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.
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?
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 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.