Monitoring on a commercial airplane

[GrayJeep]

This question comes up a lot.

I've seen and given the answer many times.

Here's the WHY NOT- (MODERATOR- PLEASE ADD LINKS TO WIKI?)

There is an incident reporting system for pilots and controllers.

This is a selection of some of the reports involving PEDs. (Passenger Electronic Devices)

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf

While some involve unruly passengers, some involve actual interference with navigation equipment.

You could also use the search engine and find ALL the PED events in the database. Use Event Assessment/ event type (anomoly) then toward the bottom near the minus Event Type click the Click Here and select Passenger Electronic Devices from the pullldown menu.

http://akama.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSDBOnline/QueryWizard_Filter.aspx


So don't do it, ok? (not even your GPS)

 

[DPD1]

I met somebody once that proudly bragged about the ham contacts he had made on a recent flight... Yes, on a commercial airliner. How he got away with this, I have no idea.

Dave
www.DPDProductions.com
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist

 

[Scott_PHX_APP]

Interesting data in the link you provided. Perhaps the aircraft systems need to be more part 15 compliant? OR passengers need to pay attention and follow rules...

 

[GrayJeep]

Hamming in flight

I met somebody once that proudly bragged about the ham contacts he had made on a recent flight... Yes, on a commercial airliner. How he got away with this, I have no idea.

I've heard of this as well. In the case I know of the ham was the 1st officer on the flight. Still illegal since he wasn't the FAA defined Operator of the aircraft. But he'd have to put the HT down to do an instrument approach.

Some of the reports are pretty scary. Having the course needles stuck centered or against their pegs while in cloud could be fatal.

 

[Jay911]

Interesting that most of the data in that PDF is suspicions and not confirmed cases. Even more interesting is that there are several cases of laptops being identified as the most likely cause of the problem, yet you don't hear about laptops being banned on flights.

I just flew from Toronto to Calgary with a phone and a notebook computer. The phone was set into "airplane mode" prior to pushback from the gate and was neither radiating nor receiving any RF. The notebook, however, when powered up, had its Bluetooth and WiFi radios on and searching for signals. I didn't shut them off because it didn't occur to me to be concerned.

A lot of the reports in that PDF refer to drunk passengers being tools and only mention cell phones or "PED"s in passing. Other reports in there only mention the use of PEDs without any indication that anything actually happened to the aircraft (i.e. "Air marshal spots person with palm pilot on"). Many of the reports state outright that they do not know what caused system xyz to behave erratically but that they "suspect" a PED. That's the cheap cop-out way of doing things; like a fire investigator saying "electrical" is the cause (which has long been a way of saying "we don't know what happened and electrical is so hard to prove and easy to happen that people will accept it") or that "speed" caused a car crash.

If airlines in America are encountering this kind of dire problem with electronics in-flight, perhaps they should examine whatever it is that Emirates (I think) and other airlines are doing that now allow cell phones in flight. Even the airline I flew on tonight has digital satellite TV from gate to gate, with every passenger able to watch any of 24 channels of television.

 

[Grog]

like a fire investigator saying "electrical" is the cause (which has long been a way of saying "we don't know what happened and electrical is so hard to prove and easy to happen that people will accept it")

OT I know, but that reminded me of the fire marshal who declared (on the countywide fire dispatch channel) that the fire we were at was an electrical fire. Then a minute later someone keyed up and said "the line between the pole and the house has been disconnected for weeks".


Yeah, that went over well :lol:

 

[immelmen]

I find it interesting that people get very worried about NAV radios and instruments being affected by RF from electronic devices with no thought of COM radios. Reality is (except DC-9s) for most of the flight your aircraft is being navigated by laser-ring gyros in the INS, the only exception being a (non-RNAV) instrument approach.

Never had problems with navaids I thought were the result of RF.....HOWEVER, I have had problems with interference on the COM radios that resulted in dangerous situations. The most recent time an Apple IPhone was to blame.

This past Monday, had a very bad humming static on the COMs. A Cincinnati ground controller told us our transmissions were unreadable due to the noise. Later after landing in Newark, towers taxi instructions including runway crossings, were covered by that static....NOT COOL...what if that happened during a go-around call?!

Anyway, we got the stews on the intercom and asked about phones...one was using an IPhone. Had them cycle it on and off a few times during taxi, sure enough, the interference coincided with the IPhone being on or off....

 

[GrayJeep]

More

I'm sure that the airline allows laptops because they can't sell tickets if they don't.

You can be quite certain that based on this information that I'm going to be highly assertive about getting a fellow passenger to turn their equipment off when the announcement says to.

I'm already resigned to likely being killed in a traffic accident caused by an oblivious cellphone user. Now I stand a chance of being killed by that same idiot while flying. I'm thrilled :-(

 

[gcgrotz]

I recently heard a conversation on 20 meters involving a guy in Ohio, a guy on a bicycle, and another guy in an airplane at 34000 ft over Ohio. I don't know if he was commercial or business jet but he signed off saying he had to pay attention because they were going to begin their descent. I would speculate that he was using the aircraft's HF radio but don't know which seat he may have been in.

Not the first time I've heard pilots, once heard one over the north Atlantic, but this was unique due to the guy on the bike being in the group.

 

[Scott_PHX_APP]

From what I understand, there are several pilots/co-pilots/flt engineers that are HAMs and if using the aircraft radios, can operate legally. The key words here are aircraft radios. They are type certified for use in the AC and have external antennas, etc. for proper operation. On the other hand, pumping out 5W on an HT inside or a Lap-Top with a Wi-Fi link trying to connect on the inside of the AC, or iPhone/cell phone is not something I think is a really good idea. Yes, several groups have said they are safe, and just last night on the news, US Air is going to offer Internet access on board, but it's a crap shoot if you ask me. I'm sure you can make arguments for both sides and such, but if these reports are even half true, It should be repeatable to some degree. If so, you have good reason to ban the use and fine/jail/etc. the person that doesn't listen. The sad part about this is it may take an accident or worse to make the case to ban use. Have I used a scanner on flights before, yes I have many years ago and at the time they were not listed as not allowed. I remember one flight was on where I was listening and getting all kinds of static that I recognized. A guy 2 seats back and over was trying to watch a TV show with a portable B&W TV. The Horizontal oscillator was pumping out a *&^#$ load of interference... Now THAT was one item I would have baned in a heart beat! The bottom line is that airlines don't really know if it is a problem, and the FCC/FAA is not going to look at it until something really bad happens, so the airlines are erring on the safe side and saying NO for now. I can't help but think that if they start offering services like Internet on board, it's going to start showing up more often. It could be the the tip of the iceberg? Just my thoughts, your millage may very...
Later...

 

[Jay911]

I'm sure that the airline allows laptops because they can't sell tickets if they don't.

Of all the "malfunctions" described in that file, the ones attributed to a Wi-Fi enabled laptop are the scariest, involving the TCAS, or Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System - which is akin to a device that would flash a big warning on your car dash saying "HEAD ON COLLISION IMMINENT". If the airlines/governing bodies were truly concerned about malfunctions in systems as absolutely vital as these, they would ban any items that emit RF, whether it would cause them to sell less tickets or not.

The truth of the matter is that airliner cabins should be isolated to prevent things within from radiating to any sensitive avionics (and/or upgrading the avionics to make them less subsceptible to harm in the first place). A mesh "cage" embedded in the passenger compartment's skin would accomplish this task. Any signals that have a true need to get out (cell phones, if the airline supports them, and Wi-Fi, should we ever get that far, etc), could be handled by having the airline equivalent of an in-building cell repeater or access point, with a cable that passes through the mesh to an external antenna array.

All the information provided still doesn't make this issue at all cut-and-dried. There have been documented first-hand accounts of pilots doing instrument landings with a student's blinder hood on, while the trainer carried on a cellphone conversation. The same pilot also related the same instructor holding an active cell phone up to the antennae on a private aircraft with no detriment to the instruments.

It's undeniable that phones and other devices emit unwanted RF - just sit your phone on top of your stereo speakers and wait till you hear the 'dit dit-dah-dit dit-dah-dit" a few seconds before the phone rings. It's also a fact that the original reason for a ban on cell phones is based upon the potential to thoroughly confuse the cell system by being able to see multiple sites at once, or hop from cell to cell faster than was intended by the infrastructure.

The argument's not going to get won, one way or the other, ever. People will insist that turning on your phone will cause your plane to corkscrew out of the sky, smoke trailing from exploded engines, despite the fact that phones have been proven to have been in use on both 9/11 and in PDFs like the ones posted above. Other people will stand fast and say they've worked Antarctica on HF while flying over the Aleutian Islands in 23F on a 747-400. Others will say that they used their GPS constantly on a flight from Calgary to Las Vegas in June, getting a steady track and speed readings of 874 kph. People will point out that there are GPS units and mounts for cell phones, video cameras, etc., that allow private pilots to clip all their so-called "PEDs" to the dash of their plane (or even the control yoke) for their personal use. Odd that consumer-grade GPS evidently doesn't affect private planes' instruments even when close enough to almost physically touch.

 

[GrayJeep]

scariest

The TCAS alerts are indeed scary but the ones that hold the CDI needles centered likewise are frightening. That's like saying you're in your lane when in fact you are on the shoulder and drifting off the road.

RFI is not as predictable as we'd like thus getting away with using devices many times doesn't mean that this time, on this plane, on this flight it won't cause something bad to happen.

 

[Scott_PHX_APP]

Jay,
I'm sure you know this already, but TCAS and Transponders are operating close to the Wi-Fi stuff, just over the 1Ghz area. Indeed, I agree that if it's proven to cause problems they would ban them tickets or not, but I refer to my post above, (I was writing as you were I guess? ) and that it is a crap shoot now and could get worse if airlines start offering the services. Perhaps they are only doing it on AC that they know are shielded better? I don't know, but I can assure you that the avionics in commercial AC are shielded and don't interfere with each other or Laptops? I'm just not sure it's the reverse from the Laptops... Good topic and discussion here. I look forward to more on this, both here and in the news. As far as private AC and such go, could it be that the pilot would use his/her GPS/cell/etc. while they are doing maneuvers, landing/take-offs/IFR, etc. so they wouldn't cause problems at that time? I don't know, but I'm sure time will resolve part of this issue. I agree with you, it will most likely never be fully resolved.
Later...

 

[immelmen]

as far as internet and computers and PEDs being allowed in flight. These things will have no effect on the navigation instruments or CDI's. The CDI's or ND's are being controlled by, and the aircraft is being navigated with, laser gyros inside the "Inertial Navigation System" that have nothing to do with and are unaffected by RF. No radio NavAids are used above 10k unless you are on board a North West DC-9...even then its questionable...ie. in cruse its not really an issue.

Radio NavAids don't come into play until setting up for an ILS, at which point the aircraft will be below 10,000ft, the little blue "sterile cockpit" light above the door will be on but everyone should have ALL there PEDs turned off by that point anyway....right?????. There is just far more risk of harmful interference to Com radios then NavAids.

....Now, the TCAS issue is interesting. Ill have to read more on that one.

 

[Yokoshibu]

OT I know, but that reminded me of the fire marshal who declared (on the countywide fire dispatch channel) that the fire we were at was an electrical fire. Then a minute later someone keyed up and said "the line between the pole and the house has been disconnected for weeks".


Yeah, that went over well :lol:

I thought that was discretion of the PIC. or Pilot In Command... Did the reg change on me?


Oh also About the Phones in flight... Some phones offer that AIRMODE so you can use the phone in flight.... whats hilarious is that the processors on some of those phones are so noisy that it doesn't make a difference... a processor running at 120 Mhz vs the 900 or 1.9g cell signal pick your Poisson

 

[GrayJeep]

PIC discretion

I thought that was discretion of the PIC. or Pilot In Command... Did the reg change on me?

That has not been the case for decades. You can search for postings made by me in the last 6 months. I quoted the paragraphs in the FARs that apply.

It's the "operator" not the PIC. The operator is the airline.

 

[RayAir]

Hate to say it, but as a pilot I have never seen RF devices interfere with navigational instruments. I even tested using cell phones and walkie-talkies while watching the VOR's (non-passenger flights) and there was no deviation. Even tested while flying ILS approaches in the clear with a co-pilot and again, no deviation whatsoever. My theory is the FCC doesn't want you using cell's at altitude because it will hit too many towers. Another fact, from 35,000ft you generally will not be able to get any signal.

 

[KE7JFF]

I know the Germans have allowed Wi-Fi to be used inflight; I beleive the FCC has said the same because 802.11 seems to not affect avonics nor the nose-mounted radar unit.

 

[nycrich]

I have been repairing Avionics systems for the last 12 years ( commercial/ military in the US) and some of these comments have me thinking about the perception of electronic interference.
Cell phones were originally banned on aircrafts because the large cell phone companies lobbied in Congress to have them banned, since they were in the process of negotiating contracts with airlines to have them installed/ have you pay exorbitant prices.
The major cause of aircraft interference and has been proven almost every day , is by the adjacent avionic systems in the aircraft itself. These systems generate RF and sometimes share the same ground/wiring.
If you ever travel on private jets, most travellers are using their laptops, gaming systems, and almost every other electronic device that is prohibited on commercial airlines. Yet no one complains about interference.

 

[N_Jay]

I have been repairing Avionics systems for the last 12 years ( commercial/ military in the US) and some of these comments have me thinking about the perception of electronic interference.
Cell phones were originally banned on aircrafts because the large cell phone companies lobbied in Congress to have them banned, since they were in the process of negotiating contracts with airlines to have them installed/ have you pay exorbitant prices.
The major cause of aircraft interference and has been proven almost every day , is by the adjacent avionic systems in the aircraft itself. These systems generate RF and sometimes share the same ground/wiring.
If you ever travel on private jets, most travellers are using their laptops, gaming systems, and almost every other electronic device that is prohibited on commercial airlines. Yet no one complains about interference.

A little historical perspective:

The FAA rules on transmitters pre-dates cellphones by many years.

The FCC rules for cellular use pre-dates the launch of any commercial cellular system.

You seem to have adopted legend and myth as fact.