Air NZ seeks in-flight caller

[deaneb]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 30 2010, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking about the radar last night - I wonder how much "leakage" there is of the radiation it spews out when active? Is it's effect cumulative? It's very close to all the wiring etc directly in front of the pilots - surely that would be a really bad place for "issues" to crop up?

Radar is pretty directional and as you said - its right up front . When I worked at 5 Sqn on Orions, it was taken pretty seriously - you certainly were not allowed to be in front of the plane when radar was being tested on the ground - so signs were placed and the anti collision light had to be on. Usually the plane was turned around to face out to the airfield anyway. More dangerous closer up, but radiation danger drops off further away. HF aerials are another bad one, but you have to be very close or touching.
Electrical stuff is too much smoke and mirrors for me - hence I have a mechanical background. Solid metal and hydraulic systems at least obey my understanding of the laws of physics !!

[SA227]

I have had two incidents with cellphones. 1st one was a lot of interference on com 1 during the taxi, the only thing we could attribute it to was the doctor using his cellphone as the interference stopped when he finished his call. We were unbale to replicate it so nothing proven. Com 2 was fine.
The 2nd one, and this is common with vodafone, is that we heard through our headsets a cellphone searching for a signal, both pilots confirmed we had our own phones off. As we were on a post flight we assumed there was a cellphone in the mail so we had to put up with it randomly seeking a signal for the whole flight, a pain in the ****. On arrival at Palmerston North we did indeed find a cellphone in the mail and it was switched on.

[pilotgallagher01]

QUOTE (SA227 @ Oct 30 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 2nd one, and this is common with vodafone, is that we heard through our headsets a cellphone searching for a signal, both pilots confirmed we had our own phones off. As we were on a post flight we assumed there was a cellphone in the mail so we had to put up with it randomly seeking a signal for the whole flight, a pain in the ****.

Yep happens when your passenger has vodafone mobiles..telecom xt and telecom cdma don't seem to interfere at all but vodafone makes annoying sounds in the headsets as described above.

[Squawk1200]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Oct 30 2010, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As for gas stations....it has always surprised me that when filling up an aircraft it has to be statically grounded with a grounding lead yet a car does not.
I get the odd good zap off my car (must be those expensive shirts I buy ). I try to make sure that I "discharge" myself prior to filling up the car or bike.
Given the number of customers filling up at any time there are surprisingly few incidents.

I'm just going to jump in here. I once asked this very same question, to whom it was i do not remember.
I was told that aviation refuelling pumps have a much higher risk of conducting static electricity due having much longer hoses with a higher speed of fuel flowing through them (effectively charging the hose/pump), as compared to the smaller short hoses we we at petrol stations. Maybe someone with a greater understanding can back this up?

[cowpatz]

Not trying to be too pessimistic but with regards to Island Boys comments on safety .
Selective quotes from same document:

Australia’s largest pilot union has warned that the indifference of airline managements and young pilots to training standards and experience is dragging down safety from its previously high level in this country.

It has sent a Statement of Concern on Diminishing Flight Standards to senators in advance of the impending Senate Inquiry into these matters.

Headed Are we handing the keys of the Ferrari to a bunch of P-platers the paper by the Australian and International Pilots Association says the operational safety of the country’s major airlines is falling.

“Very low air fares have increased the demographic pool of potential air travellers and created a significant demand for increased capacity that appears set to continue.

“However the expectation of the public is generally that the cheap fares come without any reduction in safety.â€￾

“We must make a stand to protect the safety of the public and ourselves…There is growing evidence that we have stagnated at safety levels achieved in 2003 and may even be going slowly backwards."

The paper accuses the airlines (in general) of treating pilots as a commodity “to be cost managed not nurtured.â€￾

and my personal favourite:

The AIPA paper says pilot conditions and training arrangements are being made “the playthings of young MBAs trying to make their mark in the business world.â€￾

The full paper will be on the parliamentary website soon. It will make very good reading. There are very interesting comments on the new Generation Y pilots.

[IslandBoy77]

Wow - that's of concern. How do those working commercial passenger aircraft in NZ view those comments? And how do pilots think NZ is doing - especially Air NZ and local carriers? Considering how difficult it is to become a commercial pilot (never mind the cost), how rigorous the training, the vast amount of information & knowledge required, and the demands of staying "current" (testing and such), it staggers the mind why any airline would treat THE prime cog in their airline machinery with anything less than the best. If the standards I've heard about with BA are applied more or less the same through most reputable airlines, being a commercial pilot is a demanding, exacting and very highly skilled profession with no real equal that I can think of bar astronauts.

[cowpatz]

Just to digress further but still related to the safety culture theme.
The whole issue of pilot training etc has been spurred on recently as a result of the Colgan crash at Buffalo in February 2009, which killed 50 people after two badly trained and fatigued pilots lost control of a Q400 turboprop.
They made some very, very basic handling errors.
In NZ there is a think tank in progress as to how we train our pilots. The military contribution has all but dried up and that leaves the civil sector.
With the odd exception this involves a brand new C cat instructing students with no real experience base. There are very few career GA instructors. Getting A cat instructors trained and retained is a real challenge.
If you couple all this with the profile of a Generation Y pilot it does start sounding alarm bells.

. Want success quickly and pay-packet to match

· Do not see the need to earn credibility or work their way up the corporate ladder

· Do not want to do menial tasks, but instead crave challenging and creative responsibilities

· Have little loyalty to companies, but are loyal to their peers

· Likely to work for only two to three years with any one employee

· Likely to change careers six times in their working life

· Cynical, questioning and live for ‘now’

· Expect training programs, time off to travel and flexible working hours (Foundations Consulting 2006)

Anecdotal feedback suggests that self preparation, research and technical curiosity are often lacking as is patience and acceptance of procedural constraints.
Importantly there appears to be a lack of commitment to the pilot monitoring task (non flying pilot) at the same level as that of the pilot flying.
Unfortunately gen Y stereotypes would appear largely to be incompatible with the the social welfare outcomes of employment contracts at low cost carriers or typical methods of discipline, so the task facing flight managers is substantial.

The low cost base carrier formula has certainly had an impact on pilots. Most pilots now have no representation at board level as they usually had in the past. Air NZ had a pilot rep but that went in the late 70's.
In the drive for reduced costs the pilot and all his associated training overheads just got lumped into the "just another aircraft worker category".
Then came "performance based management" or in other words the manager gets a performance bonus based on reducing costs. This is a strong driver in eroding any restrictive work practices (or protections as I would call them).
This can affect all areas of an operation and could mean, for example, carrying defects for longer before rectification or having pilots flying back of the clock operations with a minimum crew compliment and perhaps even removing the restrictions on arduous tour of duty combinations ie. a late start one day followed by an early start the next with a long day of duty and many sectors (cumulative fatigue).
The only resistance to this is either legislation or pilot resistance. The later has been reduced with airlines attempts to break unions or employ pilots on individual contracts with no seniority position list. In other words a grace and favour approach...very dangerous. Now there is talk of airlines employing new hire abinitio pilots off the street to go thru in house training programs. This may involve restrictive bonds and contracts and this could indirectly affect the future decision making (especially those that could result in a significant financial impact on the company).
Any opposition, even operational, could be met with "your fired".
No airline will ever be 100% safe. If it was it would never fly. It is achieving an acceptable compromise that is the issue and with current competitive and economic drivers dictating events you can see which end of the safety scale that compromise will gravitate towards.
This will only be tempered by regulatory oversight, transparency and individual professionalism and vigilance....at all levels.

[bennz]

Wow such long responses for the thing that has proven scientifically already
using cellphones/consumer electronic devices do not interfere with any NAV systems of commercial airliners. The restriction is in place to eliminate any possibilities.

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (bennz @ Nov 2 2010, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow such long responses for the thing that has proven scientifically already
using cellphones/consumer electronic devices do not interfere with any NAV systems of commercial airliners. The restriction is in place to eliminate any possibilities.

Interesting. Are you able to give us any links to the tests that have been done? It would be interesting to see how they've done the testing and the results. Ta.

[cowpatz]

QUOTE (bennz @ Nov 7 2010, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow such long responses for the thing that has proven scientifically already
using cellphones/consumer electronic devices do not interfere with any NAV systems of commercial airliners. The restriction is in place to eliminate any possibilities.

I'd love to be able to see that scientific proof. Can you enlighten us all with a definitive reference?
If what you are saying is correct then every cellphone and aircraft combination has been tested and cleared.
Great news.
It would be great to pass on to those pilots who file interference reports, and that I read, to enlighten them also.
Perhaps you could also explain how a game boy can disconnect an autothrottle on a 747-400... and that could be reproduced inflight?
Maybe the Group manager of operations and safety for Air NZ (David Morgan) was incorrect with respect to his interference episode.

[ZK-MAT]

I don't have experience at all in this field but like most of us techno geeks I like to know about stuff. I found this PDF that has some good reading material, some quite interesting, some relevant, some entertaining.

Link to PDF ASRS Database report set - Passenger Electronic Devices

The report narratives from Page 13 onwards make for more comprehensive reading. For me it illustrates not that a particular item, in normal conditions, is safe - but how an everyday item, in abnormal or malfunctioning conditions, poses a risk.

[bennz]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Nov 2 2010, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd love to be able to see that scientific proof. Can you enlighten us all with a definitive reference?
If what you are saying is correct then every cellphone and aircraft combination has been tested and cleared.
Great news.
It would be great to pass on to those pilots who file interference reports, and that I read, to enlighten them also.
Perhaps you could also explain how a game boy can disconnect an autothrottle on a 747-400... and that could be reproduced inflight?
Maybe the Group manager of operations and safety for Air NZ (David Morgan) was incorrect with respect to his interference episode.

The simplest one is the episode of myth busters which was studied by aviation professionals and accepted as a scientific proof. Worth watching it : )

It doesn't matter what brand and model of cell phone you use. its matter of what system?! They test all types of GSM ( 800,900,1800 and 1900 ), No Point in testing CDMA as it works in different manner than GSM. Satellite phones ( Iridium ) are safe as their frequency range is above any of aircraft systems.

Other test was done is a Russian Air Force experiment in 2005 done on range of Airliners ( TU-154M, IL-96 , IL-86 and A-320 ) , in those instances none of the test devices ( Mobile phones, PDA and media player ) caused any interference with any of the systems.I might be able to find this document and post it on here, but its in Russian.

The reason lies behind the shielding materials being used to insulate the wiring and cabling. Maybe in the case that gameboy cause A/T to disengage, there was an issue which needed to be investigated.
If you study the Computerized systems of an aircraft ( Which I did for A300-605 for a job back in 2004) you realize they have special protection against radio frequencies which specifically designed to prevent radio interference ( from 25Mhz to 2 Ghz ).

However, for sure there will be instances of rare cases , and that is why the pre-cautions are in place.

[cowpatz]

Yep all interesting stuff but that just looks at magnetic induction with wiring looms. Terminals, CB panels and bus bars are not shielded nor are the avionic boxes themselves.
Unlike most GA aircraft, which have the avionics mostly contained in the cockpit area, large airliners have the electronic equipment located in a dedicated bay usually called a E&E bay (electronics equipment).
Usually this bay (or bays) is located directly under the floor of the forward cabin. This is the area which I suspect is the most vulnerable.
The threat caused by electronic devices is very real. Flight attendants cannot be expected to differentiate between what is an acceptable device and what is not. What does a cellphone look like these days anyway???
As long as my arse is up front and yours is down the back I'm all for making sure there is minimum drama.
There is no downside to turning them off.

[Charl]

So there were some "interesting" packages shipped recently by DHL out of Yemen.
Explosives contained inside the printers were wired to cellphones.
This has raised a new aspect of wifi and inflight communications.
More at
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1966...light-wifi.html

And, quoting from the article, which is what made me think of this thread:
"Manufacturers of the technologies will not welcome this fresh security concern, having finally gained airworthiness approval for their in-flight cellphone and Wi-Fi systems by proving that their microwave transmissions do not interfere with avionics."

[IslandBoy77]

I read the PED PDF & the article at New Scientist. The PED PDF seems to indicate that there IS a sufficient amount of anecdotal (non scientifically-tested) 'evidence' to back the claims of those that PED usage is an issue for aircraft on-board systems. The almost throw-away line from NS (as quoted above) would indicate that some sort of scientific testing and certification HAS been done / reached, although it doesn't specify if that is industry-wide, certain carriers, certain aircraft types or what.

All in all, phone-home bombs aside, the whole issue still appears unresolved and murky to me. Further, I'm still very concerned that aircraft systems are so easily tripped up - that just doesn't sound right...