757223 From United States, joined Mar 2005, 73 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7252 times:
I flew yesterday from STL-LGA on AA. Prior to pushback, the FA came on the PA and said "We cannot push back until all cell phones are turned off--our cell phone detector is still detecting 3 phones in use." A minute later, he said "2 phones are still in use." Cell phone detector? I have never heard of anything like this. I am calling BS on this one. Has anyone else heard of this?
Superhub From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 450 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7241 times:
Probably a ploy to get everyone to switch off their mobile phones. Everyone would think "oh s***, that's my phone which is on" and everyone then turns it off.
SCCutler From United States, joined Jan 2000, 3849 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7193 times:
As a practical matter, the currently-used GSM phones induce a very irritating stuttering sound on most any audio circuit they are near. they may not actually be able o tell how many cell phones are on, but I don;t doubt theycan tell there *are* some.
I can tell when I accidently left mine turned on when I am flying, even if it is packed in a bag in the luggage compartment; the distinctive sound is heard through the headset periodically.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3412 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7170 times:
I call "Shenanigans" as well. I think that we would have heard about this by now. Also, is an airline going to spend money for such a "detector" when the FAA is considering just plain allowing these devices to be used, as they plainly don't interfere with aircraft operation?
AirframeAS From United States, joined Feb 2004, 7263 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7140 times:
Interference or not, I'm 1,000% in favor of a cell phone detector on all part 121 aircraft! I'm sure some people don't want to hear flapping jaws at 32,000 feet!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
HA_DC9 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 541 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7083 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4): Interference or not, I'm 1,000% in favor of a cell phone detector on all part 121 aircraft! I'm sure some people don't want to hear flapping jaws at 32,000 feet!
I hear you on that one. I think airliners are the last "quiet" place around that I can go to without hearing people yacking on their phones...loudly so everyone around them can hear what's for dinner or who slept with who last night.
Avi8tir From United States, joined Feb 2004, 350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7034 times:
i think most of the "no personal electonic devices" is pure b.s. the amount of interferance that they could cause in probably undetectable. mythbusters did an episode on the whole phone thing and found no proof of this happening. I think its more about passengers staying alert and aware of whats going on in case of an emergency. I was on a flight last month and i was listening to my ipod while we were still at the gate.....probably 20 minutes before they even closed the door. a flight attendant made me turn it off!! I told her the door was still open and she said that they werent permitted until we were above 10000. shows how much she knows.
Superhub From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 450 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7005 times:
Quoting Avi8tir (Reply 6): i think most of the "no personal electonic devices" is pure b.s. the amount of interferance that they could cause in probably undetectable.
I agree...If it really interferes with communication and instruments, US airlines will not allow people to use mobile phones when the plane is taxiing to the gate from landing.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 1946 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6983 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Avi8tir (Reply 6): i think most of the "no personal electonic devices" is pure b.s. the amount of interferance that they could cause in probably undetectable. mythbusters did an episode on the whole phone thing and found no proof of this happening. I think its more about passengers staying alert and aware of whats going on in case of an emergency. I was on a flight last month and i was listening to my ipod while we were still at the gate.....probably 20 minutes before they even closed the door. a flight attendant made me turn it off!! I told her the door was still open and she said that they werent permitted until we were above 10000. shows how much she knows.
/stand on soapbox
ok, im gonna say this one MORE time:
1> GSM phones can easily cause a great deal of interference along any audio path, want proof, set your phone down next to a speaker and call it. Now GSM based data services (GPRS, EDGE, etc) are even worse. If you place a Treo or Blackberry next to a speaker, the effect is rather ammusing. Bzzzz ZZZt BuzzzzzTTTTT biZZZZZt bizizizizizizzitttttttt bizzzzzzt. and thats just the network negotiation. Send an email to the device and its even more amusing.
2> CDMA phones also cause interference though it isnt easily detectable, DATA (and its faster relatives) network devices however cause a constant hiss on any open audio circuit up to 20' away. Even when they are NOT on a network, just searching for one. One device is hardly noticable, 20 devices is annoyingly loud... now imagine 100 devices causing chaos on an airliner...
3> much as i enjoy Mythbusters, you cannot take anything they "bust" as factual. They themselves have had to revisit myths many times because they realised they didnt do the test to any form of provable point.
4> That F/A was following the guidelines of her airline, so accusing her of "not knowing anything" has NOTHING to do with it. I personally am in favor of banning the use of electronic devices during boarding as i have seen them cause a great deal of "not my problem" type attitudes!
5> if the FAA/CAA/CASB/whoever decides to allow phones in flight, i may very well become the next posterboy for air-rage. 'Nuff said.
Kaniksu From United States, joined Apr 2005, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6965 times:
I seriously doubt my ipod would interfere with the plane. Last time I flew I actually had the same family in either the row in front of me or behind me on both legs of my flight. The single mother was no match for these three kids, I had to turn my music on before the flight took off or I would have killed myself.
Antonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 475 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6889 times:
the use of ipods and other such devices are a differant story. The theory is that you should have them switched off for take off and landing because if the F/A has to make important announcements ie in an emergency situation and even for the pax briefing you would not be able to hear them becuase of the music
AA1818 From Trinidad And Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 2199 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6845 times:
I understand why cell phones must be turned off, however, back in Feb, i flew Standsted to Edinburgh on EasyJet and I forgot to turn my mobile off. I wish I had realized so I could see if I would have gotten signal form a sattelitel or something, but it didn't seem to cause any real problem inflight or raise any 'cell phone detector bells.
Mikebg From Israel, joined Jan 2005, 63 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6813 times:
Well, how about this one then:
EL AL forbid the use of CD-ROMS on laptops, and CD players during the entire flight. After a few times when I was told to switch off my discman I just gave up and bought an iPod. HOWEVER, on some aircraft they distribute personal DVD players to all business class passengers for use during the flight ... just work that one out then. No logic in it at all. The personal DVDs are pretty ordinary units, and I am sure they have not been modified in any way.
HAL From United States, joined Jan 2002, 1513 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6813 times:
Onto my own soapbox here.
From a pilot's perspective I have one thing to say:
Turn the Damn Things Off!!! It is a safety of flight issue, and that is my primary concern for everything I do as a pilot.
Yes they do interfere with our communications and navigation. Not often, but by God for your sake and mine I hope it's not when we're trying to shoot an autoland ILS approach to a landing with maybe 500 feet of visibility in fog.
Yes it is the law. Live with it! You don't have to have them on in flight. They won't work at cruise altitude. The government is considering allowing them to be used, but they would be a different variety than the ones used now, tested for use in airplanes.
Sometimes in this world you get told what you have to do. You don't always get the last word in what you can and can't do. On my plane, you do what I (and the regulations) say. When I'm riding the bus, I do what the bus drives says. When a policeman stops me and the rest of the crowd from crossing the street to the baseball stadium because of traffic, I don't ignore him just because I want to get in the hotdog line sooner. Yes, some of you hate authority. Get over it!
Turn the phones off, and pick up that "People" magazine you snuck aboard because it had a hot photo of Jessica Simpson on the cover. You don't need the phone for your trip. Make sure it is off.
Off my soapbox now. Thank you for listening.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
BA757 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2821 posts, RR: 15 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6813 times:
Quoting AA1818 (Reply 12): I understand why cell phones must be turned off, however, back in Feb, i flew Standsted to Edinburgh on EasyJet and I forgot to turn my mobile off. I wish I had realized so I could see if I would have gotten signal form a sattelitel or something, but it didn't seem to cause any real problem inflight or raise any 'cell phone detector bells.
Last October I flew on an LG E145 from DUB-MAN and the Scottish fella behind me was sending SMS while we were still in flight - we were in decent over the LPL area, I assume it was around 10,000ft. Maybe you can pick up a signal from ground cell phone towers at that altitude?
I am actually surprised the crew didn't notice or care, as he was on the second row from the back, with a F/A sitting immediately behind him. I was sat in front of him.
Adam
Then, tired of exploring, the followers of Mammon didst rest. And lo, from the depths of the bird cameth a mighty fox.
MarkHKG From United States, joined Dec 2005, 780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6794 times:
Quoting 757223 (Thread starter): "We cannot push back until all cell phones are turned off--our cell phone detector is still detecting 3 phones in use."
Haha...I'm fairly sure it's a joke. F/A are known to say things like...
(After touchdown) "Ladies and Gentlemen, please keep your seat belt fastened as we taxi to the gate...wait...my seat-belt monitor tells me that 4 passengers have removed their seat belts. You are sooooo busted!" (And this way encourages passengers not to remove their seat belts until the a/c comes to a complete stop...)
Superhub From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 450 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6741 times:
Quoting HAL (Reply 14): Yes they do interfere with our communications and navigation. Not often, but by God for your sake and mine I hope it's not when we're trying to shoot an autoland ILS approach to a landing with maybe 500 feet of visibility in fog.
I agree..and I would certain comply with switching off mobile phones in flight.
But I do not understand why airlines (the US ones) allow phones to be used once on the ground. When you taxi to the gate, you don't need ILS, but you still need to communicate with Ground control..but with many mobile phones switching on, won't you get a lot of interference?
PurdueAv2003 From United States, joined Dec 2005, 227 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6684 times:
Quoting Avi8tir (Reply 6): i think most of the "no personal electonic devices" is pure b.s. the amount of interferance that they could cause in probably undetectable.
The amount of interferrence from cell phones is not up for debate. They produce interference with electrical systems that can potentially cause problems communications, navigation, and on-board computer systems. Period.
The use of "personal electronic devices" is restricted because of the potential interference from malfunctioning devices. Most devices, like iPods and CD players, produce minimal EM interference when functioning properly. However, a test conducted years back, I can't remember by whom, used a CD player with a worn motor. When in use, errant signals were noted in an engine ECU (Electronic Control Unit). This could potentially cause in in-flight shutdown!
The truth is that these devices have the potential of causing problems. Those of us that work closely with aircraft design and safety want elliminate as many potential safety problems as possible. A ban on these devices would be the quickest, simplest fix from the aircraft safety point of view. Unfortunately, the FAA is a political orginazation. Telecom companies have been pressuring the FAA for years to lift the cell phone ban in order to increase the size of their wallets. So far, the FAA has held its ground (ans safety margin) and not caved to political pressure. If they ever allow cell phone use in-flight, I hope every telecom company is listed as a defendent in the lawsuit right next to the airline and the manufacturer. The government is banning cell phones in cars, where people have the potential to kill a few people with their stupidity. Why shouldn't we keep the ban in the air where people have the potential to kill hundreds of people with their stupidity.
Quoting Avi8tir (Reply 6): mythbusters did an episode on the whole phone thing and found no proof of this happening.
I hate to break it to you, but Mythbusters is about as reliable a source to quote as Wikipedia. They put together an interesting episode using pseudo-science to prove or disprove an idea and then blow something up. Everything is short term investigations with no in-depth analysis. Did they check every seat location with every one of the thousands of systems on the aircraft? Then every combination of systems with every combination of signal from every location? No. They half-a$$ed it and wrote it off to science. Carnegie Mellon did a much more throrough study. Sorry, I don't have the link.
Qslinger From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 189 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6637 times:
What the max height a cell phone can be used? I never seem to have signal at cruise altitude. Don;t seem to have signal even at 10,000 Ft. So how is the cell phone gonna create a problem in those conditions?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2005, 73 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 450 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 1946 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2005, 915 posts, 
From Trinidad And Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 2199 posts, 
From Israel, joined Jan 2005, 63 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 189 posts,