABLISHMENT HAS A MICROWAVE OVEN ON THE PREMISES!

Back in the late 1950's when microwave ovens and internal pacemakers were new technology, this warning may have made been prudent. However, the technology has evolved so much since then that is no problem, but the many of these warnings remain in effect.

I feel the same way about the airplane/cell phone issue. When the technology was new and untested, it was a valid precaution. But now, there has been some formal testing but much more is required. However, based on what I have experienced and read, I really doubt that there is a problem and I think that one is simply seeing vestigal enforcement of a safety rule as opposed to reasoned enforcement of safety rules.

By the way, I have to say that VORs are not obsolete! While it is older technology, it is still quite valid and use them frequently for cross-country navigation. Also, one should note that there are other, even older, navigation tools that are still in full use such as NDBs and LORAN.

 

[Ove]

Back in the late 1950's when microwave ovens and internal pacemakers were new technology, this warning may have made been prudent. However, the technology has evolved so much since then that is no problem, but the many of these warnings remain in effect.

Yep but don't you think it is your wonderfull law-suit system that causes those warnings to still appear??

I feel the same way about the airplane/cell phone issue. When the technology was new and untested, it was a valid precaution. But now, there has been some formal testing but much more is required. However, based on what I have experienced and read, I really doubt that there is a problem and I think that one is simply seeing vestigal enforcement of a safety rule as opposed to reasoned enforcement of safety rules.

You DOUBT and you THINK!!!!! Sorry but that is just not good enough when it comes to air safety. It isn't even good enough in the TV business. If our Safety man ever told the boss "I don't THINK our new TV will catch fire, in fact i DOUBT it" i'm pretty sure he would be looking for a new job soon. You must realize that those things need to be tested - tested - tested until you are sure that there are no problem and until then, no cellphones on airplanes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Aye to that! I'm in the medical device business, and I can assure you the same politics apply there.

Hans

 

[Crossbow]

Yep but don't you think it is your wonderfull law-suit system that causes those warnings to still appear??



You DOUBT and you THINK!!!!! Sorry but that is just not good enough when it comes to air safety. It isn't even good enough in the TV business. If our Safety man ever told the boss "I don't THINK our new TV will catch fire, in fact i DOUBT it" i'm pretty sure he would be looking for a new job soon. You must realize that those things need to be tested - tested - tested until you are sure that there are no problem and until then, no cellphones on airplanes.

Excuse me, but I did call for more testing in my orginal post if you will care to check.

True, I did provide a personal opinion, however the call for testing and the personal opinion as to the result of the said testing were kept seperate.

 

[xouper]

Crossbow: By the way, I have to say that VORs are not obsolete! While it is older technology, it is still quite valid and use them frequently for cross-country navigation. Also, one should note that there are other, even older, navigation tools that are still in full use such as NDBs and LORAN.

If the airplane you use for your instrument check ride has an NDB receiver, then you can be tested on that. So yank that sucker out of your panel. And with LORAN originally scheduled to be decommisioned in 2000 (although they keep putting it off), I'd yank that from the panel too. In my next airplane, I'd like to just have dual Garmin 530s. As always, Your Mileage May Vary™.

[click image to enlarge]


Image courtesy of http://www.garmin.com/products/gns530/

 

[Crossbow]

Too right xouper!

I have a 2000 FAR/AIM and it talks about how LORAN will no longer be supported after November 1, 2000.

However, LORAN continues to be supported. By the way, my one instructor loves LORAN since it has never failed him as GPS has done.

I use a Magellen 320 for VFR navigation, it is way cool and quite affordable.

 

[xouper]

Crossbow: By the way, my one instructor loves LORAN since it has never failed him as GPS has done.

Loran was less popular out west (where I learned to fly) due to the large gaps in coverage (the so-called mid-continent gap).

 

[NWilner]

VOR *IS* obsolete!

Loran C post dates VOR. I'm not aware of any Loran A used in aircraft.

VOR is thoroughly obsolete. In fact it was obsolete when commissioned. Politics not technology put VOR in place of DECCA, the UK area nav system c. late '40's.

Countless lives have been lost on VOR approaches gone bad. I've investigated dozens. Usually its position confusion leading to CFIT. Lettsee, the needle is....full right.....and the to from indicator is....well....in the middle.....so we're HERE!? Once in a while its equipment failure. Ever see water dripping from the CDI housing? And don't gimme the old song about pilot error. Humans predictably err. Machinery needs to take this into account. VOR is ancient, high workload, nonintuitive. HSI display of VOR info is a small step up (and a personal requirement because every ILS has to be done correctly). Your passengers deserve an electronic map with "you" cleverly marked on center.

How many scud running VFR's have been lost, below line of sight VOR? Again, save the pilot error lecture. There will always be scud runners.

I'm not aware of ANY commercial or private a/c fatality due to the use of handheld GPS. Not one.

Tune your VOR's if you must, but get a handful of handheld GPS's and DON'T look at the steam gauge needles -- you can confuse yourself!

 

[NWilner]

Cellphones again

It's interesting to see these comments. People are so paranoid about air travel they act as if you can crash a 747 with an electronic hiccup (or cell phone).

It's not uncommon to have radio static, or get out of range of the transmitter, or have a bad radio, or experience frequency congestion for that matter, or a blocked mic. It is no big deal. Pilots deal with communication glitches all the time. Boeings too. And if you listen to air traffic control, military flights are horrendous on the radio. They either can't hear or have very bad radios. It's not uncommon to hear six calls to "puddriver 4" flight before someone answers in crackly static.

Secondly, it isn't instant death to have a navigation glitch either. VOR's frequently wiggle or lose it (see remarks on VOR's, parallel post). GPS sometimes goes wacko, sometimes when you are turning and block some sat or another. Boeings are often on radar vectors to east bejesus anyway, 'way beyond VOR range.

Someone voiced concern about the "automatic pilot." It's hard to imagine a cell phone interfering with autopilot function, but a/p's do trip off from time to time, big hairy deal.

There are no reported safety of flight incidents involving cell phones in US commercial or private aviation, to the best of my knowledge. And we private guys don't always turn ours off, either!

 

[Soapy Sam]

What about other electronics? Clearly, unless something is being transmitted, it would be hard for equipment to interfere with anything. Is there any RF output from a walkman (earphone cable as antenna?), a CD player? A digital camera?

 

[NWilner]

The concern is BS. Boeing did a thorough test for interference on a 777. No amount of consumer electronics made the slighest difference. I'll try to find the reference. Boeings are very rugged and it is preposterous to assume a pacman will send them into the ground.

I routinely fly with laptop and cell phone in full radiation mode, just inches from my (gasp) avionics. Never could detect anything. You can bet Boeing's are better shielded, if there's any diff.

Its like the paranoia over a stray bullet. A bullet hole in a Boeing at cruise at 31,000 would not be detectable. Folks won't squeeze out the hole. Cabin pressure is regulated by an outflow valve the size of a basketball. Nor is decomression instant death either. Decom happens from time to time, usually when the outflow valve freezes up or something. O2 comes down, the plane comes down, and everyone has a story.

A bullet in the fuel tank is not a problem, as jet fuel can't burn very well and there is no air in the tank anyway. Fuel leaks are handled by fuel transfer and other means.

A bullet in the panel could disable a radio or nav, but, again, big hairy deal. There are lotsa radios in Boeings, including handheld emergency ones. Nothing you can shoot with one bullet (other than the two crewmembers with a lucky shot) will down the plane.

 

[xouper]

NWilner: Its like the paranoia over a stray bullet. A bullet hole in a Boeing at cruise at 31,000 would not be detectable. Folks won't squeeze out the hole. Cabin pressure is regulated by an outflow valve the size of a basketball. Nor is decomression instant death either. Decom happens from time to time, usually when the outflow valve freezes up or something. O2 comes down, the plane comes down, and everyone has a story.

Finally, someone else who agrees with me. Last year on this forum, there was an argument over allowing guns in the cockpit, and the fear of decompression from a bullet hole was brought up by the nay-sayers. A couple of us argued against that fear. I also tried to point out that the Mir space station experienced a "bullet hole" and nothing catastrophic happened. I don't know if anyone was convinced though.

 

[Ladewig]

As I see it, this is the punch-line:
If one is using a maximum power cell phone,
while holding it 12 inches or less from the navigation/avionics equipment,
during worst-case conditions (something like an night IFR landing with cross-winds)
Then there could be a problem.

Warning: complete amature posting.

I thought that VOR antennas ran the entire length of commercial aircraft so that someone in the window seat would be within 12 inches of the equipment. Granted to would be statistically rare but it is possible that everyone on the left side of the plane would be using a cell phone while no one on the right side of the plane did. Wouldn't that cummulative effect be noticeable?

Clearly, unless something is being transmitted, it would be hard for equipment to interfere with anything. Is there any RF output from a walkman (earphone cable as antenna?), a CD player? A digital camera?

Walkmans (portable cassette players), CD players, computers, hand-held video games, and digital cameras provide negligable RF interference. Transitor radios and portable TVs, however, can interfere with some navigation equipment. Even though they are not sending signals, the antenna does create an EM field large enough to interfere with things very close to it.

 

[ceptimus]

A bullet in the panel could disable a radio or nav, but, again, big hairy deal.

How about a bullet through the windshield? Would it just make a hole, or would the whole thing shatter? That might cause some serious decompression, not to mention a bit of a draught in the cockpit.

ceptimus.

 

[NWilner]

VOR antennae are small affairs embedded in the empennage or on small airplanes sticking out into the wind. You are thinking of ADF antennae from the 1950's which ran on some planes from the nose to the tail.

"Night IFR with crosswinds" is not operationally different from day VFR to Boeings. You fly the approach with the needles centered. The "needles" are ILS receivers, which are located at the landing rwy threshold and are quite strong. No one has ever observed a cell phone mess with the needles. ILS is robust and dependable, in the midst of lightning storms, powerlines, and whatever. BUt if a needle wiggles its not instant death, because pilots use their judgment and work things out.

As far as a bullet in the windscreen, these are pretty much shatterproof to avoid breaking up too badly with fod or birdstrikes. If a windshield pane is lost, it gets windy and cold but the other side usually holds and plenty of a/c have been brought back OK.

I'm not advocated shooting randomly. For one thing you could kill passengers directly, without the need for a crash. However, one could imagine a situation where the alternative would be worse.

Incidentally, the qualifying procedure for guns on the flight deck is onerous, with most pilots not wanting to bother.