Slashdot Mirror
Cellphones On Airplanes
Bonker writes "According to this USAToday article two companies, AirCell, and Verizon, are developing technology to let airline passengers safely use cellphones while in flight. The system would block frequencies normally used by cellphones and force cell customers to 'roam' on the new network. Saftey concerns aside, I thought that a plane cabin was the one place I would never have to deal with people who won't quit talking on the phone."
Presumably this also means that if you're using their "cell", they can charge you what they like. I can see their motivation ...
Meep meep
Last time I was on a plane, they didn't let me use my laptop for who knows why...
What is there to "deal" with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to "deal" with people talking to the person next to them?
Are you just upset about only being able to eavesdrop on one side of the conversation?
Can you hear me now?
Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate? Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS).
What?
I tend to whack people talking on cellphones during moview with a stick. Sitting on a plane with people all around you talking to their phones and not being able to whack them may get a little frustrating...
I have no problem with allowing cell phone use on airplanes. The problem is when they expect to use them IN the airplane. When they do that, then they need to allow me to carry a stun gun.
Of course, this could just be the airlines' new version of the mile-high clubs' "fuck or walk".
What about roaming?
i wonder how much will they charge you if u have to use thier network. i hope the charge 10 bucks a minute cause i would really like to have some sleep on a long flight. some poeple who i seen using handphones sometimes thinks that they are the only one in that public space.
What about the pilots? Will they have to use hands free models? :)
What about harmonics? Any length of wire or any metallic structure in the vehicle's chassis will act as a tuned antenna and pick up (or create) harmonics. This is the real risk. A benign use of a particular frequency can create unintentional interference on another.
This so-called "solution" looks like more of a money-making scheme than a safety system to me.
I wouldn't worry about cell phones while on a plane
Read here why
Planes have had cell phones built right into the seats for quite some time now.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Keep in mind, my cell phone is one of those dumb "Buy the minutes as you use em" kinda things, which is a good deal seeing as how I only have to spend $15 every 90 days, as opposed to $30/month for the 10 minutes I generally use the phone.
bin Laden alive in Afghanistan 70-1
bin Laden alive in D.C. 2-5
Dick Cheney Resigns To Play Dr. Strangelove
In The Movie 2-1
George W. Bush Re-"elected" 4-1
Jeb Bush Re-"elected" 10-1
Giants Win World Series 2002 4-1
Angels Win World Series 2002 2-1
John Katz Found Looking For Commodore-64 in
Afghanistan 1-2
Anyone who's willing to pay $3.99/minute roaming charges just to say "Hey! I'm flying over your house!" deserves a swift kick in the crotch.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
When on a cross-country flight this past december on JetBlue airlines, they specifically told us that we were permitted to use cell phones once we got above 10,000 ft.
People were using them during the whole flight. They would get constantly cut off and have to re-connect as we went over areas that didn't have service.
So, I don't get this whole thing. Every other airline specifically has said that cell phones need to be off once they close the cabin door. If it works for one, why not all the rest? What does the FAA or FCC have to say about all this?
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
1) Rule against using the phone during the movie, uless you have 2)
2) Possible "phone booth" where you can use your phone and not piss off everyone around you. This could be 1/2 the size of a regular phone booth for all I care. I know space is a huge issue on planes, so I don't know if this would work. What about where they have the existing "Air Phones"? You should have to go there to use your phone.
I think the airlines are looking for some
I was on a flight once where they didn't serve peanuts to anybody because there was one person somewhere in the plance who was alergic to them. Made an announcement and everything!
So can I keep everybody on my flight from using their phones because my doctor tells me that cell phone radiation is bad for me? If so, I'm scheduling an appointment right now. I'm sure I can find a doctor who will give me a note.
I guess my only hope is that the charges for the network you're allowed to use in the air are as high as the AirPhone ones. Maybe that'll keep these fools off of their phones.
As an alternative to using your mobile phone, the airline mobile provider will allow you to send a text message for a nominal cost.
While this move could be welcomed by consumers, especially businessmen, I think there are numerous security issues to be addressed.
Electronic devices can be modified to create interference. Terrorists could use such devices to interfere with navigation. Today, if someone uses a cellphone on a plane, they are easilty identified and stopped. What would happen if there were 30-40 users, and the plane's systems experienced interference from one of them?
Another reason may seem a little stupid, but it could be easy to hide weapons in electronics. With increased use, again, detection becomes more difficult and cumbersome.
Finally, terrorists could concievably use the technology to execute strikes more efficiently. I realize that potential use by terrorists is the worst way to justify blocking a technology, but this new idea seems to have no tangible benefits.
Once upon a time, every plane I got onto had an AirFone on it (or some other competitor), and charged like $1/min for use, but was safe to use while the plane was in the air.
When I took an AA flight from SAT to ORD last week, there were little stickers on all of them that said "Service disabled effective March 31, 2002."
It seems like the already-existing equipment is a better alternative than spending the money building out yet another network, plus rolling out yet another round of handsets, if for no other reason than the charges are going to wind up being about the same.
What gives with yet another silly competitor?
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
This proposed systems would probably be controllable from the cockpit as well, and could easily make any cell phone on the plane inoperable. Maybe that is what the control oriented security freaks want, but I think it has many dangers.
Besides, I hate when calls drop, so lets use Linux instead.
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
"The system would block frequencies normally used by cellphones and force cell customers to 'roam' on the new network."
;)
Say which? How can one "roam" AND be on an abnormal frequency???
In any event, I guess their saying they will turn an airplane into an in-flight cell tower. Personally I get my share of EMF without a cell phone but that aside...
Sounds like a good business model. Planes are increasingly boring. THey can just slow down the flight a tad bit, and watch the chatting ramp up...It will likely feel like being in the NT stock exchange. Ugh.
$50 extra to be in the cell phone section.
$75 extra to be in the NO cell phone section.
This is all nonsense about mobile phones being dangerous to airplane communications. There have been lots of articles regarding this subject. One of many by John Dvorak who said "And I already mentioned the restrictions placed on cell phones in airplanes. There is no evidence that mobile phones interfere with communications. This just amplifies an atmosphere of utter stupidity and senseless rules that makes us all dumber. Logic, common sense, and science are shoved aside in favor of mysterious edicts derived from fear, lack of knowledge, New Age mumbo-jumbo, and superstition. Welcome to America, 2002."
Also, if they were so dangerous, they would collect the phones at security like guns and knives.. its just a big scam. There are many articles on the subject.
One of the John Dvorak articles is here.
There many more if you do a google search.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
By "roaming" all they really mean is that they are forcing you to pay inflated prices because you are in a captive market when you are on an airplane. How do they propose to block the normal frequencies without active jamming? If they are using active jamming, then why would it be unsafe to use normal phones anyway? Smells like a scam to me. Creating more *reliable* service with a new range of in-air cellular frequencies is one thing, but doing it under the auspices of safety like this is pretty tounge-in-cheek.
All phones look pretty much the same... Something you hold to your ear alongside your face. How do they plan on identifying "normal" phones from the phones that can be used in-flight unless they are in some way actively blocking the other frequencies from use?
Anyway, the only really truly nice thing that can come from this is that whatever technology they develop to shoehorn people into paying inflated prices for cellular service while they sit in an airplane cabin could likely be adopted to things like movie theaters - your phone rings in the movies, for instance, and you owe the theater's private cellular network $5 and $2/min while you blabber. It would make people think twice before they allow their obnoxiousness to annoy everyone else, but still provide for emergency use and whatnot.
While they are at it with adding some cell standards, they should also allow for some sort of device that would force a cell phone that is in-range of the device to vibrate, go silent (if it can't vibrate) - or at least switch to the lowest ring volume. Now *that* would be a nice idea.
~GoRK
If it weren't for the ubiquitous cellphones: 1) another plane would have crashed in washington 2) more collumbine kids would have dies 3) People would not have been able to say their last words to their loved one before they jumped from the burning tower. but I guess you being annoyed is more important than being able to contact people in an emergency.
Out east I'm note sure, but when a plane is at cruising altitude you are not going to get a standard cell tower signal, I'm sure it would be the old "only after 10,000 feet" rule for the phones on planes as well.
I have yet to figure out why the airlines are so "scared" of electronics, if the RF output of my Visor or some kids GameBoy is enough to bring the plane down there is a serious problem, who needs a box cutter...."I have a GameBoy and I'm not afraid to use it!"
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
The problem I see here is that people's ears get messed up on airplanes. You know how you have to "pop" your ears after you land to hear properly. What I have noticed is that when a plane lands and everyone turns their cell phones on, they yell really loudly because they cannot hear well. Is this going to be a problem during the flight, too; or, is it only a problem after the landing. I don't mind people talking on phones, but a plane full of yelling people would not be very pleasant.
They will Ban them again, not for safety reasons but 'for the comfort of other passangers'. I would choose an airline with a 'no-cellphone' policy. especially on long haul flights.
So radio signals aren't to blame for screwing with the navigational and computer systems of commercial aircraft. This development basically contradicts everything major Airlines have said to prevent the use of mobile phones on flights.
More frigtening would be the prospect of electronic companies develping "airplane-safe" electronics, such as radio-signal free CD players, PDAs, laptops, etc. What's to stop airlines from demanding passengers from purchasing "safe" products and completely banning mainstream electronics on planes, and in return making us pay more money for redundent electronics? The development of such items would be a cash cow, targeting those who travel often, but are routinely forced to turn off our MD Walkmans and laptops because the flight attendent thinks it's going to screw with the electronics in the cockpit.
Just think: "I'm sorry sir, but that's not a United Airlines Sony walkman. We can't permit you using that on the flight sir. Please go to the airport gift shop and buy a $400 new walkman."
------
Amadaeus
The last bastion of Mathie-ism
Of course, it'll never happen. God forbid anyone should take away people's God-given right to use a cell phone.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Most of the cell phones sold in USA have to be approved by FCC. What does this approval when one cannot use the cell phone in a plane or in a hospital. Thereason given is that it interferes with plane's communication. Well, why is it approved by FCC then??
Funny, you fly in a Gulfstream or other smaller Lear jet type planes and the CEOs aka "rich people" are talking up a storm on their cellphones. Why is it you can use your cell phone on a Gulfstream but not a 727 or 737 or other big jet? They are less shielded than a Gulfstream?
I read somewhere that one reason the phone companies have tried to keep people from using cellphones on flights is when the call is made from the air it's hard to track it for billing purposes and many times the customer wouldn't get charged at all.
I can see Cell Phones turning into the same sort of thing that smoking becoming.
:)
Can't smoke on the plane, can't smoke in some restaurants (not that I'm complaining). I think they should establish the same rules, considering joe user isn't curtious enough to NOT talk on the phone at "place public location here".
Can't smoke on the plane, shouldn't talk on a cellphone on the plane. It's an invation of my person space!
R4NT.com - A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
...allahambra-allahmdu wallawally...in the name of Allah our RDX packet will explode in...5...4...3...2...1.... KABOOOMMM!!!!!
d035 7hi5 100k 1ik3 4n l337 5i6 2 j00 ?
...and everything to do with money. The primary reason they don't want you using cel phones from the air is that the cel networks were never designed with this purpose in mind. The result is a HUGE capacity burden is placed on the network. In stead of a single cel phone using two or maybe three cel towers, suddenly you have one phone using a dozen to two dozen sites. It degrades performance and increases cost for proper and healthy network operation.
This the real reason they don't want you using cel phones from planes. It has NEVER had anything to do with plane safety!
I've never been able to get my phone to work with digital service from the air -- not reliably anyways -- only enough to initate a call and hear it ring. Analog service, on the other hand, I've used many times before. I have no idea why digital doesn't work.
My first question is, does this mean we have to buy new mobile phones? Will all of them be compatible with this forced frequency range? I know my current phone, like many others, works on the following frequencies: 800Mhz for analog and digital, and 1.9GHz for digital. Are they going to force my phone into analog mode? Etc. And how, may I ask will an external system limit my cell phone's power? Are planes going to be specially shielded in some way, because as far as I know a phone doesn't regulate it's own output power, though of that I'm not absolutely certain. Another thing that seems to be left out of the article, is that even if it was possible to lower output and use a few phones safely on a plane, imagine what would happen if even half the compliment of, say 200 passengers, have their cell phones... that's a lot of radio signal emission in a very small area. Planes haven't exactly been known for their system's reliability when exposed to other sources of RF interference. My phone for example emits tons of interference, I can it hear when it's lying next to the phone (landline), it affects un-shielded audio equipment and it has even reduced a TV hooked up to an Xbox to simply static while I was talking, and the thing is a brand new model! I don't see how something like this could really fly, or at least the article is too vague to answer any of my questions.
Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?
Because you can get away with just about any manouver in an airplane as long as you don't do it close to the ground. Continents have the right of way.
Takeoffs and landings require extreme precision, because going about a foot low means destroying the plane and possibly the cockpit crew and many in the cabin. There are a BUNCH of radio-based aids on a large number of frequencies and using a variety of methods - and if the one that's being used to guide the plane at a particular instant is suddenly interfered with, there may be no time to recognize that it's malfunctioning and switch to something else. So screwing up any one of them at a critical moment may result in a landing you don't walk away from, a mid-air collision, or some other mishap.
Similarly, the airport and the space immediately adjacent is a 3D traffic jam, coordinated by radio calls. Garbling even one radio message could result in a collision, in the air or on the ground. (As with highways they have a few even when they're NOT being interfered with. Now imagine highways with an occasional light going all-ways-green...)
Once the plane is AWAY from the space around the airport it has an ENORMOUS space to work in, and considerable time to work with. And there are "lanes" in airspace, as well as a rule that breaks it into stacks of altitude ranges where everything that isn't passing through in a well-known place is going in about the same direction. So if your laptop jams a navigational aid there's time to switch to another. (And if it somehow jams ALL of 'em the crew can run on internal nav and non-radio instruments and avoid other airplanes and mountains until the stew can get you to turn the bloody thing off.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'M ON THE PLANE. No, we havn't taken off yet, ok, ok, I'll see you at about 6. Bye!
who hates cell phones? What posses these people to constantly be rambling on about what they did last night? Oh right....they have a social life.
I've actually chose to sit near the planes engines recently, just to enjoy the increased din.
People don't talk when the plane cabin is really noisy - they shut the hell up beacuse they have a hard time understanding each other, and I can get some sleep.
Especually annoying are people who come form any country remotly close to the equator - for some dumb reason, all those cultures TALK REALLY FUCKING LOUD. WITH THEIR HANDS WAVING. And they jaber about stupid things - LIKE THEIR CHICKNENS OR THEIR LOWERED IMPALA. OR THEIR QUICKY MART.
So for maximum enjoyment of your flight - sit right begind where the jets are attached, next to the skinny Iniut and the blonde Swede - If they do start blabing, at least it will be interesting.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I am going to carry a plastic banana everywhere hanging from my hip like a dildo ready to go, pull it out, yell at it, say "WHAT?" a thousand times, wander in front of people's path, and drive my car like a maniac all while talking to this marvel of technology, my plastic banana. I'm even gonna make it play those annoying fucking ring tones.
"Ooooh, your banana plays it's a hard knock life!"
"Yes peter, the wine does go well with the chicken"
Bcause this is the ME generation. It's all about ME and fuck what you think.
I mean.. How is the flight crew going to tell the difference from an "ok" phone and a "bad" phone? Will they have to take your phone and check if it has some special certificate or what?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"Hello Pizza Hut? I would like a large cheese pizza and some hot wings deleveried to the Atlanta Domestic airport. What....where am I right now? I am about 3,000 feet above North Carolina, but I will be at the airport in 20 minutes."
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Cell phones can transmit at +30 dBm (= 1000 mW). 100 cell phones in the cabin would generate 100 W. Not much, if it's spread over the whole cabin volume, but if cavity resonances or multiple reflections create hot spots, it could be a problem.
Anyone who's willing to pay $3.99/minute roaming charges just to say "Hey! I'm flying over your house!" deserves to pay $3.99/minute roaming charges just to say, "Hey! I'm flying over your house!"
Presumably this also means that if you're using their "cell", they can charge you what they like. I can see their motivation ...
Bingo!
Cell phones bypass the airphone, with its big bill of which the airline gets a cut.
Why should the airline take ANY risk of interference with the flight insturments when it's also costing them money? But they might accept a little when it's both under their control as to interference AND it's PAYING them money.
But I bet part of the impetus comes from the cellphone companies themselves. Using a cellphone in the air works. But on the ground a cellphone is "heard" by only a handfull of cells. In the air it is "heard" by MANY cells, chewing up bandwidth on each - and the SAME chunk of it, making the allocation of channels to calls on the ground difficlut. So even if you're paying for the call you're a net loss to your cell carrier, possibly forcing him to drop several calls by other customers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"I thought that a plane cabin was the one place I would never have to deal with people who won't quit talking on the phone."
I thought I was safe while running the Twin Cities Marathon last month, but I was wrong. On mile five I hear an annoying personalized ring and a "Hello!". The guy next me rigs up his hands free ear piece and starts jabbering away.
Where will it end? Church? Public bathrooms? Theaters? I've heard cell phones in all of them! No place is safe!
So either shield the aircraft systems, increasing cost and weight, or ban them all phones just in case someone on the flight has a novelty antenna.
I love it when a man pretending to be a journalist runs around complaining about a superstition running around pretending to be a law of physics.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
No, that's not why they do it. They do it because every cellphone is constantly broadcasting a signal to a tower saying, "I'm here! " and the tower transmits one that says "I'm available for calls!". When you're at 30,000 feet, and moving at 600 MPH, you're broadcasting to many towers at the same time. That makes a significant load on the network compared to a user on the ground. It's more expensive for cell phone companies to handle calls to/from aircraft.
Somehow it seems like it is a God-given right to use a cellphone everywhere, may it annoy everybody else around or not. Just try shouting words at random without a cellphone in your hand while riding a bus or sitting in a plane. It wont be long before you get on somebody's else nerves and something bad happens (read : get your ass kicked). So why would it be different with a cellphone? Face it, you dont need to place that call. And nobody around you wants to hear you brag to your buddy that you sold your worldcom stocks before it went down the drain, specially when you have to yell like a freakin' madman. Cellphones are evil (as in "Axis of Evil" for you americans out there).
i think a plane is way too small to allow cell phone usage.
how can they mention this without mentioning internet in planes.
thats been on the drawing board for years and is barely implemented.
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
"Can you hear me now?"
Who tells you the plane didnt crash where it did because of all those people talking on their mobiles and interfering with the plane's instruments?
Enoc
I've left my cell phone on during flights on numerous occasions with no ill effects. It was always accidental and not intentional. The first time I found it on when digging in my carry-on, and I was really suprised that I had not just a signal, but a full-power digital signal. Other times I just notice when I go to turn it on at my destination. Never has the plane landed in the wrong place, the crew announced "We can't communicate" or any other panicky indicator that their gear is getting jammed.
I figure if I've done it, zillions of others have, and the squawk about "interfering with this airplane's navigation and communications equipment" was total BS and just a rule designed to make people use the $5/min in-flight phone system.
Fuck, not only will I be dying 50 years early in a ball of flame, but I won't be able to ring my wife before it happens. This is a very serious issue!!
Assuming that you can shield the airframe and electronics from GSM/DCS/PCS RF to make it all safe, the technology of putting a 'mini-network' onto the plane is simple - take a look at these guys that make nanoBTS and nanoBSC's - two of the components you need to make a mobile network (okay, you'll need a MSC and some databases, but they are just software on a PC).
-- Mike
Penya asks: "Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?"
The simple answer is "because the rules say so." To wit:
(14 CFR is the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 121 (and part 135, in some circumstances; 14 CFR 135.144 has identical stipulations) governs airlines)
So the rule is actually a Federal Regulation, not the airline acting unilaterally.
The reason for the rule is to prevent possible interference with not just aircraft avionics, but any systems in the aircraft. In addition to the avionics (comm radios, nav radios (typically just below the AM broadcast band and just above the FM broadcast band), marker beacons, and other devices), there are also sensors and equipment in the airplane that don't respond well to induced signals. I've seen a number of cases of electronics handling RF signals badly: monitors that shut down when I key a ham transmitter (2m (144 MHz), one watt, into a ducky at a distance of a couple of yards from the monitor), cars that activate the brakes when you key the transmitter (damn computer control!), and others. RADAR, in particular, responds badly to induced RF, and every airliner has it, for detecting weather. Some also have Stormscopes, lightning detectors that look for electrostatic discharge. The aircraft's electrical system itself is designed to run at 400Hz (not the usual 60), and inducing RF has the capacity to cause some problems. Introducing RF into the computerized engine controllers (remember, computer = clock = RF oscillator) is a really bad idea.
The reason they allow the use of some devices at cruise is that cruise is a less critical phase of flight. In the terminal area, things happen quickly, with frequent heading changes, altitude changes, and such. Pilots must be in constant communication with controllers, and their navigation must be very accurate, to avoid hitting things that might hurt (which, when you're travelling at 250 knots, is pretty much anything). Approach is a particularly critical phase: the navigation equipment in most airliners is designed to bring the airplane down at about 750-1000 feet per minute (vertical speed) at around 150 knots (average; bigger airplanes are faster), down to 100 feet above the ground (Category II ILS; Cat I is 200 feet, Cat III can go all the way to the surface, with zero forward visibility for IIIc). If the navigation equipment should become unreliable during the approach, the result is usually a Bad Thing. In cruise flight, however, the precision required is much less, communication with Center happens relatively rarely, and there's a lot more time to see and correct a problem before running into something.
The prohibition on the use of cell phones is actually twofold: the FAA prohibits the use of them, for the aforementioned reasons, and the FCC prohibits the use of them because sticking an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower is a great way to expand your signal coverage. Put a cell phone up there, which was specifically designed to have a small footprint, and one phone can simultaneously jam several dozen cells, preventing other people from using the network. It also requires rapid cell-swapping, which further overburdens the network (and eats batteries besides).
The reason some, but not all, devices are approved above a given altitude (usually around 10,000 feet) is because they're generally considered safe, by the fact that they're not designed to radiate RF signals. Computers, CD players, Game Boys, etc., all have an oscillator (clock), but they're designed to keep it internal, and rarely radiate anything. Fine at cruise, but nobody wants to take chances in the critical phases, because there's less margin for error. Radios (receivers) are verboten because they use an internal oscillator (modern designs, anyway; most are superheterodyne, which requires mixing the received signal with a local oscillator), and they have an antenna connected. Even though they're not designed to radiate, they usually do so, to some degree. Transmitters are obvious, particularly aviation-band transmitters. Even if you just listen, you're still running the LO, and handheld radios have a way of getting put in places in such a way as to key the mic, jamming the frequency, which, presumably, had somebody talking on it, or it wouldn't be very interesting. See also: Bad Things.
An interesting trend I have observed is the willingness of people to put themselves at risk, when they don't have the authority (as pilot-in-command) to do so. Passengers who insist on taking off into bad weather (against the advice of the pilot), or who ignore rules (such as portable electronics) because they want to. For example, Penya relates: "Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS)." You're playing dumb games here. No, you obviously didn't cause the airplane to crash, but unless you designed both the camera and the avionics, you didn't know what you were doing. Avionics are remarkably robust (they have to be before they can be certificated), but how do you know that the airplane didn't strike a small bird (I've personally hit two, on a single flight) that knocked loose some shielding or something? Ice, perhaps? Maybe there was a power surge that fried one of the filter capacitors. It has been my experience that the less educated the passenger on the possible dangers, the more willing he is to risk his (and everybody else's) life. Would you have argued if the flight attendant (or the captain) had asked you to turn it off, or would you have complied? (BTW, if you like aerial photography (I love it, as do a lot of pilots), there's a simple solution: a mechanical camera. A lot of them take better pictures than modern electronic ones anyway.
Incidentally, this isn't news: I read about this system a couple of years ago. At the time, AirCell had a model that could be installed in the aircraft, and used only their network, and another model that was portable, and used both conventional (terrestrial) cell networks and the AirCell network, switching automatically between the two.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a flight instructor/instrument flight instructor, and I regularly fly King Airs, among others.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
What is there to "deal" with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to "deal" with people talking to the person next to them?
The deal:
By some act of manufacturing or quirk of human nature, cell phones seem to have this inherent ability to turn otherwise friendly, considerate people into inconsiderate jerks.
On top of the obvious rudness of leaving your cell phone to ring in a movie - and then talking on it as you leave the theater - there's the more subtle rudeness of ignoring the people who are actually *present*.
Talking to Joe on your cell phone is isn't anything like a conversation with another passenger: It's the opposite. Conversations with other passengers are generally held at a respectful volume, and often other passengers are welcome to join in the discussion (a la slashdot).
On the other hand, having a long, loud conversation on a cell phone is disrespectful of other passengers. It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice."
Ok.. so for those of you unfortunate enough to not have nationwide roam-free contracts, this will be extremely expensive.. But we've come to expect that from the airline industry these days. They cut corners and screw over customers every chance they get.
But what of us with no-roam deals? My contract states that I can use my phone anywhere in the continental United States without paying roaming fees. It makes no stipulations on what elevation I'm at.. be it 100' or 10,000'. Yaay for Cingular... right? I mean, last I knew Cingular customers could use Verizon towers... so, since Verizon is in on this deal, I can use my cellphone at 30,000' w/o paying roaming fees? Right?
/dev/random
held hearings on the use of Personal Electronic Devices on aircraft to find out if the FAA's regulations banning their use had any merit. HERE is a memo about their findings.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Regardless, authors that insult the American people should be deported to another country where they think the public is not dumbed down. We're all human, regardless of nationality. I seriously doubt that there's a country where the citizens are 20 years ahead of ours.
More people on cell-phones. Hopefully next they'll get the cell-phone to work on the subway too so I'll be sure to enjoy the maximum amount of other people's annoying conversations.
Did'ya ever notice that some people talk LOUDER on their cell-phones than they normally would? What is the deal with that?
Don't forget to check out these guys, who have a completely rational take on the ubiquitous cell-phone.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
Check out actual reports from PED-related (Personal Electronic Device) incidents.
You might also wish to read a discussion of the problems with PEDs on airplanes.
Finally, here's a list of how the ASRS connect electronic devices to airplane anomalies, according to various reports they've received:
Anomaly: NAV CDI needle swing (off course), Phase: CL, Possible Cause: tape players
Anomaly: CDI needle swings, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: chess player
Anomaly: erroneous nav signal of VOR station, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: dictaphone
Anomaly: loss of VOR capability, Phase: ER?, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: HSI's discsrepancies, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: NAV compass & CDI oscillation (off course), Possible Cause: PEDs
Anomaly: off VOR course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: tape player
Anomaly: music blocked VHF comm's, Possible Cause: FM radio
Anomaly: comm's blocked, Phase: GR/CL, Possible Cause: Nintendo, cellphone, notebooks
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: tape machine+Nintendo
Anomaly: off course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: both VORs lost, no VOR audio signal, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: all directional gyros lost, Possible Cause: 25 radio's, 1 laptop
Anomaly: compass error; off course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: laptop, comp.game
Anomaly: 2 missed approaches, Phase: FA, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: loss of all autonav functions, Phase: CL, Possible Cause: 3 laptops, cdplayer/radio
Anomaly: loc receiver anomaly; missed app., Phase: FA, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: compass precess 10deg, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: laptop
Anomaly: Omega NAV unreliable, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: tv set suspected
Anomaly: HSI errors, Phase: TA,CL,ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: nav compass sys error; off course, Phase: CL, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: temp loss of com freq., Possible Cause: cd player
Anomaly: INS nav errors, Possible Cause: electronic games
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: eng fuel ctlr + vhf radio interference, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: laptop
Anomaly: EMI interference & radio alt flag, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cd-players (2)
Anomaly: erratic cdi indications, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: 2 gameboys
Anomaly: autopilot erratic, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: cellphone suspected
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: gameboy
Anomaly: nav radio interference; off ILS course, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: computer game
Anomaly: EMI interference causes a split between the compass system in flight ER laptop both LOC and GS 'OFF' flags showed just prior to the Outer Marker
Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: significant LOC rate of deflection, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED possible
Anomaly: loss of Captain EFIS display, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: 8 laptops
Anomaly: electronic compass erratic, Possible Cause: cd player
Anomaly: interfering transmitter, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: NAV and COM radio problems, Phase: PED, Possible Cause: suspected
Anomaly: off approach path, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: off course due to drifting, Phase: FM, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: HSI discrepencies, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: EICAS interference, airspeed discrep., Phase: ER, DC, Possible Cause: PED
Anomaly: loss of COM frequency, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: ILS, radio altimeter, and primary flight display went out, Possible Cause: 20 cellphones
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
this is what's the word these days, dumb? retarted? Typical slashdot,. Oh well now go wak off to drew barymore again
Ok prove it. Show us the studies that say people on cell phones tend to speak louder. Show us how that number is larger than the number of common jackholes that just talk louder. If louder is the problem why are you not complaining about people talking louder? Why is it that you are only upset with people talking louder on the cell phone and not with people talking louder?
Just curious. I have a cell phone and in most public places it is set to stun. If I want to answer a call in a restaraunt or bar I do. If I can't be heard or hear I walk outside. I have had people comment on how I do NOT raise my voice, yet I still get dirty looks. I had one guy comment on how I did not raise my voice but the guy at the end of the bar did, even though he noticeably did NOT. It's not the volume it's the phone. People are insecure about not being included in the conversation. I have yet to hear ANY argument to the contrary, and I spend quite a lot of time in bars.
Thentonka
Cel phones wouldn't be half as annyoing if they had:
- Better microphones and earpeices. I can't never hear anything on my phone, and people I talk to have trouble hearing me. This forces me to say "What?" a lot and also to repeat myself (while speaking louder) when others can't hear me. Annoying for me as well as others.
- Better reception. Sprint is especially guilty, there are holes and blind spots all over their coverage areas. Then again, if I have to repeat myself or call back, I use more minutes, and they can charge me when I go over.
Not to say some people aren't fscking stupid when it comes to being on the phone, but some are equally obnoxious when it comes to telling people to "hang up", and the limits of the technology help to make phone conversations annoying for everyone. I sure hope phone companies are working to resolve these problems.CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Second hand smoke can kill you. Cellphone talkers can just piss you off. Deal with it. Lets not become luddites because some folks just want to be counter-culture.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
They still haven't addressed this issue.
Can you hear me now??"
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
I guess you've never been forced to sit next to the obsessive compulsive yacker yet.
I once had the misfortune of sitting between a nicotine kamakazi (obsessive chain smoker) and a flatulant gabber on a long flight to Germany. I couldn't tell what was worse, stale pre-breathed smoke from a raving soap opera afficianado, or the green, fetid brapting from an obese nose picker whose interests ranged from public policy (child support) to culinary skills (looked so intensely at my caustic airline fare, that I gave it to her in self defense).
I figure having the same sort of person next to me yacking on the cell phone might not be quite as bad as having them focused on me.
I never, ever, go on an airplane without headphones, strong pepermint breathmints (used defensively since they mask other peoples odors effectively), and a good fat novel. Don't even think about taking a laptop out without getting a bunch of questions about your occupation and requests for computer tips.
If I am forced to work on the plane, I always inform the infobegger, of my rates and office hours. Heck if lawyers can do it, why can't I?
The truth is, there are many times I would have loved to be talking to ANYONE but the person on my left or right, and a cell phone would have been good at those moments, even if I was only pretending to talk to somebody, so the drooling troll next to me would leave me out of thier universe.
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
I have read several comments along the lines of "there's no proof that cell phones are harmful," or that airlines are "overreacting". The burden of proof does not lie with the airlines to prove that they are harmful. Rather the burden of proof lies with the insecure yokel who cannot let go of the phone for a couple of hours.
Until it is proven, conclusively, that electronic devices cannot, under any circumstance, affect in any way shape or form the performance of the aircraft's systems, then they should be banned.
On a final note, doesn't anyone think about scale? ala "My laptop shouldn't cause any problems," or "My cell phone shouldn't be an issue." What about a plane full of cell phones, PDA's, laptops, and gameboys? One person using an electronic device may not cause a problem, but maybe a hundred of them stuck in a metal tube a couple hundred feet long might.
I think that while most people haven't thought of this, the airlines have.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Its a hard knock life, for us.
e r-losers
Its a hard knock life, for us.
This is a life for ME.
Fuck you if you can't see, its a hard knock life.
While your tirade against the supposed "ME generation" was cute, your anger is really quite baseless. People talking on cellphones generally cause you little harm. Instead of seeking to expose problems where there really aren't any, why don't you satirize somehting that actually IS a problem in our society today?
You see, you need an actual GOOD reason why someone shouldn't use a cellphone. Not one thats been adopted by the oh-so-cool, we-reject-cool-counter-culture-angst-ridden-slack
we seem to hear so much from these days.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
"About this time, someone is telling you to get on the plane. Get on the plane, get on the plane. I say fuck you, I'm getting IN the plane! In the plane! Let Evil Knievel get on the plane, I'll be in here with you folks in uniform. There seems to be less wind in here!"
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I have used my (GSM) mobile phone many times aboard the high speed trains in France and Germany. These trains travel at 300km/h. Not a single dropped call! I did notice my battery drains a lot quicker when going that fast, even if I'm not on the phone. It is constantly busy signing off and on to different base stations.
Since the mobile phone system handles this scenario well, chances are it will work too at airline speeds.
Cell phones do work from airplanes. The issue is that the airlines want you to use their in flight phones and the various cell phone companies don't want you to be able to hit your home cell from a mile in the air, where chances are, you wouldn't have to pay roaming fees. They want to set up a situation where they have a captive consumer with no outside competition... they set up a deal with the airline that lets them charge the consumer $3 a minute... give the airline $1 and keep $2... or something along those lines.
Singapore Airlines is rolling out their inflight email service. And you don't even have to bring anything as it's built into your seat. They also offer limited web browsing capabilities.
And, yes, in economy class too.
Need to place that call? No. Want to place the call? Yes. Is that enough of a reson in a free society? Yes.
Your anger is misplaced. Try re-directing your jealousy of the person who sold their stock for a profit to a more degenerate type of individual in our fair socitey. Cellphone users are by and large innocent people/professionals who are simply keeping in touch with friends, family and business contacts. Any one of those is far more important then accomodating your need to NOT be aggravated in your lonely life.
In Boston people talk loudly all the time on their cellphones, in the subway and on the buses. No one starts any fights. It could just be because we have a more mature group of individuals here who know how to adjust to the way technology can change your life. I've long ago developed the ability to tune out other's phone conversations, why can't you? Who are you and how important can you possibly be that I or anyone else should restrict my personal/business communication habits for? As long as I am not actually yelling in your ear then you really have no ground to stand on.
*And yes its a GAWD given right. GAWD made the radio waves we use to place cell calls so he must have anticipated this use for them and since there's been no 2nd destroying of the World (Noah, the big flood, remember?) he must not care about the whole thing as much as some folks here on Earth do.
*(I am actually an Atheist but placed this last part here for any religious people who need theological rationalization for the prevelance of cell phone usage everywhere.)
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
The major tobacco companies announced their plans to develop a new type of cigarette smoke safe for smoking on airplanes. The companies stated that the demands of loud, annoying people who disrupt other passengers on planes would probably continue to be a growing market.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
If Cell Phones are so dangerous to use on airplanes, why didn't the planes used on September 11, 2001 crash before hitting the World Trade Center and Pentagon when the passengers frantically called their loved ones?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Virigin Atlantic has a service that allows GSM users to remove the SIM card from their phone and place it into a handset built into the seatback in front of them. It's been around since 2000: http://uk.gsmbox.com/news/mobile_news/all/7474.gsm box
There's no need for messy base stations and related transmission equipment to be built into the plane.
The strange thing is, people will YELL things into a cell phone that they would never say in a face to face conversation in a public place.
On my train ride to work this morning, I learned all about a passenger's:
1. Divorce
2. Joint debts with ex wife.
3. Kid's behavior problems and learning disorder.
4. New house.
I DON'T CARE. I WAS TRYING TO READ A BOOK. It's a public place and the rest of us shouldn't be forced to endure someone's personal business.
Evening news: "Disgruntled DC area commuter assaults passenger on morning commuter train. Surgeons were unable to extract the cellular phone from the victim's [choose an oriface] and fear it may be permanently lodged there..."
Ahhh... I feel better now.
Creating more *reliable* service with a new range of in-air cellular frequencies is one thing, but doing it under the auspices of safety like this is pretty tounge-in-cheek.
Who said anything about safety? The poster of the story. The actual article, on the other hand, says "To ensure that its proposed service doesn't interfere with cellular service on the ground, the AirCell system would block the frequencies passengers' phones normally use."
I thought that a plane cabin was the one place I would never have to deal with people who won't quit talking on the phone."
For $10/minute, you won't be bothered much, I'd warrant.
On the other hand, having a long, loud conversation on a cell phone is disrespectful of other passengers. It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice."
Amen! This is the real problem with cell phones: people assume that the phone is the most important member of the party. Not just on airplanes, but everywhere. When I invite a group of friends to dinner, it's because I want to spend time with them, not with their cell phones (or mine). By answering that phone, you're promoting it over the people in your party. This is particularly rude if you're the host: "I invited you here to watch me talk on the phone, because I'm important." Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about the boss teaching himself to play the ukelele (or somesuch). If you're going to take the call (which you generally shouldn't, and Caller ID (included with all phones these days) can make the decision for you), at least excuse yourself from the table, so the rest of the party can continue their conversation.
Finally, somebody who gets it. My kingdom for mod points, and the ability to highlight passages along with the moderation!
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
A few thoughts. Couldn't you load up a private plane with some Gel-Cells and 300 or so surplus cellular phones with a computer to control them all and fly across country and wreak havoc? Also... if Verizon/Aircell installs this system... my guess is it is a private cell site for the plane with a microwave link to a ground station. The cell site can tell the phone to back the power down, but it would seem to me the threat of "electronic devices" would still be there even if the phone is running at 50mw instead of a full 600mw?
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
Also, as you increase speed, the signal processing capabilities of the receiver on both your phone and the base station are taxed more. One of the biggest restrictions in downlink capacity and bandwidth is multipath performance - Lucent was doing a LOT of research into new types of multipath filters that would increase capacity. Many of the 3G standards specify lower peak data rates for "mobile" phones as opposed to "stationary/on-foot" phones because of this.
This combined with multiple towers being tagged at once REALLY makes things tough for the entire system.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Of course, Verizon could always weasel out of that by charging a "convenience" fee for calls on planes.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
The more people that use it, the higher the danger. Sure, what you say is *probably* true.. but I would just as soon have the guy who does something the airline specifically asks him not to do for safety reasons fly on his own damn private jet; not one on which my life and the lives of a couple hundred other people who are playing by the rules the airlines politely asked us to follow are endangered because some guy thinks he knows better than the airlines.
I was parked on a runway, and we were refueling... special stop due to bad weather. Everyone was on the aircraft. Normally, you don't do this; it's dangerous.
They specifically asked, twice, very clearly, for NOBODY to use their cellular phone, because we were refuelling the aircraft. People had to unbuckle their seatbelts, and all the aircraft doors had to be open, in case evacuation was needed. You could smell the jet fuel.
So of course some guy starts talking on his phone. That was the last place I wanted to be; not because I thought the phone was dangerous, but because there was a truckload of jet fuel next to me and we had been specifically asked not to use cellular phones until after the refuelling was finished.
*Nokia tune*
Hello?!
No I'm on an airplane!
An airplane! It's some new system! Total rubbish!
Hang on you're cracking up!
You're cracking up, call me back!
Alright, ciao!
Air travel will be very pleasant if the "in-flight cellular officer" is one of these guys, as I trust them to keep cellphone use to a tolerable level.
What would you do if a giant cellphone told you to "hang up, or else?"
First, they tend to be a louder environment (i.e. outside) than they are when they use a phone at home. Thus, it's tougher to hear the sound coming out of the earpiece.
Two, our speaking volume levels are mainly determined by how well we can hear ourselves. Thus, if we can hear ourselves clearly, we don't talk louder (unless there's a special reason, such as we're trying to shout to someone a ways off).
Three - phones have a built-in feedback circuit that sends your own voice, from the mouthpiece, back to the earpiece, so you can hear yourself.
Therefore, in a noisy environment, you can't hear yourself as well as you'd expect, and so therefore will unconsciously talk louder.
That said, simply turning up the volume on your earpiece will make you speak softer again.
-T
Now, my experience with people who get annoyed by people talking on cells is thus; they are simply annoyed by people carrying on a conversation with another party that they cannot see/hear. Perhaps it looks unnatural seeing someone going about their business talking to noone, but the personal feelings of the annoyed are, nonetheless, irrational.
So, in conclusion, I think some people just need to grow a thicker skin, and quit worrying about what other people are doing.
Just my experience/opinion, YMMV.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You didn't answer the questions. "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones? Do you also have to 'deal' with people talking to the person next to them?" Instead you invented a hypothetical situation about someone talking very loudly on a phone. The question isn't "What could there possibly be to 'deal' with about people talking on phones." The question is "What is there to 'deal' with about people talking on phones."
For respect to the other passengers, they should not be allowed to do it.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
That may be one reason, but I have had to check myself after falling into the trap a few times. After doing it on a landline phone a few times (when talking to a person on a cellphone), I realized the problem:
It's a natural response to a noisy connection. When you have to repeat something because of static (analog) or drop-outs (digital), my tendency is to repeat it louder. And then I keep talking at the same volume.
Although I carry a cell-phone, I leave it off and require people to page me. Then, I excuse myself and return the call where I won't disturb people.
You've never had a Nextel phone, have you? They emit a very strong signal, and makes an audible noise through any powered speakers, and will tweak any TV or monitor they're close to. If you know anyone with one, just put it close to your monitor and call the phone.. That's exactly what would send wierd signals back to the flight computers.. You just have to have it close enough to the unshielded signal wires in the plane.. I have powered speakers on my desk at home and work, and have to remember to keep my cell phones far enough away to keep them from making a [thump][thump][thump] every time it tests for new voicemails and text messages (about once every minute or so).
If you have one, once you're used to the sounds, you can tell the differences between incoming calls, voicemails, and text messages. During calls, the noise is almost constant.
If it's close enough to a cordless phone, you get interference there too.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Airphones have largely been very successful. They aren't quite as expensive as people here have said. However Airlines care most about business passengers, and letting them continue cell phone use would make flying that much more convenient for them. Technically there is no reason why current cell phones don'ty work on planes. Interferring with flight electronics is not a big problem. Frequencies are far enough enough apart that they won't clash with communications, and frankly if other avionics were fickle enough to have problems with cell phones, we would have planes dropping from the sky. Only the fact that Planes fly at 30,000 feet pretty far from the towers, and cross multiple towers simultaneously cause problems. The end result is that QOS is far from guaranteed. This technology likely works by placing a tower or active repeater within the plane. By being the closest tower the plane will grab all the traffic. I am not sure if they will try and extract a roaming charge for this, or if they believe this will increase ticket sales enough to cover the service. Personally I usually keep my phone on and on vibate all the time. I have recieved calls (I have never actually answered though) and generally get a signal when I fly, which is often. This will certainly be a boon on the short Boston New York Washington Florida, East corridor flights that business people crowd.
As for the rudeness of people talking talking on cell-phones, well there is nothing that we can do. Get used to it. I do think that stewardesses should force people to put their phones on vibrate, frankly I never use my ringer anyway.
With all the streaming babies, annoying rugrats, fat people, drunks, smelly people, people with tons of carryons and jerks who kick seats, someone talking on a cell-phone doesn't seem so bad.
There was a guy in a quiet bookstore making concert ticket reservations. It started off slowly, with him talking to a computer and saying "aerosmith" occasionally. When that didn't work, he got an operator and we learned he wanted aerosmith/kid rock tickets. He said his credit card number a couple of times, yelling because the connection was bad. Then he explained how he had moved and that he wanted them shipped to a different address -- he spelled out his old and new addressess. Finally, we all got to hear the confirmation number.
I missed my best chance so far to mess with him, partly because I was afraid he could sit on me and not notice. Ideas were...
Call back ticketmaster with all my info and double check the order. Is Mick Jagger the singer? Oh, no, Steven Tyler really sucks. I guess I wanted the Rolling Stones instead. At least that black commedian Rock will be funny. Oh, it's Kid, not Chris. Who's kid? Ick. In that case, can I cancel that order and get some new tickets for the stones? Oh, they're on tour in europe? ok, I guess I'll need a hotel room and a plane ticket -- I'm sure you can sell me those. Thanks.
Hi mastercard? I'd like to report a stolen card. Yeah everyone knows this number and address - I suggest you cancel it immedietly.
What the guy doesn't realize is that anyone who was mildly annoyed with him could leave the coffeehouse and go to a payphone (even weeks later) and mess with his accounts... He should thank me for cancelling his card right away before someone did that...
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Let me start by saying I'm a private pilot, and of course the radios we use in general aviation planes aren't of the same caliber as those used in jetliners. However (for obvious reasons) they do use the same frequencies.
:).
I had just completed a preflight and ran a radio check on the ground at my small airport. Nobody responded, but I didn't find that unusual, since there are many times there's no traffic in the area and the UNICOM (local airport radio station) is unmanned. Anyway, I announced my takeoff just in case somebody didn't feel like responding to my radio check and took off.
After making a few touch-and-go landings I saw there were others in the pattern, but I wasn't hearing any radio transmissions -- just static. A thought occurred to me and I pulled out my cell phone. Sure enough, I'd forgotten to turn it off. I wasn't receiving calls or anything, but it was still on 'the network'. I shut it off, and the traffic chatter started immediately.
No, it is most definitely a safety issue. I've heard of airliner communication being cut off in an entire airport's controlled airspace because some lady was telling her son that she was going to be landing soon. Needless to say, they were waiting for her when she deplaned
Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.
I'm am always having to deal with people talking loudly into cell phones, or people who aren't paying attention to the waitress because they are on the phone, and of course there are the people that just stand there at check out counters chatting on their cell phone about the pants they are buying with the cashier standing there saying, "Ma'am, that will be 34.97... Excuse me, Ma'am...". I had to deal with my sister giggling into her phone with the body of my great grand mother in the same damn room.
There are places where you shouldn't talk on a cell phone, and there are places were it is perfectly all right. Your conversation about pants can wait until you are in the parking lot. If you have to yell into the phone, and you are in a public place, then hangup and call again when you have a better signal. If you just have to talk about the menu with you mother in Ohio, then wait until after you order. Or at least acknowledge the waitress and ask her to come back in fifteen minutes, don't make her try to determine whether or not you want to eat.
Xaotik Designs
Because the CEO on the biz-jet is probably the only passenger on the plane (CEOs tend to like that) that is owned/operated by the CEO's company but on a 737 there might be upwards of 150 passengers on an airplane operated by an airline very afraid of being sued into being a bus company. The signal from one cellphone will not interfere with the equipment on the airplane except in very rare conditions. But if 150 cellphones are in use at once (the worse case, which is what you are taught to plan for if you can), the level of EM noise generated is such that it can cause harmful interference under a much wider range of conditions. And if that harmful interference leads to a crash, its not Motorola thats going to get sued, its the airline. Hence, no cellphones for the $300 roundtrip ticket you bought, while the guy getting billed $1000+ per flight hour can talk all he wants.
As a side note, the certification procedures for business jets and airliners are almost identical, the certification procedures for airlines are much more stringent than for charter/private jet operators so charters can let their passengers get away with more things than airlines.
Maybe he was just talking to his number two.
What is stopping a cell phone from using the nearest telephone access point? Say I am at home. I have a landline node - for want of a better term. I use my "cell" phone and it contacts that node and then out along the landline. Thus I can use my cell phone as a home phone for outbound calls. At work I can do the same. When I am on the road it uses the nearest cell tower. When I am in a plane it uses a plane node. How hard is that?
Oh, please! This is nothing but pilot-created bullshit designed to cover their asses. The plane was off course due to a laptop? A gameboy?
Um, is there a chance that Johnny Pilot is to blame here? Isn't that what pilot-in-command is supposed to mean?
Pilots aren't trained as radio engineers. They're trained to fly planes. Sometimes they do this poorly, but to point the finger at a child's toy is utterly ridiculous.
Planes are designed to inhabit the most RF-congested place on the planet: the airspace. What do you think causes the most interference? Little Timmy's cd player in row twelve, or the 100,000 watt, 1,000-foot radio towers near the airport?
Blaming these devices assumes the public is dumb and can't see the scam the airlines have perpretrated in pushing the expensive in-flight phone service. Give us some facts rather than this "suspected" crap. Let's see someone reputable reproduce these so-called anomolies before pinning the blame on them.
Cellphone-toting airline passengers are literally being taken for a ride.
Lufthansa is preparing to put three 802.11b access points on their Jumbos in 2003. I don't have details how they plan to get the Internet connection out (probably satelite) of the plane. So you probably could start using Wireless Mobile VoIP phones on such planes, as well as taking your Laptop with WiFi cards.
Roam if you want to
:)
Roam around the world
Roam if you want to
Without wings, without wheels
Which means if you're in a plane or car turn off the damn phone
Then you've got to deal with the cell base antennae, which are probably horizontally directional. Not to mention airplanes typically flying over unpopulated areas. I just don't see it. Easier to put a concentrator/tranceiver on the plane itself, but that costs weight and power.
Were the local towers receiving your cell signal? I could see a lot of situations where a phone would be showing "no signal" but where the towers (several times a minute) were trying to acquire you, causing lots of extra traffic (and, possibly, trying to bill you for roaming over several states).
can you hear me now? gooood. great grand...
You see, you need an actual GOOD reason why someone shouldn't use a cellphone.
e r-losers we seem to hear so much from these days
Actually, I don't need a reason at all. Maybe I just don't like them. You might have stretched who you THINK I am a little too far.
Not one thats been adopted by the oh-so-cool, we-reject-cool-counter-culture-angst-ridden-slack
And you say I am angst ridden one? You're the one going on a tirade about supposed counter culture slackers.
The interference to avionics could result in the front end of the reciever's to be "desens'ed". Aircraft radios are fairly wideband. A signal (or a harmonic of that signal) falling into the "window" of the front end can saturate the pre-amp. This could cause reduced reciever sensitivity. Usually selectivity (the ability to look at a smaller bandwidth) can overcome this form of interference. I think it's a scam. About twenty years ago I interviewed for a position with Airphone in their R&D lab (what a joke, a test bench in an old store in Joliet Il). High tech wasn't their forte.
Tisha Hayes
the technology behind this should have been really obvious. all you'd have to do is install a transponder on the plane that forces the cell phones to roam on the same network that the swipe-a-card phones use. the cost of using your cell in-flight on the 'roaming' network will be about $.001/min. cheaper than using the phone mounted to the headrest in front of you.
:)
( perhaps southwest airlines could parlait the financial fruits of this gougery into an actual meal plan ) O o
Dvorak is an ass. An ignorant ass, when it comes to understanding RF emissions and the interference they can cause with avionics.
I have, on two seperate occasions that I specifically remember, had RF emissions interfere with radio reception. The kind of radio reception an aircraft taxiing to a runway wants to hear when the tower says "hold short of 31L for crossing traffic" or "Give way to the Boeing 737, then taxi to alpha nine".
Once was from a cell phone, and once from my laptop. In both cases I was on the ground, unable to receive transmissions from the tower of the very airport I was at.
It is rare, and it requires a number of factors to come into confluence for it to happen, but it does happen, and the results could be quite catastrophic.
Dvorak is, in short, an ignorant ass who should stop talking on his cell phone long enough to consider the potential consiquences of what he advocates. The reduction of a small but verifiably real risk (which I have personally experienced in my own aircraft) with potentially deadly consiquences to zero risk is only insulting if one is a completely self-centered idiot. To those of us who are pilots, or otherwise involved in aviation, and who do value safety, the only insulting nonsense is that eminating from Dvorak's uninformed pen.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Back on 9/11, I specifically remember an article that mentioned Air Force One.
The press corp was told to turn all their cellphones OFF, because terrorists could conceivably use the signal to track the plane, and possibly do harm.
My immediate thought was, if cellphones are safe enough to be used regularly enough that they had to be told to turn them OFF, on the MOST IMPORTANT PLANE IN THE COUNTRY, why the hell can't I use mine on a commuter flight?
The airlines want you to pay 15.99 a minute using their airphones, THAT'S why you can't use your cellphone.
Cell phones can be 1/4 watt in a handset, 3watt in-car mounted. A home cordless phone will be no where near this powerful. I personally won't put a 1/4 watt next to my head on a daily basis. More power to those who do...
They are also basically banned in hospitals though their universal policy on that. Interference can occur at anytime for a host of reasons. What if 6 people all were on cell phones at the same time. the EMI can get heavy.
Indeed it is an overdone precausion. They can easily eliminate it by testing all the aircrafts with all models of cell phones in all concentrations. Or force Cell phone manufacturers to certify their phones on every plane. Can't see anyone doing this. Likely they will just pay off the FCC to "say" its safe...
I find the safety belt in flight really useless. Can someone tell me, "How will that stupid seat belt help me, if the plane is anyway going to crash"?
......at 12500MSL
......
Using a cell phone in the plane is about the only way you can get good reception up here. We've never missed tracking a VOR because of it, and we can back it up with our KLN 89 GPS. If our phones overpower the 6 or 7 satellites overhead, we have our NDBs. If they take out all those others, one of the Centers will give you vectors or FSS can give you a DF steer. If in range of a control tower, they can tell you where to go. If they manage to overpower every kind of technology we have in the plane, well, we can always use those current sectionals to navigate by. Navigational problems aren't what they're worried about being interfered with. T/Os and landings in IMC would be the showstopper I bet.
I can see that the laptop might cause interference locally in the cockpit of a GA plane, but not in a commercial airliner.
The reason you have to turn off ALL electronics is that some things CAN interfere with aircraft systems. Take the power out of flight attendants hands to make a mistake by not letting anything be used during the critical parts of flight. It's not feasible to teach low-tech workers all about high-tech stuff. Just blanket statement all electronics are bad. That's good.
I think you might have been over-dramatizing the cell phone story a bit too. If you were so busy trying to get ground, why were you messing around with your cell phone. You should have enough to worry about with your run-up, checklists, radio calls, FSS, making sure you are clear of people and planes, and whatnot to worry about turning on and off your cell phone while missing radio calls.
You also know full well there are plenty of reasons why you might have missed ground's calls. Dead spots at the airport, line of sight blockage, someone talking over ground, comms set wrong, squelch or volume wrong, set to intercom instead of phones,
And not getting ASOS, I hope your kidding, what altitude were you at, if there was a VOR did you check your AFD to see what altitudes and range that station could be received at, thte reasons for not getting transmissions in the air are limitless. The comms broadcast around 118.0MHz to 135.975MHz and the NAVs are below that. Cell phones Xmit around 800MHz and 1800-2200MHz.
Sorry, I go now
John Dvorak is a moron. If you look at NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) database, you will find many reports of cell phones and other passenger carried electronic devices causing harmful interference to aircraft communications and navigation systems. What's worse, many passengers lie when asked if they have turned off their cell phone or laptop computer.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
One thing that I don't think anyone else has touched on is that it's undesirable, for the most part, to have your business discussion heard by others external to your organization. I don't know about where everyone else works, but almost everywhere I've worked has had rules about discussing business in public places. Granted, they only hear one side of it, but if you're discussing sensitive matters (which I've heard plenty others do), one side is one side too many.
For that matter, personal conversations are between me and the person I'm calling. Most people think others ignore tham when they're talking on a cell, but it's just not the case.
No matter what technology is offered forth, commom sense "soft skills" should determine where and when business/personal conversations take place rather than the technology that enables them.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
they just put a big red target on the rude ones... I dont have a problem with people on the phone, I have a problem with the people that are ON THE PHONE ALL THE TIME... I mean, does Suzy REALLY need to know that you're in Aisle 6 at the Supermarket and that creamed corn is on sale? No, she doesnt. When I go out, i am OUT. If I wanted to talk on the phone, I'd've stayed home. A simply conversation of hello, I'm here now, good bye, is convienient, but talking for hours and hours about nothing is just rude. I dont want to know THAT MUCH about your life.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Hell, usually when they make their 'no phones, no laptops' announcement, I turn on 3 of each. If I'm gonna plop down a few hundred for a ticket, you can damn well bet I'm gonna make my flight an adventure.
I frequently ride the bus in Seattle. Usually, there's just the "rhubarb rhubarb" of people talking to each other, the sound of the motor, etc.
But if I can pick out a particular voice and hear what he/she is saying, 9 times out of 10 that person is on a cell phone. Loudly. And that's the annoying part everyone hates.
So if this technology comes out, will airline employees be responsible to check phones for this new feature? Great one more thing they have to check... not like weapons or bombs are important. I cant wait to hear some stupid B^tch blab away on her phone, just what I need above babies screaming, getting my elbows knocked by the carts, and the stewardess talking about nothing over the speaker.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!
Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and isn't explosive like gasoline. A neighbor works for the airlines and says you can throw lit mathes into it and it won't burn.
It is the other way around. The FCC has done studies on traditional analog cellphones and determined that they should not be used by anyone on board an aircraft because of the wide interference that usage would cause. Similar studies were not performed for PCS and other digital networks, so there is no FCC regulation against using them in flight.
The FAA, on the otherhand still bans any cell phone use, believing that any phone may cause interference, mainly based upon hearsay and conjecture; under no controlled circumstances has interference ever been shown to occur in flight. IIRC, there are some 40 or 50 incidents a year where pilots believe that they fell victim to some sort of electronic interference, almost exclusively from laptops.
There was a congressional report a couple of years ago on this, I wish someone would post the link.
Business Idea:
January 1. 2003:
NudeSmokeCell Airways, a new division of Jet Blue, flies all of the same routes.
On NudeSmokeCell Airways, you can:
* Wander around the cabin naked
* Smoke as much as you want
* Use a cell phone, and any other electronic
device, as much as you want
* upgrade your ticket for use of the in-flight hot-tub
Which airline was that?
I have an allergy to peanuts and no airline I've ever flown on has said they can do that, despite always asking. Most can't even manage a guaranteed nut-free (and I mean just not using them as an ingredient... not the 'this was made in a production facility which also handles nut products and so may be unsuitable for nut-allergy sufferers' thing) meal!
Am I the only one that remembers the flat-fee national plans cell companies offer? They're roaming-charge free. Someday I expect local plans will go away entirely.
Actually, rules against cell phones on planes have plenty to do with safety. Read this post for more info.
Free Hans!
To ensure that its proposed service doesn't interfere with cellular service on the ground, the AirCell system would block the frequencies passengers' phones normally use.
See there? By using a stronger signal to block all harmful radiation at the "normal" dangerous frequency no one will be tempted to use their "normal" dangerous cell phone at lower frequencies. Such beautiful logic could only come from an MBA.
Likewise, the Wall Street Journal had an article about the same kinds of wonderful services in relation to Blackberries, "Wild Blackberries". They noted that the FCC does not outlaw the use of Blackberries, but the airlines will still fine you some number of thousands of dollars for using one. So you see, it's all about safety not money.
It's only harmful when you do it and don't pay the airline. The sky is not the limit for the "captive audience" concept and other greedy schemes.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm also gratified to see that a cheap collection of roatating coils energized and denergize rapidly has been deemed safe. I like to shave in flight, it leaves such a nice residue on my seat. Now why is it that my TV, radio, and other devices in my house staticed out when I run my electric razor? Can I bring an ignition coil to rig to the fine stainless bowls in the bathroom?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
isn't it sad how nearly anything sharp and metal is taken from us at the airports, yet a simple device like a cellphone poses a saftey concern? let's say we up the amps, maybe something laptop sized... what kind of damage can be done? seriously disrupt electronics during landing or takeoffs? hello?
one day we'll just have to fly naked. i wouldn't mind that, if we american's weren't so fat on average. yeah, i'm talking to you, tubby.
yeah why not lets just all use linux and the world will be a better place
A remote control you could *kill* people with.
shrug, cell phones ringing, little babies crying, a fat guy snoring next to you
doesn't really make that much of a difference... no matter what the seat is too small, the food sucks, you can't sleep and the flight just takes too damn long
Why? What's intrinsically worse about someone speaking on a mobile than someone speaking to the person next to them?
Of course, some people shout into their phones, use loud and annoying ringtones, or are inconsiderate in other ways. But then many people are just as inconsiderate on aircraft, without the need for any artificial aid.
I speak as someone who has a mobile, and who does use it on public transport occasionally, but tries to do so considerately, speaks quietly, uses the vibrating alarm and so answers before anyone even hears the ringtone, and refrains at all costs from saying "I'M ON THE TRAIN!" Should I be banned too?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Another topic features mobile phones, another 5,000 Americans who don't have them yet bitching about how phone users are so 'uncouth'.
Chill out guys. You'll get a working phone network and SMS one day. Phones won't seem so scary and out of the ordinary then.
Until then of course it's incredibly funny reading supposedly tech-savvy people whining about (not really all that new) technology.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
Now rather than running into some moron walking down the street, saying "I'm on my mobile" "I'm walking down the street", I can now get "I am on the plane", "the plane is in the air", "the food is terrible, can I order take out ?", "was this plane supposed to be hijacked ?"....
no, the simple solution is to fly your own ass around. get a pilot's license and rent a plane when you go travelling. most planes have auto-pilot anyway -- all you really have to do is to call in the now-and-then radio-handoff (crossing FAA districts - forgot what they were called) and of course takeoff and landing.
you probabbly can't do this for REALLY long-distance / international, though; personal crafts usually does not have the range for cross ocean flights. but you can still hop across the US if you are determined: just have to stop and refuel once in a while. usually props go at ~200mph to 250 if you got a fast one -- so it is gonna take longer, but sure beats the train. have you seen the amtrak stations lately?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
33 dB soft foam earplugs. I never leave home without them.
Oh no! Shit!!! Here comes Dr. Death and his Islamic justfications for beating women and killing innocents in the name of JEHAD!
You would know about airplanes, bruises and how effective seatbelts are in crashes. You are a Muslim Islamic extremist al Qaeda terrorist. You suppress women, you beat women, you kill innocents, your religion is my enemy, your Islamic roach friends don't co mingle with the infidels, but you a minion of Satan, a terrorist, a baby killer, a clitoris chopper. i hope you break a law in this country and have to end up in general population in Rikers island. you will have to make friends with the Farrakhan Islam niggers so you can continue to terrorize people in prison. Death! Islamic men and John Walker have gay sex in the madrasas. You also all long to be butt fucked by Osama bin Laden. Then once you get Osama cum in your ass you take it out on the westerners. You blow us up. Yeah, you make the haaj you fucking little bitch. I hope we poison the water. We plague and kill all your men and then rape all your women and rip the towels off their suppressed heads and shave all their hair off and impregnate them with European sperm so the next generation is only half evil.
My phones (Nokia and Ericsson) interfere with ALL equipment containing a loudspeaker, sometimes from 4 meters away. They interfere with LCD/CRT displays. They interfere the pulse monitor on the excersise bike! No wonder they are forbidden in hospitals here.
Also, if the reception is weak, the phone jacks up the TX signal and the interference gets worse.
This cannot be good for sensitive airplane equipment.