이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 14

A friend recently asked why cell phones are supposed to be off during a flight.

제출됨
 
Oh, I know ALL ABOUT this. I have sources and everything. Prepare yourself for the low-down. First of all, it’s worth noting that there are two federal agencies involved, the FAA (which regulates air travel) and the FCC (which regulates radio). That’s a big part of why this particular issue (personal use of radio while traveling by air) is so legally complex. (blog.davidad.net) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Derg
The capatin of the ship has the legal right to ban any device that, in his opinion, may endanger any part of his ship or the communication systems. The FAA cannot mandate or over ride his decision. The company operating procedures do not apply if an aircraft is endangered in the captains view.
StymieHo
If a captain still believes a cellphone can cripple his avionics, he's a bit old, cranky and needs to hang up the hat.
preacher1
Let's go with the old and maybe cranky, but let's go easy on hanging up the hat, young man. LOL
Derg
You still got a full head of hair Wayne? I am 2/3rds bald.
preacher1
Yeah, as a matter of fact, I had a round with cancer in 2000 and did a round of chemo. I lost it all and it grew back grayer and thicker than before. LOL
Derg
Well if I was on a flight and the captain had requested that passengers do not use devices that "talk" or send data by radio I would do as requested. If I witnesssed someone who was breaking that rule I would act.
Derg
It would be me that ended up in the cuffs though..as usual.
jdriskell
The last thing I want is some one jabbering on his cell phone while sitting next to me on a flight in an aluminum sausage. If he needs to communicate (and in most cases, it's not essential), then let him pay the wifi fee and use email!

So let's keep the ban in place.
preacher1
I agree, most domestic stuff is a couple hours anyway. What is so important?
Derg
The military have stuff that is way better than civils using 3D microwave on integrated helmets. Fancy wearing one of those fancy helmets Wayne?
MimosaDrive
Putting interference discussiona aside for a moment... I would rather have crying babies than a planeload of people yapping on cell phones around me for hours on end.
chalet
chalet 2
In Europe there is already usage of cell phones aboard planes albeit a limited one so that says that the FAA and FCC rules against it are totally out of touch with reality. Having said this, if I bhappen to sit next to a Lady Chat-terly I would not hesitate to gag her in a nonasecond. Thence I am 100% in favor of maintaining the ban.

[This poster has been suspended.]

awerneke
I bet the next time a plane has an incident due to interference the FAA checks the passenger list for your name.
dg1941
My headset has a special connection just for my cell phone. If you knew how many pilots fly while talking on the phone. As a matter of fact, radar coverage in my area is spotty at best outside of the large cities, so that's how I activate filed flight plans and call flight service on the status of TFR's, so it's really not that big of a deal. I should also mention that my Skyhawk has an input for my MP3 player, factory standard.
Derg
Are you talking commercial or private?
dg1941
My personal experience, private, but the I rent a hangar with a local part 135 and they do the same thing with their commercial runs.
Derg
OK so if one phone message deviates the altimeter by 5ft. The new big ones easily carry 500 passengers. Lets say each passenger makes just one phone call. So we have 500 multiplied by 5ft. I make that 2,500ft. Lets split that because maybe we have some positive and negative deviations...I make that 1,250 feet. Split agin for further deviation..625ft.

See the issue?
StymieHo
So 500 people hiton a .05% chance? Somebody call the Gaming Commission. I smell a rat.
Derg
I make that 5 people who are "winners" out of the 500.
StymieHo
Yes sir, 110% BS with no supporting fact attached to it in this century.
Derg
Aviation is only 100 years old. Everyday we learn new thaings. Why take a risk?
MultiComm
Well, it certainly won't affect the altimeter however I do agree that if someone can fall into a fountain at a shopping mall while walking and texting, that it will certainly limit the quick exit should an emergency occur and they were not properly listening to instruction.
AaronCannata
You will note, that is the celullar companies that want to keep the ban in place, because their infastructure can't handle the load. If you've ever flow a GA business jet, you will notice that they don't require you to turn off your devices.
Derg
The GPS tech is changing fast due to congestion. If the ban is lifted the consequences are unknown.
JENNYJET
Modern Flight decks are crammed full of computers that are tasked to manage the flight unlike older aircraft and few if any passenger aircraft are still using the old style clocks and dials with cables to control the aircraft. Modern smartphones are also vastly superior pieces of kit capable of downloading malware which with the correct knowledge and ill will to use it, perhaps disable or hack into the same flight deck computers on that flight you may be on someday and whilst enjoying you inflight meal and coffee, the chap next to you may just be condemning you and your fellow passenger to your deaths. It is for this scenario that I support a total ban on mobile communication devices being allowed onto the cabin let alone to be used.

Most forward thinking airlines already provide inflight telephony upon the backs of seats with the IFE albeit with a charge for usage so where is the problem with a blanket ban on personal mobile telephones? Can one not survive even a long haul flight lasting no more than say 17 hours non-stop without faffing about with mobile phones and inviting your fellow passengers next you to commit murder? Most people would simply wish to eat, watch a movie and then sleep also it is likely that it is those low-cost carriers such as a certain Irish registered outfit that would wish to encourage this trend in order to raise revenues to offset ludicrous low fares... cheaper to let passengers use personal equipment rather than offer ICE based phones that are secure.

What do you think airline bosses?
preacher1
Well, I think it is a case of erring on the side of caution, because they simply don't know as far as actual interference goes. There have been a few questionable happenings but as Chris says here below, there are no holes in the ground. That said, I'm thinking the ban on use is emanating from the FSC and not the FAA just because of how the cellular network is structured tower wise and the signal entering the systems over multiple towers, rather than one, as they would do on the ground or a signal from an airline Wi-Fi going to a single point. I think the primary concern from the FAA is that a phone or any other device be stowed during takeoff and landing because it is a foreign object. As far as over/under 10 grand, I think they defer to the FCC.
Derg
Here in Europe the guys doing short hops will phone or text home when the machine is on the ramp..I am guessing thats how they keep their partners happy. As for the distance work well...would you want a problem over Katmandu with montain terrain rising to 12K feet or over Siberia where the next town is 1k clicks away?
38Luscombe
Well, that's awkward... According to this I've committed a federal offence because I have pocket dialed and purposefully texted people while flying in my own airplane...
Derg
You can do what you want in your own airplane. But I would not do it over a populated area.
David7700
iPads are an electronic device that have just received FAA approval for EFB. Mine running Foreflight does not cause a problem, nor does my Garmin 496; however, on a commercial flight, they want those devices turned off (yes, I have brought the 496 on a commercial flight--they treated it like any other electronic device).

I think the FAA rules concerning electronic devices will be changing in the years to come.
StymieHo
It's an outdated rule, which has worn out its welcome. Cellphones have absolutely ZERO effect on the modern avionics in use today. There have been ZERO incidents attributed to cellphone interference in this century. If any of this was relevant today, we'd have smoking holes in the ground every three or four feet, with all of the cellphone usage in close proximity of inbound aircraft.
Derg
Sad that military drones can be be diverted by malicious radio communication. Your argument is flawed because an aircraft is a faraday cage. An aircraft has an antenna when it needs to communicate outside. The emissions from an electronic device "rattle aroaund" in the fuselage until they find a route out. That is the issue. That route may involve a critical component within an aircraft of which there are many. The new B787 has enough wire in it to encircle the Earth twice.
StymieHo
Name an incident in this century attributed directly to cellphones. That's the only thing that would make
JetMech24
How can there be an incident if it's not allowed to happen in the first place? I'm not saying its going to happen, because I really don't know, but what will YOU say the first time an aircraft goes down and they trace the cause back to cell phone interference?
Derg
Exactly Jet and that's why we have dedicated avionics wrenchers.
StymieHo
I'm not saying it was never a possibility, only that today's airliner cockpits are no longer at any risk. Potential interference with them has been addressed. It's just simply no longer a risk. My personal risk of developing a softball-size tumor in my brain from all the body scans I've gotten at the TSA checkpoints is far greater than my smartphone bringing down an airliner, although there's probably an app for that too...lol
Derg
As I post this I am listening to rock music broadcast from a home made alu parabolic antenna with a range of 200 meters...about 4 times the leagl limit for broadcasts on this freeq. I can tell you that the more I learned about avionics the more I realised that this area of engineering was well outside my capability. I could use both VHF and/or HF to get me out of a fix..using the materials I had in a remote location. There is no way that I would allow passenger to be randomly transmitting any radio signals within the Faraday cage that is a fuselage. We thought we had control of a simple thing like a Li battery. You decide.
JetMech24
The cockpit has never been at any risk. Everything that feeds into the cockpit is outside of it and that is what would be at risk.
StymieHo
I hate this phone!!! LOL

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!