This is my job!!
21 April 2006, 08:04 PM
#301
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: --------------------
Posts: 13,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoon
Chip ( the welsh one! ), I realised it was never going to happen as people just don't use them, so I joined a dating agency instead. 
22 April 2006, 11:10 AM
#303
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Suresh
I'm sure a heap of Health and Safety laws result from lobbying by firms to take care of their commercial interests rather than any real benefits. Two good examples of this type of practice would be:
1. Banning GSM mobiles on aircraft under the pretext that they could interfere with electronic systems, thus allowing airlines to offer their own premium services. All the while the FCC had no objection to people using mobiles whilst on board. Some airlines now allow you to use your mobile - probably because hardly anyone paid for their US$8 a minute calls from the phones onboard!
2. Banning the use of mobile phones in cars but allowing people to install hands-free car kits. Evidence is that car kits are only a little less dangerous than actually holding your phone whilst calling. Car kits are a nice little earner so they're not banned of course.
The motivation to look after the safety of the general public is not always selfless...
Suresh
1. Banning GSM mobiles on aircraft under the pretext that they could interfere with electronic systems, thus allowing airlines to offer their own premium services. All the while the FCC had no objection to people using mobiles whilst on board. Some airlines now allow you to use your mobile - probably because hardly anyone paid for their US$8 a minute calls from the phones onboard!
2. Banning the use of mobile phones in cars but allowing people to install hands-free car kits. Evidence is that car kits are only a little less dangerous than actually holding your phone whilst calling. Car kits are a nice little earner so they're not banned of course.
The motivation to look after the safety of the general public is not always selfless...
Suresh
As for your example of mobiles in aircraft the simple reason why they are banned is because they *do* interfere with avionics, in particular any communications device. If you had ever worn a headset whilst using a VHF system you'd know how irritating the sound of a mobile polling is in your ears, particularly when it being magnified around an airfield as its broadcast from the offending aircraft to ATC and the on to other comms sets. I'm not sure what your point is about the FCC but they have nothing to do with maintaining standards in aviation which is down to IATA or one of the federal agencies such as the CAA, FAA or CASA.
I could also give you chapter and verse on other avionics systems that they can interfere with but the other main issue is that GSM phones cannot be used effectively as the cells from which they operate cannot keep up with a signal that is effectively travelling at 500 + MPH. You also need to consider how a GSM phone would operate over the Atlantic where there is no coverage. Lastly, it is a matter of customer comfort as the majority of people would prefer not to have to listen to the likes of Suresh proudly bellowing into their phones as they ring their mates to proudly boast that they're calling them from an aircraft at 30,000ft.
As for your second example, where's the evidence to support that statement?
22 April 2006, 12:56 PM
#304
not really
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Suresh, whilst your point about certain HSE laws being passed in order to improve the profitability of some companies, you couldn't have picked two worse examples.
As for your example of mobiles in aircraft the simple reason why they are banned is because they *do* interfere with avionics, in particular any communications device. If you had ever worn a headset whilst using a VHF system you'd know how irritating the sound of a mobile polling is in your ears, particularly when it being magnified around an airfield as its broadcast from the offending aircraft to ATC and the on to other comms sets. I'm not sure what your point is about the FCC but they have nothing to do with maintaining standards in aviation which is down to IATA or one of the federal agencies such as the CAA, FAA or CASA.
I could also give you chapter and verse on other avionics systems that they can interfere with but the other main issue is that GSM phones cannot be used effectively as the cells from which they operate cannot keep up with a signal that is effectively travelling at 500 + MPH. You also need to consider how a GSM phone would operate over the Atlantic where there is no coverage. Lastly, it is a matter of customer comfort as the majority of people would prefer not to have to listen to the likes of Suresh proudly bellowing into their phones as they ring their mates to proudly boast that they're calling them from an aircraft at 30,000ft.
As for your second example, where's the evidence to support that statement?
As for your example of mobiles in aircraft the simple reason why they are banned is because they *do* interfere with avionics, in particular any communications device. If you had ever worn a headset whilst using a VHF system you'd know how irritating the sound of a mobile polling is in your ears, particularly when it being magnified around an airfield as its broadcast from the offending aircraft to ATC and the on to other comms sets. I'm not sure what your point is about the FCC but they have nothing to do with maintaining standards in aviation which is down to IATA or one of the federal agencies such as the CAA, FAA or CASA.
I could also give you chapter and verse on other avionics systems that they can interfere with but the other main issue is that GSM phones cannot be used effectively as the cells from which they operate cannot keep up with a signal that is effectively travelling at 500 + MPH. You also need to consider how a GSM phone would operate over the Atlantic where there is no coverage. Lastly, it is a matter of customer comfort as the majority of people would prefer not to have to listen to the likes of Suresh proudly bellowing into their phones as they ring their mates to proudly boast that they're calling them from an aircraft at 30,000ft.
As for your second example, where's the evidence to support that statement?
My sources were originally in The Economist, but I can't link you to them unless you are a subscriber. I found these alternatives:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040715.html
The FCC, not the FAA, has traditionally objected to the use of mobile phones in flight. And this restriction comes down not to any safety consideration, but to a commercial one. Cell phones work so well in the sky that the FCC fears they could command large swaths of bandwidth is one airborne telephone could reach dozens of cells.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7514/428?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&autho r1=mcevoy&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTI NDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Conclusions When drivers use a mobile phone there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.
Furthermore I politely suggest you take a read of "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt which expands on the topic of HSE rules being introduced to increase profits and not safety. Specifically, chapter 5 under the Economics of Fear.
Looks like you're wrong on three counts then, but please don't feel that you need to apologise....
Suresh
22 April 2006, 04:10 PM
#305
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll certainly apologise for the insinuation of you being a loud mouthed idiot - your words not mine - but I stand by what I said about mobiles, particularly when you've only sourced an extract from some journo trying to make a point.
As I said, the FCC has no jurisdiction over either the FAA or other countries which you have now conceded I am correct about. Furthermore, that article is dealing with all electronic devices not just mobiles, so it is largely superfluous to the argument. I am referring to devices that transmit signals on a regular basis which, although GPS units don't, they can generate small amounts of RF as other devices can. During the departure and arrival stage of any IFR flight, the chances are greatly magnified of a passenger device interfering with with various types of avionics which is why the majority of airlines request passengers not to use any such units. I'm assuming that you've never tried to make a transmission when a mobile phone is bleating away in your headset? At best it's irritating and at worst it can lead to miscommunications. Imagine if a passenger jet had 200 mobiles roaming whilst the pilot was attempting to communicate with the Tower - bloody difficult and potentially dangerous.
I have personally seen gyros toppling when a mobile has been placed close by, so I don't really have any faith in the words of a journo trying to make a name for himself and until the CAA legislate in favour of using mobiles in aircraft, then I'm not going to start. There are numerous studies going on to look at the feasibility of shielding aircraft from the transmissions and if these prove successful, then so be it but I won't be happy. The mulititude of navigation and computing equipment that could potentially be interfered with during this phase of flight doesn't bare thinking about which is why a ban is in place.
As for your article about hands free kit usage, it's totally flawed in that it assumes that just because their sample were involved in an accident whilst using a mobile it doesn't take into account the billions of journeys taken each day where mobiles have been used and no accident has occurred. Perhaps these people just had poor situational awareness, who knows?
As for your offer about the book, I probably won't bother because by the sound of the title it hardly sounds balanced and therefore pointless. As I said at the beginning, there are undoubtedly incidents of HSE policy being adopted in the pursuit of profit but your first example is definitely wrong and I'm far from convinced about your second case.
As I said, the FCC has no jurisdiction over either the FAA or other countries which you have now conceded I am correct about. Furthermore, that article is dealing with all electronic devices not just mobiles, so it is largely superfluous to the argument. I am referring to devices that transmit signals on a regular basis which, although GPS units don't, they can generate small amounts of RF as other devices can. During the departure and arrival stage of any IFR flight, the chances are greatly magnified of a passenger device interfering with with various types of avionics which is why the majority of airlines request passengers not to use any such units. I'm assuming that you've never tried to make a transmission when a mobile phone is bleating away in your headset? At best it's irritating and at worst it can lead to miscommunications. Imagine if a passenger jet had 200 mobiles roaming whilst the pilot was attempting to communicate with the Tower - bloody difficult and potentially dangerous.
I have personally seen gyros toppling when a mobile has been placed close by, so I don't really have any faith in the words of a journo trying to make a name for himself and until the CAA legislate in favour of using mobiles in aircraft, then I'm not going to start. There are numerous studies going on to look at the feasibility of shielding aircraft from the transmissions and if these prove successful, then so be it but I won't be happy. The mulititude of navigation and computing equipment that could potentially be interfered with during this phase of flight doesn't bare thinking about which is why a ban is in place.
As for your article about hands free kit usage, it's totally flawed in that it assumes that just because their sample were involved in an accident whilst using a mobile it doesn't take into account the billions of journeys taken each day where mobiles have been used and no accident has occurred. Perhaps these people just had poor situational awareness, who knows?
As for your offer about the book, I probably won't bother because by the sound of the title it hardly sounds balanced and therefore pointless. As I said at the beginning, there are undoubtedly incidents of HSE policy being adopted in the pursuit of profit but your first example is definitely wrong and I'm far from convinced about your second case.
22 April 2006, 06:26 PM
#306
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
I'll certainly apologise for the insinuation of you being a loud mouthed idiot - your words not mine - but I stand by what I said about mobiles, particularly when you've only sourced an extract from some journo trying to make a point.
As I said, the FCC has no jurisdiction over either the FAA or other countries which you have now conceded I am correct about. Furthermore, that article is dealing with all electronic devices not just mobiles, so it is largely superfluous to the argument. I am referring to devices that transmit signals on a regular basis which, although GPS units don't, they can generate small amounts of RF as other devices can. During the departure and arrival stage of any IFR flight, the chances are greatly magnified of a passenger device interfering with with various types of avionics which is why the majority of airlines request passengers not to use any such units. I'm assuming that you've never tried to make a transmission when a mobile phone is bleating away in your headset? At best it's irritating and at worst it can lead to miscommunications. Imagine if a passenger jet had 200 mobiles roaming whilst the pilot was attempting to communicate with the Tower - bloody difficult and potentially dangerous.
I have personally seen gyros toppling when a mobile has been placed close by, so I don't really have any faith in the words of a journo trying to make a name for himself and until the CAA legislate in favour of using mobiles in aircraft, then I'm not going to start. There are numerous studies going on to look at the feasibility of shielding aircraft from the transmissions and if these prove successful, then so be it but I won't be happy. The mulititude of navigation and computing equipment that could potentially be interfered with during this phase of flight doesn't bare thinking about which is why a ban is in place.
As for your article about hands free kit usage, it's totally flawed in that it assumes that just because their sample were involved in an accident whilst using a mobile it doesn't take into account the billions of journeys taken each day where mobiles have been used and no accident has occurred. Perhaps these people just had poor situational awareness, who knows?
As for your offer about the book, I probably won't bother because by the sound of the title it hardly sounds balanced and therefore pointless. As I said at the beginning, there are undoubtedly incidents of HSE policy being adopted in the pursuit of profit but your first example is definitely wrong and I'm far from convinced about your second case.
As I said, the FCC has no jurisdiction over either the FAA or other countries which you have now conceded I am correct about. Furthermore, that article is dealing with all electronic devices not just mobiles, so it is largely superfluous to the argument. I am referring to devices that transmit signals on a regular basis which, although GPS units don't, they can generate small amounts of RF as other devices can. During the departure and arrival stage of any IFR flight, the chances are greatly magnified of a passenger device interfering with with various types of avionics which is why the majority of airlines request passengers not to use any such units. I'm assuming that you've never tried to make a transmission when a mobile phone is bleating away in your headset? At best it's irritating and at worst it can lead to miscommunications. Imagine if a passenger jet had 200 mobiles roaming whilst the pilot was attempting to communicate with the Tower - bloody difficult and potentially dangerous.
I have personally seen gyros toppling when a mobile has been placed close by, so I don't really have any faith in the words of a journo trying to make a name for himself and until the CAA legislate in favour of using mobiles in aircraft, then I'm not going to start. There are numerous studies going on to look at the feasibility of shielding aircraft from the transmissions and if these prove successful, then so be it but I won't be happy. The mulititude of navigation and computing equipment that could potentially be interfered with during this phase of flight doesn't bare thinking about which is why a ban is in place.
As for your article about hands free kit usage, it's totally flawed in that it assumes that just because their sample were involved in an accident whilst using a mobile it doesn't take into account the billions of journeys taken each day where mobiles have been used and no accident has occurred. Perhaps these people just had poor situational awareness, who knows?
As for your offer about the book, I probably won't bother because by the sound of the title it hardly sounds balanced and therefore pointless. As I said at the beginning, there are undoubtedly incidents of HSE policy being adopted in the pursuit of profit but your first example is definitely wrong and I'm far from convinced about your second case.
Here is The Economist article I cited. If it is a case of another journo trying to make a name for themselves I really cannot judge. I am not really convinced by your anecdotal evidence either...
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2559174
So the British Medical Journal has published a badly flawed article? I suggest you write to them and tell them they are practising bad science. For the rest of us though it's probably enough evidence that using a mobile whilst driving is just plain bad, whether it is hands-free or not.
"Freakonomics" is an excellent book by the way even if you judge it to be one-sided and pointless on the basis of zero evidence.
Suresh
22 April 2006, 07:11 PM
#307
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suresh,
all the Economist article does is confirm what I've been saying all along and again is flawed.
Take the point about a few mobiles being left on during transatlantic flights. For crying out loud, how many base stations are there in the middle of the Atlantic? None. This, however, doesn't make for a good story which is probably why the author didn't address this point. As I've said repeatedly, they can and do interfere with some avionics including communications and as this article says, leaving a few mobiles on is totally different to having several hundred on board, particularly during the departure and arrival stage of the flight.
The system he is talking about is totally different to current technology and involved 'shielding' certain parts of the aircraft's electronics whilst providing a separate cell linked to land networks via satellites. This is very different to not alllowing mobiles to be used on flights with current tehcnology, which is what I objected to in your original example. If you don't believe my anecdotal evidence, as a pilot, then I suggest you go on to PpRuNe and read what the professionals have to say. Furthermore, I suggest that you look at some of the regulatory bodies such as the CAA, CASA or the FAA and see why they are not prepared to allow the use of mobiles as the technology currently stands. It's nothing to with HSE bodies being moulded for profitable gain, its simply a case of flight safety.
As for the BMA, it would hardly be the first time flawed material has been published by them. Just think about phalidomide for example. Additionally, knowing Oz as I do and in particular WA which has a long and rabid history of targeting the driving population without addressing the real cause of accidents, namely poor driving standards, I'm already biased against the report without going into it with detail.
Ulitmately, as I said at the beginnning, I don't disagree with you that occasionally H&S legislation has been twisted for profitable ends but in this instance I simply think your examples are poorly made.
all the Economist article does is confirm what I've been saying all along and again is flawed.
Take the point about a few mobiles being left on during transatlantic flights. For crying out loud, how many base stations are there in the middle of the Atlantic? None. This, however, doesn't make for a good story which is probably why the author didn't address this point. As I've said repeatedly, they can and do interfere with some avionics including communications and as this article says, leaving a few mobiles on is totally different to having several hundred on board, particularly during the departure and arrival stage of the flight.
The system he is talking about is totally different to current technology and involved 'shielding' certain parts of the aircraft's electronics whilst providing a separate cell linked to land networks via satellites. This is very different to not alllowing mobiles to be used on flights with current tehcnology, which is what I objected to in your original example. If you don't believe my anecdotal evidence, as a pilot, then I suggest you go on to PpRuNe and read what the professionals have to say. Furthermore, I suggest that you look at some of the regulatory bodies such as the CAA, CASA or the FAA and see why they are not prepared to allow the use of mobiles as the technology currently stands. It's nothing to with HSE bodies being moulded for profitable gain, its simply a case of flight safety.
As for the BMA, it would hardly be the first time flawed material has been published by them. Just think about phalidomide for example. Additionally, knowing Oz as I do and in particular WA which has a long and rabid history of targeting the driving population without addressing the real cause of accidents, namely poor driving standards, I'm already biased against the report without going into it with detail.
Ulitmately, as I said at the beginnning, I don't disagree with you that occasionally H&S legislation has been twisted for profitable ends but in this instance I simply think your examples are poorly made.
29 January 2007, 10:09 PM
#311
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting..
we went to egypt in 2000, we had a charter flight from luxor to cairo,
half the cabin were on mobiles from departure at luxor to landing at cairo..
the ones who weren't the brits...
come back on any flight from europe.... we brits slavishly turn off our mobiles... the europeans... dont give a toss... no one says anything to them... yet brits, and its handcuffs and spooks if you dont comply!!
Mart
we went to egypt in 2000, we had a charter flight from luxor to cairo,
half the cabin were on mobiles from departure at luxor to landing at cairo..
the ones who weren't the brits...
come back on any flight from europe.... we brits slavishly turn off our mobiles... the europeans... dont give a toss... no one says anything to them... yet brits, and its handcuffs and spooks if you dont comply!!
Mart
Last edited by mart360; 29 January 2007 at 10:10 PM. Reason: spellin
30 January 2007, 01:08 PM
#314
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That really is quite something. I suppose you get used to it eventually, but there can't be many as brave enough to do that for a living, even for as much as what you get paid.
I know I couldn't do it.
Les
I know I couldn't do it.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM