Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Handhelds Hardware

Cell Phones on Commercial Flights by 2006? 180

Posted by CowboyNeal from the phoning-home dept.
NetCurl writes "I heard the news on MPR's Marketplace today. Apparently the non-profit Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics is studying the effects of wireless and other portable communications devices on commercial airliners. I've already noticed that a couple airlines have loosened requirements on when you can use your cell phone on the ground. Is the next step wireless access in the cabin, and loud cell phone chatter in the skies over the mid-west?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell Phones on Commercial Flights by 2006? More

Cell Phones on Commercial Flights by 2006?

Comments Filter:

  • No. (Score:5, Funny)

    by The J Kid ( 266953 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:27AM (#6478327) Homepage Journal
    Please god no.

    Can you imagine a whole bussiness-class row all talking so damn loud and so full of buzzwords that makes you want to yank off their arms, so they can't call again?

    No, neither do I, and I'd like it to stay that way.

    • Office 9/11 story claims cellphones work... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, what about the woman who called her husband, collect no less, from the "hijacked" plane to announce what was "happening". I believe her name was Olsen. Now, the collect call bit is vital info, cause the airline phones do not make collect calls.

      So, perhaps we should have this consortium talk to the white house about how to enable Cell calls, since the airlines have already done so apparently...

      Perhaps they can also explain how Box cutters got onto the plane since they were banned items since 1991. I

    • Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by E1v!$ ( 267945 )
      How about the 'valley girl' next to you who just got the best nail job in the universe and she just has to tell all her friends?

    • Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by raju1kabir ( 251972 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @01:12PM (#6479294) Homepage
      Please god no.

      My thoughts exactly.

      The main reason I prefer to fly between New York and DC rather than taking the train (total price and travel time are roughly equivalent) is that cell phones are not allowed on the plane.

      There is sometimes a quiet car (no cell phones allowed) on Amtrak but not on all trains and enforcement is spotty.

      If there were no similar provision on the plane then I'd probably just start driving it.

      I cannot think of a greater annoyance than having to listen to half of other people's inane conversations screamed from every direction. It makes it impossible to think.

    • Like you can hear anyone more than a seat away in an airplane anyhow...

      At the risk of going off topic, I'd like to know why anything that is popular is automatically assumed to be bad? Are we all closet elitists?

  • My guess is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:27AM (#6478329)
    They will find some way to charge you for the privilege of using your own cel phone.

    • Re:My guess is... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
      Prolly. But here is my magical hint. How about ya sit back and relax for the trip? Must people be yacking on their cell phones in all public spaces?

      How about you spark up a conversation with the person next to you. Afterall aren't we all about world peace and community? Heck you never know. The person beside you may have a job offer [or looking for a job] or maybe an interesting fella.

      Tom

    • I think it would be more profitable to charge irritated passengers to form an orderly queue and take turns beating sense into the annoying twat on the phone Airplane Movie style

  • Not good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Unregistered ( 584479 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:27AM (#6478331)
    I don't want to be surrounded by people on the plane yakking into their cellphones. If cellphones are allowed the cabin noise will be insane.
    • True dat. Though people talking on a plane wouldn't bother me. Its people talking [louder than normal cuz of the other noise] on a cell phone. It's very impersonal and annoying.

      Tom

    • Re:Not good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jdan ( 411331 )
      Have you ever heard of ear plugs? They are really nice even now on flights, they help deaden the constant drone of the engines.

      Anyway, the airlines will probably just install personal noise cancellation devices in each seat (like these [bose.com] active noice cancelling headphones. Then the real trick is just to charge you for the comfort of silence--you get to use your phone for free.

      --jdan
    • That's where engine noise comes in. We now have the technology to make aircraft cabins almost totally soundproof, but some engine noise is still allowed to enter. This is the reason the rabble of hundreds of passengers on a Boeing 747-400 doesn't drive you insane. You can hear people sitting around you, but the engine noise covers up most of the other voices.

  • Pagers would be safer (Score:4, Funny)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) * on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:30AM (#6478349) Homepage
    They only emit "harmlessness [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004

  • For all the people who will complain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:32AM (#6478355)
    How is this any different from someone talking to the passenger sitting next to them? Airplanes aren't movie theaters where people are expected to sit stoically and quietly. Many people are social on airplanes and I don't see how this is any different at all.

    • Cell phone users forget manners. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil&evilempire,ath,cx> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:38AM (#6478400)
      Because when you're talking to someone on a phone, especially in a moving jet, you're going to have to talk over the noise and reduced signal strength.

      Whisper into your phone the next time you're driving and see if the person on the other side can hear you. Or plug in some amplified speakers on the plane so everyone can hear the movie. See how well that all goes over.

      Now I've got no problem with casual use, but we all know how that's going to end up.

      • Re:Cell phone users forget manners. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        French TGVs allow cell phone use (one of the many advantages over planes in France), but not in your seat.

        There is a small area between wagons where you can use cell phones and talk without disturbing others. Not difficult to implement in a plane, as long as the technology works...

        • Except that the Internal Security ministry would prefer that passengers remain in their seats during the flight. Add in the fact that most airline cabins don't have a whole lot of extra space (with, perhaps, the exception of the 747 upper deck, and the a380), and you'll find that cell phone user segregation is unpractical.

      • Re:Cell phone users forget manners. (Score:5, Informative)

        by matth ( 22742 ) * on Saturday July 19, 2003 @12:38PM (#6479114) Homepage
        Actually yes they can hear me in the car if I talk normally. People need to understand that on phones and two way radios... even if there is tons of noise in the background.. just talk normally, there is no reason to scream! The mic is only several mm from your mouth so it will pick you up just fine!
    • How is this any different from someone talking to the passenger sitting next to them?

      Well, the majority of people aren't sitting next to people they know, so they *aren't* talking. A cell phone means that people who like to chatter can always find someone they know to chatter with. More people chattering means the ambient noise level goes up, which means the people chatter even louder -- a nasty feedback loop.

  • WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Delphiki ( 646425 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:33AM (#6478365)
    Hmmm... screw cell phones, how about WiFi? I'd much rather have WiFi on a plane than a cell phone and other people using it wouldn't really bother me.
    • What exactly would your WiFi be connected to anyway? Besides, Bluetooth would be good enough to cover your whole row with the present size of airline seats.
    • I see an option for using GRPS now, and UMTS soon on airlines, if they allow this kind of equipment to be active on board. As the frequencies and signal strenghts of these techniques are similar to GSM, I can imagine airlines will allow these devices to.

      Personally, I hate flying because the concept of sitting in a mothy pipe with nothing sensible to do but wait does not appeal to me.

      Perhaps, affordable internet access in the air could alleviate the burden of being stuck up there for many hours. Even of

    • wifi would be cheaper to implement and attract more users than more popular than bluetooth. then again, who's saying airlines want to spend even more money for unnecessary equipment. this would be an interesting headline: "riaa cracking down on file sharing 5 miles up"
    • It is a shame that by focusing on cell phones they are missing the opportunity to leap-frog the whole 1G, 2G, 3G thing and get straight to where people on the ground are slowly progressing - pervasive WiFi which, combined with VoIP, can subsume all of the functions provided by cell-phones today.

  • What about the carriers. (Score:5, Informative)

    by d3z ( 159232 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:33AM (#6478368)
    Although the airlines, and the FAA might end up not carring about cell phones in use while in flight, the cellular carriers certainly will.

    The whole concept that allows cell phones to work (that the signal strength at distant cells will be much weaker) only works when all of the phones are close to the surface of the earth. When the users are above the surface significantly, the relative distance between the user and multiple cells isn't very much.

    A single user in a airplane making a cell call could easily consume the resources that a few hundred users would on the ground.

    Filling the sky with people talking on cell phones could easily render most cell networks nearly useless.

  • Will the towers be able to keep track? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:35AM (#6478379)
    Cell phone technology is based in part by determining which tower can hit you with the strongest signal, as each tower represents a 3-8 mile block of space.

    When you're 50,000 feet in the air, you're 8 miles off the ground, and usually moving at a pretty nice rate of speed as well. Will cellular towers be able to properly figure out which tower should be handling the call, and properly do the tower-to-tower handoffs we take for granted when moving down the highway?

    I always thought that the no-cell-phones-in-the-sky rules were not just to protect the plane from the unlikely but deadly random autopilot interference, but also to protect the cell networks on the ground from what would be sure to be frequent confusing situations.
    • The new regs will induce someone to produce a cell phone system that handles these calls adequately.

      And then they'll sell it.

      Pop-up ads for everyone!
    • As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

      Ars Technica reports [arstechnica.com] that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article [usatoday.com] quoted by th
    • Now I'm not an authority on cell phones and how they work. I did hear this story on the BBC a couple days ago. And the CEO of the company that is implementing this said that: 1) They put a mini cell receiver in the plane. Then the cell receiver itself probably talks to a satellite or something. They aren't porting cell phone technology into planes, they're just letting you use your cell phone on the plane.
      2) Apparently since they put a cell receiver on the plane, the cell phones negotiate a lower signal str
    • A few random points about cellular telephony.

      Current cell sites use antennas designed with a maximum horizontal beam, and a minimum vertical beam. Translation: the antenna aims the maximum amount of signal sideways (or even a bit down), and minimizes the amount of signal sent up.

      The providers could build some sites with antennas having a vertical beam, if they are convinced there's money in it.

      The cellular system decided which tower your phone is using at any given moment based on signal strength, and

  • Is the next step wireless access in the cabin, and loud cell phone chatter in the skies over the mid-west?

    So you're worried about those goddamned cellphone ringing in the plane, and people shouting in the phones like mad starving dogs in front of a sausage shop eh ? Well, worry no more, it will not happen : remember, there already is a phone service on most commercial airliners, but how many times in you life have you seen someone use it ?

    That's right, at 3 bucks a minute, cellphones might be allowed onb
    • That's right, at 3 bucks a minute, cellphones might be allowed onboard flights but they won't be used anymore than those seat phones are. Nosiree ...

      Well, Actually you make it simple enough people can use their own cell phones, they might just pay the higher costs. People pay for convenience, even if its expensive.

      Of course, I'd like to see WIFI/Bluetooth of some sort. I could surf the Net, SSH/IM instead of listening to music for all those hours.
    • If WiFi networks were set up on the planes, couldn't people just make internet phone calls instead of using a cell phone?
  • It's not like the moment you make a call the plane is going to burst into flames and fall from the sky, the main reason some electronics are not allowed on flights is due to the precision navigation equipment.

    I'd like to know how they'd deal with 50+ mobiles looking for base stations to connect to?

  • Who needs cell phones? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When you have AirFones, which actually make the airline a LOT of money. Why would they want any part of cell phones?

    --
    1-800-759-0700

  • Wonderful conversations (Score:5, Funny)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:36AM (#6478388) Journal

    If those annoying cellphone "conversations" that I can't help but overhear in the grocery store are any indiciation of what we can expect in the skies, we're in for some trouble.

    "Hey Buffy, guess where I am? No, I'm not at the grocery store. I'm in an airplane over Ohio! Does, like, your parents live there and stuff? No? Oh, they're in Michigan? But isn't Michigan a city in Ohio? Oh wow. Anyhow, the guys sitting next to me on this flight just want to do read their computer books so I'm bored. Yeah, I know, and this book has a drawing of some wierd animal on it, too. Anyhow, Let's talk about the butts of all the hot guys on American Idol! That should last the rest of this five-hour flight! You are, like, such a good friend to do this for me. Nah, don't worry about the phone charges. My parents pay for my cellphone anyhow cause I told them I needed it in case of emergency. What? Oh, you want me to speak louder? Sure thing!"

    GMD

    • Re:Wonderful conversations (Score:4, Funny)

      by fenix down ( 206580 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @11:40AM (#6478760)
      Too coherent, more like:

      *Crappy Madonna James Bond song loops around 60 times*
      "What hi what!"
      "NO!"
      "NO!"
      "Yesno!"
      "No what!"
      "Really NO!"
      "NO REALLY NO YEAH!
      "NOO!"
      "Oh-em-gee!"
      "Oh-em-gee no!"
      "NO!"
      "WAIT!!! Lemmie set off my ringtone and we can sing along to it oh-em-gee!"
      "Oh-em-gee I heard you in the row right in front of me just now! NO! We're on the same plane YESNO!! OH-EM-GEE LET'S SWITCH TO WALKIE-TALKIE MODE!"
      "OH-EM-GEE WALKIE-TALKIE MODE INTERFERES WITH THE COLLISION AVOIDANCE RADAR IT'S SO CUTE NOWHATOH-EM-GEE WE'RE GONNA DIE EL-OH-EL!"
    • Indeed, I could see myself going postal if I had to sit next to some idiot crapping on into his mobile for hours during a long flight. I'd rather be hijacked.

  • In the UK... (Score:3, Informative)

    by linuxci ( 3530 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:36AM (#6478389)
    The problem with mobile phones on long distance train services in the UK has made most UK train operators [gner.co.uk] introduce a quiet coach where you can't use mobile phones, leaving people in other carriages free to use their mobile phones. Most UK long distance trains are over 5 carriages long so providing a mobile free carriage ain't too much of a problem.


    However on an aircraft it'd not be feasible to separate the seating in such a way so many people will just get annoyed listening to people on the phone as well as the annoying ringtones [boltblue.com] going off all the time.

  • from his cell phone in his parachutte, enjoy your fast landing and please dont forget to say your preyrs...

    compliments of "Cell Lines Aviation"

  • The Advantage of a High Price (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:37AM (#6478395) Homepage Journal
    People can already talk on the phone while on the airplane...it's called the airphone. It's really expensive, but that's good because it keeps people from using it for anything other than important calls.

    Given that there's already a way to communicate when needed, there is no reason to allow cellphones in airplaines. When the price of the calls becomes cheap, the amount of people calling their friends saying, "oh I'm over Michigan right now...I might be flying over your house, look up!" is going to become a real disruptive thing that will only serve to make my trips even more unconfortable.

    • People can already talk on the phone while on the airplane...it's called the airphone.

      American Airlines decommissioned their airphones on domestic flights about two years ago.

      It's really expensive, but that's good because it keeps people from using it for anything other than important calls.

      No, they just kept people from using it often enough so the service could earn enough revenue to support itself. I never understood why the phone operators charged so much money -- perhaps the system capacity w

      • American Airlines decommissioned their airphones on domestic flights about two years ago.

        Why don't you look at the American Airlines' onboard technology [aa.com] page? It clearly states the airphone and instructions on how to use it, as well as it's availability in North American and worldwide.

        • Why don't you look at the American Airlines' onboard technology page?

          Why don't you try using an airphone on an American Airlines flight?

          They have signs on them stating they were decommissioned on March 31, 2002. See the announcement here [com.com]

          The only American planes that still have operating phones are 767's and 777's that operate on international routes (with the occasional ferry flight in the US) -- which is why I added the "domestic" qualifier to my statement. At $5.00 to connect and $10.00/minute,

          • I stand corrected.

            My disbelief from your statement came from remembering seeing airphones on my last AA domestic (NY to Seattle) flight last December. I honestly don't remember seeing any signs although, granted, I probably paid no attention.

            I do think that the ability to communicate to outside the plane is a good thing on emergencies, but I'm definitely afraid of the abuse once people start being able to use their cell phones. Like you said, at those prices it'd have to be an important call for you t

            • My disbelief from your statement came from remembering seeing airphones on my last AA domestic (NY to Seattle) flight last December.

              The phones appear to be still installed on most aircraft. American is apparently removing them during normal fleet maintenance of the cabin, rather than taking planes out of service to remove them.

              I honestly don't remember seeing any signs although, granted, I probably paid no attention.

              I misspoke: the sign is actually a "sticker", and a pretty small one at that. I'v

  • Savety first !
    That should be the motto of aviation. But just to get a minor avantage for getting customers the airlines seems to ignore this important principle. But this could have terrible consequences. The problem with cellphones isn't just EMV. There are a number of simple solution for that ranging from faraday cages to fixed cable connections on the planes. The real problem with enabling cell phones is that you cannot determine the use of a high tech device just by looking at it's X-ray scans. And a
    • With a sufficiently concealed device a possible abuser could take over some, if not all controls of the airplane.

      Now, call me weird, but I have this hunch that most aircraft controls weren't built with a toggle switch to enable "allow wireless takeover by anyone" mode.
    • Did it ever occur to you that any tom, dick, or harry could hit you over the head with a baseball bat without warning as you walk down the street? There's nothing to stop it.

  • Short Answer: No (Score:5, Informative)

    by Icepick_ ( 25751 ) <icepick@netfamGI ... minus herbivore> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:43AM (#6478426) Homepage
    I'm a RF Engineer for a major US PCS carrier.

    There's no way that our network (nor anyone else's) would be able to handle calls reliably from an airplane.

    Our cells typically only cover 3-5 miles in an urban area, and 20 in a rural one. As fast as a plane travels, you'll be changing sites very quickly.

    Add to that the fact that our network is designed and optimized for ground level users, and you're looking at a crappy call, assuming you can even orginate one.

    IMO, a possible better solution would be a micro-cell installed on the plane that would multiplex the calls back to the PSTN.

    • In theory, theory is the same as practice.

      In practice, it isn't.

      Remember how we're supposed to remember 9/11, and not forget things like the dozens if not hundreds of passengers who successfully got final calls through?

      And just to technically debunk yet another cell phone myth, you're completely ignoring the fact that it's pure line of sight straight up, and the farther up you are, the less change there is (you move fewer degrees from the tower, regardless of your speed).

      Hell, even noise isn't that big

      • Re:Short Answer: No (Score:4, Informative)

        by Icepick_ ( 25751 ) <icepick@netfamGI ... minus herbivore> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:59AM (#6478519) Homepage
        Yes, I realize calls were made on 9/11. I realized that it's practically possible. How long did those calls last? How was the voice quality? How well (if at all) did those calls hand off to the next cell site?

        And to answer your second question, yes, our antennas and towers work mainly on a line of sight basis. Buy why on earth would we aim our antennas up? You really think that we use an omni-directional antenna? Heck no, all of our antennas are high gain, direction antennas, pointed horizontally, or downtilted to further aim them earthward.

        Being 50k feet above a cell site, and you're going to have shit signal, and it's not going to last very long at all.

        • Re:Short Answer: No (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Being 50k feet above a cell site, and you're going to have shit signal, and it's not going to last very long at all.

          And that differs from my experience with cell phones at ground level in what way?

        • Hate to belabor the point, but if cell phones didn't work _at all_ on planes, you wouldn't need to ban them, because people wouldn't use them, because people don't use things that don't work.

          Apparently the voice quality was decent enough to have minute-long conversations. Of course, the demand for service was...rather inelastic. But I'm really getting tired of engineers claiming impossibility with a preponderance of the evidence against them. Yes, the planes may have been at non-cruising altitude, but g
      • While calls were made from planes on 9/11, were the planes at cruising altitude (~30 000 ft.) when the calls were made? I was under the impression that most of the calls were made not long before the flights crashed, when the planes were probably well below 10 000 ft.

        (I don't know how much that distance affects signal strength with a clear line of sight, but a factor of 3 in distance means a factor of 9 in the surface area the signal is spread over.)
      • The problem with this is that the antennas aren't pointed up.

        Go here [sinctech.com] and take a look at the specs on the SRL480, or 488 (which is the omni antenna that my employer uses on almost all rural sites). You'll find that the vertical beamwidth on the 480 is 6 degrees (the 488 is 5). That's +/-3 degrees from horizontal.

        Just because it worked on 9/11 dosen't mean that it can be expected to work on planes that are higher,or are travelling across sparsely populated rural areas (Montana, Arizona, Texas...)
    • Icepick_: A guy on a cellphone starts talking on a plane. Next thing you know the guy's taking up space on 40 cells, moving faster than the system can comprehend, and the whole thing just crashes and burns.
      Woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
      Icepick_: You wouldn't believe.
      Woman on plane: Which PCS company do you work for?
      Icepick_: A major one.
    • Also, cell networks on the ground cover populated areas and major highways--coverage in unpopulated areas is spotty at best, even with carriers with a good network. Airplanes are not usually flying over populated areas or major highways, so coverage would likely be poor for most of a flight even before you consider the plane's speed and altitude (although altitude helps somewhat in areas with few cell towers because hills don't get in the way).

      I guess the relevant statistic is what fraction of the country'
      • Airplanes are not usually flying over populated areas and major highways

        Go get a aviaion chart with Airways on it and you will find your are wrong. Airways in the US are defined by VORs and the VORs tend to be at major airports or the 4 corners of a large metro area. In the Missouri area, V10, V12 and V14 all parallel an interstate highway.
    • Add to that the fact that our network is designed and optimized for ground level users, and you're looking at a crappy call, assuming you can even orginate one.

      If most of the time, people either get lousy quality or can't call at all, then there would be no reason to have regulations prohibiting the use of cell phones for the benefit of the cellular companies: people would quickly stop trying all by themselves.

      That means that either cell phones work from airplanes and the cellular carries just don't like

  • Coach? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .stnapyffuprm.> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:44AM (#6478436)
    The last plane I was one it was pretty useless to chat with others mostly because me and my buddies were back in coach. I don't know what it's like up in the clouds (first class) but talking on a cell phone is a pretty much non-issue with the engines cranked up right outside your window.

    Thus, an iPod is a much better traveling companion!
  • If your phone is talking to two or three cells that on ground could never 'see' each other, expect a letter from your company ranting about confusing the network. I don't know what harm it does, although I have read a couple of storys from people who have been wrote to.

  • Cell Coverage (Score:5, Funny)

    by fdiskne1 ( 219834 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:49AM (#6478461)
    A few of my co-workers and I were on a private plane and became curious about what the cellular coverage would be like while on a plane. Since the pilot didn't mind, we turned on our mobiles and watched the coverage gauges.

    I'd find it hard to believe anyone could have a real conversation via mobile phone on a commercial flight. Given that our plane was relatively slow and low compared to a commercial flight, we zipped from one cell to the next. The way the coverage went from 5 bars to zero and back again every 10-15 seconds, I'd imagine the gauge would be going bonkers when that high up and going that fast.
    "RING!"

    "Hello?"

    "Hi honey, I'll be home in--bzz--<dial tone>"

    "RING!"

    "Hello?"

    "Sorry, lost coverage there for a--bzz--<dial tone>"

    "RING!"

    "Hello?"

    "Cell phone dropped off again. Anyway--bzz--<dial tone>"

  • It's not about safety . . . (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The reason that cellular phones cannot be used during flight is not about safety. When you're driving along, it's not a big deal to transition from the range of one cellular tower to another. When you're in a plane not only are you within a direct line of NUMEROUS towers, but there is also the problem of changing towers almost constantly.

  • Greaaat... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:55AM (#6478504) Homepage Journal
    Three hours as a captive audience, trapped between an aisle seat with some guy talking to his Aunt Mildred about his inflamed hemmoroids acting up and some 14 year old by the window who decided that now is a good time to try out all the 153 ringtones she downloaded while sitting in the airport.

    No. Thank. You!

  • Cell Phone? what about Laptops, GameBoys (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sPaKr ( 116314 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @11:02AM (#6478538)
    Since when did a Laptop, Gameboy or a Walkman become a triggering device on a weapon of mass destruction? I mean if the planes are so delicate should we really be flying in them? If all OSAMA needs is his sprintPCS, laptop, and a walkman turned on at takeoff to bring down a plane why didn't they try it long ago? What would freak out americans more then watching a plane crash every day? And if it was really a safty issue wouldn't they ban them from the cabin.. ala GUNS, KNIVES? The Generic reason given to turn all this stuff off at take off and landing is that it *MAY* interfer with ILS. Now I have a few tips on how to handle this. FIRST upgrade ILS.. if gameboy and walkmans are fuxing it then it needs to be upgraded.. there are several ways to get around this.. I mean if my CELL PHONE can connect me.. with a BILLON other CELL PHONES without jumping on to the wrong call then you think ILS could be upgraded to freqecny hop as well. Second what about some sheilding around the cabin? Wrap some tin foil around the cabin.. that seems to keep the aliens out of my head. Finally don't realy on ILS in the first place.. I know its tough being a pilot these days.. but put the damn drink down.. grab the big dealy between your legs and look out the shiny thing infront of you. If you can't handle it and need to get drunk on a flight buy a ticket and sit in the back with the rest of the damn drunks.
    • but put the damn drink down.. grab the big dealy between your legs and look out the shiny thing infront of you

      You just described my friday night.

      Oh wait, you said big dealy.
    • First off, the primary reason for the use of cell phones in an aircraft being a felony is because it royally screws with the cell networks. Thus the FCC has banned it.

      Second, it's quite apparent that you don't know jack shit about airplanes and you shouldn't have opened your mouth.

      To "upgrade" ILS (there are many other nav aid types for approaches by the way) to frequency hop would require the THOUSANDS of aircraft to change their radios. At $4-5,000 per radio (imagine how much that would go up for

  • Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @11:18AM (#6478630)

    Why are everybody so strung up about this?

    Are you all flying more than 100 times each year? Are all your flights transatlantic, or even longer? Are you so indespensible to your company that it would be a disaster if you were out of reach for some hours?

    I fly a lot, and the last thing I need is sitting next to a jabbering idiot for hours without end. It's already a pain in cinema theaters and public places like restaurants.

    If you happen to be a compulsive jabber, please consider your surroundings and get a phone that doesn't require you to SHOUT INTO IT.

    • Are you so indespensible to your company that it would be a disaster if you were out of reach for some hours?

      If yes, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ON A PLANE?
      Do your shareholders know? What's your disaster plan in the event of your death?
    • If you happen to be a compulsive jabber, please consider your surroundings and get a phone that doesn't require you to SHOUT INTO IT. Shouting in new phones (1999 and up) wont make the conversation more clear/loud/whatever.
    • Are you all flying more than 100 times each year?

      I've had years like that, flying home every weekend and returning to the client's office on Monday.

      Are all your flights transatlantic, or even longer?

      Typically, mine are about 4 hours, from gate to gate. I've known a few people that fly from east to west coast and back (or vice versa) every weekend. That's about six hours, gate to gate. And, that doesn't include the two+ hours on both ends of the flight.

      Are you so indespensible to your company th

  • After 2006 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by concordeonetwo ( 644570 )
    If we get cell phones legalized on aircraft, that will be start of getting other devices to be allowed for use. Like Portable TVs, Walkmans, GPS Receivers, Wifi cards, satelite phones, radio scanners, etc. Anyone else believe in the whole US/UK information blackout during commerical flights theory? I do. Isn't also true that a certain ham radio license lets use a certain two-way radio on aircraft?

  • Nope (Score:3, Informative)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @11:52AM (#6478811) Journal
    The restriction against using cell phones aboard aircraft is not an FAA rule, it's an FCC rule. When a cell phone was used at ground level or in a building there was no problem, but using a phone at 6 miles up was causing problems with the tremendous range of transmission.

    From that altitude the phones were bypassing the protocols that keep the phone talking to only one tower at a time and was causing connection problems for both the user of the phone on the plane, and others on remote cell phones on the ground.

    Perhaps the cell phone industry has solved these issues with the conversion to digital, I don't know for sure. But unless these problems have been solved the FCC is unlikely to allow cell phone use from aircraft, baloons or any other "high altitude" craft.

    • Specifically on air canada.. they can't be arsed making a personal video system or decent inflight audio, because it doesn't make them money, but they'll spend $x0000 on putting hundreds of airphones in each aircraft for the cattle to spend $20/min on. Like I said, it's offensive to me :P

    • Re:Nope (Score:3, Informative)

      by ptbarnett ( 159784 )
      The restriction against using cell phones aboard aircraft is not an FAA rule, it's an FCC rule.

      There's an FCC rule explicitly addressing cell-phones, but that's not why the airlines are requiring you to turn off your phone during flight.

      The FAA rule (for part 121 operations, i.e. the airlines):

      Section 121.306 [faa.gov]

      Portable electronic devices

      • (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, an
      • But even if the airlines decide that cell phones don't interfere with aircraft operation under (b)(5), the operation of a cell phone aboard any aircraft would still be prohibited by FCC rules.

        Neither an air carrier nor the FAA have the ability to override the FCC's rules on the matter.
        • But even if the airlines decide that cell phones don't interfere with aircraft operation under (b)(5), the operation of a cell phone aboard any aircraft would still be prohibited by FCC rules.

          I don't disagree with that, but you originally posted: "The restriction against using cell phones aboard aircraft is not an FAA rule, it's an FCC rule."

          The implication is there is no FAA rule against using cell phones on aircraft. That's not true, and I posted a correction, with the appropriate citation.

          If the

  • Wireless Internet access (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yelvington ( 8169 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @12:03PM (#6478879) Homepage
    Boeing and Intel [businessweek.com] have been working with several airlines on installation of paid-access WiFi on commercial airliners. As for cell access ... even if it is determined that there is no safety threat (and there probably is not), cellphones aren't designed to work at 550 miles per hour and 40,000 feet in the air. They're flaky enough on the ground. They may work on approach or takeoff, but airliners don't waste any time getting to altitude, where engines operate more efficiently in the extremely cold air.
  • If people could interfere with the frequency that pilots use, then children could scream "MayDay MayDay" and play among themselves using cellphones, with bizarre results...Interesting, isn't it?
  • Well from the "I heard about it" department, I have recently been approached by a group of people with out a company, that are building a device to take the cell-phone signal band (which interferes with airline equipment I guess) and retransmits at a different frequency, which is appropriately outside the aircraft transmission band. As I understand, it is a piece of equipment that will clip onto your cell phone to avoid the phone actually transmitting unwanted signal. Interesting (but obvious) concept.
  • (I am not an electrical engineer)

    So can someone reconcile the findings in this article with the findings referenced in the article on /. yesterday [slashdot.org]? I am not much for the odds of "It's highly unlikely using your cell phone will take the plane down."

  • Recenty study (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jdan ( 411331 )
    This recent slashdot article [slashdot.org] also covered cell phones on airplanes. If we already know that they are dengerous, then the question is will electronics manufactures redesign their equipment so as not to be harmful? Or will air plane manufactures build their planes so as not to be suceptible to this type of interference? With all the terrorist stuff going on these days, I would think the latter. But since we are still using the same planes for 30 years ago, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. --jdan
  • You need something more powerful than a cellphone to bring down a plane. :) Just a few days ago I flew an AN-24 [airkaz.com] plane from Nizhny Novgorod to Moscow. Apparently, using cell phones was allowed there.

    I guess that's the same principle as with Soviet fighters that used vacuum tubes and were therefore completely immune to EMP-weapons. ;)
  • As a commercial pilot and electronics geek, I'm concerned with the proliferation of electronics on board airplanes. No, I can't say what the effect of a cell phone is on the incredibly complex system of both analog and digital systems on the typical airliner. The problem is, no one else really can, either. Sure, the frequencies transmitted by cellphones are quite a bit different than avionics. But so is an FM radio. Next time you're talking on your cell phone, hold it next to your FM radio and see just

  • This could lead to bad things (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @09:27PM (#6481892) Homepage
    Cell phones are electricaly noisey. A GSM phone sends out all kinds of nasty chips that get into everything. The problem is when a plane is in the clouds, there isn't much keeping it on course. There are a few gyros and the VOR (most planes still don't have GPS). At altitude, drifing off course isn't much of an issue but during an ILS approach, it could be a major disaster. An ILS approach is the pilot is looking at the instruments. There is a glide slope indicator (which a phone can mess up, I've seen it), an altermter which is based on ice not getting on the static port outside of the plane and the inner marker which is a low powered AM tranmitter. If your on the glide slope and you don't see the runway before the plane gets 200 ft above the runway (which should be when you pass the inner marker), you can't land. A modern airport will use lasers to measure the lowest level of the clouds and if they are 210 ft above the runway, they will let planes land.

    So I can see the point where people get used to using their phones in the air and then some joker decides that since its ok most of the time, its ok to make a short call just before landing and flips on the phone as the plane hits the 200 foot from the ground mark and interfeers with something giving a pilot a false sense of position.

    I see allowing more cell phone in a plane as setting a bad precedent.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close