Slashdot Mirror
Research: Mobile Phones Disrupt Aircraft
threeturn writes "Another contribution to the ever-popular "mobiles on planes" topic. Every time this is discussed on /. lots of people say "there is no danger - its just the airlines trying to make a buck on their skyphones". Well, now the UK Civil Aviation Authority has done some research which shows mobiles on planes do disrupt safety systems and interfere with compass readings and other navigation equipment. Also reported by the BBC. So do us all a favour and switch your mobiles off next time you fly."
Well, when it comes to airplanes and flying I think the expression "better safe than sorry" fits the bill quite nice.
I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY like to see Boeing, Airbus et al. installing avionics and comms systems that can't be disrupted by ubiquitous and nearly free techno-gadgets.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
In this way, they hope to stifle Linux's development - as we all know, Linux developers are all high flyers in the world of business and are always on the move, meeting new people.
The biggest problem when flying and using mobile phones is the phones themselves. When you are flying, the phone may try to communicate (roam) with many towers which causes cell network problems. Imagine the area of towers you could hit at 30,000ft in the sky.
It seems odd to me that there would be this much discussion on the topic. While it may not be a cut-and-dry issue it would seem that it could be determined rather quickly via research whether mobile phones cause interference or not.
Why go back and forth on the issue?
Note: Of course I don't know all of the facts on the subject so I could be missing something (different plane models are affected differently, etc.)
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
Better not play a flight sim on a 802.11 equipped laptop or the plane will REALLY be in trouble.
Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
Are they giving ideas to wannabe-terrorists?
But even if they aren't, now "the bad guys" don't even need a gun or knife, just a small electric device to cause much damage...
A text message sent to a passenger is one theory for a crash that happened last Friday.
News link
I'm sure I read somewhere though that an airline was going to use wireless for flight attentents.
Can anyone explain why apparantly 802.11b wireless connections do *not* pose a problem in planes?
My karma ran over your dogma
um, on the point of it being a plot to make you use their expensive sky phones...
would one even get reception up there? not only up there - but in there (metal cylinder)?
911 hijackings certainly took place. Was all the people mobiling home saying "honney my planes been hijacked" that brought them all down
As a frequent flyer I'm more than happy to comply with requests to turn off my phone on planes, but recently air-crew have not been tech savvy enough to recognise a P800 'smartphone' in 'flight' (phone bits off) mode. In these cases I offer an explanation and then comply if they insist it goes off, but as all kinds of wireless tech gets built into PDAs, laptops and watches how will they know? Just because it doesn't look like a phone doesn't mean it isn't...
My guess is aircraft will need better shielded systems.
This is not an unsolvable technical problem.
Just an expensive one.
To anyone that desperate to use their cell phone on a plane - would you prefer to pay the exorbitant sky-phone rates, or the increase in ticket prices introduced to cover the installation of the shielding (and test procedures) necessary to make flight systems safe in the presence of cell-phone caused interference?
From the executive summary:
In October 2002, a set of avionic equipment was tested under controlled conditions in a test chamber for susceptibility to cellphone interference. General aviation avionic equipment, representative of earlier analogue and digital technologies, was used. The equipment, comprising a VHF communication transceiver, a VOR/ILS navigation receiver and associated indicators, together with a gyro-stabilised remote reading compass system, was assembled to create an integrated system.
The tests covered the cellphone transmission frequencies of 412 (Tetra), 940 (GSM) and 1719MHz, including simultaneous exposure to 940 and 1719MHz. The applied interference field strengths were up to 50 volts/metre for a single frequency, and 35 volts/metre for dual frequencies.
The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
snip
I am wondering: how realistic is a test which assumes that the phone will be 30cm from the equipment?
I tend to agree in that I find the wisdom of flying aircraft that can be interfered with by an every day gizmo a little questionable. I talked to a pilot about this a while back and he said that yes, it's true, the cabling is not very shielded, so sometimes even laptops in mid-flight can cause instruments/radio to flake out a little, since the EM tends to bounce all around inside the metal hollow cylinder you're in.
Has anyone ever left their phone on anyway and checked their signal strength at 35,000 feet?
I had a sucky sig.
For a second there, I thought it said "Mobile Phones Disrupt Ashcroft." And I was ALL SET take my cell phone down to the White House! :-P
My journal has hot
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Granted, it takes the airlines forever to agree to small safety changes like, oh, I don't know... Installing non-flammable seat cushions?!? I guess we can't really expect too much in the way of retrofits, particularly in today's economic climate.
We bail 'em out, they waste it, we'll just bail 'em out again.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
They should have some sort of EMP gateway people walk through before boarding the plane, with a simple message: "Turn of your phone, or we will turn it of permanently!!" safety above all!
...using your cellphone on board an aircraft is a Bad Idea. Even if you disregard the safety issues, there's another issue: the cellphone system depends on each phone being seen by a small number of cell sites. This works fine on the ground, but at 37,000 feet, one cellphone can activate literally hundreds of sites. The cellular network cannot deal well with this situation.
The cell network can, however, detect this condition, and report the number of a phone that's on use in the air (by the sheer number of sites it talks to). The FCC has issued fines before to people who have used their cellphones inflight. Want a fine? Then turn yours on.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You are close, but not 100% accurate.
There actually were terrorists. It was their crash strategy that was covered up. They forced all passengers to phone home, and that was how they brought down the planes.
who needs to use there cell phone... IN AN AIRPLANE?? If you need to call someone.. just wait a couple hours until your plane lands then hit the nearest pay phone.. if its an emergency... your on a friggin plane anyway..theres nothing your going to do.
Besides.. alot of the larger planes have phones built into the seats anyway, why not just use those?
And for those of you who need to play nibbles or whatever... you need to unplug and get more fresh air or something.
we should punish those people who try to use cell phones by taking thier cell phone away and making them use satalite phones(when they get off the plane that is)
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
It would be trivial to get a broadband or frequency hopping high power radio onboard an aircraft and disrupt systems during critical junct...
D UP !!!
Gaw!.Geez!..SHHHHH!..Shut-upShut-upShut-upSHADD
Because of the high dopplar shifts. They are only meant to work when the base station and mobile are moving less than 100 KPH relative to each other. (I think it is higher for GSM, it is meant to operate on high speeed european trains) I was amazed that people on one of the Sept. 11th hijacked planes were able to even use their phones. Your call would also be handing off from one base station to another and a very high rate.
My rights don't need management.
First time I was going to go on a plane I thought that I would be able to leave my mobile on and see what areas I'll pass thru on my mobile screen (showing the name of the area in the zone you're in). It wasn't to be, I had to switch the thing off - I still sat next to the window though.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
There are already compatibility problems between cell phones and cordless phones (at least, I and others I know can't use both simultaneously because of interference)and I'm sure other problems will surface with the flavors of 802.11. But wireless technology just keeps advancing without much assessment of the risks, and the FCC seems more concerned with spectrum selloff and taxing modems than with the actual effects of the technology.
I also wonder, given the apparent senstivity of aircraft to the weak signals from cellphones, how safe are they really when powerful radar systems lock onto them? In the past, I have come across (ground-based) cases where directional radar caused severe interference and the military simply denied the existence of the radar (sorry, guys, panoramic receivers and signal strength meters are more reliable than base spokesmen.)It looks like this whole issue needs a lot more transparency and joint investigation. It isn't good enough just to say "OK, can't take this, switch them off". If there is an EMC problem with current aircraft, it needs to be investigated properly and we need to be told about it.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I used to be firmly against the interference argument - until one day at work I heard my hardline phone making all kinds of weird buzzings and beepings. Oddly enough, they sounded identical to the noise I occasionally get on my cell phone. The cell phone, not surprisingly, was sitting right next to my hardline phone. After moving my cell to various positions, I discovered that it does indeed interfere with my hardline phone. When I moved the cell away the periodic noises stopped, and when I placed it next to the phone the noises began again.
Now, I seriously doubt my phone operates anywhere near the band that my cell uses, but for some reason the cell manages to interfere. Based on the outcome of this little experiment, I would definitely believe that cells could interfere with other systems - including aircraft systems - even though it may seem counterintuitive.
Dildos dont generate anything, they are dumb devices, its vibrators (yes there is a difference)that are powered.
'nearly free'? I suppose if you don't count the service... ;)
My journal has hot
Who the hell uses their cell phone on a fight anyway? Can you even get reception? When your flying, sit back, watch a movie, and work/play on your laptop. Your going 400 mph a few 1000 feet up. You'll be ok unwired for a bit.
I do security
In a Discovery Wings program (self described Discovery geek with a VFR rating), they showed the build and testing cycle for new aircraft. Even their engineers said (while standing in front of a electronics emissions testing array) that at least on their aircraft, that nothing within the 'consumer bandwidth' can affect the installed electronics.
But to put an argument to those that say that the airlines are prohibiting cellphones to promote skyphones... 'Most' cellular services utilize directional antenna that completely terminates at the ground within 3 - 5 miles. Just ask anyone who works in a building above the 4th floor and can see the cell tower in the distance. Plus, even for those companies that still use large arrays of omni-directional antenna, skipping from tower to tower at 400mph (3 - 6 miles over them) would be difficult for the MTA to keep the call terminated at the handset.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear to be bright. Until you hear them speak.
Okay, cell phones make some amount of sense to be required to turn off during flight. But you will also find that GPS recievers are not allowed on at all!
This is ridiculous. GPS recievers are exactly what they say, recievers. They do not actively transmit any radio waves at all. GPS works because there are 27 (I think) sattelites in orbit constantly broadcasting the information neccessary for a GPS reciever to triangulate its position.
One thing that I do find funny is that in the air flight guide they say that no "Global Positioning Systems" are allowed. Does this mean they expect the government to turn off its sattelites when the plane is flying?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
No, it was British politicians and journalists. British scientists good ( think magnetrons, radar, penicillin ) British politicians useless (think WW1, WW2, dithering on whether closer to US/Europe - hint, guys, 3000 miles versus 20 - crime, vandalism, economic backwardness). British journalists - don't get me started.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Last I heard, fiber optic cable was lighter, has better bandwidth and is cheaper per foot than copper. Oh, and its immune to interference.
Downside, higher cost per connector.
Talking on a cellphone while any vehicle is moving should be a crime punishable by a severe power stapling. Or caning, as they do in Singapore. Yeah... I've had 3 suvtards in the last month nearly take me out while driving their Maibatsu Mostrosities with cellphones glued to their ears. You may as well just down a fifth of Jack Daniels before getting behind the wheel of that thing. Shut up and drive!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't know if you've seen this ad, but there is a Apple laptop ad with a very short dude and a very tall dude sitting next to each other on the plane. You hear a chime, and hear a voice saying that it's now OK to remove your seatbelts, as you do on every flight once it's at crusing altitude. Then both dudes reach into their bags and pull out their laptops, open them up, and they come on straight away.
Now, airlines say that it's not enough to just suspend a laptop, it has to actually be shut down, but apparently these rules don't apply to Mac users, since they're so much more "creative" than ordinary people. There needs to be a clear rule, just power off all electronic devices during take off and landing, otherwise you'll get people saying "but it's not a phone it's a Mac with a wireless modem" and that'll just inconvenience everyone. Or get them killed, whatever.
I'm sure not every airplane is susceptible to interference from every phone; but it's obvious that some airplanes and some components are susceptible. As a pilot, if the compass swings or the autopilot tracks off in some weird direction, it would be difficult with the equipment currently installed on most aircraft, to determine that it was because of the phone call going on in first class.
Cell phones are worse for this sort of thing than say, a Gameboy, because the cell phone is built to be a transmitter. Sure, other devices will emit some rf; but the cell phones are designed to do so.
I remember my first cell phone came with a warning to turn it off when driving by construction sites where blasting was going on. There was some fear that a signal from the phone could cause problems with the equipment they were using to set off dynamite.
I'm not sure I buy the whole thing about cell phones causing fires at gas stations; but I also wouldn't call it impossible.
As for the airplane, it certainly can swing the compass; and its effects on VOR/OBS equipment are demonstrable.
I don't get why it's so hard to believe. Most of these airplanes were designed long before cell phones and laptops were the norm. It wasn't a danger anybody had conceived of. If we want to build the new airplanes to be immune to these effects, that's great (and I suspect we already do so with the new airplanes); but retrofitting the wiring harnesses, etc. on old airplanes is not tenable. All you have to do is take that already obnoxious thing out of your ear for a while. Consider the airplane sanctuary from your phone. You not only have a reason for turning it off, you have a responsibility.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
at least according to the bbc article.
...
It found evidence that calls produced interference levels which could disrupt aircraft systems. Faults that could be attributed to mobile phones use include
I see a lot of "coulds" and not a single "did". So what they found was that they have no better information now than they did before. Did they observe a single instance where there was interference? It's seems highly dubious that they couldn't construct a scenerio where they could conclusively show this "error".
And it's been stated before but I think it's worth mentioning again. By god, if cell phones are really capable of such chaos, why on earth do they allow them on the planes to begin with? Just what I need is to have someone bring down my plane because they forgot their phone was on in their briefcase, or 6 members of some terrorist org only need to start sms'ing each other to take down a 747 full of people. There is a severe disconnect between what the FAA is claiming and their actions taken. What, I have 5 people make sure I don't bring finger nail clippers onto the plane, but no one cares that I can bring the entire thing down with my Nokia?
No discman, no PDA, no notebook... nasty. More research like this would show exactly which electronic equipment can cause disruption and which are safe.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
> For a second there, I thought it said "Mobile Phones Disrupt Ashcroft." And I was ALL SET take my cell phone down to the White House!
Send him a pic of Lady Of Justice With The Exposed Tit and he'll be disrupted for days.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The major beef that I have with the airline companies is when they tell me to turn all my other electrical devices off as well.
"Turn my Gameboy off??! You must be joking?" But I kid you not I have been asked to turn my gameboy off in mid-flight. Come on, lets get real here. A gameboy aint going to bring a plan down. But some airlines insist on a zero-tolerance approach.
I've never had a problem with a phone just being on. It's only when they're tranmitting.
Of course, this is just my limited experience. I make no claim that this is true for ALL avionics. But you would think that the big planes would have better radios than a C172 rental.
There is no spoon or sig.
if consumer legal transmitting devices cause problems on planes then the planes should have thier certificate of airworthness revoked PERIOD
So an aircraft designed and built today, should be safe against a product that won't be invented for another 20 years? That uses previously unassigned freq range. That does things not conceived when the aircraft was built.
How about we do it the other way around. Have the people that make the cell phones, et al, make them safe and not interfere with older equipment. If they can't do that, revoke their FCC license for building and selling unsafe equipment.
I don't wanna hear what your doing on the weekend or what business deal you are doing. Its annoying enough when your on a bus or a train. From Oz to Europe its 24hrs. I don't wanna hear your innane chatter the whole way.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Taking the article at face value, which I do, cellphone use really is a hazard. But simply asking people to turn of their cell phones probably isn't good enough.
I'm perfectly cooperative, but on my last plane flight I had put my cell phone in my backpack, put the backpack in the overhead luggage, honestly thought it was turned off, and after landing discovered I had left it turned on.
What does a cell phone do when it's powered on but not being used to make or receive calls? Does it transmit occasionally and spontaneously?
So the next question is: without suggesting any draconian measures, is there any good way that flight staff can _detect_ that there's a powered-up cell phone on board--so that they can politely tell the flyer to turn it off?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It would be interesting if one of the mitigating factors how passangers on UAL 77 overpowered their hijackers was because of the cell phones used to call loved ones, hence interfering with the instrumentation and/or guidance controls, enough to distract the highjackers.
Hmmmmmm.....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
You idiot, the tv doesn't get screwed up, that's the razor making your face vibrate.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Just to check in --
Airplanes can be crashed / have their course change by a sufficient number of people turning on their cell phones during flight?
RIGHT. This is why they search your shoes for bombs, but don't bother to take away your laptop, cell phone, and pager. Because the laptop cell phone and pager are HIGHLY dangerous articles.
If the FAA were convinced, even slightly, that your cellphone could have a legitimately bad effect on the safety of the flight, THEY WOULD NOT LET YOU HAVE IT. That should be obvious to anyone who has flown in the last two years.
You see signs in gas stations requesting that mobile phones be switched off.
Is there any research to prove that this is a real danger?
And I hit the preview button as well to check. My Dumbass.
And to the ACs who still want to nitpick: Let's Troll.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
now we're going to see terrorists calling kabul mid flight on their cellphones.
The rules regarding portable electronic devices predate cell phones and the air-phones in aircraft. While I don't disagree that perhaps part of the reason they haven't been approved is because the airlines don't want them approved for use, perhaps part of the problem is that the airlines actually DO want to make things as safe as possible without dramatically over-inconveniencing people. If there is any chance at all that cell phones MIGHT screw up something once out of every 10,000,000 flights, what's wrong with them being that tiny tiny bit safer? Or even having the perception of being slightly safer?
It *is* up to the airlines to decide if a particular device is or is not to be used. What I mean by that is that although rumor has it that cell towers get screwed up if a phone "sees" too many of them, it's under the FAA's and the airline's discretion. Although I could be wrong, I am unaware of any FCC rule that says that cellular telephones are not to be used on planes.
For what it's worth, here is the relivant FAR:
125.204 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the Part 125 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that Part 125 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
At any rate, and I know I will be slammed for this one: Why can't people play by the rules, ever? It seems that quite a few people don't turn off their cell phones on aircraft. It seems that these are the same people that get up before the airplane gets to the gate; the same people that don't turn off their cell phones when going to the theater. How much, really, does it harm your personal liberties to play by the rules occasionally, and turn off the damn things when on an airplane? This society seems to always be "me me me me", and this just seems to be a symptom.
So make the guy sitting next to you feel better. Put your seatback in the upright position when they tell you to, turn off the laptop when you should, and leave the cell phone off.
When all the redundant power in an airplane fails, the hydralics and compass will still work. The pilots don't use the compass much whent he much more advanced electirc systems are working. So when the plane is hit but lightning (or something else which takes the power out) the pilot really needs the compass to know which way to go, and just then, every joey on the plane fires up his cell phone and the compass goes haywire.
I'm a private pilot, and I always thought the reason cell phone usage was restricted wasn't interferance (on a clear day, you don't need any electronics in the plane, just spark to the plugs) I thought it was becuase the massivly increased range of the phone screws up the cell to cell protocol.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
I'm happy to hear this. Personally, what I hate most about cellphones is that some people don't know how to modulate their volume. I'm for any excuse that stops them from yelling a conversation right next to me for four hours (with an aircraft power supply charger so they don't run dry!)
Kevin Fox
I got a letter from Orange once, complaining about my phone jamming six adjacent cells (two cells that normally can't see each other suddenly both get the same phone at the same time). This was from having my phone switched on in an aircraft at around 3,500 feet.
ring.....
Cripes, my ham gear transmitting at 25 watts is only at 11 volts per meter as measured by a field strength meter...
Depends. On average mobiles use a very low intensity. However they send in very short bursts. They just donÂt specify if this 50 V/m is reached.
Clearly they need to install shielding. People taking phones onto planes and leaving them on is inevitable even if you tell them to switch them off. Having the safety of a plane rely on the goodwill of its passengers to follow instructions is ridiculous and is just a convenient way for airlines to shift the blame.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Assuming, of course, that they can find my fingers at the crash site.
(Actually, I don't own a cell phone...)
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Anybody know what the penalty for actually having your cell phone ring while in flight is?
Know the penalty for actually answering it?
Just curious, this is a question (not a statement)
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
I don't think so.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
IS this a potential security threat? If airline systems are so easily affected by a cell phone, surely a would-be terrorist could find something (a modified cell phone or laptop) to put out additional interference.
British journalists - don't get me started.
Last night on BBC2's University Challenge, as reported in the Times 10th June page 3 - Journalist team scored 215, House of Commons team 25.
Fine, so cell phones really do disrupt airplanes. I still don't believe it, but, if it's true then we've identified an exploit that needs to be fixed. "Please turn off your cellphone" is not a fix.
"Software company X has identified a buffer overflow in our popular Y software, which can lead to a remote root exploit. Rather than fixing it, we're asking that you please don't connect to port yz and send a string that is 5000 characters long and ends with the binary sequence..."
Moronic. Fix the bug and quit boring us with the details.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
There are all sorts of disaster scenarios, some quite plausible as pilots have reported similar effects when they left their phone on by accident (read the article linked to in another post). Apparently cell phones can affect:
- Navigation / GPS
- Comms
- Autopilot (possibly related to navigation system)
If you're up 30.000 feet, problems caused by mobile phones might be easily corrected. I'm much more worried about problems during takeoff or landing. Imagine a difficult landing in a low cloud cover, and a GSM screwing up the navigations!
Some idiots think it's okay to switch their phone on as soon as the aircraft leaves the runway after a landing. Imagine the GSM messing up the comms system so the pilot misses the order to 'hold at runway 30 because there's a great big 747 taking off there right now'.
Besides these issues, the issue of disrupting the GSM system pales somewhat.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Now how do you cope with flight attendant that ask you to stop your Gamegear/Gameboy/Palm ?
All electronic devices ? I mean, I have to rip off my digital watch everytime I get within 2 miles of the Airport?
I don't know how much radiation my palm Vx is emitting, but if it is enough to trouble the plane electronics, I'll reverse to walking/driving...
Better yet, if I got Heart Implant, or Insuline pump, I just see myself beginning major surgery on myself just before take off...
There has to be a limit to what is forbidden.
They could also use a small cell canceller aboard and start it with the engines...if the canceller isn't too dangerous for their equipment, that is...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
If you bothed to read the CAA report you would find this in the summary: The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness. â Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing. â Instability of indicators. â Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees. â VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal. â VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag. â Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver. â Background noise on audio outputs. As for you second point - its clear that 99.99% of the time mobiles don't cause problems. Its just the 0.001% that remains you need to worry.
Four planes are hijacked and crashed in the history of flying, and you refuse to fly anymore? I'd say it's a case of common sense outweighing hysteria.
Mobile/Cell phones already cause interference to everyday domestic equipment. Try using a landline telephone or listen to a radio next to a mobile you'll hear clicks and buzzing as the mobile seeks out a base station.
Around 70% of the people I know have a mobile phone.
Mobiles increase their signal strength to compensate for poor signal quality, such as when you're five miles from the nearest base station a la 30000+ feet.
A flight with say 300 passengers carrying 200 mobiles in a concentrated environment all trying to communicate with a base station is simply not good.
Until flight equipment is certfied as being completely resistant to the interference generated from portable comms, keep them switched off.
Really, aren't you getting sick of people who envade your privacy and violate your right not to hear their goddamn phone conversations. No matter where you go, there are people who constantly jabber on their cells; moreover, their talks are hardly useful. What was the last time you heard somebody talk about something important on their phone while standing in line or at a coffee shop? Please, all these stupid calls about girl/boy issues and personal problems can be postponed until you get home.
As for the cell phones and airlines... Nobody will do anything until at least one major airplane crashes. Remeber, nobody could even think of terrorist acts in the U.S. until they happened.
It doesn't just stop there, either. Have you looked in the back section of a modern mobile phone manual lately? It's like a laundry-list of freak accidents that could happen... and the fact that these events are mentioned at all means, sometime in the past, they probably did.
Here, I just grabbed the PDF for the T68i manual. Some salient points:
- Some cars do not allow the use of a handsfree kit, with external antenna, because it interferes with the car's electronics. Nice.
- "Mobile phones may affect the operation of some implanted cardiac pacemakers and other medically implanted equipment." They tell you to use the phone in "the ear opposite the pacemaker". Again, nice.
- They tell you not to use the phone when on, near, or looking at any aircraft of course.
- The phones can interfere with the blasting trigger used in demolition sites, as that is also a two-way radio. Ulp. I don't know about you guys but there's practically no chance I'd notice a 'two-way radio in use' sign while tooling along, talking on the phone.
- "Turn off your phone when in any area with a potentially explosive atmosphere... these areas can include fuel stations, below deck on boats, chemical storage facilities, and areas where the air contains chemicals or particles, such as grain, dust, or metal powders." The phones can generate sparks. Always keep that in mind.
And this of course doesn't count the problems they've fixed already... like how spare change in your pockets used to short the power leads on your phone, setting your pants on fire. As for the plane thing, I doubt you would get reception in most circumstances (the 9-11 calls were sort of freakish). On the other hand I've noticed that they do not take any chances on planes; I had a stewardess tell me to turn off my MiniDisc player during takeoff. Protests to the effect of "it has no radio" fell on deaf ears.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I question this tests accuracy. They used a field strength of 50V/meter and then put the test equipment at 30cm. As a passenger I get no where close to the navigational equipment. They mentioned wiring harness in the report but they did not give any test results from the wiring harness. 50V is WAY more interference than any cell phone would ever give off. Again they did not actually use cell phones to conduct this experiment. They used high power interference generators. If a 2 watt device can bring down a plane does anyone really want to be on that plane?
Did you give up driving, too? More people are killed on the roads every week than die from terrorist attacks every year.
Have a policy that if a cell phone rings, or if someone is caught talking on one during the flight, they will be immediately ejected.
Suddenly, people will double check thier phones.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
What does this mean with regard to towers? How far aways from a cell phone tower do you have to be before the field strength is less than 30v/cm? Towers are now ubiquitous, how could an airplane make an approach in a major city without flying too close to a tower?
Maritime Accident Reporting Scheme
Various shipping companies ban them.
Four planes with people on it.
One those planes, people used cell phones to send their last regards to friends and family.
Each of those four planes crashed.
Coincidence? I think not.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
This was a response to this comment.
see a lot of "coulds" and not a single "did". So what they found was that they have no better information now than they did before. Did they
observe a single instance where there was interference? It's seems highly dubious that they couldn't construct a scenerio where they could
conclusively show this "error".
Funny. I remember alot of talking about the Challenger accident that involved alot of 'coulds' and how it was 'remotely' possible the seals would fail.
Even more resently there's talk about failuremodes for our latest shuttle disaster, and hour things could fail.
But then again, you self-indulgent creature... go right ahead and gamble with MY life.... because you obviously are qualified to make those decisions for me
If it's truly a safety issue and kills people, then why don't they create radio-transmission detectors. Asking for voluntary compliance on something dangerous is ridiculous. They could build in an always-on detector at each end of the cabin and in the luggage area and have a portable unit to aid in finding the offending device. That this hasn't been done yet tells me that it's not *truly* dangerous.
For all those replies modded at five that complained about a terrorist being able to take down a plane w/ a Nokia or the system requiring everyone to opt out, simmer down.
It's obviously not a big safety problem, and if you plan on taking a plane down by flipping on your phone, you will waste a lot of time flying.
Think of how many calls would be going on if they allowed it, though. There would be at least 30-50 calls going on during every take off and landing in the country. That's a lot of calls that they are stopping w/ the current policy, which obviously works.
...am I forced to turn off my Gameboy Advance SP?
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
An aeroplane carries many electrical signals around its wiring harness. These can act as antennas and pick up interference from RF sources. Many were designed when there was less requirement to be immune to RF, because no-one could have envisaged at the time that people would be carrying portable radio transmitters.
Aircraft engines are supposed to be stripped down and rebuilt every so often. I'm not sure whether the requirement applies to wiring harnesses. If so, it would be possible to stipulate that shielded cables be employed. But don't be tempted to think that would be an end to it.
The real problem is one of testability. Automotive electronics are tested by placing the vehicle in a Faraday chamber and bombarding it with RF from a signal generator, amplifier and antenna, and seeing what goes wrong. Obviously, parts can be tested this way too
Getting a Faraday chamber big enough for an aircraft is a surmountable logistical problem. Actually doing the testing will take a long time.
But the worst is that it takes only the tiniest alteration in a single parameter to completely alter the sensitivity of the whole system. You can do the test in the chamber, and it will pass; but out in the wild, things are different. Aw, what the hell
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
perhaps this is a good opportunity for cell phone blocking material to be used in the passenger part of planes?
I remmeber reading about this about a year ago, some theaters were thinking about using it.
If cell phones cause so much disruption then why the hell aren't planes dropping out of the sky whenever they pass by a megawatt transmission tower?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Other side-effects of mobile use I have noted:
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
Apparently the danger mainly comes from people in the flight cabin or people in first class having mobile phones (say in their bags, on the floor).
People in economy don't cause that much interference, but it still is sizable.
It also explains why laptops are almost safe. Apparently they only affect the antennas and not navigation...
/. Where the truth
The flight attendant would tell you politely to turn it off. If you refuse, they'd probably have to escalate to the captain or the co-captain. If you still refused, I think you could even be considered to be endangering the flight (like getting too drunk and refusing to take your seat, etc, etc... which IS a federal offense at this point, and you *would* go to jail).
That's just my guess, though.
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
[Wrero wrote..] For what it's worth, here is the relivant FAR: 125.204 Portable electronic devices. (yada yada) [end snip]
However, the US majors and national airlines operate under FAR 121, not part 125, which is for charters, and the like.
Part 125 details are here.
Note that in paragraph (a) under 125.1 reads "..when common carriage is not involved". This excludes the type of ticketed travel most people make use of.
Nevertheless, the parts about portable electronic devices are the same in both, IIRC.
-- Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
SCARE THE HELL OUTTA ANYBODY else that a simple mobile telephone can generate sufficient interference to disrupt the safety of a commercial airliner..... Lets see i wonder what other NATURALLY occurences generate MANY MAGNATUDES higher interference....maybe we should outlaw them as well...LIKE SUN SPOTS etc.... Come on people think, if they are that sensative to interference than all airliners should be grounded til this issue is resolved. Mobile phones and such are the least of your worries...
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
An engineer, I absolutely hate to fly. The chain of error from the airline manufacturer to the pilot, to the grunt on the ground, to the Air Traffic Controller...and so on...is just too high to stand. (Knowing where management stands on risk and cash-flow doesn't help either) Now I have to worry, not just about crazy terrorists but the soccer mom/evil lawyer who just must have their cellphone on? Or worse, simply forgets to turn off the damned thing? This is why I take the 6hr drive back home instead of the $125 flight. entropy
It seems to me there are a heck of alot of places that mobile phones are not permited to be used. Airplanes, hospitals and the like due to the possiblity of interearance with equipment. This makes a fair amount of sence. Rather then trying to redesign something like an aircraft, medical equipment and the like... why not create a stanard for closed circut mobile.
Let's say a plane, you can't use them on board anyway, let's say there was a simple protocal to tell the phone to not search for the usual towers, but work on the designated local system? While this wouldn't work too well for typical consumers in hospitals, wouldn't be so bad for doctors to keep in touch. For the period of time fixed in the physical hospital, it would use the hospital network.
I know the concept is a touch too impractical for words, but hey just a thought as people are generally stupid when it comes to following these rules even when safty is an issue. I always thought it was somewhat silly to own both a cordless and a mobile if it was easy enough to make the mobile work on cordless frequencies. What not as elaberate as a designated no mobile zone, it would be something i'd buy.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I've seen similar interference problems at Alton Towers theme park in Derbyshire. When I was there last year they were having terrible problems with Oblivion reporting non-existent errors which stopped the ride. Apparently none of these errors would occur when the park was empty so there were signs everywhere telling people to turn their phones off. Unfortunately now everyone uses mobile phones in theme parks to keep track of the kids, and then panic when they find the kids aren't answering their phones.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
people in our ballroom dance club tend to leave their mobile phones on the table near CD player. For some strange reasons they think that their phone will be more safe in the heap of phones than in the dress room... anyway. When someone forgets to turn off their phone CD player started to skip (we had three different models) and once one of them was shut down completely, trainer had to turn it off and on.
Now if this shit happens with common stuff than these phones could place enough interference on non-shielded aircraft componens. Of couse proper way is to shield them, but it's almost impossible, it's cheaper to scrap airplane completely.
Unless larger aircraft are for some obscure reason far more sensitive to cellphones than your average learjet (and I know for a fact most of those pilots don't give a damn if you use a cell or not) then this report is just another in the walking line of BS. Not that the airlines have anything to gain by having you use their very own overpriced phone system, nooooo...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Darn it. Yes, I know that. doh. I stand corrected.
Either way, Same rules in both, as well as being the same in part 91 (General Aviation).
So you want to use your microwave generating phone while sitting next to me on the aircraft ?
Fine, so long as I can smoke.
graspee
So, cellphones are out, but magic magnetic health bracelets are OK. Got it.
This whole problem is very easy to solve. Newer aircraft are probably immune, so check that this is realy the case and the allow mobiles on those flights. On older aircraft fit cellphone detectors (we have one in the reception where I work and I'm sure it wasn't expensive) or better still, cellphone jammers. A jammer would only need to radiate a tiny amount of power, so it shouldn't cause any interference itself.
It seems the testing simulated normal intentional transmission (i.e., a normal phone call).
It would be interesting to see if BROKEN cell phones can transmit more nasty electrical energy; that is, with all the cell phones having been dropped at least once, I'm sure that some of them have extraneous, perhaps out-of-band transmissions. Even if they appear to be working correctly, I would guess that SOME of them are screwed up.
As a side note, I know that when I get a phone call, I usually know before the phone rings. Buzzing comes out of my computer speakers, and the monitors get a little funky right before the phone starts ringing.
Mobile phones only effect navigation equipment when they are TRANSMITTING. Having a mobile phone turned on does not cause any harm to electronic navigation systems unless you are actually talking on the phone. Computers, PDA's, and other electronic devices do NOT affect navigation equipment. The only electronic devices that can cause interference with other electronic equipment are the ones that propograte RF (Radio Frequency)... You know... WiFi, Bluetooth, Cell Phones, Radio Tansmitters, etc...
Knowing this, I don't see the need to limit the use of electronic equipment that does not propogate RF. I also don't see why cell phones can't be turned on as long as you are not talking on them. Many phones are becoming more and more technologically advanced such that you could be using you phone for other things besides talking with your friends. Personally, I think that you should be able to use your cell phone for anything you want (Games, calculator, whatever...)as log as your phone doesn't transmit anything.
Just my 2 cents...
- Slew -
the airlince are constantly trying to creat a system that is immune th these effects, but they arn't quite there. IT is not uncommon for an aircraft company to offer and buy your cell from you, on the spot, if it causes some disturbance.
they then test the phone, and if it is out of spec, They bitch at the cell phone maker, if it is throwinf power within spec, then hand it to engineer to figre out how to shield against it.
Then there's that whole it's beter safe then sorry aspect.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd do it myself, but have posted elsewhere.
Why? To reward someone actually taking the time to propose a solution, rather than just ranting...
Ok, now try calling the cell phone and watch the compass jump and twitch while the phone rings a foot away.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Industrial automation is shielded to the harshest IEC spec (10V/m) which is generated by a GSM900 2W output at 60cm distance. Consumer electronics has to withstand 3V/m which would be about 1 meter (inverse square law) .. Shielded environment devices are tested against 1V/m, which you would hit at around 1.6 meters. EMI apparently does not exist in US, it's just European and Asian phenomenom.
That's free air distance, not taking into account the great many wires in the plane picking up the interference. Cell phone is not an insignificant EMI generator, it's bloody noisy especially with bad reception.
Oh, and I've heard a couple of times the captain announce we're not going anywhere until you gentlemen turn off your phones. Couldn't finish pre-takeoff check-up due to picking up emissions..
I mean, come on! 250 kilometers of cable in an aeroplane, with minimal shielding (as that adss weight); we know gameboys and laptops create interference (which is not odd at all, since those devices also have minimal shielding due to weight issues) during takeoff and landing (the most intensive periods in any flight), and then you're surprised that a mobile phone, which intentionally sends out and recieves electromagnetic radiation, disturbs the complex nest of cbles in a plane?
Common sence should have told you this years ago.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
...better safe than sorry...better safe than sorry...
Let's take a poll. Which do you think is safer, talking while flying (subliminally think of terrorism now) or talking while driving? Let's give the people one more thing to fret over. Notice how the report states that phones are "a threat" to airplanes instead of something reasonable like "they might interfere on occasion". If phones are setting off smoke alarms and messing up compasses, chances are they're flying over the Bermuda triangle anyway. Look, I'm talking on a cell ph)ne r1ght n0w,, and no7hin9's hap.
On that one I have to agree.
And those people will be the first to the wall when...Ahem,sorry, got taken for a bit there 8)
Of course some people will try and abuse the situation. And of course we shouldn't count on darwinism to get rid of them, because the rest of the plane will count in the casualties...
Maybe a frequency scanner should be used before takeoff, at a guess when the pretty lady (business and first class only, economy gets the crones) come to check my seatbelt is fastened... maybe she could use it in proximity mode and have it beep whenever she is within 2 meters on a radio signal?
Of course it's no problem to wait 10 minutes without working, but then... They only forbid use during takeoff and landing (true, those are critical moments), but does my laptop emits less radiation when we're 10 000 feet high ?
So all I want them is to get a practical answer...something is forbidden all the time (cell phones) and some things are not forbidden at all (laptops, GBA...)
But then, I can hammer myself to death before seeing MonstroCorps Incs do an educated move like that.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
You make a good point. And honestly I have nothing against the scientist in Britain, my early comment was a intended as humor (or humour, if you prefer), but either people are just a little overly sensitive, or I need to be sure to put ascii smiley faces on post intended to bring levity.
I have read numerous reports filed with the NTSB and the FAA regarding the use of cellular phones or other RF-based mobile devices onboard both commercial and GA aircraft, and have found that it is a big pain in the ass in many cases. I've never experienced the problem myself since I do not allow cell phones to be used in any aircraft that I'm flying, but I have heard that they tend to wreak havoc with the VOR and sometimes ADF navigation, in addition to disrupting VHF radio equipment. Although GPS navigation does seem to be at least mostly immune from this problem, the other methods of navigation when flying IFR can be quite severely affected by the use of cell phones. Don't forget, a misreading of even 5 degrees on a VOR channel can cause a plane to be up to 20 miles off course. This definitely falls into one of those better safe than sorry categories.
...but there are two stages to addressing this problem:
1) Passengers, do obey all instructions from the crew. Even if you don't get yourself and your fellow passengers killed, you can get in serious trouble for wilfully interfering with the operation of a vessel under way.
2) Airlines, FIX YOUR AVIONICS. Anything *that* fragile should not be associated with terms like "safety", except in a negative sense. No legally purchased electronic gizmo should be able to disrupt flight systems, period.
A bloody freak 8p
well, he tried speaking his way through security people, which are known all around the world to come with an Engenner degree, an IQ certificate, and for some a paper certifying they are human...
also, it happened in March 2002, and people were a bit "touchy" at the time with airplane security and nail clippers, so imagine your reaction when you see the metal detector sparkling and the guy shouting "ARRRRgHH !!! Who cut my automated Pr0n Browser?!?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Well thank you - I certainly try to be worth reading.
But it DOES get very discouraging when you get flamed to death over a minor speling (sic) error when you are trying to make a point.
Excuse me, but I must fly out to Galveston to help Motorola install a trunked radio system now.
www.eFax.com are spammers
The scary thing is that the cell phone users are just about as likely to get in an accident as someone who downs a fifth of Jack Daniels--this was proven by a study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997.
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
I am in the habbit of turning my phone back on once we have landed and are going to the gate. Twice something wierd has happened. 1. Turned the phone on and had no signal until the exact second the doors opened then full signal. Were they jamming my phone? 2. Turned the phone on and taxied around for about 5 minutes. The 10 seconds after I placed my call the captain came on requesting people to keep their phones off until we were at the gate and the doors were opened. Can they detect my phone usage? Finally I wonder why this would affect the airlines? Regardless as to wether or not I am using my phone the signals from the towers should be passing through the plane wether the phone is on or off.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
This is my experience with (accidentally!) left on mobile phones (GSM variety) in aircraft.
I fly light aircraft. On a dark, rainy night, a friend and I was approaching Ronaldsway. My friend was the 'handling pilot' (i.e. the guy who's waggling the stick), and I was in charge of the radios - setting up frequencies, identing navaids, talking to ATC etc. Although our aircraft (a Grumman Cheetah) only requires one aircraft, we fly together reasonably often and find this arrangement works very well.
My friend was at the time a very new instrument pilot. Ceilings (the bases of the clouds) were about 800 feet, winds were light, and it was pelting with rain. It was about an hour after sunset.
We were just intercepting the localiser (the horizontal guidance part of the ILS - instrument landing system), and we had been cleared for the ILS approach.
Suddenly, the radio was blotted out with:
'Bip-b b b bip b b bip b b bip b b bip' - the highly recognisable radio interference from a GSM phone. My friend had forgotten to switch it off when we had taken off an hour and a half earlier. His wife was phoning him.
It completely blotted out the COM radio with the extremely loud 'Bip-b b bip b b bip bzzzzzzzzzzzz' noise as the phone went off. However, it did not intefere with the nav radios nor the compass - the localiser needle continued to behave how it should have, as did the other instruments (the direction indicator, for example, is gyroscopic) and it did not affect the compass. However, the noise was extremely distracting, and if ATC had any further instructions, we had no chance of hearing them until we got the phone shut off or my friend's wife hung up.
Fortunately, with two of us on board, it was a non-event (I could fly whilst my friend turned the phone off).
An important point to remember: aircraft fly on the rules of Bernoulli and Newton, not the rules of Marconi! It's perfectly possible to fly without radios. The problem is in instrument conditions (i.e. in the clouds) where you can't navigate by looking out the windows. Even so, a prudent pilot always plans an 'out' in case of radio failure, and does not bet their lives on the continued operation of the com and nav radios!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
If there was an actual proven danger to aircraft they wouldn't just trust passengers to turn off their cell phones, any more than they trust us to "just unload any handguns you may have and store the bullets in a safe place". If there was a danger they wouldn't even allow cell phones or other electronics on the plane. Think about it!
The IEEE had a very interesting article in Spectrum magazine on the issue of portable electronics and flight safety.
The conclusion was that there is little doubt about the interference and it is not just cell phones. The article relates an incident when too many people listening to the radio (there was some "important" sports match going on) did cause noticeable interference. It seems that in most cases the pilot can notice that some instruments are providing inaccurate readings (thanks to having redundant information around, different instruments would be affected differently) and it doesn't become a big problem.
So, by using your high-frequency electronic devices inside the plane you're making the pilot's job more difficult. During cruise flight it may be less risky and during takeoff and landing it is definitely not recommended. Personally I wouldn't even trust that much those skyphones. I'd rather err on the safe side. Read a book!
I'm not sure I buy the whole thing about cell phones causing fires at gas stations; but I also wouldn't call it impossible.
Well, I'm sure that there hasn't been a single reported case where cellular phones have been determined to cause a gas station fire. I'm also sure that Nokia attempted to cause a fire using a cellular phone in their labs, and were unable to. They kept a disclaimer about it because of public FUD and fear of being sued frivolously, say by a gas station fire victim that also happened to have a cellular phone. The best way to prevent gas station fires is to not have an open flame around the pumps (obviously) and to stay outside your car while filling up. (most people don't know this one) When people get into their cars to wait for the tank to fill, then get back out, they sometimes charge themselves statically. When they touch the metal pump handle, it may cause a small spark. In very rare cases, this can set off an explosion. Of course, you're more likely to have a rock fall on your head from space than to blow up at a gas station, but it *does* happen. Just hasn't happened due to cellular phones, and I for one would be extremely surprised if it *ever* did. Is it still *possible*? Sure, the same way that winning the powerball lottery 50 times in a row is *possible*. Don't spread FUD about this issue please. There's plenty of that in the world as it is.
I don't get why it's so hard to believe. Most of these airplanes were designed long before cell phones and laptops were the norm. It wasn't a danger anybody had conceived of.
yeah, interference only began with cellular phones! It was *never* a problem in electronics before that damned cellular phone was invented!
Look, I'm sure cost or laziness or 'we don't need it' or something prevented them from shielding the cables on commercial airlines. I'm sure it was a reason that looked good in the budget, or whatever. That doesn't get around the fact that it *could* have been done differently in the beginning, it just wasn't; now it's too expensive to retrofit. Does it matter whose fault it is? At this point a soultion would require not only retrofitting commercial aircraft, but also changing the way the cellular tower network is constructed, and possibly even the way the whole system works. That just isn't going to happen. Can't we just agree that even if you *could* use your phone without screwing up the plane, it would still be a very bad idea given our current cellular tower/network design, so it doesn't really matter?
http://xkcd.com/386/
It all came to me on 9/11, when I was watching the news. I'm a frequent flyer, so I know all about how they say you can't use your phone, disrupts frequencies, magnetic fields, blah blah blah...
But on the news, here's what they said that stuck in my mind. When the planes hit, Prez Bush was in the air on Air Force One. Security immediately went back to the press corps who were also on Air Force One and said turn OFF your cellphones NOW, we don't want anyone to be able to track us by the cellphones.
So ok, the MOST IMPORTANT PLANE IN THE COUNTRY can afford to have a press corps full of cellphones on during flight, but the plane I'm on is going to crash and burn if there's even one?
Riiiiight..
Take your cell-phone, put it next to your (CRT) computer monitor, and call yourself. ... :)
Watch the flicker.
Profit.
The chances of the plane being influenced by a call may be very small, but very small is still non-zero. Would you like to crash in a plane due to someone else's fault?
A large radio station might put out 50 K Watt at frequencies much lower than a cell phone.
An FM radio station might be at 90 MHz.
Your cell phone might be at 900 MHz.
Also, your cell phone is much much closer to the aircraft avionics.
The strength of radio waves falls off with the inverse square of the distance.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
So the bottom line is that you don't mind a much higher probability of being killed, as long as you're the guy in charge when the excrement impacts the ventilating apparatus?
I'm hearing a lot more of this sort of thing lately. It seems to me that we're creating a world full of people who don't know how to assess risk. To many (most?), an airline disaster is a reason not to fly, despite the fact that they're far more likely to die if they drive to their destination. Or a story about a shark attack is a reason never to go swimming in the ocean. Or a novel respiratory disease that affect a tiny fraction of the population of a far-off country is sufficient reason to avoid contact with any member of that country's ethnic community (and no precautions are taken to avoid far more common and probably more dangerous well-known pathogens).
Why is this happening? Media hype, I think, particularly with respect to local TV news. Not a day goes by without a lurid story exposing the hidden dangers of hotel bedspreads, or the life-threatening hazards of defective electric can openers. They're always presented the same way, too. A teaser is presented early in the newscast, promising to reveal all about a vaguely described, previously unknown danger... but not until the end of the broadcast, ensuring that they audience will stick around. At each commercial break they throw in another hysterical teaser, each more disturbing than the last. When they finally get around to talking about it, it's usually a minor hazard presented as a mortal danger. Saturday Night Live did a dead-on parody of this a few months ago (fake anchorman: "Hint! It's *not* in your kitchen!").
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
If the airplane is designed to be used for 20 years, then *yes it should.* Otherwise, it should not be specced for a 20 year life span.
Ok...design shielding against any and all consumer products to be designed in 2023.
The military was shielding its cables back then, and I'd expect Boeing knew about it.
Well, since Boeing built many of those military aircraft, I'd expect they would have some idea about shielding against interference. Two things would seem to come into play. Weight and cost. It adds significant costs to harden all aircraft wiring against known and unknown interference. Evidently, they weren't willing to pay those costs back then.
Take an aircraft designed in 1975. Laptops were but a dream. Cellphones, CD players, GameBoys. Not even on the horizon. Much less what type of EM interference they would generate.
Making products forward compatible is incredibly hard. Making them backward compatible is much, much easier.
It seems hard to believe that cellular phones would be approved by the FCC for general use
Do your cell phone, WiFi, cordless phone, Bluetooth, microwave, TV, stereo ALL play well together? And all were 'approved' by the FCC.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
Despite my total lack of belief regarding the issue of disruption of flight operations, I do think that if you use a cell on a flight you should be beaten with a sack full of hammers. No one wants to listen to your stupid conversation with you boss/wife/frat buddy, that goes for buses, trains, theaters, bars ......whatever.
thats myIf you were engaged in the business of trying to "promote" the use of skyphones rather than allowing people to use their own cell phones, wouldn't you want the UKCAA on your side to back up the claims? I think they're in on it too ;)
You may now dawn your aluminum foil hat.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Want to see what your cell phone is doing? Here's something every one of you can do with your cell phone to witness the interference it creates:::
Place it upright, next to your computer monitor speakers. This will probably work best if you use the speaker with the amplifier built in (the speaker with the volume control on it).
Now wait to get a call -- or better, if you've got one of those fancy phone that updates the clock every hour or so. Before the screen lights up and it rings or before it updates the time, you'll hear an odd sound coming out of speakers. That's an example of the interference a cell phone can create.
Try it right now, and you'll see I'm not kidding.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
if you *really* thought that some choad leaving their cell phone on in their bag could cause the 737 you're on to crash....
would you really get on it?
Neither would I. This is just bullshit.
How do you account for the fact that you can use your cellphone in the plane on the runway, tarmack, etc? The RF is in the plane - regardless of which direction its going... from the cell phone or to the cell phone.
If this was actually dangerous, the cell towers within 5 miles of airports would all have to be shut down. The high-power, possibly interfering RF is not coming from your 200 mW GSM phone.. its from the kW tower on top of Concourse C.
think people... damnit.
life is rough, get a fscking helmet.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
A radio seems harmless, right? I mean, It doesn't transmit anything, so how could it be disruptive?
Take two radios, put them back to back (or a few feet apart). Tune one about 10 mhz above the other one (you have to have appropriate stations to try this, e.g. 92.5 and 102.9). You will hear one staion, but the other will be either distorted or fuzz.
This experiment shows the principle of destructive interference. Even though the radio isn't actually transmitting anything, the amplifier that bumps up the signal to the point where it can drive a speaker IS creating new electromagnetic waves, which at the right frequencies, interfere with other radio signals.
There's more to it, but seeing this for the first time is quite the eye-opener.
What the heck is a 'sig'?
What happens if someone calls you while you're playing your game? Your phone sends a signal to the cell tower acknowledging the call. If your phone is on, there is no way to be sure it won't transmit anything. That's why you have to turn them off.
-Amalcon
and the fact that these events are mentioned at all means, sometime in the past, they probably did.
Possibly, but I'm more inclined to believe that they put in anything that they can possibly think of that could cause liability problems. That way, if something does actually happen, they can point to the how they warned people, so it's not their fault.
I used to, before getting laid off, be a manufacturing engineer at http://www.horizonaero.com/ as you can see we made instruments for Boeing, etc etc etc.....the stuff was designed in the 1940's and 50's. The phrase they don't build them like they used to does not apply. The basics of the instrument is an armature with a coil glued to it,on jeweled bearings in a magnetic field. I've seen instruments knocked out of calibration by being tipped over on a table. The field put out by a pilot on a cell phone would changege the readings. Never mind I don't want the pilot chattering while he's supposed to be flying the plane. Further more planes are made with the idea that they can be restored to original condition. Updating or changing instrumentation on a large passenger bird would require 60 - 90 days of paper work and testing to be sure the new design didn't conflict w/ other instruments in the dash or older equipment. Its a nightmare to redesign instruments, as was working for the commercial aerospace instrument industry.
One cargo machine not too long ago collided with a passenger machine. Granted there was some slopyness within the Swiss control (it took place near the frontier) but this definitly proove that 1) Anti collidor in some situation may not work (aka there is human factor) 2) plane go really close to each others on regular basis.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY like to see Boeing, Airbus et al. installing avionics and comms systems that can't be disrupted by ubiquitous and nearly free techno-gadgets.
If radio interference from the passenger cabin is such a hazard they should just SHIELD THE PASSENGER CABIN!
Turn it into a faraday cage when the crew cabin door is closed.
This would NOT take a lot of weight: Heavily aluminized or copper-flashed mylar added to the insulating panels, doors, and bulkheads (along with metallic fingers or sponges to connect the joints) would do the job nicely. The windows could be lightly metalized (if they aren't already) which would also reduce glare and heat from the sun - or just left alone, since the high frequency stuff won't bend around to bother the avionics. Metal gaskets and ferrite donuts where conduits pass through bulkheads to/from passenger cabin, light metal coating where they pass through it on their way back out, and ferrite beads again on power and low-frequency signaling to cabin equipment. (And the TV system already lives in the cabin, where the stews can twiddle it.)
Shielding the cabin will also cut the cell phones off from the cells, to keep people from talking on them. (Or the plane could have a cell of its own just inside the cabin, without trashing the avionics. Low power, and provoking the phones to run at low power, too.) Alternatively, a "smoke detector" like device to alarm if anybody's phone is still on. (They "check in" every few minutes, so they're easy to detect.)
Similarly, 802.11 would be contained within the cabin, and could be detected and requested to be shut down if it's still a problem - or used for an in-flight internet service. And the ubiquitous switching power supplies would be no issue either, with THEIR radiation also contained.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is ridiculous. It's not an airline regulation that bans the use of mobile phones; it's an FAA regulation. This applies to general aviation as well as airline flights, too.
Whether the effect is very significant I wouldn't be able to guess (past what the article says) but many instruments are extremely sensetive to electromagnetic fields and thus tuned to precision in the exact field at the spot on the plain in which they are mounted.
For example, the actual compass (as opposed to the directional gyro, a high-speed gyroscope which allows easier reading and does not have turning-errors and the like) is mounted by a trained professional who then parks the plane in a compass rose painted on the ground and computes the deviation on the compass due to metal, electrical currents, and so forth throughout the plane. Adding to those currents and fields could be a minor issue, at the least. Even "E6B" circular slide-rule flight computers are typically made out of plastic or aluminum to avoid throwing off the compass of placed on the dash next to it.
For that matter, its entirely possible that radio navigation aids like VOR or ADF would be sensetive to certain electromagnetic fields.
Even if there were no significant need for this, I highly doubt that an accross-the-board ban would result from the airlines' desire to charge more for phone use. The FAA is incompetent, but not that incompetent. And they seem to err most often on the side of lax regulation, so its not really that bad to see them being strict about something.
It's the unfortunate habit that most people have of shouting into their cell phones.
Some people talk loudly when sitting around with their friends. Some people don't. I don't know more than one or two (hearing-impaired) people who *always* shout.
Some cell phone users feel the need to shout into their phones. I know that I don't. You probably don't either. But you've doubtless experienced someone bellowing "WHAT? HONEY, DO WE NEED CHEESE?" into a cell phone at the market.
Sometimes it's because the just don't realize that the phone can pick up a normal voice. More often, they want you to hear something about their conversation.
It's annoying and unnecessary.
The neologism for being assaulted with this kind of noise is "eaveslammed." Sample usage: I was at the store, and this guy eaveslammed me with his conversation about condom brands.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I was once told by a gas station attendant who had come back from a safety course (it was EXXON. Ride the Tiger baby!) the cell phone fire scenario is also due to static electricity. The claim is that static from the antenna might cause a problem. There is the additional possibility of the electronics inside the phone igniting gasoline fumes which permeate the case, but I would think this is something that could be tested for. Gasoline fumes are volatile but I have to wonder if they are really volatile enough to be ignited by the amount of current running through a cell phone.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
I'm not talking about a protocol. I'm talking about shielding. I'm sure it would add weight and cost. It would also protect the electronics from interference. That's called pros and cons. I'm not saying everyone is *going* to do what's best to do, I'm just pointing out that it *could* have been prevented with better design. The designers need not have had cell phones and laptops in mind. They *should* have had interference in mind. I would imagine that any decision not to use shielded cables would have been made by those above the engineers. At least, I would hope so.
I would also hope that people building *planes* these days have the next 20 or so years in mind when designing their electronics. I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference. Also, my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone. My tv and stereo play just fine. So do my cellular phone, cordless phone, and bluetooth devices, all in the same room with my tv, stereo, and caseless computer. No problems at all. Maybe I'm just lucky. However, I would hope that an airplane I was travelling in had a bit more safety built into it than my $100 cd player or my $40 cellular phone. Nahhhhh...that's crazy. Let's make airline safety the job of every industry *except* the airline industry. That sounds more feasible.
http://xkcd.com/386/
I was once told by a gas station attendant who had come back from a safety course (it was EXXON. Ride the Tiger baby!) the cell phone fire scenario is also due to static electricity. The claim is that static from the antenna might cause a problem. There is the additional possibility of the electronics inside the phone igniting gasoline fumes which permeate the case, but I would think this is something that could be tested for. Gasoline fumes are volatile but I have to wonder if they are really volatile enough to be ignited by the amount of current running through a cell phone.
good link here
Nokia couldn't make gas fumes explode with their phones...but they concede that, though extremely unlikely, it is *possible*. Of course, I tell people that it's *possible* I'll become the world's richest yet most beloved benevolent tyrant, but that doesn't mean it's *likely*.
http://xkcd.com/386/
With the amount of circuitry and cockpit to ground communication, cellphone interference is only logical.
The one I want to see proven is the belief that using a cellphone at gas station pump can start a fire. To me it seems more likely the odds of the battery in the car starting a fire are better than a cell battery.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
I get more irritated at:
:)
1.) Those rugrats sitting behind me kicking the chair
2.) The lady next to me who keeps sleeping with her head on my shoulder.
3) The guy across the aisle who thinks I'm interested in his conversation.
4.) The screaming baby a few rows over.
5.) Those kids running up and down the aisles getting in everyone's way...
Same at a restaurant. I don't mind if someone is on the phone, so long as their ringer isn't loud and obnoxious. More often then not, I find more people in the restaurant who aren't on the phone, but talk/laugh really loud when talking to members at their own table...
And I can't believe how many times I go to see a movie at the theatre, and some moron brings their baby, and doesn't bother to leave when he/she starts crying. I also hate those kids that think its funny to point a laser pointer at the screen.
Believe me, chatting on the phone is the least of my irritations....
As a pilot let me enlighten you....
Flying a plane in to the World Trade Center Towers required little to no instrumentation. Almost the entire flight would have been completed via VFR (visual flight ruleless). The only rules they followed were the ones of physics that would keep the plane from self destructing before impact.
1. hijack the plane
2. put a person with 4 hours of training in the pilot seat
3. with a sharpie marker, draw a small circle in the middle of the pilot's window
4. keep your target within the circle turning the plane as necessary
5. fly.... fly... fly... boom
Since each team knew approximatly where the planes would be when they started the event they knew approximately what compass heading to fly to reach their targets. From about 30 miles out or more, the targets were easily visible and no compass was needed. And throughout most of the flight, the hijackers could have allowed the use of EMP devices and the attack would still have succeeded.
Compasses, GPS, WAAS, VOR, Radar, DME, minimum spacing, altitude based heading, etc. only matter if you care that your plane and passengers are supposed to survive at the end of the flight. When you don't, all that safety and navigation stuff is useless and you might as well toss it out the window to you can fly faster and hit with more impact.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
On a recent American Airlines flight while taxiing in to the gate the pilot had to get on the intercom and tell people to turn their cellphones off. He said it was interfering with the radios.
I too, used to think it was a sham, but after hearing that announcement believe it. I have a feeling that if we were still in the air, there would have been some federal agents waiting to take the offender away for not following crew orders. He sounded a little p*ssed off.
...at least for small aircraft. My dad is a private pilot, and my parents often take vacations in their small airplane.
One day I made a call to my Mom's cell phone. All I heard was the (loud) sound of the plane's engine, my mom saying "Hello", and (in the background my) dad screaming "SHUT IT OFF! SHUT IT OFF!" and then the line went dead.
Turns out I called while he was making an IFR (instrument) approach into Bakersfield (refueling stop). He was on final, about 5 miles out, and when the cell phone rang, all the navigation instruments freaked out. Most importantly, the localizer and glide slope indicators went off-scale, so he had no idea if we was still on the glideslope (remember, he's in the clouds now, and he can't actually see the airport.) For about 20 minutes I wasn't sure if I'd killed them (until they got on the ground and tied down the plane and then called me back.)
Well.. they're extra careful about shutting off their cell phones before takeoff now.
The doppler shift of a radio wave by travelling at 100kpg is about 80hz, or less than 0.00001% of the signal frequency. I have a hard time believing that's a significant effect.
If your alramed that a cell phone can disrupt all this high tech electro s**t. Then it really scares me that my spinning cdrom can do the same thing. Just how much RF noise can a cdrom, or gameBoy generate?
Take off every brassiere!
For Great Justice!
All your Breast are belong to us!
it'a all a problem.
anything that gives you a communications alternative to the $10 per minute airphone is going to a problem from the airline's point of view.
This has always been something that's bugged me.
The phones emit a level of radiation which is, according to the FCC, an acceptable level and given the class of the device, must tolerate emissions other electrical equipment emits.
The question I have is whether or not the airplane equipment is properly shielded and whether the FAA approved aircraft are equipped with FCC approved equipment.
If a celphone emitting single digit watts of power can cause havoc on an airplane, it doesn't seem to take much to take out an airplane in terms of electrical sophistication.
Or to create diversions for hijackers.
The question I pose is:
Why are the airliners choosing to hide their heads in the sand and blame celphones when their planes are the ones which are vulnerable due to improperly shielded wires and computer hardware. Are they keeping all of their equipment updated and up to specs? Or are they performing the "Fight Club" calculation of the cost of replacement vs the cost of lawsuits from relatives of the deceased?
(a)The percentage of failures * (b)The number of cars currently out there * (c)The cost of lawsuits per incident. A * B * C. If that is less than the cost of a recall, they don't issue one.
Maybe it's time we started helping the airliners think about human safety and their responsibility instead of shovelling off the blame to their customers.
Winged Power Photography
Better yet, pick his nose. That will be *sure* to make an impression he won't forget...!
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
I'm not talking about protocols either. EM interference from a multitude of devices, all within close proximity to the aircraft wiring, that were not in existence when the aircraft was designed and built.
my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone.
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference.
Maybe not yet, but you might.
The year is 2023. You're driving along in your new ToyNis SUV/minivan hybrid, with the Adaptive CruiseControl and the RoadSensing ABS system. The cruise uses a combination if IR and radar to know how close it is to the car in front, and adjust speed accordingly. The ABS uses an IR sensor to read the road condition directly under the tire, millisecond by millisecond. ToyNis has chosen to use a wireless method to beam the road info back to the central CPU.
You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher.
The WiFi cards set up a harmonic with the phone frequency. Your wife drops the phone down by her feet, very close to the ABS transmitter. This harmonic in turn scrambles signal from the right front ABS sensor. It sends incorrect road info to the central CPU. The CPU thinks "OK...the right front wheel is on dry road surface"
You have to make a hard stop. The right front wheel skids on the ice, you crash and die.
Who is more responsible?
Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now?
Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
I glanced at the article, and I didn't see any mention of CDMA phones being tested. I have a CDMA phone, and I have never seen it cause interference to nearby electronics. On the other hand, I've seen a GSM phone cause very noticable interference to a nearby computer monitor (every few seconds there would be a pop from the speakers, and the picture would jump).
Of course two anecdotal data points aren't very convincing, but I think that the type of modulation should be considered when evaluating the risks of cell-phone interference.
My cell phone volume control goes to eleven.
I am over here... now I am back over here!
I think the anti-cellphone people are the assholes, but that's just me. I dunno, who is more the asshole? Someone talking on the phone or someone running around beating people up for being on the phone? As for the idiot with the "shut up for four hours," hey, when you're making a million dollars a minute or losing it depending on split second decisions for which complex information is required four hours incommunicado is a long time!
I work in EMC (Electromagnetic Compliance), so we have two semi anechoic chambers (they absorb radio waves). In the 3 meter chamber, even with the radio absorption material, we have measured around 30v/m from a source signal strength of only 3v/m. How is this done? Well, the waves bounce off the walls where, at certain points in the room, they construct and destruct. This causes areas with very large signal strengths and some with extremely small signal strengths. Now remember, these walls are made to absorb the radio waves and this still happens. Just imagine if the walls weren't designed to absorb any!
/. (can't find via search engine) about the use of cell phones in passenger trains cars, about how the signals could add up to above the regulated levels. The same thing can happen in an airplane, but most likely worste because of the smaller windows. Now, just imagine if there was a sensetive piece of equipment that happened to be in one of the places where the signals added up very high...you would have a problem. I can understand why they don't want them in there. They could fix them by protecting the equipment more, or isolating the cabin from the equipment (which would most likely isolate you from your phone's network), but this would cost a lot. If I were them, there would be no motive for me since the planes already have usable phones that don't interfere (and create income).
There was a study some time ago posted here on
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
...You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher....
Uh...why? I don't need to put my wireless router next to my microwave. They aren't designed to work together. Cellular phones are designed to be carried by people who are going to get on planes. Shield your wireless router (or your microwave) and they'll play just fine next to each other.
I think the analogy you might have been looking for would be an 2004 SUV in 2024, with new wireless whatever causing the interference....but the answer's still the same.
Who is more responsible?
Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now?
Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
Obviously ToyNis failed to shield against harmful interference, and Linksys also failed to shield their product. ToyNis is the *more* responsible because Linksys doesn't make vehicles designed to protect people's lives. The responsibility rests with the company making the product that you are trusting your life to. Yes, Linksys should have shielded their device better, however the person making the $40k vehicle that I'm trusting my *life* and my family's *life* to has a greater responsibility. If they don't like that, they can make something else. Same goes for airlines. If they aren't responsible for making sure that their own fucking planes don't fall out of the fucking sky for *any* preventable reason, then they aren't doing their job. That and mechanics' tales of 'hilarious' mishaps and negligence keep me off airlines unless I can find no alternative.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Nope. An EM weapon could be effectively disguised and the normal tests that are looking for a bomb wouldn't pick it up. Just disguise it as something electronic...
Gunfire and missile launches are attention getters, especially around an airport. Someone could hit an airplane with an EM weapon during takeoff or landing and it would be many minutes, if not hours, before anyone had a clue what had happened - giving the perpetrators plenty of time to escape. It would also be much easier to fabricate without drawing attention. Assuming, of course, that the planes are so poorly insulated as this cellphone flap implies.
Just because no one's done it yet doesn't mean it can't happen.
That said, I think you may be right, but if you are, it's because the planes are not actually so poorly shielded after all. The reports on this study weren't very detailed, and there's a long history of studies using designs guaranteed to get the result the study sponsor desires, rather than the truth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Cellular phones are designed to be carried by people who are going to get on planes.
Exactly. So design the (newer) damn phones so they won't screw with (legacy) aircraft equipment.
I perfectly agree with you!
I know myself, when I talk on the cell phone I sometimes drive. I have no problem driving and talking at the same time... sometimes even avoiding other people attempting to swerve into my car at the same time. Company business is important, and if some people can't accept the fact that others have to speak with other people at certain times then I don't know what to say.
When a normal person talks on the cell phone, it's relatively silent, unless they are special or just rude. If people don't like hearing part of the conversation, then they shouldn't be listening in! it's worse than someone complaining about your diarehea sounds when your in the bathroom.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Anyone that has tryed puting a mobile phone on top of a stereo can soon hear quite well why phones and airplane control systems dont go together well.
Sindri Traustason.
When a Nextel does anything, everything goes bonkers. I fail to believe a Nextel uses a normal cell frequency considering when I had a Nextel it always disconnected my modem I used it. (through LINE NOISE)
:-)
I've never had that problem with AT&T, Verizon, nor Sprint. Of course, neither of those phones can be used as walkie-talkies either
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I don't buy it either... I mean seriously, they all have satellite dishes and some use RF to transmit the order information inside/to the data equipment. Why run wires when wireless is cheap?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell
If you've ever had your GSM phone sitting within a few feet of your stereo when it's contacting the cellsite and heard the horrible electronic noises that come through, or had it next to a monitor and seen the screen jumping, you must be pretty thick if you can't figure out for yourself that maybe, just maybe, your cellphone has the potential to mess with flight systems on an aircraft...
Exactly. So design the (newer) damn phones so they won't screw with (legacy) aircraft equipment.
Or just design the aircraft better than the phone.
You know, it wouldn't be such a big deal to me if an airplane wasn't a life-support machine. Why should they be allowed to have such a flimsy design that a trivial amount of interference makes them kill people? Why shouldn't the *airline* industry be responsible for the lives of the people they're taking money from, instead of blaming the telecommunications industry?
http://xkcd.com/386/
One poster mentioned that on 9/11 the journalists and staff on Airforce One were told EXTRAORDINARILY to switch their phones off so the bogeymen couldn't track Dubya.
(The same Dubya who just spent 20+ minutes after being told about the second tower strike, doing NOTHING, issuing NO ORDERS, lounging on a known, pre-advertised, unprotected location, cheerfully reading a fucking book about goats - all true, look it up. In the forthcoming Dubya-glorifying 'biopic' movie about 9/11 this will be substituted with a scene where immediately upon being whispered in the ear, the fearless, nearly-elected president speaks some befitting gumball cracker corny line and rushes to his personal harrier jump jet guns ablaze.)
(repugs, simpletons, dittoheads mod -1, flamebait)
Anyway, this gave me the impression that normal rules aboard that particular plane is that passengers may yak freely with no restrictions. It makes good sense that the plane avionics and comms are as safe as they can get, but does this not clash with the FCC regulations and concerns among cellular network operators? One cellphone a couple miles up can be 'seen' by a lot of cells. This would seem to potentially cause undue strain on the cell network resources. Are journalists excempt from FCC rules?
Btw, I've flown in a Robinson R22 helicopter on a photo shoot last year. Some dumbass (me) left a live cellphone in a camera bag right behind and to the left of the instrument console. Said cellphone received a (silent) call, and the clicks and ticks you sometimes hear in a radio with a cell nearby, were clearly audible in the intercom headphones, obscuring normal conversation! The pilot didn't like that one bit. It also interfered with the tower radio... this is of course mostly a nuisance, but frankly I like to know that the captain out front can receive his weather reports and tower directions with some fidelity.
I believe that the in-flight cellphone regulations are in place for those two valid reasons. Radio interference and cellular network overloading. It's a somewhat serious problem and I am concerned that so much rest on trust and goodwill of bored passengers increasingly addicted to their cellphones, texting and gaming perpetually. With still more phone/PDA functionality merging, people WILL be switching on their phones in-flight because they have to check their calendars or whatever. Phone-PDAs have no standard unified way of reliably powering down the antenna and radio circuits so that it is safe. At least not so that cabin crew can verify for themselves that the devices are in safe mode. What will happen here?
Wouldn't radiowaves from cell phone towers themselves be causing problems? They push more power out then the phone itself! Why can't I use a portable TV, radio, GPS, on plane? They are all receivers! I beleive in the cospiracy theory that the US as well as the allies have been wanting a personal communications blackout for all passengers on any airline-operated aircraft.
Ah, snopes. Yes, I ended up following a number of links today researching this topic. I also found information on the Exxon program referenced by the friendly attendant. It seems indeed to be the result of a series of urban legends which were believed by lawmakers and oil company execs who got scared and issued a bunch of warnings/laws/etc. Motorola also seems to have been trolled successfully.
Once again, like the cell phones + airplanes FUD, it seems to be a matter of bad/no science backing ridiculous regulations. Of course it is clear there is a growing prejudice against cell phone users which has resulted in a slew of nonsensical, reactionary laws that have nothing to do with real safety concerns.
Petrol has a pretty small flammability range (63%-69% IIRC), and the chances of being able to get that concentration of fumes around the pumps must be sufficiently close to zero that it could be called an impossible risk - Obvious exceptions being badly designed station layouts with small, confined filling areas.
The current in a cellphone could easily ignite petrol fumes if it were to spark, but that spark must be introduced into a fuel:air mix that falls within the flammability limits of petrol.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
... And in a recent study by Brittish scientists, we will now be equipping all terrorists with cell-phones for use in taking over planes ...
I should really get around to creating a sig.... Nah - too lazy =)
I have these sketchy speakers I got from my friend for free when my last set went rabid and started attacking me.
:)
Anyway, these things pick up all kinds of weird interference. Recently, I discovered if I place my cell inbetween the left and right speakers I can hear pulsed interference every 30 seconds or so when the phone sends its "Here I am" signal to the tower. I also live in an area with really bad coverage, so it switches between analog and digital a lot. Now I can tell the difference between analog and digital signals by ear. Next step: message decoding
--
Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
I haven't noticed anybody comment on the possible impact on the human body of many mobile phones giving off microwaves in a semi-enclosed metalic container. I don't know about you, but I would rather not be stuck in a faraday cage with multiple mobile phones giving off microwaves.
I thought it was Urban Myth, but someone on some TV show made reference to cell-phones being trackable even if turned off. I thought it was bogus sci-fi.
Now I don't know. What I have noticed is that on my Motorola StarTac, if I leave a battery in the phone but leave the phone turned off, the battery will still be dead by the next day. *But*... I've gotten into the habit of carrying a spare with me...and well, you'd think wow -- if the battery drains itself dry in 1 day while the phone is off, carrying a spare isn't worth alot --- except that I noticed that 'spares' always showed a full charge either in charger or in phone -- even if they'd been sitting in my purse a week or more.
I rotate batteries on a regular basis. In fact, I'll take the spare put it in the phone, the day's battery in the spare charger, and the fresh one that was in the charger becomes the new spare.
At first I thought I was just being forgetful, but then I paid attention to the battery life. And sure enough -- no matter which battery I left in my cell phone, it had only a day maybe two of life with the cell phone turned *OFF*. But spares appeared to suffer no drain.
So....even when off, something in my phone is eating current. Perhaps it's a fault phone/model, etc, It's a non-color backlit-LCD -- but if it's off, there are no lights or blinks for service indication (turned those off).
Anyone else notice this weird draining symptom? I have a Moto StarTac Tri-mode w/digital and analog.
-l
---
Why can't we meta-moderate decisions on initial story submissions?
For those interested in information about actual incidents where Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) has caused failure or degradation in performance to aircraft systems, refer to the following paper:
Electronic Systems Failures and Anomalies Attributed to Electromagnetic Interference
Section 2.3 - Aircraft passenger carry on devices - is relevant to the current discussion and can be found on page 11.
I'm impressed that they managed to report on this back in May 2000.
Welcome to the summer... this 'news' broke about a month and a half ago. Nice to see the BBC are so on the ball! Fair enough their piece is date stamped 16 May - but even still News.com managed to pick this one up two weeks before that even: See http://news.com.com/2100-1039-999541.html
The "research" was obviously commissioned with a preconceived outcome. After reading the article, I'm more inclined to believe the Airphone conspiracy angle.
A good engineering study wouldn't conclude with "Continue current practices of banning cell phone use" and leave it there. It would conclude with recomendations for aircraft manufacturers to clean up the life endangering EMI vunerabilities inherent in their products. The danger doesn't recede when passengers power down their cell phones... airliners pass over hundreds of radio towers during a typical trip - if a cell phone can broadcast to towers outside the plane... then the towers and lots of other radiating sources can return the favor.
The "study" is bogus.
It's really the cell phone companies who are against using cell phones on aircraft. The real problem is when cell signals hit the towers from high altitude. The cells can't figure out who to bill because high altitude signals can bounce several cell towers at once.
It's also a safety issue on takeoff and landing, the most dangerous time of a flight. The airlines don;t want cell phones, laptops and other devices to become missiles inside the cabin.
Rehabilitated journalist and web builder No electrons were harmed during the creation of this mess
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Checking at the FCC website, it looks like AM stations can be up to 50 KWatt, FM stations up to 100 KWatt.
I am not nuts, I am reading this off the FCC regulations.
Where do you get the idea that radio stations are putting out 50 Megawatts?
Where are the dedicated power stations they would need to get that kind of power?
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Sorry, I forgot the links:
p ://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmclasses.html
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amclasses.html
htt
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein