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."
2. I would think that it would.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I've never been convinced that the 300mW that a cell phone puts out can cause any harm. If it could there would have already been catastrophies caused by people who ignored the rules or simply forgot to turn their phones off.
I'm interested to see how this will work. Currently there are two big cellular standards: GSM and CDMA. GSM seems like the more viable choice, as it is used globally (three GSM nets in US, also), but many americans use CDMA carriers like sprint/verizon/alltel/etc. For either, I assume it would be just like hitting a roaming partner and associating with their network, but I wonder how they will prevent people from just using land-based carriers, assuming range permits this.
unzip; strip; touch; grep; mount; fsck; yes; more; fsck; umount; make clean; sleep
My (probably gullible) impression was always that the risks that were involved were due to potential interference with the pilot to control tower communication (I mean, what if I were telling someone on the other end of my cell call "Lower! Lower!!!!" very urgently and the pilot thought that was the air traffic controller talking to him/her).
A more cynical view might be that the airlines wanted to control a slice of the air time charges and couldn't do that with cell phones. Might that be the case? Nah.
Yeah, first he said she used her cell phone. When someone pointed out that wouldn't work he changed it to a collect call from an airphone, since she didn't have her purse.
He didn't know. The problem is that she couldn't get a direct line to her husband's office. She kept getting disconnected, and when she called back she had to find a way to convince the switchboard operator to accept the charges from the collect call. I know this; I watched him tell the story on Fox news three days later.
I don't know what his story changed to when someone pointed out that you need a credit card to get the phone out of the seatback.
The ones on the plane I was on this weekend didn't. You just pushed the button and it poped out. (I know b/c I got bored and played with it.) The ones I've seen that do require a credit card to get out are not that difficult to get around; a thin utensel or a stiff business card could pop them out.
Okay, credentials first: I'm an electromagnetic compatibility engineer with one of the worlds larger commercial aircraft manufacturers.
The difference with the AirPhone is that it is accounted for in the design of the aircraft and it is a known quantity. Your cell phone (and the WiFi card in your laptop and your bluetooth PDA) are unknown elements. There are plenty of aircraft out their that where designed and constructed before personal wireless gear became widespread, and even if you design with say the GSM cell phone standard in mind, you don't know that all possible handsets will meet the spec with regard to spurious emissions.
The thing is, we don't know the answer to what this stuff to do. And we're pretty smart guys who are spending alot of money looking at the problem. Mean while all these people on slashdot know the answer already. I guess we should have just asked them.
Cell phones crash planes when you want them to, and don't crash planes when you don't want them to. Proof: 1) Cell phone use by passengers saved the White House on September 11th. Passengers were able to learn what happened at the World Trade Center, and correctly deduced that the plane was going to be used as a weapon. This is actually a security measure. Cell phones in the hands of passengers is the best chance that NORAD has of learning that a plane has been hijacked before it can be used to hit anything. 2) Cell phones are constantly, constantly being left on accidentally in flight (along with Wifi laptops, etc.) If this could bring down a plane, they would be falling out of the sky left and right. In the 21st Century, the only way to be safe is to build a plane that is immune to cell phone interference. Anything less is delusional folly.
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.
It seems that the stewardess will still make me turn off my graphing calculator before takeoff.
Seriously, I though all electronics were tested for interference in important bands. There is a little FCC logo on my VCR. Isn't what that means?
Wrong!!! There is an article in this Month's issue of Smithsonian Air and Space magazine that has hard data from NASA tests that proves cell phones are a hazard. Cell phones are just not shielded well use,a plane has about 10 systems that rely on external signals, and some cells emit signals (not the call signals but "leakage") in that range. I couldn't find a web link to that article, go check it out on the newstand. I too used to think it was no big deal but airplane electronics are setup to deal with outside sources of interference not inside. Also there is some thought that at 35K feet you can hit dozens of towers with a call making the call management software do back flips :) bringing down the network for everyone..(I have no idea if this is true..just heard it).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!
The reason the FCC bans cellphones in-flight is because from 30,000 feet, you can see several hundred or more cellsites. Which the switching gear does not deal politely with.
People think in terms of commercial aircraft, but private aircraft have the same restrictions, even if you're in a Piper Cub with no electrical system.
What about the exploding nokia batteries?
Actually, you're wrong. If you read the FCC regs very carefully, it's analog cell phones that are banned from the air, not digital ones. It's because the frequency that the analog phones run in put them in the banned category, while the digital ones are in a different category.
Keep in mind this is probably just a loop hole.
Also, my ex-girlfriend's brother was a 747 captain, he regularly saw interference from people using cell phones.
He was flying an older plane that used 70's technology, btw.
They're not secret, i think it's a given there's stinger squads at the whitehouse.
Do you know how far the Pentagon is from Regan Internation Airport?
Not even one kilometer. A passenger jet can cross that distance in less than 5 seconds. The White House is further away, 15 seconds or so. The missile itself needs 2+ seconds to travel. Imagine how quickly the guards can decide a plane has become a threat, target it, and launch.
Oh, and how many Stingers does it take to bring down a 747? Three.
Yes, there probably are Stingers in an arms locker at the Whitehouse. They might be useful if a terrorist helicopter shows up... happens all the time in the movies, right?