Slashdot Mirror
Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006?
JOhn-E G writes "In a recent article from the New York Times it seems that airlines and cellphone makers are working towards allowing cellphones to be used on airplanes during flight. (free reg. required) Currently the plan is to have a mini cell tower, a picocell, on the plane that would intercept all the calls from people in the plane and relay them to satelites or ground towers. The FAA, FCC, and the airlines really want to be absolutely sure that there will be no interference anywhere. The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe. Changes would start in 2006."
Cellphones are banned for interference reasons by the FCC. Cellphones might also be banned for (perceived) safety reasons by any individual airline (or, for that matter, aircraft captain); cell phones are *NOT* banned by the FAA.
It's interesting that you mention this. Jakob Nielsen did a great study that showed that people don't need to talk any louder on their cell to be annoying - it's naturally annoying to you because you only hear one side of the conversation. Read about it here.
- Allen Pike
Altering time, one time at a time.
actually cell phones on airplanes causes problems with the cell network, wih the phone "visible" to many towers rather than one or two each phone uses far more network resources and can cause dropped calls on the ground.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The cell phone can interfere with the navigation and communication equipment on the flight deck. The phone's signal strength gets prgressively stronger when it can't contact a tower, and this strong(ish) radio signal can screw things up for you and the other couple of hundred people on board. The thing about the pico-towers they are talking about is they prevent the phone from seeking out the tower on the ground by providing a signal nearby, thus lowering the phone's signal strength.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
From this FAA web page:
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Nope, it's an Urban Legend..Cells can't ignite the fumes..MythBusters also did a segement on this where they debunked it very well. If ya check out snopes.com I think you'll see if debunked there too. I like my cell, but there are times I wish I could chunk it..A great thing and a PITA both at the same time..
Noise-canceling headphones wouldn't help you with people talking; they only work well with constant drones like the roar of the engines.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Local news story here about a guy whos phone ignighted the gas. Even showed the burnt up phone. I doubt the cell waves have anything to do with it, just that getting a call while having your phone submerged in gas fumes is a BadThing(tm)
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Anyhow I dont think just adding "picocells" is going to correct the problem of poorly designed cell phones that give off EMR they are not supposed to!
But the local picocell wuill induce the cell phone to reduce its power to the bare minimum because it has such a good local signal. Cell phones have some of the most elaborate battery saving software in the world. They always try to use the absolute minimum power that will get the job done.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
*(Sorry for posting AC, but this pretty much demands it)*
I see this debate every few months here. I can't say how I know, but it is possible to cause minor errors in the avionics/gages in commercial aircraft. RF -transmitting devices can induce these minor errors. Note, I said minor. Minor, if you'll forgive my being vague, is a slight enough risk that you really can inadvertently leave a cellphone on in your carryon, and folks probably won't die... but it'd sure suck if an induced error teamed up with something else (a more critical failure, human error, weather, etc) and the combination cratered a plane. Minor also explains why there's a heightened concern about this risk during takeoff and landing (that's when things are riskier and there's less time to react or rule out a false reading)
Aviation safety is all about trying to minimize risks way beyond one-in-a-million, and at those numbers (and the millions of passenger-hours per day of flying done), even tiny risks like 4 people coincidentally using the same RF-noisy, P.O.S. cheap-ass phone start to become significant.
Keep in mind, the FAA's not up against verifying the harmlessness of a narrow list of devices: it just did tests against emission sources and found that certain emissions *DO* affect the avionics. Given that, and being unable to test every gadget made, they restrict electronics use. Oh, and the influences vary with aircraft models, position of the RF-source compared to the avionics, etc. etc. etc., so this really isn't an easy one to verify. Just doing frequency-based testing that led to this discovery was expensive/tough: an isolated source, 2 jets (one stock, one modified as hell with diagnostic gear), lots of engineers, and literally days of trying to 'break' the avionics.
I won't go the next step, start blowing smoke up your skirts and claim that the airline greed & economics aren't a factor. That part I don't know. But I do know that there is a risk here.
Disclaimer: I'm pretty unimpressed by the FAA, airlines, etc, on everything, and until I learned of this study I didn't believe it either. Posting AC, I doubt folks will believe me, but I'll say it anyway: cut 'em some slack here. There is a teensy risk.
Credentials - I work in a test and type approval lab for GSM equipment.
The issue at Gas stations is all about percived interference by cell phones with the billing and measurement equipment of the filling station, a revenue protection exercise.
Too bad that's also a completely bullshit concern!
Oh well, it gives people something else to worry about I spose...
Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
That's not my experience (GSM). I once was bored and did a few experiments with my computer speakers as a broadcast strength indicator. (Funny, my hifi amplifier never has those problems) The handshake and the first few seconds are broadcast at higher power.
A phone knows how strong the signal from the base is, but does not know whether the base can hear the phone as well. In standby mode, a phone is just listening, only every now and then (30 minute intervals) it will give a "I'm alive" message. So, broadcasting initially happens at maximum power. If the base acknowledges that the signal level is strong enough, the signal level is stepped down.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Wrong. You do not have the range to "see" cells at 30,000 feet. iDEN networks have the longest range of all cellular technologies, and based on the reuse pattern, maxes out at a few miles. Even if the range could extend to that far of a distance, cell antennae are directional, and point at a downwards angle.