undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:19 PM
Original message |
Have you ever tried using a cell phone from a plane in flight? |
Enraged_Ape
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Isn't that, like, a violation of Federal law? |
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Right now I think its a violation of FAA regulations |
|
Edited on Sat Jun-25-05 06:23 PM by undeterred
but that may change in the next few years... as there is a demand for it and no proof that it causes harm to anything. Just wondered if anyone ever left a phone on by accident and it actually worked.
|
Enraged_Ape
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I tend not to do things while traveling... |
|
that invite guys in crew cuts and dark sunglasses to greet me at the gate when I arrive.
|
Mayberry Machiavelli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. Well presumably it does work, because that's what the folks in the 9/11 |
|
Edited on Sat Jun-25-05 06:28 PM by Mayberry Machiavelli
plane that crashed in PA did, call their families. So we already know it works, just still forbidden.
on edit--perhaps they were still pretty close to D.C. or other major city though.
|
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
15. well, at least thats the story |
|
I've been in the September 11 forum all aftenoon, and that's where my question comes from.
Some people say it is absolutely impossible to use cell phones over 10,000 feet and therefore the calls from flight 93 could not have taken place as has been claimed.
|
benburch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. It is very difficult for the cell system to deal with, first. |
|
And can actually cause the system to drop other people's calls, and has been known to CRASH cells. I used to work at Motorola, and this was an issue at least early on. No idea if it has been fixed, but the cell system is NOT set up to handle a cell handoff every thirty seconds for a single number. Aircraft move MUCH faster than automobiles or trains, and the antenna patterns are such that you can get discontinuous jumps from one cell to another two or three cells away. Radiation patterns implemented were never meant to handle things ABOVE the tower except in certain mountain settings.
Second, it really can interfere with aircraft electronics.
Third it *is* a violation of federal law.
|
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
16. But there's a possibility that the law will be changed by next year |
benburch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
22. Yes, the aircraft would implement a local cell. |
|
Edited on Sat Jun-25-05 06:50 PM by benburch
And the airline would get the (VERY steep) roaming fee.
The concept is that a local cell in the aircraft will keep the cellphone from using much power in its transmitter (phones scale their output) so that it won't overpower the aircraft systems. And analog and GSM cellphones would be excluded. Only PCS phones will work with this feature.
It would also force you to be roaming when on the ground and using the phone. The airlines LOVE this revenue potential.
|
MrSlayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:23 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Yes, twice in the past year. |
|
When I went to Dallas last year and when I went Florida in February I tried it and you get no service while in the air. It can't be done.
|
LuCifer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Ok...so, presumably, technology GETS BETTER with time, right? And you mean to tell us, you commie pinko you!, that 4 years AFTER 9/11 (*COUGH*INSIDEJOB*COUGH*) that YOU CAN'T make a cell call on a plane, BUT 4 YEARS AGO, YOU COULD?!?!?!?! Oooooh well that explains it all, the terrorists must have bombed all the cell towers in flight paths!
Lu
|
MrSlayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
13. Yes, strange isn't it? |
|
Particularly since so many people were allegedly making calls from the "hijacked" planes. This experiment simply put me further in the Made it Happen column.
|
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
http://www.reopen911.org and what they say about the phone calls and also the documentary "Loose Change." Dzika has the video. He might give it to you. It's really good. You can also find it at http://www.mininova.org
|
donco6
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You're too far away from a cell tower. No signal.
You CAN get them to work on approach, but I think I can just wait. No phone call I have to make is that frickin important.
|
benburch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Depends on the cellphone. |
|
Some, especially older analog ones, can work from 20,000 feet. Not that this is a good idea (as you can read in my reply above.)
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Didn't some passengers use them on the doomed 9.11 flights? n/t |
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
30. Why yes! Barbara Olson! And the "Let's roll" people! |
KerryReallyWon
(297 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message |
10. 9/11 is a lie too....and cell phone don't work up there.... |
|
it was a hoax...."the heroes"...let's roll! bullshit.
|
benburch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. The only one I recall was a GTE Airfone. |
|
That was an aircraft to ground HF system.
|
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
17. It was such a terrific story though |
|
I hate that its not true and that we'll never really know what the hell happened.
|
phaseolus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Only thing I know is... |
|
Those 'type A' people who can't hang up their fucking cell phone while they're using airport restrooms and then don't wash their hands when they're finished are disgusting pigs. That is all.
|
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Edited on Sat Jun-25-05 06:43 PM by Beaver Tail
A Cell phone won't work in a plane that is above 8000 Feet in altitude and ever at 8000 Feet the connection is poor at best.
I believe the planes that made the calls were around 30,000 + Feet when the calls were made.
|
Must_B_Free
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I saw someone who forgot to turn their off receiv a call in a flight and he talked to the caller.
|
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
20. What was the altitude? |
FormerOstrich
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Some planess are equipped with (cell) phones... |
|
in the seat back. They accept credit cards. I've seen people use them in-flight. I don't know what altitude we were at, but I do remember sitting next to people that used them at some point.
|
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. Those are not cell phones |
|
Those are air phones.. Quite different.
Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone).
|
kster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message |
24. While you are on the subject |
|
they wanted to stop cell phone calls from airplanes in the 90s,does anyone know who wanted them banned ?
|
proud2BlibKansan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
so did my traveling companion. No problems. Calls went through just fine.
|
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
27. Check out my post on this |
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. Thank you for the links |
panzerfaust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
“When I went to Dallas last year and when I went Florida in February I tried it and you get no service while in the air”
The problem, as “benburch” pointed out, is that you get TOO MUCH service.
From altitude the radius in which you can lock on to a cell is much larger. True, if you are at high altitude, especially in much of the west (and certainly in Alaska) there are NO “Cells” in range.
Please to remember, these are just radios – nothing mysterious. I know for a fact that they will work – and yes, it is against Federal Law: or, at least, a violation of Federal Regulations – don’t know that there is an actual statute dealing with it.
“Second, it really can interfere with aircraft electronics”
The evidence for this (and for use of ‘electronic handheld devices’ in general) is poor and anecdotal.
I remember reading an early report in the ‘Aviation Safety Reporting System’ where a guy basically said: “I was flying my usual perfect approach when the GPWS went off. We made a miss and I sent the first officer back to the cabin. He reported that some dork in first class was using a computer. He secured it. And the second approach was even more perfect than my usual.” This is the level of the evidence. The FAA did inflight tests, which, to my knowledge, did not show a hazard.
Personally I do not believe in the slightest that there is, or can be, any interference as the electromagnetic fields generated by these devices are both very weak, and very small – think about where the aircraft’s antennas are. But I also have NO PROBLEM with these things being turned off – if that’s what the cockpit crew wants.
As an aside. The rules in many hospitals about not using cell phones because of the risk of interference with “life support equipment” is COMPLETELY BOGUS.
Some of the early analog devices could generate an interference pattern with electrocardiographic or electroencephalograpic monitoring IF the phones were with in about four feet of the patient or the monitor. Modern phones, even a few inches from the monitor, have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. None. Zero. These monitors are designed to work in the incredibly electronically hostile environment of the Operating Room. There are even devices that work in the MRI – which generates unbelievable magnetic and radio-frequency fields.
A question of control, I believe.
|
Liberal In Texas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message |
31. Its an FCC regulation. Not a law. |
|
They are proposing to change it, but you would still not be directly communicating with a cell tower on the ground.
In NPRM FCC 04-288, the Commission proposed to relax its current ban on the use of cellular telephones on airborne aircraft. The Commission’s rules currently require that cellular handsets be turned off once an aircraft leaves the ground to avoid interfering with terrestrial cellular systems. According to the News Release, the Commission addressed policy and technical options for permitting controlled use of cellular handsets and other wireless devices in airborne aircraft.
The Commission proposed to permit the airborne operation of "off the shelf" wireless handsets and other devices so long as the device operates at its lowest power setting under control of a "pico cell" located on the aircraft, and the operation does not allow unwanted radio frequency emissions to interfere with terrestrial cellular systems. The Commission requested comment on whether the proposal should apply only to devices operating in 800 MHz cellular spectrum, or whether devices operating on other spectrum bands, such as the PCS band or Advanced Wireless Services bands, should be included; and on ways that the 800 MHz cellular spectrum could be used to provide a communications "pipe" between airborne aircraft and the ground.
|
undeterred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
So, the possible interference/safety issues are not the same with this type of system.
|
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
Liberal In Texas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jun-25-05 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
34. Yes, that's what it looks like to me. |
|
Your phone would transmit to a reciever on the plane which then would transmit it to a ground reciever(s) specfically dedicated for this purpose. It seems to me you could use a satellite reciever as well, but I don't know enough about it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 02:36 PM
Response to Original message |