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
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?
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.
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.
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.
During take off and landing? Last time I flew I was asked to put away my portable diskman(ever since watching Hackers, I need to play 'Halcyon' when I take off and land..)
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
...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
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 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!
Because people would just sit in the lavoratories throughout the flight chatting about nothing.
Sounds like the airlines are between a rock and a hard place. Sued if they charge large passengers for an extra seat or in this case sued if they let other passengers be squashed by larger ones!
Personally I agree with Southwest's policy I don't want to be sat on either.
The Anti-Blog
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.
I've talked to a number of pilots (three) with both commercial and private experience who have confirmed this issue -- at the proper altitude and speed, your signal bounces from one cell to the next slow enough to keep up with a call, but fast enough to avoid being billed. They had used phones successfully at general avation flights/speeds, which are generally lower & slower than commercial jets. It's worth noting that these guys were flying planes with pretty sophisticated electronics.
As far as safety issues go, they told me there was a *single* case where a cellphone *may* have been involved, and the ban was a typical FAA knee-jerk reaction. Not that I would advocate toying around with safety issues on commercial aircraft, but it seems like something they could test effectively, and from what I can tell, they have not.
circa75.com
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.
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."
I realize that potential use by terrorists is the worst way to justify blocking a technology...
No, that's #2 on the list. The WORST way to justify blocking a technology is so an antiquated business model doesn't have to be changed.
~Philly
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!
I would check your contract before you start celebrating ...
...
If I recall correctly, I read an agreement very similar to the one you are speaking of. In this agreement, you had no roaming fees if you remained on DIGITAL TOWERS. Most companies will charge you for the use of analog. Roaming is only free in digital areas
These statements do not have a 100% money back guarentee, but it is food for thought
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
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?
They still haven't addressed this issue.
Can you hear me now??"
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
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?
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.
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!
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.
*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!
If it weren't for the ubiquitous cellphones: 1) another plane would have crashed in washington
3) People would not have been able to say their last words to their loved one before they jumped from the burning tower.
Well, gee, if it weren't for airplanes, people wouldn't have needed cell phones in these cases. What's your point?
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
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.
Your story regarding refueling - did the fuel catch fire when the guy's phone rang? No...
Gas stations also have the signs saying "turn off your phone - explosion hazard". Do you know anyone who has exploded when their phone rang?
The RF energy can not cause the gas to explode. What can, and why the warning is there, is dropping your phone and having it make a spark when it hits the ground (metal-cased phones, really).
There's nothing beyond anecdotes for why cell phones should be turned off on airplanes.
-T
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.
This is basically the same reason you're not supposed to use your cell phone (or leave your car on) when you're at the gas station. That's not to say that many people don't do it anyway, but you're not supposed to. Any electronic equipment, for the most part, could, in theory, generate a spark that, in theory, could ignite the fumes that you smell from the fuel, be it jet fuel or 87 octane gasoline.
:)
Just an FYI
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
What there is to "to deal" with is rudeness.
There was a time when the telephone was a thing that fit fairly well into the other ideas which surround a civilized society. That time has longe since passed.
With land line phones let me advance the idea of call waiting.
In a normal civilized society, if I am talking with you (face to face) about something and my good buddy Joe walks up and says he wants to talk to me about something I have one of two choices.
1 - Integrate Joe into the conversaion
2 - Ask Joe to please wait for a moment. Politely finish my conversation with you and then talk to him.
If we had a "face to face" call waiting I would immediately turn from you, ignoring anything you have to say (possibly waiting until you finish you sentence) and talk with Joe. That's rude... but it's also excusable because honestly, we don't have a "face to face" version of call waiting. That means that you're BOTH on the phone and it's not quite and heniously inconsiderate for me to ask you to hold on. I don't know who is calling me and it might be an emergancy.
Cell phones take this a quantum leap further. It is one thing to use a cell phone to make important calls in a timely manner. It is alltogether another to forsake the world around you for the voice on the other end of the phone. Cell phones not only make this possible, but they encourage it. A ringing phone DEMANDS to be answered. The user disengages him or her self, often without explanation or excuse, from the person standing in front of them and then carries on a conversation which makes no sence to those they are actualy with (because 1/2 of a conversation is kind of pointless).
When this happens with your friends it -=may=- be excusable. It shouldn't be, but if you want to treat your friends like a jerk, that's your problem. When it happens with TOTAL STRANGERS it is another thing. Waiters, clerks, these people are doing their jobs and are trying to serve you. If you dismiss them for a disembodied voice you trivilize their job and in many ways themselves as an entity.
So what is there to deal with? Besides distraction, inconsideration (is that a word?), rudeness, and lets not forget the overwhelming urge to slap some of these people.... nothing. Why do you ask?
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
This is categorically false. The same control system which is handling the cell handoff is the same control system which is sending messages to the billing system. All of that logic is handled at the cell-to-cell layer.
It's obvious, you fool! Modern cdrom drives spin the cd platter at extremely high rates, generating small but significant gyroscopic and processional effects. If all laptop users were to acces their cdrom simutaneously _and_ the plane was executing a banked turn, the plane could be tossed into an uncontrolled death spiral, crashing in a massive fireball into the nearest elementary school.
Please. Think of the chidren.
"Remember, any tool can be the right tool." -- Red Green
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.
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).
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.
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
Minimize risk. Okay. No more CD player for you. That laser might experience a freakish power spike and burn a hole through the top of the airplane. Or there might be sparks if the batteries malfunction, that will magically transport that spark into the gas tank and somehow make the fuel blow up (which, since it's not atomized at the time, would be quite an impressive thing to see happen).
RF energy in the amount that comes out of a cell phone can not cause gases to explode. Yes, I'd bet my life, and my family's life, on that conjecture.
Who are YOU to say that my right to do whatever I damn well please in some trivial, unmeasurable way increases your "risk"? If we were to apply your notion of minimizing risks, nobody could drive.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because you're trying to stake out a point on a very slippery slope since cell phones annoy you. Sorry to say, but you're out of luck.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Electrical equipment?
You mean, like, -GOSH-! a car's ignition system when it starts back up after refilling?
Quick! Let's ban cars from gas stations! They might be dangerous! At the very least, attendants should be required to push the vehicle out of the station before the drivers starts the car.
</scarcasm>
And, like, the spark plugs in your car would NEVER generate sparks that would ignite fuel.
Oh, wait. I don't think that's right.
There are LOTS more dangerous things at the gas station than the "sparks" coming out of your cell phone. Like the attendants.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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...
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
It's not to help you in the event of a crash, otherwise we'd all get 5-point harnesses.
The seatbelts help in case the aircraft encounters a sudden piece of turbulence. A good gust of wind could rock the plane and maybe bruise someone's arm. The seatbelt is to prevent that, as well as hold the airline not liable for injury.
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.
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.
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.
No, it's because some of these planes are old, from way before cellphones quite as ubiquitous as they are now. They didn't have as strict of regulations concerning electrical signals back then, so some of the electronics in the older planes aren't shielded against the frequencies used by cellphones.
Rather than having different rules for different planes, and all of the confusion that comes from it, there's a blanket rule against cellphone usage. Makes things easier. For everyone.
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.
well, our network works just fine, thankyouverymuch. We've got GSM, too. SMS on every network (well, except analog). Damn eurocentric bastards.
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.