Cellphone Use On Planes Coming Soon?

s31523 writes "A while back it was reported that cell phone use was given the OK on Emirate airlines. The BBC is now reporting European agencies back the use of cell phones in air. Plans have been developed to introduce technology that allow cell phone use on planes without any risk of interference. A spokesman for the UK regulator Ofcom said there were still many stages to pass through before final approval was given to the roll out of the plans, but the regulator said that the technology could be implemented next year."

Comments

finally

[andreyvul]

I can use my camera phone to take a picture of the city skyline during the night from 30000 ft

Boxed SOAP response.

[Argon Sloth]

Eagerly awaiting the Motorola Snake and all the jokes that come with it.

Re:Boxed SOAP response.

[darkhitman]

Let's not kid ourselves -there's only one joke possible from the combination of that phone, planes, and Samuel Jackson impersonations.

Re:Boxed SOAP response.

[Korin43]

Snake on a Phone?

Re:Boxed SOAP response.

[StarfishOne]

LOL! As a programmer this was the first Snake on a Phone I thought of when reading the title of your URL: http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/pythonfors60/

Let me be the first to say

[Lordrashmi]

DEAR GOD NO!!!!

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Skreems]

Here's hoping they'll charge ridiculously inflated rates that will keep the majority of people from using this.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[suv4x4]

DEAR GOD NO!!!!

Right, so predictable. I see it now, 80% of the comments talking about how annoying some teen will be talking for hours to his friends on the plane.

Don't forget the crying babies rant, and the fat guys who don't buy two seats rant.

Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.

It's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Foobar of Borg]

DEAR GOD NO!!!!

That was my first reaction. Now, we get to hear three dozen ringtones and three dozens idiots yammering at the top of their voices about three dozen different idiotic things. Although, given how absurd and unreasonable stewardesses tend to be in US airline companies, there will probably be more cancelled flights and tasering incidents aboard commercial aircraft now with so many people talking loudly or telling other people to shut the fuck up. (I know stewardesses can't go around tasering people, but they can get the cops involved).

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

"You'll never guess where I'm calling from!"

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Foobar of Borg]

If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.

So what do you think is the best way to handle some irrational jackass on that horribly enclosed space that is a commercial passenger airliner? I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works. After all, some people do things that are annoying that they don't realize are annoying at the time, and if you politely tell them, they will politely cease since they will then realize that they are doing something annoying. *BUT*, there are some people who are complete shits and totally irrational to boot. How does one handle people like that on an airplane? I'm not really sure myself.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Jarjarthejedi]

"If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be."

If we lived in a society where people tried to be nice to one another then you'd be right, the rants would be dumb.

We don't live in such a society.

It's pretty clear from the way people act with cell phones on the ground that this is going to be an annoying change on airplanes. Who here hasn't seen/interacted with someone who talked excessively loud over their cell? I see (more hear) those people every day, are they magically going to vanish on airplanes? Same goes for people who talk forever.

We already have passenger's irritating other passengers without care on airplanes. My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?

Re:Let me be the first to say

[suv4x4]

I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works.

What does being "irrational jackass" have to do with cellphones. I don't want it to be encouraged to be "irrational jackass", since you can be such without a cellphone as well.

And neither is allowing cellphones in any way allowing people to be irrational jackasses. If stewardess can halt the flight because of a kid that says "Buy buy plane", I'm sure there will be enough arsenal left to deal with extreme cases.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[suv4x4]

My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?

Imagine a war. The field is full of mines, airplanes throwing bombs on your head, the enemy shooting you with automatic guns, tanks approaching. And now add to this severe itch in your behind. Would you want to be in this war?

But despite your straw man argument: the discussion here isn't "allow annoying people" or "disallow annoying people". It's about cellphones. Cellphones ban won't solve the issue with the annoying guy who caused reset of the entertainment system, or people swinging baggage, or complaining about the food.

Don't extrapolate the issue to fantastical dimensions. It could be as easy as the captain saying to the passengers to avoid unnecessary conversations, and keep the necessary short. If someone is loud and annoying the stewardess could still make notice of this to him/her.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be any issue with people talking on the phone during flights. Being a frequent flier, I sometimes forget to turn my phone off or switch it to airplane mode. Though my misdeeds led me to the following discovery: you don't get a signal above roughly 10000 feet. Odds are, even if someone wanted to, nobody would even have the ability to carry on annoying conversations for an entire flight.

Honestly, it's a non-issue.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[threaded]

Your dorm room sat in front of your computer?

Re:Let me be the first to say

[eclectro]

Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?

Re:Let me be the first to say

[vtcodger]

Yes, that's correct. Tests in Canada have shown that as altitude increases, the likelyhood of getting a cellular connection drops to about zero. And at jet aircraft speeds, you'd have to switch from cell tower to cell tower much faster than is thought to be possible, so even if you got a connection, you probably couldn't keep it for more than 40 seconds or so.

I assume that they plan to put a cellular transceiver on the aircraft and use some specialized technology to get the signals from the airplane to the ground -- satellite or some special mode of dealing with ground stations or something.

Anyway, just when I thought that they couldn't find any more ways on top of miniscule seats with no leg room, long unexplained takeoff delays, intrusive security, losing baggage, scheduling impossible connections, overbooking, and chronically late flights to make airline travel more distasteful, they've come up with this. I rarely do airplanes any more, and the last time I did, it took me something like 36 hours to get from Burlington, VT to Seattle.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[QuickFox]

So what do you think is the best way to handle some irrational jackass on that horribly enclosed space that is a commercial passenger airliner? The best solution is to allow cellphone usage in the seats at the back of the plane and forbid it in the seats at the front. You choose where to sit depending on your needs and preferences.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[suv4x4]

Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?

You're a very poor guesser. You just compared watching a movie for couple of hours in your nearby theater, to a Transatlantic travel taking potentially a day or more.

In which case the ability to keep in contact with someone is more needed? Let me guess...

Re:Let me be the first to say

[RadioElectric]

Who gets to choose where they sit on a plane?

Re:Let me be the first to say

[hedwards]

I don't see why this was modded informative. Cell phones have been a problem for quite a while. I have one myself, and I rarely use it when there are other people present.

I take it from your post that you don't actually fly ever, because nobody that has been on a plane in the last few years would take those positions.

I am personally a large man, while I don't have a whole lot of extra flab, I do take up my entire seat, and more if we're talking about a 737. When somebody is taking up more space than is in a seat due to being obese they should be charge for the extra space. I barely fit in a seat as it is, and that's with the shoulders I was born with. I shouldn't have to forfeit any of my space because the person next to me chose to put on a lot of weight.

You do have a bit of a point with babies, but it is still a miserable way to fly.

As for the phones, they are basically a menace to any sort of restful flight. The vast majority of cell phone users don't realize that you don't have to yell into them to be heard. I have one myself, and most of the time I can't hear myself and the microphone still picks it up sufficiently for the other party to hear my clearly.

Limiting the cell phone use on plans to a specific walled off area would be fine by me, but expecting me or the flight attendants to moderate how loud is too loud because people invariably don't care is fundamentally unreasonable.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[QuickFox]

When you book your ticket they'd ask you which kind of seating you want, with or without cellphone conversations allowed.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Making funny comments on the audible part of an annoying conversation by someone obviously suffering from logorrhoea will most likely make them feel uneasy and eventually end their fu*king conversation. No mercy with such pond scum.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[loganrapp]

Uh... violence, dude.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Futselaar]

Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.

I don't have to read rants on /. if I don't want to. Disabling my ears on a plane will be a lot harder.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[clickclickdrone]

>In which case the ability to keep in contact with someone is more needed?
Wouldn't be so bad if people had important conversations. Most just yell about nothing at full volume into their phones for an hour. There is very little short of loss of documents that means you need to contact anyone midflight - you couldn't do it before and everyone got by.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Kreigaffe]

Obviously, you do not fly very often.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

When you book your ticket they'd ask you which kind of seating you want, with or without cellphone conversations allowed.
Except on Southwest Airlines. They have first come first served seating ^_^

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

> We already have passenger's ...

Plurals don't have apostrophes you moron.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[lazyforker]

Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.
Have you ever sat next to a loud, yammering jackass on a commuter bus or train? I'd guess not. In the mass transit zones around major cities it's a total nightmare. (Except Tokyo - people talk on their 'phones but lower their voices and shield their mouth/microphone with a cupped hand.)

Now imagine that hell on a crowded 'plane where you can't move away and you could be shot by an air marshall if you punch the dickhead.

If someone is on a 'plane ranting about fat people taking up too much room etc the cabin crew would take action. So how can you say that the rants are more annoying than the actual problems? If you're reading the rants on /. just move to the next comment, close the browser, get back to work etc... Lots of options for escaping. Being forced to listen to half of a boring, self-important conversation would probably be more like having the /. rants randomly popup as modal dialogue windows forcing you to click to acknowledge and close them.

Basically I have no faith that people will behave with consideration and courtesy towards their fellow passengers so we shouldn't even give them the chance to make cattle class even worse. And no I don't feel I should have to pay a premium for the cellphone-free section.

If the airlines absolutely must do this I hope they set up designated areas to stand and talk (another poster's suggestion of the wing or the ground seems reasonable) with a time limit and a limit to the number of assholes.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[CodeArtisan]

t's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be. I'm guessing you don't commute to work on the train every day, otherwise you would realize what a futile action this would be.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[EtoilePB]

It's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.

Which is, in fact, what I do.

It doesn't work.

Years of customer service work have taught me how to ask something while being perfectly polite and perhaps even a bit ingratiating. When I tried, "Excuse me sir, but could you move your arm?" on a man who was sleeping across two seats on a flight -- including the seat occupied by me -- I got a rant about how I was a racist and he had every right to be on the same plane I was.

I live in New York City, and before that, in Boston. That means a lot of time on crowded transportation. You ever tried asking a teenager to keep it down? How about a group of them? And that was when I was college-student and grad-student aged. If you even LOOK like you might know 30, forget about asking them ANYTHING.

And then, of course, there are the passengers who hit up the airport bar first, or the ones who apparently bathe in garlic and use onion powder for deodorant, or the ones who don't care that their child is an unholy menace. (Youg babies crying? I don't like it but I accept and understand it. A kid under 2 is probably overtired, stressed out, cooped up, and really not comfortable with the sensations of the flight, and has no other way to express it. A second-grader throwing things? Not so much.)

So, yeah. Flying is hell because probably 10% of passengers are just born assholes, another 30% of passengers have no respect or consideration for ANYONE, and another 15% make spectacles of themselves by complaining about the first 40%, and then they all drag the rest of us down with. Interestingly, the subway is hell for the same reason. At least planes don't tend to have rodents.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[jshackney]

Did somebody actually pay for these tests? I would've done them for free about 5 years ago.

From my own experience, Nextel phones lose service in the general neighborhood of about 2,000 feet above ground, and my Cing..er AT&T service normally gives it up around 5,000 feet. I've never had a connection work above 18,000 feet speedin' along from 200 knots to 600 knots.

The worst thing about cell phones, from my perspective in the "front office" is that I can hear them attempting to establish a connection with the cell network. It's an annoying static-like tapping noise in my headset at about 120 bpm. Nextel seems to be the worst, by that I mean, the loudest. I can frequently tell when someone has left their phone on during a flight because during the descent to the airport between about 5,000 and 2,000 feet you hear 'em trying to establish a connection with the network.

Now, with all that said, it's really more of a nuisance than it is a hazard. And for me, I just find it particularly annoying. Also, for those that choose not to disable their phone (or at the very least, put it into airplane mode), it will rapidly deplete your battery. So, if you like to leave your phone on, make sure you packed your charger.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[demi]

I don't discount your experience, but I wanted to add some sunshine in there, that maybe it's not universally dreary out there.

First, I'll say I have a pretty high tolerance for other people. As far as I'm concerned, you live in the world, meaning you live in a community of people, and you don't have the right for your "personal space" (whether it be physical, visual, aural or olfactory) to be free of the experience of other people.

I have asked on two occasions that someone stop kicking my seat, in a movie theater. One time, the recipiente was pretty shocked at me and obviously upset, but they stopped kicking my seat; in the other case, they apologized.

I'm no frequent flyer, but in the last couple of years I've flown to several destinations, including trips to Europe and cross-country trips (and I absolutely hate flying, I'm the worst white-knuckle flyer). I had two times where someone else made the trip unpleasant for me: once, when a kid was talking about how we were going to crash, but really, that's just my own foible; and another time, when someone started getting airsick behind me when we were at the gate. Which is hardly his fault. Pretty much everyone on both my flights was polite and, if not friendly, at least kept to themselves.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

*BUT*, there are some people who are complete shits and totally irrational to boot. How does one handle people like that on an airplane? I'm not really sure myself.

I do, warn them and if they ignore it the cell phone either gets smashed into oblivion or flushed. either way the asshole learns a lesson that day.

The newest accessary

[dreadlord76]

In related news, Boeing and Airbus both announced the immediate availability of "Cone Of Silence" option on all airplanes.

Re:The newest accessary

[pushing-robot]

Strange, I thought that was a Cingular/AT&T feature.

Re:The newest accessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the Cone of Silence disable the Cone of Ignorance seated next to me in 23B?

Re:The newest accessary

[ArAgost]

There's no thing such as a "Cone Of Silence"! Either Cone Of Cold or Silence/Zone of silence, choose the one you prefer.

Re:The newest accessary

[Skater]

Oh, Max, not the Cone of Silence!

(I love Get Smart. I notice some of the others that responded don't get the reference, though.)

Re:The newest accessary

[djasbestos]

You could just bring Hymie to clobber anyone yakking on their phone.

"Man, I wish he'd stuff that phone up his ass."
"Not a problem..."
"AAAIEEEEEEE"

Re:The newest accessary

[ColdWetDog]

Strange, I thought that was a Cingular/AT&T feature.

You're confusing that with the "Giant Sphere of Static" feature. The Cone of Silence got patented. Really. It did.

And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[Cryacin]

Now we get loud mouthed cellphone jabbers AND 13 yr old SMS kiddies beeping away during the entire duration of Sydney and LA... I can forsee 15 hrs of absolute murderous psychopatic bliss.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[the_masked_mallard]

Sydney to LA ? Are we going to have cell phone towers in the middle of the ocean ?!!

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[Black Parrot]

Now we get loud mouthed cellphone jabbers AND 13 yr old SMS kiddies beeping away during the entire duration of Sydney and LA... I can forsee 15 hrs of absolute murderous psychopatic bliss. Sydney to LA leaves you fit for a padded cell without regard for the yakking.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[theNetImp]

Read the article. Look at the diagram... It's all done with satellites not cell towers.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[ConradBurner]

hear here! Will drive me nuts! I'd rather not have it.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[PayPaI]

Choose your cure

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, would you like:
-aisle or window seat
-smoker or non-smoker
-cacophony or silent bliss
?

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[deftones_325]

"drives me nuts"... that reminds me.. What did the pirate say about the steering wheel that was sticking out of his fly?

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly between SMS kiddies and squeaky girls yapping about "who is who what with who where OMG you did they what eew no way if only he she they no yes yip yip yap..." 5 hours+ of that I think that a smashed phone might be in order. For me a flight is a time of technology free semi-relaxation. I do not what to be forced to listen to one side of some ridiculous conversation. Worse yet both sides that is right some ahole on the train this morning was taking to some girl was talking about what her friend had done with her boyfriend and had the volume on her phone up so loud I could hear the conversation from the next row back. I real don't want to hear about the social life / sex life of 15 year old girls. Don't even get me started on the "ring tones" for SMS that some people think are so cool / cute. you real need "music" is announce that you have gotten some cryptic sting of characters. I THINK NOT. I have to carry a smart phone for work you will note that it either vibrates a unique pattern or makes one or two very soft beeps or chirps to indicate I have an incoming call or sms or email. PEOPLE SHOW SOME DAMN RESPECT FOR YOUR FELLOW PASSENGERS!!

okay I am done with my rant for today. Seriously Cell Phones of planes HELL NO!!!!

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides

[LeeMeador]

Say, where do you get a cell phone that allows you to talk for 15 hours without a recharge?

Uh...you can do that now

[TheAxeMaster]

My phone has "airplane" mode where it doesn't transmit/receive, so I can still use it for its camera/music abilities.
 
On to the more important aspect: I hope this never gets implemented and for the most part I don't think it will. Lots of people like to sleep on planes and won't be able to with others yammering on their phones. Plus there is the extra time and cost for airlines to install the equipment to relay the signals. God only knows what "roaming" means at 38000 ft.

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[Martin Blank]

I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.

They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[nospam007]

On to the more important aspect: I hope this never gets implemented and for the most part I don't think it will...

_________

It will last until the first bomb on a plane is detonated with a cellphone.

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[Zebedeu]

Reminds me of a recent flight. One flight attendant asked me to shut down my Nintendo DS, and I promptly closed it -- when you close the console, it goes into standby mode.
She told me it's not really off, and I said it was. She asked me to open it again, and, of course the console came back on, so she said "See? it's on!".
I replied "Yes, but when I close it, it goes off automatically. It's like magic" which I think she believed and went on her way.

Now I realize that standby isn't really off, but it's close enough and I believe that some cell phones and pdas don't really turn off either when you press the button.
Anyway, I would've really turned it off, but I couldn't save the game at that point.

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[Anonymous Coward]

I just saw that on a flight about 2 weeks ago. A flight attendant got upset at a guy two rows behind me holding a device (I think it was a cell phone) because he said he had pushed the power button but it doesn't completely turn off, however the antennae was off. She said "of course it does, everything turns off".

To the contrary, I _know_ my cell phone doesn't completely turn off. First off, the alarm works even when it's completely "off"-- it will vibrate and play my alarm music if the alarm goes off. (In addition, when I turn my phone "on", it asks if I'd like to use the Jukebox feature only or the whole phone-- the jukebox feature does not turn on the antennae.) My phone doesn't go off, it does to standby. The only way to truly turn it "off" is to drain or remove the battery. So, I believe the guy was probably right about his device-- many modern devices go into standby instead of off when you flip the switch.

I've also thought about the laptop wireless before-- I've never heard an attendant ask about or even mention wireless cards before when they say you can use your laptop.

From what I've heard from experts, cell phone use will not cause any problem they know of on a plane. Cell phones are designed to work in a certain way and airplanes are designed to shield all important system-- just like any other electronic device that complies with FCC part 15 (I think that's the number): all device will not cause harmful interference and must work properly when in the presence of harmful interference. Every cell phone test on planes I've heard of has caused no problems.

It comes down to a liability issue. Even though there are no known issues, airlines and regulators worry that there may be that one cell phone-plane combination that could, maybe, possibly cause a problem-- they can't practically check every combination in existence. Therefore, if you ban their use, then you block that remote chance completely.

It's nice, though, to see that things are being reevaluated. My two cents.
--Dave Romig, Jr.

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[gwbennett]

I flew 4 flights on Continental in September and on every one there were both documentation AND verbal instructions stating that wireless devices could only be used in "airplane more" and that you had to be able to show that there was an on-screen indicator to that effect. But how would they ever know, with laptops with pcmcia or express cards it'd be easy enough to hide...but now there are laptops with EDGE/EVDO cards built-in! And anything GSM DOES cause interference with radios!

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[neoee]

I was actually told to turn off my mp3 player on approach because "its an electronic device". Really? Is the plane really that vulnerable?

Re:Uh...you can do that now

[Martin Blank]

It's easier to block them all than to pick and choose which ones are OK. However, I've been able to continue using my digital camera both immediately after takeoff and on approach, even when attendants have seen it in my hands with my eye at the viewfinder.

Interference?

[Ydna]

Without interference, eh? Yet another annoyance to deal with while flying: listening to some yammerhead yacking into their phone for the whole flight. I'll show you interference. I'm gonna yank that phone out of your hand and flush it down the toilet. Or tell the crew that the passenger next to me is holding some electrical device next to their head and it has wires sticking out of it and strange lights flashing. And it might be ticking!

Re:Interference?

[theNetImp]

I wish I had mod points, that made me laugh...

Re:Interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then reality called, and you'll sit there, and seethe, and do nothing. Pussy.

Re:Interference?

[madbawa]

Uhh, aren't you talking about hairy ears ?

Re:Interference?

[CaptainZapp]

It's a shame that modern cell phones don't have external antennas anymore. You can't even garotte the dude with his own phone.

Maybe force him or her to swallow it?

Re:Interference?

[Hoi Polloi]

Speaking of airplane toilets, I hope everyone is looking forward to standing in line for an hour to use the loo while some jackass sits in there blabbing away on his/her phone.

Cell phone free flights please

[OrangeTide]

I refuse to fly until an airline offers a cell phone free flight. I don't want to sit in a tiny tin can for 4+ hours listening to some dork yapping about god knows what, when there is no possibility of getting away from him.

If I can't "just walk away" then the only alternative is an ass kicking, and I assume if I punched someone out on a plane they would arrest me on the ground as a terrorists or something.

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[l2718]

Second that!

It's bad enough on trains and busses. Also, I don't think airline staff (that is the flight attentands) will want to mediate the disputes between people loudly yapping on the phone and people who want to sleep quietly. I suspect that till now the airlines were rather thappy to say "the government says you can't use your phone" and not have to worry about this. In the future they'll have to come down on one side or the other.

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[jamesh]

How about they designate an area where you are allowed to talk on your phone. I suggest on the wing, or on the ground.

In terms of coming down on one side or the other, if the airline gets a share of the phone revenue, I'll give you one guess as to which side they'll come down on...

What's really unfair though, is that if you bring a cell phone jammer onto an airoplane, _you_ would be the one to go to jail!

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[aichpvee]

It seemed to work fine on 9/11, amirite?

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[OrangeTide]

When terrorists take over the plane, please make all the cellphone calls you want. Or beat the terrorists with your cellphone, I'd be fine with that.

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[bentcd]

(...) Also, I don't think airline staff (that is the flight attentands) will want to mediate the disputes between people loudly yapping on the phone and people who want to sleep quietly. I suspect that till now the airlines were rather thappy to say "the government says you can't use your phone" and not have to worry about this. In the future they'll have to come down on one side or the other. Surely, the airlines have been here before - this is hardly going to be a problem for them.

"Will that be cellphone or non-cellphone, sir?"

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[NinjaCoder]

can't you just plug in headphones and listen to a movie or some music? How is having someone jabber in your vicinity on the phone worse than a talkative pair of friends or a screaming toddler?

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[scottl]

My guess is that no jury of your peers (i.e. other fliers) would ever convict you.

Re:Cell phone free flights please

[OrangeTide]

People talk into cell phones very loudly, because they think the microphone won't pick up their voice in a noisy aircraft Also one sided conversations are psychological distruptive and difficult to tune out. I've found that no matter how high I crank up my headphones I can't seem to drown out some jackass shouting into his cellphone.

A screaming kid is no big deal, maybe if you have kids one day or at least babysit a few times it won't bother you so much. I find it pretty easy to sleep through a screaming kid on the plane, assuming he's not kicking the back of my seat in a tantrum. When that's the case, it's time to deal with the kid's parents. Can hardly blame the kid for being a little shit on a plane. Boredom, hunger, the pressure on his ears causing discomfort, the inability of parents to punish a kid on the plane, having to stay still for 4 hours. It is no surprise a child whines, cries or acts up in that situation. I suppose I even sympathize with the kid, having been in those situations when I was a toddler myself.

And what is a parent going to do, not take little Susie to see her Gram-gram? With parents having children later in life, it is not always feasible for grandparents and great-grandparents to visit. And new parents almost never have the room in their homes to host guests, while Grandparents often do have the space. (assuming they have not retired to Florida). Trust me, when parents drag their two screaming kids onto a plane they are twice as annoyed about the entire situation as you are on the plane. They likely have to deal with their rotten kids 24 hours a day.

more airplane homicides

[ILuvRamen]

If the person next to me talked on their phone the entire flight, I'd kill them lol. That would drive me completely insane. Also I'd say "You know they can easily make a cell phone sized bomb" but you can also already make a laptop sized bomb. And since I've heard X-ray machines wipe hard drives, they don't scan them. I say get rid of the laptops AND phones and people can just watch the damn movie and leave me alone!

Re:more airplane homicides

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They scan laptops. Or at least they scan mine. And I don't think I lose any data

Re:more airplane homicides

[Bazman]

Instead of killing them be a bit more creative. Get your phone out and go 'Michael? Hi! Mike! How's Mrs Hayden?, Do me a favour? Pull up the passenger manifest for AA96 and make the guy in 5E disappear will you? Great! Golf tomorrow? Sure! Bye!"

It'll be one of those low-numbered rows since only people in First and Business class will be able to afford to yak away for a whole long flight. Since you'll be in that class too, don't kill them yourself, get one of your staff to do it.

If you really are in Sardine class and have someone talk all the time he's either very rich, in which case make him change his will and then kill him, or he's not really talking to anyone and just wants you to think he's rich and popular. I don't have a cellphone, I think they don't really work, people just clamp them to their heads and pretend they have friends.

Re:more airplane homicides

[mrjb]

And since I've heard X-ray machines wipe hard drives, they don't scan them.
FYI they don't wipe the drives. And they do scan them.

Re:more airplane homicides

[djlosch]

1) The hard drive does not get wiped. X-ray machines use various alpha/beta/gamma rays. Metal detectors use eddie (sp) currents, which is a principle of magnetic flux. Metal detectors will wipe your hard drive.
2) TSA does scan the laptops through the x-ray machine. Some airports (like Atlanta International) also have gas chromatographs (or some similar tech) where they put your entire carry-on bag in a small glass chamber, a circular paper disc is loaded into this tray, the TSA agent pushes the start button, and you see your bag slide to one side of the chamber as a huge amount of air rushes through. I'm guessing this is used to detect compounds beyond trace elements that might be volatile.

Re:more airplane homicides

[ILuvRamen]

gamma and I think alpha radiation can damage hard drives. Plus X-ray machines use X-rays. Yes there is a spectrum called X-ray lol. I dunno if airport ones literally use X-ray radiation but I know actual like go to the doctor X-rays damage hard drives. It's high energy, ionizing radiation that can knock parts of your DNA off and cause cancer. If one of those rays makes it through the casing, there goes that bit. Gamma can do the same and it would take what, like 1 lightyear of lead to stop it. Beta would impact the outside casing. I mean come on, tin foil can stop it. Which kinda makes you wonder why they'd use that to scan past the surface of anything like you said. I don't remember about Alpha. That might not make it through the casing either.

mithra save us

[misanthrope101]

I'd rather someone be allowed to surf the web next to me, goatse and all, than be allowed to gab on their cell. I even hate it that they can use their cells in the terminals. Why does anyone need to call to say "I'm on the ground now"? Obviously we can't rely on people to be considerate of others, but up till now we could rely on airline restrictions for a little peace. I vote we allow text messages, but no voice messages. Everyone gets to play the quiet game. Shut the hell up.

Re:mithra save us

[thebear05]

because some of us have friends/girlfriends/family that pick us up at the airport. BUT that is on the ground i will play the part of the other end of the conversation to anyone within earshot until they give up if this ever becomes a reality, i however doubt that the airlines will ever allow it for free.

Re:mithra save us

[mybadluck22]

"I'm on the ground now, please head to the airport to pick me up." I don't think it's that complicated.

Re:mithra save us

[misanthrope101]

Can't they seen on the monitor that the plane has landed? I've picked up many people from the airport, and never needed a phone call to find out that their plane was on the ground. If I'm not in the airport to look at the monitor, a phone call isn't going to get me there any faster.

Re:mithra save us

[thebear05]

if i were picking up a very elderly person or a small child that makes sense,however many adults pick people up in the car yes you can check online but if the plane sits a half an hour on the tarmac to get a gate that is not helpful.

Re:mithra save us

[theNetImp]

Well that depends on if you get out of the car and park it or not. Airport parking is expensive, even for 15 minutes. If I can get a call saying "I'm hear" and then circle the arrival area a couple times it's a lot cheaper...

Re:mithra save us

[Torsoboy]

At Seatac airport there is a spot to wait in your car that is just for "Cell phone waiting". You wait for someone to call you when they are outside the terminal and you can just drive by and pick them up. Much more convenient and quicker than parking, then going inside of the airport to wait.

Re:mithra save us

[bostonkarl]

Knowing the Airlines, the call from the air will end up equivalently expensive as the $5 for a hour of short term parking.

Seriously, I really don't care that you're too cheap to pay for parking or that you're not creative enough to sit at the McDonalds near the airport. I care that I have some moron in the seat behind me gabbing loudly on a cross country flight.

I'm the passenger and I'm (or my company) is footing the bill. I care about me, not you.

Re:mithra save us

[moosesocks]

Why does anyone need to call to say "I'm on the ground now"?

So that the person picking me up knows to leave home and start driving to the airport? Of if they're already on their way, they'll know to look for me outside the airport in a few minutes time, instead of paying for parking and waiting an indeterminate amount of time? Parking at airports is often extremely expensive and time-consuming.

Given the ridiculously low number of US airports directly connected to mass transportation, I can think of countless reasons why you'd want to inform somebody that your flight has landed.

Re:mithra save us

[porcupine8]

I know everyone else has already said "so someone can pick you up," but I wanted to point out that in case you've missed them, many airports now have Cel Phone Lots a couple miles away from the terminal. Places specifically for people to sit in their cars (for free) and wait for the person they're picking up to call them and let them know the flight has landed.

Re:mithra save us

[Andy Dodd]

Parking.

Very often, the person picking you up will be waiting just off-airport at a safe/sane parking spot, rather than looping around the airport or paying $50 just to park for 15 minutes.

Back when I was in graduate school I would frequently pick my father up from the airport. Rather than loop around the airport, contributing to traffic 10-20 times, I would park in a small parking lot near the airport and wait for a call. (Similarly, about half the limo drivers picking people up at Newark Airport do the same, in fact I picked up the trick from observing them.)

While the person picking you up can see when the plane lands (esp. with a cell phone that has a data plan), the person picking you up doesn't have any status info on whether the luggage pickup system got delayed.

Re:mithra save us

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it when people sit and say they are there BEFORE they take off. "Ummm, duh, I know, I just dropped you off."

Re:mithra save us

[Molochi]

In Atlanta, short term parking is $1 for the first hour. When I need to pick someone at the airport I can usually check the status of the flight online so I don't have to wait too long.

Re:mithra save us

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm coming off an 18+ hour international flight, where my wife hasn't heard from me and is worrying about me crashing into the ocean, you bet that I'm going to ring her up as soon as I can to tell her (1) that I'm alive and (2) that I'll be home soon. Tell you what, though - I'll try to be quieter if you can try to be less of an ass. (In my case, at least, I hold off the long "coming-home" conversation until after I'm through customs and have my bags, because I want to get the hell out of the airport as soon as humanely possible.)

Re:mithra save us

[Andy Dodd]

I've had 30-minute delays occur for incoming flights at Newark less than 45 minutes (my typical drive time to the airport) from landing. This isn't a rare occurrence - Some degree of delay added in the last 45 minutes of the flight happened on probably 3/4 of my pickups.

I don't know how many times I left the house to catch an "on time" flight landing 30 minutes from then (+15 for baggage pickup), only to stop at my usual spot, check flight status from my phone, and find out that a flight that should have landed was now 30 minutes from landing.

Re:mithra save us

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does anyone need to call to say "I'm on the ground now"?

I usually call the person who is picking me up from the airport with that information...

Re:mithra save us

[ColdWetDog]

Unfortunately typical telephone conversation:

IdiotWithCellPhone (IWCF): "Hey Bob, we're taxiing out of the gate now, I'll call you when we get closer"
You: $#*$%&
IWCF: "Hey Bob, we just took off - yeah, isn't in neat that we can call on the plane. WHAT? YOU CAN'T HEAR ME. HOW'S THIS?"
You: *&$(####^$
IWCF: "HEY BOB, WE'RE OVER CHICAGO, I'LL CALL YOU LATER!"
You: &$#^&^^#@@
IWCF: "HEY BOB, WE'RE OVER ARIZONA, SHURE LOOKS DRY. WHAT? HOW'S THIS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH I SAW THAT GAME YESTERDAY...."
You: !@($#*&*&$(Q^#@%@^@&___^^%%
IWCF: >HEY BOB! WE'RE ALMOST AT LAX - YEAH THAT NEW GAL SURE LOOKS CUTE. ..... .... "
You: (Searches for sharp, hard object - then realizes that Security took away your Leatherman)

... I could go on, but you get the point. If they ONLY called to tell someone they were on the ground it wouldn't be too bad. Sadly, I think too many passengers would just yabber throughout the flight.

Wait, what?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Let me get this straight:

You can bring on a cell phone, but not an iPod...

You can bring on a lighter, but not a water bottle...

You can wear a belt, but you have to remove your shoes...

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?

Re:Wait, what?

[mosch]

since when are iPods banned?

Also, many security stations make you remove your belt. (I've taken to preemptively putting mine in my laptop bag)

Re:Wait, what?

[zakezuke]

You can bring on a lighter, but not a water bottle... You shouldn't be able to bring a lighter on an aircraft. Safety concerns... however it is rather funny. In America I had to ditch my lighters but made sure to put them in my luggage. This was no problem. For the return flight I had to take these lighters out of my luggage and carry them on.

And all the while, my carry on had a box cutter.

Re:Wait, what?

[mybadluck22]

You can bring an ipod, and you can't bring a lighter, and you put your shoes back on.

Re:Wait, what?

[clarkkent09]

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?

Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. What that something is is less important, they might as well require passengers to do a tap dance or whatever amuses them the most

Re: Wait, what?

[Black Parrot]

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something? Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. Or less safe, if some important unconstitutional legislation is up for a vote.

Re:Wait, what?

[__aabvlw4075]

Since when can't you bring an iPod on a plane?

Re:Wait, what?

[suv4x4]

Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. What that something is is less important, they might as well require passengers to do a tap dance or whatever amuses them the most

Right... Well that'd make sense few years ago, but right now, all people in US I know are kinda fed up "feeling safe" if you know what I mean.

Re:Wait, what?

[clickclickdrone]

>Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?
Pretty much. The people and press say 'Evil is out there! Do something!' so they make this stuff up and say 'We did something!'

Re:Wait, what?

[jamar0303]

They might not say it will be, but I just know that flight attendants will confuse the iPod Touch for the iPhone and complain.

Re:Wait, what?

[kaizokuace]

they dont sell lighters, phones or belts on the plane. They sell headphones, water and footwear?!?

Re:Wait, what?

[russotto]

It's a felony to carry a lighter in your checked baggage.

Re:Wait, what?

[Ogive17]

I take my iPod on flights all the time. I have taken water on the flight as well, I just had to purchase it after the security checkpoint. You're not suppose to be able to take a lighter.

I'm not sure what list you're looking at... are those the rules in Europe?

Re:Wait, what?

[WML MUNSON]

I fly pretty regularly. I've probably flown around 10 times in the past 8 months, mostly international and a few domestic flights within the US.

Let me get this straight:

You can bring on a cell phone, but not an iPod...

I regularly fly with an iPod and usually have it turned on and playing during take-off and landing. I've only been told to turn it off during these procedures once. Not only that, but I have my iPod on and playing from the check-in window all the way to my seat on the airplane. I remove it once during the security checkpoint where I place it in the small items bucket in full view of the security officers to have it scanned along with my other carry-on items.

You can bring on a lighter, but not a water bottle...

You're not allowed to bring a lighter on an airplane. You can usually get away with it, but the signs clearly tell you that you shouldn't, along with anything else that is highly flammable.

You can wear a belt, but you have to remove your shoes...

I don't regularly have to remove my shoes when flying. They scan them for metal with a wand at most airports instead of making you remove them completely. I did have to do this a few times shortly after 9-11 for some domestic flights, though. You can also "wear" your shoes, just like your belt, on the airplane. Nobody is making you fly in socks.

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?

Are you just making these rules up randomly or something?

I'm guessing you haven't flown in a while, have just been reading some sensationalist news blogs, and want to rile people up so you can get some extra mod points. Looks like people fell for it.

What a shame.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you want to spend 8 hours squeezed up next to a raving homosexual?

I can guarantee this for the USA

[bogaboga]

The USA will come last on this issue [among the industrialized world], and will demand that all airlines that allow cellphone use on their aircraft while in flight disable their use before entering US space.

This will be to "protect" and "ensure the highest possible safety regime", reign on US territory at all times; never mind that the southern border is wide open and so is the northern one to some extent.

Sadly nothing or very little is being done about it.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because people from Mexico and Canada are just dying to come kill US citizens...

But, back on topic, I will be rather irritated with this, but I guess the paperback and mp3 player will have to save the day like they useually do.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. It will be allowed because the money is in it.

But they might want to record all your conversations.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[pryonic]

I'm not so sure about this. I've flown both in Europe and the US and the attitude of Europe is much more strict with regards to mobile phones. You usually have to turn off your phone as you get on the plane, and there's usually an announcement after landing stating "Please remain seated until the plane arrives at the gate and do not turn on your phone until well inside the terminal building". Also most European airlines will not let you operate a mobile during the flight even in flight mode.

Contrast this with the US where you can use your phone up until the plane gets to the runway and again as soon as the plane is taxiing to the gate. I'm not sure whether Europe is just being extra safe, or the US cellphone networks have lobbied the FAA to allow calls up until the exact limits of what is safe - it's just an observation.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's worse.

The US is already last in the industrialized world, and has been intentionally stopping all international agreements until our industry can produce a product. I suppose this news is really that the US authorities have finally let the rest of the world go ahead....

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[mobby_6kl]

I've been on several flights within Europe this year, and I don't recall anyone being asked to turn off their phones until after the plane has been taxiing for a while. Most flight attendants would probably indeed panic if they saw a phone which looked like it's turned on during the flight, as they're not familiar with the "flight mode". Hell, I haven't seen this feature in a phone, but then I'm still using a T68i.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA

[arodland]

Contrast this with the US where you can use your phone up until the plane gets to the runway and again as soon as the plane is taxiing to the gate Last I checked the rule was still "only when at the gate with the door open". I've seen it stretched to the taxiway a few times but I don't think they're "supposed to" ;)

Bring on the whiners

[flerchin]

I suspect the majority of comments will be whiners about how annoying it is to sit next to a person talking on a cellphone. This is because the majority of people, already sitting in front of their computers talking to other people on an online forum on the internet, find sitting next to another person, whether they are talking on a cellphone or not, annoying. Get over your irrational fear of people talking on cellphones. You are advocating government restrictions on your activities, for no other reason than that you feel it might be uncomfortable. Government restrictions are definitely not a Good Thing (tm). If it turns out to be such a big problem, the airline itself will ban it. I suspect that any airline to do so would realize that it would be shooting itself in the foot, because the customers that drive their business are also those that would prefer to be in constant contact with the ground. Finally, I suspect that the brazilian complaints we will get about the annoying guy with the cellphone in the seat next to them are from people who do not fly more than once a year.

Just my suspicions....

Re:Bring on the whiners

[Thomasje]

"Fear of people on cellphones?"

Fear has nothing to do with it. It is a completely normal and sane hatred of people on cellphones, you insensitive clod!

Re:Bring on the whiners

[j_sp_r]

People have the idea that you need to shout in a phone. Most also listen to music so load I can hear it on the other side of the train carriage. So deaf and shouting in the phone(also has something to do with not hearing your own voice back in the phone).

Also, I found it easier to shut myself out of a normal conversation. People also don't get hints like "Mobile phones, without the dodgy ringtones" and telling someone that I really hate loud music and telephone conversations. I don't mind a 2 minute call, but a girl telling how the sex was with her boyfriend IS IRRITATING, really if they are talking to the person that is waiting for them on the next station (I'm here now, see you in a few seconds).

We already have cellphone use on aeroplanes

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember all those calls people were making from the hijacked planes on 911?

MAYBE THEY WERE 6 YEARS IN THE FUTURE

Re:We already have cellphone use on aeroplanes

[BkBen7]

Or maybe the government was lying to you when they told you about those calls?...........nah!!!

Re:We already have cellphone use on aeroplanes

[rapid_snail]

Most of those calls were made from Air-phones in the plane, NOT cellphones. The ones that were made from cellphones were dropped pretty quickly according to the people who were called.

Great news!!!

[clarkkent09]

Think about it. People on long haul flights in tiny uncomfortable seats are usually tense, tired and easily pissed off. Having some jerk talking on the phone in the next seat for hours might well be the final straw! That means someone will FINALLY get killed for talking loudly on the cellphone.

Fox News will have a around the clock news coverage of the incident, and therefore all the idiots out there that don't realize it yet will finally hear the news that it is actually rude to make unwilling bystanders a part of their shitty little lives by shouting their boring ass conversations in their ear. Maybe then five or six percent of them will become more considerate, therefore making the world a slightly better place for all of us.

Way to go Emirates Airlines, I've never heard of you before, but if I ever need to fly to Emirates you will be my number one choice!

Re:Great news!!!

[kaizokuace]

Way to go Emirates Airlines, I've never heard of you before, but if I ever need to fly to Emirates you will be my number one choice!

It refers to the the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Dubai would be the most well known spot in that region. They are ludicrous rich and show it off with crazy construction projects and the best education and health care in the world. Also there is no taxes and they let corporations operate out of there with little to no restrictions. They also control many of the worlds ports. And are the fastest shipping jump off connecting asia with europe and the US.

Airlines: Increase in passenger violence

[damista]

So far, planes are the only safe heaven one can get, when it comes to mobile phone terror. Now they want to take that away from us? I have horrible visions of me sitting in a plane, with 400 different ringtones, 400 people trying to shout over eachother. Just immagine you are on a 20 hour flight and your neighbour is telling his entire family, one by one, every detail of his holiday. That's enough to bludgeon somebody to death with their phone. I expect the number of violent attacks against fellow passengers to dramatically increase.

I hope at least they make the calls so bloody expensive that only those people, who currently use the onboard phones, will actually use their mobile. I'm thinking somewhere in the line of $5+/minute. That'll deter most people. They'd also try to limit the available "lines" to something like 10 or 20 to keep things down.

Sorry but people who can't be without a phone for 20 hours, should either use the onboard phones and pay the price or consult a psychologist.

I love my mobile and make good use of it but planes, restaurants and cinemas should be phone free zones.

Re:Airlines: Increase in passenger violence

[wikinerd]

When I get on a bus or train there are tens of people yelling at mobile phones, and many others loudly discussing while moving their hands all the time, and I haven't got mad - I'm still sane, and I don't expect an airplane to change that.

Re:Airlines: Increase in passenger violence

[damista]

There is a slight difference between a 30 minute or even one hour train ride and a twenty hour intercontinental flight. If you are trying hard to get at least a little bit of sleep but can't because the people surrounding you are all yabbering on top of eachother, you are more than willing to commit murder. I'd rather have 3 screaming babies around me. They can't help screaming and will eventually stop. The guys on their phones can help it but don't care and they won't stop.

I'd much rather have reasonably fast internet on a plane than mobile phone access (with access to skype and co blocked of course). One can communicate this way and it doesn't annoy others who are not the least interested in your conversations.

Reasons

[Merovign]

My understanding (of old) is that the primary reason for the ban was not that interference was inevitable, but that not all the myriad makes and models of phones could be adequately tested.

Maybe they've been doing tests and not finding anything.

The "pico cell" concept in the FA is interesting - do 2G cellphones normally adjust power output to cell distance / signal strength? Otherwise, the signals from the cells are just as much an issue as before.

Re:Reasons

[tao]

Yes, they do. As a simple test, make a normal phone call in an area with full coverage. Then make another phone call with really bad coverage (try an elevator, a parking garage or similar). You'll notice that the phone gets hotter when the coverage is bad.

Re:Reasons

[Andy Dodd]

I don't know about 2G GSM, but 2G CDMA (aka Qualcomm cdmaOne) is dependent on continuous transmit power output control for handsets to solve the near/far problem.

Re:Reasons

[gstoddart]

My understanding (of old) is that the primary reason for the ban was not that interference was inevitable, but that not all the myriad makes and models of phones could be adequately tested.

It's worse than that.

Take the cross product of the number of phones and the number of aircraft with all of their sub-designations, and that's the size of the problem.

Take an aircraft like the 747 which has almost 40 years of production life: various generations, various changes to components over time, various in flight entertainment systems, and several different versions of avionics, with probably several changes in wiring components along the way ... and that's a freaking *huge* amount of combinations. That's just *one* single aircraft designation.

The problem is, they simply have *no* way of convincing themselves that there aren't any unforseen combinations which will lead to loss of a plane.

I honestly don't know that they will be able to adequately say that it is "safe". The best they can say is they haven't found (yet) any reasons why it's explicitly not safe. Usually, the airline regulators decide that if you can't prove it safe, it's deemed unsafe. Allowing this is a complete reversal of that -- we allow it, and hope it's safe.

It's entirely possible that this *may* never cause any problems. But, the chances that it does can't be ruled out.

Cheers

New Market

[KG6]

This could form a new niche market for in-ear monitors.

Earplugs

[feepness]

Pssst... you can wear them the entire time you're in the airport: http://www.earplugsonline.com/

Those earplugs + noise canceling headphones + a sleeping pill if you want = Transoceanic bliss.

Throw in a PSP or DS and a movie or two and you are good to go. Just don't forget to bring some spare batteries.

Re:Earplugs

[Kreigaffe]

mod parent up

earplugs are indispensable. and pretty damned cheap.

but for me, just skip the sleeping pill.. they don't mix too well with all the beer i guzzle down in airports. yeah it's expensive, but flying drunk is AWESOME.

Re:Earplugs

[brevig907]

I'll have to agree with the guy on the earplugs. I've been buying earplugs from earplugsonline.com for 6 years. The site is ugly as fuck, but those damn earplugs are really damn nice.

Re:Earplugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't found any earplugs that are rated for more than a 23 dB reduction. That's good enough for muffling, but I want NOT TO HEAR.

I recall one trip on a train with a guy with a new cell phone, early in the cell-phone phase. He phoned everyone he knew - getting only answering machines - and asked them to phone him back in a voice that carried the length of the carriage. The one good thing was the solidarity between the other passengers. We could no longer meet each other's eyes, for fear of mass hysteria. I'll never know whether anyone took his number down and phoned him back, because I was close.

That was in the early days - it's a lot less funny now. Riding the bus I've been privvy to other peoples' sexual intimacies, rows and breakups, criminal exploits, business deals, medical issues, the whole nine yards. Somehow, without getting violent or offensive, we have to displace the paradigm that a cellphone guarantees virtual privacy in a public place, that the rest of us are obliged to not-hear, not look, and sort of scrunch down in our seats and not be there. We need to put the onus on the speaker to shut up or at least show some discretion. Cell phone use has been privileged, and the privilege is being abused.

Compromise with text

[shmlco]

Allow SMS/text messaging only. No voice. Then we can have peace and quiet, and bozo business types who're afraid to be out of touch for an hour or so can still communicate with their underlings.

Re:Compromise with text

[QuickFox]

My cellphone can be set to emit horribly shrill bleeps at every single keypress. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Compromise with text

[Romancer]

Absolute Best Solution I've Heard!

Seriously, it addresses the two problems and allows both sides their arguements.

Contact and consideration.
Why do these solutions escape the multimillion dollar investigation teams assigned to solving these issues?

Re:Compromise with text

[shmlco]

"Why do these solutions escape the multimillion dollar investigation teams assigned to solving these issues?"

What makes you think I'm NOT on an investigation team assigned to solving these issues? (grin)

Re:Compromise with text

[arivanov]

That is likely to be the case anyway.

1. The current end-to-end RTT over SAT broadband which these will use is 900ms+. Voice will be horrible. To add insult to injury this is comparable to some of the call setup timers in GSM so there will be excessive paging and a large percentage of call setup failures.

2. The bandwidth is just about enough to let SMS and GPRS.

3. The real revenue spinner the airlines have got in their sites is the roaming data for the crackberry addicts. They can charge for it 10 times more than they will get off voice calls which can be handled by the in-plane system more efficiently anyway.

Re:Compromise with text

[srussia]

Allow SMS/text messaging only. No voice. Then we can have peace and quiet, and bozo business types who're afraid to be out of touch for an hour or so can still communicate with their underlings. Allow everything. If there are enough people with the same preference as you, there WILL be flights advertising "SMS/text messaging only. No voice." (it's a feature not a bug, you see).

Re:Compromise with text

[xaxa]

Many long-distance trains in the UK have a "quiet coach" where they ask people not to use mobile phones, personal stereos, children etc. The difference is, of course, that it's very easy to move from the quiet coach to another one if you need to make a call (or the reverse), not so easy on a plane (more people to climb over, less space).

Hmm... I wonder how long it'll be before mobile phones can be used in the Channel Tunnel? You're only underground for 20 minutes though (it's 30 miles).

Re:Compromise with text

[Mythrix]

And if you can apply the same rules to babies, we'll be all set!

Re:Compromise with text

[mcbridematt]

Who said it had to be in seat?

Let first class passengers talk in their seats - they paid plenty of cash for it, and with the upper end airlines (Dubai and Singapore based) having first class cubicles or suites (on SIA A380), noise shouldn't be much of a problem.

Business would be a case for each airline.

Economy - hmm.

Note that Boeing has encouraged 'stand up' spaces on their new/planned airplanes - B747-8I in particular, where passengers can socialize out of their seats. There is also space in the A380 top deck - the front nose section next to the stair case.

My guess is that the primary market for a full mobile-in-air voice service is likely to be the first and business class passengers anyway. Airlines will recover the cost by throwing it in free at those prices, current on-plane phone prices for economy.

Re:Compromise with text

[mdwh2]

Many long-distance trains in the UK have a "quiet coach" where they ask people not to use mobile phones, personal stereos, children etc.

This is a good idea, though I was annoyed one time when I reserved seats, and they put us in the quiet coach without asking. Everytime someone made a quiet phone call, this guy came over to complain at them, saying "Excuse me, when I want to make a phone call, I go to the end of the carriage". I guess it's nice that he wanted to uphold the rules, but I was more disturbed by that than the phone calls - I felt like saying to him "Excuse me, when I want to complain to someone, I go to the end of the carriage"...

Re:Compromise with text

[johnsie]

A agree.... Use some kind of firewall so that only recognised data transmissions can be used. It's nice to be able to quitely browse the web or send a txt but people talking when you are trying to sleep is another matter.

Re:Compromise with text

[zippthorne]

What the heck kind of super-quiet planes are you guys flying on that air-phone talkers are disturbing your sleep? Whenever I fly, there's like 60dB (not sure the exact number, I'm very bad at estimating this, but it's pretty loud) of white noise muffling everything. Even so, the thing that keeps me from napping is that the seats are too small relax (unless you lean on a passenger or have a window seat).

If you're flying without hearing protection, a "gotta be connected" person you're jealous of really ought to be the least of your worries.

The only thing I can't tune out over the constant din of the engines are the pained high-pitch cries of babies in nearby rows with ear blockages who are not yet old enough to learn the Valsalva maneuver (fortunately, crying also clears the ears, though not as quickly). And even that only bothers me because I know both why they're crying and that their inattentive parents aren't going to change them when they poo twenty-five minutes into a three hour flight.

Re:Compromise with text

[uvsc_wolverine]

I'm now picturing some brain dead teenage girl talking on her cell phone in-flight "YEAH THE ENGINES ARE, LIKE, LOUD, AND STUFF. WHAT? (louder now) WHAT?! SANDRA DID WHAT? SHE DYED HER HAIR? WHY? THAT'S, LIKE, SO, LIKE, LIKE HER TO DO SOMETHING SO SHALLOW. At which point I beat said brain dead teenage girl to death with my MacBook Pro, smiling as I do so.

Re:Compromise with text

[Romancer]

Cause the article is about these agencies letting people use their cell phones on planes and does not mention that it will only be for text. :)

The first plane I get on that allowes people to use their phones for voice and someone gets all loud I'm busting out my scrambler and we'll see how long they try re-connecting before complaining to the stewardess that their cell doesn't work.

Re:Compromise with text

[zevans]

Many long-distance trains in the UK have a "quiet coach" where they ask people not to use mobile phones, personal stereos, children etc.

They do. I am in the noisy coach, tapping away on the laptop. :-)

The difference is, of course, that it's very easy to move from the quiet coach to another one if you need to make a call (or the reverse), not so easy on a plane (more people to climb over, less space).

Meh. Clearly you have never BEEN on a UK train.

I am marginally more comfortable on a plane seat than a train seat, on balance. (OK, table seats excepted, but tonight I had BOOKED a seat and I physically couldn't get to it for the first 30 minutes due to the sheer number of people in the aisle between me and it.)


Hmm... I wonder how long it'll be before mobile phones can be used in the Channel Tunnel? You're only underground for 20 minutes though (it's 30 miles).

It's discussed by someone every few months... bound to happen, and on the London Underground too.

This carriage here what I am sitting in has a signal booster for the Orange network, by the way.

Yes, I make/take calls on trains - but only short ones and only if I think it's important enough. I might add those calls frequently relate to the continued employment of other slashdot readers. Of course the REALLY important ones relate to the employment of THIS slashdot reader, and yes, when I am off air for all 8 hours of a flight to the States, it is a problem, because that is a whole working day lost.

Remember that is the day directly before the meeting you were going over there for in the first place... in other words, probably quite an important day, given that whatever you are up to justifies flying 3000 miles in the first place!

Re:Compromise with text

[mikee805]

I like that you are not able to use your children.

Re:Compromise with text

[xaxa]

I use a train every couple of months to visit my parents (about 100 miles). Usually that's quite a late journey (leaving at 21.00 or after). I don't know what the long-distance trains are like in the day, or if the quiet coach is any use at these times. I used a moderate distance train (25 miles) every day for the last 6 months, the seats are excellent, but then, the trains were about 3 years old so that's to be expected (Southern Railway, London Brighton route). Getting a seat depended entirely on the time of the journey and a bit of luck.

Perhaps today/tonight is a bad night -- Friday nights are always busy, and (apparently, so said the crappy free paper I picked up on the tube) lots of people are travelling to London to watch the rugby.

I've made calls on the train, but usually only at night when I have a carriage all to myself. If there are other people I get embarrassed pretty quickly and text instead -- but these are personal calls/texts, and can generally wait, so it's a bit selfish to make them when other people can hear. I'd probably feel differently if I was working for a business where I needed to make calls.

Re:The newest accessory

[Joaz Banbeck]

Your personal cone of silence: http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm
And yes, they do ship to the US. It is mailed as a 'research device'.

real reason they ban 'em

[Pvt. Cthulhu]

likely mobile devices will never be allowed on commercial flights on american airlines, as the government, and therefore the people's will, here has little sway over business practices. airlines dont want you to have portable electronic devices, so you aren't gonna get them. at least not overtly.

the question then is why, which people seem to think they know. it is most definitely not because they interfere with the flight systems. think about how many hundreds of people are on their cellphone or laptop inside the airport, why is there no record of that causing a problem with planes taking off/landing, or even messing with ATC? even if your device matched a signal a plane used, it stands to reason that the multi-million dollar commercial plane would overpower your cute little phone, and you would lose the connection, not them.

so then the most likely reason is that the airlines want to control communication. if something goes wrong, and it is apparent that the plane will go down, then passengers will of course call family and such. the stewardesses will make sure they do no such thing, believing that even the lowly gameboy might interfere with the pilots' rectifying of the situation.

once the plane crashed and everyone is either dead or in too much a state of shock, the airline can retrieve the blackbox, debrief the pilots if they survived, and now the only story on what exactly happened to the plane is one written by corporation not interested in being sued by the families of all the passengers.

Re:real reason they ban 'em

[ubergamer1337]

Cell phones do mess with ATC.

My father is an Air Traffic Controller at Boston Logan International. When one of the controllers uses his/her cell phone in the TRACON (room full of radarscopes), it causes interference with the radios. This is probably why they were first banned. The interference is very minor however, and thats when the phone is within feet of the radios. It's easy to understand the fear from the airlines, and pilots view, that some new cellphone type/radio could really fuck things up for the avionics/radio in a plane.

Re:real reason they ban 'em

[GameboyRMH]

believing that even the lowly gameboy might interfere with the pilots' rectifying of the situation.

Who you callin' lowly, squid boy!?

Re:real reason they ban 'em

[Pvt. Cthulhu]

how can anyone be expected to do anything with a reflective LCD screen? it can only make images on a pathetic 2 dimensional Cartesian coordinate plane! thats only about a third of the axes you need to truly capture a flat picture! Descartes, you were a fool!

You can get them here...

[Belial6]

You can get them at Uline and come in quantities of 200 for $24.

Yack Yack Yack

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they make people use them outside, I don't see the problem

9/11 Anyone?

[anarking]

Gee... I thought we could already make crystal clear calls from 25,000ft up on cell phones based on the calls from supposed passengers on 9/11!

Oh wait... someone actually tested that with cell phones and none worked at all...

Funny isn't it how they were all made through Verizon and how chummy Verizon has been with DHS and the other agencies. hmmmmmm...

Re:9/11 Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read articles such as this one, I assume someone is going to ask about 9/11. Here's some more information for you: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

Re:9/11 Anyone?

[bschonec]

Uhh.... they used the GTE in-flight phones in the back of the seat. Geeshh....

Re:9/11 Anyone?

[starman71taylor]

Right....the story has changed 4 or 5 times over the years. The Barbara Olsen legend is the biggest example.

Re:9/11 Anyone?

[FleaPlus]

Gee... I thought we could already make crystal clear calls from 25,000ft up on cell phones based on the calls from supposed passengers on 9/11! Oh wait... someone actually tested that with cell phones and none worked at all...

Um... 9/11 truthering aside, do you have a citation for that? My understanding is that phone calls are possible, but they're quite rough (especially due to the rapid switching between cell regions) and produce a huge load on the cell network, since a single cellphone can easily transmit to many stations.

Re:9/11 Anyone?

[Trogre]

Hi Dylan, I was wondering when you were going to chime in. I suggest you look up the excellent Viewers Guide for that Loose Change 'documentary' you made.

Little old lady with a hammer

[threaded]

Well, thanks to the terrorists, these cell phone users will be safe from a little old lady with a hammer!

Re:FIRST! GNNA RULES

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to spell GNAA and then please stop failing it in our name. You might also want to consider press releases.

-JB

no risk, except

[m2943]

without any risk of interference.

That's "no risk of electromagnetic interference". There is a significant risk of pugilistic interference.

you have been able to carry lighters again

[ProfBooty]

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_multi_image_with_table_0099.shtm

since august 4th lighters are allowed again.

Re:you have been able to carry lighters again

[mybadluck22]

Well there you go. Good to know!

Re:you have been able to carry lighters again

[Kreigaffe]

It should be around to all airports, but as of august 16, many still were not allowing lighters. I got through fine, but at my layover many people asked to borrow my lighter. Thank god for smoking areas in airports, you get to gab about how bizarre TSA is and bitch about airports without smoking lounges.

I sure hope so

[wardk]

cause listening to everyone chat aloud into their cell phones is one really hot feature that is missing from air travel

Why just on planes "coming soon"?

[mbstone]

I don't care if they allow cell phones on planes that won't be here for 12 hours.

Oblig PA

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Penny Arcade comic:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30

Not really a first

[mrFur]

Qantas is running a trial of 'pico-cells' in some Boeing 767's. I used my mobile between Brisbane & Perth a few weeks ago. It's only available from GSM phones though.

The Death-Knell for Peace and Quiet in the Skies?

[jg21]

As Web 2.0 Journal this morning puts it, "One thing is an iPhone, but a skiPhone might just be the death-knell for (relative) silence on airplanes."

Why do people hate this?

[twoshoes]

oh noes! I'm going to be hearing people talk on their cell phones! boo hoo! I've don't own headphones and can't possibly block out somebody talking near me. boo hoo! Some kid is going to be text messaging next to me!! IT WILL MAKE ME KILL PEOPLE -- Good grief -- That is such a lame response to this. /2cents

Re:Why do people hate this?

[pandrijeczko]

Because if you're so SAD an individual you can't do without making a phone call for the duration of one flight, then there is definitely something wrong with you!

Sorry, your mobile may be of high importance to you, but to me its just a tool that lets me make or receive phone calls occasionally, invariably out of earshot of other people.

Deal with it.

Re:Why do people hate this?

[twoshoes]

You whole response is just lame and I'm guessing you have problems in social settings.

A. I go without making a phone call on my cell for days let alone one flight. However, I could still care less if somebody is in earshot of me talking on their phone. I don't have ADD and can't still manage. What if somebody makes 4-5 plan trips a week? Are they still "Sad" for wanting to use the phone on a flight?

B. It appears that you will be the one dealing with it shortly.

C. My cell doesn't just let me make or receive phone calls occasionally. I can also listen to music, browse web pages, watch video, send text messages, etcetera. ;)

Re:Why do people hate this?

[pandrijeczko]

A. I was making a generalised statement. If you personally can go without making a phone call on planes, then you don't fall into the category of people I was criticising. However, far too many people spend far too much time peering down into the little screens of their phones rather than getting on with life beyond gadgetry. 20 years ago, people didn't need to be constantly in contact, why are we so different now?

B. No. Because if someone sat next to me starts making a phone call, I will politely ask them to cease. And if they won't then I'll start complaining to the airline - and if a lot of people do this (as they surely will) then there will need to be a policy change.

C. So take your sim out and listen to MP3s and watch videos. As for SMS, I don't have a problem with that (except for the sadness of people constantly texting their lives away) on a plane - I just don't want someone else's life story blaring out next to me.

Relax. Nobody's going to be annoying you.

[lewko]

Like most people here, I too dread the thought of some 15 year old or wannabe CEO type blabbing on the phone next to me for 15 hours.

However, I think it's unlikely to be a problem. Why? Because the airline will own the microcell to which you are connnecting and you will be 'roaming' when you use it. Translation: They get to charge whatever they want. How does five bucks a minute for calls sent or received sound?

Anyone who will be able to afford to use the service for anything more than SMS is probably flying first-class or their own jet anyway, so most of us won't be disturbed.

Sure we'll have to put up with a few minutes of "hey, guess where I'm calling from" like we did when airphones first came out, but beyond that, I don't really think we need to get too worried about this.

Of course the TSA will probably decide that terrorists could use mobile phones to detonate an explosive, so they'll get banned anyway.

Re:Relax. Nobody's going to be annoying you.

[jamar0303]

Oh, I'll probably be charged about a third of that. China Mobile's big enough to get lower roaming rates for most of the places I go to (one rate for all calls back to China- 75cents US. That, or maybe it has something to do with the fact that they're state-owned ("give us this rate or your customers can't roam on us" or some such thing- but hey, GPRS for me is 1c/KB outside China- no complaints).

We already have phones on planes

[Toreo asesino]

....the super-expensive satellite one's, for long-haul at least. Why do we need cellphones too?

I mean, if you can get off the phone for 2 hours for short-haul trip then you have issues, and if you need to make an real urgent call on long-haul, it's possible while anything more than a minimum chat is prohibitively expensive for most. What's wrong with that I ask you?

it worked quite well on septembre 11, didn it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough,

on all highjacked airplanes, cell phones worked quite well and this required no special technology.
How can it be ?

thx in advance for answering.

Re:it worked quite well on septembre 11, didn it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be ridiculous.

Of course cell phones work from 50,000ft! And jet fuel fires cause steel skyscrapers to collapse cutting support columns at 45 degree angles, evaporating steel and leaving behind huge iron boulders that are still smoking at 2000 degrees months later. The cell phones were also responsible for the explosions that took place in the buildings before they were hit by the planes. Everyone knows that silly.

Don't you know anything about physics?

Phones on a plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a great thing to make a movie about! Someone gets really upset after sitting next to a loudmouth for 6 hours... could be messy

interference - what interference?

[ebolaZaireRules]

what interference?

how much power is poured out of radar systems, radio stations and tv stations? I guess NiCad batteries have come further than I thought in the last few years.
and a 'running laptop' causing enough interference to do _anything_ to a plane during taxi and takeoff? If planes were that dangerous, no one would ever use them.

I thought the only 1/2 valid reason was because they didn't think the signal towers could handle the tower changes at that speed... though I'm not convinced, and am sure its nothing that couldn't be patched (or is that a bugfix?).

"interference" aside, i'm actually glad... not only mini phone towers, but some carriers plan wifi as well (I hope its not the same as gprs per meg, though). just great for those long flights.

Re:yes, and...

[Lord Bitman]

Every one of those planes crashed!

Ban it for other reasons

[gilesjuk]

Nothing worse than trying to get some rest on a flight and having an idiot next to you talking on the phone all the way.

Cell phones are different...

[Joce640k]

Cell phones are different because it isn't always the person sitting next to you who initiates the jackassery - other people can call them. Can you honestly ask somebody not to answer their phone if it starts ringing?

Me? I think this is a terrible move. Air travel is bad enough as it is without having to put up with somebody talking 12 inches from your ear for hours. NOBODY is suffering with the current system.

If somebody annoys me with a cellphone, ie. it's obvious that it's not an emergency call and they're not going to be hanging up anytime soon, I'm going to lean over and start talking loudly into the cellphone for as long as it takes for them to give up.

Not to worry...excessive fees will save the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Phones on planes is nothing new At first, it was one satellite phone in the front of the plane. It cost something like $20 to make one lousy call. Then they decided the reason nobody used it was because it was too inconvenient to go to the front of the plane to reach the phone. So they put one in each side of each row. Then it finally dawned on them that the fees made the whole concept dead on arrival. On my last several flights, the phones were gone.

I suspect this will be more of the same. The fees will be ridiculous and the phones will remain offline. I usually call home from my phone after the plan lands while it taxis to the gate. My only concern is they might find some way to block that call when I decine their "value added" phone from plan service.

The sky is falling!!!

[sp3kter]

Cellphone jammers FTW! http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm end of line...

At what point...

[Traf-O-Data-Hater]

..over the ocean, do the flight attendants change from calling them 'mobile phones' to 'cell phones'?

First Class Will Be Hilarious!

[billybob_jcv]

Imagine how funny it will be up in first class with every single one of those ego-maniacal twits all on their phones at the same time, all thinking they are the most important person on the plane, and all being pissed-off that everyone else in first class is on the phone too. The airlines could pipe video of the first class free-for-all to the coach passengers as entertainment.

Long Island Rail Road Vigilante

[Anonymous Coward]

We have this guy on the LIRR that goes around slamming people for rude behavior- especially loud cell phone yapping. Slammed one woman in the head and threw coffee on another.

It's bad enough on the train for 40 minutes with some woman yammering on her nextel (so we can hear both sides of the conversation) about her personal problems. Yeast. Is she baking bread down there?

On a plane once I had some moron start shaving with an electric with the nubs flying everywhere. I told him to stop. He didn't. I slipped my pile of chewed nicotine gum into his fine suit pocket.

Slashdot's tagging system

[Deven]

Okay, here's what I don't get about Slashdot's tagging system. Supposedly it takes the most frequently-tagged values and puts them on the story. All well and good, but did lots of people really randomly type shootpeoplethatshoutintotheirphone into the tagging system?? It seems more likely that someone noticed that tag, thought it was funny, and promoted it.

What is the real criteria for the tags to be used?

Re:Slashdot's tagging system

[Shados]

My guess is that very few people normally type the exact same tags... so all it takes, is, let say, 250 bored students in a very large lecture room talking to each other before class starts and bang!

I'm amazed and disgusted...

[mi]

That the "freedom-loving" slashdotters are all — posters and moderators — claiming to be happy, that the big lie of "cell phones may interfere with safety equipment on board" is being used to stop their fellow passengers from using their cell phones on the planes.

Evidently, the ends justify the means... Lying to millions of travelers to prevent a tiny minority of them from being inconsiderate, while at the same time offering them an option to pay $6/minute for the same sort of inconsideration...

Re:I'm amazed and disgusted...

[Shados]

Lying to millions of travelers to prevent a tiny minority of them from being inconsiderate

A tiny minority? You have to be kidding, right?

Re:I'm amazed and disgusted...

[mi]

A tiny minority? You have to be kidding, right?

Well, if it is, in fact, a majority, or even a substantial minority, who wish to be able to use their phones, but can not due to the undisputed lie, then the slashdotters' celebration of the lie is even worse...

Re:I'm amazed and disgusted...

[skintigh2]

Despite what an economic magazine says about the realities of electromagnetic interference in damaged or otherwise non-optimal hardware, I think I will go with 1) what engineers say and 2) what the pilot log books say. Those logs include some pretty scary things, including a laptop that was proven to cause an airliner to bank.

I am searching for the article but having trouble. Can't remember if it was in the IEEE Spectrum or EE Times.

Re:I'm amazed and disgusted...

[skintigh2]

Hmmm, not the article I was looking for, but here's some examples:

Unsafe At Any Airspeed?
March 01, 2006
Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectrum/mar06/3069
[...]
In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.
[...]
In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked the passenger to switch the player on again. Game electronics and laptops were the culprits in other reports in which the crew verified in the same way that a particular PED caused erratic navigation indications.

Re:I'm amazed and disgusted...

[mi]

I think I will go with 1) what engineers say and 2) what the pilot log books say. Those logs include some pretty scary things, including a laptop that was proven to cause an airliner to bank.

That would mean a severely broken airliner to begin with. On every flight there are 5-15 cellular phones, which their owners forget to turn off. Somehow, the sky has not fallen yet... Nor has it fallen over the United Emirates, whose primary airline officially allows cell-phone use (see this article's write-up).

Hmm.. that's weird..

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought cell phones didn't work on planes, except on 9/11. Oh wait.. that's what "THEY" want us to think.

Cell phones won't work, and front-end overloading

[giminy]

Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? It's pretty well-established that cell phones will not work on flights once the flight goes above about 5,000 feet. My own experiments showed my cell phone stopped working about 2,000 feet up. My roommate a few months ago was a private pilot, and we lived in/flew over San Diego where there's a cell tower for every 50 sq. feet of ground cover. Other projects have yielded similar results to my own, and are far more scientific to boot. Couple this evidence with the fact that any lengthy flight is going to fly at well over 30,000 feet over areas with no cell phone towers.

All that allowing cell phones will do in the US is make it so that a hundred or so people will have phones on during the whole flight, and those phones will switch to their highest power mode trying to find a tower. The pilot will hear this buzzing in his headset because his receiver's front end will overload. Try this: drive down the interstate, put your cell phone in your center console, turn your radio on and turn the speakers up. You hear that electronic humming that pops up every once in a while? That's your phone establishing a connection with a new tower. It is using the highest transmit setting at first, overloading the receive sensitivity of your car's stereo and causing a blaring sound through your speakers (actually it is inducing signal in your receiver, and this experiment will probably work in your stereo even when you play CDs/Tapes). Imagine a pilot trying to listen to a tower and instead hearing this cell phone garbage. It would not make for a very safe flight. What's really interesting? Modern radios are more susceptible to this behavior than older, tube-driven radios/amplifiers!

Unless cell phones become far more powerful, and aircraft switch *back* to vacuum-tube radio receivers, there will be 1) no point to allowing cell phones on flights, and 2) it will actually make flights far more dangerous by effectively DoS'ing your pilot's communications.

I'm going to buy stock...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in companies that make noise-canceling headphones. Seriously.

That's the scary thing - they might make money...

[Joce640k]

If airlines are even considering this it's because they're going to make money on the deal. All calls will be charged at a premium rate, with the airline taking a cut.

This means the cabin crew will be told to not come down too hard on the morons, no matter how much they want to. The people making the decisions will be safe in their plush offices while the poor stewards are dealing with the air rage it causes.

I think the best tactic will be to lean over and really obviously try to listen in on the conversation or something like that.

"Hey, this creepy guy is trying to listen in!"

"Yeah, he's, like totally leaning over here to listen to what we're saying"

See how long they can stay on the 'phone like that. I'm betting after thirty seconds it'll be, "listen, I'll call you later when I'm on the ground"

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Laptop + cellular modem + a little splash of code == one nice efficient phone jammer.

Re:Easy fix

[jamar0303]

How many modem cards will you need for that? They can only transmit one band at a time, so if you block 1900, all the phones will switch to 1800/900 or possibly 3G at 2100. And don't forget CDMA- 1900/1700(Korea)/800/450(Eastern Europe/Russia?). And for even more fun, throw in some PHS (1900) or PDC (800/1500). Impractical.

YES! flying is not annoying enough yet

[peter303]

Airlines have found they not reached the limits of annoying passengers yet. Hobbit-size seats, stuffy air, trip-long fasting, long bathroom lines were not enough. Bring on the cell phones!

Re:YES! flying is not annoying enough yet

[jamar0303]

Sounds like you haven't experienced the relative joy of ANA, or Thai, or Singapore Airlines. Especially ANA- they know how to make coach class comfortable (well, compared to Shanghai Airlines and United).

They'll put a "cell" inside the 'plane...

[Joce640k]

It can easily work.

They'll put a "cell" inside the 'plane and beam it to ground via a special link...

It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if cell phones are allowed, I refuse to fly as long as airplane and airport security resembles Soviet Russia.

Re:It doesn't matter

[wikinerd]

I refuse to fly as long as airplane and airport security resembles Soviet Russia.

I do the same, I vote with my euros: I'll fly only if it's needed for very important business reasons*, otherwise I just prefer a ship, a train, a bus, or a car.

* Saying 'I refuse to do that' is too restrictive. I am a pragmatist, and sometimes we do have to do things contrary to our preferences, because the world at large has a different modus operandi. I run Debian GNU/Linux as my primary desktop and workstation OS, and it's the only OS on my PC, but I don't erase the preloaded WinXP from my laptops after I create my GNU/Linux partitions, as having the ability to be 100% compatible with the world at large is still necessary, even though I rarely need to boot into Windows.

Why do you post as an AC, by the way? Freedom is something you must sign with your name and be proud for it. If we have to hide when we talk about freedom, then we have already lost our case.

Talking about freedom in Soviet Russia would guarantee you a visit by the KGB. But here in the West we still have some limited freedom. If you self-censor and hide your head under the sand every time you talk about freedom then you help creating a non-free society. Freedom must be used, otherwise you lose it. It is a responsibility of every responsible free individual to show that they are not afraid to use their names when talking about freedom.

Yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffft... It was only a matter of time before they admitted that a $20 cellphone *couldn't* bring down a plane, and they figured out a way to get a cellphone repeater on board to soak up the "minutes" and make a tidy profit. I'm sooo looking forward to the day when I can sit on an international flight and listen to "OMG LOLZ I'm on a plane how c00l am I?" a hundred times...

may have been said already

[deftones_325]

I hope I don't have to hear some idiot talking about his prostate all the way from here to mexico. But...phones don't interfer with the planes comm., or instruments. If a phone company went through the process of getting the phone checked by the FCC to make sure its ok, it would be registered or ok to use on a plane. Its just too expensive or time consuming to get all electronic devices ( except the planes equipment) checked so they just outlaw them on planes. If they were able to cause that much of a problem.. terrorists would be sneaking cellphones on planes, screaming alah ackbar, then placing a cell phone call to thier mother-in-law, causing all the planes in the world to crash. You don't think the plane is flying through billions of cell phone signals already?

Re:The newest accessory

[EMCEngineer]

Get them while you can: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/conformity/1007/index.php?startpage=10 The FCC doesn't like people breaking the law. Just don't bring jammers onto a plane please. It would be a bad idea.

Re:Cell phones won't work, and front-end overloadi

[MikeTheMan]

That annoying occasional buzzing seems to only come from GSM phones, like ones from Cingular and T-Mobile, and not from CDMA phones like the ones Verizon uses. This is an interesting point, even though the range of that buzzing is usually only a few feet from the phone.

Re:Cell phones won't work, and front-end overloadi

[BitZtream]

Did you miss the whole 9/11 thing with people calling the ground reporting they were being hijacked? Obviously phones are more than capable of holding extended conversations at altitude. The biggest reason it would have problems would be hand offs between towers and the fact that cell towers are designed to radiate signal across the surface of the earth and not upwords. The distance between the phone and the tower isn't a big deal since there is next to nothing to obstruct the signal itself, so high power isn't really required.

The 'buzzing' you speak of is due to improper shielding of the equipment you are dealing with. My car has NEVER had such a problem, and my iPhone SITS on the center console plugged into the dock which feeds my radios AUX input. My PC Speakers in my office have had the problem, they are $15 throw away speakers with unshielded cables. Aircraft radios aren't exactly like your cheap ass car radio or my cheap ass PC speakers. You also have a cell phone that is extremely close to the device that is picking up the interference, which I doubt the pilot is going to let you into the cockpit with your Nokia, even if it gives you a better signal.

You are also using devices which are not required to protect themselves against interference ... aircraft radios have much high requirements for interference rejection. All consumer devices are required to not emit interference, the FCC has regulations on this and requires the manufacture to prove their devices won't emit interference beyond acceptable limits. Read the manual that comes with your cell phone, PC, radio, TV, whatever, you'll find the FCC mandated information detailing what it has to do/not do when it comes to interference. Aircraft electronics have a completely different set of rules do to the fact that ... peoples lives may depend on it.

And the laptops that people use on aircrafts have far more high energy circuits in them that operate on a large number of frequencies which are just as likely to cause problems, so again, if cell phones were REALLY an issue, NO electronics with any sort of oscillator would be allowed on a plane, if they were actually worried about it.

I suggest you learn a little more about how/why interference actually causes problems before pretending to know that cell phones will cause problems.

Re:Let me be the first to SHOUT

[Bloke down the pub]

A phone converts sound into electrickery and similar whatnots, transmits that and then it's all reversed at the other end by the magic of science or something like that. There's a stupid cow in my office who apparently hasn't realized this, and she's not the only one.

So get her on board and it makes no difference if you're at the front of the plane, back of the plane, or sitting on the tailplane - you'd still not be able to hear yourself think.

I choose my Cure:

[littlerubberfeet]

Voila

Re:I choose my Cure:

[JDHannan]

Oh yeah, thats a real good idea. Bring something onto a plane designed to jam signals!

Re:I choose my Cure:

[littlerubberfeet]

I meant to bring up jammers in jest, but let me clarify:

1) Cell phones on planes are bad ideas. I don't want them on planes at all. Aesthetics aside, I don't think that they are safe. I would only want them used if they meet FAA regulations having to do with frequency management and RF interference. Have you ever wondered why a handheld GPS unit for an airplane is twice the cost of a car unit? Even if they look the same? Aside from the Jeppesen chart pack, the unit is RF-shielded.

I have watched someone talking on a cellphone in a Cessna 182. The copilot needed to ask an FBO about landing procedures while firefighting planes were operating. It was a beautiful clear day, not a cloud for miles. The Nav system was tied in with some weather service and some other communications tools. Anyway, large splotches indicating lightning were all over the screen, and other data kept corrupting. On a clear day. They went away when the phone was turned off.

2)For the most part, phone jammers use the same Qualcomm CDMA or GSM chips that phones do, just integrated with a randomizing function. Technically, a phone jammer is absolutely not at all different then having phones calling on all licensed GSM or CDMA bands at once. Since the airplane supposedly doesn't use these specific, licensed frequencies, a phone jammer should be no problem. I would consider a phone jammer that was based around a random noise generator hooked to a frequency sweep circuit to be VERY UNSAFE.

STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

Why no voice communications, you fucking asshat? Do you also want to stifle the conversations of the people sitting around you? What's the difference if they are talking to each other in person, or talking to each other on a cell phone? Are you easily confused when you only hear half the conversation? Yeah, let's do away with the in-flight movies, too, since there is dialogue in those, as well. Don't forget to make sure they turn off the cockpit intercom. Oh, and make sure you tell the stewardesses to communicate via sign language.

Seriously, stop regurgitating arguments that have no foundation in logic.

You all underestimate the inanity of most calls

[wsanders]

Typical loud mouthed moron on BART (SF Bay Area subway):

LMM: "WHERE YOU AT?"

LMM: "I'M ON BART"

LMM: "BART!"

LMM: "I'M ON BART!"

LMM: "YES .. NO ..."

LMM: "I'M ON BART!"

[Train goes in to tunnel]

LMM: "HELLO?"

LMM: "HELLO?"

LMM: "HELLO?"

[Repeat N times directly proportional to loudness and stupidness of conversation]

Re:You all underestimate the inanity of most calls

[immcintosh]

My favorite BART (and MUNI) cellphone conversations are the ones explicitly dealing with personal relationship/financial/medical issues... at 600 decibels. FFS, nobody wants to know about your stupid personal shit people, take it outside...

Re:Cell phones won't work, and front-end overloadi

[giminy]

Did you miss the whole 9/11 thing with people calling the ground reporting they were being hijacked? Obviously phones are more than capable of holding extended conversations at altitude.

The experiments I cited, and later reports proved that the "cell phone" calls made by the hijack victims were actually placed by the plane's airphones. Airphones are satellite phones on many plane flights that require the use of a credit card to activate. Do a Google search, and you will even find a link from QUALCOMM, CINGULAR, and VERIZON all stating that the reported cell phone calls did not take place via cell phone.

Read the physics experiment article that I posted, and try a google search for "9/11 cell phone". Or find a friend with a pilot's license and try it yourself -- above 2,000, even at low-speed (2,500ft @ 65mph airspeed in a Cessna 150 is how I tried it), you will be hard-pressed to get a cell tower, and when you do you will have it for at most a few seconds. The reason for this is multi-fold: 1) cell tower antennas have horizontal, as opposed to vertical, polarization. This means that their signal spreads closer to the ground, and the radiation lobe is very small in the up-and-down direction. The reason? A cell tower would just waste power by broadcasting up in the air when there will be at most two people up there using that particular tower for 15 seconds. It makes a lot more sense to broadcast with a pattern that hugs the ground, where most of your customers are, especially when the cell company must pay the FCC by the watt for their tower. 2) at 30,000 feet, you are going to be a minimum of *five miles* from a tower, and you will not have the benefits of ground-wave propagation to help your tiny signal reach the tower. Coupled with (1), you simply won't get a signal (and you don't. Discreetly try it if you don't believe me [legal disclaimer: I won't be held liable for anything that happens should you actually try it ;-)]).

Do a Google search, and you will even find a link from QUALCOMM, CINGULAR, VERIZON, and NOKIA all stating that the reported cell phone calls did not take place via cell phone. Nokia is even working on a wireless carrier system specifically for flights, which will allow the use of a cell phone in-flight, but using the AirPhone system.

This stated, cell phones were used on the Pennsylvania flight, but only after the plane was well below 8,000 feet of altitude (one of my posts a few months ago on this topic had a link to a nice graph from a conference paper showing the altitude was about 4,000 feet, and that the terrain at the crash site was ~2,000 feet, lending more weight to the polarization/propagation arguments above). A normal commercial flight would only be at this low altitude for a few minutes during landing pattern, and about 2-3 minutes during takeoff (or slightly longer if, y'know, the plane was hijacked and the hijackers were trying to evade radar, or were intending to crash the plane, or something).

As for interference rejection, yes shielding helps. But you cannot shield your antenna, and it is always going to be a conductive source for interference to enter your receiver. I have a very nicely shielded ham radio that still experiences front-end overloading from nearby radio sources, like my cell phone, other ham radios, etc. I cannot vouch for its shielding when compared to your car stereo's, nor to a plane's ATC comm system, but I'd like to think that it's pretty good. Buzzing still happens when I get a phone call, even on a non-harmonic signal.

Just my $.02,
Reid

I thought that this all worked years ago...

[wissape]

I am sure I read somewhere that people had used their phones to call loved ones or something... maybe I'm wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Re:I thought that this all worked years ago...

[giminy]

You are wrong. Sorry ;-). It isn't your fault, though, the media really didn't make it clear. Here is all of the evidence:

Take a look at the NTSB report about flight 93: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf . At Between 9:58 and 10:00am, the plane was at/below 5,000 feet (and never went much above 5,000 feet). From the Mousaui trial/wikipedia article that you linked to, "Only two phone calls, one by Edward Felt and one by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, came from cell phones -- both at 9:58 a.m, shortly before the plane crashed.[14]" Note that the plane was below 5,000 feet at that time. From the Mousaui trial and wikipedia article, every other phone made on flight 93 was done using a credit card phone (read the flight 93 section on Telephone Calls).

The evidence is all there, cell phones don't work at altitude. Most people don't read the evidence, though, sadly. I'll stand by my point: cell phones on planes are useless (and dangerous).

Cheers,
Reid

Don't worry, nobody will use them

[200_success]

To all of you who worry about your neighbor yakking away on their cell phone through a flight, chill out! Many planes today already have seat-back phones. Have you ever seen anyone use them? When you're in the air, you'll be connected to the plane's own cell, with a satellite uplink. Surely they'll charge roaming fees just as exorbitant as what the seat-back phones cost today.

Just hope that you don't accidentally roam onto their network while the plane is on the ground!

3/4 of the world could have coverage very soon

[jbeaupre]

I really don't see the problem with allowing cell phones to be used on intercontinental flights over the ocean. And since that is generally international territory, who's going to stop airlines from allowing it? Just a slight reception problem, but who cares?

How else are terrorists going to...

[Anonymous Coward]

....be able to detonate their remote control bombs in the cargo hold, you wouldn't want to be racist and deny them their right to paradise while flying would you?

Something tells me...

[Anonymous Coward]

that the people complaining so loudly about the possibility of cell phone use on airlines are exactly the same ones who are annoying to other passengers without any phone/computer/ipod to help them...

Silence?!

[zevans]

What are these "silent" planes of which you speak?

A background hum of conversation might actually be better than the monotonous low-frequency rumble which is what we currently listen to.

Unless you put your headphones on to block it out - in which case, I think you will find they will also block out the noise of other passengers!

Anyhoo you all seem to be under some misapprehension that teenagers will be able to AFFORD the airborne tariffs, because you can bet they will be charging big dollar.

Alternate solution...

[Tetsujin]

Instead of allowing the usual, synchronous voice communications, they can let passengers use their phones for asynchronous voice communication: during the flight they can carry on their conversation like normal - and then, when the plane lands, their part of the conversation will be delivered to the party they were calling, and they'll be able to hear the other party's responses at their leisure...

As a side note - just why exactly can't we use devices that generate radio signals, again? I've always heard that it interferes with... something - but I don't know if that's true or what it can affect... I'm pretty sure none of my personal electronics generate signals on the same band as GPS, commercial airline communications, etc...

But, my, sure is handy how security restrictions work to encourage passengers to spend more money... Can't use your cell phone? Use ours, just swipe your credit card... Can't bring your own water on board? Buy a bottle at the terminal for $5... This is why I hate flying on big airlines.

IEEE Spectrum thinks this is a very bad idea

[skintigh2]

Personally I will never fly on a plane that allows this. Maybe if there is a no-cell-phone area. Or even better, no cell phones, no babies, no teenage girls and no Europeans. But I digress.

In addition to annoying the shit out of everyone around you, there is a serious risk that devices like this will eventually crash a plane. I already posted this as a reply to another comment, hopefully I wont get filtered, but here is what the IEEE Spectrum says:

Unsafe At Any Airspeed?
March 01, 2006
Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectrum/mar06/3069 [ieee.org]
[...]
In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.
[...]
In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked the passenger to switch the player on again. Game electronics and laptops were the culprits in other reports in which the crew verified in the same way that a particular PED caused erratic navigation indications.

Re:IEEE Spectrum thinks this is a very bad idea

[s31523]

[quote.In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error[/quote]
The truth to this statement is somewhat suspect, but let's say it really did happen... The FMS on the plane would not allow a 30 degree error in 1 GPS to corrupt the navigation position, well, that is if it isn't a Honeywell FMS. The FMS I work on has reasonableness checks and multi-sensor inputs into it's positioning filter. If this really happened the GPS would be flagged as unreasonable and it's data would be tossed out and Navigation accuracy would still fall within the RNP (required navigational performance). So, I personally wouldn't cry chicken little just yet. In all likelihood if cell phone use is permitted it will be only allowed in cruise where the RNP is 2nm or Oceanic where RNP is 5nm. Approach mode can have an RNP of 0.5nm or less.

Re:Let me be the first to SHOUT

[QuickFox]

There's a simple solution. Give her a bullhorn and tell her to use it for shouting into the phone, just in case somebody doesn't hear her clearly enough.

Either she gets the hint, or she takes it literally and somebody shoots her. Either way you get blessed silence.

On a more serious note, she may be somewhat hard of hearing. Many people will shout as a reflex when they can't hear clearly. Their own feeling of lack of clarity in sounds makes them doubt that they are making themselves heard. In that case a special phone with unusually high volume and a volume control may do the trick. Hearing both herself and the other person painfully loud through the earpiece should neutralize her shouting reflex.

3G laptops?

[wikinerd]

Does this mean that it would be possible to use not only a phone but also a 3G/HSDPA laptop while flying?

Re:Cell phones won't work, and front-end overloadi

[Chili-71]

What's really interesting? Modern radios are more susceptible to this behavior than older, tube-driven radios/amplifiers!
Not all that interesting. 200-300 volts at the plate of a tube verses 3-5 volts at the collector of a transistor being excited by a few hundred milliwatts from a transmitter? Pretty easy to see which one is going to be susceptible to the RF emissions.