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?
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 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.
"Please turn off all electronic devices. This includes pacemakers."
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.
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.
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
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
So it's theoretically possible that your gameboy's signal could jam the frequency that the pilots need for communication with the ground, or with vital control operation (which is largely done via radio waves these days).
At 30,000 feet it's not a huge deal, since in the exceptionally unlikely event something went wrong, there's enough time to straighten it out before plane hit ground and go boom. At 30 feet during takeoff, however, there is no such recovery time, hence the ban.
However, the odds of it happening are darned near astronomical in any case, since the sideband radiation caused by the gameboy would have to be right on the right frequency and strong enough to override the "correct" signal...not terribly likely.
Cell phones, though, in that they are designed to transmit signals, have much more powerful transmissions (duh...) so it's more likely they could interfere.
Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?
Because in some geometries, under some conditions, a cell phone or laptop can disrupt radio reception and navigational equipment. I have forgotten to turn my cell phone off more than once, and I routinely use my laptop to listen to ogg files while flying my Beech Sundowner on long cross country flight. The vast majority of the time there is no noticable effect, by on two different occasions I have had my laptop completely block my radio reception.
Now, before some smartass, thinking they know what they do not, blurts something stupid like "how did you know you missed radio reception if you couldn't hear it?" I'll go ahead and point out what should be obvious:
1) You get weather data prior to requesting permission to taxi. This whether data is broadcast on a looped tape, updated once per hour if it is ATIS, updated constantly by automated equipment if it is ASOS, etc. In one case the ASOS was silent with the laptop on, perfectly audible with it off (this was confirmed by power cycling the laptop severa times).
2) When you call clearance delivery or ground for taxi instructions, you expect a reply. If you don't get one, you call again. If this persists, you probably have a problem (usually you've dialed up the wrong frequency, have your volume turned down, or aren't transmitting). Turning off my cell phone immediate resulted in my hearing "N6708R, how do you read?" to which my reply was, "Loud and clear, now." Meigs ground had tried to respond to my request several times, the transmission was blocked whenever I had the phone turned on.
So, while such interference is rare, it can and does occur from time to time. Do you really want to risk having a Boeing 747 miss a call from the tower to hold short for crossing traffic while taxiing to or from the runway just so you can call your wife and let her know the plane is about to take off/just landed, or just so you can edit that Word document one more time prior to takeoff?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
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?
...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 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!
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
The electronics rules came about due to an air crash (Midair) over Staten Island (NY) back in the early 60s. The results of the investigation blamed navigation error due to interference due to a portable AM/FM Radio (yes, one of those old transistor radios)
The FAA Banned inflight electronics after that. Eventually, the loosened the standard to allow use at altitude, where you are in less croweded skys
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
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."
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 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?
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.
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!
*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!
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
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.
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
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.