There's a new reason to hope that the no-cell-chatter bill now under consideration in the US doesn't bring with it a Faraday-cage mandate, and that reason is landing safely. Reader ma11achy writes with an excerpt from a scary story (with an SMS-based happy ending) from the Irish Times: "Five people on a flight from Kerry to Jersey received mobile phone text instructions from a quick-thinking air traffic controller when he guided them in to a safe landing at Cork, after the plane lost all onboard electrical power, communications and weather radar soon after take-off from Kerry airport."
Eventually he [the pilot] managed to contact Cork [the air traffic controller] on his phone, telling them about his problem and his intention to approach the airport from the sea.
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
That's why I love my Nokia 6822 and will never go back to any non-qwerty keyboard phone.
Without any effort I could outtype the Morse code in that vid. (Though I knew the text, but then again, I don't type much. Just under 50 texts a day on average.)
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
What would make a phone lose audio but not SMS ability?
Because cellphone voice communications requires a constant link between the cellphone and the tower, where SMS is transmitted in bursts when the cellphone and the tower can hear each other.
You'll find in situtations where the cell towers are jammed with calls of people calling each other to see if everything is OK after a major storm, a SMS will get through even if you can't make a call.
True, you can continue texting when the tower is jammed with calls, but I doubt he got disconnected because of a rapid increase of simultaneous calls. A more plausible explanation would be that he exceeded the maximum range of some 30km from the tower. It would also make sense considering that he was supposedly approaching from sea.
GSM uses time division multiplexing, which means that the "constant link between the cellphone and the tower" is infact a set of short and frequent bursts. A burst sent from a p
It's a good thing they didn't have KPN as their cell provider (dutch company, so obviously not a chance), because I regularly get messages hours after they've been sent even with both phones in range of a cell tower and no other connectivity issues that I'm aware of.
[The pilot] then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
I think a more sensible legislation would be legalizing poking obnoxious cellphone loudmouths in the eye with pencils..
Personally, I have found that its more annoying when other passengers try to strike up a conversation with me.
Once I was flying during the summer by myself for business and I ended up sitting next to this really intoxicated lady in her late 50's. On retrospect it was kind of funny, but kept asking me personal questions and even offered me several thousand dollars if guessed her age right as
The Mythbusters, while highly entertaining, would not win any prizes for designing good experiments. They are entertainers, not scientists, and you could poke huge holes in quite a high percentage of their endeavours, so I wouldn't cite them as a meaningful reference.
Since rhe airline industry and TSA have, to date, provided not a single study or even shread of evidence thar cells pose any threat, I'd give the Mythbusters the edge on this one.
Cell phones, certainly GSM cell phones *DO* interfere with aircraft communication systems.
It was a dark and stormy night (OK, it wasn't stormy, just light rain, with a cloud base at 600 feet, and it was very dark). I was returning from the UK with a friend in his light aircraft. It was my friend's first IFR approach for real - in the clouds, at night. The air was smooth though, so the conditions weren't too bad for a first time.
Unfortuantely he had forgotten to turn off his phone.
On the one hand the aluminum tube body of the typical modern aircraft is potentially an antenna which can deliver your cellphone signal at full strength (which isn't much, I'll grant you) directly into the cockpit electronics. On the other hand, the signal strength is jack diddly shit and your laptop backlight probably has at least as much chance to interfere with something, and the only time they make you stow that is on takeoff. It has nothing to do with the electronics, though; they just don't want stuff
Someone is going to say that complete communication failure is too rare to worry about, and they will be right and wrong.
While the situation described shouldn't effect new communication rules, there are many different ways cell phone communications can be useful. Furthermore, the ability to communicate using cell phones is a deterrent to hijackings. The person in charge of the plane is not certainly in charge of all communications, and thats a good thing.
It's fairly common in older small planes due to the old wiring and older equipment. Even new light sport aircraft can cost upwards of $100K to buy so many people buy these older airplanes.
Timothy (The "editor") wrote "There's a new reason to hope that the no-cell-chatter bill now under consideration in the US doesn't bring with it a Faraday-cage mandate, and that reason is landing safely."
How about reading TFA: "the twin-engined Piper plane... with four passengers". It wasn't a fucking jumbo jet. That kind of plane is never going to be affected by any "no cell chatter" rules, much less have any "Faraday cage" built into it. And I think an airliner would have multiple multiple communications backups.
Reminds me of the wackos who say cell phones should be allowed in cinemas "in case of terrorist attack".
The only reason Timothy linked this with the cell phone ban on passenger planes is that it is guaranteed to start up a multi-page thread arguing that subject again, reardless of its irrelevance. Too bad he couldn't think of a way to get gun rights or evolution into the story too.
Reminds me of the wackos who say cell phones should be allowed in cinemas
I've never been in one that doesn't allow them in. They just ask you to silence the damn thing, during the previews, often with some very creative short films. I still usually hear at least one.
"Reminds me of the wackos who say cell phones should be allowed in cinemas "in case of terrorist attack"."
They've got a point though - cell phones are an excellent way of setting bombs off remotely, how else are you going to mount a terrorist attack if they're banned in cine.....oh.....hang on... Ah, I get your point now...
There's a new reason to hope that the no-cell-chatter bill now under consideration in the US doesn't bring with it a Faraday-cage mandate, and that reason is landing safely.
I hope this law never gets passed and I don't care what lie the gov't has to tell to keep cell phones turned off. Planes are already noisy. People who talk on cell phones talk LOUDLY. Add a lot of people in a noisy environment all talking at the same time, and that makes for a lot of noise.
So a 4 passenger light aircraft landed with no electric power. Big whoop. Electrical failure on an aircraft like that means the radios go out, you lose a couple instruments, and that's it. Most of the important instruments for maneuvering are either powered by the pitot static system or an engine driven vacuum pump. Speaking of the engines, their ignition systems are powered by a fully redundant engine driven system and don't require any external electric power.
If the pilot wouldn't have had the cell phone, he would have been given signals from a light gun as he approached the airport. Losing radios isn't exactly all that uncommon, especially in older aircraft, so pilots and controllers have come up with ways to handle the situation.
Sheesh! Air controllers don't land planes, stricken or otherwise. Aircrews land airplanes. The airplane will land (and fly) just fine without an "air controller".
Air traffic controllers _clear_ airplanes to land. This involves traffic de-confliction and statistically improves safety but there are plenty of non-towered airports where the aircrew routinely lands without benefit of Air Traffic Control.
The controller doesn't land the plane. The controller works with pilots to keep the airspace and runway coordinated and air traffic moving smoothly. That's an essential job, but it doesn't include flying.
After all, there's no way (in a short time) to MacGyver a cell phone SMS to an autopilot. And this plane may not have an autopilot anyhow.
The pilot followed standard lost contact procedures and augmented them with the call to the controller. The controller wisely used SMS when voice was lost.
Anyhow, the article writer's hook for large commercial aircraft is nonsensical since this is a four-seat aircraft and wouldn't fall under those rules anyhow.
First off, when an aircraft is in an emergency, you can do a lot of things that would otherwise be banned. You save your fanny first, then worry about regulations later.
Second, the reasons given for the cell phone ban appear to be largely misinformed. I know of two: potential interferrence with aircraft equipment, and interferrence with ground cell phone towers.
To demonstrate that cell phones categorically do not interfere with aircraft equipment, in the US, the FAA would require that each cell phone design demonstrate that it does not cause interferrence. Change the design, or have a different design? New demonstration required. Cell phones passing the test would more than likely need some sort of identifying mark showing that they were approved for aircraft use.
Don't like this idea? Perhaps you'd like to fly with someone who can interfere with the aircraft instruments. I can imagine the headlines: "FAA fails to insure airline safety. Cell phone determined to be cause of crash claiming 150 lives!"
As much as I dislike the airlines getting a free ride on their phones being the only ones usable on the aircraft, those phones have been verified not to interfere with other equipment on the aircraft.
The other problem is that ground based cell phones were designed for ground usage. They punch into whatever cell phone towers happen to be in range. As long as the cell phone itself isn't at a higher elevation, it only reaches a limited number of towers. Put it in an airplane, and it reaches a much larger number of towers. Which tower should be handling the call? Who knows?
This might not be too bad for one or two cell phones, but open it up to all cell phones, and significant interference could result.
It is possible to design a cell phone for airborne use. All it takes is money.
One can, of course, legislate this problem, and declare whatever the legislators think will please the electorate the most. But that, of course, does not change the laws of physics.
There have been pretty good rules around for over 60 years regarding what the pilot should do when they can't contact the tower. Similarly the tower has an old red/green light gun for communicating with planes that can't hear.
It's unlikely there was any safety added by the cell phone sms messages. In fact, bypassing the usual no-radio procedures may have compromised safety. There may be some flags dropped on this play.
I don't see what the big deal is. People talking on a cell phone is hardly any different than two people talking to each other on the plane. Except you only get (have) to hear one side of the conversation.
If you don't want to hear it, then get ear plugs, plug in your iPod, or just not listen. I mean, seriously, you don't hear people complaining about cell phones at restaurants, yet it is the same concept.
When did flying become a "quiet zone"?
I think it would be a non-issue if people talking on cell phones would use a normal level of volume to speak. It becomes a problem when people are practically yelling on the phone and can be heard three rows down the airplane. Most normal face to face conversations on an airplane are barely audible b/c of the background noise on the plane.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday August 10 2008, @08:03AM (#24544801)
I don't see what the big deal is. People talking on a cell phone is hardly any different than two people talking to each other on the plane.
As others have already pointed out: it is, my friend, oh well, it is.
Except you only get (have) to hear one side of the conversation.
Which is even worse. I find it much more easy to ignore a completely understandable talk between two people. With just half of the communication present, some nerve tickles all the time and tries to make sense of all this gibberish.
If you don't want to hear it, then get ear plugs, plug in your iPod, or just not listen.
Thank you, but I get seriously irritated when not hearing what goes on around me. I dislike ear plugs and I dislike the wet atmosphere they generate inside my ears; earphones, on the other hand, induce very discomforting pain (the anatomically more suitable earphones are so sound-proof that I can't use them in public; see above).
I mean, seriously, you don't hear people complaining about cell phones at restaurants, yet it is the same concept.
In my country, this is mainly because nobody uses the cell phone while in a restaurant. If they have to, they go outside. Very polite.
When did flying become a "quiet zone"?
Why should it become a terroristic attack on my ears and--maybe more importantly--on my intellect? Flying is uncomfortable enough as it is, no need for additional yelling.
Give it up, friend. People who are determined to do whatever they please whenever they please and have a "screw the rest of the world" attitude will always attack anyone who dares question their right to do so.
Oh dear (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Funny)
haha what u crshing on she not into u lolz
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their weather reports? They probably invented communicating that way and it took IM and SMS for the rest of the world to catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their weather reports? They probably invented communicating that way and it took IM and SMS for the rest of the world to catch up.
I take it you mean the Shipping Forecast [bbc.co.uk]. I don't know if Ireland has one, but the UK does. To be read out in a very British accent:
And now the Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office, on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, at 1130 on Sunday 10 August 2008.
There are warnings of gales in Viking North Utsire South Utsire Forties Thames Dover Fastnet Shannon Bailey Faeroes and Southeast Iceland.
The general synopsis at 0700: Low north Forties 989 moving north expected Viking 982 by 0700 tomorrow. L
Why didn't he just call them? (Score:2, Funny)
Would've been cheaper.
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:5, Informative)
Why didn't he just call them?
He did. FTA:
Eventually he [the pilot] managed to contact Cork [the air traffic controller] on his phone, telling them about his problem and his intention to approach the airport from the sea.
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
Parent
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:5, Funny)
They can also start recruiting air traffic controllers right out of junior high school.
"U r clr 4 laning lol"
Parent
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't type much. Just under 50 texts a day on average.
I also don't read /. much. I probably hit F5 no more than 50 times a day.
Parent
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:4, Insightful)
from TFA:
He then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
What would make a phone lose audio but not SMS ability?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:5, Informative)
Because cellphone voice communications requires a constant link between the cellphone and the tower, where SMS is transmitted in bursts when the cellphone and the tower can hear each other.
You'll find in situtations where the cell towers are jammed with calls of people calling each other to see if everything is OK after a major storm, a SMS will get through even if you can't make a call.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
GSM uses time division multiplexing, which means that the "constant link between the cellphone and the tower" is infact a set of short and frequent bursts. A burst sent from a p
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing they didn't have KPN as their cell provider (dutch company, so obviously not a chance), because I regularly get messages hours after they've been sent even with both phones in range of a cell tower and no other connectivity issues that I'm aware of.
Re:Why didn't he just call them? (Score:5, Informative)
What would make a phone lose audio but not SMS ability?
Shite signal. An SMS is sent in a single frame of GSM data. Audio needs 50 frames per second.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the plane was in a tunnel at that time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
[The pilot] then lost audio telephone contact but the air traffic controller switched to texting and told the pilot that he had a primary radar signal on the aircraft and that Cork would allow them to land there. He then used texts to guide the 30-year-old plane in.
Once again.. (Score:5, Funny)
..what would be the point of this act? To reduce passenger annoyance? Great, might as well ban cellphones in cinema halls now.
I think a more sensible legislation would be legalizing poking obnoxious cellphone loudmouths in the eye with pencils..
Re: (Score:2)
I think a more sensible legislation would be legalizing poking obnoxious cellphone loudmouths in the eye with pencils..
Personally, I have found that its more annoying when other passengers try to strike up a conversation with me.
Once I was flying during the summer by myself for business and I ended up sitting next to this really intoxicated lady in her late 50's. On retrospect it was kind of funny, but kept asking me personal questions and even offered me several thousand dollars if guessed her age right as
Re:Once again.. (Score:5, Funny)
You can be thrown out of a theatre for talking on your cell phone (or having it ring). Perhaps we should indeed have the same rule for airplanes.
Parent
Whats the tech hubub about cell phones? (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe that something as critical as the electronics system in an airplane would be so prone to cell calls.
Re:Whats the tech hubub about cell phones? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Whats the tech hubub about cell phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mythbusters, while highly entertaining, would not win any prizes for designing good experiments. They are entertainers, not scientists, and you could poke huge holes in quite a high percentage of their endeavours, so I wouldn't cite them as a meaningful reference.
Parent
Re:Whats the tech hubub about cell phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Whats the tech hubub about cell phones? (Score:4, Informative)
Carnegie Mellon University good enough for you? [sciam.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cell phones, certainly GSM cell phones *DO* interfere with aircraft communication systems.
It was a dark and stormy night (OK, it wasn't stormy, just light rain, with a cloud base at 600 feet, and it was very dark). I was returning from the UK with a friend in his light aircraft. It was my friend's first IFR approach for real - in the clouds, at night. The air was smooth though, so the conditions weren't too bad for a first time.
Unfortuantely he had forgotten to turn off his phone.
ATC cleared us for the appr
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand the aluminum tube body of the typical modern aircraft is potentially an antenna which can deliver your cellphone signal at full strength (which isn't much, I'll grant you) directly into the cockpit electronics. On the other hand, the signal strength is jack diddly shit and your laptop backlight probably has at least as much chance to interfere with something, and the only time they make you stow that is on takeoff. It has nothing to do with the electronics, though; they just don't want stuff
thats standard procedure (Score:4, Interesting)
My Brother flies an A320 for BA.
They have constant contact via cell phone to their dispatchers. Even tho they require flight passengers to shut down theirs.
Once the shit hits the fan, I guess it would be the first they use to contact Ground for any vectors, weather infromation or whatsoever.
-S
"this never happens" (Score:2)
While the situation described shouldn't effect new communication rules, there are many different ways cell phone communications can be useful. Furthermore, the ability to communicate using cell phones is a deterrent to hijackings. The person in charge of the plane is not certainly in charge of all communications, and thats a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't "deter" the 9/11 hijackings, did it? It probably was the reason the passengers rushed the cabin and crashed Flight 93 though.
Re: (Score:2)
"landing safety" -- bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
How about reading TFA: "the twin-engined Piper plane ... with four passengers". It wasn't a fucking jumbo jet. That kind of plane is never going to be affected by any "no cell chatter" rules, much less have any "Faraday cage" built into it. And I think an airliner would have multiple multiple communications backups.
Reminds me of the wackos who say cell phones should be allowed in cinemas "in case of terrorist attack".
The only reason Timothy linked this with the cell phone ban on passenger planes is that it is guaranteed to start up a multi-page thread arguing that subject again, reardless of its irrelevance. Too bad he couldn't think of a way to get gun rights or evolution into the story too.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the wackos who say cell phones should be allowed in cinemas
I've never been in one that doesn't allow them in. They just ask you to silence the damn thing, during the previews, often with some very creative short films. I still usually hear at least one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They've got a point though - cell phones are an excellent way of setting bombs off remotely, how else are you going to mount a terrorist attack if they're banned in cine.....oh.....hang on... Ah, I get your point now...
Keep them off for sanity's sake. (Score:2)
I hope this law never gets passed and I don't care what lie the gov't has to tell to keep cell phones turned off. Planes are already noisy. People who talk on cell phones talk LOUDLY. Add a lot of people in a noisy environment all talking at the same time, and that makes for a lot of noise.
Non-Story (Score:5, Informative)
If the pilot wouldn't have had the cell phone, he would have been given signals from a light gun as he approached the airport. Losing radios isn't exactly all that uncommon, especially in older aircraft, so pilots and controllers have come up with ways to handle the situation.
Re: Air Traffic Controller Lands Stricken Plane (Score:2, Informative)
Sheesh! Air controllers don't land planes, stricken or otherwise. Aircrews land airplanes. The airplane will land (and fly) just fine without an "air controller".
Air traffic controllers _clear_ airplanes to land. This involves traffic de-confliction and statistically improves safety but there are plenty of non-towered airports where the aircrew routinely lands without benefit of Air Traffic Control.
For instance: http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KPUW [flightaware.com]
At Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, a non-towered fi
The pilot actually landed the plane (Score:3, Informative)
The controller doesn't land the plane. The controller works with pilots to keep the airspace and runway coordinated and air traffic moving smoothly. That's an essential job, but it doesn't include flying.
After all, there's no way (in a short time) to MacGyver a cell phone SMS to an autopilot. And this plane may not have an autopilot anyhow.
The pilot followed standard lost contact procedures and augmented them with the call to the controller. The controller wisely used SMS when voice was lost.
Anyhow, the article writer's hook for large commercial aircraft is nonsensical since this is a four-seat aircraft and wouldn't fall under those rules anyhow.
Reasons for airliner cell phone ban (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, when an aircraft is in an emergency, you can do a lot of things that would otherwise be banned. You save your fanny first, then worry about regulations later.
Second, the reasons given for the cell phone ban appear to be largely misinformed. I know of two: potential interferrence with aircraft equipment, and interferrence with ground cell phone towers.
To demonstrate that cell phones categorically do not interfere with aircraft equipment, in the US, the FAA would require that each cell phone design demonstrate that it does not cause interferrence. Change the design, or have a different design? New demonstration required. Cell phones passing the test would more than likely need some sort of identifying mark showing that they were approved for aircraft use.
Don't like this idea? Perhaps you'd like to fly with someone who can interfere with the aircraft instruments. I can imagine the headlines: "FAA fails to insure airline safety. Cell phone determined to be cause of crash claiming 150 lives!"
As much as I dislike the airlines getting a free ride on their phones being the only ones usable on the aircraft, those phones have been verified not to interfere with other equipment on the aircraft.
The other problem is that ground based cell phones were designed for ground usage. They punch into whatever cell phone towers happen to be in range. As long as the cell phone itself isn't at a higher elevation, it only reaches a limited number of towers. Put it in an airplane, and it reaches a much larger number of towers. Which tower should be handling the call? Who knows?
This might not be too bad for one or two cell phones, but open it up to all cell phones, and significant interference could result.
It is possible to design a cell phone for airborne use. All it takes is money.
One can, of course, legislate this problem, and declare whatever the legislators think will please the electorate the most. But that, of course, does not change the laws of physics.
Misleading, a bit (Score:3, Informative)
There have been pretty good rules around for over 60 years regarding what the pilot should do when they can't contact the tower. Similarly the tower has an old red/green light gun for communicating with planes that can't hear.
It's unlikely there was any safety added by the cell phone sms messages. In fact, bypassing the usual no-radio procedures may have compromised safety. There may be some flags dropped on this play.
Sellotape (Score:3, Funny)
You have used two inches of Sellotape. Bless you, my child!
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - People have an annoying habit of yelling into their cellphones for no good reason.
2 - Maybe you don't hear complaints about people on cell phones in restaurants because you're too busy yelling into your cellphone.
3 - Passengers are packed pretty tightly into those airplanes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you don't want to hear it, then get ear plugs, plug in your iPod, or just not listen
You're louder than my music, moron. Get off the f***ing plane.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see what the big deal is. People talking on a cell phone is hardly any different than two people talking to each other on the plane. Except you only get (have) to hear one side of the conversation.
If you don't want to hear it, then get ear plugs, plug in your iPod, or just not listen. I mean, seriously, you don't hear people complaining about cell phones at restaurants, yet it is the same concept.
When did flying become a "quiet zone"?
I think it would be a non-issue if people talking on cell phones would use a normal level of volume to speak. It becomes a problem when people are practically yelling on the phone and can be heard three rows down the airplane. Most normal face to face conversations on an airplane are barely audible b/c of the background noise on the plane.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
As others have already pointed out: it is, my friend, oh well, it is.
Which is even worse. I find it much more easy to ignore a completely understandable talk between two people. With just half of the communication present, some nerve tickles all the time and tries to make sense of all this gibberish.
Thank you, but I get seriously irritated when not hearing what goes on around me. I dislike ear plugs and I dislike the wet atmosphere they generate inside my ears; earphones, on the other hand, induce very discomforting pain (the anatomically more suitable earphones are so sound-proof that I can't use them in public; see above).
In my country, this is mainly because nobody uses the cell phone while in a restaurant. If they have to, they go outside. Very polite.
Why should it become a terroristic attack on my ears and--maybe more importantly--on my intellect? Flying is uncomfortable enough as it is, no need for additional yelling.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it up, friend. People who are determined to do whatever they please whenever they please and have a "screw the rest of the world" attitude will always attack anyone who dares question their right to do so.
Parent