CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight
ywe...@yahoo.com
Austin man charged after refusing to hang up cellphone during
Southwest Airlines flight
Monday, May 12, 2008
By SUZANNE MARTA / The Dallas Morning News
An Austin businessman was charged with disorderly conduct after he
allegedly refused to stop using his mobile phone on a flight Monday
from Austin to Dallas Love Field.
Dallas police met the plane after the pilot radioed ahead to the Love
Field tower. They cited Joe David Jones, 50, president of an Austin-
based environmental start-up company called Skyonic Corp., with the
Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
The incident occurred as a Southwest flight from Austin began its
descent into Dallas.
"After multiple requests, the flight attendants were not successful in
getting the passenger to get off the phone," Southwest spokeswoman
Brandy King said.
According to the police report, Mr. Jones was asked to turn off his
cellphone and responded, "Kiss my [expletive]." When asked again, he
said, "Kiss my [expletive]. Not happening."
According to the police report, Mr. Jones remained on the phone about
20 minutes. When officers met Mr. Jones at the gate, he continued to
exhibit disorderly conduct, police said.
Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile
phones except when the aircraft is on the ground. Airlines can be
fined up to $25,000 if they permit cellphone use during a flight, and
individuals also can face fines, Ms. King said.
Mr. Jones was unavailable for comment Monday, but his spokesman, Mark
Clayton, said the businessman had received a message that his father's
heart had stopped beating and tried several times to reach officials
in the cardiac unit where his father was being treated.
"He did express regrets for any inconvenience, but due to the life and
death circumstances, he felt he needed to make the call," Mr. Clayton
said.
Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman, said that although the carrier
sympathizes with Mr. Jones' situation, "it was a safety regulation
that we're required to enforce, and we're simply not in a position to
make exceptions."
Incidents involving passengers and cellphone use are relatively rare,
Ms. Harbin said. Southwest has recorded 26 incidents of mobile-phone
abuse so far this year, and only one of those escalated into a report
to the FAA.
While there have been high-profile examples of people using mobile
phones during a flight – such as during the Sept. 11 attacks – studies
have shown some potential for interference with an airplane's
navigation and communications systems.
In-flight cellphone use is also prohibited by the Federal
Communications Commission because of possible interference with
wireless networks on the ground. The FCC has considered lifting the
ban, beginning in 2004, but ended those discussions last year.
However, mobile-phone use has been approved by European regulators,
and a satellite-based service is being tested by Air France on one of
its Airbus A318 planes for flights within Europe and North Africa.
The airline Emirates launched service with a similar system on one of
its Airbus A340-300 airplanes in March and has said it will spend $27
million to equip its entire fleet.
In the U.S., demand for such a service has been relatively low. A
survey by Forrester Research showed less than 16 percent of travelers
wanted to make calls during flights, compared with 55 percent who
would like broadband Internet access.
Forrester analyst Henry Harteveldt said the use of mobile phones in
the cabin raises another risk: air rage.
"No one wants to sit next to a Chatty Cathy talking about their latest
conquest," he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://skyonic.com/directorsOfficers.php
JOE JONES, PRESIDENT AND CEO
Joe Jones, President and CEO of Skyonic, earned a BS in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Texas and spent the first 25 years
of his career in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, working at
Texas Industries, Cypress Semiconductors, and others. He participated
in the start-up and operation of five wafer-fabrication plants (TI,
AMD, and Cypress), the development of one of the first fabless
semiconductor companies (Ross Technology), and an independent
outsource semiconductor company he founded (BridgePoint Technical
Manufacturing). His credits include numerous contributions to the
chemistry of wafer-fabrication and semiconductor testing, and his goal
is to apply the low-energy lessons he learned in semiconductor
development to the problem of creating a low-energy method of
sequestering CO2. A businessman, as well as an engineer and an
environmentalist, Joe left his position as CEO of BridgePoint when his
belief in the need for clean, sustainable energy led him to begin
development of the SkyMine™ technology and found Skyonic Corporation
in 2005.
MARK CLAYTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE RELATIONS
Mark Clayton joined Skyonic as Vice President of Corporate Relations
in March of 2007 after spending almost 30 years in the semiconductor
industry where he worked in engineering, quality, marketing, and
sales. He is alumnus of Texas Instruments, Aeronca Electronics,
Silicon Materials Service, Rodel, and Wacker Siltronic. He has a BA in
Chemistry from Austin College and an MA in Education, and has also
worked as an educator. Mark is also a scout leader, and believes very
strongly in clean energy development to benefit the next generation.
Mxsmanic
> Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile
> phones except when the aircraft is on the ground.
Which FAR is that?
Benjamin Dover
news:k9rj2456rvdvcid1a...@4ax.com:
The FARs are online. Try searching them.
JohnT
news:k9rj2456rvdvcid1a...@4ax.com...
You can find it at www.google.com
--
JohnT
jerry warner
Mxsmanic
> You can find it at www.google.com
No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
paddy_nyr
<ywe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f3594389-85a4-4e79...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/051308dnmetpassenger.f2feb5b0.html?npc
>However, mobile-phone use has been approved by European regulators,
>and a satellite-based service is being tested by Air France on one of
>its Airbus A318 planes for flights within Europe and North Africa.
I hope it never arrives here in the US.
>In the U.S., demand for such a service has been relatively low. A
>survey by Forrester Research showed less than 16 percent of travelers
>wanted to make calls during flights, compared with 55 percent who
>would like broadband Internet access.
I hope that 16 percent gets lower.
>Forrester analyst Henry Harteveldt said the use of mobile phones in
>the cabin raises another risk: air rage.
Yes, this could lead to air rage and the last flight I was on as we were
boarding there was a guy on his cell phone and I can't imagine that anyone
missed a word he said. He was so loud.
>"No one wants to sit next to a Chatty Cathy talking about their latest
>conquest," he said.
Imagine someone on a flight next to you for 6 hrs going blah blah
blah........... Oh the pain.
Will this guy be allowed to fly again?
SMS
The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that
the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke
when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a
regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in
particular).
The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell
phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue
than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne
cell phone use.
Mxsmanic
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that
> the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke
> when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a
> regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in
> particular).
Perhaps she was simply lying.
> The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell
> phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue
> than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne
> cell phone use.
Should this type of fraud be condoned?
Mxsmanic
> Imagine someone on a flight next to you for 6 hrs going blah blah
> blah........... Oh the pain.
How long do cell phone batteries last?
James Robinson
No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the
FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control
the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was
referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation.
It doesn't mean the airlines can't allow cell phone or radio use, it
simply requires them to satisfy themselves that the use of the equipment
wouldn't be a safety problem. With the FCC regulation on the books, the
airlines haven't felt it necessary to do the necessary testing of cell
phones, since their use in the air is otherwise prohibited.
paddy_nyr
SMS
> No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the
> FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control
> the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was
> referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation.
As I said, the FAA doesn't prohibit cell phone use. They require that
electronic equipment used on board doesn't interfere with the navigation
systems. Cell phones do not interfere.
The Southwest spokesperson could have just said, "Federal regulations
prohibit cell phone use while airborne," without having to make up stories.
Dave
Depends on the model. I've talked on one for 8 hours straight until the
battery indicator read HALF full. Long story, but dealing with a family
emergency while driving to get home. Oh, and car charger was AT home.
Actual talk time was probably over 6 hours, as I lost signal in a few areas.
But note that I only used half the battery.
Oh, and theoretically at least, it shouldn't matter how long a cell phone
battery lasts. You can carry spare batteries, and spare (battery powered)
cell phone chargers. They sell those now. -Dave
VS
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>As I said, the FAA doesn't prohibit cell phone use.
False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the
cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not
to interfere with the navigation or communication system (FAR 91.21).
Note the aircraft operator part.
>They require that
>electronic equipment used on board doesn't interfere with the navigation
>systems. Cell phones do not interfere.
Non-interference must be determined by the aircraft operator; that'd
be Southwest Airlines in this case. Did they make this determination?
>The Southwest spokesperson could have just said, "Federal regulations
>prohibit cell phone use while airborne," without having to make up stories.
What story did she make up?
Mxsmanic
> No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the
> FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control
> the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was
> referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation.
Which regulation is that, exactly?
Mxsmanic
> False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the
> cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not
> to interfere with the navigation or communication system (FAR 91.21).
> Note the aircraft operator part.
FAR 91.21 addresses portable electronic devices generally, not cell phones
specifically.
> Non-interference must be determined by the aircraft operator; that'd
> be Southwest Airlines in this case. Did they make this determination?
No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, and I'm sure
that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be safe, and yet it does not
prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So technically anyone wearing a quartz
watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft
with passengers aboard who have electronic watches.
The same is true of PDAs and laptops, which continue to operate even when they
are turned off.
Mxsmanic
> Oh, and theoretically at least, it shouldn't matter how long a cell phone
> battery lasts. You can carry spare batteries, and spare (battery powered)
> cell phone chargers. They sell those now.
An increasing number of small electronic devices have built-in batteries that
cannot be replaced on the fly.
Dave
Well at least cell phones aren't there, yet. :) -Dave
Bert Hyman
news:tuDWj.1383$l97....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> JohnT writes:
>>
>>> You can find it at www.google.com
>>
>> No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
>
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said
> that the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further
> mis-spoke when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in
> fact it's a regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless
> networks (GSM in particular).
>
It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/14cfr91.21.htm
It applies to "any portable electronic device", not just cell phones.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
VS
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FAR 91.21 addresses portable electronic devices generally, not cell phones
>specifically.
Cell phones are portable electronic devices, and are thus covered by
FAR 91.21.
>But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, and I'm sure
>that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be safe, and yet it does not
>prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So technically anyone wearing a quartz
>watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft
>with passengers aboard who have electronic watches.
You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of portable
electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft operator. So if
Southwest Airlines permits wristwatches and laptops to be operated,
but prohibits cell phones, then the operation of a cell phone is a
violation of FAR 91.21.
The Southwest spokeswoman was absolutely correct.
Mxsmanic
> Well at least cell phones aren't there, yet. :) -Dave
The one I have is semi-replaceable. You can remove and replace the battery
easily enough, but the batter is enclosed in a kind of plastic and clearly
isn't meant to be carried around as a spare. I've never had to actually
replace the battery, though.
The battery in my PDA cannot be removed without taking the PDA apart, and it
slowly seems to be losing its ability to hold a charge. Planned obsolescence?
Mxsmanic
> You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of portable
> electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft operator. So if
> Southwest Airlines permits wristwatches and laptops to be operated,
> but prohibits cell phones, then the operation of a cell phone is a
> violation of FAR 91.21.
My point is that Southwest is already violating the FAR, by allowing
wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it has not
demonstrated that they are safe.
Steve Sobol
Really. Isn't it the carrier's choice?
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
Bert Hyman
news:1tcm24h8fjq91nne6...@4ax.com:
They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have
to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation
or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."
Presumably, they've made that "determination." Or, can you demonstrate
otherwise?
VS
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My point is that Southwest is already violating the FAR
No, they are not. How can FAR 91.21 be violated by an aircraft
operator, when it explicitly gives operators the sole authority to
determine what is and is not safe to operate?
>by allowing
>wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it has not
>demonstrated that they are safe.
You are confused between ``determination'' and ``demonstration.''
Read the FAR. As an aircraft operator, Southwest does not have to
``demonstrate'' anything. If they decide that an electronic device
is safe to operate, they are free to permit its operation. If they
do *not* permit its operation (as is the case with cell phones),
the passenger who uses a cell phone is violating 91.21.
Bert Hyman
news:g0fd4u$kpv$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
> Sigh.
Relax.
> But (b)(5) and (c) are the key, and basically are what put the
> responsibility for determining what can and cannot be used squarely
> back on the shoulders of the holder of the air carrier operating
> certificate and/or the PIC. Which is what people have been saying
> here all along.
I never said otherwise.
But, I take it you didn't read the specific post to which I was
replying, where the poster claimed that it was an FCC regulation put
in place to protect cellphone networks on the ground.
Other posters seemed to be claiming that there was no regulation
addressing the issue at all.
M.L.
>>> blah........... Oh the pain.
>>
>> How long do cell phone batteries last?
>>
> With any luck (bad) the person has a cell phone charger to there
> laptop.
The Amtrak train on which I was tortured by a non-stop cellphone Chatty
Cathy had electrical outlets for phones and laptops.
Todd Allcock
And for those, external battery packs, "emergency chargers" that run on AA
batteries, USB port chargers, etc. exist.
For long flights I carry several to keep my PDAs and the kids' Zunes, iPods,
etc. charged.
Don't think you can stop a "chatty Cathy" with something as simple as a dead
battery! If cellphone use on planes were allowed, they'd be selling
portable external chargers at kiosks in the airport!
Mxsmanic
> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have
> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation
> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."
And how do they do that?
Mxsmanic
> No, they are not. How can FAR 91.21 be violated by an aircraft
> operator, when it explicitly gives operators the sole authority to
> determine what is and is not safe to operate?
The question is what constitutes determination.
> You are confused between ``determination'' and ``demonstration.''
> Read the FAR. As an aircraft operator, Southwest does not have to
> ``demonstrate'' anything. If they decide that an electronic device
> is safe to operate, they are free to permit its operation.
You are confusing "decision" and "determination."
Bert Hyman
news:fpfm241tmfs3otjco...@4ax.com:
You know ...
Seers. Divination. Lab tests. Goat entrails.
Mxsmanic
> Don't think you can stop a "chatty Cathy" with something as simple as a dead
> battery! If cellphone use on planes were allowed, they'd be selling
> portable external chargers at kiosks in the airport!
Well, hopefully it will not become the norm. I haven't met too many people
who are in favor of the idea.
VS
>The question is what constitutes determination.
What do you think constitutes determination?
>You are confusing "decision" and "determination."
No, I am not confusing anything. "Determination" is the decision by the
aircraft operator whether a given electronic device will interfere with
the navigation and communication equipment. FAR 91.21 gives operators
the sole authority to make this determination. In the absence of such
determination made by Southwest Airlines for cell phones, operating a
cell phone on board a Southwest aircraft violates FAR 91.21. There is
nothing more to discuss.
Benjamin Dover
news:6j9m24h5vqvp8pa61...@4ax.com:
Spoken like a true moron, Anthony.
What's your problem, no cell phone simulation add on to MSFS?
Marty Shapiro
news:L9HWj.168$Ci1...@fe099.usenetserver.com:
What I've found very effective in shutting up "chatty Cathy" is to visibly
place a voice recorder in front of me. It works real well when the "chatty
Cathy" is seated next to you on a flight. The moment they see the red
record light and realize what you are doing, they shut up.
--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.
(remove SPAMNOT to email me)
JohnT
But then, you don't meet many people and, by your own recent admission, you
don't like travelling.
--
JohnT
Benjamin Dover
news:i79m24pnsr9gkkote...@4ax.com:
That's the FAR which you've already been told about, you moron.
Thanatos
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > JohnT writes:
> >
> >> You can find it at www.google.com
> >
> > No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
>
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that
> the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke
> when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a
> regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in
> particular).
>
> The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell
> phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue
> than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne
> cell phone use.
Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
argument that it would disrupt the network.
Thanatos
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
Which is silly. Before cell phones became ubiquitous, people used those
Sony Walkman cassette players and CD players all the time. I had one
myself when I was a kid and I used it constantly, all during the flight,
from the moment I got on the plane, till I got off. No one told me turn
it off and there was no concern that my CD player might crash the plane.
It was only after cell phones (and to a lesser extent laptops) became
popular that suddenly every device with an on/off switch had to be shut
down and put away, when in reality my iPod isn't any more a danger to
flight integrity than my old cassette player was.
Thanatos
> No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device,
> and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be
> safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So
> technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs
As is anyone with a pacemaker in his/her heart.
Kurt Ullman
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
> planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
> their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
> argument that it would disrupt the network.
You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let
alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in
one place is what concerns the FCC.
Kurt Ullman
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Pacemakers were specifically exempted.
Rod Speed
By noticing that the plane works fine with those electronic watches worn by most of the passengers.
Rod Speed
Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont.
Big sports events in spades.
Benjamin Dover
news:6916vqF...@mid.individual.net:
Trains and busses aren't traveling at 150 or more MPH and you won't get
nearly the cell switching as you would in an airplane.
Kurt Ullman
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and
> they dont.
Nope. Cell phones are essentially line of sight. You get higher up, you
get more towers in the line of sight. The theory used by the FCC (which
I am not even remotely qualified to comment on the reality) was that the
phones in airplanes would "see" too many extra ground stations than the
terestrial ones causing all sorts of confusion, problems, dogs and cats
living together.
Thanatos
<kurtullman-14427...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gee, I wonder why? I mean, if these "portable electronic devices" are
dangerous, then...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote
>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines
>>>> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private
>>>> planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using
>>>> their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's
>>>> argument that it would disrupt the network.
>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more
>>> in them, let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the
>>> signal from many people in one place is what concerns the FCC.
>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont.
> Nope.
Yep.
> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.
> The theory used by the FCC (which I am not even
> remotely qualified to comment on the reality)
That last has always been obvious.
> was that the phones in airplanes would "see" too many
> extra ground stations than the terestrial ones causing all
> sorts of confusion, problems, dogs and cats living together.
Pity cellphones work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.
JR Weiss
>
>> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related.
>>
>> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/14cfr91.21.htm
>>
>> It applies to "any portable electronic device", not just cell phones.
>
> Which is silly.
Silly or not, the regulation exists.
JR Weiss
>
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that the
> FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke when she said
> that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a regulation to prevent
> disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in particular).
Nope. Reference already posted. The FAA does indeed prohibit cell phone use on
the ground, UNLESS the airline has deemed it appropriate.
Jim Davis
"JR Weiss" <jrweiss98...@remove.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r-CdnRBXzs7SDrbV...@comcast.com...
Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a
problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it.
James Robinson
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote
>
>>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if
>>>>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands
>>>>> of private planes in the air every day and you know the people in
>>>>> them are using their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't
>>>>> buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt the network.
>
>>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more
>>>> in them, let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the
>>>> signal from many people in one place is what concerns the FCC.
>
>>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains
>>> too, and they dont.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
>
> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight. There is
some bouncing, which can give coverage inside buildings.
>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>
> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are
> extensively used in those.
No they aren't.
John Levine
>> extensively used in those.
>
>No they aren't.
Actually, they are. There's a system called Aircell which is an
overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with
antennas pointing upward. It's quite popular on private jets and
such. I also gather that if you're in a small plane flying at a few
thousand feet, rather than 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet,
you can use a regular cell phone and get away with it.
R's,
John
Kurt Ullman
"Jim Davis" <sky.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a
> problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it.
Actually bureaucratic. Always easier and safer to say no to
everything than say yes to something and have some sorta 1 in a million
confluence of events trigger an event that they get blamed for. Heck,
the TSA was essentially built on this principal.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote
>>>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if
>>>>>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands
>>>>>> of private planes in the air every day and you know the people in
>>>>>> them are using their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't
>>>>>> buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt the network.
>>>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them,
>>>>> let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many
>>>>> people in one place is what concerns the FCC.
>>>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont.
>>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight.
Its much more complicated than that.
> There is some bouncing,
So its clearly not line of sight.
> which can give coverage inside buildings.
That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings.
>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.
> No they aren't.
Yes they are.
Rod Speed
>> No they aren't.
Yep, it works very well indeed and is extensively used in choppers etc too.
James Robinson
>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are
>>> extensively used in those.
>>
>> No they aren't.
>
> Actually, they are. There's a system called Aircell which is an
> overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with
> antennas pointing upward.
No it isn't. Aircell uses their own frequencies (3 MHz) that they won in
an FCC auction. Their equipment is not compatible with the regular cell
network, and it has been fully FAA certified to not interfere with
aircraft systems.
> It's quite popular on private jets and such. I also gather that if
> you're in a small plane flying at a few thousand feet, rather than
> 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet, you can use a regular cell
> phone and get away with it.
Yes, some get away with it, but I wouldn't call their use "extensive".
Most private pilots I know don't use their cell phones when flying.
mrtravel
> "He did express regrets for any inconvenience, but due to the life and
> death circumstances, he felt he needed to make the call," Mr. Clayton
> said.
>
What "life and death"? He wasn't saving anyone's life with the call.
mrtravel
>
> Like it mattered! Another dumb CEO! Play withyour toes
> ceotard.
>
No kidding. It was Austin to Dallas Love, 189 air miles.
It could have waited.
mrtravel
>
> Imagine someone on a flight next to you for 6 hrs going blah blah
> blah........... Oh the pain.
It happened to me on a MIA-SFO (AA 1830) flight, a couple of hours ago,
and didn't requiew a cell phone.
I was in 9C, and the 3 people in 10DEF wouldn't shut up.
This was a flight that arrived in SFO at about 11:30 PM (2:30 AM EDT),
so it was a hinderance to sleep for some.
Fortunately, I put in some good earplugs and covered that with my Bose QC2.
mrtravel
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> JohnT writes:
>>
>>> You can find it at www.google.com
>>
>>
>> No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists.
>
>
> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that
> the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke
> when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a
> regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in
> particular).
>
> The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell
> phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue
> than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne
> cell phone use.
The FAA has regulations about failing to do what you are told
mrtravel
> paddy_nyr writes:
>
>
>>Imagine someone on a flight next to you for 6 hrs going blah blah
>>blah........... Oh the pain.
>
>
> How long do cell phone batteries last?
A long time if the phone is plugged into the seat power outlet.
mrtravel
>>>> Imagine someone on a flight next to you for 6 hrs going blah blah
>>>> blah........... Oh the pain.
>>>
>>>
>>> How long do cell phone batteries last?
>>>
>> With any luck (bad) the person has a cell phone charger to there
>> laptop.
>
>
> The Amtrak train on which I was tortured by a non-stop cellphone Chatty
> Cathy had electrical outlets for phones and laptops.
Virgin America has standard 110V power at seats, so if they ever
permitted cellphone use, people could plug in their normal chargers.
Thanatos
"JR Weiss" <jrweiss98...@remove.comcast.net> wrote:
I never claimed it didn't. It's just one more stupid thing the
government burdens the people with.
Thanatos
Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha.
Thanatos
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
> Yes, some get away with it, but I wouldn't call their use "extensive".
> Most private pilots I know don't use their cell phones when flying.
Perhaps not, but their passengers do.
James Robinson
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if
>>>>>>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are
>>>>>>> thousands of private planes in the air every day and you know
>>>>>>> the people in them are using their phones (if they can get a
>>>>>>> signal), so I don't buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt
>>>>>>> the network.
>
>>>>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them,
>>>>>> let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many
>>>>>> people in one place is what concerns the FCC.
>
>>>>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and
>>>>> trains too, and they dont.
>
>>>> Nope.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight.
>
>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc.
>
>> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight.
>
> Its much more complicated than that.
Not really. This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow
the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower frequencies
will bend as they propagate, which is why communication with submarines
was historically made with very low frequencies, (now satellite) and why
high frequencies are used for short terrestrial distances. Under this
principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight.
>> There is some bouncing,
>
> So its clearly not line of sight.
They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about
that fact. Signal reflection does not change that physical principle.
>> which can give coverage inside buildings.
>
> That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings.
Yes it is. There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings,
particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas. The
reason you can recieve a signal at all in some cases is that it comes
through the windows, often reflected off of other objects.
>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>
>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are
>>> extensively used in those.
>
>> No they aren't.
>
> Yes they are.
They are not "extensively" used.
Rod Speed
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yep.
> Not really.
Yes, really.
> This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow
> the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower
> frequencies will bend as they propagate, which is why communication
> with submarines was historically made with very low frequencies,
Nope, that works because those very low frequencys
penetrate the water, different effect entirely.
> (now satellite) and why high frequencies
> are used for short terrestrial distances.
Wrong again.
> Under this principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight.
Only by pig ignorant fools like you.
I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.
>>> There is some bouncing,
>> So its clearly not line of sight.
> They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact.
It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.
> Signal reflection does not change that physical principle.
It does mean that its not line of sight tho.
>>> which can give coverage inside buildings.
>> That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings.
> Yes it is.
No it isnt.
> There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings,
> particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas.
Pity those arent usually line of sight of the base
and it doesnt work due to the reflections either.
> The reason you can recieve a signal at all in
> some cases is that it comes through the windows,
Wrong again with most buildings.
> often reflected off of other objects.
That aint how it gets inside the windows.
>>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight.
>>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those.
>>> No they aren't.
>> Yes they are.
> They are not "extensively" used.
Yes they are.
James Robinson
> On , , 15 May 2008 02:29:38 GMT, Re: CEO charged for refusing to
> get off cellphone during Southwest flight, James Robinson
> It is pointless arguing with Speed, he is a well known australian
> kook.
> I have one hard and fast rule, when I see Speed has joined in the
> discussion I immediately ignore the thread.
> Arguing with Speed is like repeatedly smashing your head against
> a brick wall, you feel really fantastic when you stop doing it.
> You must have seen his debating tactics, surely?
I only do it lest anyone not familiar with the subject thinks he is
credible.
John Levine
>> overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with
>> antennas pointing upward.
>
>No it isn't. Aircell uses their own frequencies (3 MHz) that they won in
>an FCC auction. Their equipment is not compatible with the regular cell
>network, and it has been fully FAA certified to not interfere with
>aircraft systems.
Aircell has been around for a long time. Their original system is an
FAA certified cellular overlay. Their new system uses the frequencies
they won in the 2006 auction. To fill in the gaps on long trips, they
also offer equipment that uses Iridium and Inmarsat.
Mxsmanic
> By noticing that the plane works fine with those electronic watches worn by most of the passengers.
They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers.
Mxsmanic
> But then, you don't meet many people and, by your own recent admission, you
> don't like travelling.
The work I do requires me to meet a great many people, alas!
Bob Myers
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:692j7pF...@mid.individual.net...
> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it
> works fine anyway.
Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most
certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.
> It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.
Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less
of a contributor to good performance than is commonly
thought; they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see
"multipath interference" for more).
And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for
how long, exactly?
Bob M.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bert Hyman writes:
>>>> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have
>>>> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation
>>>> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."
>>> And how do they do that?
>> By noticing that the plane works fine with those
>> electronic watches worn by most of the passengers.
> They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers.
No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.
> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.
Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
>>>>> There is some bouncing,
>>>> So its clearly not line of sight.
>>> They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact.
>> It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal.
> Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less of a contributor to good performance than is commonly thought;
Irrelevant to his stupid claim that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
> they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see "multipath interference" for more).
Wrong with cellphones.
> And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for how long, exactly?
Since before you were even born most likely.
Rod Speed
> H.C.E <h...@finnegans.wak> wrote
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yep.
>>> No they aren't.
You clearly did nothing like that.
>> Arguing with Speed is like repeatedly smashing your head
>> against a brick wall, you feel really fantastic when you stop
>> doing it. You must have seen his debating tactics, surely?
> I only do it lest anyone not familiar with the subject thinks he is credible.
And all you manage to do is blow whatever little credibility you might have had completely out of the water.
Bob Myers
>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is
>> "line of sight" in this sense.
>
> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
believe that the signals are getting from you to
your base at the house, in the above scenario?
Bob M.
Benjamin Dover
news:uu1p24hr26vu0l0lm...@4ax.com:
And you alienate every one of them.
Benjamin Dover
news:atropos-35FE8C...@news.giganews.com:
So, you would have no problem with someone turning on a PED which could
cause a full scale change in the glideslope indication (full up to full
down) while the aircraft is doing an approach to minimums?
I've actually observed this when I did a simple experiment using parked
aircraft. Some aircraft, there was no effect. In others there was. Worst
case was the full scale reversal on the glideslope indicator. Another case
the localizer went from full scale left to two dots right.
Care to tell us what the effect of either would be on an approach to
minimums. What would the effect be of the errant down glideslope
indication on an ILS CAT IIIB approach to 28R at KSFO?
SMS
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote...
>> The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that the
>> FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke when she said
>> that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a regulation to prevent
>> disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in particular).
>
> the ground, UNLESS the airline has deemed it appropriate.
As I said, there is no FAA regulation prohibiting cell phone use, either
on the ground or in the air. Each airline can decided which electronic
devices they permit to be used, based on their own determination of what
might cause interference with the planes navigation and communications
systems. If the airline allows cell phone use on the ground (and most
do), it's perfectly legal since neither the FAA, nor the FCC prohibit it.
In the air, the FCC prohibits cell phone use for technical reasons, but
not because it interferes with the plane's navigation and communication
systems.
What's the reason you're posting references that contradict your
statements? Weird!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base
>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.
>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.
>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
> believe that the signals are getting from you to
> your base at the house, in the above scenario?
It clearly aint line of sight.
Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc.
Nothing like line of sight in fact.
SMS
>> Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a
>> problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it.
>
> Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha.
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Try using a portable aircraft radio
with no local oscillator. It can't possibly interfere with the
communications or navigation systems, but it's still banned, and any
effort to explain to the flight attendant about who it works, and why
it's legal, will be unsuccessful.
JR Weiss
>
> Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Try using a portable aircraft radio with no
> local oscillator. It can't possibly interfere with the communications or
> navigation systems, but it's still banned, and any effort to explain to the
> flight attendant about who it works, and why it's legal, will be unsuccessful.
That's because, as was pointed out in the quoted FAA regulations, it is NOT
legal UNLESS the airline says it is!
Mxsmanic
> No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem.
The regulations don't say anything about probabilities. They require
operators to determine that devices are harmless.
mrtravel
> Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote
>
>
>>believe that the signals are getting from you to
>>your base at the house, in the above scenario?
>
>
> It clearly aint line of sight.
>
> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc.
>
> Nothing like line of sight in fact.
>
>
How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bert Hyman writes:
>>>>>> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have
>>>>>> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation
>>>>>> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used."
>>>>> And how do they do that?
>>>> By noticing that the plane works fine with those
>>>> electronic watches worn by most of the passengers.
>>> They have to make the determination before they fly with passengers.
>> No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem.
> The regulations don't say anything about probabilities.
They dont need to.
> They require operators to determine that devices are harmless.
And those obviously are.
Rod Speed
The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of the base with that big building in the line of sight.
SMS
> VS writes:
>
>> False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the
>> cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not
>> to interfere with the navigation or communication system (FAR 91.21).
>> Note the aircraft operator part.
>
> FAR 91.21 addresses portable electronic devices generally, not cell phones
> specifically.
>
>> Non-interference must be determined by the aircraft operator; that'd
>> be Southwest Airlines in this case. Did they make this determination?
>
> No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, and I'm sure
> that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be safe, and yet it does not
> prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So technically anyone wearing a quartz
> watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft
> with passengers aboard who have electronic watches.
The airline can take a pretty loose interpretation of "determine." They
don't have to do some extensive investigation into the effects. Of
course on any flight, there are many cell phones that have been
unintentionally left turned on in carry-on luggage or in a pocket or on
a belt. There is no effect on the aircraft navigation.
The FCC absolutely prohibits cell phone use on commercial aircraft. The
FAA permits the airline to prohibit cell phone use, but the airline
could choose to allow it if not for the FCC regulation. The bottom line
is that the Southwest spokesperson made it sound like "if not for the
darn FAA you could use your cell phone," when in fact the FAA leaves it
up to the airline's discretion.
James Robinson
You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without
the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation. The
materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat.
Bob Myers
>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly
>>>> is "line of sight" in this sense.
>
>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
>
>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
>> believe that the signals are getting from you to
>> your base at the house, in the above scenario?
>
> It clearly aint line of sight.
So what you're saying is that YOU have no idea how
the signals actually get there?
OK. Just checking. Thanks for playing.
Bob M.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.
>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
>>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to
>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario?
>> It clearly aint line of sight.
> So what you're saying is that YOU have no idea how the signals actually get there?
Wrong, as always. How it works is completely irrelevant to your stupid
pig ignorant claim that 'it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense'
> OK. Just checking.
Now you're lying. You are just trying to bullshit your way out of your
predicament and are fooling absolutely no one at all, as always.
> Thanks for playing.
No thanks for your pathetic excuse for bullshit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> mrtravel <mrtr...@a.aa> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base
>>>>>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.
>>>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.
>>>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
>>>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
>>>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.
>>>>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU
>>>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to
>>>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario?
>>>> It clearly aint line of sight.
>>>> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc.
>>>> Nothing like line of sight in fact.
>>> How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight?
>> The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of
>> the base with that big building in the line of sight.
> You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
We'll see...
> As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without
> the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation.
Only by pig ignorant fools like you.
> The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat.
Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid.
VS
>I also gather that if you're in a small plane flying at a few
>thousand feet, rather than 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet,
>you can use a regular cell phone and get away with it.
A couple of years ago, an alternator failed in one of our club's planes.
The folks in the plane flew it NORDO and used their cell phone to
call up the approach control 20 miles from the (Class C) airport.
Approach control gave them a phone number for the tower, and told them
to call it in 5 minutes. They called up the tower, which cleared them
for landing, and that was it - the ``Nextel approach,'' as it were.
VS
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>As I said, there is no FAA regulation prohibiting cell phone use, either
>on the ground or in the air.
You may repeat this until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that FAR 91.21 prohibits operation of any electronic device
(and yes, this includes cellphones) unless permitted by the aircraft
operator. Since Southwest does not permit cell phone use in the air,
it's therefore prohibited by 91.21 (i.e., federal law).
>Each airline can decided which electronic
>devices they permit to be used, based on their own determination of what
>might cause interference with the planes navigation and communications
>systems.
This part is correct.
>If the airline allows cell phone use on the ground (and most
>do), it's perfectly legal since neither the FAA, nor the FCC prohibit it.
False. If the aircraft operator allows cell phone use on the ground,
it's legal on the ground. If the operator prohibits cell phone use
in the air, it's illegal in the air. See FAR 91.21.
Larry
@xenon.Stanford.EDU:
> A couple of years ago, an alternator failed in one of our club's
planes.
> The folks in the plane flew it NORDO and used their cell phone to
> call up the approach control 20 miles from the (Class C) airport.
> Approach control gave them a phone number for the tower, and told
them
> to call it in 5 minutes. They called up the tower, which cleared
them
> for landing, and that was it - the ``Nextel approach,'' as it were.
>
>
>
Our Navy ship was approaching Charleston when one of the "lesser"
electricians brought up an extra alternator out of phase melting "a few
things", throwing our Radio Central into total darkness. We couldn't
call for the harbor pilot or Navy tugs or "request permission to enter
port" because there were no sellphones in 1968.
Luckily, my electronic calibration lab (aptly designated EAT) was
equipped with my Heathkit HW-100 ham radio transceiver and had its own
stablized power supply, sitting like a beacon in the darkness. I was
given the task of trying to raise some of my ham buddies in Charleston so
we could use my radio my captain's wife really loved because she could
talk to him over it, regularly when we were at sea.
I found, on our favorite 3903 Khz SSB, some of my friends who got one of
my other friends with a Charleston phone patch (interconnects ham radio
with telephone lines) to come up on another frequency sos not to
interrupt the chit chat. I ran ham radio phone patches to all the
appropriate commands, many of whom would not believe us, at first, until
one of the shoreside captains heard my captain's frustration and fixed
that in a hurry.
I suppose that could be called a "ham radio approach" to the Charleston
Navy Base...(c; When I ordered some new power tubes for my home made
linear in the cal lab, making my station the most powerful transmitter
aboard, my captain, himself, signed my requisition....sort of like having
overnight service on Fedex...(c;
As we were traveling alone, we couldn't simply use the flashing lights to
relay to another Navy ship....there weren't any!
Speaking of sellphones, in 1989 I stood in the eye of Hurricane Hugo
(Class 5 major hurricane) on Red Fox Run in Quail Arbor subdivision of
Summerville, SC near Charleston, on my trusty AMPS bagphone talking to
people way off who were convinced by the TV talking heads we no longer
existed. My ham buddies, who think they are the only way to communicate
in a storm, always get mad at me when I point out my sellphone worked
great throughout the storm on Sellular One...(c;
.....ah, AMPS. We'll miss you.....
SMS
> In article <%x3Xj.140$co7...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I said, there is no FAA regulation prohibiting cell phone use, either
>> on the ground or in the air.
>
> You may repeat this until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the
> matter is that FAR 91.21 prohibits operation of any electronic device
> (and yes, this includes cellphones) unless permitted by the aircraft
> operator. Since Southwest does not permit cell phone use in the air,
> it's therefore prohibited by 91.21 (i.e., federal law).
I'm not turning blue, I'm simply trying to educate you.
Let's try again, this may make it clearer to you (if indeed you really
don't already understand).
_The FAA doesn't prohibit the use of cell phones, they allow the
aircraft operator to prohibit the use of cell phones._
What the regulation _does_ do is to provide a legal basis for the
aircraft operator to prohibit certain devices, essentially allowing them
to tell the passenger, 'that device can't be used because we say it
can't be used, and the FAA gives us the authority to decide which
devices can, and cannot be used, so don't argue with us.
JR Weiss
>
> Luckily, my electronic calibration lab (aptly designated EAT) was
> equipped with my Heathkit HW-100 ham radio transceiver and had its own
> stablized power supply, sitting like a beacon in the darkness.
> I found, on our favorite 3903 Khz SSB, some of my friends who got one of
> my other friends with a Charleston phone patch (interconnects ham radio
> with telephone lines) to come up on another frequency sos not to
> interrupt the chit chat. I ran ham radio phone patches to all the
> appropriate commands, many of whom would not believe us, at first, until
> one of the shoreside captains heard my captain's frustration and fixed
> that in a hurry.
>
> I suppose that could be called a "ham radio approach" to the Charleston
> Navy Base...(c;
Or maybe the non-Kosher "EAT HAM" approach...