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.

And has been a fact ever since the beginning.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: And has been a fact ever since the beginning.

[kevinbr]

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.

Re:

[cgimusic]

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.

Re:

[JRV31]

And the NSA

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[The Grim Reefer]

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

Re:

[itzly]

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

Re:

[itzly]

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: I'd pay for a non-phone flight

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[savuporo]

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 t

Re:

[Zontar The Mindless]

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?)

Re:

[petes_PoV]

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.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: I'd pay for a non-phone flight

[kevinbr]

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.

Re:I'd pay for a non-phone flight

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:

[AqD]

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.

Re:

[CaptainDork]

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

Wrong... there is a risk

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Restrictions

[rossdee]

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

Re:

[WillKemp]

I guess you haven't heard of earplugs then?

Re: Restrictions

[kevinbr]

Aircraft interior 85 dB
Speech: 65-70 dB

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

Re:

[itzly]

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.

Re: Restrictions

[kevinbr]

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.

Re:

[dave420]

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.

Re:

[CaptainDork]

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.

Re:

[jeremyp]

So, my normal speaking voice then.

Re:

[mark-t]

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.

Re:

[mark-t]

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 su

Re:

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:

[mark-t]

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.

Re:

[BasilBrush]

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 j

Re:

[mark-t]

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.

Re:

[BasilBrush]

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

Re:

[mark-t]

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.

Re:

[BasilBrush]

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

Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[feufeu]

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.

a question?

[thephydes]

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 .....

Re:

[TheRealHocusLocus]

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 [youtube.com]. Bing! Another text message! Cat Facts again.

Re:

[CaptainDork]

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

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Hopefully data only

[Jack Malmostoso]

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.

Re:Hopefully data only

[rsmith-mac]

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.

Re:

[Bob_Who]

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).

Re:

[dkf]

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!

Re:

[mgcarley]

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

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

> 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.

Glad this is happening, shame it took so long

[jedrek]

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.

Profit

[hedleyroos]

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

Re:

[batistuta]

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 foa

I'd wrather travel in the cargo compartment

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

We've really gotten wrapped around the axle

[ai4px]

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.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

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" exp

Re:

[ai4px]

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.