blog Oh, dear. It appears as though Australia’s new Federal Attorney-General is at least as arrogant as the previous two. An article in the Daily Telegraph published late last week tells us that Mark Dreyfus, who replaced Nicola Roxon in the portfolio in February, refused to turn off his mobile phone in a recent flight and was subsequently met by the AFP — an agency he supposedly helps oversee — when the plane landed. The Tele reports (we recommend you click here for the full article):
“Qantas staff felt obliged to contact Australian Federal Police after Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus – who was determined to check his emails – refused to turn off his smart phone during take-off on a Sydney to Brisbane flight last week. After he ignored pre-recorded warnings about turning off all electrical equipment, a fellow passenger complained to Mr Dreyfus.”
Yes, Dreyfus has some ground to stand on here, in that science (yes, actual science) has shown that the likelihood of a smartphone actually impacting the operation of a modern airplane is pretty infinitesimal. However, what we can’t get past is the sheer arrogance of Dreyfus in insisting on his right to check his email, despite the fact that this was a breach of airline regulations and that his action was angering his fellow passengers and airline staff.
Frankly, this kind of arrogance is precisely the reason why we suspect we’re not going to see any positive action from Dreyfus any time soon on key techno-legal issues such as data retention, Internet piracy, modern copyright law, draconian telecommunications surveillance measures and so on. When an Attorney-General won’t even listen to a flight attendant on a place, what hope can we have that they’ll be able to have the presence of mind to rein in their own secretive and manipulative department?
Image credit: Office of Mark Dreyfus
Throw the book at him!
Also I hope the AFP reads through all his emails and personal files to check that he isn’t a terrorist while they are at it.
Or change the law to reflect, you know, reality. If there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that passenger electronic devices can actually interfere with aircraft instrumentation or equipment, then the law should reflect this. While you’re at it, pass a law that prevents petrol stations from telling you to switch off (or stop using) your phone.
Not that I’m endorsing the actions of the GG – the rules are the rules, so if the rest of us have to slip our phones in our pockets on silent for five minutes, so should he. My point is, if the rules are stupid, change them; don’t just try to make an exception for yourself, you arrogant twat.
“Or change the law to reflect, you know, reality.”
Yep, put in a clause that this law does not apply to the Federal Attorney-General.
If electronics that are legally allowed in the cabin, and are regularly carried by the vast majority of people on a daily basis can even slightly negatively impact the normal operations of the electronics of an airplane. I want nothing to do with that plane. Seriously. If a mobile phone, tablet, pocket radio, nintendo DS, (or just about anything the size of the above) can negatively impact the normal operation of the electronics of an airplane that is the worst plane ever built.
(I will put in a caveat here, that I am sure a mobile-phone sized and shaped jamming device could be constructed that would interfere with a plane’s ability to receive messages from the tower and other radio sources – however in these situations surely the simple act of Shielding the cabin and baggage areas from the rest of the worlds radio equipment might solve that (really easy to exploit) weakness in an airplane.
That said; maybe the AG can get the law overturned regarding the use of electronics on airplanes. And if I have to turn my phone off (and my wife has to not look at her Kindle – I always laugh at that – she has to not look just in-case it uses more power than a wristwatch!!) then Mark Dreyfus has to turn his phone off too.
Or he can just do what most people do; which is “forget” to turn it off and leave it in his pocket. (and look at it after the 10 minute takeoff (all the while receiving any emails he may receive in the mean time).
I imagine a Faraday cage would be a bit heavy to be a practical solution to shield an airplane cabin… What would be a lightweight enough solution to shield the entire passenger cabin? Could the inside of a plane end up being like this: http://xkcd.com/1142/
Whats stopping someone putting the jammer in their bag in the overhead cabin turned on?
But the answer to your question is nothing is lightweight enough.
Because planes need to be more fuel efficient not less. Any amount of weight spent shielding a cabin is wasted fuel, quadruply so given that there is pretty much nothing a passenger can bring with him that will really have an effect on the plane.
Google time.
According to Boeing.com a 747 has a passenger cabin width of 6.1 meters. and plane length of 70 meters.
Surface area of a cylinder (without caps) of those dimensions is: ~1300 square meters.
1300 * 0.0001m (thickness of aluminium foil) = 0.13 cubic meters of aluminium.
Google yields 2,700kg/m^3 for the weight of aluminium.
So that’s near enough 350kg of Aluminium foil to completely faraday cage in a 747. That isn’t even the thinnest Aluminium foil you can get either.
Something I am forgetting is you’d need to shield the windows somehow.
But; forgetting all that; I suspect as part of the insulation for the cabin; there is already a fair bit of aluminium foil, the thing is; every kg matters to planes and their efficiency, so even if it was only 10kg to make them faraday cages; they wouldn’t do it. (not to mention; it is probably a security thing *not* being faraday caged in, being able to make phone calls while on the ground is probably a really good thing – think hostage crisis or medical emergency).
PS. All the above is google-maths; I am sure I got something horribly wrong, so those numbers might be a factor of 10 or more wrong, I just have NFI where!
“Or he can just do what most people do; which is “forget” to turn it off and leave it in his pocket.
As long as he’s put it on silent, otherwise he’s going to get as many angry people as you get in a Cinema when a phone starts ringing.
He won’t get a talking to from the AFP however.
Most of the newer aircraft use fibre optics to connect up the various aircraft systems so any RF device is not likely to be able to have any negative impact on the aircraft in any way, shape or form. Not to mention the aircraft electronics are very well shielded to ensure reliability and i believe guard against EM based attacks or solar flares that might otherwise bring the planes down.
@PeterA
“Seriously. If a mobile phone, tablet, pocket radio, nintendo DS, (or just about anything the size of the above) can negatively impact the normal operation of the electronics of an airplane that is the worst plane ever built.”
You do realise, don’t you, that there are many planes in service that pre-date most of these modern devices. How do you expect that the manufacturers could have allowed for everything all those years ago?
Maybe there is no real risk even with these older designs but your statement seems to assume that all planes have been designed and built very recently.
Arrogance indeed. If someone wants to make the case that the rules are unnecessary, then please do so. If you can do so successfully, and lobby appropriately, the rules will change. In the mean time, please check your sense of entitlement and comply with regulations like the rest of us. (This applies to other domains as well such as speed limits, just BTW.)
Politicians (of any stripe and size) should not be above the laws they make.
Here attroney general. makes a new rule to allow people check their emails
Hi Renai,
What airline regulations? This link seems to indicate that that it is an airline ‘policy’.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/460987/mobiles_no_risk_planes_automobiles_amta/
Either way, it’s about time we had a change.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 – REG 309A Instructions about activities on board aircraft http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s309a.html
Disobeying a pilot in command’s safety instructions is a crime punishable by a $4000 fine.
Are these the same pilots that now all want Ipad’s to replace all the books and charts?
http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/profiles/united-airlines/
or http://ipadpilotnews.com/
How many people here turn off the mobile while filling up their car? They still have the signs up.
Ever had that experience in the car when you have your iphone in the glovebox and you hear the signalling coming through the speaker cabling?
One or two ipads in the cockpit is vastly different to 500+ (in an A380) passengers running the wifi, cell and bluetooth radios on their ipads, iphones and kindles during takeoff and landing when any small interruption to comms could potentially (however small the chance may be) lead to a disaster.
There-in lies the rub.
How is turning your electronic devices off during takeoff and landing a matter of safety?
They don’t make you put it in your pocket; you can hold it in your hand. So it isn’t “small untethered devices in the cabin” issue.
The planes aren’t susceptible to interruption from mobile-phone based radiation. (otherwise planes wouldn’t work.)
It isn’t the fact that you might be on a phone call interrupting others, because they ask you to turn off your Nintendo DS at the same time, which can’t make phone calls.
They don’t make you turn your watch off, but not your Kindle!
It isn’t to ensure you listen to the safety instructions, because they don’t make you put your book away and force you to listen.
Seriously, if this is a real safety issue and it is something I haven’t thought of that only occurs during takeoff and landing… I’d like to know what it is so I can pay attention to it because I’m not paying attention to it right now!! and as far as I can tell, no one else is either.
So basically what you are saying is that you know better than the FAA who still believe that cell phones can interfere with aircraft navigation and ground based communications systems:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275
Disband the FAA, there’s a guy on the Internet who knows best!
My understanding is that for the most part its a “better to be safe than sorry” policy. You only need it to go wrong once and there would be all hell to pay.
As it is, I look at it as a condition of entry. You know the rules, why argue with them? Just do without your texts and emails for the necessary 20 minutes to get in the air, its not like the worlds going to end.
Even if it did (Stephen King movies spring to mind…) then those emails are pretty pointless at that stage :)
+1
It’s called physics, not magic.
Mobile phones don’t do these things.
I get it, its rules right now so I don’t break them, doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with it. (And it doesn’t mean I’m not right).
There has never been a logical explanation for “interfering with the navigation and communication equipment”.
Did you even read your link?
“There are still unknowns about the radio signals that portable electronic devices (PEDs) and cell phones give off. These signals, especially in large quantities and emitted over a long time, may unintentionally affect aircraft communications, navigation, flight control and electronic equipment.”
… seriously, “we don’t know how radio emissions from phones work over time” is the reason in that article.
We have known exactly how it works since 1861.
But hey; The FAA said it was dangerous! quick ignore everyone else they can’t possibly know what they are talking about.
It’s not just him. I’ve been on a few flights in the last few weeks and EVERY time there has been some idiot using his phone after the final request to turn it off.
Each time I’ve waited several minutes, then told them to “turn the f***ing phone off. its a reasonable request”. I swear the next one I see is being thrown whereever it lands. I’m sick of it.
Personally, I love turning the damn thing off. Serenity now! :)
It is actually not a reasonable request. In what way is it a reasonable request?
*** please note; other than aviation regulations requiring you to adhere to what the pilot says, it doesn’t mean the pilot can’t ask you to do something unreasonable.
I actually find the argument that it is for safety to be an outright lie.
To argue that you yourself feel more comfortable with your mobile off; therefore everyone else should too is a bad argument.
except I wasn’t arguing that. you are asked to turn your phone off. that’s perfectly reasonable in my book. I’m not going to be making calls from 35000 feet up and if my phone is off it (and the other 100+ phones) are going to be in pockets, etc and not fly around in an emergency.
except I wasn’t arguing that. you are asked to turn your phone off. that’s perfectly reasonable in my book. I’m not going to be making calls from 35000 feet up and if my phone is off it (and the other 100+ phones) are going to be in pockets, etc and not fly around in an emergency.
now, if they asked me to close my eyes for takeoff, that would seem unreasonable.
see the difference?
Yeah sorry, I was a little combative! (and still am! sorry everyone).
It just annoys me when (not you!) others turn their brains off when safety is mentioned. Or rules with literally no reason to exist are defended by people for no other reason than “thems the rules”.
I am not complaining that “thems the rules” I am trying to get people to think critically about why “thems the rules” are the rules. I couldn’t care less if they made rules that said you had to wear bike helmets in a plane for “safety” as long as someone could actually explain why it would help.
It’s not just him. I’ve been on a few flights in the last few weeks and EVERY time there has been some idiot using his phone after the final request to turn it off.
Each time I’ve waited several minutes, then told them to “turn the f***ing phone off. its a reasonable request”. I swear the next one I see is being thrown whereever it lands. I’m sick of it.
Personally, I love turning the thing off. Serenity now! :)
What really gives me the irrits are the people who rush up to grab their bags before the seatbelt light has been turned off after landing.
Sit down you morons.
As one with some former experience re federal activities, I can imagine the tone of the ‘discussion’ the unfortunate AFP guys might have had with the apparently rather less than self deprecating Mr Dreyfus, who I would suggest possibly left the situation a tad less chastened than some might imagine…
I think there is more behind the “rules” regarding electronic devices than whether they will interfere with the plane during takeoff and landing. If the risk of interference was at all significant, I’m sure that the rules would be enforced far more strictly because no-one believes that everyone is really turning things off.
I believe it is more to do with being alert during takeoff and landing so that if any situation develops then people are not isolated from the PA system because they are plugged into their own entertainment sources and less likely to hear emergency announcements and be ready to brace, etc.
“I believe it is more to do with being alert during takeoff and landing so that if any situation develops then people are not isolated from the PA system because they are plugged into their own entertainment sources and less likely to hear emergency announcements and be ready to brace, etc.”
It took someone a long time to come up with this. This is the only argument I can accept. The closest anyone else came to trying to combat my argument was this document from the FAA http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275. And all that says is “Mobile phones might be made out of magic, that when on the ground and in their hundreds of thousands at airport have no discernable effect on a plane, but when in an airplane might maybe somehow in some way that no one knows how to explain effect a plane in some unknowable way”.
Seriously; the “your attention might be diverted” is the only possible excuse for it. I just wish they would state that, instead of everything else. Seriously; read that link, there is nothing about your attention in there, its all techno-mystical “we don’t know how mobile phones work!!”.
“This is the only argument I can accept.”
It’s a good argument and I believe a legitimate one. People reading emails, listening to their own music source, watching a movie on their iPad …. it’s hard enough for the cabin crew to get people to listen to the pre-flight stuff as it is. It would be even worse if a drama was suddenly developing and a large percentage of the passengers were disconnected from hearing the announcements. It would be bad enough if it was something like bad turbulence about to hit while at normal altitude, but even worse if a serious problem suddenly arose during the critical take-off and landing stages.
I agree that the reasoning given is crap, like I said, if the threat was significant at all then the rule would be enforced far more strongly. I too wish the real reasoning was used rather than trying to scare people with illogical reasoning that is increasingly being ignored.
The request to turn off mobile electronic devices has nothing to do with any chance of interruptions to the operation of the aircraft, despite the ascertains of the instructions given by airline staff.
The real reason is that the airline want your full and Frank attention in the event of an emergency during take-off or landing.
But if you said that, people might not be so calm about travelling, so they made up the ‘interfere with aircraft systems’ line instead.
When mobile phones came out in the late 80s, they worked by staying in constant communication to the network, and ‘binding’ to the tower with the strongest signal. The act of ‘binding’ causes a network message/communication between the system and the handset (the blip blip you hear as interference on a radio). The network then knows which tower to route a call to your number.
The problem with phones on planes is that the towers become equidistant once you are at altitude, which cause a massive flood of ‘bind’ requests on the network, flooding the D channel on which the requests occur, and causing havoc on the network.
Thus, the phone network providers and the airlines agreed to have phones turned off in flight. One, it stops you playing with your fondleslab durin the two most critical phases of a flight, and prevents your pocket transmitter from killing the ‘bind’ activity of the rest of the ground based users on the same mobile network.
If phones are a danger ther should not be allowed on planes relying on the “honor” system to have people turn them off.
During booking you should turn them in, where they are turned of and returned to you after your flight. Both bags and your person should be scanned to ensure that none are missed.
They are either dangerous or not and a half assed system just leaddes to regular people asssuming that if the airlines don’t take it serious, then why should they.
Comments are closed.