Cellphones On Airplanes 488
Bonker writes "According to this USAToday article two companies, AirCell, and Verizon, are developing technology to let airline passengers safely use cellphones while in flight. The system would block frequencies normally used by cellphones and force cell customers to 'roam' on the new network. Saftey concerns aside, I thought that a plane cabin was the one place I would never have to deal with people who won't quit talking on the phone."
Re:deal? (Score:3, Informative)
There's more to it that just frequency (Score:5, Informative)
This so-called "solution" looks like more of a money-making scheme than a safety system to me.
Jetblue?? (Score:5, Informative)
People were using them during the whole flight. They would get constantly cut off and have to re-connect as we went over areas that didn't have service.
So, I don't get this whole thing. Every other airline specifically has said that cell phones need to be off once they close the cabin door. If it works for one, why not all the rest? What does the FAA or FCC have to say about all this?
Re:Airplanes already have cell phonems. (Score:2, Informative)
Cell Phones aren´t dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
Also, if they were so dangerous, they would collect the phones at security like guns and knives.. its just a big scam. There are many articles on the subject.
One of the John Dvorak articles is here. [pcmag.com]
There many more if you do a google search.
Captive Market (Score:4, Informative)
All phones look pretty much the same... Something you hold to your ear alongside your face. How do they plan on identifying "normal" phones from the phones that can be used in-flight unless they are in some way actively blocking the other frequencies from use?
Anyway, the only really truly nice thing that can come from this is that whatever technology they develop to shoehorn people into paying inflated prices for cellular service while they sit in an airplane cabin could likely be adopted to things like movie theaters - your phone rings in the movies, for instance, and you owe the theater's private cellular network $5 and $2/min while you blabber. It would make people think twice before they allow their obnoxiousness to annoy everyone else, but still provide for emergency use and whatnot.
While they are at it with adding some cell standards, they should also allow for some sort of device that would force a cell phone that is in-range of the device to vibrate, go silent (if it can't vibrate) - or at least switch to the lowest ring volume. Now *that* would be a nice idea.
~GoRK
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
So it's theoretically possible that your gameboy's signal could jam the frequency that the pilots need for communication with the ground, or with vital control operation (which is largely done via radio waves these days).
At 30,000 feet it's not a huge deal, since in the exceptionally unlikely event something went wrong, there's enough time to straighten it out before plane hit ground and go boom. At 30 feet during takeoff, however, there is no such recovery time, hence the ban.
However, the odds of it happening are darned near astronomical in any case, since the sideband radiation caused by the gameboy would have to be right on the right frequency and strong enough to override the "correct" signal...not terribly likely.
Cell phones, though, in that they are designed to transmit signals, have much more powerful transmissions (duh...) so it's more likely they could interfere.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:2, Informative)
"The FAA bars cell phone use in flight as well as other electronic devices during takeoff and landing to avoid disrupting plane electronics. AirCell's system would reduce cell phones' power and limit the number in use at once."
and
"The FCC bans use because of ground concerns. Cell phones often don't work at 30,000 feet, but when they do, signals can reach hundreds of towers at once, clogging networks."
Re:Cell Phones aren´t dangerous -Dvorak Rant (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Because you can get away with just about any manouver in an airplane as long as you don't do it close to the ground. Continents have the right of way.
Takeoffs and landings require extreme precision, because going about a foot low means destroying the plane and possibly the cockpit crew and many in the cabin. There are a BUNCH of radio-based aids on a large number of frequencies and using a variety of methods - and if the one that's being used to guide the plane at a particular instant is suddenly interfered with, there may be no time to recognize that it's malfunctioning and switch to something else. So screwing up any one of them at a critical moment may result in a landing you don't walk away from, a mid-air collision, or some other mishap.
Similarly, the airport and the space immediately adjacent is a 3D traffic jam, coordinated by radio calls. Garbling even one radio message could result in a collision, in the air or on the ground. (As with highways they have a few even when they're NOT being interfered with. Now imagine highways with an occasional light going all-ways-green...)
Once the plane is AWAY from the space around the airport it has an ENORMOUS space to work in, and considerable time to work with. And there are "lanes" in airspace, as well as a rule that breaks it into stacks of altitude ranges where everything that isn't passing through in a well-known place is going in about the same direction. So if your laptop jams a navigational aid there's time to switch to another. (And if it somehow jams ALL of 'em the crew can run on internal nav and non-radio instruments and avoid other airplanes and mountains until the stew can get you to turn the bloody thing off.)
Re:Jetblue?? (Score:5, Informative)
-Alison
Re:Billing issue (Score:4, Informative)
As far as safety issues go, they told me there was a *single* case where a cellphone *may* have been involved, and the ban was a typical FAA knee-jerk reaction. Not that I would advocate toying around with safety issues on commercial aircraft, but it seems like something they could test effectively, and from what I can tell, they have not.
Re:A few things.... (Score:4, Informative)
Just for your information: almost all mobile phones do change its output power according to received signal level. That's the reason why you're battery (in case you noticed) lasts a fraction of its normal idle time when you stay on a place with low signal: the phone increases power output do compensate for the extra distance of blocking structures.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cell Phones aren´t dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
The main problem with cellular phones in planes is that they would render the channel they are using useless in many cells. Cellular networks (well, except for CDMA based ones) depend on the fact that your phone's radio doesn't reach non-adjacent cells, so the same channel can be reused there. When you have line of site to all the cells in the same area your phone is going to reach more than one cell that uses the same channel, thus not allowing reuse of that channel.
CDMA is different, because the same channel is used on all cells (adjacent and non-adjacent), so obviously it doesn't depend on channel reuse. However, it does depend on PN offset reuse, ie it assigns your phone a PN offset with the assumption that your phone won't reach non-adjacent cells, which means that the same PN offset can be reused in those cells. So basically you have the same problem as with non-CDMA systems, just substitute "PN offset" for channel.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Informative)
The FAA Banned inflight electronics after that. Eventually, the loosened the standard to allow use at altitude, where you are in less croweded skys
Re:Dunno... (Score:1, Informative)
Electronics on Airplanes (Score:5, Informative)
Penya asks: "Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?"
The simple answer is "because the rules say so." To wit:
(14 CFR is the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 121 (and part 135, in some circumstances; 14 CFR 135.144 has identical stipulations) governs airlines)
So the rule is actually a Federal Regulation, not the airline acting unilaterally.
The reason for the rule is to prevent possible interference with not just aircraft avionics, but any systems in the aircraft. In addition to the avionics (comm radios, nav radios (typically just below the AM broadcast band and just above the FM broadcast band), marker beacons, and other devices), there are also sensors and equipment in the airplane that don't respond well to induced signals. I've seen a number of cases of electronics handling RF signals badly: monitors that shut down when I key a ham transmitter (2m (144 MHz), one watt, into a ducky at a distance of a couple of yards from the monitor), cars that activate the brakes when you key the transmitter (damn computer control!), and others. RADAR, in particular, responds badly to induced RF, and every airliner has it, for detecting weather. Some also have Stormscopes, lightning detectors that look for electrostatic discharge. The aircraft's electrical system itself is designed to run at 400Hz (not the usual 60), and inducing RF has the capacity to cause some problems. Introducing RF into the computerized engine controllers (remember, computer = clock = RF oscillator) is a really bad idea.
The reason they allow the use of some devices at cruise is that cruise is a less critical phase of flight. In the terminal area, things happen quickly, with frequent heading changes, altitude changes, and such. Pilots must be in constant communication with controllers, and their navigation must be very accurate, to avoid hitting things that might hurt (which, when you're travelling at 250 knots, is pretty much anything). Approach is a particularly critical phase: the navigation equipment in most airliners is designed to bring the airplane down at about 750-1000 feet per minute (vertical speed) at around 150 knots (average; bigger airplanes are faster), down to 100 feet above the ground (Category II ILS; Cat I is 200 feet, Cat III can go all the way to the surface, with zero forward visibility for IIIc). If the navigation equipment should become unreliable during the approach, the result is usually a Bad Thing. In cruise flight, however, the precision required is much less, communication with Center happens relatively rarely, and there's a lot more time to see and correct a problem before running into something.
The prohibition on the use of cell phones is actually twofold: the FAA prohibits the use of them, for the aforementioned reasons, and the FCC prohibits the use of them because sticking an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower is a great way to expand your signal coverage. Put a cell phone up there, which was specifically designed to have a small footprint, and one phone can simultaneously jam several dozen cells, preventing other people from using the network. It also requires rapid cell-swapping, which further overburdens the network (and eats batteries besides).
The reason some, but not all, devices are approved above a given altitude (usually around 10,000 feet) is because they're generally considered safe, by the fact that they're not designed to radiate RF signals. Computers, CD players, Game Boys, etc., all have an oscillator (clock), but they're designed to keep it internal, and rarely radiate anything. Fine at cruise, but nobody wants to take chances in the critical phases, because there's less margin for error. Radios (receivers) are verboten because they use an internal oscillator (modern designs, anyway; most are superheterodyne, which requires mixing the received signal with a local oscillator), and they have an antenna connected. Even though they're not designed to radiate, they usually do so, to some degree. Transmitters are obvious, particularly aviation-band transmitters. Even if you just listen, you're still running the LO, and handheld radios have a way of getting put in places in such a way as to key the mic, jamming the frequency, which, presumably, had somebody talking on it, or it wouldn't be very interesting. See also: Bad Things.
An interesting trend I have observed is the willingness of people to put themselves at risk, when they don't have the authority (as pilot-in-command) to do so. Passengers who insist on taking off into bad weather (against the advice of the pilot), or who ignore rules (such as portable electronics) because they want to. For example, Penya relates: "Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS)." You're playing dumb games here. No, you obviously didn't cause the airplane to crash, but unless you designed both the camera and the avionics, you didn't know what you were doing. Avionics are remarkably robust (they have to be before they can be certificated), but how do you know that the airplane didn't strike a small bird (I've personally hit two, on a single flight) that knocked loose some shielding or something? Ice, perhaps? Maybe there was a power surge that fried one of the filter capacitors. It has been my experience that the less educated the passenger on the possible dangers, the more willing he is to risk his (and everybody else's) life. Would you have argued if the flight attendant (or the captain) had asked you to turn it off, or would you have complied? (BTW, if you like aerial photography (I love it, as do a lot of pilots), there's a simple solution: a mechanical camera. A lot of them take better pictures than modern electronic ones anyway.
Incidentally, this isn't news: I read about this system a couple of years ago. At the time, AirCell had a model that could be installed in the aircraft, and used only their network, and another model that was portable, and used both conventional (terrestrial) cell networks and the AirCell network, switching automatically between the two.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a flight instructor/instrument flight instructor, and I regularly fly King Airs [barefootclown.net], among others.
the deal (Score:5, Informative)
The deal:
By some act of manufacturing or quirk of human nature, cell phones seem to have this inherent ability to turn otherwise friendly, considerate people into inconsiderate jerks.
On top of the obvious rudness of leaving your cell phone to ring in a movie - and then talking on it as you leave the theater - there's the more subtle rudeness of ignoring the people who are actually *present*.
Talking to Joe on your cell phone is isn't anything like a conversation with another passenger: It's the opposite. Conversations with other passengers are generally held at a respectful volume, and often other passengers are welcome to join in the discussion (a la slashdot).
On the other hand, having a long, loud conversation on a cell phone is disrespectful of other passengers. It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice."
Re:A few things.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cost? (Score:2, Informative)
Nowadays, the carrier you're roaming on still submits billing to your carrier, but your carrier either doesn't just pass the charges through to you, they either eat the charge as part of their roaming included plan, or they charge your their pre-determined roaming rate
This system would work the same way. Depending on how expensive their roaming rates would be, your carrier would decide whether to include usage in a plane in their plan or charge you extra to recover their costs. Either way, the carrier providing service in the plane is making $$$ whenever someone uses their phone.
The Aviation Safety Reporting System (Score:5, Informative)
You might also wish to read a discussion of the problems [aircraftbuyer.com] with PEDs on airplanes.
Finally, here's a list of how the ASRS connect electronic devices to airplane anomalies, according to various reports they've received:
Anomaly: NAV CDI needle swing (off course), Phase: CL, Possible Cause: tape players
Anomaly: CDI needle swings, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: chess player
Anomaly: erroneous nav signal of VOR station, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: dictaphone
Anomaly: loss of VOR capability, Phase: ER?, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: HSI's discsrepancies, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: NAV compass & CDI oscillation (off course), Possible Cause: PEDs
Anomaly: off VOR course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: tape player
Anomaly: music blocked VHF comm's, Possible Cause: FM radio
Anomaly: comm's blocked, Phase: GR/CL, Possible Cause: Nintendo, cellphone, notebooks
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: tape machine+Nintendo
Anomaly: off course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: both VORs lost, no VOR audio signal, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: all directional gyros lost, Possible Cause: 25 radio's, 1 laptop
Anomaly: compass error; off course, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: laptop, comp.game
Anomaly: 2 missed approaches, Phase: FA, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: loss of all autonav functions, Phase: CL, Possible Cause: 3 laptops, cdplayer/radio
Anomaly: loc receiver anomaly; missed app., Phase: FA, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: compass precess 10deg, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: laptop
Anomaly: Omega NAV unreliable, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: tv set suspected
Anomaly: HSI errors, Phase: TA,CL,ER, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: nav compass sys error; off course, Phase: CL, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: temp loss of com freq., Possible Cause: cd player
Anomaly: INS nav errors, Possible Cause: electronic games
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: eng fuel ctlr + vhf radio interference, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: laptop
Anomaly: EMI interference & radio alt flag, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: cd-players (2)
Anomaly: erratic cdi indications, Phase: ER, Possible Cause: 2 gameboys
Anomaly: autopilot erratic, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: cellphone suspected
Anomaly: off course, Possible Cause: gameboy
Anomaly: nav radio interference; off ILS course, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: computer game
Anomaly: EMI interference causes a split between the compass system in flight ER laptop both LOC and GS 'OFF' flags showed just prior to the Outer Marker
Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: significant LOC rate of deflection, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED possible
Anomaly: loss of Captain EFIS display, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: 8 laptops
Anomaly: electronic compass erratic, Possible Cause: cd player
Anomaly: interfering transmitter, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: NAV and COM radio problems, Phase: PED, Possible Cause: suspected
Anomaly: off approach path, Phase: AP, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: off course due to drifting, Phase: FM, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: HSI discrepencies, Possible Cause: PED suspected
Anomaly: EICAS interference, airspeed discrep., Phase: ER, DC, Possible Cause: PED
Anomaly: loss of COM frequency, Possible Cause: cellphone
Anomaly: ILS, radio altimeter, and primary flight display went out, Possible Cause: 20 cellphones
Why GSM Rocks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Control? (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK, the FCC only bans radios and other "transmission" devices during flight. Other devices are at the discretion of the airline. For example, I was once on a flight where walkmans were allowed, but discmans weren't, because they could "interfere" with the electronics. This is a standard excuse given to everyone. If you actually get into the details, you'll find that the flight attendants know jack shit about electronics (not that they need to). It's probably just a CYA move for the airlines. Admittedly, much avionics hasn't changed much since the '60s, and it's likely it'd be far more susceptible to interference than modern stuff, but there's not much we can do about that. Laptop computers will be the next to be banned, because the flight attendants can't tell what has 802.11b and what doesn't. The simple solution is, of course, not to fly.
Now, if you're talking about the restriction on electronic devices during takeoff and landing, that's because they don't want you playing Super Mario Brothers while you're supposed to be listening to the stewardess tell you how to get off the plane in an emergency. Of course, you could read a book and not pay attention, but I guess they assume that people who are reading a book and probably read the safety information card.
Re:Control? (Score:4, Informative)
With that said; I do agree that at least part of the problem is created by the fact that at a mile up; you can cover a huge area (I'm sure someone knows how to compute this).
Re:Control? (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty much they're saying having a transmitter (typically cell phone) can make the plane do funny things, but they also cite instances of other devices doing the same. Any electronic device can emit electronic noise. Aparently the aircraft manufacturers didn't do a very good job of shielding their aircraft. Maybe they should take a clue from auto manufacturers.
Back in the early 80's when GM and Ford started equipping cars with computers to run the engine, close lightning strikes, or driving under high-voltage power lines would occasionally make the car shut off. That was very quickly fixed.
Re:The Aviation Safety Reporting System (Score:2, Informative)
I don't have the study readily available, but being the child of two Boeing parents, I am aware of some studies done with their planes and cell phones and that it is usually a problem with the cell phone operation in a PARTICULAR LOCATION OF THE PLANE instead of all seats on the plane and that it DOES INDEED cause interference problems. This can readily explain while some people have been able to get away with forgetting to turn off their cell phones and the slashdot reports why some pilots even have had no interference.. HOWEVER, I have been on more than one flight where the announcement has been made to turn off cell phones, no one noticibly is using one, and then a very LOUD, DEMANDING statement is made, "TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES NOW! THEY ARE INTERFERING WITH THE CABIN EQUIPMENT."
Re:A few things.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Control? (Score:1, Informative)
Other electronic devices - gameboys, walkmans/discmans, and things of that ilk, while able to create radio frequencies, tend to be more receptive to interference than to create it.
The reason they ask you to turn off all electronic devices below 10,000 feet (that's the altitude they have decided on) is to allow time to correct/determine any problems. If your 737 is on final approach, flying low and slow, gear and flaps, down and dirty, and the pilot's stick shaker kicks in, his required reaction is to pull flaps, pull gear, and punch the throttle. That causes wear and tear on the plane, not to mention the chances of damaging some equipment, injuring a passenger, making me late for my connecting flight, causing absolutely chaos in the air traffic control center... see the pattern here? One person turns on their cell phone, and all hell breaks loose. Doh.
(Yes, they also want your attention for the "seat back and tray table in the full upright and locked position" spiel too.)
With 802.11 in laptops, that's going to become a problem too - so be damn sure you've turned off your 802.11 cards before you turn on the laptop. Period.
Wireless 802.11b access points on planes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A few things.... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's just the opposite: a cell tower will request a phone to change it output power according to the cell tower's received signal strength. Cell towers don't have to worry about a tiny battery like a cell phone does, towers can transmit with a lot more power than a cell phone.
Dvorak is an Ignorant Ass (Score:4, Informative)
I have, on two seperate occasions that I specifically remember, had RF emissions interfere with radio reception. The kind of radio reception an aircraft taxiing to a runway wants to hear when the tower says "hold short of 31L for crossing traffic" or "Give way to the Boeing 737, then taxi to alpha nine".
Once was from a cell phone, and once from my laptop. In both cases I was on the ground, unable to receive transmissions from the tower of the very airport I was at.
It is rare, and it requires a number of factors to come into confluence for it to happen, but it does happen, and the results could be quite catastrophic.
Dvorak is, in short, an ignorant ass who should stop talking on his cell phone long enough to consider the potential consiquences of what he advocates. The reduction of a small but verifiably real risk (which I have personally experienced in my own aircraft) with potentially deadly consiquences to zero risk is only insulting if one is a completely self-centered idiot. To those of us who are pilots, or otherwise involved in aviation, and who do value safety, the only insulting nonsense is that eminating from Dvorak's uninformed pen.
Re:Control? (Score:1, Informative)
-your ignorant comment
I don't suppose you have any idea what an ILS CRITICAL AREA is. You might want to look it up before you pretend you have the first clue.
Re:Cost? (Score:2, Informative)
While this is a good point, and i can definitely see the scenario you describe occuring, it is worth pointing out that every single multi-mode cell phone i've ever seen warns you when you entered a roaming area. My phone, a Sprint, actually has a guard where if you try to make a call from a roaming area, it pops up a screen that say "Roaming charges will apply! Are you sure you want to do this? Yes/No"
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure if verizon tried to sell a phone where you could potentially be charged hyper-roaming charges at a moment's notice without the cell phone warning you "this will be a super- expensive roaming call" in some way, they'd have to face some kind of deceptive trade practices lawsuit no matter what their terms of service disclaimers say.
Of course, that won't stop the hypothetical companies you mention from still going through with that plan, and leaving people with the option "you can go down 24 stories and stand outside in the piercing cold, or you can hit 'yes' on your cellphone and accept our roaming rates". It just stops them from doing it secretly.
Re:AirFone (Score:2, Informative)
- Airfone (domestic flights): $3.99 connection fee + $3.99/min for voice calls (data calls were cheaper)
- Telenor (intl. flights): don't remember the connection fee, but the "airtime" rate was $10/min(!!!)
-SC