Letters
4th March 2008
The following was published in Flight International:
777 crash: phone may be to blame
I came across a recent incident on a B747 -
"During the climb with the autopilot and autothrust engaged, the indicated airspeed increased to above the commanded airspeed and required pilot intervention to prevent exceedence. It required 2 or 3 interventions, as it failed to remain at the commanded speed.
We were given a 'direct to' and initially the autopilot flew the aircraft the opposite way, again requiring pilot intervention"
It was reported to the Captain that a passenger in business class would not switch off his mobile phone, so the Captain had to confront him to make him do so. Thereafter the aircraft behaved normally.
Now, if a single mobile telephone can apparently affect a B747 and cause it to increase speed over that selected, then could one or more mobile telephones being switched on during the recent B777 Heathrow accident, perhaps cause the reverse to occur? Is it possible that the engine fuel control software caused the engines to throttle back and prevented them from increasing power to retain the set speed, solely due to interference from one or more mobile telephones?
One should bear in mind that the general public pays scant attention to the safety announcements concerning mobile telephones and from research it has been proven that some mobiles, due to poor quality control during manufacture, can emit up to ten times more power than they are designed to emit.
I hope and believe the AAIB investigation into the B777 accident will be addressing this possibility because there is incontrovertible proof that mobiles can and do affect aircraft systems and is the reason why, in the UK, their use was banned in the mid 1990's.
With a number of major airlines now attempting to push towards almost unrestricted use of passenger cell phones in flight, could this accident possibly be the wake-up call to the Industry that a great deal more research and work needs to be done to guarantee the integrity of all aircraft systems before the formal and unrestricted use of mobile telephones onboard is permitted?
Yours faithfully
Capt Russ Williams FRAES
Chairman., Air Safety Group, UK
26th August 2006
The following was published in The Times:
Sensible cabin baggage limits
Sir, As the security risk has recently been downgraded and the travelling public is adapting to a far more stringent security regime than ever before, now would seem to be an appropriate time to reconsider the whole subject of what is allowed to be carried into the aircraft cabin.
For many years the Air Safety Group has been concerned at the increasing amount of carry-on baggage, including large numbers of duty-free bottles, that seem to have become the norm. Recent actions of charging for checked in baggage by at least one low-cost carrier have made the situation even worse.
We suggest two courses of action that should now be introduced as permanent measures. First, all future carry-on cabin baggage should be strictly limited to one item per person, the maximum size being that currently allowed (0.16m x 0.35m x 0.45m) and secondly, intended purchases ordered at the airport of departure and/or on the aircraft, in particular of duty-free bottles, should be collected at the final destination airport.
These practical measures to reduce carry-on baggage would involve no change to airport facilities. Insisting that "duty-free" be purchased or collected on arrival would maintain the airlines’ sales with the bonus of them not having to carry a large number of bottles and other items throughout the flight. The reduced amount of cabin clutter would improve both the comfort and overall safety of the passengers, especially during an emergency evacuation.
CAPTAIN R. WILLIAMS
Chairman, Air Safety Group
Taunton
