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."
I wonder: 1. If it will be free 2. If it will work with all cell phone carriers. If they are gonan charge 30 buvks for a call, then screw it
Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
More inane chatter. Mile high was one place where you were safe for a while from all the i-have-got-to-talk-on-my-cell-phone people. Damn.
Free XBox, PS2
I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight? I would think that most flights are 3 hours or less as this will pretty much get you across NA, or Europe. Longer flights certainly happen on a regular basis, but I just don't see it being necessary to be available or be in contact for the duration of a flight.
it's annoying enough that people talk loudly on their cell phones in resaurants etc.. can you imagine a flight with 200 people all talking on cell phones?
the horror the horror the horror
they will have to have cell phone sections on the plane. cell phones will be this generations cigarettes.
will they make the captain use a hands free headsets so they are less likely to get distracted and get in an accident?
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.
OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)
But then I read:
Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.
Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?
But alas, it's not that simple:
For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.
Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?
Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.
What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .
AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.
Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.
The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.
"Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!
The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.
150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh
everything in moderation
I'll be using my portable MP3/CD player during takeoff, landing, and enroute cruise tomorrow morning... while I'm at the controls of my own airplane!
:p
And yes, I do play Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" as I'm taking off down the runway. I do it just because it's so damn tacky
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
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?
The captain has turned on the no talking sign. Shut the hell up. Please return your mouths to an upright and locked position.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I used to set my phone on my desk -- a Nokia 5860. I would always know that my phone was going to ring a few seconds before it actually did. Why? The handshake is broadcast at higher power (I presume) than the rest of the call -- and it would broadcast enough power into the speaker wire going between my PC and my amplifier that it was *very* audible in the music. *THUMP**THUMP*BzzzzzZzz* ring!
So, knowing what I know about aircraft electronics, which isn't a huge amount (I *do* have a degree in aerospace engineering, though that was NOT a focus area of mine), I would be VERY hesitant to allow the use of cell phones in aircraft.
Even neglecting the entire cell phone issue, I don't understand WHY the FAA has not issued a requirement that ALL future aircraft use optical systems. They are more difficult to engineer, but the advantages are pretty significant.
1.) Can't light the fuel on fire
2.) Unaffected by EMF (*big one*)
3.) Aging issues are insignificant, compared to wire (no heat/flexure).
4.) others that I don't know about because it isn't my field.
Who has a nice list of reasons NOT to use fibre? Mechanically I don't believe it is as flexible, and you shouldn't really splice it over such a short run. I know that it requires more hardware at each end of the system, but the hardware is fairly robust.
I've never believed that using your laptop, game boy or mp3 player/walkman "interfered with the instruments", or whatever excuse they give you.
I think they don't want you to use any electronic devices during takeoff and landing (particularly headphones) because that's the time when something is most likely to go horribly wrong. They want you alert.
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.
Counterexample: they serve drinks drinks in first class before takeoff. Nothing like a wee bit o' Scotch to make the takeoff nice and smooozzzzzzzz.
Silly person.
We in first class fully expect to be carried off the aeroplane in the event of such unforseen misfortune.