Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

You know the ones.

  • No mobile phones.
  • No transmitting or receiving devices of any kind.
  • No electronics on for takeoff or landing.


I went ballistic at my friend yesterday for using his mobile after landing while we were still taxiing despite clear instructions not to use them until the aircraft doors are open. I seriously doubt it was a big deal, but seeing pax just disregard clear instructions because they don't feel like following them makes we want to go at them with a flame thrower. It was also the third time that flight he nakedly transgressed rules he knew existed, the first two were attempting to use his iPod on take-off and landing. And no, it was not ignorance, he was willfully and knowingly saying FU to the rules. He thinks the rules are stupid and inconvenient which is why he does it.

I have no intention to excuse his douchiness, but still, is he anywhere in the ballpark of saying the rules are a bit over zealous?

I for one would love to be able to use my airband receiver on board. I hate that I can't because wireless receving devices aren't allowed. I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

The rules are indeed over zealous. Then again, wouldn't you rather have it that way?


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

I suspect the main reasons for the rules appearing overzealous are:

a) It's known that some devices can sometimes interfere with aircraft systems and comms,
b) The crew can't know how safe every device is versus aircraft systems,
c) A faulty device might have a significant effect on aircraft systems or comms, even if the fault isn't obvious,
d) One or two active devices might not often be a big deal but how does one decide who is and who isn't allowed?


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Plus there are other reasons why one would not want such equipment used. Imagine loose camera flying around cabin on rejected takeoff.


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 3):
Plus there are other reasons why one would not want such equipment used. Imagine loose camera flying around cabin on rejected takeoff.

True but a hardback book could do a lot of damage and MP3 players, for example, are likely to be in much the same place whether they're being used or not.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 4):
True but a hardback book could do a lot of damage and MP3 players, for example, are likely to be in much the same place whether they're being used or not.

And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.


User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4140 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
You know the ones.

* No mobile phones.
* No transmitting or receiving devices of any kind.
* No electronics on for takeoff or landing.

This has been discussed ad-nauseam.

The rules are there for a reason. Be it due to interference, objects being thrown about, etc etc.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

It wont work anyways. You will barely be able to hear your own plane's transmissions. You certainly won't hear ATC. Being enclosed in a metal tube isn't good for receiving transmissions unless you have an external antenna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage


User currently offlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1300 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I went ballistic at my friend yesterday for using his mobile after landing while we were still taxiing despite clear instructions not to use them until the aircraft doors are open.

I've never heard this one before... whenever I fly I'm always told you can turn on your phone once the wheels hit the ground.

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlineFighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1397 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

The Rules in Canada:

Compliance with Instructions

602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

Portable Electronic Devices

602.08 (1) No operator of an aircraft shall permit the use of a portable electronic device on board an aircraft, where the device may impair the functioning of the aircraft's systems or equipment.

(2) No person shall use a portable electronic device on board an aircraft except with the permission of the operator of the aircraft.

So in Canada it is the law. It's not just some rule the airlines enforce like amount of baggage one is allowed to bring.

Cal   



*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
It wont work anyways. You will barely be able to hear your own plane's transmissions. You certainly won't hear ATC. Being enclosed in a metal tube isn't good for receiving transmissions unless you have an external antenna.

So what about mobile phone signals?

Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 8):
So in Canada it is the law. It's not just some rule the airlines enforce like amount of baggage one is allowed to bring.

I'm sure it is a legal issue here too, at least from the point of view that it is law to obey the lawful instructions of the captain.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
I have no intention to excuse his douchiness, but still, is he anywhere in the ballpark of saying the rules are a bit over zealous?

I for one would love to be able to use my airband receiver on board. I hate that I can't because wireless receving devices aren't allowed. I don't use therefore because I'm not a tool.

The rules are basically in place as it is the operators responsibility to ensure that all transmitters onboard will not interfere with onboard equipment, it would physically take too long to any airline to test all equipment that passengers carry that could potentially interfere with aircraft systems.

While they stats maybe something like 9999/10000 devices will not, the airline does not know if the device has malfunctioned in some way and could radiate transmission that could interfere with aircraft systems (e.g. if you dropped you cell phone and damaged the antenna).

I have heard before of cases where cell phones locking onto a ground station during approach, and even some cases where this has interfered with GPS/ILS reception.

The rules are there for a purpose, it is not very well explained and most cabin crew would not be aware of the real rational.

However any direction crew do give, with in writing, verbally, or by the safety briefing is legally enforceable as a last resort, most people just need a gentle reminder.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
However any direction crew do give, with in writing, verbally, or by the safety briefing is legally enforceable as a last resort, most people just need a gentle reminder.

Well quite.

I recognise that what he was doing was unlikely to cause any problem, it just really aggrevates me when people think they can just disregard the rules because they know better. It's incredibly arrogant and he tried it on 3(!) times that flight.

I once was flying an aircraft with a GNS430 that started going screwy on the comm until I discreetly turned off my mobile. Haven't noticed anything else any other time I was flying.


User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3973 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
So what about mobile phone signals?

If you're talking about making a call up at the flight levels, you'll have a hard time getting a reliable signal, if any, for the same reason (Faraday cage effect). It's hard enough in a C172 at only 10000ft and with much bigger windows/less metal to cover up the signal.

As for interference, it still is a threat, more so because cell phones are made to transmit signals rather than just receive, like a scanner. Transmitter or not, any electronic device has the potential to create interference. I've already had several interference problems during my relatively short time as a pilot, all cell phone related.


User currently offlinebri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3964 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 9):
So what about mobile phone signals?

Maybe you're asking why they work on the ground inside of an apparent Faraday cage. It has been discussed elsewhere, but in brief, mobile phones can operate at incredible levels of signal fade. Airports are heavy consumers of mobile phone bandwidth and usually have dedicated small cells of coverage for this purpose to relieve capacity on the rest of the network, so the signals are being generated close to the aircraft. Mobile phone signals are aimed at users on the ground, too, so the higher you fly, the less likely you are to receive usable coverage. A text message might make it through at a higher altitude with some delay since it can be delivered in pieces, but a conversation is unlikely.



Position and hold
User currently offlinebri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3960 times:

By the way, this kind of behavior irks me, too. I once saw a loser listening to a personal CD player during descent and landing. He was going out of his way to hide the player and make it appear as though his headphones were connected to the IFE. I thought about pressing the call button and reporting an apparent safety violation to the FA, but I watched him change discs in the player and saw he was listening to some cheesy get-rich-quick scheme, and decided to just let him. I wasn't particularly worried about the electronic interference or the propensity of the CD player to become a missile, I just wanted him alert and responsive if an evacuation was to become necessary.

What really bothers me though is people who obstruct exits or otherwise make it difficult to safely evacuate the plane if it were to become necessary. I saw an injured person with a leg brace sit in an exit row once (because of the extra room), but he was obviously incapable of assisting with an exit and would have just been blocking it. This was on an ERJ with only one seat on that side, so this could have been a serious problem in the event of an evacuation. The FA noticed it and asked him to move, but he refused. He was very nearly escorted off the plane by his fellow passengers, until he finally decided to move on his own.



Position and hold
User currently offlinem11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3955 times:

For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone. The same thing can happen on a plane. Also, takeoff and landing is when an emergency is most likely to happen therefore you don't want people with noise canceling headsets on in case the flight attendants have to start shouting commands.


My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone.

Happens with CDMA as well, though not nearly as bad or often. My PC's speakers are very sensitive to that.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Sure. But this doesn't mean everyone uses the strap.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5664 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
While they stats maybe something like 9999/10000 devices will not, the airline does not know if the device has malfunctioned in some way and could radiate transmission that could interfere with aircraft systems (e.g. if you dropped you cell phone and damaged the antenna

This is really the crux of the matter. EVERY other device on the aircraft has been tested and certified to be there. Devices pax bring on board have not been. The whole basis of air safety world wide is if it's not specifically allowed (ie tested & certified) it's prohibited.

I would hate to see this changed!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinexero9 From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 15):
For those of you with GSM phones, you may have noticed a "staticy" sound coming out of a speaker near your phone. The same thing can happen on a plane.

True, but in all fairness, move your phone away from the speaker and see at what distance it stops causing interference. I'm not saying a phone can't interfere with aircraft systems, though I will say I highly doubt they ever will, I just think that unless there is some critical line running within a foot or so of your phone through the side of the plane and you have a window seat, there should be no issue.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.


User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3836 times:

Quoting xero9 (Reply 19):
though I will say I highly doubt they ever will,

You couldn't be more wrong. I've had several first hand experiences of avionics failures due to receiving calls or texts while flying. The G1000 avionics suite seems particularly sensitive. I've already had a couple of AHRS failures which happened oh-so coincidentally exactly when I received a text or a call. I've had pax set it off too. And while yes 99% of the flights where I forget to turn the thing off nothing happens, but there will always be that 1% chance.

Just because you're farther away from the cockpit doesn't mean interference won't happen.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Well things are sounding pretty clear. Transmitting devices obviously cause crap. Non transmitting devices can also generate excessive noise if the electronics have a fault, even one not readily perceptible.

That's would be a better explanation than the line of bull I gave him about the aggregate magnetic field of working iPods causing deviation in the magnetic compass.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 21):
The G1000 avionics suite seems particularly sensitive.

Oh really? I've been flying the 172S for about a dozen or so hours now while not turning off my phone and I haven't noticed a problem. I'll be sure to do it just in case anyway in the future and inform any passengers I have on board to do the same and if I catch them with it on, I'll throw it overboard.

Quoting cpd (Reply 20):
Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.

You mean my head, once the camera decapitates me and turns it into a projectile? Now that would be funny. Bludgeoned by a severed head.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 22):
I've been flying the 172S for about a dozen or so hours now while not turning off my phone and I haven't noticed a problem.

Not exactly fly-by-wire now is it. Even if all the electrics and electronics were knocked out including the spark plugs, you could still glide to a landing.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 20):
Quoting Glom (Reply 5):
And if I was using an electronic camera on take-off, it would be securely attached to a strap round my neck.

Ready to snap your neck off (Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens - a typical combination of a determined photographer). The camera is about 1kg, and the lens is also about the same. Don't want that sailing around the cabin fit to bludgeon someone if it gets loose.

But the point is that the use of portable electronic devices and the danger of potential projectiles are separate issues. You can comply with the rules about not operating portable electronic devices during take-off and landing while still having your Nikon D3s and Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8G lens around your neck as long as it's switched off. If the cabin crew are concerned about any object, electronic or not, that might pose a danger by becoming a projectile, I'm sure they'd ask for it to be stowed rather than switched off.


25 jhooper : Most airlines allow you to talk on your cell phone as soon as you're clear of the active runway.
26 ThirtyEcho : Sigh, here we go again for the zillionth time. ANY electronic device transmits signals. The aircraft fuselage is a Faraday Cage within which signals b
27 Post contains images Starlionblue : In the US. Many other countries have different regs.
28 Post contains images Fly2HMO : I got just under 200hrs in the G1000. Of those 200, around 5hrs of those resulted in some sort of interference issue. Yes, a rare occurrence, easily
29 SPREE34 : Somewhat a function of wave length as well. Cell phones operate in the microwave band. (less than a foot tall) An aircraft window provides plenty of
30 ThirtyEcho : This can be done in a 172 in flight through the pilot's window. I used to throw cigarette butts out of this window so my dad wouldn't know that I was
31 iairallie : Technically the announcements do usually if not always say please turn off and properly stow. So they actually should not be in the same place unless
32 Post contains images m11stephen : "Federal law requires passenger compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crew member instructions." Failing to follow the instructions of an
33 ThirtyEcho : A little short on a sense of humor today? I always put the ciggies out, first, and this was about 50 years ago.
34 HAWK21M : Some Rules may not make sense...But if its present,then as a Good citizen one needs to Adhere to them. regds MEL.
35 David L : Would you count an MP3 player in someone's pocket as being improperly stowed?
36 iairallie : well is it going to break free of your pocket and fly around the cabin in a crash? Probably not so a pocket should be plenty fine.
37 Post contains images Fly2HMO : You are right. But all it says is that you can throw out whatever you want from an airplane as long as you don't hurt anything or anybody. No, that's
38 Post contains images David L : So my point stands, then.
39 iairallie : No because your point was that they would tell you to stow the devices too if there was a projectile concern. The announcements do tell you to stow t
40 spudsmac : Well aren't you all high and mighty.
41 David L : As you said earlier... some announcements. Many of us fly more regularly with airlines other than yours and on many of those other airlines the two i
42 iairallie : [quote=David L,reply=41]Many of us fly more regularly with airlines other than yours and on many of those other airlines the two issues are addressed
43 GatorFan : If cell phones or electronic devices could really bring down planes (or even seriously threaten their safe navigation) then terrorist could accomplish
44 tdscanuck : No. There's too big a gap between the statistical likelihood you need to make an effective weapon and the statistical likelihood of something bad hap
45 Post contains links GatorFan : Sorry but those numbers don't jive with actual statistics. In Part 121 Operations Fatalities are 4.03 per MILLION flight hours. http://www.planecrash
46 tdscanuck : Of course they don't...the numbers come from the regulations, not accident statistics. The FAA (and almost everybody else) requires that the probabil
47 Glom : The thing that has caused much greater interest is that instrumentation can be disrupted, even if in a nuisance way, rather than a threatening way. Th
48 GatorFan : But if the FAA is regulating to prevent accidents, then it should be regulating risks that are 1,000 times more likely to cause an accident than elec
49 Post contains images David L : I never suggested otherwise. All I said was that many other carriers have announcements that vary from what you suggest is almost universal. The few
50 tdscanuck : They do. Except your "fact" is wrong...the FAA regulates lots of things that are more likely to cause an accident than electronic device usage. Right
51 Post contains images 757luver : What about shielded cables? Air Force One's wiring is protected from an EMP, so why couldn't commercial birds be the same? Not trying to start an arg
52 Starlionblue : I have found that a good pair of noise canceling headphones will make even the most proficent inconsiderate a**hole fade out. Forget Bose btw. Too bi
53 SB : The rule about not wearing headphones is actually quite sound. If they are large, ear cup types they will probably fly off your head and injure someon
54 757luver : I have a pair of Sennheiser headphones that are great for that, but as you said with the Bose. They are way too big and bulky to be carrying around i
55 be77 : Works well for sic sacs too.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Legitimate Are The Onboard Rules?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Big Are The Overhead Bins On The E-Jets posted Thu Jul 6 2006 02:17:23 by Tangowhisky
How Tough Are The Space Shuttle Cockpit Windows? posted Fri Oct 1 2004 08:20:50 by KDTWFlyer
How Often Are The Pilots Really Flying The Plane posted Mon Jul 15 2002 22:41:15 by Cmchardyfl
What Are The Rules Regarding Contaminated Wings? posted Tue Dec 1 2009 20:20:06 by ACElite
How Long Are Aircraft Stored In The Desert? posted Wed Nov 19 2008 18:13:38 by Sovietjet
How Are The CRJ-700 And Dash 8 Mx-wise? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 01:28:20 by KBFIspotter
How Are The Autobrakes Engaged Is It When posted Fri Feb 11 2005 23:35:00 by Allpress
How Are The Reversers Engaged? posted Wed Mar 10 2004 00:31:39 by N243NW
How Are The Engines Counted... posted Wed Feb 27 2002 01:06:21 by Hoegenfroegen
Fleet Commonality. Where Are The Savings? posted Mon Feb 22 2010 01:03:17 by AR385

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format