Cell Phones To Be Allowed On UK Planes

Matty the Monkey writes "The British regulator in charge of air travel has approved cellphones for use on airline flights, reports the BBC. Airlines will be allowed to activate base stations in the plane's tail after takeoff, creating a zone of mobile coverage around the plane. 'The services could stop working once aircraft leave European airspace. Initially, only second generation networks will be offered but growing interest would mean that third generation, or 3G, services would follow later, said Ofcom. The cost of making a mobile phone call from a plane will be higher than making one from the ground.'"

Re:Earplugs... £0.15 a pair.

[sricetx]

I always fly wearing earplugs. Specifically Flents' Flitemate pressure-reducing earplugs. Not only do they keep my ears from building up painful pressure upon descent, they have the very beneficial side effect of sending the message "no, I do NOT want to talk to you" to the fat dimwit inevitably siting next to me on the plane.

Re:Can't we make calls now?

[Volante3192]

Ok, troll feeding, but apparently you didn't even bother reading your own link.

A. All but TWO of the calls came from cell phones. The rest were from Verizon Airfones that are mounted to the back of the middle seat that charge like $20/sec. (But ya know, if you're being hijacked, you make the damn call, charges be damned)

B. The plane was about 2,500 feet off the ground when the cell phones were able to connect and then were dropped shortly after as the plane, well, crashed. Abridging the last paragraph in the LINK YOU BLOODY GAVE.

So...yeah. Make a cell call from 30,000 feet and get back to us.

Re:Fist fights at 30,000 feet.

[BWJones]

I have the nice Bose headsets and while, yes... they do cancel out engine noise nicely, they are so well engineered that you can very easily hear voices and conversations sitting next to you or on the overhead PA. Believe me, I have elite frequent flyer status and fly enough to know that this policy is going to cause problems.

Re:Fist fights at 30,000 feet.

[martinw89]

As someone who uses public transportation, I know that a weak signal for someone using a cell means I have to plug in the canal phones [wikipedia.org]. Now with satellite delay and engine noise, I think I'm going to need more noise blocking.

Re:Mobile phone jammers

[wiz31337]

Screw the doctor, I'd be more worried about jamming the Pilot's radio communications.

Re:9/11 anybody?

[Deadstick]

Yes, dammit, cellphones will work from an airplane. That is not the problem.

When your phone connects to a terminal, both the phone and the terminal measure the strength of each other's signal and they adjust their transmitting power to give a usable signal. That's why your battery charge doesn't last as long out in the country: your phone is transmitting at full power.

When you're at high altitude in an airplane, your phone will connect to a terminal that might be fifty or a hundred miles away, it will use full power to do that, and it will hit every other cell tower within that range. That loads the system down.

The system described in TFA puts a terminal right in the airplane, where your phone can communicate with it at minimum power. Then the signal goes over a reserved channel from the airplane to a dedicated ground terminal and into the main cell system, without fscking up everybody else on the same channel as your phone.

rj

Re:Can't we make calls now?

[cloakable]

The problem isn't in the mobile phone - it's in the infrastructure. Your mobile phone, when switched on, tries to make a connection to the strongest base tower it can 'see'. On the ground, in a car, etc this isn't a problem - the car isn't moving too fast, and there's probably buildings, trees, etc blocking signals from lots of towers.

Up in an aircraft, it's a very different situation - your phone can see plenty of different towers, and it'll register with all of them. The plane is moving pretty quickly too, so your phone is going to be registering with plenty of towers as time goes by. This creates a huge strain on the mobile infrastructure, compared to normal useage.

What the microcell in the aircraft will do, is give mobile phones a very local 'tower' to register with, and stay registered with. No strain.

Re:Fist fights at 30,000 feet.

[psmears]

No, it wasn't.

Really? [wikipedia.org]

They are doing this in Australia too but ...

[Admiral Trigger Happ]

I just read the other day that Qantas is going to do this on some flight is Australia, but they are restricting use to Messaging and Data use only, so NO CALLING, Yeah!!
The last thing you want on a Red-Eye flight to/from Perth etc is some numbskull blabbering on his phone.

However it will be just like international romaing so its probably going to cost an arm and a leg to use

Re:But do you know why cell phones are not allowed

[John Frink]

CAP 756 - Portable Electronic Device Generated Electromagnetic Fields on board a Large Transport Aeroplane
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP756.PDF [caa.co.uk]

CAA PAPER 2003/3 - Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF [caa.co.uk]

Boeing Aero 10 - Interference From Electronic Devices
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere.html [boeing.com]

Still think banned cell phones have nothing to do with navagation interference?

Re:Fist fights at 30,000 feet.

[rasilon]

No, it worked without the handset, and just the components. In effect, the whole lot, power supply, both microphones, and both speakers were wired in series. The old microphones weren't amplified moving-coil types. They directly varied the current through the system, so an input to either mic was heard in both speakers. Isolating the directions would have required two pairs, rather than the one that was actually used.