Plane partially dismantled after passenger drops mobile phone

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8317349.stm>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Passengers bound for Newcastle Airport were delayed in Spain while
their plane was partially dismantled when a mobile phone fell into an
air vent.

The Jet2 flight had just landed at Murcia when a traveller dropped the
phone, which slid out of sight.

As it had been turned on, airline bosses refused to allow the plane to
take off until it was located.

Holidaymakers were delayed for three hours while the cockpit area and
front row of seats was taken apart.

A spokesman for Jet2.com thanked the passengers for their patience
during the incident on Sunday.

He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.

"We would like to remind all those travelling by air not to switch
their phones on until they reach the airport terminal."

----- End Quote -----
--
Martin Jay

Martin Jay wrote:
>
> "We would like to remind all those travelling by air not to switch
> their phones on until they reach the airport terminal."
>

It's now, "when they reach the baggage claim area". Well, in London
Luton airport anyway.

Result is loads of foreign and homecoming folks turning their mobiles on
when the plane has finally taxi'ed/screeched to a halt, are rudely
screamed at by the cabin staff and air-side ground security to
immediately turn their phones off.

Nice introduction to the UK. :-|

--
Adrian C

Adrian C <email@here.invalid> wrote:
: Result is loads of foreign and homecoming folks turning their mobiles on
: when the plane has finally taxi'ed/screeched to a halt

Which is more or less the approved norm in the USA and elsewhere!

Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.

This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
mobile-free flight.

Theo

Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
: > device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
: > in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.

: This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
: a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
: on by accident.

I have done this myself once or twice! However, while the airline must know
this happens a lot, it cannot be seen to condone it!

On 21 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:

>>He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>>care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>>for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>>device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>>in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.

>This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
>a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
>on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
>mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
>mobile-free flight.

I'm guessing this is similar to the mobile phone ban that hospitals
used to impose. The danger is probably minimal, perhaps non-existent,
but the ban is there just to be on the safe side.

The dangers of mobile phones were once a big news: we were all going
to end up with brain cancer. It's all a distant memory now--at least
for those of us who haven't been rendered brain dead by our
mobile--and we have new health scares to worry about. Pig Flu anyone?
--
Martin Jay

On 21 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos wrote:
> Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
>
> This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
> a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
> on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
> mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
> mobile-free flight.
>
Absolutely. I've been on a number of transatlantic flights where people's
phones have bleeped from the luggage bin as soon as the flight comes within
range of a phone network after the ocean crossing. Personally I doubt if any
747 in the past 10 years has had the mobiles of every passenger turned off
during a flight.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:58:28 +0100, Martin Jay
<martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:

>On 21 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
><theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>>>care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>>>for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>>>device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>>>in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
>
>>This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
>>a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
>>on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
>>mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
>>mobile-free flight.
>
>I'm guessing this is similar to the mobile phone ban that hospitals
>used to impose. The danger is probably minimal, perhaps non-existent,
>but the ban is there just to be on the safe side.

You can be sure the ban will be lifted and the safety considerations
disregarded as soon as the airlines are able to provide in-flight
mobile calls and make some money out of it.

Chris

"Martin Jay" <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote in message
news:557.1256162729.20091021@spam-free.org.uk...
>
> The dangers of mobile phones were once a big news: we were all going
> to end up with brain cancer. It's all a distant memory now--
>
It was true then? ;-)

In article <XJUDm.340191$gF5.36485@en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com>,
pete <no-one@unknown.com> wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos wrote:
> > Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
> >> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
> >> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
> >> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
> >> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
> >> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
> >
> > This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
> > a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
> > on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
> > mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
> > mobile-free flight.
> >
> Absolutely. I've been on a number of transatlantic flights where people's
> phones have bleeped from the luggage bin as soon as the flight comes within
> range of a phone network after the ocean crossing. Personally I doubt if any
> 747 in the past 10 years has had the mobiles of every passenger turned off
> during a flight.

And there are all the Blackberry users who don't realise that it applies
to them as well.

>
>> On 21 Oct 2009 14:21:34 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos wrote:
>> > Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>> >> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>> >> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>> >> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>> >> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
>> >
>> > This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
>> > a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
>> > on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
>> > mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
>> > mobile-free flight.
>> >
>> Absolutely. I've been on a number of transatlantic flights where people's
>> phones have bleeped from the luggage bin as soon as the flight comes within
>> range of a phone network after the ocean crossing. Personally I doubt if any
>> 747 in the past 10 years has had the mobiles of every passenger turned off
>> during a flight.
>
> And there are all the Blackberry users who don't realise that it applies
> to them as well.

That would explain why Blackberry is the only registered trademark
to be specifically mentioned in the statutory pre-takeoff trolley-dolly speech.

If I was marketing manager for Apple et all, I would be seriously miffed!

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Theo Markettos wrote:
> Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
>
> This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
> a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn themselves
> on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
> mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
> mobile-free flight.

In the case of a phone dropped into the gubbins of an aircraft, I
suspect the worry is more that the object fouls some mechanical part of
the control systems. In the case of a phone, there is a danger that it
emits RF radiation too close to some sensitive piece of electroncs and
gives a false reading or causes an instrument to fail.

Aircraft have been brought down by the likes of a dropped pen which has
found its way somewhere it shouldn't and jammed something.

--
Douglas

Douglas Payne wrote:
> Theo Markettos wrote:
>> Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>>> He said: "We always operate to the highest standards of safety and
>>> care and whilst it was no doubt inconvenient that people had to wait
>>> for us to retrieve the phone, any mobile or similar communications
>>> device that is switched on would need to be removed from the aircraft
>>> in order to ensure maximum safety for our passengers.
>>
>> This sounds impractical to me. In a cabin of 2-300 there are going to be
>> a few phones which their owner forgot to turn off, or which turn
>> themselves
>> on by accident. So, while it's good practice to not have a cacophony of
>> mobile signals I don't think you're going to achieve a completely
>> mobile-free flight.
>
> In the case of a phone dropped into the gubbins of an aircraft, I
> suspect the worry is more that the object fouls some mechanical part of
> the control systems. In the case of a phone, there is a danger that it
> emits RF radiation too close to some sensitive piece of electroncs and
> gives a false reading or causes an instrument to fail.
>
> Aircraft have been brought down by the likes of a dropped pen which has
> found its way somewhere it shouldn't and jammed something.

Oh, and I'm not sure why we have an outright ban on having phones
switched on near aircraft which seems completely unenforceable, but
sitting in amongst an airborne rabble of chattering idiots and listening
to whatever aural travesty the ringtone market is subjecting us to these
days sounds pretty unpleasant. (c:

--
Douglas

Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> You can be sure the ban will be lifted and the safety considerations
> disregarded as soon as the airlines are able to provide in-flight
> mobile calls and make some money out of it.

That would improve safety. When over the ocean, all the phones will be on
maximum power trying to find a network to register with. If a picocell is
installed on the plane, the phones only need have enough power to get down
the other end of the cabin. That means they're going to have a much lower
chance of interfering with electrical systems.

I'm again a bit surprised that picocells haven't been installed that most
phones will register with, and then just play a 'you're on a plane, turn off
your phone' message if anyone tries to make a call. That would reduce the
power and stop people making antisocial calls.

But I suppose it's a certification thing: if someone uses a phone when
they're told not to, that's not the airline's problem. But if the airline
installs some equipment, they have to prove it's safe.

Theo

On 24 Oct 2009 13:31:45 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>> You can be sure the ban will be lifted and the safety considerations
>> disregarded as soon as the airlines are able to provide in-flight
>> mobile calls and make some money out of it.
>
>That would improve safety. When over the ocean, all the phones will be on
>maximum power trying to find a network to register with. If a picocell is
>installed on the plane, the phones only need have enough power to get down
>the other end of the cabin. That means they're going to have a much lower
>chance of interfering with electrical systems.

That assumes that every phone would be authorised to roam on to the
network associated with the on-board picocell, which would be unlikely
to be the case. Even if they were, many phones would have had their
network selection manually set to their owner's home network, rather
than to automatic. Either way, you'd still have a situation where many
phones were transmitting at full power, unable to connect to the
on-board network for some reason.

Chris

On 2009-10-24, Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2009 13:31:45 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
><theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> You can be sure the ban will be lifted and the safety considerations
>>> disregarded as soon as the airlines are able to provide in-flight
>>> mobile calls and make some money out of it.
>>
>>That would improve safety. When over the ocean, all the phones will be on
>>maximum power trying to find a network to register with. If a picocell is
>>installed on the plane, the phones only need have enough power to get down
>>the other end of the cabin. That means they're going to have a much lower
>>chance of interfering with electrical systems.
>
> That assumes that every phone would be authorised to roam on to the
> network associated with the on-board picocell, which would be unlikely
> to be the case. Even if they were, many phones would have had their
> network selection manually set to their owner's home network, rather
> than to automatic. Either way, you'd still have a situation where many
> phones were transmitting at full power, unable to connect to the
> on-board network for some reason.

I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would
they know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if
they weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
should be dead silent.

If your phone's battery goes dead if you leave it on when on an
overseas flight it is because of the power cost of scanning, seaching
for something to talk to; the phone doesn't transmit unless it hears
something.

Dennis Ferguson

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:31:42 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2009-10-24, Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2009 13:31:45 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
>><theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> You can be sure the ban will be lifted and the safety considerations
>>>> disregarded as soon as the airlines are able to provide in-flight
>>>> mobile calls and make some money out of it.
>>>
>>>That would improve safety. When over the ocean, all the phones will be on
>>>maximum power trying to find a network to register with. If a picocell is
>>>installed on the plane, the phones only need have enough power to get down
>>>the other end of the cabin. That means they're going to have a much lower
>>>chance of interfering with electrical systems.
>>
>> That assumes that every phone would be authorised to roam on to the
>> network associated with the on-board picocell, which would be unlikely
>> to be the case. Even if they were, many phones would have had their
>> network selection manually set to their owner's home network, rather
>> than to automatic. Either way, you'd still have a situation where many
>> phones were transmitting at full power, unable to connect to the
>> on-board network for some reason.
>
>I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
>unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would
>they know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if
>they weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
>should be dead silent.

If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
about phones being switched on during a flight?

Chris

On 2009-10-25, Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:31:42 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
>>unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would
>>they know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if
>>they weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
>>should be dead silent.
>
> If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
> about phones being switched on during a flight?

Partly from an abundance of caution. They also ask you not
to turn on radio receivers and GPS units, which don't transmit
anything on purpose, on the off chance that their internal
oscillators might interfere with something. This interference
is extemely unlikely (as is interference from a transmitting phone,
for that matter) but leaving off everything which could, even
just in someone's wildest imagining, cause a problem reduces
free variables if they do have a problem.

But also because the phones may hear cell towers and may
transmit when the plane is over land, particularly when the
plane is low after takeoff and before landing; it's the
"over the ocean" part which should keep the phones silent.
I'd note that when the issue of on-board mobile phone
picocells came up in the US it wasn't interference with the
plane's electronics but rather interference with the ground-based
cellular networks (from phones on the planes trying to register
with those networks) which drew the most concern from the regulator.

Dennis Ferguson

In message <tb18e55f0ee7lj2q25b2q9gu8d24di01ds@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
<mail@nospam.com> writes
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:31:42 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
>>unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would
>>they know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if
>>they weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
>>should be dead silent.
>
>If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
>about phones being switched on during a flight?
>
Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
receiving a call?
--
Paul Harris

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:22:28 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:

> In message <tb18e55f0ee7lj2q25b2q9gu8d24di01ds@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:31:42 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
>><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
>>>unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would they
>>>know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if they
>>>weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
>>>should be dead silent.
>>
>>If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
>>about phones being switched on during a flight?
>>
> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
> receiving a call?

Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
accuracy of the metering, apparently!


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

In message <7kir66F392me7U5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
<rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:22:28 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
>
>> In message <tb18e55f0ee7lj2q25b2q9gu8d24di01ds@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
>> <mail@nospam.com> writes
>>>
>>>If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
>>>about phones being switched on during a flight?
>>>
>> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
>> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
>> receiving a call?
>
>Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
>accuracy of the metering, apparently!
>
Which is much like all the other cases of banning them, it is just in
case.
--
Paul Harris

Paul Harris wrote:
> In message <7kir66F392me7U5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
> <rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>>>>
>>> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
>>> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
>>> receiving a call?
>>
>> Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
>> accuracy of the metering, apparently!
>>
> Which is much like all the other cases of banning them, it is just in case.

IIRC the evidence was based on analogue mobile phones. As far as I'm
aware there has been no comparable evidence for the present generation
of mobiles.


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In message <QIOdnZde_50JzXnXnZ2dnUVZ8gBi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >, David
Kennedy <davidkennedy@nospamherethankyou.invalid> writes
>Paul Harris wrote:
>> In message <7kir66F392me7U5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
>><rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
>>>> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
>>>> receiving a call?
>>>
>>> Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
>>> accuracy of the metering, apparently!
>>>
>> Which is much like all the other cases of banning them, it is just in case.
>
>IIRC the evidence was based on analogue mobile phones. As far as I'm
>aware there has been no comparable evidence for the present generation
>of mobiles.
>
But they still have the signs to say no mobiles to be used even though
there is no proven risk that I am aware of.
--
Paul Harris

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:23:33 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
> In message <QIOdnZde_50JzXnXnZ2dnUVZ8gBi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >, David
> Kennedy <davidkennedy@nospamherethankyou.invalid> writes
>>Paul Harris wrote:
>>> In message <7kir66F392me7U5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
>>><rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts? Have
>>>>> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
>>>>> receiving a call?
>>>>
>>>> Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
>>>> accuracy of the metering, apparently!
>>>>
>>> Which is much like all the other cases of banning them, it is just in case.
>>
>>IIRC the evidence was based on analogue mobile phones. As far as I'm
>>aware there has been no comparable evidence for the present generation
>>of mobiles.
>>
> But they still have the signs to say no mobiles to be used even though
> there is no proven risk that I am aware of.

Simply because it costs nothing (apart from the pennies for the sign) to
make up another restriction. In other countries (USA, ISTR) people use
mobiles at petrol stations with no problems. They even leave their engines
running while filling up (another thing that's verboten in Britain) on
occasion - no-one yells at them for it: from either a safety or a waste
angle.

"David Kennedy" <davidkennedy@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote in message
news:QIOdnZde_50JzXnXnZ2dnUVZ8gBi4p2d@brightview.c o.uk...
> Paul Harris wrote:
>> In message <7kir66F392me7U5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager
>> <rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>> Why are you not allowed to use a mobile phone on petrol forecourts?
>>>> Have
>>>> you ever heard of an explosion as a result of someone making or
>>>> receiving a call?
>>>
>>> Because there was once some evidence that they interfered with the
>>> accuracy of the metering, apparently!
>>>
>> Which is much like all the other cases of banning them, it is just in
>> case.
>
> IIRC the evidence was based on analogue mobile phones. As far as I'm aware
> there has been no comparable evidence for the present generation of
> mobiles.



From http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/65-59-a.htm

Mobile telephones
9 Generally mobile telephones are not designed and certified for use in
explosive atmospheres. Their use can also create a serious distraction for
people carrying out dispensing activities. Radio transmissions from
individual mobile telephones are generally too low to induce dangerous
electric currents in nearby equipment and the risk of incendive sparking
from the battery is low; however, they should not be used in the hazardous
areas that exist when actually dispensing petrol. Neither should they be
used in the hazardous areas around the fill and vent pipes during petrol
deliveries.

10 Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile telephones
on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and frequent abuse
to staff, the following controls are recommended:

a.. mobile telephones should not be used by customers or forecourt staff
whilst actually dispensing petrol into fuel tanks or containers;
b.. during petrol deliveries mobile telephones should not be used on those
parts of the site that have been designated as hazardous areas by the site
operator or the driver;
c.. mobile telephones should not be used during other petrol handling
operations or during the maintenance of petrol equipment unless a specific
assessment shows the risks are negligible.
There is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones, with respect to
the safe keeping of petrol, at other times or in other areas of the
forecourt. This includes in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the
forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.

11 The use of radio equipment fitted on emergency vehicles and citizen band
(C radios may create an ignition risk. These types of transmitting
equipment do have a power out-put sufficient to induce dangerous electrical
currents in nearby fixtures and they should not be allowed to be used at the
dispensing points or in the vicinity of the road tanker when unloading. It
should be noted that the radio equipment mounted on most emergency vehicles
is under automatic interrogation from the base station. This means that
radio messages are being received and transmitted without anyone speaking
into a hand set. The Home Office has issued the emergency services with
separate advice on the use of radios and CB equipment in the vicinity of
filling stations.



Paul

Paulg0 wrote:
>
> From http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/65-59-a.htm
>
> Mobile telephones
> 9 Generally mobile telephones are not designed and certified for use in
> explosive atmospheres. Their use can also create a serious distraction
> for people carrying out dispensing activities. Radio transmissions from
> individual mobile telephones are generally too low to induce dangerous
> electric currents in nearby equipment and the risk of incendive sparking
> from the battery is low; however, they should not be used in the
> hazardous areas that exist when actually dispensing petrol. Neither
> should they be used in the hazardous areas around the fill and vent
> pipes during petrol deliveries.
>
> 10 Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile
> telephones on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and
> frequent abuse to staff, the following controls are recommended:
>
> a.. mobile telephones should not be used by customers or forecourt
> staff whilst actually dispensing petrol into fuel tanks or containers;
> b.. during petrol deliveries mobile telephones should not be used on
> those parts of the site that have been designated as hazardous areas by
> the site operator or the driver;
> c.. mobile telephones should not be used during other petrol handling
> operations or during the maintenance of petrol equipment unless a
> specific assessment shows the risks are negligible.
> There is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones, with respect
> to the safe keeping of petrol, at other times or in other areas of the
> forecourt. This includes in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the
> forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.
>
> 11 The use of radio equipment fitted on emergency vehicles and citizen
> band (C radios may create an ignition risk. These types of
> transmitting equipment do have a power out-put sufficient to induce
> dangerous electrical currents in nearby fixtures and they should not be
> allowed to be used at the dispensing points or in the vicinity of the
> road tanker when unloading. It should be noted that the radio equipment
> mounted on most emergency vehicles is under automatic interrogation from
> the base station. This means that radio messages are being received and
> transmitted without anyone speaking into a hand set. The Home Office has
> issued the emergency services with separate advice on the use of radios
> and CB equipment in the vicinity of filling stations.
>

And I wonder when that was originally drafted?

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:12:49 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2009-10-25, Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:31:42 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
>><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>I don't think I believe that. GSM phones don't transmit anything
>>>unless they are hearing something worth transmitting to (how would
>>>they know which band and channel to transmit on, or the timing, if
>>>they weren't hearing something?). Over the ocean the phone's transmitter
>>>should be dead silent.
>>
>> If that is the case, then why are the airlines even concerned at all
>> about phones being switched on during a flight?
>
>Partly from an abundance of caution.

So then back to my original comment that these problems are just as
likely to happen now that some airlines have onboard mobile network
cells. If there is some risk of endangering the flight by having a
mobile switched on, then that danger will still exist then because not
every phone will register with the onboard network. The only
difference is that the airlines will be able to make extra money by
allowing mobile phone use, but they will accept the same risks that
were once unacceptable on safety grounds.

Chris