Cell phones and planes
Bob Moore
>> I just looked in my FAR/AIM 98 book and there's nothing
>> listed in the index under "cell" or "telephone".????
Try FAR 91.21, Portable Electronic Devices, but the real prohibition against
airborne Cellular Phones is a FCC rule.
Bob Moore
Steven M. Wilson
If you'll pardon my venture into Pandora's Box, I would like to
re-hash once again the bit about cell phones and airplanes with regard
to a recent commercial I saw on telivision (Cellular One, I think, but
don't hold me to that).
The commercial showed a couple of bored guys holding a cell phone and
standing by their car out in the middle of nowhere. They were
dejectedly saying "he said he'd call us." The guy who was supposed to
be doing the calling was a guy who we just say hop out of an airplane
(presumably with a parachute, but we never see the chute in the
commercial). Anyway, these guys were not disappointed. Their
free-falling friend whipped out his flip phone, gave them a ring first
on their phone and then doubtless in their ears as his entire message
was "AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
Well that commercial got me thinking about cell phones and planes
again. In past threads on this newsgroup people have basically said
that cell phones in planes are a no-no because they will hog up all of
the cells in line of sight, which can be quite a few if a person is a
few thousand feet up in the air.
My questions are a few-fold:
1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality it is
OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For example,
when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
be any different from the air?
3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA, FCC,
"Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
--
--Steven M. Wilson
Steven...@Colorado.EDU
http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/
Sean Franklin
Steven M. Wilson wrote in message <6676b3$e...@lace.colorado.edu>...
Not wanting to get into legal, moral, or ethical issues, but I will answer
one small part:
>2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
>would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
>phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
>selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For example,
>when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
>in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
>seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
>be any different from the air?
It will "lock on" to one tower, but there are only so many frequencies in
use - adjoining towers (tend) to use different frequencies, but at altitude,
even if your phone only "intends" to talk to one tower, you are broadcasting
(literally) interference to every tower in the area with a channel on that
frequency.
--
Sean Franklin
Indianapolis / Plymouth, Indiana
p.s. - Can't we just leave it at "Don't use cell phones from the air?" Why
ask why? :-)
Ashish Ranpura
Speaking completely from ignorance and hearsay (hey, it's Usenet!), I
believe that there is a general ban on cellular phone usage in-flight. You
can use cell phones in an airplane sitting on the ground. I seem to recall
someone quoting an FAR to this effect.
---AR.
John Mazor
Steven M. Wilson <wils...@Colorado.EDU> wrote in article
<6676b3$e...@lace.colorado.edu>...
> If you'll pardon my venture into Pandora's Box, I would like to
> re-hash once again the bit about cell phones and airplanes with regard
> to a recent commercial I saw on telivision (Cellular One, I think, but
> don't hold me to that).
>
(snip)
> Well that commercial got me thinking about cell phones and planes
> again. In past threads on this newsgroup people have basically said
> that cell phones in planes are a no-no because they will hog up all of
> the cells in line of sight, which can be quite a few if a person is a
> few thousand feet up in the air.
>
> My questions are a few-fold:
>
> 1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality it is
> OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
>
> 2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
> would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
> phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
> selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For example,
> when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
> in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
> seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
> be any different from the air?
>
> 3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA, FCC,
> "Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
>
Cell phones are active transmitters, i.e., designed to purposely emit a
signal, as opposed to passive transmitters such as CD players. They have a
nasty habit of screwing up the navigation equipment up front where the
pilots are trying to get you safety where you want to go. That's why
they're verboten. The cell phones installed in the aircraft have been
designed to avoid this kind of interference.
Kim Helliwell
I'm sure this has been covered before, but to reiterate:
The cell phone system operates on a "frequency sharing" basis. It
is not analogous to the airport tower example you cite, because
each tower has a different specific frequency. It's more analogous
to a situation I face whenever I fly to Tracy, CA, where the CTAF
is 122.8, and that same frequency is shared by about 3 other airports
in line-of-sight, and the result is often very confusing!
In the air, you can overwhelm several cells using the same frequency.
Users on the ground presumably will only access one cell. But in
the air, you might get a frequency assignment from a cell, and that
frequency might also be in use by several other cells. One of
the characteristics of radio signals (especially the FM signals
used in cellular technology) is that a receiver will "lock on,"
as you put it, to the strongest signal it is receiving. this is
a well-known phenomenon call the "capture effect." If one
of the cells using the same frequency you are is being used by a
customer that has a weak signal, while your signal, by virtue of
being more directly line-of-sight, is stronger, you can knock that
other customer off the air.
Such interference is a no-no to the FCC, which is why they ban
cell phone operation from the air. The FAA is concerned with
interference to aircraft navigation, which is why *THEY* ban it.
Either way, it's illegal.
And no, the ad has no bearing on the legality of this. It's
just a (rather stupid) ad.
Kim Helliwell
PP-ASEL
Ham Radio: KN6YU
Steven M. Wilson wrote:
>
> If you'll pardon my venture into Pandora's Box, I would like to
> re-hash once again the bit about cell phones and airplanes with regard
> to a recent commercial I saw on telivision (Cellular One, I think, but
> don't hold me to that).
>
> The commercial showed a couple of bored guys holding a cell phone and
> standing by their car out in the middle of nowhere. They were
> dejectedly saying "he said he'd call us." The guy who was supposed to
> be doing the calling was a guy who we just say hop out of an airplane
> (presumably with a parachute, but we never see the chute in the
> commercial). Anyway, these guys were not disappointed. Their
> free-falling friend whipped out his flip phone, gave them a ring first
> on their phone and then doubtless in their ears as his entire message
> was "AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
>
> Well that commercial got me thinking about cell phones and planes
> again. In past threads on this newsgroup people have basically said
> that cell phones in planes are a no-no because they will hog up all of
> the cells in line of sight, which can be quite a few if a person is a
> few thousand feet up in the air.
>
> My questions are a few-fold:
>
> 1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality it is
> OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
>
> 2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
> would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
> phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
> selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For example,
> when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
> in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
> seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
> be any different from the air?
>
> 3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA, FCC,
> "Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
>
DL
I just looked in my FAR/AIM 98 book and there's nothing listed in the
index under "cell" or "telephone".????
--
Dean
_------_
/ \
| |
| |
| __ __)
| / \/ \
/\/\ (o )o )
/c \__/ --.
( )
\_ _-------'
| / \
| | '\_______)
| \_____)
|_____ |
|_____/\/\
/ \
*********************************************************
** To Reply, Remove the "55" from the E-Mail address **
** Anti Spam Measures In Effect **
*********************************************************
Copyright <©> 1997 -- All rights reserved
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss,
or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming
unsolicited commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate
of $500 per msg to compensate for loss of service.
E-mailing to the listed address denotes acceptance of these terms.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the home of the Pontiac Miniature Aircraft Club
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4484/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Zombo
In article <aranpura-ya0240800...@news.yale.edu>,
aran...@compuslug.psych.yale.edu (Ashish Ranpura) wrote:
Most the airline's I've flown on won't even let you use the
cell phone while you're sitting in your seat and the aircraft is
parked at the gate. The explanation is that they can cause
interference between the pilots and ground control or clearance
delivery.
The actual CFR regulation regarding cellular telephone usage can be
found by searching the National Archives Online at,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html#page1
Of course, the regulation only specifies the direct prohibition, not
the rationalization for it. I've included the result to save you the
effort of searching the archive yourself.
The applicable FAR is under FAR 91.21. It is even less specific in
identifying when personal electronics (e.g. cell phones) can be used.
There is a catchall phrase that basically say's the PIC can authorize
usage of personal electronics if he "has determined will not cause
interference with the navigation or communication system of the
aircraft on which it is to be used".
Not only would the pilot have to prove that cell phones won't cause
interference - but that YOUR telephone won't cause interference.
From the operator's and pilots perspective, it's a whole lot simpler
to just ban their usage altogether rather than accomodate those
poor souls that just can't wait until they get off the plane.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 2, Parts 20 to 39]
[Revised as of October 1, 1996]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR22.925]
[Page 183]
TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart H--Cellular Radiotelephone Service
Sec. 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.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the FAR's....
Sec. 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.
Howard Eisenhauer
In answer to your questions:
1. No, it is not O.K. to use a "standard" i.e. Sprint, AT&T, Cellular1
etc. phone in the air. They have been known to mess with the avionics.
I've seen quite a few commercials that strangly 'enuff, imply things that
don't turn out to be quite true;>.
2. Yes, it is entirely possible for one airborn cellphone to interfere
with a number of cellsites on the ground over a wide area, especially in
urban areas. Cell sites seperated somtimes by no more than a few miles
re-use the same channel group to handle calls. A typical "maxed out" cell
will use 15 channels, & there's around 800 channels available to each
carrier, that leaves around 50 cells with a distinct channel group to call
their own. In reality (for reasons I'm not going to get into here) you
usually end up with maybe only a dozen or so sites in a network before you
have to start channel re-use with other cells.
Figure at least a hundred cells or so in line of site from any decent
altitude & you've got the possibility to mess up a lot of other people's
conversations with your call.
The phones you see on commercial flights work in a different frequency
band from regular cellular, & their "cellsites" are located hundreds of
miles apart.
3. Can't help you with specifics, but I've worked for a few cellular
providers & they all hated the idea of cellphones on planes.
As far as the new digital PCS phones are concerned, due to some very
strick timing requirements I believe they may not work from high altitude
fast plane at all.
So in general, I guess the best hing to say is- DON"T DO IT, THE PHONE
POLICE WILL SHOOT YA DOWN!
Steven M. Wilson (wils...@Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: If you'll pardon my venture into Pandora's Box, I would like to
: re-hash once again the bit about cell phones and airplanes with regard
: to a recent commercial I saw on telivision (Cellular One, I think, but
: don't hold me to that).
: The commercial showed a couple of bored guys holding a cell phone and
: standing by their car out in the middle of nowhere. They were
: dejectedly saying "he said he'd call us." The guy who was supposed to
: be doing the calling was a guy who we just say hop out of an airplane
*Snip*
: My questions are a few-fold:
: 1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality it is
: OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
: 2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
: would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
: phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
: selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For example,
: when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
: in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
: seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
: be any different from the air?
: 3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA, FCC,
: "Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
: --
: --Steven M. Wilson
: Steven...@Colorado.EDU
: http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/
--
Howard Eisenhauer on **************************************
* *
Chebucto Community Network * Can't think of anything cute *
Halifax Nova Scotia * to put in here *
* *
aa...@ccn.cs.dal.ca **************************************
Flavius Silva
In article <348783...@tir.com>, dlam...@tir.com wrote:
>
> I just looked in my FAR/AIM 98 book and there's nothing listed in the
>index under "cell" or "telephone".????
The FAA does not give a hoot if you use a cell phone in your own private
airplane.
The FCC does. There is an FCC regulation against using cell phone in aircraft
that are not on the ground.
Either Flying or AOPA did an article on this within the past year or two.
If I remember correctly the penalties are quite stiff.
John - N8086N
------------------------------------------------
Home Page:
http://home.att.net/~miano
Home of the Delphi Component Writers' FAQ
EMail Address:
|m.i.a.n.o @ |
|w.o.r.l.d.n.e.t . |
|a.t.t .|
|n.e.t |
Full Name:
-------------------
-J.o.h.n?M.i.a.n.o-
-------------------
Roger J.Hamlett
In article: <348783...@tir.com> DL <dlam...@tir.com> writes:
>
> Steven M. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > If you'll pardon my venture into Pandora's Box, I would like to
> > re-hash once again the bit about cell phones and airplanes with
regard
> > to a recent commercial I saw on telivision (Cellular One, I
think, but
> > don't hold me to that).
> >
> > The commercial showed a couple of bored guys holding a cell phone
and
> > standing by their car out in the middle of nowhere. They were
> > dejectedly saying "he said he'd call us." The guy who was
supposed to
> > be doing the calling was a guy who we just say hop out of an
airplane
> > commercial). Anyway, these guys were not disappointed. Their
> > free-falling friend whipped out his flip phone, gave them a ring
first
> > on their phone and then doubtless in their ears as his entire
message
> > was "AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
> >
> > Well that commercial got me thinking about cell phones and planes
> > again. In past threads on this newsgroup people have basically
said
> > that cell phones in planes are a no-no because they will hog up
all of
> > the cells in line of sight, which can be quite a few if a person
is a
> > few thousand feet up in the air.
> >
> >
> > 1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality
it is
> > OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
> >
> > 2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the
air
> > would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
> > phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
> > selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal? For
example,
> > when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers
that are
> > in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next
relatively
> > seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would
that
> > be any different from the air?
> >
> > 3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA,
FCC,
> > "Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
> >
> > --
> > --Steven M. Wilson
> > Steven...@Colorado.EDU
> > http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/
>
>
listed in the
> index under "cell" or "telephone".????
UK at least, this is covered under 'un-approved electronic equipment'
which is a lot more general.
Best Wishes
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail ro...@ttelmah.demon.co.uk http://www.ttelmah.demon.co.uk/ |
| A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas.'By God, that's a good one!'|
| (Chaucer) |
General Stark
Flavius Silva came out of hiding to expound:
> >index under "cell" or "telephone".????
> The FAA does not give a hoot if you use a cell phone in your own private
> airplane.
> The FCC does. There is an FCC regulation against using cell phone in aircraft
> that are not on the ground.
> Either Flying or AOPA did an article on this within the past year or two.
Flight Training's December issue covers this quite well. The FCC law prohibits
the use of cell phones aboard any type of a/c when it's airborne (47 CFR section
22.925). The penalty if caught is termination of cellular service. _FT_ notes
that though there seems to be no FCC provision for emergency use, one should go
ahead and use the cell phone in flight if absolutely necessary.
Marty
PP-ASEL
--
General Stark
I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.
Steven M. Wilson
In article <34886...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>,
General Stark <ehgo...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>> The FCC does. There is an FCC regulation against using cell phone
>> in aircraft that are not on the ground. Either Flying or AOPA
>> did an article on this within the past year or two.
> Flight Training's December issue covers this quite well. The FCC
> law prohibits the use of cell phones aboard any type of a/c when
> it's airborne (47 CFR section 22.925). The penalty if caught is
> termination of cellular service. _FT_ notes that though there seems
> to be no FCC provision for emergency use, one should go ahead and
> use the cell phone in flight if absolutely necessary.
Doubtless it is precisely that loophole that allows people to use cell
phones while in freefall skydiving. No a/c, thus no violation, right?
George R Patterson
John Mazor wrote:
>
> The cell phones installed in the aircraft have been
> designed to avoid this kind of interference.
Almost all of the phones installed in aircraft are not cell phones. The
ones in commercial aircraft (the "Airphone") are certainly not. They
use dedicated radio frequencies instead of the dynamic setup used by
the cellular network, and they do not use the same frequency band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| All of my doctors told me to quit smoking. I've
George Patterson - | been pallbearer for six of them.
| George Burns
---------------------------------------------------------------------
George R Patterson
Steven M. Wilson wrote:
>
> 1) Does the commercial I mentioned above imply that in reality it is
> OK to use a cell phone while in the air?
No, it is not.
> 2) I question whether it is even true that a cell phone in the air
> would grab a whole bunch of cells. Isn't it the case that a cell
> phone remembers all of the cells that it can contact at once, but
> selectively locks onto only the strongest one signal?
No. Your phone "knows" nothing and "remembers" nothing. When you
initiate a
call, it sends out a radio signal on a common frequency telling any cell
that hears it it wants to talk. Every tower that picks it up calls up
its
six neighboring towers and asks "how well do you receive this guy?". The
one which is getting the strongest signal tells the others "I'll take
the
call". It then sends a signal to the telephone telling it what freqency
to
use for talking, which one to use for listening, and which one to use
for
commands from the tower. The phone switches to those. Now the phone can
only be heard or hear that tower.
> For example,
> when you are on the ground your phone knows all of the towers that are
> in range (that way you can go from one cell to the next relatively
> seamlessly) but it only actually locks onto one tower. Why would that
> be any different from the air?
We've gone into this repeatedly. If the phone is on the ground, it will
be in
line of sight to only one tower which uses the same frequencies it's
using. If
it's in the air, it can reach several. Neither the towers nor the phone
are
smart enough to handle that.
The most common result is that a cell some distance away picks up your
weak signal
and thinks the phone in its area which is using that signal has gotten
too far
away. It calls its six neighbors to see if they can pick the guy up. If
none of
them can pick him up very well, the call gets dropped, and he's cut off
in mid
conversation.
> 3) Does anyone actually know the applicable laws -- either FAA, FCC,
> "Cell service provider, Inc.", or other?
I made a post a couple of weeks ago. Other people have also. All
together now,
1 2 3 - the FCC has a regulation against it and can (but usually does
not)
prosecute. The service provider will drop your service immediately if
your call
causes problems. You will discover that the next time you try to use the
phone.
You could be sued for damages by the company, but this is unlikely for a
variety
of reasons. You *will* be sued by the company if somebody sues them.
I am employed by Bell Communications Research. The above is distilled
from one
of the company courses.
I saw a blurb in the last year about a cell network for aircraft,
however. Don't
remember whether it was up yet, but I think it is. They are spacing the
cells
much further apart, and they use a special set of frequencies. If I
remember
correctly, the phones which use it talk to those special cells when they
can
reach one and talk to the regular network when they can't.
Don't know how the FCC handles that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| All my doctors told me to quit smoking - I've been
George Patterson - | pallbearer for six of them.
| George Burns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BManna9733
An article in the december 1997 issue of Flight Training addresses the in
flight use of portable electronic devices, including cell phones.
The article that the FAA recommends that the PIC does no allow the use of a
cellular phone because it may interfere with the on board communication or
navigation system (AC 91-21.1). Also the article mentions that the FCC
prohibits the use of in flight cellular phones.(47 CFR 22.925). According to
the article, under 47 CFR 22.901 (FCC regulation), the subscriber to the
cellular runs the risk of having the cellular service terminated.
Another piont made in the article is regarding use of cellular phones on the
ground; it essentially states that neither the FCC or the FAA prohibits the use
of the cellular phones on the ground, as long as the PIC has determined that
its use will not interfere with navigation or communication systems on the
aircraft.
What about the use of cellular phone in an emergency? well, according to the
article, the FCC does not make provisions permitting the use of the cellular
phone in flight.
There was another article in another aviation magazine about two months ago
specifically regarding the use of cellular phones and in flight operations; did
not get a chance to read it, and now I cannot remember which magazine carried
ti. If any one recalls the publication, please let me know.
Biagio
Biagio
David Grah - Mary Daniel
Reading this discussion on cell phones and planes I have learned that using my cell
phone in my plane is a no no. At the same time I've been surprised that nobody
mentioned this use in planes in consideration of the use of cell phones on
mountains or other place that would have good cell phone "coverage".
Within 15 miles of my house I can be on top of a 14,000-foot mountain that clearly
has line of site to numerous cell phone transmitters serving millions of people.
Recently, my wife and I had our first child. Leading up to the time the kid was
born I would bring our cell phone with me on hikes up mountains, just in case that
was the day. The discussion about cell phones and planes would lead me to believe
the use of my cell phone in the mountains was also a bad thing. Sure never heard
that from the cell phone company or anyone else.
I can think of a number of stretches of highway that appear to also have good line
of sight to cell phone transmitters serving many many people. Seems to me there
are a lot of places I could use my phone in my plane and reach less transmitters
than a lot of places I can be on the ground. Hum.
Howard Eisenhauer
While I won't argue the point that mountain (& even worse-tall buildings)
are a royal pain in the you-know-what for cell systems, they generally
tend not to move around a whole lot :).
This allows the system designers to take any potential conflicts into
account when fine tuning thier networks.
Even still, most of the garbage you hear trying to use your phone in an
urban enviroment is caused by people using thier phones from the upper
levels of buildings (say- anthing over the second floor ).
You have to remember that the cellular equipment/system was origionally
designed only as a CAR phone system- with all the cars , basically
speaking, at street level. Nobody ever figured on somebody getting their
Caddy much past the first set of escalators :).
David Grah - Mary Daniel (grahd...@telis.org) wrote:
: Reading this discussion on cell phones and planes I have learned that using my cell
: phone in my plane is a no no. At the same time I've been surprised that nobody
: mentioned this use in planes in consideration of the use of cell phones on
: mountains or other place that would have good cell pho
*Snip*
Peter Gottlieb
George R Patterson wrote in message <348A1A...@earthlink.net>...
>Every tower that picks it up calls up
>its
>six neighboring towers and asks "how well do you receive this guy?". The
>one which is getting the strongest signal tells the others "I'll take
>the
>call". It then sends a signal to the telephone telling it what freqency
>to
>use for talking, which one to use for listening, and which one to use
>for
>commands from the tower. The phone switches to those. Now the phone can
>only be heard or hear that tower.
>
It's not quite so bad as that. The phones operate on Rx/Tx pairs and only
receive on one frequency at a time. The control channel is the same as
the audio receive channel - but you don't hear the data bursts which tell
your phone to change channel, power level, etc. because your receive audio
is muted for that brief instant.
>
>We've gone into this repeatedly. If the phone is on the ground, it will
>be in
>line of sight to only one tower which uses the same frequencies it's
>using. If
>it's in the air, it can reach several. Neither the towers nor the phone
>are
>smart enough to handle that.
It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of system design parameters.
It is confusing to talk about multiple cell sites receiving your phone
signal
then say that you are line of sight to only one site. The former is more
correct.
If you try to use a cell phone from the top of a tall building you will find
out quickly what the problem is... the cell system really does get
confused.
Try this at rush hour and you will get all sorts of crossed connections. I
would bet during a busy time a cell phone at high altitude will be next to
useless.
>The service provider will drop your service immediately if
>your call
>causes problems. You will discover that the next time you try to use the
>phone.
How many people has your company dropped? But be aware that anti-fraud
software will shut down your number if the system believes there is more
than one phone using your number at one time. Does your system software
not detect and differentiate one phone/multiple cells?
references: Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems, Lee, McGraw-Hill
ISBN 0-07-037030-3
EIA CIS-3-A
Motorola service manuals (various, incl. 9500XL Dyna-tac)
George R Patterson
Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> How many people has your company dropped?
My company writes software for telecommunications planning, so all of
my info comes in second-hand. That's still considerably better than the
poster who "heard" that it was a good idea to make expensive calls in
the air 'cause "the company can't bill you".
> Does your system software
> not detect and differentiate one phone/multiple cells?
The software and hardware described in the course I took does not, and
that's the entire problem. Hardware capable of handling this situation
is would be more expensive, and there's a great deal of competition in
this area of the country.
George Patterson, N3162Q
Peter Gottlieb
George R Patterson wrote in message <348ED8...@earthlink.net>...
>My company writes software for telecommunications planning, so all of
>my info comes in second-hand. That's still considerably better than the
>poster who "heard" that it was a good idea to make expensive calls in
>the air 'cause "the company can't bill you".
True.
>
>> Does your system software
>> not detect and differentiate one phone/multiple cells?
>
>The software and hardware described in the course I took does not, and
>that's the entire problem. Hardware capable of handling this situation
>is would be more expensive, and there's a great deal of competition in
>this area of the country.
Ah, well, the situation isn't going to get much better with multiple new
competing satellite/terestial getting funded. As more of these systems
come on line there will be enormous downward pricing pressure. Radio
based phones will be cheaper to set up and use in rural areas, then this
will spread. There will be mergers and acquisitions, and even some
companies that go under. It has been some years since deregulation
started, but the full effects won't be seen for quite some time yet. I'm
quite curious to see how things play out...
...Peter
Russ MacDonald
I've been reading this thread with interest because my job is to build many
of the integrated circuits that go into cellular phones.
This, of course, does not make me an expert, but the question below has come
up many times at work. Mountains, tall buildings and the like cause all
kinds of headaches for the system planners. One of the terms that I haven't
seen mentioned in this thread is "frequency reuse". It's been alluded to,
but it's name really tells the story. A ton of work goes into the frequency
reuse plan for a cellular system. This involves the power of each cell, the
location of each cell, the direction that the antennas are aimed (most cells
use antennae that are arranged to radiate in a 120 degree slice away from
the cell site. This makes three different frequencies that can be in use at
a single time in any one cell. Incidently, long stretches of highway
generally do not cause a problem, because the reuse is controlled by
adjusting the power to exactly the right amount from the cell.
'Line-of-sight' is only partly correct, because you also get attenuation as
the signal goes through the air. Also, in case the thought comes up, the
phone itself has many different transmitter power levels that are set by the
base station during use. This is why your batteries last much longer if you
do your talking near cell towers.
During planning the system, lots of care goes into spacing the cells just
right so that when they reuse one of the frequencies, they won't interfere
with the next cell using that same frequency. However, even the best plans
don't work all the time. They just try to statistically find the
combination that works OK most of the time. If you use a cell phone from an
airplane, you really mess up that carefully constructed frequency reuse plan
and all sorts of interference can occur. If you happen to broadcast on the
same frequency that is being already used by several nearby cells, your
conversation will completely take over on that channel. You will not hear
them because they most likely are not using the same frequency on their
uplink as you are using on their downlink, but they will hear you. In fact,
your conversation could appear to go perfectly OK while you cause dropped
calls all over the place over a wide area.
One characteristic of FM modulation, used on analog cellular, is that when
there are two transmitters on the same frequency, the result at the receiver
is very unpredictable. It can simply reject the lower power signal, or the
two signals can modulate and cause extreme distortions. In any case the
result is not pleasant to the listener. The system also gets all confused
and doesn't know which cell to make its handoff to, and so lots of calls are
dropped. It's also very hard for the system to figure out where the problem
is coming from. They have tried all sorts of sophistocated software 'bandit
hunters' that only work a small amount of the time. So, if you make a call
from a plane, you probably won't get caught, but in a metro area, it is
almost guaranteed to screw up dozens of other callers.
For my customer's sakes - please don't try it. Thanks.
David Grah - Mary Daniel wrote in message <348B5015...@telis.org>...
>Reading this discussion on cell phones and planes I have learned that using
my cell
>phone in my plane is a no no. At the same time I've been surprised that
nobody
>mentioned this use in planes in consideration of the use of cell phones on
Andrew Jack
Peter Gottlieb wrote in message <66q3vr$e...@snews1.zippo.com>...<snip>
>Ah, well, the situation isn't going to get much better with multiple new
>competing satellite/terestial getting funded.
In Australia we have GSM (900Mhz), I believe USA/Canada is implementing GSM
at 1900Mhz. My GSM phone is almost useless in the air, despite showing good
signal strength. It would appear that the GSM network software is smarter
than AMPS and refuses a call when too many cells are activated. I carry a 3
watt transportable AMPS handset in the air, and it works well.
Unfortunately, our AMPS network is due to be turned off on 1/1/2000, so I
need another solution!
Larry Dighera
Here's a company that will sell you hardware to connect your cell
phone to your aircraft intercom/headset:
http://www.cellset.com/aviation.html
On their site they speak of pilots flying low in the valley reasoning
that they will be less troublesome than ground based cell phone
operators in the mountains.
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:21:25 -0500, "Peter Gottlieb"
<xpeter_...@msn.com> wrote:
>George R Patterson wrote in message <348ED8...@earthlink.net>...
>>My company writes software for telecommunications planning, so all of
>>my info comes in second-hand. That's still considerably better than the
>>poster who "heard" that it was a good idea to make expensive calls in
>>the air 'cause "the company can't bill you".
>
>True.
>
>>
>>> Does your system software
>>> not detect and differentiate one phone/multiple cells?
>>
>>The software and hardware described in the course I took does not, and
>>that's the entire problem. Hardware capable of handling this situation
>>is would be more expensive, and there's a great deal of competition in
>>this area of the country.
>
>Ah, well, the situation isn't going to get much better with multiple new
George R Patterson
Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Here's a company that will sell you hardware to connect your cell
> phone to your aircraft intercom/headset:
>
> http://www.cellset.com/aviation.html
>
> On their site they speak of pilots flying low in the valley reasoning
> that they will be less troublesome than ground based cell phone
> operators in the mountains.
They also point out that the FCC "prohibits the use of cellular phones
during flight". These guys serious recommend "fly low" while talking on
the phone? Jees.....
I would point out that there are many companies who will sell you the
apparatus for smoking dope, but that doesn't make it legal.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Hipthrow
I currently use a digital phone by "Sprint". Any differ. between "digital"
transmition/interfer and "cell" transmition/interfer?
George R Patterson
Hipthrow wrote:
>
> I currently use a digital phone by "Sprint". Any differ. between "digital"
> transmition/interfer and "cell" transmition/interfer?
Not really. The term "cell" refers to the fact that the coverage area
for a typical ground station in a perfect layout is hexagonal and looks
like part of a honeycomb. The term "digital" implies that your phone
converts the analog signal produced by most microphones to a digital
signal before transmission.
What's importatnt is the frequency range used by the phone. Don't have
my books, but the cell stations use a particular band. If your phone
also does, it's talking to the cell network.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Paulo Santos
Capt. Zombo <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>aran...@compuslug.psych.yale.edu (Ashish Ranpura) wrote:
>
>> Speaking completely from ignorance and hearsay (hey, it's Usenet!), I
>> believe that there is a general ban on cellular phone usage in-flight. You
>> can use cell phones in an airplane sitting on the ground. I seem to recall
>> someone quoting an FAR to this effect.
>>
>
>Sec. 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
Therefore, using a cell phone while free falling or parachuting
is not prohibited. Hey, the TV commercial showing a guy using a cell
phone after having jumped out of a plane was not condoning any
illegal activity, then.
Paulo Santos
Roy Smith
psa...@shell.monmouth.com (Paulo Santos) wrote:
> >[CITE: 47CFR22.925]
> >
> >Sec. 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
>
> Therefore, using a cell phone while free falling or parachuting
> is not prohibited.
Or from an ultralight vehicle :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Monte Harrison
Pardon me for butting in, and pardon my ignorance, but I have a
question: in most commercial airliners these days there are phones in
the back of the seat in front of yours. If these aren't cell phones,
what are they?
Monte Harrison
--------------------------------------------------------------
The real message of the story of David and Goliath:
If he's bigger than you, use a weapon!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bransford
Monte Harrison wrote:
>
> Pardon me for butting in, and pardon my ignorance, but I have a
> question: in most commercial airliners these days there are phones in
> the back of the seat in front of yours. If these aren't cell phones,
> what are they?
They're not regular cell phones like we use on the ground. They use a
special cell system designed for use only by overflying aircraft.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To send me email, write me at jerryb(atsign)cts.net
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Howard Eisenhauer
They operate on a simullar basis as cell phones, but on a different
frequency band with the cells A LOT further apart.
Monte Harrison (harr...@direclynx.net) wrote:
: Pardon me for butting in, and pardon my ignorance, but I have a
: question: in most commercial airliners these days there are phones in
: the back of the seat in front of yours. If these aren't cell phones,
: what are they?
: Monte Harrison
: --------------------------------------------------------------
: The real message of the story of David and Goliath:
: If he's bigger than you, use a weapon!
: --------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ron Natalie
Monte Harrison wrote:
>
> Pardon me for butting in, and pardon my ignorance, but I have a
> question: in most commercial airliners these days there are phones in
> the back of the seat in front of yours. If these aren't cell phones,
> what are they?
>
A cellular phone refers to an specific 800 megahertz ground based
system that relies on frequency reuse via relatively closely spaced
base stations and the ability to command the portable phones to
a minimal power to avoid being heard by multiple base stations
tieing up that frequency accross a large area.
As architected, that doesn't work for airplanes. The problem is
that an airplane with any alititude sees all the cell sites equally
well, and even when at minimal power still hits them all equally
well, tieing up the precious frequency.
The units in the airplane are a different kind of radio telephone.
The older kind were essentially two parts, a cordless phone not
unlike the one you might buy for your home so you can walk around
unplgged. This connected to a 4 unit analog radio in the airplanes
avionics system that talks to a set of dedicated base stations.
On those planes only 4 people could be placing a call at one time
regardless of the number of handsets on board. The quality,
would be how I would describe, less than poor.
The newer units are digital, but the unit in your seat still talks
to the central radio unit in the planes avionics and still to a
set of dedicated ground systems. The quality is slightly better.
Just because it uses a radio, doesn't make it cellular. Your
cordless phone isn't cellular, old MTS/IMTS car phones aren't
cellular, ship to shore phones aren't cellular, and airline
AirPhones aren't cellular.
Marc
Speaking of Cell phones...could I still use my phone to call people while
up in the air? Will this affect the avionics?
Also, what altitude seems to be the limit?
Just wondering.
Marc
Brett Rabe
Marc wrote:
>
> Speaking of Cell phones...could I still use my phone to call people while
> up in the air? Will this affect the avionics?
>
> Also, what altitude seems to be the limit?
Oh gods... *cringe*
... Here goes the cell phone thread again.
Brett
--
Brett Rabe Email : br...@uswest.net
Systems Administrator - U S West Phone : 612.664.3078
600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : 612.613.2549
Minneapolis, MN USA 55413 Fax : 612.664.4770
If you aren't the lead dog, the view is always the same.
Ron Natalie
Marc wrote:
>
> Speaking of Cell phones...could I still use my phone to call people while
> up in the air? Will this affect the avionics?
It would be illegal, and it annoys the phone company.
> Also, what altitude seems to be the limit?
Probably isn't a hard one. I guess if you get high
enough over the eastern seaboard or parts of California
the aggregate noise might interfere with it, but
most places it would probably work.
Flavius Titus
In article <01bd414f$c3044260$LocalHost@tefen-usa>, "Marc" <pop...@pob.com> wrote:
>Speaking of Cell phones...could I still use my phone to call people while
>up in the air? Will this affect the avionics?
Here we go again...
Using a cell phone from an aircraft is illegal. No it's not in the FARs. It is
an FCC regulation.
John - N8086N
Organizer and Executive Vice President of the
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is now on-line at
http://home.att.net/~miano/conspiracy.htm
------------------------------------------------
EMail Address:
|m.i.a.n.o @ |
|c.o.l.o.s.s.e.u.m.b.u.i.l.d.e.r.s.|
|c.o.m.|
Full Name:
-------------------
-J.o.h.n?M.i.a.n.o-
-------------------
Hilton Goldstein
Flavius Titus wrote:
>
> In article <01bd414f$c3044260$LocalHost@tefen-usa>, "Marc" <pop...@pob.com> wrote:
> >Speaking of Cell phones...could I still use my phone to call people while
> >up in the air? Will this affect the avionics?
>
> Here we go again...
>
> Using a cell phone from an aircraft is illegal. No it's not in the FARs. It is
> an FCC regulation.
It is in the FARs - 91.21
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
650-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 650-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
Why is there an expiration date on sour cream?
Kyler Laird
postm...@0.com (Flavius Titus) writes:
>Here we go again...
Let's get it right this time.
>Using a cell phone from an aircraft is illegal.
Oh? Call the airlines! They use cellular technology
for their phones. So do (all? of) the current GA
phones (like the TrimConnect).
I'm hoping that it's even going to be legal to use
some AMPS phones soon, but we'll have to see how much
of a fight the service providers put up against that
effort.
Anyone know how other (non-AMPS/voice) cellular radios
are regulated wrt flying? I'm thinking of
CDMA/PCS/CDPD/RAM/... Seems like satellite comms
might soon be the best way to go.
--kyler
John Godwin
Hilton Goldstein wrote in message <34F354...@sgi.com>...
>> Using a cell phone from an aircraft is illegal. No it's not in the FARs.
It is
>> an FCC regulation.
>
>It is in the FARs - 91.21
No, FAR 91.21 does not specifically prohibit Cellular Phones. The concern
of that part relates to interference with AIRCRAFT navigation and
communication systems. Use of a Cellular phone, in this case, is prohibited
by the FCC.
I agree, however, that the Cellular Phone Thread will live on forever
.......
John Godwin
Jerry Bransford
It shouldn't, since the FCC has banned the use of everyday cellular
phones from use while in the air for many years. Whether or not people
decide to use them for 'emergency' situations is one thing, but their
use is still technically and totally illegal from the FCC's viewpoint.
George R Patterson
Kyler Laird wrote:
> for their phones. So do (all? of) the current GA
> phones (like the TrimConnect).
No, they do not. They use a different set of frequencies and do not
communicate with the cellular networks at all.
> CDMA/PCS/CDPD/RAM/... Seems like satellite comms
> might soon be the best way to go.
The satellite coms are quite legal. They cause no conflict problems when
used in the air.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
George R Patterson
Monte Harrison wrote:
>
> Pardon me for butting in, and pardon my ignorance, but I have a
> question: in most commercial airliners these days there are phones in
> the back of the seat in front of yours. If these aren't cell phones,
> what are they?
Radio phones. They use a different set of frequencies than cell phones
do, so they don't interfere with the cellular network.
I don't know the details of the ground stations with which the phones
communicate, but it's likely to be a dedicated airline frequency used
with sidebanding. It's also possible that it's much like the cellular
network with widely spaced transceiver stations, but I think it would be
difficult for any company to fund the startup cost of such a thing on a
national scale.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Hilton Goldstein
John Godwin wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein wrote in message <34F354...@sgi.com>...
> >> Using a cell phone from an aircraft is illegal. No it's not in the FARs.
> It is
> >> an FCC regulation.
> >
> >It is in the FARs - 91.21
>
> No, FAR 91.21 does not specifically prohibit Cellular Phones. The concern
> of that part relates to interference with AIRCRAFT navigation and
> communication systems. Use of a Cellular phone, in this case, is prohibited
> by the FCC.
John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
Students aren't allowed to carry passengers. So it's OK to carry a male
passenger bacause the reg didn't specifically prohibit MALE passengers?
Robert M. Gary
Its not the FAA that forbids cell phones (other than the reg on IFR)
its the FCC. You should be quoting the FCC reg NOT the FAA reg.
Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 22, provides that
cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons
or
anyother 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."
Ok, now this thread should be done!
--
Robert Gary
email: rober...@osi.com
Marc
>
> John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
>
I don't know the whole FAR, but what about a portable GPS? CD Player?
Transceiver?
Marc
Robert M. Gary
Hilton Goldstein wrote:
> John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
Not really......
You left out just enough to tell people the wrong thing.
You forgot to say that this applies only to
1) IFR or
2) aircarrier
Of course for cell phones it doesn't make a difference because the
FCC is the one who says its illegal. (see my pervious post)
CD players are allowed probably under exclusion 5 (see below)
Here it is for real
Sec. 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.
Ok, now another thread can be put to rest!!
Mark Mallory
Hilton Goldstein (hil...@sgi.com) wrote:
: John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
: or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
: electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
So you might as well throw away your handheld Aviation GPS, eh Hilton?
Hilton Goldstein
Marc wrote:
>
> >
> > John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> > or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> > electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
> >
> Transceiver?
It says "any". I once asked a captain if I could listen to my scanner
during the flight - he said "no".
Hilton Goldstein
Mark Mallory wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein (hil...@sgi.com) wrote:
> : John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> : or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> : electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
>
I was assuming that we were talking commercial flights here; i.e. wasn't
this the thread about cell phones == the phones in the seatbacks? Oh
well, wrong assumption I guess. So yes, it's IFR, air carrier, etc as
per 91.21. Now we could always start the thread as to how a GA PIC
under IFR could determine that some electronic device (e.g. handheld
GPS) won't cause interference with the navigation equipment; hang on,
we've done that already! :)
Mark Mallory
Hilton Goldstein (hil...@sgi.com) wrote:
: I was assuming that we were talking commercial flights here; i.e. wasn't
: this the thread about cell phones == the phones in the seatbacks?
The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
: Oh
: well, wrong assumption I guess.
Correct. Wrong assumption.
Roy Smith
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
Hilton -- that quote is really taken out of context. The leading "...'
refers to "Except as provied in paragraph (b) of this section", and
paragraph (b) reads, "Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to
[...] any other portable electornic device that the operator of thie
aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used".
It does not go into what specific testing methodology the operator should
use to make this determination, but it clearly does leave open the
possibility. Consider all those zillions of handheld VFR transcievers and
GPSs that people use by the droves.
The reason cell phones are illegal in flight is because of FCC
regulations, not because of FAR 91.21.
Hilton Goldstein
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> > John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
> > or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
> > electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
>
> Hilton -- that quote is really taken out of context.
As per a previous post, I thought we were talking about 'commercial'
flights - that was another thread.
> The reason cell phones are illegal in flight is because of FCC
> regulations, not because of FAR 91.21.
On IFR or air carrier, cell phones are illegal according to 91.21 unless
...see 91.21 for the full text. If they are also banned by the FCC,
then 91.21 is irrelavent anyway.
Barney Lum
> On IFR or air carrier, cell phones are illegal according to 91.21 unless
> ...see 91.21 for the full text. If they are also banned by the FCC,
> then 91.21 is irrelavent anyway.
From what's been said, it's my interpretation that the FARs govern the
prohibition of "electronics" in *aircraft* (ifr, commercial) as they
might interfere with its avionics. Cell Phones just happen to come
under that general category
As for a *cell phone*, the FCC governs where it cannot be used - in
this case, an aircraft. The two agencies/commission just happen to
overlap in this regard.
It's the FCC that specifically prohibits cell phones in *any* aircraft
in flight. It's my understanding you can't make a call from a plane -
private or otherwise - while airborne. That'd be in violation of the
FCC rules (whatever they're called). Making that call from your
SpamCan while VFR to call Flight Service, though, wouldn't bother the
FAA :)
Presumably you'd be violating both the FCC and FAA if you were to make
a call on your own cellphone onboard a commercial airliner in flight.
If you were to turn on your scanner/transceiver, you'd be violating
"only" the FAA :}
Fair enough?
Barney
SSSSS -*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*
S CCCCC Barney Lum - bar...@usc.edu | 213 740-2957
SSCSS USC ISD Unix Technical Support | Do Not Become Alarmed.
C S Trojan Marching Band, TGMBITHOTU | Push Button Marked "ALARM"
SSSSS PP,ASEL - Flight On! |
CCCCC
Hilton Goldstein
Barney Lum wrote:
>
> In article <34F4B5...@sgi.com>, Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> > On IFR or air carrier, cell phones are illegal according to 91.21 unless
> > ...see 91.21 for the full text. If they are also banned by the FCC,
> > then 91.21 is irrelavent anyway.
>
> From what's been said, it's my interpretation that the FARs govern the
> prohibition of "electronics" in *aircraft* (ifr, commercial) as they
> might interfere with its avionics. Cell Phones just happen to come
> under that general category
>
> As for a *cell phone*, the FCC governs where it cannot be used - in
> this case, an aircraft. The two agencies/commission just happen to
> overlap in this regard.
>
> It's the FCC that specifically prohibits cell phones in *any* aircraft
> in flight. It's my understanding you can't make a call from a plane -
> private or otherwise - while airborne. That'd be in violation of the
> FCC rules (whatever they're called). Making that call from your
> SpamCan while VFR to call Flight Service, though, wouldn't bother the
> FAA :)
>
> Presumably you'd be violating both the FCC and FAA if you were to make
> a call on your own cellphone onboard a commercial airliner in flight.
> If you were to turn on your scanner/transceiver, you'd be violating
> "only" the FAA :}
>
> Fair enough?
Correct. The FAA (91.21) does not want electronic devices screwing up
the navigation equipment and the FCC doesn't want airborne cell phones
screwing up the land-based cell network as it can 'see' many more sites
when airborne.
Jerry Bransford
But it's still only the FCC's law that makes use of a standard cellular
phone illegal from an airborn aircraft. FAR 91.21 is not intended to
ban such use since cellular phones in aircraft while in the air were
*already* banned by the FCC. The FCC governs all use of transmitters
and cellular systems, not the FAA.
Kyler Laird
mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
--kyler
benjamin j snyder
In article <roy-250298...@mcsv45-p1.med.nyu.edu>,
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>The reason cell phones are illegal in flight is because of FCC
>regulations, not because of FAR 91.21.
I hate to be the one to say something like this, but here goes...
What if (this is a long shot) you (as PIC) are in an emergency situation and
you have exhausted all of your options to save your life, life of the crew (if
there is one), and lastly the aircraft itself.
Look at 91.3(b):
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet
that emergency.
I know (as I said earlier) this is a stretch, but what if the only option
available was to use a cell phone to call for some kind of help. Which Federal
Reg takes precedence? Will the FAA defend you from the FCC if you did that?
I don't care about whether or not I can use my cell phone in the plane, there
are more important things to do while in the air. As far as passengers...why
bother telling them it is an FCC reg and not and FAA reg. More than likely
they will ask you if they can make a call while airborne, simply tell them,"No
it's against the regs." You don't have to tell them which regs. If it's
someone who knows the regs then tell them you'd rather they didn't. If they
know enough about the subject they should be able to understand your wishes.
Just my $.02.
--
Ben Snyder
IICF Consultant Supervisor
Computer and Information Science
The Ohio State University Office phone: (614) 292-1153
Roy Smith
bar...@procyon.usc.edu (Barney Lum) wrote:
> Making that call from your SpamCan while VFR to call Flight Service,
> though, wouldn't bother the FAA :)
I don't carry a cell phone, but I remember taking a flight with somebody a
few years ago who did. He lived in New Jersey and we flew to somewhere in
New England (don't remember exactly where). On the way back, we pulled
into the runnup area and he pulled out his cell phone to call FSS to open
his VFR flight plan (perfectly legal since we're still on the ground).
I remember the confusion it caused. His cell phone service originated out
of New Jersey, so the call to 1-800-WX-BRIEF entered the land-line system
there, and he got connected to Millville Flight Service. They were very
confused about why somebody in <wherever we were> was opening a flight
plan with *them*. Eventually it all got sorted out, and Millville relayed
the request to whatever FSS had the plan on file.
I imagine with the proliferation of cell phones, this has become a more
common even and FSS's have gotten used to it.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Roy Smith
be...@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (benjamin j snyder) wrote:
> Look at 91.3(b):
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
> command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
> meet that emergency.
>
> I know (as I said earlier) this is a stretch, but what if the only option
> available was to use a cell phone to call for some kind of help. Which
> Federal Reg takes precedence? Will the FAA defend you from the FCC if you
> did that?
It's been a long time since I've studied the FCC regs, but my recollection
is that they contain an emergency escape clause similar to FAR 91.3(b).
Regardless, if I was flying along and lost all other means of
communication and had a true emergency situation but had a cell phone in
the plane, you can bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't hesitate to pull it
out and use it.
> More than likely they will ask you if they can make a call while airborne,
> simply tell them,"No it's against the regs."
My understanding is that it's not just illegal to make a call, it's
illegal to have the phone turned on at all. I don't completely understand
all the details of how cell phones work, but my understanding is that
anytime they are turned on, they are talking to cells announcing their
willingness to accept incomming calls, and this activity would generate
the same problems as a call in progress, namely that you would hit too
many cells. Hopefully somebody who understands the system better can
confirm or deny that?
Robert M. Gary
benjamin j snyder wrote:
> What if (this is a long shot) you (as PIC) are in an emergency situation and
> you have exhausted all of your options to save your life, life of the crew (if
> there is one), and lastly the aircraft itself.
Gees. I don't know how many times I've posted this FCC reg but I'll
do it again. As far as the FAA as long as your not IFR (or air carrier)
the *FAA* says
cells **are** legal. Besides, you can violate any FARs you want in an
emergency.
When you get down you get to fight to keep your ticket though.
This is all **SO** academic anyway because...........
FCC says........
Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 22, provides that
cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons
or
anyother 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."
--
Robert Gary
email: rober...@osi.com
George R Patterson
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> My understanding is that it's not just illegal to make a call, it's
> illegal to have the phone turned on at all. I don't completely understand
> all the details of how cell phones work, but my understanding is that
> anytime they are turned on, they are talking to cells announcing their
> willingness to accept incomming calls, and this activity would generate
> the same problems as a call in progress, namely that you would hit too
> many cells. Hopefully somebody who understands the system better can
> confirm or deny that?
That's correct.
George Patterson,
Systems Engineer
Bell Communications Research
Piscataway, NJ
George R Patterson
benjamin j snyder wrote:
>
> What if (this is a long shot) you (as PIC) are in an emergency situation and
> you have exhausted all of your options to save your life, life of the crew (if
> there is one), and lastly the aircraft itself.
Comawn..... The last thing I'm going to worry about in an emergency is
the law. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried
by 6.
You can do whatever you like in an emergency. If you break a law or reg,
however, the appropriate agency can and may bring charges. If so, you
have a hearing and present your case. *You're* going to present it,
though; don't expect one branch of the government to defend you from
another. The best you'll get along those lines is an FAA rep appearing
as an "expert witness".
In the U.S., the standard for guilt or innocence includes the idea of a
"rational man". Simply put, if most sane people would do what you did,
you are not guilty.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Jerry Bransford
I'm not sure if you're just being argumentative or just naive. The cell
phones we carry around with us are not the same as the "AirCell" you
mention. AirCell is specifically designed for use in the air while use
of a common cellphone from the air can cause significant problems for
the regular cell sites. Instead of hitting a couple of different cell
sites at once when in your car, you can 'hit' several hundred or even
several thousand from altitude.
Craig Fry
In article <34F583...@earthlink.net>,
George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>benjamin j snyder wrote:
>>
>> What if (this is a long shot) you (as PIC) are in an emergency situation and
>> you have exhausted all of your options to save your life, life of the crew (if
>> there is one), and lastly the aircraft itself.
>
>Comawn..... The last thing I'm going to worry about in an emergency is
>the law. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried
>by 6.
>
>You can do whatever you like in an emergency. If you break a law or reg,
>however, the appropriate agency can and may bring charges. If so, you
>have a hearing and present your case. *You're* going to present it,
>though; don't expect one branch of the government to defend you from
>another. The best you'll get along those lines is an FAA rep appearing
>as an "expert witness".
>
>
to declare an inflight emergency. The problem was his electrical
system went completely dead which in itself is not bad but he was
flying a Bonanza which depends on the electrical system to lower the
landing gear. Well it just so happened he had his cell phone with him
and he called the airport to tell them the problem and in the meantime
they informed him to work the hand pump to lower the gear and fly over
the airport so they could see if his gear is fully extended before he
landed. The interesting portion of this story is that while on the
phone for such a long time the operator came on and told him he was
beyond his time limit and needed to hang up. I guess the bottom line
is who cares what the rules say just do what it takes to end the flight
safely and let the chips fall where they may. As far as I know he did
not suffer any reprisals from the FAA and were probably glad to have
it become a non-incident.
Ron Natalie
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>
> >The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
>
> Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
No, they do not. AirCell isn't cellular (in the AMPS
sense anyhow). They are a dedicated GTE service (at
least on most of the flights I have).
I've even got one of those stupid cards that lets me
receive incoming AirFone calls, though nobody every has
called me.
Ron Natalie
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> I remember the confusion it caused. His cell phone service originated out
> of New Jersey, so the call to 1-800-WX-BRIEF entered the land-line system
> there, and he got connected to Millville Flight Service. They were very
> confused about why somebody in <wherever we were> was opening a flight
> plan with *them*. Eventually it all got sorted out, and Millville relayed
> the request to whatever FSS had the plan on file.
I can't understand why it would be confusing other than people don't
usually call on the phone to open plans. Calling 800WXBRIEF has never
given any guarantee of locality. While I usually get Leesburg, I get
Altoona from time to time.
John Godwin
Hilton Goldstein wrote in message <34F47B...@sgi.com>...
>John, allow me to quote: "...no person may operate, nor may any operator
>or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable
>electronic device..." - that sounds pretty darn specific to me.
Fer Christ's sake, Hilton .. If you're going to quote an FAR, stop doing it
out of context. Read the F**ing thing, then get back to us.
Incredible.....
John Godwin
John Godwin
Kyler Laird
Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>Kyler Laird wrote:
>>
>> mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>>
>> >The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
>>
>> Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
>I'm not sure if you're just being argumentative or just naive. The cell
>phones we carry around with us are not the same as the "AirCell" you
>mention.
Well then say so. There's a whole world of cellular
radios and many of them are used for telephony. I
suggest that you not be so incredibly US-centric.
(Even though we are talking about the US FAA/FCC for
now, the limited technologies used in the US will
hopefully not dominate for long.)
--kyler
Jerry Bransford
Accusing me of being US-centric doesn't satisfy the question either
since you should also know that the European/Asian cell-phone
technologies for air vs ground use are different there as well.
Cell-phone technologies available and in use in the US are the very same
cell-phone technologies available and in use in the European/Asian
markets too.
Gerry Caron
Kyler Laird wrote in message <6d2m4l$5...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
>mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>
>>The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
>
>Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
>
No. The AT&T and GTE phones you see in airliners each use their own
network. The technology is similar to cellular, but uses different
frequencies, controls, ....
AirCell is a network that is, in their words, layered over the existing
AMPS (analog) cellular network. They use the same spectrum and tie into
the cellular network at existing ground sites. But they use their own
antennas (horiz. polarized vs. vert.) and have moved the control
channels. They also operate on significantly reduced power. This
prevents them from interfering with the existing ground network. It has
not been fully available since they have been operating on an
experimental FCC license. It does appear however, that they will soon
get their permanent license having spent the better part of last year
proving the non-interference. Expect to hear more from them in the next
few months.
Gerry
Kyler Laird
Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>Cell-phone technologies available and in use in the US are the very same
>cell-phone technologies available and in use in the European/Asian
>markets too.
I think that might just answer the question I've
been repeatedly asking here. AMPS, GSM, PCS,
CDMA, ... are all no-go in the air? How 'bout
RAM?
--kyler
Nicolas CORDIER-LALLOUET
Roy Smith wrote:
> My understanding is that it's not just illegal to make a call, it's
> illegal to have the phone turned on at all. I don't completely understand
> all the details of how cell phones work, but my understanding is that
> anytime they are turned on, they are talking to cells announcing their
> willingness to accept incomming calls, and this activity would generate
> the same problems as a call in progress, namely that you would hit too
> many cells. Hopefully somebody who understands the system better can
> confirm or deny that?
When someone calls you on your cell phone, the network cannot send the
call to every cell on the earth, so it has to know where you are. This
is why phones that are turned on talk to cells : this allows the
network to localize your phone and then transmit the call on the right
cell.
--
Nicolas CORDIER-LALLOUET
Ecole Nationale Superieure de l'Aeronautique et de l'Espace
e-mail: cord...@supaero.fr
Nicolas.Cord...@supaero.fr
Robert M. Gary
Nicolas CORDIER-LALLOUET wrote:
> When someone calls you on your cell phone, the network cannot send the
> call to every cell on the earth, so it has to know where you are. This
> is why phones that are turned on talk to cells : this allows the
> network to localize your phone and then transmit the call on the right
> cell.
I acutally forget to turn mine off all the time (yes I know its
illegal).
It sure doesn't have any trouble ringing me when my wife is trying to
tell me to get my butt down and get the kids ready for dinner!
I've never tried answering the phone though since I'm sure there
is no way she'd ever be able to hear me in a Cessna 140 or Aeronca
Chief!!
George R Patterson
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> There's a whole world of cellular
> radios and many of them are used for telephony.
Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies. There is *not*
a "whole world of cellular radios". There is a cellular network, which
is used *only* for telephony. It gets its name from the layout of the
stations; not from the technology used.
Ryan R. Healy
Roy Smith wrote:
> I don't carry a cell phone, but I remember taking a flight with somebody a
> few years ago who did. He lived in New Jersey and we flew to somewhere in
> New England (don't remember exactly where). On the way back, we pulled
> into the runnup area and he pulled out his cell phone to call FSS to open
> his VFR flight plan (perfectly legal since we're still on the ground).
I carry my cell phone with me at all times when I fly. Mine is a little
Motorola Star-Tac unit which is no larger than a beeper. I have used it on
more than one occasion when I needed to pick up an IFR clearance on the ground
from an uncontrolled airport. The airport guide that we carry with us has the
names and phone numbers of all ARTCC's, all TRACON's and all towers in the
USA. I simply dial up the number for the one closest by and can have a
clearance and release within a couple minutes, right from the comfort of the
aircraft sitting at the end of the runway. Getting a quick release is very
easy...the controller usually asks, "when will you be ready?" to which I can
always reply, "we can be airborne in 30 seconds." Usually the release will
come immediately because the controller only has to hold the airspace open for
a very short while.
I too ran into the problem you described about getting FSS through
1-800-WXBRIEF while on the road. If I use my cell phone to call weather, I
always got my home flight service station. I've solved this by keeping a list
of non-800 numbers for most of the FSS's in the areas that I fly.
--
Blue Skies,
Ryan R. Healy
mailto:rhea...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rhealy707
Gustavo Flores
In article <6d4u2k$9...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> la...@millennium.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>From: la...@millennium.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
>Subject: Re: More Cell phones and planes
>Date: 26 Feb 1998 23:32:36 GMT
>Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>>Kyler Laird wrote:
>>>
>>> mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>>>
>>> >The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
>>>
>>> Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
>>I'm not sure if you're just being argumentative or just naive. The cell
>>phones we carry around with us are not the same as the "AirCell" you
>>mention.
>Well then say so. There's a whole world of cellular
>radios and many of them are used for telephony. I
>suggest that you not be so incredibly US-centric.
>(Even though we are talking about the US FAA/FCC for
>now, the limited technologies used in the US will
>hopefully not dominate for long.)
>--kyler
Gustavo Flores
>From: Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com>
>Subject: Re: More Cell phones and planes
>Kyler Laird wrote:
>>
>> Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>>
>> >Kyler Laird wrote:
>> >>
>> >> mmal...@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes:
>> >>
>> >> >The phones in the seatbacks are not cell phones.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? Don't they use AirCell?
>>
>> >I'm not sure if you're just being argumentative or just naive. The cell
>> >phones we carry around with us are not the same as the "AirCell" you
>> >mention.
>>
>> Well then say so. There's a whole world of cellular
>> radios and many of them are used for telephony. I
>> suggest that you not be so incredibly US-centric.
>> (Even though we are talking about the US FAA/FCC for
>> now, the limited technologies used in the US will
>> hopefully not dominate for long.)
>Accusing me of being US-centric doesn't satisfy the question either
>since you should also know that the European/Asian cell-phone
>technologies for air vs ground use are different there as well.
>Cell-phone technologies available and in use in the US are the very same
>cell-phone technologies available and in use in the European/Asian
>markets too.
>Jerry
>--
>Jerry Bransford
>To send me email, write me at jerryb(atsign)cts.net
>PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
>The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Portable or mobile phones are not necessarily cellular. for many years there
have been mobile phones for automobile, marine and aircraft use that were not
based on cellular radio.
This has been explained by many in this newsgroup.
I don't know of all systems but the original public telephones on aircraft
were ACSB ( amplitude companded single sideband) on the 800 MHz range.
It is very simply a fancy type of AM .
Cellular technology was designed to accomodate a very large number of users in
a small geographical area. The main premise is short range communications with
channel reutilization. that's where the word cell comes into the act.
The coverage area is divided int small units, called cells, hence cellular.
Whether the system is used to connect to the public telephone network is just
incidental.
Cellular technology is not ideally suited for aircraft due to the aircraft's
great range at VHF and higher frequencies ( better than 100 miles at altitude)
and the considerably smaller number of users.
The popularity of cellular telephones has caused the public to identify any
sort of mobile telephone as "cellular" just as any small airplane is a
"pipercub" , any business jet is a "learjet" and all air traffic control is
"the-tower" in the public's mind.
And finally not all cellular systems are the same or compatible.
Here ( US) we have AMPS, there is ( or was) NMT in the Scandinavian
countries,and TACS somewhere else in Europe. They vary by operating frequency
and operating protocol. That's just for the analog systems ( FM ) that come to
mind.In digital formats you have Nextel , PCS and another I just can't recall.
So they are not all the very same in Asia and European markets as in the
United States.
Gustavo Flores WB2URK ( among other things)
Gustavo Flores
In article <6d57s8$q...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> la...@freedom.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>From: la...@freedom.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
>Subject: Re: More Cell phones and planes
>Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>>Cell-phone technologies available and in use in the US are the very same
>>cell-phone technologies available and in use in the European/Asian
>>markets too.
>I think that might just answer the question I've
>been repeatedly asking here. AMPS, GSM, PCS,
>CDMA, ... are all no-go in the air? How 'bout
>RAM?
>--kyler
As far as I know yes, they are all verboten in the air , they probably say
something about it in your terms of service.
Gustavo Flores
Gustavo Flores
In article <34F779...@earthlink.net> George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net> writes:
>From: George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: More Cell phones and planes
>Kyler Laird wrote:
>>
>> There's a whole world of cellular
>> radios and many of them are used for telephony.
>Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
>cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies. There is *not*
>a "whole world of cellular radios". There is a cellular network, which
>is used *only* for telephony. It gets its name from the layout of the
>stations; not from the technology used.
>George Patterson,
>Systems Engineer
>Bell Communications Research
>Piscataway, NJ
Preeecisely.
Gustavo Flores
Kyler Laird
>>> There's a whole world of cellular
>>> radios and many of them are used for telephony.
>>Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
>>cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies.
And these frequencies vary greatly.
>>There is *not*
>>a "whole world of cellular radios".
So you'd lump together digital and analog phones
operating in different bands? You'd also say that
there's no difference between the cellular layout
of the AMPS system and the cellular layout used
by many wireless (computer data) LANs and WANs?
>>There is a cellular network, which
>>is used *only* for telephony.
So even though different parts of this single
network use different communications technologies
and only talk to phones supporting these
technologies, you call it all one network?
>>It gets its name from the layout of the
>>stations; not from the technology used.
Yup, and why do you think that there's no way
that a cellular telephone technology will be (/is)
available that is suitable for use while flying?
--kyler
Gustavo Flores
In article <6dectt$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> la...@millennium.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>From: la...@millennium.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
>--kyler
There is not a strong probability of a cellular network accomodating airborne
users because of simple economics.
The main premise of cellular networks, for whatever application may be, is
that of a large number of users in a small geographical area.
That's the idea behind the dividing of the coverage area into cells, such that
communications can be accomplished with short range , low power transceivers
with the same radio channel reassigned several cells away.
This has two advantages. many users can be accomodated at once with a
relatively small number of channels and low power radios are required making
it possible to have small devices with small batteries.,
If airborne users are to be accomodated, however, the channel reutilization
scheme is compromised. Since an airborne user even at relatively low altitude
can be in view of an entire city's system, his use of the network would
deprive many users of that channel with the accompanying loss of revenue,
Given the enormous cost of the network it is essential for the operator to
have as many users in the system simultaneously, thus all the aggressive
marketing
I am sure the problem is not insurmountable technically, but with the
incredible prices companies have paid for channels in the recent FCC auctions
I don't believe there is an economic incentive to accomodate a few airborne
users.
Gustavo Flores
Kyler Laird
pi...@iamerica.net (Gustavo Flores) writes:
>There is not a strong probability of a cellular network accomodating airborne
>users because of simple economics.
But there already *is* at least one, AirCell.
>The main premise of cellular networks, for whatever application may be, is
>that of a large number of users in a small geographical area.
>That's the idea behind the dividing of the coverage area into cells, such that
>communications can be accomplished with short range , low power transceivers
>with the same radio channel reassigned several cells away.
So for aviation, "small geographical area" just becomes
a much larger area. What's the big deal?
>This has two advantages. many users can be accomodated at once with a
>relatively small number of channels and low power radios are required making
>it possible to have small devices with small batteries.,
>If airborne users are to be accomodated, however, the channel reutilization
>scheme is compromised. Since an airborne user even at relatively low altitude
>can be in view of an entire city's system, his use of the network would
>deprive many users of that channel with the accompanying loss of revenue,
That assumes that the cellular system is shared with
land-based users. That's surely desireable, but not
necessary.
>Given the enormous cost of the network it is essential for the operator to
>have as many users in the system simultaneously, thus all the aggressive
>marketing
>I am sure the problem is not insurmountable technically, but with the
>incredible prices companies have paid for channels in the recent FCC auctions
>I don't believe there is an economic incentive to accomodate a few airborne
>users.
The much larger cells that can be used for an
air-based cellular system could bring the cost of
providing coverage down substantially.
--kyler
Ron Natalie
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> pi...@iamerica.net (Gustavo Flores) writes:
>
> >There is not a strong probability of a cellular network accomodating airborne
> >users because of simple economics.
>
> But there already *is* at least one, AirCell.
Air cell isn't really cellular technology in the same sense that
the ground system is. It just piggy backs on the ground cellular
network and frequency use, but the technology is different.
> So for aviation, "small geographical area" just becomes
> a much larger area. What's the big deal?
You clearly don't understand cellular. The idea is not to just
designate areas, that's how the old pre-cellular MTS and IMTS
phones work. What cellular relies upon is the ability to arbitrarily
shrink the size of the geographical areas via being able to command
less power and by using directional and lower antennas to decrease
the effective range allowing frequencies to be reused over a much
smaller area.
This is much harder to do when you've got line of sight over a huge
area. You can't split a cell.
> The much larger cells that can be used for an
> air-based cellular system could bring the cost of
> providing coverage down substantially.
What brought the price of cellular down (other than the decrease
in the price of the underlying technololgy) was the ability to
support a much larger number of users. Contrast the limit of
12 simoultaneous calls possible with IMTS in a given market
with the thosands of possible celluar calls. This is what
drove the prices through the floor.
You can't directly apply the land technology to air use. An
effective air system will have to rely on something other than
simple spatial diveresity. The digital/spread-spectrum technologies
hold a lot of promise for this.
_Ron
George R Patterson
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> >>Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
> >>cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies.
>
> And these frequencies vary greatly.
Not in the US.
> So you'd lump together digital and analog phones
> operating in different bands?
Whether the phones are digital or analog is totally irrelevant. The band
is. As defined by the FCC, cellular phones operate only in a fairly
narrow frequency band.
> You'd also say that
> there's no difference between the cellular layout
> of the AMPS system and the cellular layout used
> by many wireless (computer data) LANs and WANs?
We are talking about phones. LANs and WANs do not use the frequency
reuse systems of the cellular telephone network.
> >>There is a cellular network, which
> >>is used *only* for telephony.
>
> So even though different parts of this single
> network use different communications technologies
> and only talk to phones supporting these
> technologies, you call it all one network?
Yes. That telecommunications standard, and the FCC definition.
> >>It gets its name from the layout of the
> >>stations; not from the technology used.
>
> ... and why do you think that there's no way
> that a cellular telephone technology will be (/is)
> available that is suitable for use while flying?
I did not say that. What I said is that cell phones are defined as those
which use the ground based cellular network using an band of frequencies
assigned by the FCC (in this country) and operating with a frequency
reuse system. Nothing else is a cell phone.
In a society which trademarks "realwood" and uses it as a name for
plastic trim, you're a fool to think that "AirCell" is actually a cell
phone.
George Patterson
Kyler Laird
George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >>Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
>> >>cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies.
>>
>> And these frequencies vary greatly.
>Not in the US.
O.k., my definition of "vary greatly" is different
than yours.
>> So you'd lump together digital and analog phones
>> operating in different bands?
>Whether the phones are digital or analog is totally irrelevant. The band
>is. As defined by the FCC, cellular phones operate only in a fairly
>narrow frequency band.
>> You'd also say that
>> there's no difference between the cellular layout
>> of the AMPS system and the cellular layout used
>> by many wireless (computer data) LANs and WANs?
>We are talking about phones.
And voice can be carried digitally. (I just
finished talking to my wife using IP.)
>LANs and WANs do not use the frequency
>reuse systems of the cellular telephone network.
Oh? So we can't call Metricom cells, "cells"
just because they don't fit this limited
definition?
>> >>There is a cellular network, which
>> >>is used *only* for telephony.
>>
>> So even though different parts of this single
>> network use different communications technologies
>> and only talk to phones supporting these
>> technologies, you call it all one network?
>Yes. That telecommunications standard, and the FCC definition.
There are a couple other countries out there
using cellular transceivers to tie into the
PSTN - and many of them don't care about the
FCC.
>What I said is that cell phones are defined as those
>which use the ground based cellular network using an band of frequencies
>assigned by the FCC (in this country) and operating with a frequency
>reuse system. Nothing else is a cell phone.
>In a society which trademarks "realwood" and uses it as a name for
>plastic trim, you're a fool to think that "AirCell" is actually a cell
>phone.
So when we stop using the current band of
frequencies (what, 800MHz-2.4GHz?) and move
on to something else for cellular telephony,
we're no longer allowed to call the devices
"cellular telephones"?
If you want to trademark "CellPhone" and
apply it to some particular system, fine.
Saying that all cellular telephones are and
will always be a particular system, however,
is short-sighted.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> writes:
>> >There is not a strong probability of a cellular network accomodating airborne
>> >users because of simple economics.
>>
>> But there already *is* at least one, AirCell.
>Air cell isn't really cellular technology in the same sense that
>the ground system is. It just piggy backs on the ground cellular
>network and frequency use, but the technology is different.
But it is a *cellular* technology. Regardless
of whether or not it's the one you happen to
use daily, it's cellular.
>> So for aviation, "small geographical area" just becomes
>> a much larger area. What's the big deal?
>You clearly don't understand cellular.
Oh. Bummer.
>The idea is not to just
>designate areas, that's how the old pre-cellular MTS and IMTS
>phones work. What cellular relies upon is the ability to arbitrarily
>shrink the size of the geographical areas via being able to command
>less power and by using directional and lower antennas to decrease
>the effective range allowing frequencies to be reused over a much
>smaller area.
>This is much harder to do when you've got line of sight over a huge
>area. You can't split a cell.
What's wrong with just scaling up the cells?
I don't think you've addressed that.
If we have satellite-based cells, they're
probably going to be huge. What makes that
any less "cellular"?
>> The much larger cells that can be used for an
>> air-based cellular system could bring the cost of
>> providing coverage down substantially.
>What brought the price of cellular down (other than the decrease
>in the price of the underlying technololgy) was the ability to
>support a much larger number of users.
You're replying to something I didn't write.
I'm not discussing the history of AMPS.
If you don't think that having big cells will
be less expensive than small cells, explain
why.
>You can't directly apply the land technology to air use.
I've never suggested that a land-based cellular
should be directly applied to air use.
>An
>effective air system will have to rely on something other than
>simple spatial diveresity. The digital/spread-spectrum technologies
>hold a lot of promise for this.
Agreed. That's why I've been asking about the
legality of using them in the air.
--kyler
Hilton Goldstein
Ryan R. Healy wrote:
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > I don't carry a cell phone, but I remember taking a flight with somebody a
> > few years ago who did. He lived in New Jersey and we flew to somewhere in
> > New England (don't remember exactly where). On the way back, we pulled
> > into the runnup area and he pulled out his cell phone to call FSS to open
> > his VFR flight plan (perfectly legal since we're still on the ground).
>
> I carry my cell phone with me at all times when I fly.
[zap re: IFR releases]
May I add one to weather briefings/updates, and clearences:
Emergency landing! I've read that ELTs aren't the most reliable things
around, and instead of having people search for you, it's "Hi 911, it's
Hilton, I'm at..."
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
650-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 650-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
Why is there an expiration date on sour cream?
Roy Smith
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> Emergency landing! I've read that ELTs aren't the most reliable things
> around
No joke.
A while back, while practicing cross-controlled stalls for my CFI
checkride, I managed to bounce my flight bag off the ceiling of the
cabin. Unbeknownst to me at the time, I also bounced the ELT out of its
mounting bracket.
A couple days later, I flew the same plane. Nobody had touched it since
my last flight. When I opened up the cargo door for some reason during
the preflight, I noticed the ELT laying on its side on the floor. Ooops.
Turned on my handheld and tuned it to 121.5, and sure enough it was
wailing away. Flipped it off, and the wailing stopped.
The ELT had been going for about 2 straight days. Asking around a bit
turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Dylan Smith
Roy Smith wrote:
> The ELT had been going for about 2 straight days. Asking around a bit
> turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
Sometimes they do get noticed though. Once somebody reported an
ELT to Approach. It'd be nice to keep a radio tuned into 121.5
to check for this sort of thing - I'm going to try to remember
to do this if I have a radio spare on a flight.
--
Email: dy...@vnet.IBM.COM
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
Anti-spam - Change 'r' to raleigh, 'i' to ibm and 'c' to com.
Jerry Bransford
Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > The ELT had been going for about 2 straight days. Asking around a bit
> > turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
>
> Sometimes they do get noticed though. Once somebody reported an
> ELT to Approach. It'd be nice to keep a radio tuned into 121.5
> to check for this sort of thing - I'm going to try to remember
> to do this if I have a radio spare on a flight.
I added 'Tune to 121.5 for ELT check' years ago as the final item before
shutting the Master switch off to all my checklists.
Jerry Bransford
Kyler, you're just being argumentative now. We're not discussing
theoretical jargon and what may technically be able to be considered
"cellulra". The subject was whether a common everyday consumer-type
cellular phone can be used when in the air. It can't, sheesh, just let
the subject drop.
George R Patterson
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >> >>Whoa! The definition of a cell phone is a radio phone which talks to the
> >> >>cellular ground network using a given set of frequencies.
> >>
> >> And these frequencies vary greatly.
>
> >Not in the US.
>
> O.k., my definition of "vary greatly" is different
> than yours.
Ok. The problem seems to be that you feel free to define what the cell
network, system, and phones are.
You aren't.
The definition has been laid down by the FCC. It basically works like
this.
1. If you have a portable device which transmits in the 50MHz band of
frequencies around the 800Mhz band which the FCC has reserved for
the cellular telephone network, it's either illegal, or it's a cell
phone.
2. If you have a device which does not use those frequencies, it's not
a cell phone.
3. The cellular telephone network uses these frequencies. A description
of the system may be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/cellular/celfctsh.htm.
4. If you have a network which resembles the cellular network in other
respects but does not use those frequencies, it's not the cellular
telephone network.
Similarly, any transmitter which does not use these frequencies does not
violate the FCC regulation against the use of cell phones in the air.
George R Patterson
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> The ELT had been going for about 2 straight days. Asking around a bit
> turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
There have been several such cases at 47N. As far as we know, all were
fairly promptly reported. In most cases, however, the airport manager
was not able to determine which aircraft was broadcasting. The few times
that he did, it was usually because someone flew the aircraft and the
signal started to diminish.
I've never tried, but it seems that a handheld radio makes a poor RDF
system.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Ron Natalie
K
> >Air cell isn't really cellular technology in the same sense that
> >the ground system is. It just piggy backs on the ground cellular
> >network and frequency use, but the technology is different.
>
> But it is a *cellular* technology. Regardless
> of whether or not it's the one you happen to
> use daily, it's cellular.
It shares the cellular facility, but it's operatin is *NOT*
cellular.
> What's wrong with just scaling up the cells?
> I don't think you've addressed that.
I did address it, you chose to ignore it. The problem
is that:
1. To effectively do it from a plane would require incredibly
large cells.
2. The point is to make the cells small, that's what gets the
spatial diversity to allow high frequency reuse to allow lots
of calls in a limited spectrum which allows the price to go
down. This is what separates cellular from the pre-cellular
mobile phones where essentially you just put in one big base
station and you could only allow 12 calls at a time.
>
> If we have satellite-based cells, they're
> probably going to be huge. What makes that
> any less "cellular"?
A satellite system would *NOT* be cellular. Portable
phone != cellular. Cellular defines the spatial diversity
policy of the existing cellular system.
> You're replying to something I didn't write.
> I'm not discussing the history of AMPS.
>
Well, if you insist on using the term "cellular it's hard to
avoid it."
> If you don't think that having big cells will
> be less expensive than small cells, explain
> why.
I said why. The key is how do you run a large number
of calls in a limited spectrum. The term "cellular"
refers to using spatial diversity, i.e. small "cells"
That's what the term refers too.
You can't just use one large cell and expect it to
work.
Roger J.Hamlett
In article: <roy-040398...@qwerky.med.nyu.edu>
>
> Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> wrote:
> > Emergency landing! I've read that ELTs aren't the most reliable
things
> > around
>
> No joke.
>
> A while back, while practicing cross-controlled stalls for my CFI
> checkride, I managed to bounce my flight bag off the ceiling of the
> cabin. Unbeknownst to me at the time, I also bounced the ELT out
of its
> mounting bracket.
>
> A couple days later, I flew the same plane. Nobody had touched it
since
> my last flight. When I opened up the cargo door for some reason
during
> the preflight, I noticed the ELT laying on its side on the floor.
Ooops.
> Turned on my handheld and tuned it to 121.5, and sure enough it was
> wailing away. Flipped it off, and the wailing stopped.
>
bit
> turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
shield. If it is a 'metal bin' type design, the ELT may have been
only detectable from fairly close, or above the plane.
Best Wishes
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail ro...@ttelmah.demon.co.uk http://www.ttelmah.demon.co.uk/ |
| A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas.'By God, that's a good one!'|
| (Chaucer) |
Kyler Laird
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> writes:
>> What's wrong with just scaling up the cells?
>> I don't think you've addressed that.
>I did address it, you chose to ignore it. The problem
>is that:
>1. To effectively do it from a plane would require incredibly
>large cells.
And the problem with that?
>2. The point is to make the cells small, that's what gets the
>spatial diversity to allow high frequency reuse to allow lots
>of calls in a limited spectrum which allows the price to go
>down. This is what separates cellular from the pre-cellular
>mobile phones where essentially you just put in one big base
>station and you could only allow 12 calls at a time.
And the problem with having fewer cells?
(I'm going out on a limb here and guessing
that there are fewer GA airplanes than
automobiles and people with phones.)
>> If we have satellite-based cells, they're
>> probably going to be huge. What makes that
>> any less "cellular"?
>A satellite system would *NOT* be cellular. Portable
>phone != cellular.
So those satellites aren't allowed to define
cells of operation and share frequencies?
--kyler
John Clarke
In article <roy-040398...@qwerky.med.nyu.edu>,
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>The ELT had been going for about 2 straight days. Asking around a bit
>turned up no evidence that anybody had even noticed.
That's bizarre. My shutdown checklist for the Katana specifically
has "Tune to 121.5 to check for accidental ELT activiation".
I would have noticed my ELT being set off, and I'm sure I would
have heard anyone else's.
Did you call the local tower to see if anyone had noticed? Have
you checked your installation to ensure that a signal is actually
escaping the aircraft (ie. no dying battery)?
John
Kyler Laird
Jerry Bransford <no...@noway.com> writes:
>Kyler, you're just being argumentative now.
Oh, thanks. That clears up a lot.
>We're not discussing
>theoretical jargon and what may technically be able to be considered
>"cellulra".
That's a bit like saying "cordless phone
conversations can be monitored on any
Radio Shack scanner" and then saying, "oh,
yeah, well I meant the analog 46/49MHz
models..."
Sure, there was a time when that was what
most people thought of when "cordless
phone" was used, but that was never a
limitation of cordless phones - just an
implementation problem.
I recognize that we're talking about a
field with rapidly-changing technology.
There are cell phones operating at 5.8GHz!
Lots o' cool stuff coming. There's no
reason to go around spreading
misinformation by using misleading words
and making bad assumptions.
>The subject was whether a common everyday consumer-type
>cellular phone can be used when in the air.
No, it was about the legalities of using one
in the air.
>It can't,
Obviously they can be used in the air. We
wouldn't be discussing this otherwise.
I just called Nextel. (They sell consumer-
type cellular to common people everyday.)
According to Keith's supervisor, they have
no qualms about using their (digital TDMA)
cellular phone service in the air. He said
that there is a risk of the phone interfering
with flight instruments (so use on a
commercial flight is pretty much a no-no),
but they don't have any in-flight
restrictions on them.
Ricochet also said that they don't care about
airborne use of their cellular modems. They
are certainly fast enough to do decent voice,
but I don't know of anyone doing this. (I'm
also not in their coverage area.)
>sheesh, just let
>the subject drop.
If you need help using your news reader to skip
threads, contact a local support person.
--kyler