4 ms·

You didn´t really read the post do you?

by omegant 14y ago

josephlord 14y ago
I did, if you really think 3G phones en-masse trying to connect at maximum towers is the cause of computer crashes that you as a pilot describe as scary then someone setting out to do harm could design a unit that is easily hidden and for a short time could produce a much greater interfering signal. There are two real possibilities: 1) Interference is not a real danger and not the cause of the issues you have on occasions experienced. 2) Interference from mobile phones is a genuine danger to aircraft systems. If (1) is true interference is not a valid reason to ban electronic devices. If (2) is true the current safeguards aren't high enough and the protection should be greater. If passenger jets are vulnerable to interference from normal 3G phones then it is a potential form of terrorist attack to create massive amounts of interference at a critical point in the flight deliberately. Probably much easier than messing about with binary liquid bombs. Edit: Note that I believe that case (1) is by far the most likely and that I think that 10-100 times normal power device would probably be feasible if you didn't care about battery life although it might make sense to hide it in a laptop and use a bigger antenna than keep it in a phone package.
- omegant 14y ago
  Well I can not surely say what causes each failure (not even the manufacturers know for sure, that is why they make tests continuosly), of course not all the failures are due to phones. But saying that phone interference is not a possible danger to the integrity of the flight is quite bold, as I doubt that you have experienced a failure of that kind as a pilot or as a flight engineer. I also doubt that you know what can be the outcomes of a misguiding indication or or complete fail of a system. You are surely oversimplifying the matter. Planes are not data centers, they experience a great deal of vibrations, temperature changes, extreme humidity changes (from very dry to lots of condensation). All the circuits, cables, sensors computers, pipes, pumps, metal sheet, everything inside a plane will behave over time in strange ways that are not fully understood even today. A weakened electronic sys(with already corrupted signals) may not support the kind of troubles that a nominal one could do with ease.
  - bradleyland 14y ago
    The problem with your claim is that it doesn't pass even basic rational examination of the known physics involved. Radio waves from cell phones are only one source. The transmitter in most cell phones is around 0.3 watts. Loosely speaking, a cell tower transmits at around 10 watts per antenna. Radio stations transmit at wattages measured in the kilowatt range. HAM radio operators can transmit at 100 watts. All of these signals are flying around the atmosphere all the time. Distance certainly plays a role in effective power at the point of reception, but a tiny 0.3 watt cell phone transmitter isn't bombarding the aircraft with any more RF than an FM transmitter that is miles away from the airport. The reasoning just doesn't stand up.
- snom380 14y ago
  The third option is: Cell phones can in remote circumstances cause interference, but seldom enough to warrant banning all electronic devices with the massive revenue loss that would ensue. Likewise people are still allowed to bring lithium batteries even if they pose a fire hazard with several documented in flight incidents. In the real world, regulations are the result of trade-offs and not absolutes. It's just that the current trade-offs seem to err on the side of safety.

You didn´t really read the post do you?

by omegant 14y ago

You didn´t really read the post do you?

I did, if you really think 3G phones en-masse trying to connect at maximum towers is the cause of computer crashes that you as a pilot describe as scary then someone setting out to do harm could design a unit that is easily hidden and for a short time could produce a much greater interfering signal. There are two real possibilities: 1) Interference is not a real danger and not the cause of the issues you have on occasions experienced. 2) Interference from mobile phones is a genuine danger to aircraft systems. If (1) is true interference is not a valid reason to ban electronic devices. If (2) is true the current safeguards aren't high enough and the protection should be greater. If passenger jets are vulnerable to interference from normal 3G phones then it is a potential form of terrorist attack to create massive amounts of interference at a critical point in the flight deliberately. Probably much easier than messing about with binary liquid bombs. Edit: Note that I believe that case (1) is by far the most likely and that I think that 10-100 times normal power device would probably be feasible if you didn't care about battery life although it might make sense to hide it in a laptop and use a bigger antenna than keep it in a phone package.

omegant 14y ago
Well I can not surely say what causes each failure (not even the manufacturers know for sure, that is why they make tests continuosly), of course not all the failures are due to phones. But saying that phone interference is not a possible danger to the integrity of the flight is quite bold, as I doubt that you have experienced a failure of that kind as a pilot or as a flight engineer. I also doubt that you know what can be the outcomes of a misguiding indication or or complete fail of a system. You are surely oversimplifying the matter. Planes are not data centers, they experience a great deal of vibrations, temperature changes, extreme humidity changes (from very dry to lots of condensation). All the circuits, cables, sensors computers, pipes, pumps, metal sheet, everything inside a plane will behave over time in strange ways that are not fully understood even today. A weakened electronic sys(with already corrupted signals) may not support the kind of troubles that a nominal one could do with ease.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  The problem with your claim is that it doesn't pass even basic rational examination of the known physics involved. Radio waves from cell phones are only one source. The transmitter in most cell phones is around 0.3 watts. Loosely speaking, a cell tower transmits at around 10 watts per antenna. Radio stations transmit at wattages measured in the kilowatt range. HAM radio operators can transmit at 100 watts. All of these signals are flying around the atmosphere all the time. Distance certainly plays a role in effective power at the point of reception, but a tiny 0.3 watt cell phone transmitter isn't bombarding the aircraft with any more RF than an FM transmitter that is miles away from the airport. The reasoning just doesn't stand up.
snom380 14y ago
The third option is: Cell phones can in remote circumstances cause interference, but seldom enough to warrant banning all electronic devices with the massive revenue loss that would ensue. Likewise people are still allowed to bring lithium batteries even if they pose a fire hazard with several documented in flight incidents. In the real world, regulations are the result of trade-offs and not absolutes. It's just that the current trade-offs seem to err on the side of safety.