I researched and wrote this piece in 2006 but some of the issues it raises about using cellphones aboard aircraft are still unresolved.
Can we use our mobile on this flight?
Gerry Byrne
In June 1999 Neil Whitehouse, an oil
worker of Mansfield, Notts, was sentenced to 12 months in prison
after being found guilty of "recklessly and negligently"
endangering a British Airways flight from Madrid to Manchester. He
had neither a bomb, nor a gun but a mobile phone, or cellphone, on which he was
texting "I Love You" and which he refused to switch off.
When warned the phone could interfere with the aircraft's navigation
he reportedly joked "Why? Are we going to get lost?"
Yet actions like Whitehouse's may no
longer be a crime if trials of new technology
aboard Air France airbusses prove successful. It is joining TAP
Portugal and BMI in fitting new technology aboard aircraft which
means passengers can make and receive calls on their own mobiles
without risking an air disaster.
Concern about cellphone
use first emerged in the early 1990s when a string of reports from
aircraft crew said that difficulties with their instruments only
ceased when passengers stopped using their phones. In the US the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned their use aboard
aircraft in 1991 while the Federal Communications Commission also
banned them aboard aircraft because their use was interfering with
base stations on the ground.
It has never been proved
that flight or navigation anomalies were caused by cellphones and the
mechanism by which interference from mobiles can interfere with
flight instruments has never been conclusively demonstrated. Indeed
the most persuasive tests of the impact of cellphones on flight
instruments, when the UK Civil Aviation Authority created instrument
anomalies aboard a jetliner, was conducted on the ground and has
never been replicated in the air.
Cellphones are basically
cleverly engineered two-way radios which route your phone call into a
larger all-in-one local transmitter and receiver or "cell"
which in turn is connected to the national landline and cellular
phone system. As you move further away from your local "cell"
your phone "registers" itself with a new, nearer, cell. In
fact, mobile phones are constantly seeking out the strongest signal
and will disconnect automatically from a weaker signal and attach
themselves to a stronger one. They do this by means of an occasional
pulse which is transmitted even if the phone is not in use.
"They are always
saying "hello", I'm here", said Gerard Butler of
Trinity College Dublin.
This creates the familiar
beeping noise one often hears from a TV or computer speakers shortly
before getting a mobile call and sometimes this can be heard, even
when there is no call, because the phone is constantly seeking out
the strongest signal. Pilots have reported hearing this sound on
their headphones in flight and it was the co-incidence of hearing it,
and simultaneously experiencing navigation errors or other
instrumental anomalies, which first allowed them make the connection
between mobile use and electromagnetic interference on the flight
deck.
Mobile phones can transmit
at varying power rates. Even when you are not making or receiving a
call aboard an aircraft they can transmit at up to 2 watts, double
the output of the average hand-held VHF walkie-talkie, when trying to
reach a base station on earth.
At cruising altitude, a
mobile phone's connection to a cell base station is weak and the
phone automatically seeks out a stronger connection. On the ground
the average mobile phone is usually in contact with, at most three
base calls at any one time and will work only through one. In the air
a phone can theoretically attempt to lock on to dozens and will be
constantly pulsing as it attempts to decide which one is the
strongest. Large numbers of phones left switched on in a cruising aircraft
can create havoc with the cell phone system on the ground as all
available channels are quickly clogged up.
"They have been
successfully proved to interfere with aircraft instrumentation. It's
less of an issue in some aircraft, which have better protection. But
generally there have been problems with compasses and other
navigation aids giving the wrong readings. Pilots can sometimes hear
cell phones going off in their earphones, just like you can on your
computer or TV, while the anomalies are occurring. We've done the
research, there's definitely a link there," said Jonathan
Nicholson, of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK's aviation
rulemaker.
Following ground based
tests in 2002 using strong transmissions close to aircraft wiring,
the CAA discovered dials giving incorrect readings, and compasses and
other navigational aids freezing or overshooting.
But thanks to new
technologies, there's now pressure on aviation authorities to relax
the worldwide ban on cellphones. An example is the system designed by
Tralee, Ireland based Altobridge which places a pico-cell, or
transmitter-cum-receiver aboard the aircraft so that mobile phones
can communicate with it at very low power.
"The presence of a
nearby pico-cell aboard the aircraft effectively reduces the output
of the mobile phone," said Guy Waugh of AltoBridge.
It then routes the
conversation via established phone satellite networks, such as
Inmarsat, the connections from which operate at flight-deck
compatible frequencies, and at very low power. Honeywell has married
its hardware with AltoBridge's software and says flight tests aboard
a Cessna Citation business jet tests show there was no interference
with the test aircraft's own systems. Related systems are also being
tested by Norwegian telecoms giant Telinor and by Arinc, another
telecommunications specialist.
The German Ministry of
Transport has now proposed relaxing the in-flight mobile ban to allow
the new technology while in the USA the Federal Communications
Commission has already started a public consultation process to
abolish its no-mobile regulation.
But even if the Germans
relax the rule, it is hard to see how it can allow in-flight mobile
use if other aviation authorities do not concur.
"Any rule changes
have to be approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency,"
said the CAA's Nicholson. "There has to be majority voting; no
single country can either force or veto a change."
A similar stand off may
occur in the USA where, even if the FCC allows mobile use aboard
aircraft, the FAA has said its ban is likely to remain in force.
British pilots say they will continue to enforce the ban.
"We are being briefed
about the systems that are on test but as far as we're concerned the
rule remains switch them, off," said Keith Bill of the British
Airline Pilots Association. "We are always going to remain on
the safe side with this issue."
The problem remains
that hitherto, there have been few reliable measurements taken in the
air of interference from mobile phones and other potentially
disruptive personal electronic devices (PEDs), like laptop computers
and portable entertainment systems like DVD players and Ipods. (The
latter are called unintentional transmitters). That changed recently
following in-flight research by Granger Morgan and Bill Strauss and
published recently in the USA in IEEE
Transactions.
"Nobody ever
measured the radio frequency environment in the cabins of working
airliners in flight," said Morgan, department head of
Engineering and Public Policy at the John Heinz School of Public
Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
"Ours was the first set of in-flight measurements ever made
with passengers aboard. We carried a radio frequency probe on 38
revenue flights with two separate airlines and in a variety of
aircraft. It had a broadband antenna and could scan various cellular
and GPS bands. We were interested in the GPS frequencies because of
reports from pilots that some phones affected the GPS navigation
system. NASA has confirmed that aircraft often lost satellite lock."
The researchers detected
emissions from phones which were left switched in clear breach of the
FAA and the FCC rules. The probe also detected passengers making
phone calls on take-off and on final approach.
"It is troubling
because if picocells become more common you are going to see people
using phones during all phases of the flight and not just in the
cruise which is when the picocells are to be switched on," said
Morgan.
"We scanned the
navigation critical bands and found disturbing stuff," said Bill
Strauss who conducted the Carnegie Mellon probes with Morgan. "The
GPS region was quite active. NASA studies have found that some
cellular phones emit in the GPS range. I can't prove if it was a
phone but a lot of people were using them and a lot were left
switched on. I cannot be sure if one contributed to the other but it
adds a further dimension."
Concern is also caused by
the unpredictable behaviour of radio transmissions in the close
confines of an aircraft. "Multiple transmission sources can
cause two signals to mix and create different frequencies,"
explained Morgan. "It's very messy and hard to reconstruct
afterwards. It's very hard to work out why something happens in this
area. One solution might be to attach a radio frequency probe to the
black boxes aboard aircraft. I'd advocate taking it slowly until we
understand what the problem is."
At Old Dominions
University, Linda Vahala is preparing to model the behaviour of
picocells within a fuselage. But, as she discovered during earlier
NASA sponsored research, it will not be easy. Changing the location
of empty seats can dramatically change the result, she found.
"We simulated the
behaviour of mobile radio waves in different aircraft," she
explained. "We have tried to reproduce certain tests but we
never had the same conditions. I would advocate caution. There is
the potential for interference in certain frequencies at certain
places aboard the aircraft."
Earlier research at Old
Dominions confirmed that apertures such as windows in an aircraft
fuselage can actually amplify a signal as it leaves the aircraft so
that it becomes even stronger as it re-enters it through a radio or
satellite navigation antenna. She also discovered that the same signals
can behave completely differently coming from a different seat, or if
there are more, or less, passengers aboard.
Richard Lord of AltoBridge
said his company anticipates that the pilots will switch off the pico
cell until the aircraft is at 10,000 feet, not because of the danger
of interference with instruments, but because airlines believe phone
use in the cabin might distract cabin crew and interfere with safety
announcements. However in those circumstance, Strauss believes that
many passengers will try to use their mobiles despite the picocells
being turned off.
"People will be less
willing to believe that there are issues with interference if you
install the picocell system," said Strauss. "Right now I
believe most people assume that the reason for the ban is because
airlines want people to use the more expensive seat back satellite
phones."
Yet, even if the FCC once
again approves mobile use aloft, there is no guarantee that the
airlines will endorse it. According to Lufthansa, which has provided
a satellite link aboard some aircraft so that that passengers can
access their e-mail and the Internet, some people have been using
internet phones and it has led to passenger complaints. "If we
do allow mobile use it would have be in a quiet area, especially
during long distance night flights," said a spokesperson.
British Airways has never
trialled a voice system and says it will be customer led. If its
customers are anything like the 7,000 respondents to the FCC's
consultation process they might never allow mobiles. The vast
majority of the FCCs submissions are opposed, not on safety grounds,
but because the writers simply hate to hear people jabbering away on
mobiles.
PANEL
In 2001 NASA researchers
analysed the database of the Aviation Safety Reporting System which
enables US pilots to anonymously report safety incidents without
attracting an investigation or even disciplinary action. Between 1986
and 1999 it discovered 84 incidents, 39 of which were said to be
critical, where the use of mobiles and other personal electronic
devices such as mobile phones were linked to difficulties in flying
the aircraft. Although many were reported to their airlines, in none
of the reported cases were faults with equipment or wiring discovered
by subsequent maintenance efforts. They were divided almost equally
between advanced and less advanced cockpit designs.
About 44% occurred during
a critical phase of flight, such as taking off and climbing, or
descent, approach and landing. Some 31% occurred below 10,000 feet. A
quarter of the anomalies were detected by ATC. In many cases the
aircraft strayed off course although the cabin instruments suggested
that they were flying correctly. In a quarter of the off-course
cases, it was alert traffic controllers who spotted the aircraft's
dilemma. In a small number of other cases, pilots also claimed that
flight controls were affected, mostly autopilots, and radio
communications were also affected.
One pilot reported
that, in 1995, while making an automatic landing using the autopilot,
the system indicated that the aircraft was on track but the pilots
could plainly see that they had drifted well to the left of the
runway and that the autopilots had disconnected. The same year
another pilot reported an uncommanded drop of 300 feet in altitude
and that the speedbrakes, flaps on the wings to slow airspeed, were
suddenly extended. A year later another report showed false reading
on the flight deck and the aircraft suddenly pitched down and lost
500 feet in altitude while attempting a landing. A 1999 report of
navigation system malfunctions reads: "tone in headsets
(confirmed NOKIA mobile phone)."
Out of 65 critical anomalies identified
in the survey, mobile phones and laptops were equally implicated with
16 and 15 cases respectively identified. In nine cases the PED was
never identified but others implicated included electronic games,
radios, tape recorders and players, CD players, movie players,
portable TVs, calculators and pagers.
No comments:
Post a Comment