It contains a few interesting points about cell phone use on board aircraft, mentioning that the FCC might be close to lifting the ban. Even so the article says the FAA has the final word and each model phone would need to be approved for use on board each aircraft type. Hopefully this issue will die once and for all. I for one enjoy the escape from ringing phones and obnoxious conversations.
Since 2003, the RTCA – an organization that the FAA sometimes asks to help study technical matters that affect policy, program, and regulatory decisions – has been looking at the issue of electromagnetic interference from intentionally transmitting PEDs, such as cell phones and WiFi transmitters in laptops.
So far, the data suggest that emissions are well below FCC limits, and are also within limits for interference with aircraft systems. The FAA expects to get the final RTCA report and recommendations in 2006, and will review them to determine how they might be applied.
Even if the FCC rescinds its ban, FAA regulations would still apply. Any installed equipment would be subject to FAA certification, just like any other piece of hardware. The air carrier would have to show that the use of a particular model phone won't interfere with the navigation and communications systems of the particular type of aircraft on which it will be used.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
why the ehll would they want to do that? i'm glad that people are forced to turn them off when on the plane... they're an annoying necessity. besides, there wouldn't be any signal up at the criuse altitudes unless carriers started to carry extra equip just for that. wonder what carriers would be willing to do that.
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
ASMD80 From United States, joined May 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
WiFi is fine... but please! No cell phones in planes! It's already bad enough during boarding and taxying to the gate!
In fact, I am even considering buying a cell phone jammer!
If the phone companies can charge for using the service in the air, then it will be kept to a minnimum.
Does this mean that there will soon be a "No Cell Phone" sign between the "No Smoking" and the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign? There should!!!
Sorry about that- airlines can train their crews to deal with obnoxious cell phone users, if they wanted to.
Better yet- make the in flight cell phone users sit right next to the engines on an MD80!
Some things are actually better at 30,000+ feet...
Fpofllflyboi From Bahamas, joined Jun 2005, 173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
That would be unleashing hell in such a small space. Its bad enough when out in public and you have to hear peoples conversations. Most people dont know how LOUD they are in public while on the phone. We get so carried away with our conversations that we forget where we are. Imagine almost 200 people on a 757 headed back from Vegas with at least 100 on their phones. ANNOYING
HorizonGirl From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 559 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1052 times:
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
Cell phones are annoying enough as is, but being stuck in a
metal tube with all that "yak yakity yak yak?"
I think I would go insane!
HZ747300 From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Mar 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1036 times:
Quoting ASMD80 (Reply 2): In fact, I am even considering buying a cell phone jammer!
Let me know where you can get one, please. There is a reason I prefer the quiet car on the train--not that most people every beother to follow the rules.
ASMD80 From United States, joined May 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1004 times:
Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 7):
Let me know where you can get one, please. There is a reason I prefer the quiet car on the train--not that most people every beother to follow the rules.
They're illegal in the US and the UK, unless it used for government or military purposes. But, I do think that all crew should start carrying them, if cell phones are allowed inflight.
Some things are actually better at 30,000+ feet...
Kanebear From United States, joined May 2002, 948 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 986 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 5): Cell phones don't work in flight on jetliners anyway so idk what the huff is about. Unless people just want to play their crappy cell phone games?
Picocell technology works. Your cellphone 'talks' to a mini-cellsite installed on the plane which then handles the ground or satellite connection behind the scenes. You pay whatever the per minute 'roaming' fee is for using the service in the air. No different than in-air internet via WiFi, really.
As for the impact, not as big as everyone thinks. It's going to cost a lot more than standard usage. People aren't just going to chat away. For those times I need it (delays, missed connections) I would love being able to use a phone.
On jammers... not wise. They work by drowning out wireless frequencies with noise. If avionics really are EMI/RFI sensitive, that thing would proably put out more junk than 50 cellphones combined. Better, I think, to hand whomever one of these.
GRRTVC From United States, joined Sep 2003, 265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 978 times:
I think a petition needs to start circulating on this. There are way too many people out there that have no manners or know how to be polite.
You think there was air rage before. Now you'll probably see some guy sitting next to some obnoxious cell phone user beating the crap out them with a seat cushion.
This is insane. What purpose does it serve? It's bad enough you already get that person who thinks they need to talk to you.
Kanebear From United States, joined May 2002, 948 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 963 times:
Quoting GRRTVC (Reply 11): I think a petition needs to start circulating on this. There are way too many people out there that have no manners or know how to be polite.
You think there was air rage before. Now you'll probably see some guy sitting next to some obnoxious cell phone user beating the crap out them with a seat cushion.
This is insane. What purpose does it serve? It's bad enough you already get that person who thinks they need to talk to you.
BAD BAD BAD idea
Ok imagine this. When you make a call you get a message before it connects you to whomever that says "This call will cost $3.99 per minute. Billing will begin at the beep. Hang up now if you do not wish to be charged." That's going to stop 99% of all calls right then and there.
They're annoying, but they're certainly not a necessity.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 5): Cell phones don't work in flight on jetliners anyway so idk what the huff is about. Unless people just want to play their crappy cell phone games?
The Internet can't reach FL350 on its own either and yet some planes allow folks to use their laptops to surf. There are local area mobile-friendly networks planned for eventual use with current and future airliners. Please try to keep up.
Quoting ASMD80 (Reply 8): They're illegal in the US and the UK, unless it used for government or military purposes.
Sources?!
We now have reason to believe that trains, subways, and trams can trap mobile phone radiation and expose passengers to much higher levels than is even currently believed to be safe. Is it not possible that this could also happen on airplanes? Perhaps the needless chatter ringing in your ears will just be the tip of the iceberg as more is eventually learned about how mobile device radiation.
Quote:
Train passengers who hate it when other commuters use mobile phones on board may have every right to get angry.
Research carried out by scientists in Japan suggests that using a mobile phone inside a train carriage could have serious health risks for other passengers.
They found that electromagnetic radiation levels inside trains can exceed international safety limits if even a small number of passengers are using their phones.
Tsuyoshi Hondou, Tohuku University
This is because the microwave radiation emitted from handsets has effectively no where to go and simply bounces back off the carriage's metal structure.
Tsuyoshi Hondou, from Tohuku University, used the plans of a typical train carriage to calculate the impact of mobile phone mivrowave radiation.
He found that very little radiation managed to escape through windows and was instead reflected inside.
He discovered that if just 30 people in a standard carriage with 151 passengers used their phone radiation levels exceeded the limits recommended by the International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation.
But he added that because the radiation can build up, levels can be high in carriages with fewer passengers.
"It's possible even if the train is not crowded," he told New Scientist magazine.
Mr Hondou said the findings, originally published in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, were worrying in light of the growth in the number of people with WAP phones and other wireless electronic devices.
He suggested train operators should consider introducing rules on the use of mobile phones in carriages.
But he added that the effects seen in train carriages may also apply to buses and elevators.
"At the moment we have no regulation on the use of mobile phones in areas where many people are together.
As for our Japanese scientist, I call BS. That's oversimplification at it's finest and complete junk science. How are the cars constructed? Of what materials? How large is the window area? How many windows? What are they made of? Are the windows metallized (tinted)? How close is the cellsite? What level of power was he predicting when he did the modelling? What propagation model did he use? Each and every one of these factors will affect how much RF energy is retained.
There's no need to 'estimate' this at all, either. Note that the article says he "calculated" the RF reflectivity using plans of a "typical train carriage". Typical for where? Japan? The US? The UK? Trains vary wildly in design and construction. It's trivially easy to study this. Walk into a train on any given day, set up an RF field strength meter and measure. To guarantee a certain level of emissions, arrange for volunteers to make phonecalls. Repeat for each type of train one wishes to study.
I've heard about American businesses that were preventing cell phones from being used inside their offices, but it appears this is through the choosing of specific construction materials instead of active electronic jamming as I originally thought.
In any case, I'm glad you inadvertently brought me to the Society for HandHeld Hushing!
HKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1036 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 927 times:
It used to be that people got asked "smoking or non-smoking" when checking in to a flight.
Perhaps if airlines are stupid enough to allow this to happen, we should be asked "phone or no phone" when checking in. It is bad enough with phones in buses and trains.
Can be done - the French TGV trains have "No Mobile Phone" carriages ...
Kanebear From United States, joined May 2002, 948 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 877 times:
Quoting SATX (Reply 18): So, are you saying that we need better studies, or that we should just assume that 'anything which does not kill us can only make us stronger'?
We need empirical studies and measurements, not fearmongering and conjecture. Handheld wireless phones have been on the market and in heavy daily usage for over 20 years now. We've not seen a spike in cancer rates. While further studies are necessary, we have much more important and immediate health risks to contend with.
ASAFA From United States, joined Apr 2005, 161 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 822 times:
Quoting Ha763 (Reply 22): There was a thread in July where the FAA testified to Congress that the cell phone ban will remain even if the FCC lifts the ban.
I found that thread when I searched the topic, however this latest release was also issued by the FAA, and seems to indicate that it will be up to each carrier to seek approval for onboard use. The article mentions a successful test of pico cell equipment:
In July 2004, American Airlines and Qualcomm did a successful one-time cell phone test using pico cell equipment aboard an MD-80 aircraft. In June 2005, the FAA approved United Airlines' request to install equipment for WiFi wireless internet connections aboard Boeing 757 aircraft.
Also as I quoted initially:
Even if the FCC rescinds its ban, FAA regulations would still apply.
HOWEVER it continues...
Any installed equipment would be subject to FAA certification, just like any other piece of hardware. The air carrier would have to show that the use of a particular model phone won't interfere with the navigation and communications systems of the particular type of aircraft on which it will be used.
That seems to suggest that an outright ban may not be set in stone.
If it were to happen I would imagine you would first need to buy an 'Aircraft ready' phone, (one that has been approved by the FAA). I can see this only being available on certain flights, perhaps on business-heavy routes, and of course only on select carriers. A surcharge is also a certainty, but airlines would probably offer an exclusive carrier onboard, meaning aircraft use could probably be added as part of a monthly billing plan. (1000 anytime aircraft minutes anyone?? AHH)
Either way it seems this latest release hints that it will be up to the airlines to put down the cash to get this approved, the question is will any do it?
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 27806 posts, RR: 61 Reply 25, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 754 times:
I can just imagine the noise.
regds
MEL
Think of the brighter side!
26 Cornish: Especially on a long haul flight when everyone is trying to sleep except some teenager having a text conversation with a friend at home and refusing
27 1aMLA: I can imagine some little twat trying out all the ring tones. pls pls no its the only place your free of them.
28 HAWK21M: Cellphones on Aircraft Maybe there could be restricted to a Zone regds MEL
29 SATX: They once tried to restrict smoke to a 'zone' and it still got everywhere. My guess is that noise from mobile devices will still reach nearly everyon
30 Nonrevman: I was thinking more along the lines of sticking that phone where the sun doesn't shine. Imagine finally falling asleep on the transoceanic flight onl
31 Evan767: Somebody above me beat me to it. What wealthy airlines should do is, and this is if this plan goes into effect, make a little section for people to us
32 Kanebear: I am failing to understand why everyone seems to think that just because your mobile COULD work in air that we'll see a huge amount of usage? How much
33 HAWK21M: If this is to be Implemented.Start distributing Ear Plugs to Pax.The ones with the cellphones can use their hands free kit regds MEL
34 Iakobos: Nothing wrong with your post Kanebear, except that sentence... (re Verizon) ...and this one; it is necessarily routed to a satellite or satellite net
35 Doona: Dosen't ANA already allow cellphones on certain aircraft? Thought I read something in their inflight magazine a few weeks ago about people not being a
36 Kanebear: This sentence taken alone is, of course, incorrect. Verizon has a land-based ground-air network which is the former GTE Airfone network. In context,
37 Milan320: You're very correct. The company I work for is currently working on the GSM-on-Aircraft feature. We're only in the feasability stage of it, and lucki
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2005, 161 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jun 2005, 173 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Aug 2005, 660 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 559 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Mar 2004, 1442 posts, 
From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1064 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2001, 2891 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1036 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 27806 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
