READING PASSAGE 2
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-26
Questions 14-26, which are based on Reading Passage
2 below.
Flight from reality
Mobiles are barred, but passengers can lap away on their laptops to their hearts’ content. Is
one really safer than the other? In the US, a Congressional subcommittee grilled airline
representatives and regulators about the issue last month. But the committee heard that using
cellphones in planes may indeed pose a risk albeit a slight one. This would seem to vindicate
the treatment of Manchester oil worker Neil Whitehouse, who was sentenced last summer to a
year in jail by a British court for refusing to turn off his mobile phone on a flight home from
Madrid. Although he was only typing a message to be sent on landing not actually making a
call, the court decided that hems putting the flight at risk.
A
The potential for problems is certainly there. Modern airliners are packed with electronic
devices that control the plane and handle navigation and communications. Each has to meet
stringent safeguards to make sure it doesn’t emit radiation that would interfere with other
devices in the plane-standards that passengers’ personal electronic devices don’t necessarily
meet. Emissions from inside the plane could also interfere with sensitive antennae on the fixed
exterior.
B
But despite running a number of studies, Boeing, Airbus and various government agencies
haven’t been able to find clear evidence of problems caused by personal electronic devices,
including mobile phones. “We’ve done our own studies. We’ve found cellphones actually have
no impact on the navigation system,” says Maryanne Greczyn, a spokeswoman for Airbus
Industries of North America in Herndon, Virginia, Not do they affect other critical systems, she
says The only impact Airbus found? “Sometimes when a passenger is starting or finishing a
phone call, the pilot hears a wry slight beep in the headset,” she says.
page 6
Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices
C
The best evidence yet of a problem comes from a report released this year by Britain’s Civil
Aviation Authority. Its researchers generated simulated cellphone transmissions inside two
Boeing aircraft. They concluded that the transmissions could create signals at a power and
frequency that would not affect the latest equipment, but exceeded the safety threshold
established in 1984 and might, therefore, affect some of the older equipment on board. This
doesn’t mean “mission critical” equipment such as the navigation system and flight controls.
But the devices that could be affected, such as smoke detectors and fuel level indicators, could
still create serious problems for the flight crew if they malfunction.
D
Many planes still use equipment certified to the older standards, says Dan Hawkes, head of
avionics at the CAA’s Safely Regulation Croup. The CAA study doesn’t prove the equipment
will actually fail when subjected to the signals but does show there’s a danger. “We’ve taken
some of the uncertainty out of these beliefs,” he says Another study later this year will see if
the cellphone signals actually cause devices to fail.
E
In 1996, RTCA, a consultant hired by the Federal Aviation Administration in the US to conduct
tests, determined that potential problems from personal electronic devices were “low”.
Nevertheless, it recommended a ban on their use during “critical” periods of flight, such as take-
off and landing. RTCA didn’t actually test cellphones, but nevertheless recommended their
wholesale ban on flights, But if “better safe than sorry” is the current policy, it’s applied
inconsistently, according to Marshall Cross, the chairman of Mega Wave Corporation, based in
Boylston, Massachusetts. Why are cellphones outlawed when no one considers a ban on
laptops? “It’s like most things in life. The reason is a little bit technical, a little bit economic and
a little bit political,” says Cross.
F
The company wrote a report for the FAA in 1998 saying it is possible to build an on-board
system that can detect dangerous signals from electronic devices. But Cross’s personal
conclusion is that mobile phones aren’t the real threat. “You’d have to stretch things pretty far
to figure out how a cellphone could interfere with a plane’s systems,” he says. Cellphones
transmit in ranges of around 400, 800 or 1800 megahertz. Since no important piece of aircraft
equipment operates at those frequencies, the possibility of interference is very low, Cross says.
The use of Computers and electronic game systems is much more worrying, lie says. They can
generate very strong signals at frequencies that could interfere with plane electronics,
especially if a mouse is attached {the wire operates as an antenna or if their built-in shielding is
somehow damaged. Some airlines are even planning to put sockets for laptops in seatbacks.
G
page 7
Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices
There’s fairly convincing anecdotal evidence that some personal electronic devices have
interfered with systems. Aircrew on one flight found that the autopilot was being disconnected,
and narrowed the problem down to a passenger’s portable computer. They could actually
watch the autopilot disconnect when they switched the computer on. Boeing bought the
computer, took it to the airline’s labs and even tested it on an empty flight. But as with every
other reported instance of interference, technicians were unable to replicate the problem.
H
Some engineers, however, such as Bruce Donham of Boeing, say that common sense suggests
phones are more risky than laptops. “A device capable of producing a strong emission is not as
safe as a device which does not have any intentional emission,” lie says. Nevertheless, many
experts think it’s illogical that cellphones are prohibited when computers aren’t. Besides, the
problem is more complicated than simply looking at power and frequency. In the air, the plane
operates in a soup of electronic emissions, created by its own electronics and by ground-based
radiation. Electronic devices in the cabin-especially those emitting a strong signal-can behave
unpredictably, reinforcing other signals, for instance, or creating unforeseen harmonics that
disrupt systems.
I
Despite the Congressional subcommittee hearings last month, no one seems to be working
seriously on a technical solution that would allow passengers to use their phones. That’s mostly
because no one -besides cellphone users themselves-stands to gain a lot if the phones are
allowed in the air. Even the cellphone companies don’t want it. They are concerned that
airborne signals could cause problems by flooding a number of the networks’ base stations at
once with the same signal This effect, called bigfooting, happens because airborne cellphone
signals tend to go to many base stations at once, unlike land calls which usually go to just one
or two stations. In the US, even if FAA regulations didn’t prohibit cellphones in the air, Federal
Communications Commission regulations would.
J
Possible solutions might be to enhance airliners’ electronic insulation or to fit detectors which
warned flight staff when passenger devices were emitting dangerous signals. But Cross
complains that neither the FAA, the airlines nor the manufacturers are showing much interest
in developing these. So despite Congressional suspicions and the occasional irritated (or jailed)
mobile user, the industry’s “better safe than sorry” policy on mobile phones seems likely to
continue. In the absence of firm evidence that the international airline industry is engaged in a
vast conspiracy to overcharge its customers, a delayed phone call seems a small price to pay
for even the tiniest reduction in the chances of a Plane Crash. But you’ll still be allowed to use
your personal computer during a flight. And while that remains the case, airlines can hardly
claim that logic has prevailed.
page 8
Access https://ieltsonlinetests.com for more practices
|