"I'm on the plane"

[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?

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

[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/mid...st/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

[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]

Last refuge outer space...

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]

Are you ok in there?

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

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.