"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

"Neil Williams" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
: : On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:30:39 +0000, tony sayer
: : <[email protected]> wrote:
: :
: : : No give them their due the aircraft environment is a
: : : very sensitive one and is very safety conscious. If
: : : there was the slightest risk then they should not be
: : : allowed but its taken some time to get that far.
: :
: : Given that just about every flight these days has one
: : or two mobiles that their owner has forgotten to turn
: : off (I've done it), and that we haven't heard of any
: : accident relating to one, I think you can be reasonably
: : sure they aren't a big risk.

How do you forget to turn it off once the flight crew have told you to do
so before takeoff..?

Ivor

---

› See More: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:41:01 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>How do you forget to turn it off once the flight crew have told you to do
>so before takeoff..?

Because I normally put all my electrical gubbins in the side of my
carry-on bag in order to speed passage through security[1], and
because the seats are so damn narrow it tends to stay there for the
flight rather than going back in my pocket.

Before putting it in said bag, I turn off said electrical gubbins.
However, on one occasion I forgot. The bag is shoved up in the
overhead by the time the above announcement is made, so a quick check
isn't practical if I'm in a window seat (which is my usual choice), so
I would rely on my turn-off-before-putting-in-bag ritual, which worked
every time but one.

I am by no means the only one who's forgotten, though. My guess is
that at least one on any given 737-sized flight is on.

[1] I'm thinking here specifically of Schiphol, where security is at
the gate, and thus I'm not likely to want or need use of said
electrical gubbins between security and the plane as this is normally
a period of no more than about 5-10 minutes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, Neil Williams
<[email protected]> scribeth thus
>On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:30:39 +0000, tony sayer <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>No give them their due the aircraft environment is a very sensitive one
>>and is very safety conscious. If there was the slightest risk then they
>>should not be allowed but its taken some time to get that far.
>
>Given that just about every flight these days has one or two mobiles
>that their owner has forgotten to turn off (I've done it), and that we
>haven't heard of any accident relating to one, I think you can be
>reasonably sure they aren't a big risk.
>

No not if their not being used. Yes they do have the odd exchange with
their net from time to time but a few short duration bursts?..

Aviation has an excellent safety record, lets keep it that way)
>Neil
>

--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:21:26 +0000, tony sayer <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No not if their not being used. Yes they do have the odd exchange with
>their net from time to time but a few short duration bursts?..

If they don't have a signal, they attempt to find one using full power
tranmsission a lot more often than they "ping" the network if they do
see one.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:21:26 +0000, tony sayer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> No not if their not being used. Yes they do have the odd exchange with
>> their net from time to time but a few short duration bursts?..
>
> If they don't have a signal, they attempt to find one using full power
> tranmsission a lot more often than they "ping" the network if they do
> see one.

You do not "find" a network by transmitting you find one by receiving -
scanning several channels. Only when you have found one do you transmit.

--
Adrian Kennard, on his Mac...
Andrews & Arnold Ltd. Communications specialists. www.aaisp.net.uk
New UK Wide 03 phone numbers available now.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."

Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
radio equipment to stay on track.

The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

--
Alasdair.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:01:51 +0000, Alasdair <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
>Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
>organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
>extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
>max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
>radio equipment to stay on track.
>
>The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.
>
The effective range will be very variable as the devices being
"jammed" will use a wide range of frequencies, transmission powers,
radiation patterns and sensitivities. To cover such a variety of
devices requires a lot of RF rubbish to be radiated with interference
caused to nearby "innocent" devices being far from unlikely.

On Dec 9, 1:21 pm, tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Neil Williams
> <[email protected]> scribeth thus
>
> >On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:30:39 +0000, tony sayer <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
>
> >>No give them their due the aircraft environment is a very sensitive one
> >>and is very safety conscious. If there was the slightest risk then they
> >>should not be allowed but its taken some time to get that far.
>
> >Given that just about every flight these days has one or two mobiles
> >that their owner has forgotten to turn off (I've done it), and that we
> >haven't heard of any accident relating to one, I think you can be
> >reasonably sure they aren't a big risk.
>
> No not if their not being used. Yes they do have the odd exchange with
> their net from time to time but a few short duration bursts?..
>
> Aviation has an excellent safety record, lets keep it that way)
>
> >Neil
>
> --
> Tony Sayer

Aircraft systems are well shielded but I have personally witnessed the
effect a mobile phone can have when used within 30 feet of a live
cockpit.
1. Radio signals between the controller and the crew are subjected to
a constant rythmic bleeping accompanied by a steady buzz.
2. On a Jersey European BAE 146 in 2000 (now Flybe) with old style
cockpit using dials. Instrument lights flickered and some dials had
indicators moving rapidly from side to side. Not by a great deal but
it was described as distracting.
3. On a much newer CRJ 50 seater using a modern "glass" cockpit the
effect was not noticeable but the radio interference remained.

The basic fact is nobody can guarantee that every type of mobile phone
electronic signature will not in some way affect the many different
types of system on an aircraft. With hundreds of different types of
phone and more appearing almost weekly, who will take responsibility
for EMC testing them against every type of passenger carrying
aircraft? Easier not to take the risk.

Alasdair wrote:

> The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there appears to be a
right not to have one's correspondence interefered with. Whether that
right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's
telephonic communications.

However, ISTM that the minor annoyance some people experience due to
their inability to tolerate possibly only one other person using a
mobile phone isn't sufficient justification for indiscriminately and
anonymously terminating other people's connections with the outside
world.

The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633120.html
(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.

Perhaps those who have taken to these jammers have tried this
approach in the past and concluded that a more robust approach is
needed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT, Chris Tolley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.

Have you ever tried doing that? These oiks ignore you... if you're
lucky.

A while back, I was sitting in the quiet coach of the Liverpool -
London Pendolino. I was there for the whole run from Lime Street to
Euston. There was a very loud Liverpudlian sitting across the aisle
from me. After about half an hour of his yacking, I tried doing as you
suggest. I was then subjected to loud abuse and physical threats...
and still had to endure his noise for the rest of the journey as well.

Peter.

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
> >are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
>
> Perhaps those who have taken to these jammers have tried this
> approach in the past and concluded that a more robust approach is
> needed.

A more robust _and personally safer_ approach?

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Chris Tolley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>:: Alasdair wrote:
>::
>:: : The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason
>:: : is another matter.
>::
>:: Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there
>:: appears to be a right not to have one's correspondence
>:: interefered with. Whether that right extends to email I
>:: dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's telephonic
>:: communications.
>
> What about the human rights of the rest of the bus/train not to have their
> journey interfered with by indiscriminate phone use..?

Such a right does not appear to be defined in the charter. Have you
looked at it?

>:: The appropriate response if someone is really being
>:: annoying when they are using a mobile phone is to ask
>:: them politely to be more considerate. --
>
> And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I don't think so somehow.

Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation between mobile
phone use and violence?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683636.html
(Class 101 and 108 units at Chester, Jun 1985)

Peter wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:09:38 GMT, Chris Tolley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
>>are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
>
> Have you ever tried doing that? These oiks ignore you... if you're
> lucky.

Every time (though there haven't been more than half a dozen such
occasions, as I'm not *usually* so easily distracted by what others are
doing) I've asked someone to desist from something of that nature, they
have complied without resorting either to violence or verbal abuse.

> A while back, I was sitting in the quiet coach of the Liverpool -
> London Pendolino. I was there for the whole run from Lime Street to
> Euston. There was a very loud Liverpudlian sitting across the aisle
> from me. After about half an hour of his yacking, I tried doing as you
> suggest. I was then subjected to loud abuse and physical threats...
> and still had to endure his noise for the rest of the journey as well.

In the quiet coach, I would have drawn it to his attention immediately.
If you've let him get away with it for 30 minutes, then I'm not
surprised he reacted as you indicated. Similarly, in a non-smoker, back
in the day, I wouldn't thing there was much point letting someone get
through ten fags before passing the relevant comment.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906828.html
(47 628 at Reading, 27 Apr 1985)

"Chris Tolley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
: : Ivor Jones wrote:
: :
: : : "Chris Tolley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: : : news:[email protected]
: : : : : Alasdair wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : : The jammers are illegal but whether for good
: : : : : : reason is another matter.
: : : : :
: : : : : Under article 12 of the human rights charter,
: : : : : there appears to be a right not to have one's
: : : : : correspondence interefered with. Whether that
: : : : : right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether
: : : : : it extends to one's telephonic communications.
: : :
: : : What about the human rights of the rest of the
: : : bus/train not to have their journey interfered with
: : : by indiscriminate phone use..?
: :
: : Such a right does not appear to be defined in the
: : charter.

Hmm, a pity. Perhaps it should be.

: : Have you looked at it?
: :
: : : : : The appropriate response if someone is really
: : : : : being annoying when they are using a mobile phone
: : : : : is to ask them politely to be more considerate. --
: : :
: : : And get a smack in the mouth for your trouble..? I
: : : don't think so somehow.
: :
: : Do you have evidence that there is a high correlation
: : between mobile phone use and violence?

Yes, I work for a bus company and see it daily.

Ivor