Nucsh From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2339 times:
Ok, I was chatting with a friend about this earlier, and he stated that passengers can not use phones in planes because the plane is traveling so fast, that the phone and cell towers can not recognize what tower is for what service, and the wrong phone could get billed for the call.
I had a hearty laugh, I'll tell you what.
Please, I may be wrong, but was he right? I'm also starting this thread as a source to MY side of the argument, whcih would be the real reason of the cell signals screwing with the navigation equipment within the plane. Go wild with this, i need all sorts of different views and fact.
If landing is about "kissing" the ground, you just about raped it.
JAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Cell phones do not interfere with navigation equipment. Because of the speed of the aircraft, they hog multiple cell phone towers at once and tie up the cell phone system.
Vorticity From United States of America, joined May 2004, 337 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
I've heard the network "goes crazy" because your phone sees too many cell phone towers.
As far as interfering with navigation equipment, it seems to me that the few mW power from a cell phone isn't enough interfere. But I could be wrong, I'd think you'd need a bit higher powered signal to interfere. After all, the airwaves are bombarded at that frequency anyway. I know hospitals with sensitive equipment or wireless telemetry ask that you don't use cell phones as well.
Adriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1112 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
Last year, on a red-eye TA flight LAX-SJO (on an A320), I was awakened by a cell phone ringing accross the aisle. I was stunned to see this lady non-chalantly taking the call, speaking calmly for what seemed an eternity (probably a minute), and hang up like nothing had happened.
I turned around to see out the window and I saw that we were flying just south of Mexico City, probably over Cuernavaca.
Our A320 did not make any weird move, nor a crewmember walked down the aisle or popped a head out the cockpit door to check on us (we were in row 1). Nothing that seemed to indicate the a/c' instruments were being interferred with.
Also, if I recall well, numerous events aboard the ill-fated flights on 9/11 have been reconstructed from conversations taking place between the airborne hijacked passengers and their friends and relatives in the ground. Is my recalling correct?
Qwerty From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
2. Yes the rapid tower-tower transfer can cause problems.
I can't believe I am liking this thread. Let's assume that this is true and the real reason why calls, with door closed and aircraft rolling, are discouraged.
In the long tradition of American independence, why the heck would the airliners care what happened to telecom infrastruture?
Could it be the Feds who care?
I've use mobiles on private aircraft in motion many times, but probably never above 200 knots. I know that's not allowed either, but I've always wondered the true reason why. Maybe this is it.
ClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2267 times:
I was once on a domestic flight over the omani desert, altitude must have been around FL230-250, when the guy next to me recieved a message on his pager. The F/A, which was doing the meal service on our seat row (yes...we were in flight), was quite upset and told him to turn it off or jada jada jada.
To this day I'm stunned that he was even able to get this message over the the desert. I guess the technique these things are using is similar to a the one of a cell phone, at least when it comes to SMS.
If the reason we really can't use cell phones, because the telcom giants like AT&T would mess up their billing system and they kind of "nicely" asked the airlines to tell their pax to turn them off, I ask my self why Ryanair hasn't asked them yet to f*ck off??? For me that's indicator it has something to do with the interference of cell-phones, yet in a lesser extent the airlines want us to believe.
Why even bother? With the introduction of broadband internet on planes you will be able phone via the internet...and they will propably cahrge less for it, than you phone company would.
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
Vorticity From United States of America, joined May 2004, 337 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
I think if I had to sit around 36-500+ other people, all yapping away on their cell phones all flight.... I'd go crazy.
Propulsion From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 294 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
I am not sure whether using a mobile phone aboard a commercial flight has any dangerous consequences, but it may be interesting to note that a report issued in the United Kingdom by a medical organisation stated that mobile phones do not effect the vast majority of hospital equipment.
According to the BBC, they also said it was unlikely that such devices could pose serious threats and that the real reason lay behind profiting from the highly expensive hospital telephone call systems. The report WAS INDEPENDENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES and featured on the BBC's Working Lunch programme. I wonder whether any parallels may be drawn for aviation? Especially given the cost of using some of the airlines own very expensive telephone services?
A bus is a vehicle that runs twice as fast when you are after it as when you are in it.
Qwerty From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
I was once on a domestic flight over the omani desert, altitude must have been around FL230-250, when the guy next to me recieved a message on his pager.
I've seen this a lot. Pagers have declined a lot in use, though.
As an electronics aside:
I often powerup a Garmin handheld GPS inflight. Some PAX seem to think it's a mobile and remined me phones can't be used onboard. (That's good and I am often upset myself with the person who keeps talking when the door closes.) Anyway, I've had FAs with varying carriers ask me to turn it off in the past (no problem), but some are just as interested in where we are, our FL, and ETA after asking. I fly WN a lot and some FAs have even started mentioning GPS receivers as OK during the crossing thru 10K, electronic devices allowed, announcement. WN even has GPS receivers published as OK in Spirit Magazine (their inflight rag).
Iairallie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
On my airline GPS is not permitted. There is an FCC rule regarding cellphone use in flight. I have no idea what the technical reasons are for this rule.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2206 times:
As far as interfering with navigation equipment, it seems to me that the few mW power from a cell phone isn't enough interfere. But I could be wrong...
Yes. You're wrong. Below I've listed extracts from a research programme conducted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority on the effects of cellphone interference on avionics:
The tests revealed various adverse effects on the equipment performance from simulated cellphone interference. Although the equipment demonstrated a satisfactory margin above the original certification criteria for interference susceptibility, that margin was not sufficient to protect against potential cellphone interference under worst case conditions.
Anomalies recorded:
• Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
• Instability of indicators.
• Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
• VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
• VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
• Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
• Background noise on audio outputs.
For the general case, and depending on the other aids available to the flight crew, the consequences of the observed anomalies could include crew distraction, confusion, and loss of confidence in the equipment.
The degraded navigation precision could result in an inability to meet required navigation performance with potential adverse effects on aircraft separation and terrain clearance.
For safety reasons and to keep the risks from cellphone interference to tolerable levels, the Regulatory Authorities should continue to restrict the use of cellphones by passengers in aircraft
Potomac From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 713 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
i'm not sure how much interference a single cell phone can cause. however, many cellphones at once is a different story, and if they were permitted during flight, that's what you'd get.
even if it isnt a safety risk, i'd prefer the rule be maintained out of courtesy. the annoyance of that one guy yapping away much louder than is necessary - as if the microphones or handsfree devices dont work at all - is bad enough. several of them plus a chorus of annoying rings would be a nightmare.
Qwerty From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
For safety reasons and to keep the risks from cellphone interference to tolerable levels, the Regulatory Authorities should continue to restrict the use of cellphones by passengers in aircraft
I don't think any of us disagree. I was hoping the tone of this thread would stick more to the mind teaser of exactly whether the regulation was to proctect phone company assets or airframes. We all know that cellphones are not a threat that rises to surface-to-air missle proportions.
Sure cell phones have a remote chance of interferring with some performance of the flight deck, reason enough to prohibit their use. However, I'm getting the feeling this impact or possibility is very minimal and provides just the cover story.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
This topic seems to come up a lot. It's federal law.
47 CFR
§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes,
balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such
aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft
leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must
be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each
cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is
prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in
suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones
while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''
14 CFR
§ 91.21 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, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
Cha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 763 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2181 times:
Didn't this start after a first-class passenger in the late 80's or early 90's used their cellphone on approach to an American airport on a domestic flight and the plane had to call missed because of a navigation malfunction? I can't find the news article because I think this was in the pre-internet-crazed-America era.
To clear-up the thing about hospitals. Many hospitals have cardiac telemetry equipment. When a patient is on "telemetry," they are hooked-up to a continuous cardiac monitor and in many hospitals, this data is transmitted over radio frequencies to the nearest nursing station and sometimes, a central monitoring area in the hospital. When a patient's heart rhythm becomes irregular, the nurses can immediately detect and record it for analysis by the physicians. In some of the nicer/richer hospitals, patients carry-around small telemetry packs (usually wear them around their neck) so if they go down to the gift shop and have an arrythmia, the patient's location and the rhythm are transmitted to the central monitoring area and the code team can be called to the patient.
Recently in my hospital system, cell phone use which for the past few years has been banned, is actually being encouraged. The reasons are twofold; our biomedical department determined that the current generation cellphones DO NOT interfere with telemetry or other medical equipment AND when patients and their families use cellphones, it frees-up phones in public spaces so that physicians & nurses can use those phones. Also, in time of crisis, it is much easier for families to reach and be reached by their loved ones by personal cellphones.
You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
Iowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4098 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2135 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
If you get a cell phone call and your phone is next to the speakers, it makes a staticy noise.
I often powerup a Garmin handheld GPS inflight. Some PAX seem to think it's a mobile and remined me phones can't be used onboard. (That's good and I am often upset myself with the person who keeps talking when the door closes.) Anyway, I've had FAs with varying carriers ask me to turn it off in the past (no problem), but some are just as interested in where we are, our FL, and ETA after asking. I fly WN a lot and some FAs have even started mentioning GPS receivers as OK during the crossing thru 10K, electronic devices allowed, announcement. WN even has GPS receivers published as OK in Spirit Magazine (their inflight rag).
SY said that we were not allowed at anytime during the flight to use our GPS before we even left the ground, while I used mine yesterday on Allegiant Air and they didn't care.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2083 times:
What about use during plane refueling? What is the reason for this prohibition?
Definately a no-no. If the phone rings, there is static electricity, causing the chance of a spark. Thats one of the 2 reasons they leave the door open, the other is so that the plane can get rid of any fumes so the passengers don't suffocate. Of course, that is an old rule considering the new planes are built better these days and don't leak fumes into the fuselage as much as the old planes.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
my question is this.. if airlines can have Dishes on their plans for tv.. why can't they have mini antennae (like BMW has, the shark fin) so people can use their cellphone? Or perhaps it just hasn't been tried? That way, people use the same signal, and the airline can charge them for the rates! Course, them rates would probably be $5.00/min! Gotta make up for that gas some kinda way!
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3957 posts, RR: 36 Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2028 times:
Something interesting to note:
We had a long ground stop yesterday, and let the passengers use their cellphones. You could hear a "clicking" interference distorting ATC radio... now imagine what that will do to a nav frequency when you really need it on a low visibility approach.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2022 times:
why can't they have mini antennae (like BMW has, the shark fin) so people can use their cellphone?
We had a long ground stop yesterday, and let the passengers use their cellphones. You could hear a "clicking" interference distorting ATC radio...
One question, one answer.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3838 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2018 times:
Yes. You're wrong. Below I've listed extracts from a research programme conducted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority on the effects of cellphone interference on avionics:
I have found evidence supporting the opposite.
"Plane makers Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie have bombarded their aircraft with cell-phone frequencies and discovered no interference with communication, navigation or other systems. One likely reason that no problems were found: cellular phones don't operate on any of the frequencies used by airplane systems."
25 Clickhappy: if cell phones are dangerous why would they allow us to even bring them onboard? Osama could just phone home and bring the whole plane down?
26 XFSUgimpLB41X: Flyingbronco..did you not read what I just wrote?? We were sitting out there holding short of the runway on a ground hold...let the pax use their cell
27 Rick767: This subject is raised quite regularly. I maintain my previous position on the topic, that every single flight I have operated probably has at least o
28 Flyingbronco05: Flyingbronco..did you not read what I just wrote?? We were sitting out there holding short of the runway on a ground hold...let the pax use their cell
29 NWADC9: didnt the people on the 9/11 flights call their relatives using their mobiles? Yes Adriaticus, BRIIIING BRIIIIING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 Smcmac32msn: Plus, you could be picking up interference from other aircraft, from radar, and from other nav systems such as VORs or ILS approaches. NOT LIKELY. Tho
31 Nucsh: I dont think this is much of an argument for ONE phone. I understand that sometimes, interferance from one phone might not be enough to distort any ra
32 Md80fanatic: Cell phones use a proprietary compression scheme delivered via frequency modulation (FM) at an extremely low power level, much lower than the field th
33 Mandala499: Add to MDfanatic's post... And three... Airlines wanting to make a buck or two out of business pax in need for communication ! Anyways, my friend flie
34 Silver1SWA: We had a long ground stop yesterday, and let the passengers use their cellphones. You could hear a "clicking" interference distorting ATC radio... now
35 Iowaman: didnt the people on the 9/11 flights call their relatives using their mobiles? I know at least some people did, but the terriosts already had control
36 Silverfox: An Earlier post asked , and was answered What about use during plane refueling? What is the reason for this prohibition? Definately a no-no. If the ph
37 Widebody: The current aircraft EMI specification does not cover EMI generated by cellphones (DO160, issue D now I believe). Therefore current cockpit systems ar
38 Md80fanatic: It all comes down to Effective Radiated Power (ERP) at the point of reception (the NAV recievers) which are positioned on the front of the vertical st
39 VirginFlyer: Silver1SWA mentioned interference a cellphone causes on an amplifier. I have seen first hand a similar thing. A cellphone was sitting on top of an amp
40 BA747400: Hi, I was recently on an AA flight and remembered that I forgot to turn my cell phone off. I had put my phone in my bag, which was in the overhead spa
41 Backfire: Rick767 is correct that the CAA analysis is probably not as conclusive as it ought to have been. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, however, which
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, 
From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1112 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
