Why you can't use phones on aircraft

[@ghhg-je8wv]

3:39 Sound Is Perfect.

[@Lepidopray]

gh hg He could have a second career doing sound effects in cartoons if he wanted, haha.

[@scottb721]

I want it as my ringtone

[@friedchicken1]

actually what happened there is one of the passengers was using a phone and it interfered with the pilot's brain.. so that's why we don't use phones on planes!!!! that proves it

[@beijingbond]

My new ring tone

[@4kangel603]

im 11 years old and dream of becoming a pilot when i grow up. this helps me in one of my projects thank you

[@ethunter2413]

As Napoleon said: "Don't believe everything you encounter on the internet." Use your own brain ;)

[@Solocat1]

@@ethunter2413 Yes, the keyboard Trolls come out years later.

[@autopartsmonkey7992]

I'm 49....I always wanted to fly. I wish I was you,,still young enough to do anything. Take the bull by the horns..don't hesitate.

[@ethunter2413]

@@autopartsmonkey7992 you still have about 40 years to go. don't hesitate!

[@darksouleditz]

Now you're 15.

[@barada6820]

GPS signals are always there. Your device only recieves those signals, does not send any data back. You can use GPS in flight mode safely.

[@KarlJorgensen1968]

And why would you need GPS? I guess knowing your location might be comforting, but what can you do with that knowledge? You are a passenger, so (hopefully) you do not have any control over where you go anyway?

[@sbalogh53]

@@KarlJorgensen1968 ... I used to enjoy looking at a map of where I was and then looking out the window to see the corresponding landscape below. Or to know when I crossed the Equator. Or I recorded a track of where the plane flew on my trip for later viewing on my computer. However, I lost interest after the first few flights I was on. Now I just try to sleep.

[@nyxawesome9409]

@@KarlJorgensen1968 I use GPS every time I am in an airplane... It's nice to know that world is so huge and knowing that so many places exist that I'll never set foot on. Knowing no man-made country borders are perceptible except for a few from cruising altitude... I've had on couple of occasions recorded crossing hemispheres (crossing equator). Many times just to see crossing to fro zero longitude and how arbitrary country get's to call themselves that.

[@boeing787dreamliner2]

@@KarlJorgensen1968 to see attractions from above :)

[@moonliteX]

he didnt claim gps sent anything.

[@tobys_transport_videos]

I know some people will moan and groan here, but I'm used to that! So moan and groan all you like when I say that I for am not bothered by not being able to make / receive calls and messages while in the air, There needs to be ONE last place in this world that we can be free of people talking on their phones, too many of whom have zero respect for those around them when on their phones by talking loudly! Thanks Mentour Pilot, your videos are very interesting. :-)

[@JAROCHELOcesarcastro]

Mixed Gauge Videos agree!!

[@mattc6205]

I love your comments about airlines don’t take risks. That’s extremely reassuring 😊

[@MentourPilot]

Yes, and its also true. Thank you for following the channel!

[@philismenko]

Please note: airline dont take safety risks, they take financial risks, like overbooking

[@usulsk]

And yet, the Boeing 737 MAX was used...

[@helenafranzen9828]

@@usulsk Which is the best and safest choice. 😂

[@deydraniadiancecht8298]

@@MentourPilot I'm an electronics technician. I spent 8 years in the Navy as an Aviation Electronics Tech specializing in communication and navigation systems. In our shops, we troubleshot, repaired, and calibrated all of your communication and navigation equipment with cell phones on and several gaming computers where fellow off duty techs were playing video games right next to the very test set I'm using to fix and calibrate the Avionics. In addition, the very test sets that we used to test and troubleshoot the systems would have a larger RF signature than cell phones ever could and the test set was still able to calibrate the equipment- because that's how electronics work. You can run a piece of equipment next to another piece of equipment without it failing. It doesn't matter if the aircraft equipment or the cell phones were old or new in any combination of old or new (old cell phones vs. new equipment or new cell phones vs. old equipment etc...). There is no way they will interact. And that "bdp bdepp bdeep" you mention only happens when you put a cell phone near a microphone or speaker- RIGHT next to it. Someone sitting in the cabin with a phone isn't going to do that. As for phones hitting towers. That may have been a concern a long time ago, but it's certainly been proven wrong in recent years. THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of motorists on the huge congested interstates are speeding along all day with cell phones and GPS devices that are constantly moving from tower to tower pinging all the time and this is nonstop all day every day. There is nothing an airplane can do to even come close to this. NOTHING. Even if everyone tries to make a call the instant the plane reaches a tower, it won't matter. The tower will take it because it's already holding up to the mass of traffic on the roads. All towers get more traffic from roads than they do airplanes. I have a degree in Aviation Electronics, Electronics Technology, and Biomedical Electronics. I have tested and calibrated all sorts of equipment from airplanes to medical equipment that keeps people alive. This myth about cell phones being unsafe on a plane needs to finally die. Do you want to know the difference between Aviation communication and navigation equipment and the GPS in my car? Nothing. There is no difference. Yet people turn on their GPS, the car stereo, and make phone calls on their cell phones without a care in the world, yet I'm supposed to pretend that if I step on a plane, my cell phone becomes a type of EMP or jamming device? Can we please let this myth die and stop spreading fear? Please? I've taken apart all your equipment and put it back together. I know how it works. It's no different than my equipment in my vehicle.

[@jessijacobs8]

Love these raw "office" podcasts 🙌 👌 Gosh Petter you have come a long way with your channel!!! Well done to you and your incredible team 🐾❤️🙏

[@southwestxnorthwest]

You know that feeling when a passenger on the city bus starts talking on their phone on your way home from work, and it's only 30 minutes until your stop? Yeah, Imagine that on a 6 hour flight with 300 passengers.

[@cesteres]

This must be the real reason, and the cell towers.

[@RandomUser2401]

except there is no reception you smarthead.

[@nerdwwii8081]

Usually screaming to a deaf pearson on the other side.

[@vk2ig]

@@RandomUser2401 Why isn't there any reception? It's not hard to get reception from a cell mobile base station up to aircraft cruising altitude.

[@RandomUser2401]

@@vk2ig cell towers have their radiation lobes directed roughly parallel to the earth surface. Plus crousing altitude is around 10km, I don‘t think cell towers reach that far.

[@nathanlong624]

"In five years they're gonna look different again" Me, five years later:😐🤨

[@XIIchiron78]

Tfw phones are actually worse overall

[@cannedlaughter2535]

I love this "I want to and therefore I will" attitude so many people have. I see it on the roads every day, too. God help us all.

[@EtzEchad]

I worked as an engineer in an aerospace company for many years and the level of testing that is done for everything that goes into a plane is tremendous. I don’t think there is any way that an ordinary cell phone could cause any interference with aircraft systems. There also is NO chance that other consumer electronics could hurt anything. (Which is why they are now letting things like iPads to be used.) Your point about the FCC not allowing it makes sense though. There is a lot of overhead when towers are changed and I could see that causing a lot of problems if there are lots of cell phones in the air.

[@vanstry]

There is at least one aircraft crash of an airliner that has been linked directly to a cellphone. I used to test airplanes for a living. On the newer aircraft, they should be protected. But on the older ones? Yeah, they could and they did.

[@EtzEchad]

vanstry Do you have a reference to that? I worked in the industry for 30 years and never heard of such a thing.

[@vanstry]

@@EtzEchad I'm trying to recall the flight, it was in Europe, I think Switzerland? There were a number of other flights in the 80's as well where the navigation suite messed up and no one ever figured out why. Understand I was a flight test engineer and we'd test these kinds of things. A cell phone's transmitter generates a more powerful signal than the navigation signals that an aircraft receives. Also an airplane is a faraday cage (by design) so if your phone has issues, (and a lot of them always did - cheaply made, highly abused) those will be amplified inside the aircraft, which back 'in the day' was designed to worry about external signals, not internal ones. And, all receivers do transmit (most people don't realize that, but it's how they work). The main problem is in the weather, you can mess up the VOR signals, Glide slope, those kinds of things. GPS is on too much of a different frequency, same for the newer MW systems. Personally I've seen it in Military planes when a phone was brought inside the cockpit during ground tests (yes, we did test that - among other things).

[@EtzEchad]

vanstry Cell phones didn’t exist in the 80s VOR signals are around 117 MHz,, glide slope is at 330 MHz, and GPS is around 1500. Cell phones are 800 and about 1900. In other words these signals are far, far apart. The only possible interference is with GPS but the nature of GPS makes it highly immune to interference. I don’t believe that any plane has crashed due to a cell phone.

[@vanstry]

@@EtzEchad Late 80's there were cellphones. If they're functioning properly they do stay in their bandwidth, but they can still give off interference. The ones in Europe ran about 450Mhz. Radio interference can be tricky when you're dealing with cheaply made transmitters. A lot of internal buses on aircraft ran at about 1 Mhz and could be very susceptible to noise if not shielded properly. GPS works differently because it's made to accept 'noise'. You have to decode it, so straight interference won't have an effect, it has to be spoofed - which goes beyond the discussion here. Also no one was using it in the civilian world back then, we were still putting up the constellation.

[@tydroid6283]

Some planes, like some of the Delta 737s, have wifi on board, and allow you to use them during flight. The main reason I've heard, is that it will interfere with the systems on the aircraft, but I think, the actual reason is that the cabin crew, WANT you to actually listen to the safety information and not have your face 3 inches from a screen.

[@JoeSmith-cn7ur]

Did you watch the video? He said Signals affect the radio. He never said anything about Wi-fi being a problem ( on board Wi-fi )

[@vk2ig]

@@JoeSmith-cn7ur Not sure where you're coming from on this one: wi-fi is carried by a radio signal, mobile phones also emit a radio signal. That's how these devices work.

[@vk2ig]

I've seen plenty of passengers with their devices in "flight mode" and their faces buried 7.5 cm (approximately 3 inches) from the screen while the safety briefing is happening.

[@BossmodePictures]

@@vk2ig Three points you don't consider: - Mobile phones use frequencies ranging from around 900 to 2000 MHz while WiFi has a narrow band of around 2400 (and nowadays 5000 MHz). - The transmitting power of cellphones (as phones) can go as high as 2 Watts while WiFi access points usually only emit around 100 Milliwatts. - The WiFi access points in airplanes are certified and tested by the manufacturer of the plane, private cellphones aren't. And didn't you ever hear a weird noise in your speakers when there's an incoming call on your mobile phone or when it connects to another radio tower? Did you ever hear that with WiFi?

[@gastonpossel]

@@BossmodePictures These are very good points. Cellphone signals often generate some intermodulation noises into audio equipment, specially if close to preamplifiers and amplifiers. Comms and nav systems have preamplifiers and amplifiers, so there is a non-zero chance that they could be interferred. I think a minor interference could have consequences that range from an insignificant noise, to a radio misscommunication or a navigation bug.

[@waynemagin2554]

Thank You for your technical level answers, makes sense the way you have explained it. Hava Nice Day...

[@AllenPendleton]

From cruise altitude there was no possible way they could have worked

[@twoworldscolliding5035]

Allen Pendleton Depends. GSM has a hard limit of 35km because the protocol can only adjust the timing that much to adjust for the speed of light delay. That's 22 miles. In the real world, you only get that in the desert, or a long straight highway. The towers broadcast higher sensitivity along the ground. But 35,000 feet is about 6 miles. I have succeeded in sending and receiving texts at cruising altitude before, but only on Band 12 700mhz with T-Mobile, and Band 13 700 (low frequency long range) with Verizon. It takes a while, and fails a lot, but it will eventually work. It's about the timing.

[@themartian6062]

His so called "technical answers" are full of it

[@twoworldscolliding5035]

The Martian Who are you referring to?

[@johnweir1217]

Hello and Best Wishes to you. Can I ask the question which ,as far as I can see, no one has asked. Was it possible for the alleged cell phone calls made on 9/11 from the hijacked planes to have been made ? If the aircraft is flying at cruising altitude at cruising speed , is it possible ?

[@BrucexfromxCanada]

In addition to all here... What is said here also can apply to other places where cellphones may be forbidden. This used to be commonplace in hospitals and medical clinics (and because of a wife and others close to me, I have seen a LOT of hospitals.) 1) this has changed a lot over theye years as shielding and other provisions have much improved, just as with aircraft. Consequently, even in major hospitals which are handling many life-critical situations, there are often designated places where cellphones are allowed. In areas where RFI and other electromagnetic radiation are critical, many added precautions are taken, electroane glass, locating such ares underground, walls and doors mad to be partds of Faraday cagees built into the building, and many more. As a now retired electronic technician who has worked in biomedical electronics in my time, I have seen this first hand, as at that time I was doing electronic support for a department which was doing primary neurophysiological research involving experimental brain surgery on animals. (For those tho feel squeamish, remember that in this type of situation, its unfortunately their lives or ours - no room for the fain of heart! Nontheless this type of work is also subject to its own special rules of medical ethics, and all are subject.) What I find annoying is owners of medical buildings who want to forbid cellphones even in areas rented to different offices where there is no technical need for the ban, simply as a means of enhancing the seeming value of their premises, whether to medical tenants or to the public, where the real concern is behavioural. Behavioural iussues anywhere are a 2 way street. I see no reason why cellphone users should be indoscriuminately banned from the use they pay for just because of some unruly people. If there is unruliness, it accrues to the person(s) responsible ad hoc to deal with it, using security or police help if necessary. Also, there are other vested interests which have some legitimacy. Cellphone service poroviders are also unjustly jeopardised when use is unneecessarily blocked. Also, in some countries, Canada being one such services carry a high tax burden, so the governments are also stakeholders. since these two have the deep pockets to instigate legislative changes, let them seek their own justice, and as an ordinary citizen, I may choose to avoid such places until things change, as such being a "semi-silent complainer".

[@metamorphicorder]

As much as i am wary of referencing mythbusters, they did do a test on this and came up that the equipment on planes was safe across a range of commonly used cell phone bandwidths or frequencies or whathaveyou and that that held to a large degree of transmission energy. Something like the plane would have to be fully loaded with people with a cellphone in each hand actively calling or recieving at a power 5 times what cellphones and cell towers use. However, its been years since i saw that episode, and your explanation makes more sense than either the phones actually being dangerous to flights, or the airlines simply wanting to charge for their own service, though either of the alternate reasons are partially valid and do make sense in their own context.

[@robertgantry2118]

Yes. That actually DOES answer the question quite well. Thanks.

[@captaincurle4529]

I had this video playing in the background and at 3:40 I thought you were having a seizure. Glad you’re okay, Petter 😁

[@liamsandie]

In all likelihood there are thousands or phones left on every day on aircraft.

[@HotDog12ist]

+Liam Sandie Nowdays nobody even bothers turning them off, every time there are literary hundreds of "new sms" beeps going around the cabin once the aircraft is on the approach, with the number of daily flights, for many many years already, and not a single accident caused by this interfearence, it is pretty safe to say that they don't have any affect on flight safety.

[@HotDog12ist]

+Mentour Pilot I understand of course, apologies for badly formulating my opinion, by accident I didn't mean a crash, but the fact that there would be atleast handful of reports titled "false g/s capture caused by a ped" or similar. Every such accident is investigated, and in 99% of cases the cause has been established, and it's not an iPhone :) Just my view on this...

[@mwbgaming28]

+lost4468yt I use my phone every time I fly and have never had a problem if I'm lucky enough to get the window seat I can actually get Internet access at a pretty reasonable speed even at 30,000ft never has there been a flight diversion or an emergency landing because I used my phone instead of paying for in-flight WiFi

[@mwbgaming28]

+Bailey Banjo very unlikely as my phone transmits at 2300mhz for LTE and 1900mhz for 3G, which is far away from the VHF band used by aircraft radio and NDB navigation systems if phones transmitting at that frequency interfered with any on board communications or navigation systems, there would be no such thing as in-flight WiFi since WiFi is transmitted at 2400mhz it's really just a ploy to get you to pay up for in-flight WiFi and phone calls

[@jazztom86]

+HotDog12ist my concern is less about the safety on the plane, rather than people who are not able to live without their phones for the time of a flight, possibly putting hundreds of lives in danger, as far as they know. That is disturbing.

[@roshanpaldeniyalegedara4005]

Best explanations for the situation. I like the idea ''better be safe than sorry''. No need to do tons of research to find out if there is an actual interference or not. I think it is everyone's responsibility to be responsible. I believe we must be able to stay at least few hours without our PEDs. We shouldn't put hundreds of lives and a multi-million dollar bird at risk by being irresponsible. Great stuff sir, keep up the good work. Good Luck!

[@kidstvfun9319]

Mentour Pilot I'm 11 years old and I'm scared I have to fly 10 hours on a plane BY MYSELF!!!!😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[@existingbeats5134]

@KidsTvFun I'm 13 and I have flown several times, on my own, from the united states to Ireland, and to the UK, it's really fun once you get on :) I really wanna be a pilot :D

[@MrCmon113]

Roshan Peiris Yeah better also avoid black cats in case they actually bring bad luck. Better save than sorry, right?

[@Tenpi000]

Wish they would apply this "better be safe than sorry" logic to the environment as well.

[@diliff]

Taxtro hit the nail on the head there. Of course a lot of research should be done to find out if there is actual interference or not. The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that inadvertent tests are done every single flight where at least a few people have forgotten to put their phone on flight mode and it is busy emitting signals in the cabin or cargo hold for the entire flight. It wouldn't take long before we would determine that a significant number of flights are suffering from interference, in indeed it is happening. And it also wouldn't take much work to put a little device on board that measures the strength of signals and sees if there is a correlation between specific wavelengths being detected and interference being reported in the plane's equipment. This isn't rocket science. It is very easy to investigate and there is a huge benefit to allowing PEDs to communicate. If nothing else, to determine whether people accidentally leaving them emitting radiation is actually a problem or not, even if you have no intention of allowing it as policy.

[@jeffdwyer6105]

It's not just about switching between cell towers because of speed , its the fact that at high altitude you can interfere with multiple cell sites at the same time . In either case it causes even more problems than you described .

[@JessicaTG2008]

We all have phones, too many of us THINK we are more important than we really are and have to be in touch 24/7. The world ran just fine 20 years ago with very few mobile phones so if your going to fly, follow the rule. Flying is kinda like the one place in the world where everyone is brought down to the same level regardless of who you are, who you THINK you are. Sit down, shut up, buckle up, turn off your phone and go to sleep. If you are so important you can't be without a phone, then walk... that will turn fantasy into reality real quick.

[@IzzyOnTheMove]

Due to mostly passing through remote areas, there is no wifi on the train between Toronto and Vancouver, which takes 4 days. It's wonderful! You meet people, read, play cards... Phone off except for taking pictures 👍

[@jazztom86]

What I really find disturbing is how many people have an addiction that goes so far that they can't live a few hours without handling their effing phone.

[@MentourPilot]

+jazztom86 True.

[@boeing787dreamliner2]

imagine looking at phone instead of watching my wings...

[@nathanlong624]

I honestly think that the beauty of flying is way more entertaining than a phone, the first time I flew I brought a tablet with me to "keep me occupied" and as soon as we took off, I didnt touch that thing

[@fishsquishguy1833]

@@nathanlong624 Yes! I was a little nervous about flying having last flown in the early 90s when I was a lot younger. Started watching different vids as I’ve always loved aircraft and found this channel. Finally took a flight a few months ago and then another just recently. Fascinating to watch the wings in action, to hear the howl of the spoilers to slow down from cruise and speed brakes to kill lift as this giant piece of aluminum sets back down on Earth. Now the actual flight, the thing people bitch about, is something I really look forward to going on vacation. I actually try and get a wing window seat but haven’t been able to see the reverse thrusters in action yet. I admit I do use my iPad but just to listen to a playlist as music and flying go well together in my opinion😁

[@tecnicaldas1363]

why should they???

[@Fifury161]

Thank you for taking the time to answer the question!

[@macD723]

Very good answer. Thank you very much. I have always wondered about this. Nice to get a straight answer from someone in the industry.

[@craigr7299]

in the US, the airline i want to fly for has a rule that you can use any electronic device on airplane mode above 10,000 feet.

[@ytTaz480]

Heh, I'll be damned. Didnt know that but it makes sense. I hold 2 FCC licenses and am an amateur radio operator. Line of sight is what its called. As for interfering with the planes on board equipment, almost 100% impossible. But the technology that allows U to be on the phone for 2 hours while driving past a few hundred cell towers(why theyre called "cellular" phones) works based on the idea that U are on the ground and can only reach one or two of those towers at a time.(look up "radio trunking" and "radio voter") Any time U transmit and receive from an elevated position, line of sight increases exponentially. Ive even talked to other ham radio operators on VHF and UHF(simplex-no repeater) while flying their plane "aeronautical mobile" and they were a few hundred miles away. Impossible if they were on the ground. So it makes perfect sense that the baseband signals from a cell phone would make the cell towers go nuts. Even when ur not using it, it's pinging towers on its own every few seconds. Interesting fact to know. Thanx!

[@jasonbonarius3651]

Id like to shed some light on a few topics - 1. Out of Band Interference - It is true that every single component placed onto an aircraft is required to pass DO-160 and ABD conducted and radiated susceptibility and emissions. These test ensure the component does not interfere with others, nor is susceptible to other devices. 2. In-Band interference - What 1 does not cater for, or anything caters for, are in-band interference signals. No filtering or frquency selectivity is applied here as it is the intended operating window of an aircraft device. This should not happen as all devices and aircraft devices operate in their own bands. Non-linear components of another signal falling in the band of question is covered by 1) - however, some devices, originating from all over the world, may not obide to these emissions rules - ie some off brand chinese makes - big problem. 3. Microwave oven - cellular tellecommunications frequencies at cellular power levels are not harmful. When cellphones are attempting to handshake with an available tower, their emmissions are at their highest. During flight, this will be the default case as all phones on-board will be seeking a tower (which they wont find). If 300 non-harmful cellular signals are radiating at max power within a reflective tube, I cant help picture a microwave oven in my head. Perhaps 300 x not harmful = harmful

[@DheerajBhaskar]

Thanks for the good explanation. People just cite rules and never think to peel back the reasoning behind it

[@BerraLJ]

Well a good time to switch the phone off and enjoy a good book :)

[@corneliusblasterbox]

this was pre "I hope you're doing absolutely fantastic" days. Proper vintage mentour

[@FatimaNiazi]

you deserve millions of subscribers and likes be hppy

[@singhamaninder5836]

I love your office!! Thanks for showing us telling something very useful!

[@MrGyngve]

True story: The swiss Re464 locomotives was built for the Norwegian State Railways (NSB) as type EL-18. They came with a completely new braking system called HSM5 fully digital brake valve control. During the initial first years of operations there where incidents where the train brakes would apply without any input from the engineer. It was discovered that passengers using cell phones in the forward part of the first carriage sometimes interfered with the braking system. They did solve the issue, but it goes to show that gsm signaling can spawn weird interruptions with systems you would not think could to be affected by it.

I think a thorough testing with possible sources of interference could forecast this, but true.

[@deydraniadiancecht8298]

I'm an electronics technician. I spent 8 years in the Navy as an Aviation Electronics Tech specializing in communication and navigation systems. In our shops, we troubleshot, repaired, and calibrated all of your communication and navigation equipment with cell phones on and several gaming computers where fellow off duty techs were playing video games right next to the very test set I'm using to fix and calibrate the Avionics. In addition, the very test sets that we used to test and troubleshoot the systems would have a larger RF signature than cell phones ever could and the test set was still able to calibrate the equipment- because that's how electronics work. You can run a piece of equipment next to another piece of equipment without it failing. It is absolutely impossible for cell phones to disrupt braking systems. I have a degree in Aviation Electronics, Electronics Technology, and Biomedical Electronics. I have tested and calibrated all sorts of equipment from airplanes to medical equipment that keeps people alive.

[@MrGyngve]

@@deydraniadiancecht8298 I trust our engineers more than you. I got this straight from them, and they worked on this issue. And also, using the word «impossible» when you dont even know how an HSM5-system works or how it is built says quite a bit about you..

[@deydraniadiancecht8298]

@@MrGyngve you really think engineers are the ones saying that cell phones will interfere with planes? Hell no. Engineers are the ones that said that there is no proof of it. Even the pilot in this video said that no proof was found. Who the hell do you think ran those tests? The engineers. So if you trust the engineers, well they said the same thing I said. It doesn't happen. And I'm the one who calibrates this shit. Not engineers. Me. And I do it when I'm on the phone with tech support while it's opened up with the inner components laying out exposed as I have power applied so I can make fine adjustments to make sure it's all perfectly aligned. So if I can do all that while on the phone as I sit 6 inches away from it, then what the hell kind of damage do you think you can do sitting 50 feet away from it in the cabin with your own cell phone? I am one of the experts in this topic.

[@ImAtLevel53]

They do work in the air, and there have been well documented events , which changed aviation forever. Many hijacked passengers on Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77 and ofcourse those brave warriors on Flight 93. I once was on a Jet2 flight to Zakynthos and we was circling north of the island and was co Img into land on runway 16 which takes you over the Capital City Zankynthos Town/ Tsilivi. I had my cell in my pocket and must have knocked it. I received a bucket load of emails, iMessages and WhatsApp. Taking into account my phone had to update to Movistar all things being said was fast.

[@DjSAnD]

That are the best explanations I've ever heard about it.

[@davidecosta5563]

Hello Mentour, I just wanted to thank you for the great job you're doing, it is helping me a lot understanding better the aviation world, and I really appreciate what you are doing. I would just like to tell you SORRY because I would really like to be a Parteon of you, but I'm 16 and my mom doesn't allow me to have a PayPal or use a credit card on the internet. So just wanted you to know I'm supporting you and follow you "up to the end" as you often say in your podcasts.Wish the best to you and to your family,Davide Costa

[@davidecosta5563]

Thank you! Have a great weekend you too!

[@rodovre]

From a passenger view, it is great phone are not allowed. Imagine 140 passengers yelling in the phone at the same time in the cabin, like it happens in trains....

[@tgerule]

I know I'm not on a related video, but does this guy have a video about the best routes to becoming a pilot? i.e. modular (funding myself), intensive flight school (huge loan) etc.....I probably could scroll through every video if all else fails, but thought I'd ask :)

[@StringerNews1]

I'm a little surprised that the FCC finally got around to actual rule-making. in the US the first ban was not mandated by the FAA or FCC, it was done by various airlines, first one by one and finally they all agreed to the same ban in a way that was probably against monopoly laws in the US. The excuses that they gave were mostly phony. As David Messer noted, avionics EMC is top notch, and a local oscillator on passenger electronics has ever posed a threat, but that was the secret rule--if it had a LO, its use was banned. That included CD players and laptop computers. I used to carry an Optoelectronics passive AM receiver that had no LO, and when challenged I was usually allowed to use it. A couple of times a pilot came back to examine my receiver, and knew exactly what it was. You are correct that the interference to the ground-based PCS towers is the biggest worry, though most use directional antennas that could be tuned to reject signals from high altitudes. In any case, as LO frequencies get far beyond any aviation frequencies and low power CMOS circuits have negligible radiation, it would have been a good time to relax the rules. That was until the Southwest incident where many passengers were too busy with social media to follow instructions, and all those selfie phones were positioned to become projectiles. What a shame.

[@fr89k]

Actually the aerospace industry is quite progressive, when it comes to introducing new technology. The real slow-movers are in railway-industry. An amazing example for that is the introduction of digital fly-by-wire in 1988(!), whereas the railway-industry just started introducing the transmission of data between the train and the control center...

[@longfordboy2538]

Finally some common sense answers !!! Thank you Captain.

[@ruthnoronha8206]

Agree, better to be safe. It’s actually nice to be disconnected for a few hours.

[@magnet0363]

1. there would be a lot of chatter inside the aircraft so it's not allowed 2. there would be many devices left in aircraft and airlines would end up compensating passengers for lost mobiles

[@AlBeebe]

This is the straight up realest answer to this question i've ever heard

[@isaachenson3683]

Yes really appreciate the time you took to explain this..Was looking for this exact answer and found it here ..Thank you

[@ClintChance]

great job on explanation! instant subscriber

[@elitedata]

@Mentour Pilot - how many watts does the HF SSB transceiver transmit ? - this is the transceiver used when out of VHF range

[@MegaGabriel2013]

Very nice video, as always!

[@SunnyWu]

Wasn't there research that shows there is always a few people who forget to put their phone on airplane mode or shut it off despite the messages? Even for me I accidentally forgot once from a flight from Shanghai to Hong Kong. I thought it was on airplane mode already but when I got off the plane I noticed the mistake.

[@Lacnez]

Love the videos you make! I have a question, What is the transition from being a military pilot to becoming an airline pilot?

[@antoniodragonheart8965]

That was a thorough answer, thanks, Mr. Pilot.

[@sabrecruz6721]

Despite looking tired, another interesting subject.

[@shanners079]

Absolutely brilliant, thanks for the explanation! New subscribers to your channel!!! I find aeroplane one of the most amazing human inventions ever... and you pilots are incredible!!! 😃

[@StevieW-Steve]

Just watched this video. I am quite amazed as both reasons are something I had not thought of before. Great, informative video, thanks.

[@ChrisLee-yr7tz]

To summarise, we have planes that can fly themselves, robots that can assist with medical operations, the ability to dock a space module with the international space station, have built the large hadron collider to experiment on subatomic particles but nobody is capable of testing whether a mobile phone interferes with aeroplane electronics/communication equipment. Righto.

[@LemontTheFanMan]

wow that makes sense now because of the interference and that's why airplane mode must be turned on when in flight now i understand thanks again.. and i look forward to learning more about planes from you thanks again ..

[@beckyshock3099]

I use air plane mode while on the ground..... while driving, or at times during the day/night when I don't want to be disturbed....

[@KINGSPARKLZE]

Hi Mentour can you explain crew changes. I understand normal crew changes on long haul flights where the captain, first officer and second officer sleep and a new crew comes onto the flight deck to take over, but what do you mean by 'I'm waiting for a crew change' in this video? Are you waiting for another first officer? Sorry about the long question. Thanks, Aaron

[@KINGSPARKLZE]

Thanks Mentour

[@swedflyer4653]

And also, one more factor that might play a role, they want everyone to listen to the safety briefing before the flight and be aware of what is happening around them in case of an emergency. This is why they dim down the lights in takeoff and landing to let the passengers eyes to get used to the light. If everyone is sitting with their mobile phones, as they usually do, while the crew are performing the safety brief, well, not good. But this is just speculations..

[@neutralspace-ishguy]

Aye

[@deydraniadiancecht8298]

I've listened to that thing at least 50 times. I know how to put on a seat belt. I don't have to listen to it every time I get in my car. I'm not going to listen to it when I'm on a plane. I also know how to put on a life vest and inflate it. Oh, and if the oxygen mask comes down? I'll put it on. I don't pay attention to it anymore.

[@bobwarren3898]

The FCC is concerned about the number of cell towers you can raise simultaneously with one call from one phone at any altitude above about 8000 feet...

[@marineboyocean]

You are correct on the first point but incorrect on the second point. Mobile phones do not and can not interfere with the planes instruments in the cabin. I've seen first hand a mobile phone TX and RX upon take off and landing and even at 10,000 feet. totally safe. Your radio in the cockpit has more power TX watts and emits more EMF than any mobile phone which by the way is never closer than 10 metres to the cockpit anyway.

[@deydraniadiancecht8298]

Finally someone who knows what he's talking about!

[@antigen4]

there have been studies which show there is ZERO 'interference' with avionics - there's even a little documentary somewhere here on youtube i saw a few years back... it's not an issue.

[@papuv666]

Thank you for answer.

[@clairekane8668]

BEST EXPLANATIONS! I HAVE EVER HEARD BTW IM 11 YEARS OLD AND I WANNA BECOME A PILOT I SPEND MY HOLIDAY WATCHING VIDEOS.........TY

[@lisaschuster9187]

I wasn’t expecting this to be so interesting!

[@scottcurrier1094]

For anyone who cares, a phone, computer, or other similar device is an incidental radiator. Just turning one of those devices on will raise the noise floor over a wide range of frequencies. Some spurious signals may be quite strong. Let's hope they aren't between 108 and 136 mHz. Turn on a lot of these devices in a metal tube and the noise floor and go quite high. Fortunately the antennas that the plane uses are on the outside which chops the noise down and minimizes the problem.

[@BlackEpyon]

The FCC regulating cellphones on aircraft makes sense from the perspective of tower hopping. The airlines however? I could be wrong, and I'd be happy to be corrected, but if you're getting interference from the passenger's electronic devices, it means the plane manufacturer did a poor job of shielding their electronic systems and control cables, which the FCC requires everybody to do anyways, because they require that YOUR electronic product doesn't interfere with other people's electronic products. Even for the sake of shedding weight, I can't imagine any airline manufacturer being stupid enough not to shield their electronic systems, or even just the signal cables that run along the aircraft. You might expect to hear blips from a radio if you put a cellphone near it, but it ought not effect the antennas, because due to the fuselage of the aircraft being made out of aluminum, the communication and radar antennas will be mounted outside, insulated from the fuselage with a rubber grommet or something similar, and therefor be shielded against any radio signals coming from inside the passenger cabin. Domestic gadgets aren't permitted, per FCC regulations, to emit in frequencies used by Airband anyways. There was a time, back in the 70's and 80's, when computers and other electronic gadgets weren't shielded. Then the FCC took notice of all the stray radio noise from these electronic devices, and now they ARE shielded. Even devices with plastic chassis will have a metallic spray on the inside to act as a shielding, and they had this back in the 90's. The radar of the plane may potentially pick up microwave signals, but if anything, it'd be from outside the aircraft, coming from the cell towers below, or active radar from another source. Unless of course, the instrument panels aren't properly shielded. And unless you're sitting next to the windows, I don't see how you'd get a cell signal through the fuselage of the aircraft anyways. So if the instruments are picking up noise, it would be coming from outside the aircraft where the antennas are mounted, or from the radar mounted beneath the nosecone. I'm happy to be corrected, but this sounds like the same level of paranoia as not using a cellphone at a gas station for fear that the microwaves emitted would ignite the vapors. The cell towers have saturated the gas station with microwaves already, so it's not like that's going to make a difference. You're more likely to ignite the vapors from a static discharge. Gas stations don't have the anti-cellphone signs anymore either. Just the same, your microwave oven isn't going to nuke your testicles from standing next to it, because the wavelength of the microwave is larger than the diameter of the holes of the mesh in the door. Unless you're worried about x-ray, gamma or cosmic radiation, which WILL go through the fuselage regardless, I don't see what the trouble is about. I'm not questioning your experience, Mentour Pilot, or knowledge of the rules. I'm just questioning the clipboard warriors who wrote the regulations. Perhaps better safe than sorry, but it's like helicopter parenting. Many of the things parents are worried about aren't legitimate concerns, and you've got to let your kids grow up some day.

[@vk2ig]

"I'm happy to be corrected." Excellent. Talk to someone who really understands electronics *and* radio propagation. For starters, ask how the wavelength of the mobile phone signals (both intentional and unintentional) mobile phone compares to the circumference of an aircraft window (actually, you don't need to talk to an expert on this one ... after all, if the mobile phone signal from the tower on the ground can get in, then it's highly likely that the signal from the mobile phone in the aircraft can also get out!) Ask about receiver performance in the presence of strong out-of-band signals. Ask about out-of-band spectral components in the mobile phone output signal. Ask about effectiveness of radiofrequency decoupling and bypassing in non-radio frequency aircraft electronics inside the cabin. Ask about how the signals produced by a number of uncorrelated transmitters combine to increase power spectral density in a given frequency band. Ask about local oscillator radiation in receivers. Ask about why a laptop computer and power supply that comply with FCC regulations (at the consumer level) can cause interference to a radio receiver that also complies with its applicable FCC regulations. Ask about the radiofrequency shielding effectiveness of a modern airframe made of composite materials. Ask about intermodulation in the power amplifier stage of a transmitter due to mixing of external radio signals picked up by the antenna. And they're just *some* of the issues you could ask about.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@vk2ig There's some food for thought, thanks. I'm not an RF expert, so I can only speak from my own experience as a hobbiest, and from what IT I've been involved with. I wouldn't think of radiation outgoing from the windows would interfere with the antennas if they're out of line of sight, but I didn't consider that newer craft are made with more composite materials (thought they were all still made of aluminum) outside of the radome). Out-of-band signals, I'm quite aware of, however. Had to deal with that while setting my old school up for Wi-Fi. They were an early adopter of BYOD, and ditched the computer lab for mobile labs (laptops stored in a mobile card for charging, that you just wheel to the classroom). Due to the concrete and cinderblock construction of the building, we needed over a dozen wireless access points, and that number went up considerably when they added the expansion. While setting up the wireless zones, I used software to map out the range and strength of each access point we wanted to place, so I could identify overlap and dead zones. 2.4GHz Wireless channels have overlap with their adjacent channels, so you need to arrange the channels of your zones to minimize the amount of overlap. Channel 1 is 2412MHz, but the modulation carries it between 2401-2423MHz, 2 is 2417MHz, but goes between 2406-2428 MHz, etc. Channel 1 has overlap up to channel 5, which is 2421MHz at the low end, so you'd try to arrange it so that your access point on channel 1 is adjacent to 6, which is adjacent to 11, etc. That also assumes that the WAP hasn't drifted out of spec, which can cause a lot of interference, and a lot of fun trying to figure out WHICH of several WAPs is causing the problem. If you have two access points on the same SSID near each other, both on the same channel, and a device communicating on that channel in the middle (say a laptop), that device will be talking to both WAPs at the same time, but due to the distance, will be talking to the two WAPs out of phase with each other, and that can lead to a LOT of collision between the conflicting signals. Even when they're on separate SSIDs, they can cause interference, and a lot of home users never think to change the channel of their wireless router to something different than their neighbour, or wonder why the wi-fi drops when the microwave goes on. Some newer routers can time the packets between the half-wave rectification the microwave uses, which is kinda neat. Microwave ovens are incredibly dirty, signal wise. One thing that surprised me was the amount of signal reflection around the lockers in the hallways. They shield from one side, as you'd expect, but if the device and the WAP are on the same side of the lockers, you get an out-of-phase reflection, which can have a similar effect as I said above, degradation of signal and packet loss, depending on how busy the network is. I've been out of IT for a number of years now, and the school has since upgraded to a commercial grade Ruckus wi-fi setup, so the newer WAPs may be able to handle that better. Laptop power supplies are typically unshielded, so I can see RF interference from that. One day, I need to rig up and antenna and amplifier to an oscilloscope to see what kind of interference common household devices actually put out. Mine only goes to 100MHz, but it'd still be an interesting experiment. The question is, how much interference do these devices actually cause? The 2.4GHz band used in so many civilian applications is well outside of anything used by aircraft (so far as I know), and for good reason. Cellphones are a different story, especially in the 5G range. Line-of-sight applies or course, but again, I didn't take into account that the plane would be made of composite materials.

[@vk2ig]

@@BlackEpyon Sounds like you've had some interesting experience with radio frequency devices for networking, and your tale of investigations does credit - it appears that you've looked into it more than the average IT person would have. A few points in response to your post: 1. Interference to out-of-line-of-sight antennas. Whenever an electromagnetic wave at radio frequencies encounters a conductor (whether it be a good or poor conductor), it will induce currents in the surface of that conductor. (The currents flow just under the surface too, and the depth to which they will flow below the surface is called "skin depth", and is inversely proportional to frequency.) These currents will flow along the surfaces of the conductor, and they will themselves radiate electromagnetic waves. This is what happened when you saw reflection of WiFi signals from metal lockers: the electromagnetic wave induced currents in the surface of the locker door, and those currents caused another electromagnetic wave to be radiated from the surface of the door. (Incidentally, it so happens that for good conductors the electric field component of the radiated wave is anti-phase to that of the incident wave, as the tangential electric field value at the conductor must be zero, so this gives rise to a 180 degree phase shift between the incident and reflected waves.) If the conductor is curved, e.g. like the outer metal skin of an aircraft, those currents will flow along the surface around the curve. The currents will flow in every direction possible along the surface, radiating as they go. (Obviously the current density drops off as the distance from the incident wave increases.) So it's possible for electromagnetic waves to be radiated by a surface current and affect an antenna which is not line-of-sight to the antenna which gave rise to the incident electromagnetic wave. A classic example of this effect is a conical horn antenna used at microwave frequencies (and by that I don't mean "microwave oven" frequencies): make the bicone angle too acute and currents will flow on the outside surface of the horn (and electromagnetic waves will be radiated from the outside surface of the horn), even though there is no external electromagnetic wave arriving from elsewhere to excite those currents. (Incidentally, that's not how you want a horn antenna to operate - you want to restrict the currents to the inside surface of the horn so that it launches a plane wave along the axis of the horn.) 2. Frequencies used by mobile phones. These aren't restricted to the 2.5 GHz ISM (or "hash") band where WiFi often operates. Google "LTE frequency bands" and look at all the frequencies! 3. Non-linear effects. With regard to surface currents; to compound matters, if the surface is not continuous, but is made of overlapping sheets (quite typical of aluminium-skinned aircraft), then the thin oxide layer between the sheets acts as an insulator, implementing a form of diode through which these currents will flow. This will give rise to some form of rectification. A basic rule is whenever a waveform is changed non-linearly (e.g. by rectification), then the frequency spectrum of that waveform will also change. So, you can get frequency multiplication, e.g. doubling, tripling, etc; and also intermodulation where two currents at different signals give rise to currents at sum and difference frequencies, or three frequencies give to even more complex sum and difference frequencies, and so on. Some of these spurious frequencies (as they're referred to) could be at the input frequency ranges of certain aircraft radio systems. Consider this in terms of all the LTE frequencies in 2 above, and a number of phones operating on different frequencies inside an aircraft cabin. 4. Is a short circuit always a short circuit? Aircraft metal structures are electrically bonded together, but this is not necessarily effective at radio frequencies. The bonding is mainly for static dissipation. The aircraft accumulates static charge as it moves through the air, and this shouldn't be allowed to build up differentially on separate parts of the aircraft and then discharge suddenly in the form or an arc, causing possible damage or disruption to electrical and electronic systems. Also, bonding helps ensure that lightning currents are passed around sensitive components such as bearings supporting moveable flight surfaces, etc. But the bonding straps have a finite length, and these will not look like electrical short circuits at radio frequencies. Consider a transmission line consisting of two parallel conductors which are not connected to anything at one end and connected to a radio frequency source at the other - if this is an odd multiple of 1/4 wavelength long, then the radio frequency source will see a short circuit, whereas if it is any multiple of 1/2 wavelength long then it will see an open circuit. So similarly with a single wire - the electrical length (in wavelengths) of a bonding wire can make a direct current or low frequency short circuit look like an open circuit at certain radio frequencies. Thus two pieces of metal bonded by a wire strap might actually act as two separate conductors at radio frequencies, i.e one piece of aluminium acts like a patch antenna even though it's part of the aircraft skin. 5. Out of band response of radio receivers. Yes, aircraft electronics are not designed to receive energy from mobile devices (operating at any of the LTE frequencies discussed in 2 above). But how good is the front-end filtering of the receivers based on the designer's assumptions of the proximity of nearby transmitters operating on other frequencies? Here are some examples I've seen: - 14 GHz transmitter completely "flattening" a 12 GHz receiver. This was due out-of-band emissions from the transmitter being high enough in level to swamp the input circuits of the receiver. Solution: install a bandpass filter on the transmitter output which limited the signals at 12 GHz. - A receiver designed for 7 GHz kept failing when a nearby 8 GHz transmitter was operated. The receiver had a very good lowpass filter at its front end designed to reject the 8 GHz signal. The problem was that the 8 GHz transmitter generated some broadband, very low level, spurious emissions all the way down to below 6 GHz. And the receiver designers hadn't counted on energy at that level down to 6 GHz and below coupling into the receiver - their lowpass filter was completely ineffective at 6 GHz. Solution: install bandpass filters (for the respective operating frequencies) on both transmitter output and receiver inputs. - Transmitter on an orbiting satellite caused surface currents to flow in one of the metal panels forming the skin of the satellite body. The joint in the panel caused frequency multiplication which overloaded a receiver operating at a frequency five times higher than the transmitter output frequency! That's a very expensive mistake to make ... None of these transmitters were bad transmitters - all transmitters generate some form of out-of-band spurious emissions, and often the transmitter designer has no control over the nearby environment (e.g. metal structures featuring joints). And the filters on consumer grade electronics are designed to be just good enough to meet the specification ... if the filters are over-designed, then that costs more money, increases the required transmitter power or level of the minimum received signal (all filters exhibit loss, and tighter filters are lossier), etc. In summary, getting into trouble with radio frequency interference is pretty easy to do if all factors aren't considered - especially in multi-transmitter and multi-receiver environments.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@vk2ig Interesting stuff! TL;DR, there's a lot of factors to consider that ordinary people don't think about.

[@vk2ig]

@@BlackEpyon And actually that's my main point, there are a lot of factors to consider that the average person does not know about. But, we are living in an age where the opinion of the person who cleans the floor at the local supermarket has just as much weight as the opinion of the person who has worked in a specialist field for all of their career over a number of decades. We see this almost daily nowadays - it's becoming a matter of not who actually knows most about a given subject, but who can shout loudest. As the old saying goes, "We live in interesting times" ...

[@GamespikeTV]

I really love the new place to do a video, I hope that you do more in your office.

[@GamespikeTV]

+Mentour Pilot yeah. Hey, maybe your co-pilot can do a video with you if he wants. just a idea

[@OatmealDonk]

God, this answers so much, even the thing you mentioned of radios making that noise I never even consider that to be because of phones. :-P You just earned a new subscriber! :-D May I just say though, I've been to the us twice and on the second run when u went on a dreamliner I'm sure we were allowed to use phone a in airplane mode.

[@BrucexfromxCanada]

From Canada: (I am in the Greater Montreal area, roughly about 450 miles north of NYC. (As a passenger) I have flown oin both Canada and the U.S.) multiple times, weather good and bad.) Generally there are 3 possible objections to the use of electronic devices, but each of them has its own time and place to be germane. 1) RFI interference: This is not a concern for the aircraft as such, however there may be times when it could cause issues on the ground due to the spoeed of the aircraft causing problems with the speed of handoff it might create with the cellphone towers. also, it is possible in certain cases that the RFI from cellphones moving at high speeds results in a doppler shift of their frequencies enough to run into problems on the cleephone network. These would be randomly occurring and very difficult to pinpoint effectively enough to defuse the concern, also depending on the rate of change of the distance of the RFI's vector to any tower it may be interacting with moment to moment. 2) Physical risk from the device not being being secured: Any object not secured has this risk, especially in cases of sudden turbulence. This is not limited to electronic devices but any object (such as a cup, saucer,plate, spoon, fork, dining knife, or even an unsecured passenger) which could become a dangerous projectile. 3) Interpersonal Nuisance: If a passenger is using any device in a manner that creates an unruly or annoying nuoisance, annoyance is annoyance. However Compliants of annoyance can also be unjustifed or "frivolous" seeking more to discriminate against persons whose personal choices may be more seen for differences in race, creed or colour, etc. Thus is where cabin crews' training need to show great judiciousness, and do only what is needed to prevent exacerbation, also preventing anyone else from attempting to misuse their efforts in any exacerbative way. Generaslly this should not be enough to warrant banning all use of electronic devices, however if enough ofa plne's passengers should become involved in an episode of rowdiness or unruliness that there is not other option left, the captain and/or cabin crew might well stop the use of whatever may be necessary in order to return order. If a fliht became that unruly, or even before it had escalated to that degree, likely the captain will make a descent so police can intervene effectively.

[@holobolo1661]

I'm not sure the second talking point is correct, I believe it's more so to do with readiness in case of emergency, which is why you can't use and PEDs in critical phases of flight.

[@coosk0110]

Thank you -from south Korea

[@alexfajardo7363]

are u spanish?

[@taybatarek982]

Thank you for answering my questions

[@hengvlogs523]

How many time pilot flies an aircraft per day? Where are they going after landing at airport in another country?

[@annasstorybox7906]

Heng Vlogs interesting question. Does a pilot get visa for each country he could possibly be send to by his airline?

[@anthonysantos876]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR...

[@MultiSciGeek]

Makes a lot more sense now. I wish airlines would explain this things. In this case using a mobile phone is fine as long as it's on airplane mode

[@BrucexfromxCanada]

There are a few exceptions to the use of airplane mode: 1) During takeoff and landing it may be unsafe as the crew want your exclusive attention available during these most dangerous parts of a flight. They do not want your attention lost in an electronic device at such times for safety reasons. 2) Sometimes, without warning a flight may encounter a dangerous situation. This does not necessarily mean that anything wrong has happened to the aircraft, but that could also at time be a reason. More likely is having flown into or being in imminent danger of flying into turbulence. If the pilot is in the proximity of inclement weather, his radar normally will map the severity and location of the storm(s) PPI style (Plan Position Indicator). However clear air turbulence gives no warning to anyone and can appear very suddenly. clear air turbulence can also be just as violent as turbulence from storm cells. Turbulence can easily be violent enough that if you had a Laptop on your Lap, it could easily go flying, bounce of the ceiling and come down elsewhere, potentially jeopardizing others. This is why if a pilot suspects a danger of turbulence he will normally light the "fasten you seat belts" light and warn the cabin crew to what to expect.

[@mathiazlcsgo935]

When we were approaching oslo this summer the crew said that every P.E.D needed to be turned off because the pilots were doing only instrumental landing because of fog.

[@reo4540]

Awesome video! Thank you for explaining :)

[@bhattacp]

I have heard that quite a few persons from the ill fated aircrafts on 9/11 phoned to their near and dear ones about the impending doom. How it was possible?

[@JamBos11]

Thank you for the excellent question

[@SorinNicu]

I see people constantly checking their Facebook and such while taking off because they are addicted. They can't even comprehend that applies to them.

[@VelovedChannel]

Thanks capt., your explanation is inspiring for me. Love it👍

[@emo65170.]

Makes sense. Thanks for the lucid explanation.

[@cedricescobia3035]

i plan of becoming a pilot but i think i would never have a chance to because a lot of people say that it is so expensive. i lived here in the Philippines where the salary of my parents isn't that great that why im quite hesitant to even try it. maybe you could probably give me an advice about this issue. THanks :)

[@t2nz]

Could always join the Philippines airforce and get them to pay for the training. Will be slower road to a commercial pilot and lots of competition, but if you are determine and it is what you want to do.

[@user-bd2id5yf9g]

I'd like to know why we can't use simple camcorders on board to film the take off, flying and landing experience? Camcorders or mobile phones on Flight Mode, surely cannot cause interference.

[@DailyEvil]

Average range of cell phone to cell tower: 1 mile, maybe 2 maximum. Flying at 30,000 feet = about 6 miles. So, even if you were allowed..... there's very little chance you could communicate. (Besides cell tower antennas are optimized to receive signals in a horizontal direction, and are bad at picking up signals *above* them).

[@henrietteweeber3845]

Thank you for your clair explaining abouth the mobil devices

[@JRCarReviews]

It would be nice if you could do and update on this matter, since now phones are allowed over WiFi.

[@BrucexfromxCanada]

Updates are arriving all the time, but the only way to avoid the risk of an oddball problem is to follow what you are told onboard. True this can end up being somewhat self-serving along with all that's legit, but if passengers don't like that risk they do not have to fly. This is common sense, so it behooves the aviation industry to minimise restrictions to what is necessary, not to lose business, but, as Mentour said, they can't take any chances with flight safety - always the priority.

[@BrucexfromxCanada]

As for the marker updates, One relatively new low cost cellphone provicer from Miami is providing a nice line of cellphines - largely Android based, dual sim, and factory unlocked. In Canada, I have bought several of these over time, and the one I use now does as well as any in its price range. If a person travels they then can obtain an account from a second provider as needed and so adapt to their needs in another country. Canada has also enacted a new law regarding locked and unlocked cellphones. As of December 1, 2017, all such devices must be factory unlocked to be allowed for sale, and no provider will have the right to charge for unlocking a device. Also in Canada, contracts for residential communications services are illegal. However if a client has sighed up for a plan that includes other promotional benefits and/or the time payment of a device, that device's residual cost must still be paid when terminating, making that part of the deal much like buying ontime/credit - a more expensive way of obtaining a device than a client might think. Better to buy a factory unlocked device outright, and separate from any provider. On that, maybe Mentour (in Spain) or others in various European countries might comment if they have seen Sky Devices' devices on sale in Europe or the U.K.

[@Warriorking.1963]

I just find it funny when they were making the TV show "Airline" for UK TV, they allowed passengers to use their mobile phones inflight, to let their friends and family on the ground know there was a TV crew on the aircraft, shooting something such as a wedding proposal. It was seeing this that got me asking, did the TV production company wave a magic wand, so the dangers mobile phones pose, suddenly vanished for the duration of their time onboard?

[@rcole1055]

Just got back to the USA from the Philippines via Qatar Airways, saw several people on their phones during descent, I do not know if they were in airplane mode or not, but the flight attendants were just walking by seemingly not caring to ask if they were. My question, can the cabin crew tell if a phone is on and transmitting during the takeoff and descending phases?

[@GonzaloAlvarezWoodCat]

The time pass and the things changes... In our country after some years we are allowed to use our PED during the flight, but not in the landing or takeoff sequences. At the end is not that bad. For me is not to receive/send a call/sms/messages is to write things, see pictures, etc.

[@technodaz]

You can and have been able to make calls on some flights even from 2012 on in the EU, I remember going to Slovakia in 2013 and I was calling people .....47 euro for three calls but totally worth it.

[@ph11p3540]

I frequently see passengers using smart phones and tablets on an Air Canada or West Jet flight. All they care about is the all the antennas shut off (airplane mode) they only ask passengers to shut the phones antennas off during takeoff or landing. Both airlines are now installing Wifi on their newer aircraft. I do not know if the WiFi will be an aircraft localized network or if it will feature satellite network up/down linking. They certainly can't use cell towers as it might introduce roaming issues. Unfortunately satellite up linking is very, very expensive if the signal is only used by one or a handful of passenger.

[@CZbanhof]

I flew to Madrid with Ryanair earlier this year, and I paid attention to mobile phones. I recall how in the past the flight attendants actually would ask a passenger to turn the phone off when they saw one before the take off, or would even take it and turn it off themselves if the passenger didn't comply quick enough. I even had an argument about the flight mode on my Nokia with a flight attendant once around 2010. But now, nobody cares and I sincerely doubt that all the phones out there are actually in the flight mode anyway. Maybe mobiles are now (at least semi-officially) considered safe for the aircraft and its systems?

[@photomakerman]

I am told its due to take off and landing. The most important part of the flight and if there is an incident, people might be less likely to use it.

[@MadScientist512]

I would argue that the prevalence of mobile devices has gone far beyond establishing that they're safe to use presumably something like 99.999999% of the time and trying to prove a negative isn't possible; it really feels like superstition about electronics at this point, possibly even holding back adoption of some more reliable and capable newer technology as I've seen one article suggest. That said, I'd trust those mechanical switches in that cockpit over more modern ones from the local electronics store :)

[@sniperz123]

"Sitting in the office" naaaise :)

[@dionnefrancis-brown1533]

I thought by using a mobile phone or any other device i.e. laptop during the critical stages of flight - take off and landings - that these (prior to having flight mode device), that the phones etc interfered with the radio frequency between the plane and ATC (Air Traffic Control).

[@rafaelalodio5116]

Is there a big difference between piloting an Airbus and a Boeing?

[@scottfranco1962]

No sale. Everything on the aircraft, laptops, phones, other electronics are generating plenty of radiation. Avionics are not that sensitive. The FAA has left it up to each aircraft captain to allow or forbid cellphones. I don't turn my cellphone off in flight and have much the same equipment in my private aircraft as you do. Cellphones just aren't very useful in flight, the reception is spotty. In high altitude aircraft that is far worse. Ground stations are not that easy to interfere with by fast flying cellphones. If it were true, they could easily block your phone. At the end of the day, we are going to end up where the aircraft provides a "micro cell" that gives people on the aircraft essentially a cellphone tower on the aircraft itself.

[@carultch]

What about receive-only radio devices? Like headphone radios? Is there any explanation as to why these would be problematic for passengers to use on an aircraft?

[@1962Lespaul]

Imagine being stuck on an airplane for 3 hours with 20 people around you, all talking on their phones and trying to talk over the other conversations. Like being on a seventh grade field trip. The flight crews don't want to spend the whole trip trying to break up the inevitable fights and arguments .

[@ZachBillings]

In my experience in the US, phones are always allowed to be used as long as they're in airplane mode. Didn't know that was an FCC rule though. I thought it was just precautionary because of unknown/unlikely interference.