Cell phone interference report

[2R]

Civil Aviation Authority CAA Home




CAA


Publications
FAQs
Web Links
EMail Contact
Search Publications
Subscriptions
About CAA Publications


CAA
CAA News
Publications
Corporate Information
Contact the CAA
Aviation Legislation
Library
Jobs and Careers
Airspace Policy
Consumer Protection
Economic Regulation
Safety Regulation
Site Information
Tell me more about ...


CAA Paper 2003/03: Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
Please find below details of the CAA Publication you have selected. Dependent on availability, you are able to download the file, or purchase a printed copy.


Reference: CAA Paper 2003/03
Title: Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
Description: This Paper gives details of the testing of a set of avionic equipment for susceptibility to cellphone interference. The testing was done under controlled conditions in a test chamber. The equipment, comprising of a VHF communications transceiver, a VOR/ILS navigation receiver and a gyro-stabilised remote reading compass system, was assembled to create an integrated system.
A number of anomalies were found and are detailed in the report. The test results endorse current policies restricting the use of cellphones in aircraft.
Status: Current
Review Comment: None
Version: 1
Date: 30 April 2003
View File: Open document in new window (600kb)
Purchase Copy: TSO (The Stationery Office)

And still there are people who doubt

[xsbank]

I doubt.

Why didn't you copy it? Now I'm going to have to look it up (well, I might...).

[CD]

CAP 756 - Portable Electronic Device Generated Electromagnetic Fields on board a Large Transport Aeroplane
CAA PAPER 2003/3 - Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
Boeing Aero 10 - Interference From Electronic Devices

[looproll]

The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that
can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the
victim equipment or its wiring harness.
• Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
• Instability of indicators.
• Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
• VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
• VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
• Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
• Background noise on audio outputs.
Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
The project was managed by UK CAA and assisted with loaned equipment and personnel from
Vodafone PLC, CSE Aviation (Oxford), and BAE SYSTEMS (Woodford).

the phone was 30 cm from the equipment or wiring harness! So, don't talk on your cell while doing an ILS

[CID]

RTCA DO-233 is another relevant publication. This isn't really anything new.

[2R]

Believe it or not there are still those who do not believe in the danger that will bite them in the buttocks when they fly a gaggle of gabbers a gabbing on those modern transmitting devices.Some think it just one of those urban legands like global warming

[xsbank]

30 Volts per metre... that sounds like a pretty strong transmitter, to me. I will do some more research.

[aileron]

Can attest to my Rogers phone doing the "bleep, bla-bla, bleep bleep" routine and visibly seeing the adf needle do the funky chicken. Also, on a related note, the Rogers Edge or whatever the hell, manifest it's interference by amplifying some other call over the integrated speakers of a particular iris scanner... weird and wild stuff, never thought it be true until now.

[xsbank]

I had to read that 3 times to understand it - do retinal scanners have speakers?

I can't find any site that publishes the output from a cellular phone, except I have some recall that analogue phones put out 3 watts, which was the maximum allowed. Cell phone boosters that you can buy from Rogers are 3 watts only.

I heard that digital cell phones put out 0.3 watt, which was why there had to be more towers about and why coverage in the country is less than it was.

The CAA report based its findings on a 2 watt phone - I think that they are rare now, very few of us down south (I mention this because I think the Yukon's service might still use analogue?) have analogue phones.

If you stood up in a 767, how far from your head would the antennae be?

The problem with cell phone operation is the prolific urban myth problem - for example, don't use your phone while you are fuelling your car. Cell phones give you brain cancer - well, looking about, there is a lot of that around...

The real problem is the distraction/rudeness factor whereby people talking on cellphones while attempting to do another task simultaneously drop their ability to function to moron levels: the person in the grocery store lineup who can't talk and pay at the same time; all the problems with driving and talking; people talking on phones during the safety briefing on airplanes; talking while driving off/on a BC ferry.

The purpose of this 'study' is to intimidate the self-centred, 'entitled' people who don't think that the rules apply to them. If you say "no phones on planes" there are lots who will ignore you, just like the protozoans who leave their phones on in concerts. But if you say "no phones on planes because you will die," even those who are 'entitled' think twice because it really will affect their precious lives, and that is all they think about constantly and therefore the only reason they could be induced to follow a 'rule.'

I think its all junk science, which is not a good enough reason to convince me that phones-on-planes are bad.

I think phones-on-planes users should be tasered or ejected or tarred-and-feathered in the terminal, which is the same thing as what the studies are trying to accomplish, I guess.

I agree with the end result!

[CID]

I think its all junk science, which is not a good enough reason to convince me that phones-on-planes are bad.

The only "junk" here is found in the "myths" generated by people who think they know better. For example, 2 Watts was used because some digital phones are capable of operating at that peak power. Analog phones were closer to 4 Watts.

This dicsussion comes up occasionally and it always exposes diametrically opposed positions. And invariably, the people who doubt any link bewteen cell phone and interference with aircraft electronics don't know what they're talking about.

[Gramps]

This report is from 2003. I'm guessing that things have changed for both avionics, and for cell phones. Besides, you'd never get a 2003 vintage cell phone onboard an aircraft now. I highly doubt they would "fit in the sizing device located near the check-in counter"!

Gramps

"The best safety device in any aircraft is a failed #1 start relay. Nobody moves... nobody gets hurt"

[imarai]

REMOTE CAR STARTERS ARE WORSE THAN CELL PHONES! A Dash-8 had to conduct an overshoot on an ILS due to a few pax activating their remote car starters while on final. The pax, comprised mostly of company employees on a daily commute shuttle, thought they were on final for runway 23, where the aircraft passed close to the staff parking lot. Following their usual practice, the pax pushed the remote start button when on final, but on this particular evening, due to IMC WX, the flight was on the ILS for runway 05, the runway where the GP transmitter is located. At around DH, the pilot observed OFF flags for the GP, and executed an overshoot and returned to Calgary, much to the chagrin of the pax.
Within ten minutes, a Medevac King Air performed a successful ILS 05 approach and reported no anomaly with the GP. The next day, navaid techs inspected the GP and could find no fault with the equipment.

[Canoehead]

My thoughts on cell phones....

-How does a pax know where the wiring harness or antenna cables run within the airplane? Possible to have the phone within 30cm of said equipment? You bet, especially if the pax is in a window seat and is huddled over as close as possible to the exterior wall trying to 'hide' from the f/a...

-I haven't seen any flags or weird indications during flight, but often hear the odd 'croaking' type rhythm as phones are changing towers or roaming. It drives me nuts.

-There are other reasons why the phone should be shut off in the lounge before departure and not turned on until inside the terminal at destination. The main one is that pax generally have the 'common sense switch' turned off for their entire flying experience anyway. When a cell phone is involved, it increases the risk to their safety.

The point is… the rules are that the phone goes off for the flight. Period.

[x-wind]

I've had cells do weird things to the receiver in light Cessna's. One instance was a students missed call notification would beep and the screen would light up. When this happened the radio's would get a *weird* static.

Another well documented case.. was a vfr trip back to the dz and the other pilot jumped in while talking on his cell. I couldn't understand what atc was transmitting until he turned it off.

Anyway, it's in the pax brief now. No calculators either.

[xsbank]

Invariably, we can count on CID to rise from the dead and publicly stick his head up his *ss. Welcome back, numbnuts.

[CID]

Welcome back, numbnuts

Bite me junk-science boy.

[Cat Driver]

Bite me junk-science boy.

There used to be a poster that called himself " airplay " that reacted exactly like CID does when someone gets him angry..........

xsbank if he is not angry maybe he is coming on to you......maybe you excite him....

[bobcaygeon]

On the Dash 8 if a pax sitting in row 4 or 8 (I can't remember which) has their phone on , it will screw up the AHRS which is located in the floor below them.

It happened to us once, the Captain called up the F/A told her to go to row 4 (I think) and ask who had a cell phone on , sure enuf there was one.

AC had an incident awhile back where some bitch (J class) refused to stop talking on the phone so they delayed the flight, tossed her, and I beleive they billed her for it.

PS maybe unrelated but on youtube there's a video of a guy catching on fire fueling his car while talking on the cellphone (might have been static)

[xsbank]

Hello, .!

I sure hope you're wrong about his intentions... What really annoys me is that nobody reads what I say. Or let me put it this way:

In February, the last analogue network in the US will be history - all those American dorks who bought GM Onstar are stuck with more GM useless junk. But now all the analogue shoe-phones that put out 3 watts, or 4, whatever, are junk too.

We won't be far behind; I'll bet there is no analogue in Europe.

Digital cellphones transmit <1 watt, which is well below the amount the study used to mess up their experimental avionics. I do have an open mind, but anecdotal evidence and a flawed study will merely convince me that the purpose of this blather is to keep cell phones out of people's hands in airplanes, WHICH I AGREE WITH!

Normal people who try and function while talking on cell phones become gormless idiots, kinda like CID, which is why they should be removed from all airports, roads, grocery stores and anywhere there is the slightest possibility that you might possibly encounter another human being (I use the term h.b. loosely in the same sentence as, well, you know).

I'm outta here - subject officially dropped.

[twotter]

Invariably, we can count on CID to rise from the dead and publicly stick his head up his *ss. Welcome back, numbnuts.

Way too funny xs!!! So sad it's so true!!!

Cheers buddy

[CID]

I'll resist sinking to the level that these obvious internet bullies have sunk to. This mysterious "airplay" seems to have left quite a scar on you Cat Driver.

[pontius]

• Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
• Instability of indicators.
• Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
• VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
• VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
• Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
• Background noise on audio outputs.

I`ve flown lots of planes like that in the days before cell `phones-I thought it was normal; at least, that`s what our Chief Pilot used to tell me.

[Cat Driver]

This mysterious "airplay" seems to have left quite a scar on you Cat Driver.

Actually CID you two did leave a scab on my arsehole but given time it healed itself and as far as I know there is no scar down there.....and no I won't let you have a look.