Slashdot Mirror


Mobile Phone Use Soon To Be Allowed On European Flights

New submitter jchevali writes: The BBC reports that mobile phone use on European flights is soon to be allowed. This follows official safety agency findings that their use on the aircraft really poses no risk. Details on the implementation and the timeline for changes will depend on each individual airline.

96 comments

  1. Wait what, it's not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grass is not always greener on the other side. Take that Eurohippsters!

    1. Re:Wait what, it's not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not.

  2. And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That cellphones doesn't harm anything in the flight systems since it's mostly shielded. almost to rediculous lengths, except for sources like cosmic radiation.

    1. Re:And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most passengers will suffer serious harm from the idiot next seat who'll blabber incessantly into his mouthpiece. Phones should not be used in small, confined spaces with many people sitting close to each other for a few reasons other than the plane falling out of the sky.

    2. Re:And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      And the NSA

    3. Re: And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by kevinbr · · Score: 2

      People already sit with other and blabber. They even bring kids that ..... Cry. Music leaks out of headphones. Fact is an airplane is not an optimal place for quiet. Oh yeah people scream in air pockets.

    4. Re: And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so adding one more agravation to that is going to improve flying how? You can at least pick seats where you are less likely to be exposed to crying children, but you have no choice about who might be sitting right next to you, having a conversation with an unseen, unheard person for three or four hours.

    5. Re:And has been a fact ever since the beginning. by cgimusic · · Score: 1

      If that becomes a serious issue then it's the airlines job to decide whether to ban it or not. I'm glad they have finally scrapped the bullshit safety regulations so that we can at least have the discussion as to whether making phone calls on flights is ok. I suspect it wont be a problem for most of the time. I rarely have similar issues with trains, which people are perfectly free to use a mobile phone on.

  3. I'd pay for a non-phone flight by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having the screaming kids or the fat, sweaty guy next to you is bad enough. Last thing I want is 200 people yapping on their mobile for several hours. Time to start 'Quiet Airlines', no-go for kids and phones.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      No kidding. People talk loud enough on their phones in quiet places. They'll be shouting over the engine noise on a plane.

    2. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by itzly · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. There still won't be any cell tower reception at cruising altitude.

    3. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yes, but as I observed here on /. some years ago, there ain't nothin' that quite matches the feeling you get when you’re 10000 metres over Kazakhstan and discover that you've got mod points...

      (Unrelated: Apparently all my posts made prior to 01 September 2013 have disappeared. WTF?)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. There still won't be any cell tower reception at cruising altitude.

      Yes, there will, because the airlines are planning to provide it.

    5. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. People talk loud enough on their phones in quiet places. They'll be shouting over the engine noise on a plane.

      Shouting to overcome the engine noise? What kind of aircraft do you travel with? DC-3s?

    6. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a report on this topic I read elsewhere, Lufthansa wants to allow networking, but not phone calls. There seems to have been a lot of customer feedback on this in the past.

      I am not sure though, why it is more annoying if someone talks normally on the phone than 2 people talking to each other for hours next to you

    7. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am not sure though, why it is more annoying if someone talks normally on the phone than 2 people talking to each other for hours next to you

      Because you can only hear one side of the conversation, and your mind is trying to reconcile what is going on.

      I read it on reddit, so you know it's so.

    8. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And my phones will be switched off anyway. I don't want to RECEIVE any calls when I'm on a plane, certainly not work-related ones even on a work-related flight.

      Those are valuable hours, especially if one is crossing 7-10 hours of time zones. I definitely would not make any calls. Of course, if I really really wanted to screw the company for the eye-watering in-flight call charges, I would call people who can't or won't answer (no shortage of them: time zones again), wait for their answering service to intercept, and hang up.

    9. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear the pizza's half-price at the food court in the mall today, DJ Jazzy Trevor.

    10. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by itzly · · Score: 2

      Possibly, but knowing airlines, they'll charge outrageous prices, so this will still stop most people from endless yapping. Airlines have had in-seat phones for as long as I can remember, and in my dozens of flights, I have not once seen anybody actually use them.

    11. Re: I'd pay for a non-phone flight by kevinbr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've sent iMessages at 5000 meters over Ghana. Record. Kenya was 2500 meters. Heathrow sucks. Nice is ok. Zurich terrible - 600 meters

      My trivial hobby.

    12. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but knowing airlines, they'll charge outrageous prices, so this will still stop most people from endless yapping. Airlines have had in-seat phones for as long as I can remember, and in my dozens of flights, I have not once seen anybody actually use them.

      I hope you are right. I think the airlines are doing this because they believe users will be less aware/cautious of roaming costs on your own mobile than when you have to provide a credit card to the seat phone. I fear they are right.

    13. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if you have noticed, but this is an American website

      An american website?I think you'll find the other 95% of the world disagrees with you.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    14. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      An american website?I think you'll find the other 95% of the world disagrees with you.

      Then 95% of the world is wrong. This is an American site. It's hosted in the USA, it's staffed in the USA... it's American. Sites can have an international audience, but this is still an American site. Japan has its own Slashdot for a reason. They need one. The rest of your English speakers can tag along with us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Having the screaming kids or the fat, sweaty guy next to you is bad enough. Last thing I want is 200 people yapping on their mobile for several hours.

      When someone next to you talks on the phone, it's a hilarious opportunity to fill in the parts of the conversation you can't hear with whatever you want — at the same volume they are using. Bonus points if their mic picks you up and actually mutes whoever they are actually listening to. Double extra bonus points if they become violent, especially since you're on a plane and they'll be headed to federal PMITA prison.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by AqD · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just charge fat guys and kids more money? Fat guys definitely add weight and should be required to purchase double seats! Kids are even worse as they need an independent room.

    17. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by savuporo · · Score: 1

      The actual problem with using cellphones in airplanes used to be the cell towers themselves in and around takeoff and landing corridors. Basestations would often go bonkers over too many nodes entering and exiting it at high speeds. Presumably latest 4G generation of the tower upgrades have reduced these kinds of issues enough that it does not pose a serious problem to carrier networks anymore. Statistically, there is an active cellphone probably on every single flight taking off and landing today, so the techs looking after the macrocells would have a pretty good idea if enabling it all full scale is safe or not - safe for carriers, of course.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    18. Re: I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, within the US, they tried to put phones on planes and completely failed. The bandwidth went up for auction, and that's where Aircell (now called Gogo) stepped in and got the rights to it. Wifi in the airplane? That comes from Wi-Fi access points on the plane connected to the cellular backbone that Gogo built out. Yes, they built cellular towers on the ground with antennae pointed up to the sky to make the connection.
      This was done as an alternative to satellite for internet (slow and shared by everyone).
      Of course, the Gogo solution doesn't work well over oceans or over countries that won't allow cellular infrastructure to be built just for this purpose.
      So, it should be interesting to see how they'll solve this issue for letting people connect directly to cellular networks from the planes.

    19. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they would charge you triple because, apparently, you'd require assistance finding your way to the exit.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re: I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice is very nice. Looks like you have traveled in Europe and Africa a lot.

    21. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/10

    22. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't fly, mainly because of the TSA BS, but I would immediately complain about screaming or crying kids or overly loud talkers to the flight attendant, and not stop until it was quiet. I would also bring noise cancelling headphones in case the above didn't work.

    23. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just was on a flight e om Costa Rica to the US this week. You can take 1 under the plane luggage, one under the seat personal item, and one item stowed above you. My friend who moved to Costa Rica a few years ago said that when she moved down, you could take two under the plane suitcases for free, with 75 lbs each in them. Now it's just one with a weight limit of 50 lbs. The automatic reason to think they did it is just for more money, but I wonder if it's just because now days, almost everyone would fit inthe "fat" category

    24. Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fly a lot - rarely in the USA or in USA bound flights though. Honestly, it's rare that there's overly loud talkers... or screaming kids. It does sometimes happen that a baby will make some noise, but it's not the norm. Same with noisy and disruptive people... seen it once or twice, but not the norm. Last 5 long-haul international flights I've taken this year were very quiet. People mostly settling in and sleeping for the 12 to 14 hour flight.

  4. Queue the I don't want to sit next ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you do not like something does not mean that there should be a law prohibiting it. Airlines can and will manage to set their own policies.

    I for one kind of enjoy listening to other conversations. The few times I've been on a bus, it has made the ride much more enjoyable.

    1. Re:Queue the I don't want to sit next ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you don't want people listening in on your conversation then why are you having it in an enclosed public place, like a bus or airplane?

  5. Wrong... there is a risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While the last time, and only times, I flew was in 1999, my opinion should still count.

    The risk... annoyed passengers at people chattering away on their phones in a sardine like environment.

    Allow times to make calls for pick-ups and whatnot. Or limit calls to 5 minutes for the whole flight duration. Have authorized time periods and whatnot.

    1. Re:Wrong... there is a risk by scsirob · · Score: 1

      Not sure who modded you away, but I for one fully agree. If this has to happen, setting a time limit or a time window might be the best balanced option.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  6. Restrictions by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Maybe they (the airlines) will only allow 'silent use'. No voice calls, volume down or headset only etc

    Or even separate areas for 'talking' and 'non-talking'
    (and a small surcharge on your ticket to specify which)
    ???
    Profit

    1. Re:Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck enforcing these. Once it is on, it is goodbye sleep on planes for a decade.

    2. Re:Restrictions by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't heard of earplugs then?

    3. Re:Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I guess you haven't heard of bone conduction. My ears, the earplugs do nothing!

    4. Re: Restrictions by kevinbr · · Score: 1

      Aircraft interior 85 dB
      Speech: 65-70 dB

      Ask the pilot to switch off the engines while you sleep.

    5. Re: Restrictions by itzly · · Score: 1

      Engines, while loud, produce a monotonous sound are much easier ignored. And also, on a plane, most people aren't going to stay in the 65-70 dB range. Many of them will start yelling in their phone, trying to overpower the engine noise.

    6. Re: Restrictions by kevinbr · · Score: 1

      Fact is, phones or not people talk on airplanes. But current American culture being fearful and intolerant and all about "me" will result in yet more disputes. Want to sleep in a public place? Earplugs or noise cancelling head phones. And no one needs to shout at 85 dB to be heard with a person in the next seat or for a phone conversation.

    7. Re: Restrictions by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      After extensive test flights, perhaps we will find that passengers will be required to speak using a monotonous sound that are much easi[ly] ignored.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re: Restrictions by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Engines, while loud, produce a monotonous sound are much easier ignored.

      Individual voices in a otherwise already loud environment are also easy to ignore... unless you actively concentrate to hear what someone else is saying and pick out individual voices, you should be able to ignore them just as easily.

    9. Re: Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad we agree that no one *needs* to shout at 85 dB to be heard.

      But that's not what was claimed.

    10. Re:Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't tried earplugs then?

    11. Re: Restrictions by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      This has been studied, and the studies have been posted previously on Slashdot. People talking on phones are annoying. More annoying than people having conversations. Both because people on phones tend to raise their voices in the belief that they need to to be heard on the other end of the phone. And because half a loud conversation draws attention - the brain scambles to work out what's being said, because the brain is a pattern machine machine and it's being presented with a missing element. The voice COULD be trying to raise the alarm.

      Ignoring isn't an entirely controllable thing. Would that it were. One person may be ignoring something, whilst another is driven to distraction. This isn't because the one being annoyed chose to be annoyed.

    12. Re: Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Aircraft interior 85 dB

      Not in an Airbus A380. Those things are VERY quiet.

    13. Re: Restrictions by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You understand the difference between a person hearing a conversation, and the same person hearing half of the same conversation, right? It's jarring to have the flow of a conversation interrupted. It also doesn't help that people on phones generally talk louder than people having a quiet, hushed conversation in adjoining seats, which amplifies the jarring effect.

    14. Re: Restrictions by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So, my normal speaking voice then.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    15. Re: Restrictions by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Ignoring isn't an entirely controllable thing. Would that it were. One person may be ignoring something, whilst another is driven to distraction. This isn't because the one being annoyed chose to be annoyed.

      Good point... so why should something that doesn't bother one person be banned just because it happens to bother another? We are talking about normal speaking volumes here... and if you think that the problem is too many people talking at once, what makes you think that significantly more people will suddenly be using their cell phones when it becomes legal than might simply talking to the person next to them? On a bus you don't see that many people chatting on cell phones, why do you think it would be different on a plane? You might see a lot of people texting or playing games oh their phones, however.

      For what it's worth, most people are capable of picking out a single voice speaking at a normal volume to listen to even in what is otherwise quite a noisy environment, such as a crowded bus or train station. if one was not capable of ignoring noise around them, they would not be able to do that. Obviously there's still a threshold of noise above which that genuinely does become impossible, but it's going to be at levels that are significantly louder than a few people around you engaging in conversation. There are no regulations prohibiting talking on planes, however, nor should there be in ordinary circumstances, so noise levels should not be cited as a reason to prohibit cell phone conversations except during periods of a flight specifically designated as quiet (to allow passengers to sleep during an extended flight, for example), and during which ordinary conversation that is too loud would be equally prohibited.

    16. Re: Restrictions by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I didn't make myself clear. This has been studied, and talking on mobile phone *IS* significantly more annoying than people holding a conversation. These studies have been a story on Slashdot previously.

      why should something that doesn't bother one person be banned just because it happens to bother another?

      Maximisation of total happiness. If there was just the minority that were annoyed, then OK. But it's a lot of people. Trains often offer carriages where phones are banned. That may be an option on larger planes with sections.

    17. Re: Restrictions by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yes, it has been studied... but the study to which you refer (there's only been one, afaik), shows that conversations on phones where one side is overheard by a third party are more likely to be distracting... it did not indicate that conversations on phones are more likely to be overheard in the first place than regular conversation, and thus would not be any more difficult to ignore unless the volume was elevated.

    18. Re: Restrictions by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You draw a distinction between "distracting" and "overheard in the first place" that I don't think is there.

      And usually the volume IS elevated with mobile phone users. Most people are unaware of how good modern phones are at picking up the voice and cancelling out noise. And so they talk loudly on the phone.

      Anyhow, I don't suppose we'll reach agreement. I suspect you are looking forward to being able to use a phone on a plane, and so lean towards arguments that result in that being allowed. I'm happier to just relax on a plane, so my bias it the other way.

    19. Re: Restrictions by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I expect that if I am able to use my phone on a plane, I will probably not be spending more than 5 minutes on it for an entire flight. I do not want to use a phone on a plane because I want to spend most of the flight talking to somebody who isn't with me, and I highly doubt that's how it would be for most people. Most people these days are content to simply text anyways, so I doubt people talking on their phones would actually ever be a problem on a plane.

    20. Re: Restrictions by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm very happy if they limit it so data and SMS.

    21. Re: Restrictions by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'd suspect that even if they didn't limit it to just data and SMS, you wouldn't even notice it any more than you notice other peoples conversations in the cabin unless you were paying particular attention to listen for it.

    22. Re: Restrictions by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I know I would because I already do on trains, trams and busses. And those journeys are shorter.

  7. Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense by feufeu · · Score: 2

    Sadly the tag has vanished from ./ quite a long time ago or the editor forgot to put it here today.

    Considering how many people foget to switch their phone off every day and how much reception of texts or data packets takes places while it's in their pocket, I've always foud it quite astounding that obviously no plane has aver fallen from the sky and it was still considered being a security risk...

    That said, social aspects of the issue set aside.

  8. a question? by thephydes · · Score: 1

    Will there be any reception for mobile phones on many flights? After all the planes will be WAY above any towers. Or does this just mean that people will use their phones for games as they do now and calls when they get close to airports? serious question believe it or not .....

    1. Re:a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other possibility is that the planes will contain a cell site...

    2. Re:a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, with roaming charges. I'm sure that will limit the usage! :-)

    3. Re:a question? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is that the planes will contain a cell site...

      Actually you are connected to a Stingray device that is contained in a briefcase in the overhead compartment above seat 6A.

      That is why all web addresses are redirected to goatse, and all attempts at voice calls connect to this recording. Bing! Another text message! Cat Facts again.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    4. Re:a question? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Not at cruising altitude. However, any wifi could be used with Skype and other VOIP technologies, or email or web traffic. So the lack of cell towers is not such a problem. The lack of _bandwidth_ may be an issue. I'm sure, from experience, that any wifi on the planes will be heavily bandwidth limited and proxy limited to avoid carrying video, possibly even voice data.

      Also, closer to the ground, cell phones work quite well. For example, they should work well when approaching the landing destination.

    5. Re:a question? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No. In an internal memo I pretended to receive yesterday from the BBC, all streaming requests will be redirected to this on-board recording.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  9. Hopefully data only by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as voice isn't enabled I don't have a problem with that. I recently tried wifi on a long haul flight and was quite impressed with the speed of the service. I can see how people might want to have data connection up up in the air (albeit one has to see the extortionate roaming prices airlines will come up with!).

    But voice? No thank you. It would quickly become a safety issue because passengers would assault each other.

    1. Re:Hopefully data only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But voice? No thank you. It would quickly become a safety issue because passengers would assault each other.

      From which uncivilized backwater do you hail that teaches its citizens to assault nearby people for having a conversation?

    2. Re:Hopefully data only by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From which uncivilized backwater do you hail that teaches its citizens to assault nearby people for having a conversation?

      The same one that pitches airline seats just 30 inches apart. The rules of common courtesy tend to grind to a halt once you're inside someone's personal space, be it physical or acoustic.

    3. Re:Hopefully data only by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a marketing scheme to get the transoceanic business folks to insist on first class, where they can escape the claustrophobia, light up a ciggy, and join the mile high club. Also, if you don't allow cell phones then you have to entertain all of the children on the plane with your magic tricks, gum and breath mints. (Ambien optional).

    4. Re:Hopefully data only by dkf · · Score: 1

      light up a ciggy

      That's prohibited for everyone. Airlines' experience, and that of their insurers, shows that it's just too much of a hazard. (Not that I mind; I think the smell of smoke is awful at the best of times.) Nicotine addict? Remember those patches on longhaul flights!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:Hopefully data only by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      > But voice? No thank you. It would quickly become a safety issue because passengers would assault each other.

      From which uncivilized backwater do you hail that teaches its citizens to assault nearby people for having a conversation?

      You haven't been on an airplane lately? They've become the Bus stations of today.

      Personal violence is pointless. Much better is to make your own noise. Perhaps a group sing, or as I did one time at work when some asswipe was in the bathroom stall beside me, Yakking away on his phone. Just made awesome grunting sounds, a real loud sigh and declaration that was the best shit I'd had in weeks.

      He got the message and hung up. I hope he washed his phone off too.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Hopefully data only by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      I'm a non-smoker, never have been a smoker except for a brief stint when I was a teenager. I'm not a fan myself.

      I'm not really sure it was an insurance thing or what (I may be wrong, at least partially) BUT I'm given to understand that:
      When smoking was allowed on flights, they used to pump in fresh air (a couple of minutes to refresh the whole cabin with new air).
      When smoking was banned on flights, this allowed them to recycle air. Other than everybody's body odours and excretions being effectively recycled through the system, you now get less fresh air than you should.
      BUT, as a result of recycling air instead of giving us the real thing, the airlines save a bunch of fuel... somehow. So, arguably, it almost looks like a cost-cutting measure (or to keep up with fuel-economy regulations even with older aircraft?)

      Rather weirdly, when I first flew on an A380, I noticed it had ashtrays... Why did they even bother installing them in the first place?

      On that note, anyone know if they've made a decision on e-cigarettes/vapourizers on flights yet? Those aren't entirely unpleasant (as compared to tobacco, anyway) and so I wouldn't object too much if they were allowed.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  10. Glad this is happening, shame it took so long by jedrek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad this is happening, and it's shame it took so long - or was ever introduced, really. Stuff like this hurts the public's perception of science. Everybody knew this was bullshit.

    There are about 28,000 flights in Europe every day of the year and about 1.2 cell phones for every European. I doubt I've been on a plane in the past 5 years where every passenger over the age of 15 didn't have a phone. I like to think that I'm pretty good about turning my phone off (to airplane mode at least), but I've still managed to forget once during the ~30 flights I've been on in the past 4-5 years. Extrapolate that out, and it's obvious that if a phone could affect a flight, we'd be seeing cases every day. Terrorists would sneak phones onto planes to take them down.

    Your average Joe sees "science" being used to support limits on cell phones, they know they're bullshit, so the next time they hear another "science-based" bit of info that goes against their comfort, they'll just ignore it too. Why would they bother, "science" is just BS anyway.

    1. Re:Glad this is happening, shame it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "science" is just BS anyway.

      Preach it brudder! Scientists be cocksuckers sucking cock for grant moneys. All them "papers" they write are just to brag to other scientists bout how many cocks they sucked.

  11. Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, all we need is to be allowed to bring scotch on board of the airplane again and we're living in Europe again and Not mini-usa...

  12. Profit by hedleyroos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm buying stock in companies that manufacture noise cancellation headphones. Last thing I want is someone in close proximity talking on a phone.

    1. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm buying stock in companies that manufacture noise cancellation headphones. Last thing I want is someone in close proximity talking on a phone.

      They cancel noise - low frequency noise. They don't cancel voice. In a noisy plane, you can hear people better, especially the higher pitched ones, though every frequency is quieter.

      Before buying stock in something like Bose, you should actually buy the headphones and see how they work. Then again, you can't buy those shares anyway.

      http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/2...

      So your option is investing in Sony and their digital noise canceling headphones. Those I don't own, so maybe they cancel voice too.

      http://store.sony.com/digital-...

    2. Re:Profit by batistuta · · Score: 1

      Since most people don't have a clue about audio and just follow marketing trends, you are probably right on spot. Now most of us here in Slashdot should know that noise cancelling headphones only knock out low frequency noise, like the engines. Conversations don't get cancelled at all. All the contrary, quite often you can hear them better when wearing such headphones, because the sound of the engines don't stay in-between.

      For a better cancellation use noise isolating (passive) the in-ear earphones with foam tips, like the ones from Shure, westone, etymotic research, etc. They'll cut out a lot more than noise cancelling headphones, and they sound a lot better.

  13. Blasphemer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thou knowest airborn cellular phone usage is an affront to the billing gods, and a leading cause of global warming, heterosexuality, full-term births, and capitalism.
    Thou must embrace Progress, the Rule of Experts, and full faith in the state!

  14. Oh... balls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Balls. Just when I thought the world was fine again.

  15. I'd wrather travel in the cargo compartment by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    A fair percentage of people who travel on airplanes are assholes; plain and simple. So to give another tool for these douchbags to continue their assholery is just stupid.

    A great move for the airlines would be to de-shithead their passenger lists by banning the use of mobile on the plane. I would happily travel on any airline that had a no cellphone rule for the simple reason that any remaining airlines that let people use their phones would magnetically attract the wankers away from the awesome airlines.

    I suspect that there will be magically connection rates but this will just be a dickwad amplifier in that the people who use the phones will be government and large organization types on an expense account and will be ultra fartbreaths while they are talking since the calls will cost so much.

    But on a more serious note allowing cellphone use on airlines will be stupendously dangerous seeing that some vigilantes will take jammers with them. While cellphones have been pretty solidly proven not to interfere with the avionics I am fairly certain that a jammer would have a substantially negative effect.

    To give an example of just how much of a crap-for-brains type of person I am expecting I will give a recent restaurant experience. There was a guy in a very small restaurant who kept getting calls on his phone that he was not answering on his very very loud phone that didn't have voice mail. So basically the phone was ringing for about 50 percent of the time that I was in the restaurant. The fattened pig of a human being just sat there ignoring the phone and the horrible effect that it was having on anyone else. The owners of the restaurant were there and did nothing (as I would expect most airlines to do). What would this guy do on an airplane at 2am? Let the phone ring for 4 hours straight, or silence it? BTW the guy was not deaf.

    I do have a happy ending, when my lunch friend and I went to both drop our 1 star Yelp reviews we saw two others relating to the same incident. The four 1 star reviews made up over a third of the total reviews; smashing the 4 star rating to 2 stars. Cellholes can really piss people off.

  16. We've really gotten wrapped around the axle by ai4px · · Score: 2

    We've really gotten wrapped around the axle on this whole electronic devices on aircraft thing. The local oscillator of an ordinary FM radio receiver is 10.7mhz above the indicated frequency... which makes 100mhz on your FM dial 110.7mhz... which meant there was a carrier in the middle of the COM/NAV band that aircraft use. So we had to (understandably) prevent FM radios from operating on aircraft. But thru the years it has turned into all electronics. It's like the "five monkeys with bananas and water" experiment gone wrong. We've gotten so wrapped around no electronics we forgot WHY.

    1. Re:We've really gotten wrapped around the axle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even after reading your explanation, I still don't get why. Did you mean that an FM *receiver* would be enough to disrupt the band? Or were you implying that they wanted to prevent passengers from listening in on open comm traffic?

    2. Re:We've really gotten wrapped around the axle by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      We've really gotten wrapped around the axle on this whole electronic devices on aircraft thing. The local oscillator of an ordinary FM radio receiver is 10.7mhz above the indicated frequency... which makes 100mhz on your FM dial 110.7mhz... which meant there was a carrier in the middle of the COM/NAV band that aircraft use. So we had to (understandably) prevent FM radios from operating on aircraft. But thru the years it has turned into all electronics. It's like the "five monkeys with bananas and water" experiment gone wrong. We've gotten so wrapped around no electronics we forgot WHY.

      Actually, there are plenty of oscillators that happen between 108-122MHz.

      In fact, the FCC allowable limits for equiment has a noticable dip around that region.

      No, it's not because of a receiver, but all the other oscillators in the system. A big one is the pixel clock on things like cameras and LCD screens - they often do run smack right in the middle with a loud spike.

      Then there are all the higher frequency devices. A certain model of cellphone was known to cause GPS unlocks on the aircraft GPS. This wasn't a problem because the only ones using GPS extensively was military and GA, but these days with RNP and GPS approaches, a GPS unlock could screw up everything.

      Even to this day there are still incidences of suspected EMI causing havoc - usually things like unexplained instrument drift. My favorite was where my flight instructor had a phone call (we were taxiing back to the ramp) and I could hear both sides of the conversation through the avionics (my instructor had removed his headset to answer the phone - given the low power setting of taxiing, it wasn't necessary).

      The only thing that may save this is if it's like if you try to use your phone on a cruise ship where you get "Cellular At Sea". Though I suspect in a couple of months we'll see people complaining about $1000 phone bills because they couldn't do anything but yak the whole way. Even worse, because these kind of guys make NO roaming agreements with anyone, your carrier won't be able to write off the bill because they have to pass on the full rate - a roaming agreement means their cost is far lower than what you're paying (down to cents a minute when you're paying tens or dollars a minute).

      Yes, your phone will eventually roam onto it - because they are not a preferred carrier though, your phone will go through many anxious searching rounds before it'll reluctantly find service at the PMITA carrier. (It's non-preferred, because the carrier can't make much money off it).

    3. Re:We've really gotten wrapped around the axle by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info on the pixel clock on camera.... hadn't thought of that. Also you are correct a CDMA phone will wipe out a GPS receiver's front end if right on top of the antenna, but in a commercial aircraft, it's pretty well shielded on top of the fuselage.