CB,HAM radios,cell phones in airplanes??
George R Patterson
Rusty Coonfield wrote:
>
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
> system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
> other electrical components.
There's an FCC regulation against the use of cell phones in the air. Air
Cell has an experimental exemption to this. Cell phones are defined by
the FCC as units that transmit in the 800 Mhz range of frequencies.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Rusty Coonfield
What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
other electrical components.
any help would be appreciated
Thank You
-rusty
-- Visit my Home Page!!
http://comp.uark.edu/~rcoonfi
kimgh
Use of cell phones in an airborne plane is illegal. It's not an
FAA reg, but an FCC one, and the reason is you would confuse the
system by hitting too many cells at once; the system is not designed
for airborne communications.
Ham radios and CB's are at the discretion of the pilot. If in
instrument conditions or on an instrument flight plan, it's up
to the pilot to determine that any electronic device is safe to
use and does not interfere with the navigation systems. In VFR,
it's not usually a problem.
I have used a 2 meter HT from a plane on an instrument flight plan,
with the pilot's permission, and there was no problem. I know
a pilot who owns a plane and has a 2 meter radio installed in the
panel! I assume he had to get FAA approval for the installation,
but he owns an avionics shop, so I doubt he had any problem
meeting whatever special requirements there were.
As a pilot, I would have no trouble with anyone using Ham or
family band gear. I think a CB HT would be difficult to manage
with the long antenna, so I might think twice about that. If
I were IFR, I would want to determine that the gear does not
interfere with the nav radios.
Kim Helliwell
PP-ASEL, IA
KN6YU
Leonard Wojcik
Rusty Coonfield wrote:
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
> system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
> other electrical components.
Cell phone is prohibited in flight because you hit a number of cells
simultaneously and thus tie up a disproportionate part of the system (FCC
reg).
As for CB, Family and HAM, it is up to the discretion of the pilot to assure
that they don't interfere with anything else in the aircraft. So much for
portables...... If you want to mount the radio fixed in the aircraft, you
have just opened up a real bag of worms. You have to go through
certification that shows that none of the frequencies the transmitters (or
even the IF frequencies) or their nth harmonic will interfere with the
radios. Not a big deal for com radios.... but the interference with a GPS
is another matter. Turns out that this is the big buggaboo in trying to IFR
certify a GPS. A number of the com radio frequencies in fact wipe out the
GPS receiver (12th harmonic or some such). Harmonics can be generated by
one transmitter sending out a signal, the signal is received by another
radio's antenna on the plane (even though not transmitting or even on !),
the signal goes down the antenna to the output transistor of the passive
radio, is nicely scrambled, harmoniced, etc and then re-radiated by the
antenna, and that signal then clobbers the GPS. Probably low pass filters
on everything will be required to stop this from happening.
So there's more to it than just installing radios.... short answer ... stick
with portables, don't use them under IFR conditions, and if it clobbers your
GPS, turn it off
--
Leonard Wojcik Leo...@dontspamme.wojciktech.com
Bill Hanrahan
>What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
>in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
>system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
>Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
>being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
>other electrical components.
>
>any help would be appreciated
>Thank You
>-rusty
Rusty, I belive the appropriate regs are FCC regs, not FARs. Cell
phones, as far as I know are illegal in flight because at altitude,
they bring up a lot of cells that they're not suppose to, thereby
interfering with the way cell calls are relayed between cells (unless
specifically approved for in-flight use, like the type used on the
airlines). As far as ham equipment goes, I know of no prohibition.
( I've used 2 meter equipment many times while flying.)
Bill Hanrahan
IN the air: N3209E
ON the air: KA1KF/4
Bob Gardner
The relevant FCC reg is 47CFR Sec. 22.925, which states in part
"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 reg goes on to describe a placard that must be posted on or near
each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft. I don't think that
there are very many cell phones installed in aircraft (can't imagine a
radio shop risking its license).. I've had air-ground phones in
corporate aircraft that I have flown, but they were not cell
phones--different service, different frequency, different phone number.
So what happens if you do use one in flight is not as important as the
fact that such use is flat-out illegal once the wheels leave the ground.
And cell phone users must remember that the phone must be off. A phone
that is listening for incoming calls is constantly sending out a signal,
and that's a no-no.
Bob Gardner
Rusty Coonfield wrote:
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell
> phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an
> electrical
> system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
>
> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions
> and
> other electrical components.
>
> any help would be appreciated
> Thank You
> -rusty
>
kimgh
Bob is absolutely correct, although I've never heard of a cell-phone
being installed in an airplane (probably for just that reason).
There is no reason you can't use it on the ground, however, and
it makes a great way to file and get a clearance void time from
the runup area just before takeoff.
Also: there was a case a couple of years ago here in the S.F.
Bay Area where a pilot of a small plane lost comm (and maybe
the whole electrical system) at night and used a cell phone to
call a nearby tower and declare an emergency. I don't remember
all the details, but I assume this was treated as an invocation
of the pilot's emergency power to use any means necessary for
the safe conclusion of the flight (although how that was
negotiated with the FCC is not known to me).
If I were in that situation and the cell phone was all I had,
I think I'd use it and worry about FCC NAL's later.
Kim Helliwell
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> Actually the telephones on the seat backs of airliners are basically a
> cell phone. They are NATS cell phones instead of automotive. NATS
> cell phones do not interfere with the airplanes NAV/COM systems and
> the automotive ones might. Additionally, the ground station antennas
> are pointed the opposite direction. (sky vs road)
True. But I said "Air Cell". That's a brand name. It's also a cell phone
marketed for aircraft. There was an injunction against their use for a
while, but the telcos have been unable to prove their contention that it
interferes with their cell networks.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Tarver Engineering
>Rusty Coonfield wrote:
>>
>> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
>> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
>> system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
>> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
>> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
>> other electrical components.
>
>There's an FCC regulation against the use of cell phones in the air. Air
>Cell has an experimental exemption to this. Cell phones are defined by
>the FCC as units that transmit in the 800 Mhz range of frequencies.
Actually the telephones on the seat backs of airliners are basically a
cell phone. They are NATS cell phones instead of automotive. NATS
cell phones do not interfere with the airplanes NAV/COM systems and
the automotive ones might. Additionally, the ground station antennas
are pointed the opposite direction. (sky vs road)
John
Ron Natalie
Rusty Coonfield wrote:
>
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
> system (like my Taylorcraft).
Electronic devices are covered in FAA regs in 91.21.
For personal aircraft, it's up to the pilot to make sure
any device used will not interfere with naviation and
other equipment on board.
Cellular phones are banned in flight by the FCC regs covering
their operation.
Amateur (HAM) radio is restricted in flight by the HAM radio,
but generally they echo the "must not interfere" issue.
Can't vouch for the FBR or CB issues.
Ron Natalie
Tarver Engineering wrote:
> encies.
>
> Actually the telephones on the seat backs of airliners are basically a
> cell phone.
(and sometimes not even cordless) phone that talks to the avionics
rack in the airliner. The radio between the airliner and the ground
station is regional, and doesn't behave at all like a cellular unit
(more like IMTS).
> They are NATS cell phones instead of automotive. NATS
> cell phones ...
These phones in airlines are *NOT* the AirCell phones that
you are describing...
Jeff Sullivan
Rusty Coonfield wrote:
>
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
> other electrical components.
>
> Thank You
> -rusty
>
> -- Visit my Home Page!!
> http://comp.uark.edu/~rcoonfi
I read an article in QST a number of years ago, metioning the use of 2 M
and aircraft. I think it's alright to run in the ham bands; since there
are pilots who do ferry work and carry ham equipment. I have no idea
about regulations on CB; and cell phones I've only just read about, like
you have, no doubt, read about too...
Jeff Sullivan, KG6N
N2516Y - Comm. S/MEL SES Inst.
Jeff.S...@alliedsignal.com
George R Patterson
Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> [These comments are US-centric.]
These comments are ASSININE.
> Once again, recall that not all FCC-labelled
> "cellular telephones" are illegal for use while
> flying.
Once again, recall that ALL FCC-labelled cellular telephones except for
"AirCell" are ILLEGAL for use while flying.
> Also many "portable radio transceivers
> that use cellular technology and communicate
> with the PSTN" (like PCS phones and others that
> everyone except the FCC calls "cell phones")
> are not banned from use in flight.
Once again, Kyler. NOBODY calls these "cell phones" except you.
> For more detail:
> http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@8492@rec%2eaviation%2eproducts
For more detail, check out the FCC site.
George Patterson
Systems Engineer
Bell Communications Research
Piscataway, NJ
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> Actually, GTE Airphone and AT&T Skyphone both use cell phone
> technology to make their equipment work.
So what? If they do not use the 800 Mhz band, they aren't cell phones. A
cell phone has a microphone. My home phone has a microphone. My home
phone "uses cell phone technology" to a marketing rep. That does not
make it a cell phone.
> I would not be surprised,
> that at low altitudes, your cell phone works fine.
You would be correct. In a sub-urban area, the closest cell your phone
could reach which is using the same frequency set as the one to which
you are talking is going to be about 30 miles away (perhaps more). As
soon as you reach an altitude at which that station can receive your
signals, however, you will trash the network.
> Signal level is
> what produces the hand off of a subscriber from one station to
> another.
Sort of. It is *decrease* in signal level which initiates the handoff.
What happens is that the second cell (the one about 30 miles off) thinks
that your weak signal is the telephone which is using that frequency in
it's own area. Because the signal is weak, it will transfer that phone
to a neighboring cell (one closer to you). Since it's unlikely that that
phone is actually close enough to the new station to which it's been
transferred, that call gets dropped.
*You* keep on talking, fat dumb and happy, but you've killed someone
else's call.
Mike Klaene
>From: Rusty Coonfield <rco...@comp.uark.edu>
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.owning
>What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
>in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
>system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
>Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
>being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
>other electrical components.
>any help would be appreciated
>Thank You
>-rusty
Rusty,
As others have said, the use of a cell phone while airborne is
prohibited by the FCC. This is because the signal can be heard
too well by many cell antennas. This messes up the voting system.
For other radios, whatever the pilot finds to be acceptable is OK.
The pilot needs to be carefull if IFR.
It is considered poor technique to access a ham repeater from the
air. A 5w HT from 2500 feet can hit too many different repeaters.
Normally, 146.52 or 146.55 simplex is OK.
Mike Klaene, PP-ASEL-IA, N3GAQ, CAP
D.F.S.
In rec.aviation.owning Rusty Coonfield <rco...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
> What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
> in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
> system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
> Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
> being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
> other electrical components.
Cell phones may very well be a problem with onboard navigation, BUT
the reason the "FCC" has banned them is it "Hoses Up" the Cell Network.
The explanation of the technical term "HOSE" is this...
Cell phones work on the principle that by using low power levels,
terrain and structure signal blocking you can reuse channels and
not be limited by the number of channels.
Being in a plane screws up the assumptions in system design.
You end up hitting dozens of cell sites and tying up that channel on
10-20-30 or who knows how many sites.
Btw, Nobody has to catch you using the phone, The cell network will
instantly recognise the situation and they obviously know who you are.
Now what they will do about it is a different story, but they will know.
Marc
Kyler Laird
[These comments are US-centric.]
Once again, recall that not all FCC-labelled
"cellular telephones" are illegal for use while
flying. Also many "portable radio transceivers
that use cellular technology and communicate
with the PSTN" (like PCS phones and others that
everyone except the FCC calls "cell phones")
are not banned from use in flight.
For more detail:
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@8492@rec%2eaviation%2eproducts
--kyler
Mike Johnson
Cell is clear NO.
Ham is fairly clear YES, using good judgement.
Fam unknown to me
CB I think may be covered by the fact that the max height of the
antenna be no more than 70ft. I know thats kinda streching it but...
Mike Johnson
N7WBO
http://www.borg.com/~johnsonm
On Mon, 25 May 1998 12:20:29 +0000, Rusty Coonfield
<rco...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
>What are the regs concerning CB, HAM, Family band radios and Cell phones
>in personal aircraft - especially those certified without an electrical
>system (like my Taylorcraft). I couldnt find anything on it in the
>Jeppeson FAR/AIM. Seems like I read an article once about cell phones
>being illegal but it seemed to be referring a lot to IFR conditions and
>other electrical components.
>
Daryl/Kathy Haggstrom
kimgh wrote:
> there was a case a couple of years ago here in the S.F.
> used a cell phone to call a tower and declare an emergency. I
> emergency power to use any means necessary for the safe
> conclusion of the flight (although how that was negotiated
> with the FCC is not known to me).
> If I were in that situation and the cell phone was all I had,
> I think I'd use it and worry about FCC NAL's later.
There was the same such case that occurred in my state this winter - an
airplane with no electrical to begin with got on top of cloud cover,
became lost, low on fuel and had his passenger talk on a cell phone with
a nearby ATC for help.
Talking to an ATC friend of mine, this pilot wasn't charged by FCC for
the cell-phone infraction, but it doesn't matter much for the pilot - he
is in such trouble for flying on a student license with a passenger and
an out-of-paperwork plane that he wishes the FCC was his only problem.
My ATC friend said the tape of that conversation is on their Top Ten
list of ATC/pilot transactions because the pilot was in a really foul
mood, and the non-pilot passenger was trying to relay between ATC and
the pilot, and ATC could hear the entire conversation between the pilot
and his poor buddy (as in, Buddy: "They want to know your compass
heading". Pilot: "How the F*** do I know my compass heading?" Buddy:
"They said to read the compass - you're supposed to have one". Pilot:
"Oh, yeah - that"). He eventually ran out of gas, descended thru the
cloud cover, came out of the murk at 800AGL inverted, and managed to
straighten the plane before crashing in a ravine. Luuuucky to be alive.
Though with a totalled plane, FAA at his heels and throat, he may wish
he wasn't :-) I saw the video of Air Rescue bringing them to into town -
one really unhappy pilot.
Kathy Haggstrom
Anchorage, AK
PA-12/N3129M
Tarver Engineering
On Mon, 25 May 1998 15:34:49 -0400, George R Patterson
<grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> Actually the telephones on the seat backs of airliners are basically a
>> cell phone. They are NATS cell phones instead of automotive. NATS
>> cell phones do not interfere with the airplanes NAV/COM systems and
>> the automotive ones might. Additionally, the ground station antennas
>> are pointed the opposite direction. (sky vs road)
>
>True. But I said "Air Cell". That's a brand name. It's also a cell phone
>marketed for aircraft. There was an injunction against their use for a
>while, but the telcos have been unable to prove their contention that it
>interferes with their cell networks.
Actually, GTE Airphone and AT&T Skyphone both use cell phone
technology to make their equipment work. I would not be surprised,
that at low altitudes, your cell phone works fine. Signal level is
what produces the hand off of a subscriber from one station to
another. On the other hand, you are cutting into a very profitable
part of their business. :)
John
Richard Hyde
George R Patterson (grpp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Kyler Laird wrote:
: > Also many "portable radio transceivers
: > that use cellular technology and communicate
: > with the PSTN" (like PCS phones and others that
: > everyone except the FCC calls "cell phones")
: > are not banned from use in flight.
: Once again, Kyler. NOBODY calls these "cell phones" except you.
There are several phone companies really pushing PCS phones here
in the San Francisco Bay area. They are certainly called "cell
phones" by anyone who has them. How do they avoid the multiple-cell
problems of the older technology? Can these PCS phones *really*
be used from the air?
Cheers,
Rick
--
Include "wombat" in Subject: line of mail sent to me [to override spamgard(tm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Hyde | R...@netcom.com | This space intentionally left blank |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarver Engineering
On Tue, 26 May 1998 06:24:02 -0400, George R Patterson
<grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> Actually, GTE Airphone and AT&T Skyphone both use cell phone
>> technology to make their equipment work.
>So what? If they do not use the 800 Mhz band, they aren't cell phones. A
>cell phone has a microphone. My home phone has a microphone. My home
>phone "uses cell phone technology" to a marketing rep. That does not
>make it a cell phone.
The NATS telephone use 863 to 865 MHz.
<snip>
>> Signal level is
>> what produces the hand off of a subscriber from one station to
>> another.
<snip>
>*You* keep on talking, fat dumb and happy, but you've killed someone
>else's call.
The station will reject a call if it is full.
John
Electrical Engineer
Previously Cabin Systems BCAG
Ron Natalie
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> Actually, GTE Airphone and AT&T Skyphone both use cell phone
> technology to make their equipment work.
The fact that they share radio components with cellular phos
doesn't make them cellular. When I say cellular, I don't mean
the street nomenclature of "any portable telephone." Cellular
technology means specific things: primarily the spatial reuse
of the cells due to adaptive power algorithms and directional
fixed antennas. None of the airborne systems are cellular,
though AirCell (TM) piggybacks on the cellular network and
frequencies.
> I would not be surprised,
> that at low altitudes, your cell phone works fine. Signal level is
> what produces the hand off of a subscriber from one station to
> another.
Right, and you don't probalby need a hand off at all. The initial
cell (no matter how hard it tries by commanding your unit to
minimum power) still hears you just fine, so it feels there's
no reason to hand you off. The problem is that nearly every
other cell hears you equally well causing that frequency not
to be reusable.
Tarver Engineering
On Thu, 28 May 1998 12:04:36 -0400, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, GTE Airphone and AT&T Skyphone both use cell phone
>> technology to make their equipment work.
>
>The fact that they share radio components with cellular phos
>doesn't make them cellular. When I say cellular, I don't mean
>the street nomenclature of "any portable telephone." Cellular
>technology means specific things: primarily the spatial reuse
>of the cells due to adaptive power algorithms and directional
>fixed antennas.
This fits the current implementation of NATS quite well.
> None of the airborne systems are cellular,
>though AirCell (TM) piggybacks on the cellular network and
>frequencies.
If the Aircell hoses up the system, then it is a trivial matter to
have the phone injuncted by the Courts.
>> I would not be surprised,
>> that at low altitudes, your cell phone works fine. Signal level is
>> what produces the hand off of a subscriber from one station to
>> another.
>
>Right, and you don't probalby need a hand off at all. The initial
>cell (no matter how hard it tries by commanding your unit to
>minimum power) still hears you just fine, so it feels there's
>no reason to hand you off. The problem is that nearly every
>other cell hears you equally well causing that frequency not
>to be reusable.
For airborne (NATS) telephone calls longer than about three minutes
the hand off is a necessity, otherwise the call is dropped. We did
not just start to have NATS telephones on airplanes.
John
Kyler Laird
George R Patterson <grpp...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Once again, recall that not all FCC-labelled
>> "cellular telephones" are illegal for use while
>> flying.
>Once again, recall that ALL FCC-labelled cellular telephones except for
>"AirCell" are ILLEGAL for use while flying.
ALL != "all except ..."
>> Also many "portable radio transceivers
>> that use cellular technology and communicate
>> with the PSTN" (like PCS phones and others that
>> everyone except the FCC calls "cell phones")
>> are not banned from use in flight.
>Once again, Kyler. NOBODY calls these "cell phones" except you.
and the manufacturers and the salespeople...
--kyler
Kyler Laird
r...@netcom.com (Richard Hyde) writes:
>: Once again, Kyler. NOBODY calls these "cell phones" except you.
>There are several phone companies really pushing PCS phones here
>in the San Francisco Bay area. They are certainly called "cell
>phones" by anyone who has them.
Thanks for the data point.
>How do they avoid the multiple-cell
>problems of the older technology?
Maybe they don't. I don't have data on that.
>Can these PCS phones *really*
>be used from the air?
*Legally*, it seems that they can. Again, according
to the FAA guy with whom I spoke, the FAA has no
regs that would prevent it. The companies, he
pointed out, can set their own limits on use as part
of the service contract. That's something to know
before you subscribe.
--kyler
Jack Burton
The rule against use of Cellular Phones while airborne is an FCC rule,
not an FAA rule. I haven't read the exact text to see if the law
technically extends to PCS, however the problems caused to the PCS
network by an airborne PCS phone would be exactly the same as those
cause to the terrestrial cellular network by an airborne cellular phone.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose you decide to try a
cell call from your airplane at 5,000 feet: Your phone will receive the
control channel from a nearby cell. Let's assume it's the nearest one.
When you transmit, the network will treat the call normally, and you
will probably have a normal conversation. While you do this, the
"clear" channel the network sent you to is IN USE by ground-bound users
in adjacent cell areas. Your strong signal aloft blows them away.
Their caller would hear you for a bit, and then the call would drop.
Not a very considerate thing to do, and you won't even know you did it.
For all you know, the call you disrupted could have been an emergency
call.
If the cellular company or the FCC wanted to, they could EASILY track
your phone because it is sending it's identity (NAM) information out
constantly. An airborne cell signal can be received for almost a
hundred miles (radius).
Don't worry about an FAA violation. Do worry about an FCC violation.
They won't take away your pilot's license, but they can take away your
aircraft radio license, ham radio license (if you have one), and can
impose fines. More importantly, it's bad manners to disrupt another's
phone call to place your own.
Bottom line: If it's not an emergency, save the calls for when the
tires are on the ground, or buy a real conventional or cellular air
phone.
Also, Ham Radios are OK if the PILOT and AIRCRAFT OPERATOR grant
permission to the HAM. If you own the plane and pilot it, you can grant
permission to the ham. If you are the ham too, enjoy! Note, however,
that VHF/UHF transmissions can be heard by repeaters you may not hear.
I don't have any idea about CBs.
-I hope this helps!
Remove the "_" from my address to send me e-mail.
Jack Burton
jbu...@optonline.net
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> The NATS telephone use 863 to 865 MHz.
That would put them outside the cell telephony bandwidth. They aren't
cell phones. The "cell telephone technology" claimed is probably related
to the fact that they use radio.
> >*You* keep on talking, fat dumb and happy, but you've killed someone
> >else's call.
>
> The station will reject a call if it is full.
That's true, but you've misinterpreted what I said. You aren't trying to
initiate a call. You are already talking to the cell closest to your
airport when you take off. When you get high enough to *also* be talking
to another cell station, you can confuse it into transferring the person
who is using your frequency to a third cell. Another phenomenom is for
your voice to be heard as background noise by the person to whom he's
talking.
If no one's using your frequency in that cell's area that can't happen,
of course. In that case, all you do is make it impossible for that cell
to assign the frequency to another caller, which is what you describe.
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 May 1998 12:04:36 -0400, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
> wrote:
>
> > None of the airborne systems are cellular,
> >though AirCell (TM) piggybacks on the cellular network and
> >frequencies.
>
> If the Aircell hoses up the system, then it is a trivial matter to
> have the phone injuncted by the Courts.
Absolutely true. In fact, Bell South and some affiliates recently did
exactly that. They were unable to prove their case, and the injunction
was lifted. Again. AirCell has an experimental license to operate, and
the FCC has made an exemption to the rule against cellular phone use in
the air specifically for AirCell.
Kyler Laird
Jack Burton <j_bu...@optonline.net> writes:
>> >Can these PCS phones *really*
>> >be used from the air?
>>
>> *Legally*, it seems that they can. Again, according
>> to the FAA guy with whom I spoke, the FAA has no
>> regs that would prevent it.
>The rule against use of Cellular Phones while airborne is an FCC rule,
>not an FAA rule.
Ug. Yes, I screwed up in that post. Yes, it's
an *FCC* reg that prohibits most cellular phones,
and yes, it was an *FCC* rep with whom I spoke.
Thank you for the correction.
--kyler
Tarver Engineering
>The rule against use of Cellular Phones while airborne is an FCC rule,
>not an FAA rule. I haven't read the exact text to see if the law
>technically extends to PCS, however the problems caused to the PCS
>network by an airborne PCS phone would be exactly the same as those
>cause to the terrestrial cellular network by an airborne cellular phone.
CFR 14 Part 121 does prohibit the use of all cabin telephones during
take off and landing. (just so no one is confused)
John
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> So your whole thesis here was based on what? If the AirCell does not
> cause a problem, then what was your point?
My "point" was to attempt to answer the original poster's question. I
have no "thesis". I do, however, have a few facts acquired from 14 years
employment in the field of telecommunications network modeling.
If you go back through the thread you will see that I have never claimed
that AirCell causes problems - it is not known to do so. Other cell
phones can, do, and have caused problems with some of the cell network
systems when used from the air, and the FCC regulation is a reaction to
those occurences.
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >That's true, but you've misinterpreted what I said. You aren't trying to
> >initiate a call. You are already talking to the cell closest to your
> >airport when you take off. When you get high enough to *also* be talking
> >to another cell station, you can confuse it into transferring the person
> >who is using your frequency to a third cell. Another phenomenom is for
> >your voice to be heard as background noise by the person to whom he's
> >talking.
>
In the first place, Bell South is not "my sponsor", nor the sponsor of
Bellcore, for whom I work. Although Bell South was one of Bellcore's
owners at one time, we no longer are associated with them in any other
capacity other than occasionally selling our products to them.
The main issue, however, is that I did not say that. I stated that they
obtained an injunction against AirCell, which was rescinded due to lack
of evidence. This thread has been dealing with other cell phones, which
cause the sort of interference I have described.
> Why do you claim something you know is not true?
I do not.
George R Patterson
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 May 1998 13:40:20 -0400, George R Patterson
> <grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >> So your whole thesis here was based on what? If the AirCell does not
> >> cause a problem, then what was your point?
> >
> >My "point" was to attempt to answer the original poster's question. I
> >have no "thesis". I do, however, have a few facts acquired from 14 years
> >employment in the field of telecommunications network modeling.
>
> court. If the best that could be done was show AirCell was right,
> your employer either used incompetent engineers in the courts, or
> there really is no problem.
Do you even read my stuff before you reply? As I said. Bell South is not
and has never been my employer. I have NOT speculated at all. I have
reported ONLY the facts - I repeat.
AIRCELL HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO CONFLICT WITH THE NETWORK. OTHER TYPES OF
CELL PHONES HAVE BEEN. THIS IS FACT, NOT BELIEF, NOT SPECULATION, AND
IT IS THE REASON FOR THE FCC RULE.
Furthermore, you clearly do not understand the US court system. Aircell
has not, and cannot be "shown to be right". What has occurred is the
Bell South could not prove they were wrong. Anyone who believes that the
verdict "proves" the truth wasn't paying attention when OJ Simpson hit
court.
> Speculation, or occupancies? It seems to me that a regular cell phone
> might interfere with the airplane's navigation and communications
> systems, but friis would predict a greater signal loss for a flying
> airplane and the airplane, being in the air, would be outside the main
> beam of the receiving antenna for the ground station. It would seem
> more likely that the airplane phone call would be dropped before a
> ground originated call. (for equal transmitting power)
You clearly have no understanding of how the cell system works. It's
pretty clear that I'm not able to teach you either. For starters, there
is no "main beam" in the cell system. It's more of a broadcast.
George R Patterson
> : > that use cellular technology and communicate
> : > with the PSTN" (like PCS phones and others that
> : > everyone except the FCC calls "cell phones")
> : > are not banned from use in flight.
>
>
> There are several phone companies really pushing PCS phones here
> in the San Francisco Bay area. They are certainly called "cell
> problems of the older technology? Can these PCS phones *really*
> be used from the air?
I sort of doubt it, but I've no prior experience with the networks (PCS
is pretty new). I spent a bit of time on the FCC web site today. Here's
what I found there. My assumptions will be (I hope) clearly labelled as
such. The first paragraph is, however, fact.
PCS systems differ from cellular systems in many important regards. The
first, of course, is the frequency band. Cell phones use frequencies in
the 800 MHz range. We tend to say a 50 MHz band, but actually they use
several small bands and discrete frequencies between 824.04 and 880.62.
The PCS phones use frequencies between 1850 and 1990 MHz.
Cellular towers tend to top out about 30 meters above the average
terrain height in the service area; PCS towers run to 300 meters HAAT,
with guidelines for higher ones specified in the reqs.
Cellular base stations transmit at a maximum power of 500 watts; PCS can
go up to1,640.
Cell phones transmit at a max of 7 watts; PCS phones can't use more than
2 watts.
Cell phones are not required to have the ability to reduce transmission
power on command (though many do); PCS phones are required to.
Cellular stations are not required to be able to deal with interference;
interference standards are specified for PCS.
Cell stations are laid out in a pattern which more or less resembles a
honeycomb; PCS stations are not.
I saw several references to the transmission "beam" for PCS, implying
that the transmission patterns are directional.
What I would assume from this is
1. the lower power of the PCS phones would reduce the possibility of
conflict.
2. the higher power and taller towers of the PCS ground stations would
increase the spacing between service areas a great deal over the
cell system, but I found no mention of the typical PCS station
service area.
3. The ability of the PCS stations to filter out interference should
take care of about anything else.
I also wonder a bit about the "beams" mentioned. If the transmission
patterns are truly directional, you might not even be able to reach the
PCS network from the air; they might not "hear" anything above a certain
height.
In any case, PCS phones are *not* cell phones. Be aware, however, that
there are a lot of multi-purpose phones on the market today. These are
cell phones and "cordless" phones in one package, usually with a manual
switch to toggle between functions. You may be seeing a combination PCS
and cell phone, or you may be talking to a person who doesn't know the
difference. Nothing on the market operates as both a PCS phone and cell
phone at the same time.
George Patterson,
Tarver Engineering
On Sat, 30 May 1998 16:25:33 -0400, George R Patterson
<grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 May 1998 12:04:36 -0400, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > None of the airborne systems are cellular,
>> >though AirCell (TM) piggybacks on the cellular network and
>> >frequencies.
>>
>> If the Aircell hoses up the system, then it is a trivial matter to
>> have the phone injuncted by the Courts.
>
>Absolutely true. In fact, Bell South and some affiliates recently did
>exactly that. They were unable to prove their case, and the injunction
>was lifted. Again. AirCell has an experimental license to operate, and
>the FCC has made an exemption to the rule against cellular phone use in
>the air specifically for AirCell.
So your whole thesis here was based on what? If the AirCell does not
cause a problem, then what was your point?
John
Tarver Engineering
On Sat, 30 May 1998 16:20:29 -0400, George R Patterson
<grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> The NATS telephone use 863 to 865 MHz.
>
>That would put them outside the cell telephony bandwidth. They aren't
>cell phones. The "cell telephone technology" claimed is probably related
>to the fact that they use radio.
More related to the fact that Claircom developed the current
implementation of NATS. The technology used for NATS is directly from
their cell phones.
>> >*You* keep on talking, fat dumb and happy, but you've killed someone
>> >else's call.
>>
>> The station will reject a call if it is full.
>
>That's true, but you've misinterpreted what I said. You aren't trying to
>initiate a call. You are already talking to the cell closest to your
>airport when you take off. When you get high enough to *also* be talking
>to another cell station, you can confuse it into transferring the person
>who is using your frequency to a third cell. Another phenomenom is for
>your voice to be heard as background noise by the person to whom he's
>talking.
You say in another post that this could not be proven by your sponsor.
Why do you claim something you know is not true?
>If no one's using your frequency in that cell's area that can't happen,
>of course. In that case, all you do is make it impossible for that cell
>to assign the frequency to another caller, which is what you describe.
You already said this can not be proven. Why do you post things you
know are not true?
John
Tarver Engineering
On Sun, 31 May 1998 13:40:20 -0400, George R Patterson
<grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> So your whole thesis here was based on what? If the AirCell does not
>> cause a problem, then what was your point?
>
>My "point" was to attempt to answer the original poster's question. I
>have no "thesis". I do, however, have a few facts acquired from 14 years
>employment in the field of telecommunications network modeling.
You are speculating to something that has already been decided by a
court. If the best that could be done was show AirCell was right,
your employer either used incompetent engineers in the courts, or
there really is no problem.
>If you go back through the thread you will see that I have never claimed
>that AirCell causes problems - it is not known to do so. Other cell
>phones can, do, and have caused problems with some of the cell network
>systems when used from the air, and the FCC regulation is a reaction to
>those occurences.
Speculation, or occupancies? It seems to me that a regular cell phone
might interfere with the airplane's navigation and communications
systems, but friis would predict a greater signal loss for a flying
airplane and the airplane, being in the air, would be outside the main
beam of the receiving antenna for the ground station. It would seem
more likely that the airplane phone call would be dropped before a
ground originated call. (for equal transmitting power)
John
David Lesher
George:
Remember the old line about teaching pigs to sing? It applies
here. Save your time, you're not going to get him on-key...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Tarver Engineering
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:51:40 GMT, wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
wrote:
>
>
>George:
>
>Remember the old line about teaching pigs to sing? It applies
>here. Save your time, you're not going to get him on-key...
It is true, George will never get me to say what he claims is true.
He wishes to violate the Laws of Physics; by claiming Cellular
technology is somehow exempt from RF transmission considerations. If
this is the tack the Cellular industry took in Court, there is little
question why the case was thrown out.
The industry might be able to keep the FCC rule in place by using
their cronies in the Agency, but the claims made by George are hocus
pocus. Maybe some interested GA pilots will challenge the Cellular
Industry's position soon.
John