Stray SMS leads to aborted landing On May 27th, 2010, as an A310 flying from Darwin to Singapore descended to just 500 feet above terra firma, crew noticed the craft was not ready to land. In accordance with the procedures of the airline concerned, Australian budget flier Jetstar, the crew executed a “go-around”, the hasty cancellation of landing and consequent …
Face it, the airlines do speak their own language sometimes which isn't dissimilar to management jargon.
This blog post on airlinese is quite a good read.
It's all in the spirit of positivism, refraining from negative words like don't and not.
I suppose if some people are not confident flyers they do* need some fluffy language to see them off rather than being upset even before they take off.
*did you see what I did do** there?
**and there
"checked his messages rather than checking his readiness to land"
That's probably overstating it, perhaps for comic effect. Most airlines have a 'sterile cockpit' policy during critical phases of flight such as final approach. In any case, as the old safety maxim has it: "if there is any doubt. there is no doubt". Strange, unexpected noises (such as 'SMS received' tones) close to landing are a reasonable justification for a go-around, particularly in well-controlled airspace with no nearby terrain issues, like Singapore.
The story does rather give the lie to concerns that active mobile phones are a threat to flight safety. I'm sure they are inadvertently left switched on in cockpits on a regular basis.
Question: How come I can't even have a mobile phone on a plane that's switched on during the flight, but the pilot can leave one in his pocket and receive a message without interfering with a single cockpit instrument?
Or is, as everyone's known for years, the "no mobile phone" thing actually NOTHING to do with aircraft safety at all on any modern plane and wouldn't affect it one ounce (because otherwise, they would need you to HAND IN your phone to check it was off and not just rely on you to have turned it off and be honest about it)?
And, either way, how can a pilot break a rule that he expects passengers to enforce when his attention is actually MORE important than any of ours? Who cares about the fly-around (as the article states, it happens all the time for millions of reasons), why isn't he disciplined for NOT TURNING HIS PHONE OFF, like I would be if I was to vocally refuse to do so on an aircraft?
"why isn't he disciplined for NOT TURNING HIS PHONE OFF, like I would be if I was to vocally refuse to do so on an aircraft?"
I've flown a dozen times in the last 12 months, and although the safety messages clearly state "please turn off", I appear to be the only person doing so. I've seen people with iPads just flip the cover over, and one character took the earphones from his iPad and then plugged them into his iPhone so he could listen to music whilst landing. He just turned his head and ignored the cabin staff completely.
As for actually landing, it's usully accompanied by various pinging noises as people text, check email, etc. I even raised the issue once with a stewardess and she told me that they had been instructed NOT to challenge passengers in case the person started to get snotty with them and caused a rumpus.
Mind you there was one arrogant twat that also was the first out of his seat before the seat belts light went off, was almost trying to get the aircraft door open himself in his hurry. When he got to the baggage reclaim, his bag wasn't there; I openly laughed at him which didn't go down too well - especially when mine was second out and I was able to stroll nonchantly off to the exit.
The whole electronic items thing is weirdly applied anyway. Last flight I was on, the stewardess was insisting people turned their Kindles 'off off' - ie: not just wifi/3G off, not even the usual switched off, but slide and hold the power switch until you get the white screen. Yet iPhones and their ilk just needed to be in aircraft mode and tucked out of sight...?
This post has been deleted by its author
> The regulations are there in case of an accident and resulting fuel spill
The only really likely way a cellphone could cause a problem there would be if it got dropped or smashed in the crash, and there was a spark as the battery disconnected. That could happen whether it was on or off.
Why flying over land at 10000m height, your cellphone/mobile device can easily drown out thousands of devices on the ground, which communicate to several cell towers.
That is because the aircraft is in direct line of sight of these cell towers. Also, the mobile devices will reconnect to new towers all the time, because aircraft are quite fast at cruise altitude. Then factor in 400 cellphones in an A380 and you have some real problems on the ground.
Also, it cannot be ruled out that a mobile phone transmitter running at full power will interfere with the plane's receiver antenna/reciever, despite the fact that it works at different frequencies. At long distances, the desired signal is very, very weak and it is indeed conceivable that a nearby transmitter will create serious problems. There was a reason why HMS Sheffield had their radar receivers turned off. Before they got hit.
> Yes, I'm quite sure that mobile phones have enough power to communicate with base stations 10-14 km away. :rolleyes:
Of course they do. A GSM phone can have up to 2 watts output, that's plenty for 50-60km under ordinary conditions, and several hundred if conditions are good. Part of the standard for such phones is that they negotiate with the base station to use the minimum power required, but they will crank it up when necessary if the base station signal is weak.
Nope, even with a dipole antenna 100 km is possible. The main limiting factor for GSM is the ground and other obstructions.
Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
Handheld power output of 2 W, dipole antenna of 1.5 dBi
Tower sensitivity of -102 dBm (that's actually the handheld, but the tower should be better), and dipole antenna
Work that out in free space with Frii's equation and you have a margin of 100 dB, which is 100 km. If you assume the tower antenna is pointed downwards and you therefore have a gain of, say, -20 dB, you've still got 10 km range.
Clouds and rain have minimal effect at 900 MHz, and the plane's clearly not that good of a Faraday cage, judging by the signal I get at the gate.
GPS manages to go 20,000 km with a measly 500 W equivalent (taking the antenna into account, in other words), as long as you have line of sight.
i have always understood that their radar was shut down cos it was causing problems with flyboys harrier radar and coms, i still reckon was bullshit excuse, raf and gb gov wanted to sell harriers if they could, they did not want mirages etc chopped out of the sky by cheap, effective ground to air missile, i. e rapier, loads of competition and low profiits sales compated harrier sale.
> Why flying over land at 10000m height, your cellphone/mobile device can easily drown out
> thousands of devices on the ground, which communicate to several cell towers.
Bollocks it could. If that was the case someone standing next to the BTS would knock out everyone else using it. You might confuse the cellular network, but you won't 'drown out' anything.
> Also, it cannot be ruled out that a mobile phone transmitter running at full power will
> interfere with the plane's receiver antenna/reciever, despite the fact that it works at different
> frequencies
A GSM phone has a 2 watt transmitter.
Sutton Coldfield is a TV and radio transmitter station, near Birmingham in the UK. It puts out a million watts on TV, and 250,000w on FM radio i.e. at least 125,000 times the power of a phone.
Sutton Coldfield is fairly near Birmingham airport, which has a radar system. I don't know the output of it, but it will be several kilowatts.
A mobile phone's output is insignificant compared to them, and yet planes don't fall out of the sky.
I'm sure he didn't leave it on intentionally, Lee. But any flight with more than a few dozen passengers is almost certain to have at least one active mobile on board. I know I've accidentally left mine on at least once, and I'm the sort of anal retentive that listens carefully to safety briefings and follows instructions from the crew.
There's been a lot of research into the subject of radio interference with flight systems by people like the IEEE, and the conclusion is that it could cause a problem (though it almost certainly won't). Their view is that there's no point taking risks at 35,000 feet, and I heartily concur. It's unreasonable to expect cabin crew to be familiar with every type of electronic device and whether it's running iOS 3.1.2 or Android 4.5.7.1, so a blanket 'turn the damn things off during takeoff/landing' seems sensible to me.
Surely even the greatest iFan can manage without their pet for 20 minutes. You can do something else interesting, like marvel at the fact that science and technology allow us to propel hundreds of people through the air in a thin aluminium tube at barely subsonic speeds in almost perfect safety. Or you could even do something wild and reckless like communicating with another human (unless I'm trying to sleep, obviously). Wearing earbuds while the crew are shouting 'brace, brace,brace' probably isn't a good idea either.
It's instructive that, now there's money to be made from it, airlines are installing picocells to allow mobiles to be used in flight. Communicating with a local cell should ensure that signal levels are kept to a minimum, but I can't help wondering what will happen when the kit fails (or, more likely, is switched off by mistake). Dozens of mobiles will swiftly ramp up to max power in a futile attempt to contact the next cell 7 miles below (or 1,000 miles east if you're transoceanic). It will be an interesting test of the IEEE research, but I'd really prefer not to be on board the first few times it happens.
"don’t result in an ascent much sharper than that experienced during takeoff."
Takeoff: that would be the part of the flight that my wife starts crying and thinking she is going to die. Landing is a slightly better affair, if only for the fact it means the terrifying journey is nearly over.
Thinking it is no big deal to suddenly start ascending just when people think they are going to be landing is probably quite startling, even for experienced fliers.
I'm exactly the same as your wife.
It's the knowledge that on the way up, if things go wrong, you're already going to be clear of the runway and the ground is only a few hundred (maybe!) feet away, while the aircraft is going to have to perform some sort of ludicrous feat of physic-defiance to recover from a situation that it is only just designed to achieve in ideal conditions, with a fully laden compliment of highly combustible aviation fuel.
Coming down for landing is somewhat more acceptable - the fuels all gone, everyone on both the ground and in the air is expecting the descent and you have 2 miles of nice flat tarmac especially cleared for you to aim for.
It's all good thinking that all fuel is gone but according to ICAO worldwide rules the excess fuel one must carry beyond what is calculated for a given journey is:
1) extra fuel for 30' to 60' to deal with possible weather adversities and deviations
2) extra 15' as safety
3) extra 5% of the total (including above extras) as a final safety.
In layman's terms this means that most intra-EU flights land having consumed around 50% of the fuel they departed with.
And in any eventuality, 45' flight-time woth of fuel is enough to seriously grill any plane. Your best bet is hoping for rain or drizzle than empty fuel tanks.
> Thinking it is no big deal to suddenly start ascending just when people think they are going to be landing is probably quite startling, even for experienced fliers.
It's not, actually. I've been on large commercial aircraft on two occasions when the pilot has had to go-around, both times we had wheels down and were tens of seconds from landing. There's a brief moment of "hmm, that feels different, are we going up again?" followed by the sound of the gear going up & the drop in wind noise from that. It takes a few moments to convince yourself that you are actually climbing gently again (I've not experienced the effect of the "oh, FUCK!" button described in the article, although I'm told that the experience of a 757 climbing on full power is not soon forgotten :) )
There's no communication from the cockpit, the crew are obviously busy, so it's actually slightly more disturbing afterwards if the pilot chooses to explain. When it happened at SFO the pilot apologized for the go-around, which was because 'there was another aircraft on our runway". Thanks, ATC! At Geneva the comment was just "sorry about the go-around, it can sometimes seem dramatic but it's pretty routine. Those on the left will get a really good view of Geneva and the fountain...".
I'm biased, but NO OTHER INDUSTRY reports its incidents so openly as the Aviation Industry.
Google for AAIB and see all the UK incidents
If this had been a boat or a bus, you'd never have heard of it.
And if it had been a medical incident, well, the Doctor would have "buried it". Literally...
Well done to the crew for handling it well.
There's a reason that some transportation systems are better covered.
When something goes wrong and you're flying, there's a very high chance that you'll hit the ground hard.
When something goes wrong and you're in a bus, there's a very high chance that the bus will stop and you can get off it.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'd be interested to know which inflight system that was on. The GMIS inflight entertainment system I worked on (early 777) was immune to EMC levels far, far higher than your iPhone could emit (especially WiFi). Similarly, the flight control computers on the A320 family.
If this story were true, it would possibly mean that the inflight system used WiFi itself and your phone was stealing bandwidth.
I'm not sure what the inflight system was being used - I know it was an Airbus but can't remember anything else.
There was some satire intended in my comment - perhaps that wasn't clear, my apologies. But it was based on true events - everything worked perfectly within a minute of me turning my phone off. I understand how wifi works, and I understand that there is incredibly little chance of my phone seeking a wifi connection causing interference with other devices. Just seemed like a topical coincidence that I wanted to share.
That's nothing.
I once accidentally left my iPhone on in the terminal and the entire fleet of planes just outside had to be grounded due to the unexplained technical glitches. Boy did I look sheepish when I noticed my phone was on, switched it off, and all the problems were immediately solved. Got some pretty nasty looks from airline staff too!
you know there is perhaps something in that.
i mean we can hurtle a lump of metal to "crash" in to mars and its quite alright
i would hazard a guess and say that if the shit really did hit the fan, ie, falling out of the sky, could they not deploy giant chutes to slow the thing down (only to Orientate and control the fall) then before "landing" deploy those bouncy airbags
I mean yes the plane would be screwed, yes some of the people would probably not survive but if the choice was that or slaming in to the deck at 150mph+ i think id rather hedge my bets with the air bags. Justa thought
They have, sort of.
Many new light aircraft designs have built in "ballistic parachute recovery systems". Essentially, one gets into trouble, pulls "the handle", out pops a parachute and the whole caboodle floats fairly gently to earth. To date the market leader can provide such systems for aircraft weighing up to ~3.5 tonnes.
Just ask them to scale it up a bit :-)
Mind you, it would require rather more than the 500ft that they had to recover in this incident.
That program confused the living poop out of me. I had been in Australia for 3 months, and was watching it about 6 months after I got back. I started watching it about 15 minutes in with no idea what it was about and was genuinely confused until I noticed that some of the dates for serving politicians were in the future.
Good though
They aren't.
I offer the evidence that "The Day Britain Stopped" is a drama based on the premise of a disaster occuring, and therefore contains a similar amount of truth as "The Day After Tomorrow" and "The Day Of the Triffids".
If they did their research and found that the disaster they based the programme or film on was either impossible or extremely improbable, they'd have no entertainment. Thus either no research is done, or the research is ignored when inconvenient.
In this case I'd guess the former, given the statement from NATS.
"This programme presents itself as dramatised documentary. However, it is not only based on a highly unlikely scenario, but deliberately ignores - or misrepresents - almost every standard safety system or procedure currently in use."
through involvement in something much more important that semi-automatic landing procedure (boring, boring, boring, press that button Dave), like, I don't know, various things spring to mind, none of them polite to mention, but widely known to have happened in professional and private environments.
Ignoring the warnings to turn off portable electronic devices could seriously endanger a flight if the right circumstances all come together. No doubt the newer aircraft has better shielding of important components but I for one would not want to be flying into Tegucigalpa in an near retired aircraft maintained by a cash strapped operator in heavy rain, high winds and thick cloud with someone using a non CE tested device with RF circuitry creating harmonics over many bands. There have been plenty of incidents filed where the Course Deviation Indicator (CDI), VOR navigation systems and electronic flight displays have been subject to interference that wouldn’t make an instrument approach in the above scenario as safe as it should be. Especially (hypothetically) an operator hasn’t changed a dodgy instrument as quickly as they would have if they were based in the EU, USA etc... and the pilot trusts the interfered instrument over the one he has experienced quirks with before. All something we could see realistically come together on an episode of Air Crash Investigator one day.
As for the touch and go, try London City airport on a really hot summer day with no wind and a full plane to see if passengers just think it is routine. The standard approach and take off is already hairy at 5.5 degrees so you do see some great facial expressions when it happens. It happened to me once where the pilot had to do it from both directions before he managed to put in down on the third try. A lot of passengers were really bricking it that day.
1) At altitude, modern phones connect to every antenna in range, overloading the system - no, not really. At least, not in my experience. Any time I'm move than 3000' above ground level in a plane, my cell phone shows NO signal, not full-strength signal (at least, that's with my GSM phone - I've heard CDMA phones may be different).
2) Go-arounds are uncommon and unsettling for passengers - Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of or an unusual event. And except on a clear day where passengers can see outside and see the ground, without visual reference I challenge anyone to tell if they are climbing or descending and getting it correct. For all the passengers know, they've just got a bit of turbulence or are turning. The part that unsettles passengers is probably more due to windy conditions/bad weather, than the go-around itself.
3) Ahh, cell phone interference. In my own experience, I've had circumstantial evidence that cell phones MIGHT cause interference with certain avionics/navigation systems. However, that's only when the phone is emitting any radio emissions. If the phone is in airplane mode, it's like any other passive electronic device and can't do any harm. The "turn it off-off" is most likely just a fail-safe way of the flight attendants ensuring people put their phones into a non-emitting mode rather than having to explain how to disable the radio features of every possible device.
Also, they had to go around because the captain received an SMS? There has to be more to it than just that, as I find it hard to believe they could hear the ringtone over the ambient noise in the cockpit.
I have "WHOOP-WHOOP! TERRAIN! WHOOP-WHOOP! TERRAIN! PULL UP! PULL UP!" as mine, cobbled together from .mp3s of the real thing.
But then, I'm not a commercial pilot, so when my colleagues hear it there's no risk of them hitting the TO/GA button and pulling back on the yoke, etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
