ATC in cabin

Manny7

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I've only just discovered the Aviation forum and have been working my way through some of the old threads, really interesting stuff.

Anyway, when I fly domestic in the US I try to fly United as (in the past anyway) one of the radio channels available for passengers is the feed from air traffic control which is fascinating for wannabe pilots like myself. Is there a reason why more carriers don't provide this as it seems a pretty simple and cheap thing to do that adds something for passengers? Or are there other carriers that do provide this that I don't know about? Thanks.

ch252

Manny7 wrote: »

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I've only just discovered the Aviation forum and have been working my way through some of the old threads, really interesting stuff.

Anyway, when I fly domestic in the US I try to fly United as (in the past anyway) one of the radio channels available for passengers is the feed from air traffic control which is fascinating for wannabe pilots like myself. Is there a reason why more carriers don't provide this as it seems a pretty simple and cheap thing to do that adds something for passengers? Or are there other carriers that do provide this that I don't know about? Thanks.

COOL!! I never got that in any flight, always managed to sweet talk the air hostess into letting me into the cockpit though:D I wonder can you bring a scanner on the plane?? Then you could probably get any atc you wanted in the country!

highlydebased

Must be united you're on about....I believe its called channel 11

Dont think any other airline does it to be honest

Have a look at the airliners.net forums

cp251

Darragh, you do realise that it is now illegal to for a passenger to visit the flight deck? Pilots have been fired for that very reason. Regrettable of course as it was always a treat.

And no, you can't use a scanner or any radio on board an aircraft. In fact, having a scanner and trying to visit the flight deck might draw attention to you in a very negative way.

ch252

cp251 wrote: »

Darragh, you do realise that it is now illegal to for a passenger to visit the flight deck? Pilots have been fired for that very reason. Regrettable of course as it was always a treat.

Ah it was a good few years ago at this stage, before 9/11 and it was while the plane was on the ground, they were more than happy to have me up that time so I don't know if it was back then?

ImDave

I doubt there is any problem visiting the flight deck when on the ground. At least I hope not anyway .

Davidth88

I enjoyed this ( channell 11 ) on a United flight way back ( 2002 I think ) . However they switched it off when we were on approach which is when it gets interesting.

I visited a few cockpits before it became verbotten

ATP ( sort of stetched HS748 ) from Luton to Kerry ( Manx )
B737 into Berlin ( BA )

felt sort of silly asking , rather like a little boy :-) however on both occasions had a really great time, the ATP was really interesting coming into Kerry.

I always smile to myself when the flight crew say ' you cannot have any transmitting devices including radios or TV's ' , after all when did a scanner or a TV ever transmit, I ( as a bystander ) can't see any technical reason not to allow them as long as they didn't annoy other passengers and were switched off during announcements.

peter1892

The channel on United (I always thought it was Channel 9 but I may have been watching the Fast Show one time too many!) is great. I listened in the whole way from JFK to LAX once, and they left it on right until the final taxi-in as well.

*Kol*

Etihad have two cameras mounted on the exterior of the aircraft for the pax to see forward and down during the flight. Unfortunately they dont have it on for take off and landing though

Steyr

peter1892 wrote: »

The channel on United (I always thought it was Channel 9 but I may have been watching the Fast Show one time too many!) is great.

Bono Estente! C H A N N E L 9!!!!!!!!!!:D

cp251

after all when did a scanner or a TV ever transmit

There is a good technical reason for it. Someone explained once. But I don't remember. Suffice to say a receiver can interfere with onboard radio equipment. Bear in mind too that just because you are sitting way down in the cabin doesn't mean you are not near some antennae or other device. You might be very close to the avionics bay for all you know. Behind all the cosmetic plastic panelling there are lots of wires and gadgets running close to passengers. Not everything is up on the flight deck.

PhoenixRising

It's no problem visiting the flight deck when the aircraft is on the ground. Most crew are very accommodating of such visits as long as it's not at a busy time. After the flight is usually best..

IRLConor

cp251 wrote: »

There is a good technical reason for it. Someone explained once. But I don't remember. Suffice to say a receiver can interfere with onboard radio equipment. Bear in mind too that just because you are sitting way down in the cabin doesn't mean you are not near some antennae or other device. You might be very close to the avionics bay for all you know. Behind all the cosmetic plastic panelling there are lots of wires and gadgets running close to passengers. Not everything is up on the flight deck.

My question is:

If it's possible to interfere with the electronics then why aren't a) the electronics shielded or b) all devices capable of interfering with them banned in the same way weapons are?

In fairness, if they're banning water on the premise that it might be part of a liquid bomb then surely the lack of a total ban on electronics tells us that it isn't a credible threat to aircraft safety.

ImDave

I'm fairly convinced that the whole 'causing interfierence' thing is rubbish. Given the fact that mobile phones have now been approved for in-flight (limited) use by the EASA, it is obvious that the use of mobile phones pose no significant threat to the safety of an aircraft.

Davidth88

it is obvious that the use of mobile phones pose no significant threat to the safety of an aircraft.

Have you ever been using your landline when the mobile rings and heard the interferance ? Now just imagine you are the pilot , you are on final approach and you get a call that breaks up because of a mobile on board ...... the consequences could be horrible .

For the same reason you should not use a mobile in a telephone exchange , although this rule is often flouted.

The problem with mobile phones are that at 35,000 you are out of Cell range, so what does a switched on phone do.... it increases power and increases looking for a cell. What they are doing is actually making the aeroplane a ' cell ' , so very little transmitting power will be required and of course all the mobiles on board would register with that cell and not hunt around looking for one.

I am not looking forward to the day this happens because the only time of peace will go away !

I know a little about radio, and a reasonable amount about telecoms , I really can't see how a radio recv can produce interferance .

ImDave

Davidth88 wrote: »

Have you ever been using your landline when the mobile rings and heard the interferance ? Now just imagine you are the pilot , you are on final approach and you get a call that breaks up because of a mobile on board ...... the consequences could be horrible .

No, but I have been the pilot flying on final approach and heard the interferance from a phone on board. I have often forgot to turn off my phone when flying, and to be fair, it does cause minor interferance sometimes, but never at a high enough level to block a transmission to/from ATC. Now, if that is all it does in the cockpit of an old C-172, I wouldnt be too worried about the threat to the safety of a 737 or the like.

Davidth88

I always found the strangest things caused interference to the RT.

The PA28 I used to fly if you switched the beacon on you had a constant whine which was horrible , so the only time I switched it on was a pre-flight/ then the instructor would switch it off, if I was solo I would do the same. When I did my GFT the examiner also told me to switch it off :-) . He couldn't complain too much because he owned the flying school .

( G-BNXT , I think its still around !, and also BNXU )

In those days mobiles were not around , well they were but they were not common/ and the size of a brick.

ImDave

It is good practise to turn off your mobile before flying, something I always seem to forget. I am suprised thinking about it now that it is not put on the Safety Checklist but any of the flying schools (that I am aware of). When I was a Student PPL I was never told to turn of my phone, even from day one.

Intersting article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6821318. Hard to know what to believe. At the end of the day, better safe than sorry I suppose.

IRLConor

Davidth88 wrote: »

Have you ever been using your landline when the mobile rings and heard the interferance ? Now just imagine you are the pilot , you are on final approach and you get a call that breaks up because of a mobile on board ...... the consequences could be horrible .

Surely if that's a risk then they should either shield the radio or ban possessing all electronic devices entirely?

[MOVIE PLOT THREAT]Couldn't someone bring on some sort of jamming/interfering equipment disguised as an innocuous item and then turn it on at a critical part of the flight?[/MOVIE PLOT THREAT]

TBH, I don't mind the mobile phone ban anyway. I can do without some obnoxious fecker shouting away on the phone beside me.

Banning the use of receivers or other non-interfering electronics makes no sense though.

Our man in Havana

I recall in Die Hard 2 one of the passengers was using a scanner to listen into the flight deck.

cp251

Why aren't all electronic devices on aircraft shielded? Why should they be? It would cost a fortune to shield everything. That shielding would have to include all the wiring too.

The reason why moblie phone use is being allowed is because research was done to see what the possible problems would be and because the signals would be routed by an onboard station AND because the airlines can make money out of it.

The only way unrestricted use could be allowed would be if every device was tested against every aircraft at every stage of flight. I think perhaps people don't realise how chock full of avionics modern airliners are. I used to work in the electronic industry. We had test machines working away. One day the engineer told me how he could spot who had forbidden switched on mobile phones in their pockets. As they walked past or stopped in the vicinity the machine would fail everything. As they moved away it would go back to normal.

I think the older people amongst us here might realise it better. Older TV's and radios if not properly tuned could actually pick up interference from car engines passing by outside. Car engines are not radios, yet they interfered with a TV.

Better safe than sorry.

IRLConor

cp251 wrote: »

Why aren't all electronic devices on aircraft shielded? Why should they be? It would cost a fortune to shield everything. That shielding would have to include all the wiring too.

cp251 wrote: »

Better safe than sorry.

Would you then support a ban on all devices capable of causing interference on the principle that they could be used to maliciously interfere with the electronics? That's a logical conclusion of what you're saying.

When the aircraft industry switches to fibre optics to replace the electronic cabling it should become possible to shield the safety-critical electronics right?

highlydebased

Two or three phones switched on in an aircraft would not cause anything to break up on final approach. If the entire passenger body of the aircraft had all their phones on, and using them maybe. But at a low altitude on final, the phone would have a signal and hence would not be transmitting/receiving unless sending/receiving calls or messages. Further, the noise which can be heard which you refer to generally does not occour unless the source of interference is cited in close proximity to the VHF 1 and 2 antennae- There is ALOT between the pax and those!

tracker-man

i recall hearing somewhere that a commercial pilot on the ground refused to taxi or take off because of interference from electronic devices by the passengers.

Tenger

Davidth88 wrote: »

The problem with mobile phones are that at 35,000 you are out of Cell range, so what does a switched on phone do.... it increases power and increases looking for a cell. What they are doing is actually making the aeroplane a ' cell ' , so very little transmitting power will be required and of course all the mobiles on board would register with that cell and not hunt around looking for one.

Bingo!

The use of mobiles phones has been approved on a properly equipped aircraft. It is not a blanket rule to allow mobile phones on all European aircraft.
I sense a lot of explaining of this in the coming years.

Mr Benevolent

NASA's ASARS system (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/) has a good database of inflight incidents that include mobile phones. The evidence suggests that mobiles do interfere with avionics and can cause safety-of-flight issues.

cp251

Would you then support a ban on all devices capable of causing interference on the principle that they could be used to maliciously interfere with the electronics? That's a logical conclusion of what you're saying.

The problem is that no one really knows what device interferes with which electronics. So even if you had malicious intent, you couldn't predict the outcome.

Incidentally not just phones and radio can interfere with avionics. I've known digital cameras to interfere with radios.