Cell phone at the gas pump.

[71T Targa]

So I go to fill my daily driver, and I’m talking to my wife on the cell. Normally I pay at the pump, so this is never an issue, but today I was going inside. Anyway, the gas attendant wouldn’t start the pump for me until I turned off my cell. I know there has been some talk of sparks causing the pump to explode, but from a cell??? Come on…

When I go in to pay, this kid is pushing a little pamphlet on the dangers of static and cell phones at the gas pumps. I tell him it’s an urban legend, but he’s ‘seen the video’ and knows it true.

So, just how could my solid-state cell have enough of a spark to blow the place down? What a crock…

[dhoward]

BS.

[928ram]

You ever watch that goofy show "mythbusters"?
They took this one on and found it to be BS also.

[Overpaid Slacker]

This is the same cell phone that can knock a plane out of the sky if you use it in flight? Dang these are dangerous devices.

JP

[Porsche-O-Phile]

www.snopes.com

Don't believe everything you hear Captain Gullible.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Moi?
Lighten up, General Impervious-to-Sarcasm.

JP

[singpilot]

What the studies DID find that was women are more likely to generate the static spark necessary to ignite the filler neck fumes.

Watch next time you are at the pump. Women will get out, start the fill, then get back in the car, usually even shutting the door (while talking on the phone). It's the getting in and out of the car (with insulating leather or rubber soled shoes) that does it. They are not out of the car long enough to equalize the static buildup generated by all the synthetics in the seats, and the clothes.

They go right to the gas nozzle and immediately ground their charge to the car when they touch the filler. The area is full of very volitile fumes, and THAT spark is what changes their makeup requirements for the rest of their life. The fact that they were talking on the cell phone is simply coincidental at that point.

Watch the next time you are in the gas station. Guys will stay outside. Women will enter and reenter the car at least once if not more (each time increasing the static charge buildup).

[304065]

I would find it pretty hard to believe that the RF emissions alone could induce enough current in anything to cause an explosion. MAYBE if you had one of the old 3-watt construction-site "bag phones" you could generate enough flux. However:

1) There are reported cases of cellphones catching fire, due to problems with the battery;and

2) Cellphone batteries occasionally dislodge, causing sparks.

Now, I'd admit that you would have to do this in a very fume-rich atmosphere to cause a fire, which isn't likely. And the reason for the regs is RF, not battery-related. Kind of like the rules that say you can't run a walkie-talkie on a construction site when blasting is in progress. . .

However, Michael brings up another valid point, which is INATTENTION. You are NOT supposed to get back in your car with the nozzle plugged in. You are NOT supposed to wander around the gas station while your car is fueling. Those of us with 911's rarely do, anyway, due to the need to hold the nozzle upside down to get the gas in (the old s-shaped fuel pipe), or the need to keep bystanders and the attendant from doing STUPID things like leaving the gas cap on the paint or on the windshield.

Finally, there are REAL reasons why use of cellphones and other RF transmitters is prohibited on board aircraft. The first is the old "line-of-sight" transmission problem which was discussed here before-- the number of cell phone frequencies is fixed, and if you go to high elevation, you are capable of communicating with a large number of towers at the same time, which screws up the system. Yes, even with your little .8 watt Nokia.

The other reason is that every little .8 watt Nokia uses a circuit called a "local oscillator" to lock on to the receiving frequency. This is basically a circuit that generates the baseline frequency in the phone, and then compares the received frequency to the baseline-- the difference is the signal. The phone itself generates RF, and you don't want it in proximity to, for example, the DME antenna on an airliner, which operates in the UHF spectrum. There are also dozens of reported cases of VHF nav radios experiencing interference. Most airplanes don't use LF/MF nav much (ADF) but they are VERY susceptible to RF interference. I don't have an ADF in my plane, nor do I actually know anyone who does, but the next time I'm around one, I'll wave my cellphone next to the antenna and I bet I can get the needle to move.

Is the RF enough to induce noise, making the DME unreadable, causing you to fly past the missed approach point and into terrain? Is it enough to cause a full-scale localizer deflection at the Inner Marker? Doubt it.

But the slight risk, multiplied by the significant magnitude of harm, outweighs the need of some fat-assed jerk to have their cellphone out and operating during the final approach segment. And ditto for the well-meaning but clueless person at the Gas Station. Shut it OFF and give us all a break.

And shut the damn thing off in the movie theatre while you're at it.

[RickM]

Some hospitals are considering a lift on the cell phone ban on their premises. http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/09/28/HospitalCellPhoneBans.html

Will the airlines (and gas stations ) follow suit?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Rick -
No. I agree w/ Cramer on the potential EMF issue, but in practicality the DOT/FAA study I'd read a coupla years back (which I can't find right now, but I'll post when I can) said there had been no instances of cell phones screwing with avionics. OK, there had been instances of screwy things happening to avionics sometimes when cell phones were in use, but no causative factors.

It's an economics game -- both by the airlines and by the cell service providers. Airlines get to charge you to make a call on their phones, so surprise there, right? But, as importantly, the cell service providers get their billing straight. When passengers in small aircraft use cell phones (not illegal) especially very fast small aircraft, the cells cannot accurately track the "hand-offs" of the calls as the phone is covering many cells and moving quickly from cell to cell -- which screws up the billing/tracking ability of the service providers. Before some EE out there gores me for the rudimentary explanation, I'm relating the result of a few articles I'd read years ago, so take it as a crude expansion of Cramer's "line of sight" example.

JP

[304065]

The rule applies to all aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules. So if I want to use one in the Citabria, no problem. The FCC may have something to say about it, however.

You can whip out your Remington Cordless Shaver, however! I bet that thing makes WAY more RF than a phone.


§ 91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.


A lot of the evidence is anecdotoal, and was collected from NASA reports (the ASRS "Callback" program, that basically says that safety-related reports will NOT be used for license enforcement purposes). A few examples:

In October of 1998, a Boeing 757, flying from Seattle to Covington/Cincinnati, experienced loss of all three of its autopilot systems. Flight attendants checked for a passenger using a portable electronic device and discovered a man wearing headphones, which were part of a hearing aid. The passenger was allowed to continue using the device, but was moved forward several rows. The autopilot system then regained full operational capabilities and was later checked by maintenance, with no problems being found.

In March of 1997, a Cessna 340/A pilot experienced erroneous readings when attempting to determine his location because of a passenger using a cellular phone. After the passenger turned off the phone, the pilot was able to locate his position and continue on with no problems.

In January of 1997, a regional jet was flying from Salt Lake City to Eugene. The flight crew received three separate warning messages stating that there were disagreements between the captain’s and the first officer’s instruments. The three warnings were for discrepancies in heading, airspeed, and altitude indicators. After flight attendants checked the cabin for passengers using portable electronic devices and had the devices turned off, all problems ceased.

In August 1995, an aircraft making its approach to George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston was advised that it was 4 miles off course. Because the course director indicators had been scalloping left and right of center, the captain ordered the flight attendant to check the cabin for any passengers using a portable electronic device. Within 15 seconds, problems with the course director indicators disappeared. The captain later learned that a passenger had been using a portable computer.

In May of 1995, the electric compass indicators of the first officer of a Boeing 737 gave erratic readings. After a sweep of the cabin was made for portable electronic devices, which resulted in flight attendants asking a passenger to turn off a compact disc player, the first officer’s instruments returned to normal working order.

Shortly after takeoff from Baltimore, in April 1994, an aircraft was advised by ground control that it was 10 miles off course, though the plane’s instruments indicated nothing abnormal. It was found that a passenger in first class was using a portable computer. After the computer was turned off, navigation instruments returned to normal.

In February 1994, a turboprop aircraft flying government officials from Lake Havasu, AZ to Yuma, AZ experienced trouble with its navigational radios. Ground control showed that the airplane was off course and gave corrections. However, the plane’s navigation system had been checked earlier in the month and was said to have zero error. After the flight, the pilot learned that at least one passenger was using a cellular phone while the plane was in the air.

In August 1992, a turbojet aircraft was notified three times, by two different control towers, that it looked to be off course. All instruments in the cockpit were showing the plane’s position to be correct. Flight attendants searched for portable electronic devices and found a tape machine and a hand-held video game unit in use. The devices were turned off and there were no other navigational discrepancies during the flight.

In September of 1990, a plane travelling from Boston to Youngstown/Warren, OH was advised it was off course and was issued a new heading. The plane’s navigational instruments showed it to be on course. After checking the cabin for portable electronic devices, the lead flight attendant informed the captain that 23 passengers were using AM/FM cassette players and one passenger was using a personal computer. The passengers were asked to turn off the devices and the flight proceeded without further incident.



An interesting nuance of the House Committee that looked at this was:

Of the 152 passenger air rage incidents reported to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), 15% were attributed to the prohibition on the use of PEDs. This made prohibited electronic devices the second most likely cause of air rage behind alcohol at 43% but ahead of smoking in lavatories at 9%.

Not a lot of "air rage" lately, though.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Why not say "cellular telephones?" in the reg if there's proof they interfere. It seems to me the airline lobby was effective in having the regs crafted to allow them to force people to use the airlines airphones. But I'm a neocon, luddite conspiracist.

Well, I'm all for requiring people to turn off their cell phones on planes and on trains and in movie theaters anyway. But I just don't buy the "it'll knock the aircraft out of the sky" stuff.

[mikester]

When I was a kid and I would float my hand out the window of the truck while my dad was driving he would tell me: "Don't do that - you'll flip the truck over."

I was 5; I believed him...now I'm not so sure.

[island911]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
www.snopes.com

Don't believe everything you hear Captain Gullible.

Hey, excellent disclaimer ya got there for snopes.

Having worked, designing and testing RF (cellular) equipment, I'm siding with the fly-boys on this one. Except I won't even go so far as to say "MAYBE if you had one of the old 3-watt construction-site "bag phones" you could generate enough flux."

Consider cellular base-stations are often located at gas-stations.

Here's a smartly hidden Antenna is inside the vertical sign with the Shell logo.



a lot more than 3W pumping out of that thing. --oooohh, scary.

Your cars starter-motor makes a hell of a lot more spark than and cell phone.
Soooo . ...We ought to ban cars from gas stations.

[304065]

Well, the reg is broader than cellphones because more stuff causes interference than just cellphones. Why shavers are carved out of the reg is baffling.

You bein' a Luddite and all (do you still have those wooden shoes from Nijmigen) I figured you would pick up on the convenience of a pilot being off-course and then blaming it on a cell phone in the cabin. . . certainly NOT an error in navigation on his part!

This "Airline Lobby" must consist of two men and a three-legged dog. Whatever revenue streams could be captured by requiring use of in-flight satellite telephone service at $4 per minute have been long since offset by the impact of deregulation and allowing air carriers to languish in the "favorite but greasy armchair" of Chapter 11 for the last few years. Where are these "at-work forces" when taxes on Jet Fuel are being levied?

But THAT is a rant for another day. Have to get back to the mindless pre-election tripe.

[dhoward]

Cell phones disrupt airspeed and altimeter?
I'd like to see that....
Can't use a GPS reciever, either. Prolly interferes with EGT readings....

[dhoward]

Originally posted by LynnsABCs
Need to worry about people at gas stations who:

1. Leave the engine running while filling up.

2. Smoke while filling up.

Try to light gas with a cigarette.... Helll you can just barely light it off with a 69T ignition system!

[island911]

Originally posted by dhoward
. . ..
Can't use a GPS reciever, either. Prolly interferes with EGT readings....

What's up with that? That's been a recent one. I don't get it.

Do hand-held GPS's transmitt a calibration signal, of some sort?

[304065]

I'm guessing, because the report doesn't give the aircraft type, only says it's a "Regional Jet," that it was something like an Embraer "Jungle Jet" that has an EFIS presentation for the Altitude and Airspeed.

Obviously a cell phone can't affect a direct-reading pitot-static system, not even if you shoved the antenna in the static port- that's why there's an alternate static port.

GPS has a local oscillator too, I would expect, just like any radio receiver. A moot point, because in order for it to work you need satellite coverage which you ain't gettin' from putting the antenna up to the plastic window.

[dhoward]

They don't want you to really want you to know where you're going....
It would disprove all of the "world-is-round' believers..

B!tchy in-flight waitress...