"I'm on the plane"

[Nov71]

I appreciate SLF topic but I was expecting crew comment on OfCom clearing the way for pax use of mobile phones above 3,000m
1. In-flight problem -100+ amateur reporters reporting live to media
2. Rapid depressurisation dive - reach for phone or O2 mask
3. Will the No Smoking light become the No Mobile light

I suppose some Lo-Co's will charge extra for using mobile phones or provision of 'quiet' seats

If interference not a problem I would accept pax SMS or Internet connection for pax cabin but please ban mobile voice communications during flight.

Will flight crew be allowed hands-free or mobiles banned off-stand? :rolleyes:

[skibeagle]

Ever tried to use a cell phone above 10000 feet ? Not much signal happening - trust me I've tried. As far as cell phone or oxygen mask ? - well if you can't make the decision then maybe you should be deprived of your oxygen ? You too could make the next Darwin awards.

[Old Fella]

Carpenters use "planes", speed boats get "on the plane". Aviators and their passengers travel in "aeroplanes", or if you prefer, "aircraft". :ok:

[Dream Land]

Ever tried to use a cell phone above 10000 feet ? Not much signal happening Unfortunately they will work with this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/18/mobiles_on_aircraft/) new system. I can hear the phone police now! :eek:

[Xeque]

I have a gadget that I use in classrooms at the school I teach in Thailand. It's a simple device that nullifies mobile phone signals within a 50-60 foot radius. They can be purchased quite inexpensively on the Internet. Mine works off the mains but you can buy battery operated versions and some of them are even disguised as mobile phones so no-one will know its you that has created peace and quiet in the cabin.
Might I suggest that all seasoned travellers buy one now before demand grows and prices start increasing.
The alternative of course is to ask a cabin attendant for a glass of water then snatch the offending mobile from the moron using it and drop it into the glass - job done :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Great! A mobile phone Jammer

And some folk had a theory about the 777 in London being affected by the PM's security enroute to Heathrow:uhoh:

J:E

[Xeque]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/11/wair11.xml

It seems to me that the signals given off by mobile phones in 2001 are no different to those given off today. If they were dangerous enough then what has changed to make them 'safe' now?
Or were the Air Accident Investigators back then totally mistaken?
Also, read the other links in the story. What about the man who was imprisoned for a year because he insisted on using his phone during a flight from Madrid to Manchester? Can he now sue the establishment for wrongful imprisonment? And then there is the CAA quote in 1999 that 'the use of mobile phones will never be allowed'.
It's the same old story. Greed takes precedence.
PS. The more I think about it the more I like the 'glass of water' solution. Who gets accused of air rage then? Me asking for a glass of water or the moron screaming about his/her neutralised mobile phone?

[Dream Land]

Xeque, spot on! :ok:

[THE POINTY END]

The lo-co I work for were talking about this during the aviation security training I did. Couldn't "would be" terrorists find it nice and convenient to be able to co-ordinate events on the ground and in the air at the same time? Still, at least flight and cabin crew can't take liquids on board anymore. Makes all the difference. Perhaps the "mobile phones off" check will go and PM can have a chat on the taxi out or something.

[Five Green]

Xeque :

Not that I don't disagree with the sentiment ! However the article about the new service deals with the spectrum issue, or at least acknowledges it and says they will deal with it.

I am sure that any cell phone jammer would reak havoc with aircraft systems !!

I have used a cell phone from the cockpit lots (of a freighter !) and the only problem was that the call could not be charged to me as it hit 20 or so towers !

Cheers

FG

[VnV2178B]

What OFCOM are proposing is the licensing of an on-board system so that SLF mobiles will talk to a box in the cabin which will then use a satellite system to pipe the signals to the usual phone network. This means that the signal transmitted will be much lower power than if it was trying to access the ground based cells.
OFCOM also acknowledge that EASA. CAA. etc. have not bought into this (yet) and that the certification authorities will have the final word, as they should.
They also said that there should be no need to raise charges, OK - tell that to the LoCos!

VnV...

[SteelCity]

2. Rapid depressurisation dive - reach for phone or O2 mask


I'm on Vodafone - will that make a difference? :hmm:

[ChrisGr31]

From the report on Radio 4 my understanding is, as VnV2178B states, that effectively the radio mast is placed within the aircraft so the mobiles only have to communicate a short distant, and therefore operate at low power. It said that this way all the signals would be kept within the plane, hence frying all the passengers! :p

However the guy from Ofcom was also asked about the irritation factor and he did have the decency to say that using the phone for email or texting shouldn't annoy neighbouring passengers. Presumably implying that the ability for passengers to use mobiles is going to be hellishly irritating to those that don;t want to use them!

If they can work safely I'd like to see either an area within the aircraft dedicated for making calls, or for calls to be barred and only email/textx to be used with the phone on silent to stop annoying beeps!

[fivegreenlight]

I imagine there will be an isolator switch for the transmitter, much like the switch we have for the IFE. I'll just switch it off on my flights.
Can't wait to see all the SLF holding their phones next to the window to try to get a signal:E

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It said that this way all the signals would be kept within the plane, hence frying all the passengers!
It'll fry passengers a lot less than holding a transmit antenna to the side of their heads, which many will do!

(Well, they'll do it once, they might not do it again once they've seen the bill.)

(The jammers, of course, are somewhat illegal in most places.)

[Bus429]

Illegal to jam broadcasts in the UK, including mobiles, so the jammer option - much as I like it - is a non-starter.

[ionagh]

What OFCOM are proposing is the licensing of an on-board system so that SLF mobiles will talk to a box in the cabin which will then use a satellite system to pipe the signals to the usual phone network. This means that the signal transmitted will be much lower power than if it was trying to access the ground based cells.


Sounds good but which network will be provided?

If its not my network my phone may try to log into a normal terrestrial network at maximum power...

What failsafe is included so that when the cell controller in the aircraft goes U/S to stop a large number of SLF phones all trying to re-register with a terrestrial network at the same time (at maximum power) :}

[Sallyann1234]

The jammer is actually a serious issue. Although illegal in many states including the UK, they are easily available via the internet. They are high power devices (somewhat greater than a mobile phone) and certainly do have the potential of causing interference to aircraft systems.
I can imagine pax carrying one to ensure peace on a flight, and causing chaos, but hopefully it would be spotted during security checks.

[pg wing tips]

Oh dear god no…

Long haul, getting any sleep is hard enough. I cant wait to be awoken by the chime of god knows how many txts, missed calls, messaging services etc. Perhaps we could get Dom Jolly to do a sketch for us.

Why do we feel the need to be nailed to our phones 24/7. Why do we need to be contacted over the Atlantic, Pacific, (insert continent of choice ) ? I understand some travellers may require it for business use, but I suspect the majority don’t really need it.

I feel like its going to happen regardless, I just hope that some kind of common sense will prevail, but then again….

[IT2Pilot]

In response to the Phone or Oxygen mask...you know some chav with a tiny IQ will grab their phone, pass out, then turn around and say they were on an O2 contract and try suing them.

Seriously though, this will inevitably cause arguments in the cabin and make cabin crews jobs harder. How do you make someone turn off their phone for TO/LDG and then allow them to turn on their phone in flight? Hopefully there will be something in the cockpit that will allow us (the crew) to turn on/off the base station. At least we would then control the connection.

[delta96]

Why is it that in an age when the military's electronic kit is built to withstand the EMP from a nuclear explosion, a few Miliwatts from a mobile phone can be expected to cause such a problem to modern civvy hardware?

[mikehammer]

2. Rapid depressurisation dive - reach for phone or O2 mask
I'm on Vodafone - will that make a difference? :hmm:

I'm on 3, so more chance of communicating through the mask, even on the ground.:8

[YRP]

Why is it that in an age when the military's electronic kit is built to withstand the EMP from a nuclear explosion, a few Miliwatts from a mobile phone can be expected to cause such a problem to modern civvy hardware?

Ever thought about how much engineering design and testing goes into making the military kit survive the EMP? There is a reason that some military stuff costs 10 to 100 times the price of similar civil gear.

Electromagnetic compatibility is always hard to demonstate. You can do various tests that model interference, but any particular interfering device does not follow the model exactly. You can't be sure you tested the worst case situation - a device might only be susceptible during a particular combination of operations. It's hard enough to test kit like telecommunications or computer gear where the worst that happens is that service is interrupted for a few minutes.

The main reason transmitters are banned on aircraft is not _known_ problems. Rather it is that they can't be sure there won't be problems. Even if they tested a dozen cell phone models... what about all the others.

Aviation safety should be about proving there are no problems, rather than doing stuff until you find out where there is a problem.

As a few people pointed out, the new system would have the phones transmitting at much lower power - trying to send 100 or so feet rather than 10 miles (think inverse square law). Plus they would do extensive testing on each aircraft type it is certified for.

[BFLIGHT]

Well said Old Fella! I tried to sit on a plane once, very painfull! As for mobile phones, watch the number of "air rage" incidents rise if this nonsense goes ahead.

[delta96]

YRP Thanks for that explanation.

[Whatisthematrix]

It's already started.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7308041.stm

Passengers on an Emirates flight to Casablanca were the first to make calls during a commercial flight.

There were also trials on both Qantas and Air France using this kind of technology.

[Avman]

:= This will for sure bring on Super Rage. Going to buy me some shares in companies making earplugs :hmm:

[Xeque]

Malc4D you are a sad case and symptomatic of the great British malaise - I can't be bothered to complain so I'll just accept it.
As with everything new (ish ), it will all settle down. After six months it will be so commonplace that people will ignore it.
For Gods sake people - start fighting back!!!!

[betterfromabove]

Petition anyone...?!?
Yes, things will "settle down"....but the learning period for any new such toy is roughly half a decade, so its Virgin Galactic for my travel plans if this goes ahead...

"Yes, I'm on the spaceship"...."er, hello....what?"

Greed over sense truimphs again.

[Sallyann1234]

The main reason transmitters are banned on aircraft is not _known_ problems. Rather it is that they can't be sure there won't be problems. Even if they tested a dozen cell phone models... what about all the others.

An accurate description, but there is more to it than that. If there are several cellphones in operation then the transmitters mix with each other and with the aircraft's own radios to produce many new frequencies. These intermodulation products increase exponentially with the number of transmitters and it is virtually impossible to predict every possible combination.

Using an on-board base station, not only is the power of the phone transmitters restricted but the range of available frequencies can be limited to ones that have been calculated and tested to ensure compatibility with the aircraft equipment.

[pierrefridez]

Xeque:
"... fight back.."

Well, I'm on several frequent flyer programs, and I just write to these airlines that I, as a humble customer, would consider choosing a "mobiles-off" company in the future, should they decide to generally allow mobile conversations during flight. At least, I would expect that they would restrict mobile use to a limited cabin area. If I sit some 10 rows away, I guess that the general noise level in the cabin will graciously spare me these conversations....

[llondel]

Why is it that in an age when the military's electronic kit is built to withstand the EMP from a nuclear explosion, a few Miliwatts from a mobile phone can be expected to cause such a problem to modern civvy hardware?

For one thing, an EMP doesn't last long, unlike the interminable length of some phone calls. Withstanding an EMP means the stuff will work afterwards, it doesn't necessarily have to work during the pulse. The civvy hardware will work normally after the phone call has finished, provided it's not at the bottom of a smoking hole by then.

Is it true that you can use a mobile phone to make holes in the cheese?

[mickjoebill]

The Loos will be full of those wanting a bit of privacy for a chin wag:uhoh:

Cost of voice calls will be high, due to aircraft to satellite to ground hop.

Have yet to see anyone use an existing inflight phone, but would expect text and email to be main use of the new system.

Mickjoebill

[spikeair]

Whats wrong with the satallite phones found on msot aircraft these days anyway. If you really need to make a call, you can do so already at your seat or at one of the bulkheads.
Persoanally, I'd be really annoyed with the ringing, if it woke me on a night flight , I'd not be happy.

[Eboy]

In-flight problem -100+ amateur reporters reporting live to media

More like 10. All cellular systems, including the ones on the ground, are designed for average phone usage patterns. It is not economical to build a system to handle peak usage.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Mig, I'd be very surprised if the cost was similar to international roaming. It may well be cheaper than the $10/min for the satellite phone, but my guess would be not by much (the airline is effectively paying for a satellite call between the plane and their mobile service provider).

Does anyone know if these systems are going to be quad band? My (limited) understanding is that they (the European ones, anyway) will be 'GSM' only. I can picture a scene where half the pax wanting to use phones are futilely trying to get a signal from a base station on the wrong frequency (and in mid-Atlantic, the distance to the nearest compatible base station may be 10 km vertically and 2,000 km horizontally!)

[Whatisthematrix]

3G phones will be supported although there is not a 3G network. They are able to connect to a GSM network when no 3G network is available.

I guess anyone with a "3" subscription can lay testament to that.

[maxter]

I am wondering if the simplistic solution that in flight phones will not cause problems because they will only be using low power is actually true.

What if the phone being used does not support roaming. Will it go to full power looking elsewhere?.

If the system is off for landing, won't this mean that all the phones left on will go to full power at possibly the worst time if interference is fact?

Well out of my field so I do not know, just thinking aloud, so to speak.