Aussie Airlines To Allow Uninterrupted Mobile Use During Flights

Bismillah (993337) writes "While you're in coverage during take-off and landing, at least. Passengers flying with Qantas and Virgin Australia might be able to leave their devices on from as early as September this year after the Civil Aviation Authority decided it was no longer unsafe to do so."

Comments

Wy not?

[ruir]

Now they can sell Internet when phone calling abroad is already passé?

Re:Wy not?

[mjwx]

Now they can sell Internet when phone calling abroad is already passé?

Because there's no coverage up that high.

Plus it makes it easier to sell internet services. You simply put a cell on the plane and charge for the connection to the cell (easy enough with a captive portal). Same with voice calls and SMS's.

But for the moment, QANTAS and Virgin AU dont even offer in-flight internet.

article summary is wrong

[The Pi-Guy]

The article summary is completely wrong -- it mentions "while you're in coverage", to mean that you can leave the device connected to the network.

But from TFA: "Plane passengers will be allowed to use electronic devices weighing less than a kilogram in offline mode from gate to gate without needing to turn them off. The devices will need to remain in flight mode and cannot be used for calls, text or data, however."

So, all this really does is confirm the findings that the FAA had -- small devices are reasonable to use in airplane mode in all phases of flight.

Re:article summary is wrong

[orzetto]

That is correct, but other companies do offer mobile coverage on board: I have flown with SAS planes with on-board GSM, and whereas I did not try it (waaay too expensive rates, it's the new iteration of the airplane phone) I got signal on my device.

You still have to put the device in flight mode for take-off and landing, I assume because a few hundred mobile phones moving at several hundred km/h can overload or confuse ground stations.

WiFi is also made available only when cruising over 3000 metres, I assume because the Internet connection travels over the same data channel the GSM. You can't really play Youtube over the slow connection, but checking mail and reading newspaper is OK.

Re:article summary is wrong

[FireFury03]

Airlines like passengers to be paying attention during takeoff/landing since, in an emergency, the crew might need to give instructions and don't want to have to go down the plane telling everyone to remove headphones, etc.

Re:article summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't follow your reasoning. How the fuck could a mobile phone cause cabin depressurization? Besides, a depressurization is not a very difficult thing to deal with, as you should know. However, IF mobile phone signals interfere with flight controls and cause bizarre behaviour being at a high altitude is not much better, I'd say. In such a situation the last thing that will be on any passenger's mind is to shut offtheir phone. Assuming that they're even in a position to do so and haven't dropped it and it has slid somewhere out of their reach in a wildly moving aircraft.

I'm not in the paranoid camp when it comes to mobile phones but I do think that it's something to be more concerned about if flight controls eventually become wireless, which is not entirely out of the question. It's not an entirely insane idea because there are two significant advantages that wireless flight controls have over wired ones: 1. Substantial weight savings. 2. More reliability in case of certain structural failures. The best example of when wireless would have worked better was Qantas flight 32. The explosion tore some of the cables going to the other engine on that wing as well and thus the crew could not control thrust on it. In fact, they couldn't even shut it off. It was necessary for the fire crew at Changi airport to spray foam into the engine for over two hours before it stopped - they're supposed to fly through a fucking monsoon with no problem so that's hardly surprising...

Re:article summary is wrong

[Charliemopps]

The article summary is completely wrong -- it mentions "while you're in coverage", to mean that you can leave the device connected to the network.

But from TFA: "Plane passengers will be allowed to use electronic devices weighing less than a kilogram in offline mode from gate to gate without needing to turn them off. The devices will need to remain in flight mode and cannot be used for calls, text or data, however."

So, all this really does is confirm the findings that the FAA had -- small devices are reasonable to use in airplane mode in all phases of flight.

Despite the fact everyone on the plane already has their damned phone on, they are totally safe in call mode as well. If a cellphone can screw up the instrumentation of your aircraft, there's something wrong with the aircraft, not the passengers.

Re:article summary is wrong

[TheDarkMaster]

I assume because a few hundred mobile phones moving at several hundred km/h can overload or confuse ground stations

I'd love to do it just to see the face of technician when he is called to solve the "problem".

Re:article summary is wrong

[TheDarkMaster]

Wireless controls on a plane? I understand your argument, but this is simply too fucking dangerous.

Re:article summary is wrong

[VAXcat]

From my flight training, two things they say you can't have too much of - runway ahead of you, and altitude.

Re:article summary is wrong

[PPH]

you can actually hear the PA system clearly with noise-cancelling headphones instead of just screaming children

FTFY.

Re:article summary is wrong

[Obfuscant]

you can actually hear the PA system clearly with noise-cancelling headphones instead of just screaming children

FTFY.

No, he was right the first time. It is a question of hearing the PA announcements AT ALL, even without the engines on or any screaming babies.

This is why I simply cannot understand United's new policy of buying aircraft with NO entertainment system at all, not even one where you can just plug a headphone in so you can hear the announcements. It is a matter of cost savings over safety, and I hope it doesn't take a few deaths and serious injuries before the FAA acts to fix this problem. A couple of disabled people on the witness stand at a civil trial saying "we could have gotten off safely if we could have heard the safety announcements and emergency instructions ... and the people behind us who didn't get off at all would have made it with us."

Re:article summary is wrong

[Obfuscant]

However, IF mobile phone signals interfere with flight controls and cause bizarre behaviour being at a high altitude is not much better, I'd say.

It has two significant advantages. 1. It doesn't run the aircraft right into the ground as a failure on approach or departure might, given that approach and departure are when the airplane is close to the gound. 2. It gives the flight crew time to determine there is a problem, fix it, or at least mitigate it.

A flight system that has an uncommanded pitch down can kill an entire flight of people if it happens close to the ground. The same failure will shake them up, maybe break a few bones as people get tossed about the cabin, if it happens at 10,000 feet AGL, but it won't put the plane into the ground immediately. Pitch-up into a stall, same idea, better to happen at a high altitude.

It's not an entirely insane idea because there are two significant advantages that wireless flight controls have over wired ones:

Having two advantages doesn't turn an insane idea into a sane one, it only means there are different considerations that make it an insane idea. The fact that a nearby transmitter could disable the aircraft control systems much more easily for a wireless (radio) system than for a wired one makes wireless control an insane idea. The fact that it makes it trivial for an attacker to disable an aircraft remotely makes it even more insane.

But not as insane as the promo I saw last night for some new stupid TV program involving hackers saving the world. Some hacking group has disabled all of LAX's traffic control systems and none of the airplanes can land. They'll all start CRASHING when they run out of fuel if the good hackers don't save them. As if none of the pilots would divert on their own to other airports if they can't talk to LAX. They'll all just circle overhead until they run out of fuel because they're all morons or something.

Re:article summary is wrong

[hawaiian717]

This is why I simply cannot understand United's new policy of buying aircraft with NO entertainment system at all, not even one where you can just plug a headphone in so you can hear the announcements.

United and other airlines are seeing the trend of more and more people bringing their own devices and using those, thus they can save several hundred pounds of weight by removing the inflight entertainment systems. US Airways did this a few years ago. Southwest never had a built-in system.

But your point about the built-in systems' ability to be automatically paused when the pilots and flight attendants make an announcement is an interesting one; something I hadn't thought about before.

Re:article summary is wrong

[Obfuscant]

From my flight training, two things they say you can't have too much of - runway ahead of you, and altitude.

There are three things that are useless to a pilot: runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel in the truck.

Re:article summary is wrong

[mjwx]

But from TFA: "Plane passengers will be allowed to use electronic devices weighing less than a kilogram in offline mode from gate to gate without needing to turn them off. The devices will need to remain in flight mode and cannot be used for calls, text or data, however."

So, all this really does is confirm the findings that the FAA had -- small devices are reasonable to use in airplane mode in all phases of flight.

This pretty much means nothing has changed.

Singapore Airlines changed their safety video about 3 years ago to say that "all transmitting devices must be in flight mode and stowed for take off and landing". Ever since flight mode became commonplace (think old Nokia's, long before the time of Android and Iphones) it's been this way. It's only recently that the Hoi Polloi got a phone that has the capability to dick around off-line. For the business traveller, it's long since been a case of put it in flight mode and do some work.

Re:article summary is wrong

[GuB-42]

Despite the fact everyone on the plane already has their damned phone on, they are totally safe in call mode as well. If a cellphone can screw up the instrumentation of your aircraft, there's something wrong with the aircraft, not the passengers.

It CAN screw up the instrumentation. It won't affect flight controls or engines, however, it can mess up with the radios.

You know sometimes you hear some noise in your speakers or headphones when you are about to receive a call. Pilot headsets are no different and will pickup cell phone radio noise exactly the same way. In another instance, a cell phone external battery pack leaked enough radio noise to open the squelch of a nearby portable air band radio. There are all personal experiences. And if you don't think it is a serious problem, radio interference was involved in the deadliest plane accident (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ). Beside communication, ILS systems (required for low visibility landing) are very sensitive instruments and I don't know how robust they are to cell phone radiation.

Well, I hope that airliners are somehow less sensitive to radio interference that the small aircrafts I pilot but still, I once boarded a plane where the pilot made an announcement along the line of "someone is using a cell phone, I won't take off before it is switched off". Meaning that it did have a noticeable effect.

In The States

[darkain]

We've had this in the states for a while now. Being a frequent flyer, I personally love it. I don't do a whole hell of a lot with mobile devices on the plan, other than get to my seat, turn up the music, and pass out. But it is nice to have that music from beginning to end of the trip to drown out the noise of the others on the flights.

Also something new and awesome. Alaska Airlines (and possibly others) now have USB and 110v outlets on the back of the seat in front of you. No more needing to rush to find outlets in layover airports!

Re:In The States

[itamihn]

Icelandair has USB outlets as well. I love it! :)

Re:In The States

[FireFury03]

Alaska Airlines (and possibly others) now have USB and 110v outlets on the back of the seat in front of you. No more needing to rush to find outlets in layover airports!

A KLM flight I took from Schipol to Calgary earlier in the year had USB ports on all the seat-backs.

Just a shame the in-flight entertainment system was so damned unreliable - both the flight there and the return saw my screen crash, and the air crew said they couldn't do anything about it without resetting all the screens on the plane.

Re:In The States

[wonkey_monkey]

Saw a cute little tux when it rebooted and I smiled a bit.

Did she have to bend over to unplug it?

Re:In The States

[houghi]

No more needing to rush to find outlets in layover airports!

I do not understand why not more companies use this as an advertising opportunity.
One place I saw this was in Madrid where they had a big screen TV with chargers under it. This ment that all those people who would be charging their hardware, would also be sitting in front of said TV.
That should be a advertisers wet dream: people who will watch your 5 minute clip over and over again.

In Brussels I saw some electrical company placing bicicles where you could charge your phone/portable while you were cycling. You can also go to the Telenet places that are intended for your PC and a (wired) connection and to be used as a selling place for the Internet service. Just plug your device in and do whatever you desire.

I understand that airports are not offfering it, because they are only interested in renting out whatever is possible. I don't understand that marketeers do not use it more often. Either provide it free or some sortr of 'marketing price'. e.g. Join us on facebook and get free energy or 'fill out this form'.

That said, I always carry a 3-way power connector, so when I see somebody who uses a power outlet, I can ask to unplug, plug in the connector and we BOTH can charge and I can charge both phone and PC. Cost is well below 5EUR and they also come in handy in many hotels where they do not have enough connectors at the desk.

as long as ...

[thephydes]

the ignorant cunt next to me isn't allowed to inflict his/her loud spoken conversation on me while I'm trying to sleep/tune out/read, then that's OK with me. As soon as they allow voice calls, air travel is well and truly fucked - much like going to a coffee shop in suburbia.

Re:as long as ...

[thegarbz]

It's usually not a problem unless that person is American. See here down under we don't naturally assume everyone is an ass.

Just like here on Slashdot we don't assume the summaries are correct, or that people have RTFA which says that devices must still be in flight mode just no longer turned off, in which case I would seriously question why the person next to you is having a loud conversation with nobody.

Re:as long as ...

[ruir]

Mind it I really do not like it as much as you, however ear plugs are part of my gear international flights with which I cannot do without.

Nooooo!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone speaks loudly on their phone during a long journey, shit your pants. Just let it all out.

The experience of shitty pants isn't as unbearable as hours next to a babbling cunt - you already know how your shit stinks - but their flight will ruined with an indelible memory for your seat-neighbour.

Re:Nooooo!!!

[MrKaos]

If someone speaks loudly on their phone during a long journey, shit your pants. Just let it all out.

It's an interesting idea however I think I might choose to fart instead since it still smells like shit but it won't make me uncomfortable. Besides I usually let a good steamer go before I fly so I'm usually empty before take-off so it takes a while for one, you know, to be in the chamber.

The experience of shitty pants isn't as unbearable as hours next to a babbling cunt - you already know how your shit stinks - but their flight will ruined with an indelible memory for your seat-neighbour.

Thanks for the advice. It must have been some experience to smell your own shitted pants next to a babbling cunt.

Safer than thou

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

In the US, the ban was during takeoff and landing, for safety reasons, as there wasn't enough room for recovery efforts by the pilot.

Bans in use while cruising were FCC, not FAA, because your high speed confused and stressed the cell phone network, and had nothing to do with safety.

Good, but not the first ones

[Primate Pete]

Over the last two weeks, prior to August 23, I've been allowed to keep devices on during flights from the US to Asia via Europe, and back on European airlines. The airlines in the articles are not the first to do this.