Funny cell phone story
Craig Welch
x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
>process! :)
They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
Craig
Craig Welch
bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
>Just go and use the sucker in the John, who cares!!!!
The crew care. And they'll probably hear you, and with luck you will
be arrested. Why is it that bozos like you think you can flout
regulations with impunity? Are you going to have a cigarette in the
john while you're there? No, why not? Oh, you *agree* with that
regulation, but *disagree* with the phone regulation. What about
people who disagree with the smoking regulation. Can they smoke on
your flights? No, your views prevail. I see.
Craig
x x
Craig,
It is people like you, that the govenment
loves........................
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
wrote:
x x
I iterate again,,,,,,,,,it is people like Craig that our government
loves.............
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:24:34 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
wrote:
>bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
Deborah Stevenson
>Craig,
>It is people like you, that the govenment
>loves........................
>On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
>wrote:
>>x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
>>
>>>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
>>>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
>>>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
>>>process! :)
>>
>>They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
Passengers with an interest in the plane staying aloft probably approve
of him too.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Ian Preece
I'm rather surprised at suggestions that cellphones are going to work at all,
at any real altitude.
I'm guessing a lot here, since I'm not familiar with the US system, but
it's more or less conventional to design cell antennae to be optimal
horizontally, not up.
Anybody got any more details on this?
--
regards,
Ianp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Preece ia...@darktower.com
I.T. Project Specialist ia...@darktower.demon.co.uk
http://www.darktower.com/
"A very merry Christmas to all our readers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Slaugh
Ian,
I know an individual who received a warning from the FAA about 5 years
ago to stop using his cell phone in his airplane. I don't know how he
was caught but I know he routinely used it in the air.
Rick Slaugh
x x
On 22 Dec 1996 02:10:29 GMT, stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah
Stevenson) wrote:
>In <32bc25c0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> x...@x.com (x x) writes:
>
>>Craig,
>>It is people like you, that the govenment
>>loves........................
>
>>On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
>>wrote:
>
>>>x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
>>>>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
>>>>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
>>>>process! :)
>>>
>>>They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
An example of another ignorant person:
Hamid Wasti
>Ian Preece wrote:
>>
>> I'm rather surprised at suggestions that cellphones are going to work at all,
>> at any real altitude.
>>
>> I'm guessing a lot here, since I'm not familiar with the US system, but
>> it's more or less conventional to design cell antennae to be optimal
>> horizontally, not up.
I was flying in a 757 somewhere in the 35,000 feet or thereabouts altitude
when the cell phone in the briefcase of the passenger next to me started
to ring. He quickly opened the briefcase and took off the battery then
sheepishly looked around to see if a FA had heard it. He told me that he
was using it in the terminal and forgot to turn it off.
So to answer your question, I have seen a cell phone ring at altitude. I
would guess that if the phone can ring, a person can most probably talk on
it as well and cause all the problems that a previous post already
mentioned.
-----Hamid
skyt...@mail.sgi.net
Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>
> In <32bc25c0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> x...@x.com (x x) writes:
>
> >Craig,
> >It is people like you, that the govenment
> >loves........................
>
> >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
> >wrote:
>
> >>x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
> >>>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
> >>>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
> >>>process! :)
> >>
> >>They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
>
> of him too.
>
> Deborah Stevenson
> (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
to quit "staying aloft"!
Peter McNally
Ian Preece <ia...@darktower.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<851248...@darktower.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> I'm rather surprised at suggestions that cellphones are going to work at
all,
> at any real altitude.
>
> I'm guessing a lot here, since I'm not familiar with the US system, but
> it's more or less conventional to design cell antennae to be optimal
> horizontally, not up.
>
> Anybody got any more details on this?
>
The signal radiates at an angle up/down from the transmitter (otherwise you
couldn't receive a signal at ground level, or in a high-rise building. The
line-of-sight on the upwards radiation signal will extend for a
considerable distance as there is generally nothing in the way, so it is
quite conceivable that over distance it would reach 30,000 feet or more.
Having a cellular phone even just switch on at altitude as well as
endangering the aircraft, can confuse the hell out of a cell network. The
'phone periodically transmits an "I'm here" message as it crosses cell
boundaries, and at altitude can receive multiple signals of more-or-less
equal strength from multiple cell antennae on the ground. Each cell then
tries to "own" that 'phone creating network havoc.
Peter.
Steve Jungersen
In article <01bbf098$dbd3b2c0$c9e402cb@pmcnally>, "Peter McNally" <pmcn...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>Ian Preece <ia...@darktower.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>endangering the aircraft, can confuse the hell out of a cell network. The
>'phone periodically transmits an "I'm here" message as it crosses cell
>boundaries, and at altitude can receive multiple signals of more-or-less
>equal strength from multiple cell antennae on the ground. Each cell then
>tries to "own" that 'phone creating network havoc.
>
>Peter.
And where did you get the idea that cellular phones would endanger and
aircraft? I have seen no such data anywhere. In addition, although I would
never dream of using a cell phone in an aircraft since it is illegal, I have
seen others use them in aircraft and have seen NO instruments affected by the
phones.
And the only problem that the network havoc produces is the possibility of not
receiving a bill for the call. Perhaps this is the reason we are not allowed
to use the phones in flight.
One more thought. Have you ever tried to use your cell phone in a parked
plane at the gate? They won't let you. Of course, stand right outside the
door in the jetway and it is allowed. Now where is the logic in that? Let's
here it from those people who just want to follow all the goofy crap the
government puts out.
Steve
Chris Durrant
I didn't catch the original posting but there was a story a year or so
ago where a pilot of a '182 returning to Southend (UK) lost his radio
stack in IMC. He telephoned Air Traffic who, after taking a minute or
two to be convinced, gave the guy vectors and surveillance radar to
cloud break over the cellphone.
Given that anyone would do the same in a similar jam then maybe we don't
need those expensive King handheld com sets for just such an occasion,
just pack your cellphone!
Chris
Ron Natalie
> And the only problem that the network havoc produces is the possibility of not
> receiving a bill for the call. Perhaps this is the reason we are not allowed
> to use the phones in flight.
No, the network havoc is that it screws up the frequency reuse
which is the basic premise of the cellular telephone design. This
is what annoys the hell out of cellular companies.
Minnesota Mike
IEEE Spectrum, Aug 1996 or so issue had a excellent article on this topic.
The problem isn't just with cell phones either, but with all types of
electronic equipment.
In article <32BE13...@mail.sgi.net>, skyt...@mail.sgi.net said...
Jake Brodsky
Steve Jungersen wrote:
>
> And where did you get the idea that cellular phones would endanger and
> aircraft? I have seen no such data anywhere. In addition, although I would
> never dream of using a cell phone in an aircraft since it is illegal, I have
> seen others use them in aircraft and have seen NO instruments affected by the
> phones.
How did you know?
Believe me it does happen, and for some pretty unlikely reasons, too.
Check the NASA Callback (Aviation Safety Reporting System newsletter)
from last spring if you don't believe me. There are even some IEEE
studies on this phenomenon.
As an electrical engineer and a private pilot, I can say that it
probably isn't the cell phone RF that causes the problem. It can
be the microprocessor clock or a leaky Local Oscillator that does
the damage. Please understand that regardless of what the FCC
says in Part 15, there are plenty of consumer electronics these
days which radiate an awful lot more than they should. It is
difficult from the perspective of a flight attendant to determine
what affects the aircraft navigation instruments and what doesn't.
So they prohibit everything. Better safe than sorry.
>
> And the only problem that the network havoc produces is the possibility of not
> receiving a bill for the call. Perhaps this is the reason we are not allowed
> to use the phones in flight.
No, it's because you'd hit too many cells with your phone traffic.
The FCC made this rule, not the FAA. And by the way, you will get
a bill for that fiasco --and you won't like it one bit!
>
> One more thought. Have you ever tried to use your cell phone in a parked
> plane at the gate? They won't let you. Of course, stand right outside the
> door in the jetway and it is allowed. Now where is the logic in that? Let's
> here it from those people who just want to follow all the goofy crap the
> government puts out.
>
There isn't any real problem with using a cell phone at the gate or
inside the cabin while the aircraft is at the gate. But we can't
reasonably expect a flight attendant to check that everyone, even
the talkative, have turned off their cell phones. In order to keep
things simple, sweet, and stupid (for those of society who are just
a bit slower than average), they make this easy-to-understand rule
that NO ELECTRONIC DEVICES ARE TO BE POWERED UP IN THE CABIN DURING
TAKEOFF AND LANDING! It is folks who think they know just a bit
more than the average (but not enough to be an authority) that can
cause serious havoc.
Jake Brodsky, mailto:fru...@erols.com
PP-ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ MD24
Amateur Radio Station AB3A
"A little knowledge is dangerous."
Ash Nallawalla
In <01bbf098$dbd3b2c0$c9e402cb@pmcnally> "Peter McNally" <pmcn...@zeta.org.au> writes:
>Having a cellular phone even just switch on at altitude as well as
>endangering the aircraft, can confuse the hell out of a cell network. The
>'phone periodically transmits an "I'm here" message as it crosses cell
>boundaries, and at altitude can receive multiple signals of more-or-less
>equal strength from multiple cell antennae on the ground. Each cell then
>tries to "own" that 'phone creating network havoc.
A while ago, in CompuServe PacForum's Aviation section someone was
claiming that he could happily use his analogue phone from his
light aircraft but not his second phone, a GSM digital. The
suggestion was that the software used on the digital network was
programmed to block that particular number if the signal appeared
at several cells at strong levels. This was not the case for
the software used for the analogue network, or so he thought. He
did try using both units simultaneously.
[This isn't the forum for discussing the software design, but I
have wondered if people using cell phones from tall office towers
don't trigger several cells at once and suffer the same fate? I
guess the cells need to be a few hundred kilometres apart before
the caller gets the chop. I am posting via rec.travel.air, BTW.]
Cole Pierce
From the nimble fingers of st...@cari-mark.com (Steve Jungersen)
: And where did you get the idea that cellular phones would endanger and
: aircraft? I have seen no such data anywhere. In addition, although I would
: never dream of using a cell phone in an aircraft since it is illegal, I have
: seen others use them in aircraft and have seen NO instruments affected by the
: phones.
Please see my earlier post. It very definitely affected ours.
: One more thought. Have you ever tried to use your cell phone in a parked
: plane at the gate? They won't let you. Of course, stand right outside the
: door in the jetway and it is allowed. Now where is the logic in that? Let's
: here it from those people who just want to follow all the goofy crap the
: government puts out.
Well, we have to draw the line somewhere, don't we. Where would you draw it?
At the top of the jetway? At the ticket counter? I agree, the cellphone will
probably cause as much trouble at the door as it will in one's seat, but this
DOES allow the traveler the option to use his toy all the way down the jetway,
while boarding perhaps. So it seems a reasonable compromise.
gun one
John Fowler
In article <851248...@darktower.demon.co.uk>, ia...@darktower.demon.co.uk wrote:
>I'm rather surprised at suggestions that cellphones are going to work at all,
>at any real altitude.
>
>I'm guessing a lot here, since I'm not familiar with the US system, but
>it's more or less conventional to design cell antennae to be optimal
>horizontally, not up.
>
>Anybody got any more details on this?
Cell phones work great at altitude. I used to get excellent reception
above areas I could never receive signals in while on the ground. Of course,
when legislation against the use of airborne cell phones was made public, I
quietly obeyed -- but I still carry one with me for emergencies and for use on
the ground (cell phones are great for getting clearances and IFR releases).
Using phones in the air upsets the networks -- that's an FCC thing. Using
phones in an aircraft can upset the nav radios -- that's an FAA thing. I have
on about one occasion out of fifty seen a cell phone interfere with aircraft
radios. While it doesn't happen often, sometimes when I switch the phone on
(I use it a lot on the ground in the aircraft), a nav needle will just head
for the boonies. Even more rarely, I have heard com interference -- sort of a
ticking noise. As best I can determine, a handheld phone's antenna has to be
in fairly close proximity to the other radio (or its antenna) to cause
interference, but aboard an aircraft it's anybody's guess what piece of metal
will be carrying a signal or where the antennae and their leads are. I assume
the rarity of events is caused by changing frequencies of the phone (the phone
can change frequencies quite a bit) and the aircraft radios. When the two are
set to harmonic frequencies, the stage is set for some unpleasant results.
As an added note, there used to be admonition about turning phones off in
blasting areas. Apparently, the phones could set off radio-activated charges.
There are supposed to be signs posted alerting phone users to turn them off in
such areas.
One thing I noticed -- once -- was a friend of mine whose son thought
something was wrong with his radio controlled car. It had been working
recently, but wouldn't respond to any commands. They changed the batteries in
the unit and tried everything else, but it wouldn't do anything. When I
completed a phone call, I turned off the phone because I didn't plan on using
it any more that evening. As soon as I turned it off, the car shot forward
and nailed my friend in the foot. The car then worked perfectly. We never
could duplicate this event, but it was wierd when it happened.
I also have a GE ProSeries 2-line phone. This sucker will tick like mad
almost every time I place my cell phone within 1 foot of it.
I wouldn't use any equipment designed to transmit or receive radio signals, or
any equipment known to emit relatively high levels of em radiation (laptop
computers, etc.) in an aircraft in IFR flight unless I knew from a reputable
source that it was safe to do so.
SR - ILM
x x
Actually, I did use my cell phone at altitude once in a light plane
and was never charged for it.......hahahahahaha.
Yin Lung Shih
In article <59n20f$q...@news.wilmington.net>,
John Fowler <jfo...@wilmington.net> wrote:
>Using phones in the air upsets the networks -- that's an FCC thing. Using
>phones in an aircraft can upset the nav radios -- that's an FAA thing. I have
>on about one occasion out of fifty seen a cell phone interfere with aircraft
>radios. While it doesn't happen often, sometimes when I switch the phone on
>(I use it a lot on the ground in the aircraft), a nav needle will just head
>for the boonies.
<snip>
> I assume
>the rarity of events is caused by changing frequencies of the phone (the phone
>can change frequencies quite a bit) and the aircraft radios. When the two are
>set to harmonic frequencies, the stage is set for some unpleasant results.
This is a very important point about the frequency hopping cellphone. With
a couple of hundred cell phone channels and a couple of hundred VOR channels,
the rarity of a problem may lead users to think that it is all bureacratic
thickheadedness. "I used a cell phone for several flights on my plane and
there were no nav problems." But it could be that the sensitive combinations
just weren't triggered. The next time might kill you.
>I wouldn't use any equipment designed to transmit or receive radio signals, or
>any equipment known to emit relatively high levels of em radiation (laptop
>computers, etc.) in an aircraft in IFR flight unless I knew from a reputable
>source that it was safe to do so.
Yes! A cellphone is a radio transmitter after all, designed to put out a few
watts if necessary. This can mean an induced antenna voltage of about 10
to 20 volts with a standard 50 ohm antenna. Any radio receiver front end,
designed to respond to signals below a *microvolt* (one-millionth the level),
can become overloaded with a physically close signal, even if not on the
same frequency. Find a nearby 5KW AM transmitting antenna and experiment
with how far away you have to be before you stop noticing its effects on
your car radio. Then compare that distance with the distance between your
cellphone antenna and the aircraft antenna. When calculating this, you
need to know that induced voltage is proportional to the square root of
power, so 1000x the power is only 32x the induced e-field in the antenna.
Also, the e-field strength falls off as the square of distance. Thus,
the more powerful transmitter doesn't add as much as you think to distance,
and being close to an e-field source allows field strength to increase
much more than you might think. The net result is an e-field strength
by the cellphone at the nav antenna that will probably make you a bit
uncomfortable.
Regarding the original point. I agree there was no reason not to use the
cellphone on the ground, technically speaking. But I still agree with
the airline crew. 1) It's their plane, the FAA rules say they are the
final authority for a variety of good reasons not related to cell phones;
2) If you allow people to use the phones in the plane, but on the ground,
don't you think there will be 1 out of 1000 that just can't resist using it
in the air anyway? No use at all is just a simpler rule to understand and
explain. There is no gray area that people are tempted to fudge with.
How many people have you seen use their laptops to the very last minute,
despite the admonition, no laptops below 10K? Not many, but there are
always a few. 3) If a plane goes down because of a cellphone being used
by some schnook who "knows better", the dead pilots will still be blamed
as being at fault and the airline will still get blamed for lax maintenance
and have to pay the hundreds of millions in compensation, lost revenues,
lost airplane, etc. With that kind of risk/reward ratio, I don't blame
them for putting a ban on the use of cellphones, especially when they do
provide in-flight phones if you must make a phone call. In flight use
by a pilot exercising emergency authority is different as it is presumed
that the pilot is already in imminent danger of augering in.
Yin Shih, N9YS/6, PP-ASEL-IA, N1163W
yls...@alumni.caltech.edu
Kenneth R. Crudup
In article <851248...@darktower.demon.co.uk>,
ia...@darktower.demon.co.uk says:
>Anybody got any more details on this?
The Sunday before Spring COMDEX 95 in Atlanta, the weather was so bad that
our flight, which had been circling for about 45 mins, was re-directed to
Chattanooga. A lot of us were going to COMDEX, and had reservations, etc.
that we had to keep, and as soon as the Captain spooled up the engines and
we broke out of the holding pattern (in a *big* hurry, too- he really gave
it the gas) I could hear about 15 other people getting on our cellphones.
Since I'm sure the crew was just as ticked as we were, they didn't say
anything.
(Oh, BTW, Last I remember, we didn't crash. :-)
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix & OS/2 Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting
ke...@panix.com CI$: 75032,3044 +1 617 524 5929/4949 Home/Office
16 Plainfield St, Boston, MA 02130-3633 +1 617 983 9410 Fax
OS/2 box: pkenny.tiac.net Realize the magic of Merlin! OS/2 4.0 is here NOW!
Peter McNally
Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in article
<32c13d37...@news.pacific.net.sg>...
> skyt...@mail.sgi.net wrote:
>
> >I'd love to hear your explanation of cell phone use causing an aircraft
> >to quit "staying aloft"!
>
> Airlines have come to the view that use of a cell phone implies a
> *risk* of interference with navigation instruments (not a guarantee of
> interference). Interference with navigation instruments could
> conceivably lead to a crash. A crashed plane is no longer aloft.
.... unless it crashes into a mountain top - its still aloft :-)
(Sorry Craig, just couldn't resist that one)
Peter.
John Fowler
>Regarding the original point. I agree there was no reason not to use the
>cellphone on the ground, technically speaking. But I still agree with
>the airline crew. 1) It's their plane, the FAA rules say they are the
>final authority for a variety of good reasons not related to cell phones;
>2) If you allow people to use the phones in the plane, but on the ground,
>don't you think there will be 1 out of 1000 that just can't resist using it
>in the air anyway? No use at all is just a simpler rule to understand and
>explain.
I think this is the heart of the whole matter. Anyone who has thought the
situation through or has seen a phone actually interfere with the instruments
knows that this is potentially dangerous in flight. So the question is --
Where are we going to draw the line? I'm not sure, but I believe that where
phones may be used on the ground is up to the airline. I can't say that I
blame them for not wanting the phones used on the aircraft at all since it
would be very easy for a person to push the END button instead of turning the
phone off. An operating cell phone represents danger, whether or not a call
is in progress.
On the other hand, while on the ground under extraordinary circumstances, a
good attitude may earn you a phone call. While under gate hold, I asked the
captain for permission to use the cell phone to tell my family about the
delay. He said it was OK. Maybe it was OK on this airline, maybe I asked the
captain politely enough, or maybe he just felt like bending the company rules
for me. The bottom line is it's their aircraft and their rules, and this rule
IS there for passenger safety. Just please make sure that thing is turned off
before takeoff.
SR - ILM
Dan Flak
(Stuff about cellular phone use on airplanes deleted.)
The regulations prohibiting the use of cellular phones on aircraft
serve two purposes:
1. Protection of the aircraft. Cellular phones have not be *certified*
for use in aircraft. They *probably* will cause no harm to the
aircraft's avionics. They operate at frequencies well clear of those
used by radars, radios and navaids, and they broadcast with only .3
(that's 3/10) of a watt.
2. Protection of the cellular system. The cellular system depends upon
frequency reuse over a geographic area. RF engineers depend upon
antenna height (of both the cell site and mobile) and the curvature of
the earth (plus other things like power levels, terrain masking and
such) to make sure that a mobile can "see" only one cell site on a
given frequency at any time.
All of this goes out the window if the caller is at 35,000 feet. He
will be within line of site of hundreds of cell sites simultaneously.
OK, someone using a cell phone in a plane *might* endanger the
aircraft (it's not likely), but he will definately play havoc with the
cellular system.
It's a case of the FAA and the FCC cooperating.
skyt...@mail.sgi.net
>
> >In <32bc25c0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> x...@x.com (x x) writes:
> >
> >>Craig,
> >>It is people like you, that the govenment
> >>loves........................
> >
> >>On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>>x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
> >>>>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
> >>>>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
> >>>>process! :)
> >>>
> >>>They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
>
> >
> >of him too.
> >
> >Deborah Stevenson
> >(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Anna Warman
In article <59l9cm$o...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
st...@cari-mark.com "Steve Jungersen" writes:
> And where did you get the idea that cellular phones would endanger and
> aircraft? I have seen no such data anywhere. In addition, although I would
> never dream of using a cell phone in an aircraft since it is illegal, I have
> seen others use them in aircraft and have seen NO instruments affected by the
> phones.
I understood that the use of cell-phones has been shown to, on occasion,
cause problems with navigation equipment (an avionics engineer I work
with explained it to me, but not being a technical person, I can't recall
what he said - although doubtless there are others who post to these
groups who could).
I also recall reading something that indicated the Lauder Air 767, where
an engine went into reverse thrust which led to the aircraft crashing
killing all on board, was thought to have been caused by the use of a
cell-phone on board. I'm not sure if that report was official or not.
> And the only problem that the network havoc produces is the possibility of not
> receiving a bill for the call. Perhaps this is the reason we are not allowed
> to use the phones in flight.
A very cynical attitude. Why do you not believe it might be for your
own safety?
> One more thought. Have you ever tried to use your cell phone in a parked
> plane at the gate? They won't let you. Of course, stand right outside the
> door in the jetway and it is allowed. Now where is the logic in that? Let's
> here it from those people who just want to follow all the goofy crap the
> government puts out.
I would suggest that the aircraft is the property of the airline, who
have a vested interest in all their equipment functioning correctly.
Even when the aircraft is parked, the cell-phone may affect the gyros,
which remain on in transit.
The jetty would be the property of the airport and therefore the airline
can't stop you making your call.
ANNA
Visit my in-flight safety page - http://www.plsys.co.uk/~anna/inflight.htm
patterson,george r
In article <QcnvyAf...@home.melbpc.org.au>,
Ash Nallawalla <a...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>[This isn't the forum for discussing the software design, but I
>have wondered if people using cell phones from tall office towers
>don't trigger several cells at once and suffer the same fate?
Not usually. You see, the designers of the cell systems know the
buildings are there and are unlikely to move. In fact, their cells in
that area are probably on top of similar buildings. They place cell
stations which are in metropolitan areas high and farther apart than
in more rural areas. They also plan the frequency differences of the
cell layers more carefully.
Now, if someone puts up a new building which is significantly taller
than anything else in the area, there may be a few problems before
the service provider can adjust the network. This usually only happens
during construction, however. The provider will have adjusted things
by the time the building opens for business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| I pity the man who don't drink, 'cause when he
George Patterson - | gets up in the morning, that's as good as he's
| going to feel the whole day.
| Joe E. Brown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Natalie
> Not usually. You see, the designers of the cell systems know the
> buildings are there and are unlikely to move. In fact, their cells in
> that area are probably on top of similar buildings. They place cell
> stations which are in metropolitan areas high and farther apart than
> in more rural areas. They also plan the frequency differences of the
> cell layers more carefully.
This is backwards. In metro areas the cells sites are smaller and
lower.
Anton Verhulst
>.... where a pilot of a '182 returning to Southend (UK) lost his radio
>stack in IMC. He telephoned Air Traffic who, after taking a minute or
>two to be convinced, gave the guy vectors and surveillance radar to
>cloud break over the cellphone.
I don't know UK regs regarding cell phone use in the air but this guy
should not have been in a "jam". There are "lost com" procedures and if
he had followed them, he would have made a safe and legal landing without
having to resort to the cell phone. Having said that, I probably would
have done the sme thing :-).
Tony V.
Crispin Olson
In article <QcnvyAf...@home.melbpc.org.au>, a...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
>In <01bbf098$dbd3b2c0$c9e402cb@pmcnally> "Peter McNally" <pmcn...@zeta.org.au>
> writes:
>
>>Having a cellular phone even just switch on at altitude as well as
>>endangering the aircraft, can confuse the hell out of a cell network. The
>>'phone periodically transmits an "I'm here" message as it crosses cell
>>boundaries, and at altitude can receive multiple signals of more-or-less
>>equal strength from multiple cell antennae on the ground. Each cell then
>>tries to "own" that 'phone creating network havoc.
>
>A while ago, in CompuServe PacForum's Aviation section someone was
>claiming that he could happily use his analogue phone from his
>light aircraft but not his second phone, a GSM digital. The
>suggestion was that the software used on the digital network was
>programmed to block that particular number if the signal appeared
>at several cells at strong levels. This was not the case for
>the software used for the analogue network, or so he thought. He
>did try using both units simultaneously.
>
>have wondered if people using cell phones from tall office towers
>guess the cells need to be a few hundred kilometres apart before
>the caller gets the chop. I am posting via rec.travel.air, BTW.]
>
charged for 'using multiple cells at once' This is, technically speaking, a
layer beneath the charging mechanism. You get charged for the time on the
system - not N* number of cells you use!
I guess its possible that some dorky yank systems might be different - but
they must have been programmed by real bozos if its true!
John Moran
I was at an airport waiting to board a plane when a guy across the lobby
started using his cell phone...I set my scanner searching and soon I could
hear his conversation...the voice in my ear piece matched his lip
movements....never told this guy I heard his conversation..JOHN
Deborah Stevenson (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: In <32bc25c0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> x...@x.com (x x) writes:
:
: >Craig,
: >It is people like you, that the govenment
: >loves........................
:
: >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:04 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
: >wrote:
:
: >>x...@x.com (x x) wrote:
: >>
: >>>Here's an idea.........just go to the john and make your call from in
: >>>there if they hassle ya........that way, u get your call in, and they
: >>>dont see ya do it.......and of course you can relieve yourself in the
: >>>process! :)
: >>
: >>They'll probably hear you. So you'll get arrested in any case.
:
: Passengers with an interest in the plane staying aloft probably approve
: of him too.
:
: Deborah Stevenson
: (stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
--
---
JOHN/PHX (jam...@analon.com) computing & making good Chemistry!
-------
Robert I. Pacheco
BRAVO!!!
Finally an educated answer
--robert
RBCP
>I was at an airport waiting to board a plane when a guy across the lobby
>started using his cell phone...I set my scanner searching and soon I could
>hear his conversation...the voice in my ear piece matched his lip
>movements....never told this guy I heard his conversation..JOHN
We saw a guy sitting in the Wendy's outside food court, eating his
lunch and talking on the cell phone. While I was waiting in the drive
thru I tuned him in - then as we approached the food court I cranked
up the scanner and sat there, playing his voice out the window. He
looks up and a minute later says, "Son of a bitch..." and hangs up the
phone. Poor guy.
Tim Hogard
Jake Brodsky (fru...@erols.com) wrote:
: Steve Jungersen wrote:
: Believe me it does happen, and for some pretty unlikely reasons, too.
: Check the NASA Callback (Aviation Safety Reporting System newsletter)
: from last spring if you don't believe me. There are even some IEEE
: studies on this phenomenon.
Some of the IEEE papers are so much fun to read :-)
: As an electrical engineer and a private pilot, I can say that it
: probably isn't the cell phone RF that causes the problem. It can
: be the microprocessor clock or a leaky Local Oscillator that does
: the damage. Please understand that regardless of what the FCC
One small detail is that most new electronics don't go "OFF". They
run all the time but at different rates. Their oscillators will
continue to run and their processors will continue to look for
key presses and they will continue to refresh it's memory. The
device may look "OFF" but it's doing exactly what it was programed to
do -- look like it has no power.
: says in Part 15, there are plenty of consumer electronics these
: days which radiate an awful lot more than they should. It is
: difficult from the perspective of a flight attendant to determine
: what affects the aircraft navigation instruments and what doesn't.
: So they prohibit everything. Better safe than sorry.
If this is a real risk, then whats wrong with a detection device at
the security gates? I suspect that many devices today might have
more chance causing interfeerence in their sleep mode than when they
are "on" due to the vast changes in current.
Jake Brodsky
How many modes do you want to test for? There is sleep mode (less
likely to be a factor, but still possible), and active mode, and
transmit mode (if it is a two way device). How would your typical FA
have any way of knowing which mode is the worst case radiation the
device can put out? Shall we train these folks how to be avionics
technicians?
Further, what frequencies would you test for? Aircraft have
navigation receivers for VHF, Glide slope receivers on UHF,
transponders and DME around 1 GHz, not to mention an ADF for MW and
LW. That's just for little guys like me. Larger aircraft have
shortwave receivers, Omega receivers (though not for much longer),
GPS receivers, Radar, and so on.
I don't think there is an easy way of determining in advance what will
hurt the aircraft and what won't.
[The quotes below got mixed up somewhere. I have corrected it to
what I think was said by each person. My sincere apologies if I got
it wrong (Jake Brodsky)]
On 1 Jan 1997 02:33:38 GMT, tho...@not.abnormal.com (Tim Hogard)
wrote:
>: Steve Jungersen wrote:
Jake Brodsky, mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Nearly fifty percent of all graduates came from the bottom half of the class."