'Newlywed jailed for using mobile on flight'
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this era of the emancipated free-ranging ego I have to say that I am glad this wiseass is jailed. Why? Because I am sick and fed up with "customers" challenging the rules of whatever service it is they have bought when the rules are there (a) for safety and (b) are a reasonable part of the bargain.
When you buy an airline ticket you are signing up to many things, Chicago Convention etc, weight of baggage, size of carryon, no active cellphone, promptness for delivery of service, and since 9/11/01 restricted in-cabin items. Dats it! No "you are on honeymoon so do as you like", No "you earn a lot so do as you like" ....
Somehow, these days, more and more people believe that they are exempt from the rules... duh??!!! your mommy/daddy and wife/husband/partner may think you special but in fact... you are just like the rest of us!!!
When you buy an airline ticket you are signing up to many things, Chicago Convention etc, weight of baggage, size of carryon, no active cellphone, promptness for delivery of service, and since 9/11/01 restricted in-cabin items. Dats it! No "you are on honeymoon so do as you like", No "you earn a lot so do as you like" ....
Somehow, these days, more and more people believe that they are exempt from the rules... duh??!!! your mommy/daddy and wife/husband/partner may think you special but in fact... you are just like the rest of us!!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vortex,
I always wondered and you may know the answer: a few years back I flew in a hot air balloon once and I was greatly surprised I couldn't use my GSM (old Sony cdm-1000) a few hundred feet over a friend's house in a small town with good GSM-coverage. According to the pilot this is (was?) normal from a balloon, yet exactly one year ago several calls were made from a jet whose fate we all know.
Can you enlighten me?
I always wondered and you may know the answer: a few years back I flew in a hot air balloon once and I was greatly surprised I couldn't use my GSM (old Sony cdm-1000) a few hundred feet over a friend's house in a small town with good GSM-coverage. According to the pilot this is (was?) normal from a balloon, yet exactly one year ago several calls were made from a jet whose fate we all know.
Can you enlighten me?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any airlines made policys/.given training to staff over the new range of phones?
if they say no mobiles, does that mean, or should it include the "flight mode" in things like nokia 9210 phones? Else why make the feature?
if they say no mobiles, does that mean, or should it include the "flight mode" in things like nokia 9210 phones? Else why make the feature?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying and phoning
golfyankeesierra
There could be several reasons why your phone would not work. The most likely was interference. Each network has to reuse frequencies to cover the whole country. This is planned in some detail (in most companies anyway ) taking into account, distance, terrain, buildings and so on. This site explains some of the basics of frequency planning if you are that interested (its very dull really 
)http://www.privateline.com/PCS/HowPC...#anchor201958.
The problem arises in the air when you can “see” all the sites for many miles around and that brings in a lot of competing signals on the same frequency. If the phone cannot identify an individual site through the noise it will not be able to set up a call to start with or it may drop the call once it is set-up.
It is still possible to make a call while flying. You will just have an increased likelihood of a dropped call or having to make several attempts to set the call up. There are so many variables in how your phone sets up a call then maintains it and if any of them goes wrong it can fail.
I have made calls from 2,000 feet at about 120 knots and it has worked fine. On another occasion it simply would not set up the call at all. As I mentioned before although the GSM specs never envisioned it being used from the air and faster than 300KPH it is, in the right circumstances, possible. In the case you mention they were probably over a well designed and maintained part of the network.
Stringfellow Hawk
I asked the same question some time ago. After much discussion it was explained that while one phone is not really a big problem 150 being used in an aircraft can create a very big Electro magnetic field that is difficult, not to mention expensive, to protect against. So just get people to turn their phones off. Problem solved very simply, and cheaply
Aircraft_Nut9
I remember that case very well. Made me always check the location of my phone before I lift.
I couldn't use my GSM (old Sony cdm-1000) a few hundred feet over a friend's house in a small town with good GSM-coverage.
) taking into account, distance, terrain, buildings and so on. This site explains some of the basics of frequency planning if you are that interested (its very dull really )http://www.privateline.com/PCS/HowPC...#anchor201958.The problem arises in the air when you can “see” all the sites for many miles around and that brings in a lot of competing signals on the same frequency. If the phone cannot identify an individual site through the noise it will not be able to set up a call to start with or it may drop the call once it is set-up.
It is still possible to make a call while flying. You will just have an increased likelihood of a dropped call or having to make several attempts to set the call up. There are so many variables in how your phone sets up a call then maintains it and if any of them goes wrong it can fail.
I have made calls from 2,000 feet at about 120 knots and it has worked fine. On another occasion it simply would not set up the call at all. As I mentioned before although the GSM specs never envisioned it being used from the air and faster than 300KPH it is, in the right circumstances, possible. In the case you mention they were probably over a well designed and maintained part of the network.
Stringfellow Hawk
I asked the same question some time ago. After much discussion it was explained that while one phone is not really a big problem 150 being used in an aircraft can create a very big Electro magnetic field that is difficult, not to mention expensive, to protect against. So just get people to turn their phones off. Problem solved very simply, and cheaply
Aircraft_Nut9
I remember that case very well. Made me always check the location of my phone before I lift.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laptops
Stringfellow,
you asked: "how about laptops and CD players, what's the issue there? All I can assume is it's down to potential RF interference from their internal components. Could this really be a problem? "
Most laptops emit a surprising amount of RF, but few people think about it because it's not obvious as with a phone, so it's never become a media issue. However, I remember Peter Cochrane, former r&d guy at BT, saying that if anyone who felt they were at risk from holding a GSM phone near their head would logically never let a laptop anywhere near their, er, lap !
you asked: "how about laptops and CD players, what's the issue there? All I can assume is it's down to potential RF interference from their internal components. Could this really be a problem? "
Most laptops emit a surprising amount of RF, but few people think about it because it's not obvious as with a phone, so it's never become a media issue. However, I remember Peter Cochrane, former r&d guy at BT, saying that if anyone who felt they were at risk from holding a GSM phone near their head would logically never let a laptop anywhere near their, er, lap !
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not the case in this instance, there appears to be a large number of people who do not understand the difference between "Standby" and "Off". We encounter this problem on a regular basis in our hospital. We have a mobile phone detector which informs us when someone has entered our unit with one switched on. The number of times this happens because people do not understand that "Swtiched off" means exactly that - OFF is unbelievable, they believe that "standby" means the phone is off and can take quite some convincing otherwise. We have large, clear notices on our doors and in spite of this some people simply just forget or ignore the notices.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX Wombat wrote
"We have large, clear notices on our doors and in spite of this some people simply just forget or ignore the notices"
No - some people think that these notices do not apply to them as they know better. Just like those who also ignore flight crew notices to sit down, buckle up, remain seated etc.
"We have large, clear notices on our doors and in spite of this some people simply just forget or ignore the notices"
No - some people think that these notices do not apply to them as they know better. Just like those who also ignore flight crew notices to sit down, buckle up, remain seated etc.
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think DX Wombat has a good point on some cell phone users not distinguishing between standby and off.
Just as an aside, it is my understanding that the aircraft manufacturers are planning to go to wireless for passenger entertainment and communications in the cabin. Eliminate the weight of that wiring, and just run power to the seats. And that's fine, because it will be engineered from the start.
If we want the convenience of wireless we have to be responsible for its use. Even with the concerns in a hospital, there are more uses of wireless that make information access easier and improve the experience of the patient (such as for medical telemetry, increasing patient mobility).
Maybe we need those RF detectors in the cabin.
Just as an aside, it is my understanding that the aircraft manufacturers are planning to go to wireless for passenger entertainment and communications in the cabin. Eliminate the weight of that wiring, and just run power to the seats. And that's fine, because it will be engineered from the start.
If we want the convenience of wireless we have to be responsible for its use. Even with the concerns in a hospital, there are more uses of wireless that make information access easier and improve the experience of the patient (such as for medical telemetry, increasing patient mobility).
Maybe we need those RF detectors in the cabin.
PPRuNe Rebel
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sandgrounds
Age: 61
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know absoluteley nothing about the way in which mobile phones can affect any part of the aircraft system, but there are rules...and the rules are in place for the safety of the passengers and crew.
If someone chooses to disregard the rules, thus causing concern to the other passengers, then he should be punished. As far as I'm concerned, he should have been given the maximum sentence possible.
If someone chooses to disregard the rules, thus causing concern to the other passengers, then he should be punished. As far as I'm concerned, he should have been given the maximum sentence possible.
Paxing All Over The World
Hi, Vortex thanks for clearing up this point for us all.
I am glad to learn this. In my work in Telecomms, I rely upon the companies supplying the equipment and service to give me most of the information. In this case, that has been erroneous. 
Well, I'm sorry that you have to denounce me in such tones. I am glad (again) to learn that devices already have this feature. My phone does not and, besides, I don't play games with it. So - even it had it, I would not use it! 
Very true but I was considering the audience that reads this forum and making a differentiation betwen System 4; Portable Mobile Radio; TACS; ETACS; GSM; Radio-Paging (onsite and area wide) etcetera, I thought that 'Mobile Radio' was a little easier?
Well, in this case, I am wrong and you have been able to state the correct information. This is a good case for the internet and discussion groups. It is great that a GSM Optimisation and Planning Engineer is on hand. All I ask is that you try and point out errors in ... <trying to find the right word> gentler? tones. 
Wrong. Cell phones do NOT always TX. There is an idle mode, which is when you are not making a call and this does not require the phone to TX. It searches for base stations by listening and measuring the received signal.
Wrong again. Increasing numbers of phones and wireless PDAs have aircraft modes, which disable the transmission side of the phone, but still leaves you able to use its other facilities. I own a Siemens S45 with just such an option. Nokia 9000 series communicators have the same option.
I am not trying to knock you here but GSM and mobile radio is as different as chalk and cheese.
I’m not questioning your ability but in this case you prove the point of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rude GSM engineers
PAXboy
Yeah sorry about that it does come across a bit too harsh and certainly more than I really meant it to. Do accept my apologies, hope I did not offend to much? Perhaps a few emoticons in there would have been more appropriate.
Glad to help out with the info. A lot of people sadly have a big misunderstanding of telecommunications (caused by people only being given half the story as you say happened to you), which can cause unfounded scare stories. That was what I was trying to get across in my message. English composition never was my best subject
After all that has been said on this subject I heard a Nokia SMS received tone (somebody probably switched it on early) from the back of the aircraft on finals to Schiphol on Friday afternoon. Was not impressedCabin crew said nothing. I mentioned it on leaving and she said she had not heard it. Fair enough. Doesn’t excuse the prat who did it though.
Yeah sorry about that
it does come across a bit too harsh and certainly more than I really meant it to. Do accept my apologies, hope I did not offend to much? Perhaps a few emoticons in there would have been more appropriate.Glad to help out with the info. A lot of people sadly have a big misunderstanding of telecommunications (caused by people only being given half the story as you say happened to you), which can cause unfounded scare stories. That was what I was trying to get across in my message. English composition never was my best subject
After all that has been said on this subject I heard a Nokia SMS received tone (somebody probably switched it on early) from the back of the aircraft on finals to Schiphol on Friday afternoon. Was not impressed
Cabin crew said nothing. I mentioned it on leaving and she said she had not heard it. Fair enough. Doesn’t excuse the prat who did it though.
Paxing All Over The World
Vortex - Sure. It happens to us all.
Some months ago, during taxi to stand at LHR, I heard (from the row behind me) the distinctive 'Tick-Tick-Tick' that an Ericsson makes as it registers (I am a long term Ericsson user).
I turned to look trhough the gap in the seats and glared at the bloke and told him to turn it off. He looked VERY surprised. However, I doubt that he aceeded to my request.
You may be able to comment on another point in this debate. An ex-colleague of mine worked on software developemnt of the Airbus 321. He said that their concern was not the odd phone or two but the problem of numerous phones.
They were concerned that, if multiple phones are turned on durings (say, finals or taxi to stand) they would all be registering at about the same time. The combined transmissions to multiple networks - perhaps greater if foreign mobiles are trying to locate suitable network for the first time - would provide a far greater interferance?
Some months ago, during taxi to stand at LHR, I heard (from the row behind me) the distinctive 'Tick-Tick-Tick' that an Ericsson makes as it registers (I am a long term Ericsson user).
I turned to look trhough the gap in the seats and glared at the bloke and told him to turn it off. He looked VERY surprised. However, I doubt that he aceeded to my request.
You may be able to comment on another point in this debate. An ex-colleague of mine worked on software developemnt of the Airbus 321. He said that their concern was not the odd phone or two but the problem of numerous phones.
They were concerned that, if multiple phones are turned on durings (say, finals or taxi to stand) they would all be registering at about the same time. The combined transmissions to multiple networks - perhaps greater if foreign mobiles are trying to locate suitable network for the first time - would provide a far greater interferance?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes very true about all the phones trying to update together and causing a big rf energy surge. I alluded to that problem in an earlier post. (what actually happens is explained here: http://www.privateline.com/PCS/callprocessGSM.html). The simple fact is the cost of protecting aircraft systems against this type of radiation is probably very expensive. Simpler to just get everyone to turn their phones off A not unreasonable conclusion in my opinion.
A not unreasonable conclusion in my opinion.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one reason for banning phones in air (even though I'd like to be able to use mine, but I'll sacrifice this...) is that the proles have such vile ringing tones and like to hear them... also they already can bellow so loudly when they speak/laugh to their chums, even if separated by several aisles, so imagine the delights with the phone...
`
`
On May 2, 2000, the CAA published a report entitled 'Interference Levels in Aircraft at Radio Frequencies used by Portable Telephones'. It could be downloaded from www.srg.caa.co.ik/srg/srg_news.asp
It can probably still be found somewhere on the CAA site; its conclusion is that field strengths high enough to exceed the susceptability levels of some aircraft equipment can be found.
One problem is that as an aircraft gets older, you cannot be sure that all the cable screens will maintain their total integrity, so immunity can actually decrease.
It can probably still be found somewhere on the CAA site; its conclusion is that field strengths high enough to exceed the susceptability levels of some aircraft equipment can be found.
One problem is that as an aircraft gets older, you cannot be sure that all the cable screens will maintain their total integrity, so immunity can actually decrease.
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd not heard of GSMs with 'aircraft mode', most concerning. It seems tantamount to allowing guns onboard without bullets - though it's easier to check that a gun's in 'safe mode'...
