Cell phones in the air

[Roger Worden]

I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use cell
phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the rationale?

[CindyASK]

Roger Worden wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use
cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the
rationale?

The FCC says it is illegal.
If they make a rule, and you break it, they can find you and
then fine you.

Try this link.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operations/aircraft.html

Or you can dig through the regulation itself.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm

If calling from altitude, you can "reach" several cell sites. You then
tie up more facilities than you really need. So I am told,
and have read on RAS in years past. That must make it true . . ..

Cindy B

[CindyASK]

Roger Worden wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use
cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the
rationale?

The FCC says it is illegal.
If they make a rule, and you break it, they can find you and
then fine you.

Try this link.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operations/aircraft.html

Or you can dig through the regulation itself.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm

If calling from altitude, you can "reach" several cell sites. You then
tie up more facilities than you really need. So I am told,
and have read on RAS in years past. That must make it true . . ..

Cindy B

[Slick]

Also, don't forget about, "fly the airplane."
"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
m...
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the rationale?
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Stewart Kissel]

At 11:30 10 March 2005, Slick wrote:
>Also, don't forget about, 'fly the airplane.'


How true...one would not want to let a cellphone conversation
interfere with pushing buttons on their flight display
PDA :)

[COLIN LAMB]

But, if your glider is hijacked, and you make a telephone call from the air,
the FCC will not enforce the provision. In an emergency, you can use it.
But, remember to fly first.

Colin

[rromanATfrontiernetDOTnet]

Roger Worden wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use
cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the
rationale?

In the US there are FCC regulations prohibiting the use any aircraft -
from a FCC web page: Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
Part 22, provides that cellular telephones installed in, or carried
aboard airplanes, balloons, or any other type of aircraft, must not be
operated while the aircraft is off the ground. The FCC concern is
interference they may cause.

[Malcolm Austin]

Hi Roger,
I read with interest the other replies but have one other
point to make. The mobile phone frequency works only with "line of sight"
it is heavily attenuated by travelling across a ground with trees, buildings
etc. When in the air your maximum range is greatly enhanced so you could be
into a number of cells at the same time and strength. This would not help
the phone guys (but with the cost of their service who cares!!)

Regards, Malcolm... (UK radio ham as well as a poor K6 owner)



"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
m...
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the rationale?
>
>

[[email protected]]

You ever drive behind someone on a cell phone call? ;-)

Stand back.. there will be others... here they come....

The technical issue is if you hit multiple cells at one time you may
have your account shut donw for a bit, looks like the cell was cloned
to them. And it may be illegal in your country.

[Bert Willing]

You very often hit multiple cells at the same time, even when standing on
the ground, and your cell phone will chose the strongest one (or the
strongest of your national provider if you are close to a national border.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


> a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
> You ever drive behind someone on a cell phone call? ;-)
>
> Stand back.. there will be others... here they come....
>
> The technical issue is if you hit multiple cells at one time you may
> have your account shut donw for a bit, looks like the cell was cloned
> to them. And it may be illegal in your country.
>

[For Example John Smith]

I dunno guys.
It's not uncommon for a phone operated on the ground to be in reach of
several cells. A server arbitrates which of the available cells your call
should go through. I've also heard that it is difficult to get a signal if
you're very high because the antennae on the towers are optimized for
catching signals originating on the ground -- I've also heard stories
disputing this, included the 9-11 stories.
Bottom line--it's illegal and distracting so you shouldn't do it.
Why it's illegal in the US, I don't have a clue.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You ever drive behind someone on a cell phone call? ;-)
>
> Stand back.. there will be others... here they come....
>
> The technical issue is if you hit multiple cells at one time you may
> have your account shut donw for a bit, looks like the cell was cloned
> to them. And it may be illegal in your country.
>

[nimbusgb]

Interesting article in this respect for the US based pilots at
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/39038.html.

Generally the reception of GSM signals a dew degrees above the
horizontal is very poor. In the UK the signal drops in and out
repeatedly and a lot of the time a phone is non usable.

The generally accepted reason for this was that a phone would connect
to multiple cells and cause problems on the ground ( I doubt it since
the system was designed around mobile handsets anyway but I stand to be
corrected by an authoritative source ie: a systems engineer currently
working for a cellphone company! )

Ian

Roger Worden wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use
cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the
rationale?

[Malcolm Austin]

Hi,
on the antenna front I can make some comments.

The length of an antenna changes its radiation pattern. In simple terms the
1/4 wave that most of us use has a high angle of radiation, but presents a
50 ohm impedance to the radio (for which most of them are tuned)

It you go to a 1/2 wave (or even 5/8ths or 3/4 wave) you have a lower
angle of radiation and can effectively transmit further over the ground.
The only problem then is that you no longer have 50 ohm impedance
so need a "matching" network.

So the antennas used on mobile networks may well be low radiation types
which would find it difficult to "see" you at height. I certainly have
tried this out
in the air at my club in the UK and much over 2000 feet do not get a
signal.

Malcolm...

-.-


"For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
...
>I dunno guys.
> It's not uncommon for a phone operated on the ground to be in reach of
> several cells. A server arbitrates which of the available cells your call
> should go through. I've also heard that it is difficult to get a signal
> if
> you're very high because the antennae on the towers are optimized for
> catching signals originating on the ground -- I've also heard stories
> disputing this, included the 9-11 stories.
> Bottom line--it's illegal and distracting so you shouldn't do it.
> Why it's illegal in the US, I don't have a clue.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> You ever drive behind someone on a cell phone call? ;-)
>>
>> Stand back.. there will be others... here they come....
>>
>> The technical issue is if you hit multiple cells at one time you may
>> have your account shut donw for a bit, looks like the cell was cloned
>> to them. And it may be illegal in your country.
>>
>
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Roger Worden wrote:

> I've seen a couple of references to someone
> not wanting us to use cell phones while
> gliding. I haven't seen the reason...
> what's the rationale?

Umm, because it's illegal? Here in the US at least.

Here's a link and quote from the Web site of the US Federal
Communications Commission:

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html

: Currently, cell phone users generally are permitted to use
: their phones before takeoff and after landing. FCC rules
: currently ban cell phone use after a plane has taken off
: because of potential interference to cellular phone
: networks on the ground. In addition, the Federal Aviation
: Administration (FAA) has rules prohibiting in-flight cell
: phone use because of potential interference to navigation
: and aircraft systems.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Iwo Mergler]

Roger Worden wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use cell
> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the rationale?
>

The most common answer seems to be that the
handset would "talk" to too many base stations
simultaneously. This is incorrect, as the
GSM protocol will not allow that. I'm sure the
CDMA protocol in the US does the same.

However, as the handset moves, the network
has to coordinate handovers between cells,
which increases network overhead. Most aircraft
are faster than cars, so they cause more handovers.

I'm sure the rule applies to gliders and baloons
simply because nobody bothered to make a distinction.

Kind regards,

Iwo

[Mark James Boyd]

That was very useful. I knew about the IFR and carrier restrictions
in the FAA regs against cell use (and I think it even covers
taxiing) but I didn't know the FCC stuff. Thanks!

In article om>,
rromanATfrontiernetDOTnet > wrote:
>
>Roger Worden wrote:
>> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use
>cell
>> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the
>rationale?
>
>In the US there are FCC regulations prohibiting the use any aircraft -
>from a FCC web page: Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
>Part 22, provides that cellular telephones installed in, or carried
>aboard airplanes, balloons, or any other type of aircraft, must not be
>operated while the aircraft is off the ground. The FCC concern is
>interference they may cause.
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Iwo Mergler wrote:
> Roger Worden wrote:
>
>> I've seen a couple of references to someone not wanting us to use cell
>> phones while gliding. I haven't seen the reason... what's the rationale?
>>
>
> The most common answer seems to be that the
> handset would "talk" to too many base stations
> simultaneously. This is incorrect, as the
> GSM protocol will not allow that. I'm sure the
> CDMA protocol in the US does the same.
>
> However, as the handset moves, the network
> has to coordinate handovers between cells,
> which increases network overhead. Most aircraft
> are faster than cars, so they cause more handovers.
>
> I'm sure the rule applies to gliders and baloons
> simply because nobody bothered to make a distinction.

I suspect that is right.

Apparently, the RAS community doesn't include any cellular system
engineers, or perhaps they have to take an oath of secrecy. This
question comes up amongst airplane people, too, and I've never seen a
reply anywhere from someone that actually is trained and knowledgeable
about the systems.

There certainly are a lot people high in the air making calls, like
pilots, hikers, and mountain climbers, but I've not heard of anybody
being chased down and fined. I do know my cell phone company has never
mentioned the subject in all the literature they send me, so I'm
guessing it's not a problem for them.

I think the biggest issue for glider pilots is the distraction of using
the phone.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[chipsoars]

I heard recently on NPR the FAA is conducting studies on commercial
aircraft with cell phones and approval may come in a couple of years.
Clearly a good news bad news for those of us with frequent biz-travel
(an enforced respite from the phone is nice and who hasn't had enough
of overhearing someone yelling "can you hear me now").

If people fly gliders as poorly as they drive cars speaking on a cell
phone, that would be a bad thing. We have enough going on in the cock
pit without an additional distraction.

Chip F.

[[email protected]]

I wouldn't worry too much about lighting up cells. Your digital phone
has a pretty weak transmitter and your glider does a pretty good job of
attenuating signal in every direction that cannot see, especially if
its carbon. If you have a good reason to make a call and can do it
safely, why not. I've called 911 several times. And the retrieve office
on several occasions when I couldn't get a response by radio.

Legalities... well, laws are made for lots of reasons. The important
ones are enforced.

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Apparently, the RAS community doesn't include any cellular system
> engineers, or perhaps they have to take an oath of secrecy. This
> question comes up amongst airplane people, too, and I've never seen a
> reply anywhere from someone that actually is trained and knowledgeable
> about the systems.

I wouldn't call myself a "cellular system engineer" but I've written
code that runs in the controlling computers for cell phone systems (both
GSM and CDMA), and I've spent time driving around measuring signal
strengths and data rates and diagnosing localized problems with those
things and with handoffs from one cell site to another.

In the CDMA system as used in the USA and by Telecom here in NZ), the
phone maintains up to three site in the "active set", plus half a dozen
more in the "candidate set". One of the sites in the active set is the
current pilot, which is the one that data is actually being sent
through. The phone has dedicated hardware (called a "finger") to
monitor and talk to each of the three active set members, and a single
extra set of hardware to scan the candidate set in turn, and decide
whethe to move one of them into the active set (replacing another one).
The phone will handoff to one of the other sites in the active set if
that signal gets enough better than the current pilot for long enough.

Each cell site has a set of up to twenty "neighbours" programmed into it
by the phone company. A new site can not get into the candidate set
unless it is a neighbour of one of the sites in the active set. Thus
sites too far away can not tie up resources in the phone or the network
(although if they have a strong signal they can appear as "noise" and
make it harder to talk to nearby but weak sites).

There are several other mechanisms to prevent far-off sites from talking
to a phone. One is the "search window". Typically cell sites in a city
are set up to reject communication attempts from phones that are more
than, say, 20 "chips" (about 5 km) away. Also the antennas themselves
will often have downtilt (either mechanical or electronic or both)
applied so that the main beam can't be picked up from too far away.

All the above applies to the newer digital systems (CDMA, though GSM is
similar) which should not be troubled at all by a few people in
slow-moving gliders. The older analogue systems were far less
sophisticated and could be much more easily swamped. Phones travelling
at 1000 km/h would do interesting things as there is usually, for
example, around a three second delay before handing off to a cell site
with a better signal.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Roger Worden]

So the illegal activity is not just *making calls* while in the air, but
having the phone *turned on*. People with other GSM and CDMA devices that
don't look like phones, such as Blackberries and other PDAs would have to
disable the wireless function before takeoff. Yet another item for the
takeoff checklist.

[Duncan McC]

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > Apparently, the RAS community doesn't include any cellular system
> > engineers, or perhaps they have to take an oath of secrecy. This
> > question comes up amongst airplane people, too, and I've never seen a
> > reply anywhere from someone that actually is trained and knowledgeable
> > about the systems.
>
> I wouldn't call myself a "cellular system engineer" but I've written
> code that runs in the controlling computers for cell phone systems (both
> GSM and CDMA), and I've spent time driving around measuring signal
> strengths and data rates and diagnosing localized problems with those
> things and with handoffs from one cell site to another.
>
> In the CDMA system as used in the USA and by Telecom here in NZ), the
> phone maintains up to three site in the "active set", plus half a dozen
> more in the "candidate set". One of the sites in the active set is the
> current pilot, which is the one that data is actually being sent
> through. The phone has dedicated hardware (called a "finger") to
> monitor and talk to each of the three active set members, and a single
> extra set of hardware to scan the candidate set in turn, and decide
> whethe to move one of them into the active set (replacing another one).
> The phone will handoff to one of the other sites in the active set if
> that signal gets enough better than the current pilot for long enough.
>
> Each cell site has a set of up to twenty "neighbours" programmed into it
> by the phone company. A new site can not get into the candidate set
> unless it is a neighbour of one of the sites in the active set. Thus
> sites too far away can not tie up resources in the phone or the network
> (although if they have a strong signal they can appear as "noise" and
> make it harder to talk to nearby but weak sites).
>
> There are several other mechanisms to prevent far-off sites from talking
> to a phone. One is the "search window". Typically cell sites in a city
> are set up to reject communication attempts from phones that are more
> than, say, 20 "chips" (about 5 km) away. Also the antennas themselves
> will often have downtilt (either mechanical or electronic or both)
> applied so that the main beam can't be picked up from too far away.
>
> All the above applies to the newer digital systems (CDMA, though GSM is
> similar) which should not be troubled at all by a few people in
> slow-moving gliders. The older analogue systems were far less
> sophisticated and could be much more easily swamped. Phones travelling
> at 1000 km/h would do interesting things as there is usually, for
> example, around a three second delay before handing off to a cell site
> with a better signal.

Thanks for the interesting cellphone guff Bruce. A couple years back I
was VFR enroute Omarama => Christchurch, and noted that I could not send
text messages, yet could place calls. What's the go there? (Vodafone).
I was certainly in range of sites - 'bout 5K' for much of the flight,
and even couldn't send texts while in visible range of Christchurch.

--
Duncan

[Eric Greenwell]

Roger Worden wrote:
> So the illegal activity is not just *making calls* while in the air, but
> having the phone *turned on*. People with other GSM and CDMA devices that
> don't look like phones, such as Blackberries and other PDAs would have to
> disable the wireless function before takeoff. Yet another item for the
> takeoff checklist.

I hope pilots will keep their takeoff checklists brief and pertinent to
safe flight. Don't clutter it with things that aren't causing problems.
If you are concerened about it, put it on the checklist you use after
your preflight list, but before you crawl into the cockpit.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Doug Haluza]

Slick wrote:
> Also, don't forget about, "fly the airplane."

AKA "Bernoulli before Marconi"

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Duncan McC > wrote:

> Thanks for the interesting cellphone guff Bruce. A couple years back I
> was VFR enroute Omarama => Christchurch, and noted that I could not send
> text messages, yet could place calls. What's the go there? (Vodafone).
> I was certainly in range of sites - 'bout 5K' for much of the flight,
> and even couldn't send texts while in visible range of Christchurch.

Cell phone sites generally use directional antennas, with typically
three "sectors" at each cell site, pointing in different directions.
The antennas are designed so that most of the power goes in those
directions, and not far above or below the horizon, but antennas aren't
"perfect", so not all of the power is in the main beam. There are also
weaker "side-lobes" and (especially when electronic downtilt is applied)
quite a bit of "top-lobe" -- that is power going upwards or nearly so.

The phone company doesn't do anything to try to make sure that the
top-lobes provide good coverage for the entire sky. Quite the opposite
in fact -- they try to minimize them (when they think about them at all,
which isn't often).

Hell, that might be one reason they say not to use them in planes -- if
they said it was ok to do that then people might form some expectation
of it working all the time, which it doesn't.

I don't know why GSM voice calls would work when SMS didn't, as they
both use the same antennas and signals. I can only assume that it was
purely a matter of bad luck due to the timing of where you tried what on
your flightpath.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Go]

The people you see erratically on the road talking on cell-phones
aren't the only people on the road talking. Think about it a bit.
You/we only notice the 'cell-phone drivers' who are incapable of
multi-tasking because ther ARE erratic. Try looking at each driver as
you pass them or are being passed. You will be surprised to find the
majority of cell-phone talker's driving is normal. I know this based
upon over 15 years of driving L.A. and other SoCal freeways 35,000+
miles per year (I am thankful I don't have to do THAT anymore!).

It is fashionable for us to deride all cell-phone users as unsafe based
upon our observations of a very visible minority but that is not an
accurate representation of the reality.

But about flying cell-phone use:
I could address the subject of whether it takes more attention time to
press a PDU button and read the resulting display vs. opening and
reading a map in your lap. But that is another subject isn't it?

What is the difference if I am sitting on top of San Jacinto mountain
using my cell-phone or if I am flying near SanJac doing the same? Or if
I am using my cell when on the 'Rim of the World' highway vs. flying
above it? I think we (gliders) have been swept into the total general
aviation category again.

It seems to me that other that banning it totally, cell-phone use in
gliders and balloons should be legal for emergency, flight planning,
and essential communications. Totally unenforcable of course, but the
current law isn't being enforced is it? Would they cite me and fine me
for 'emergency' use of a cell-phone in flight?

I have used my cell-phone in flight only a very few times. On one very
important occasion, when radio communications with my crew had failed,
I was able to avoid an airstrip with temporarily dangerous ground
conditions by using my cell to communicate with my crew. (No this
wasn't during a contest!)

Would this stop some idiot from flying around the local airport
chatting with his wife and flying unsafely? No, you can't keep idiots
like that out of the air anymore than we can keep them off the road.

[Eric Greenwell]

Go wrote:

>
> I have used my cell-phone in flight only a very few times. On one very
> important occasion, when radio communications with my crew had failed,
> I was able to avoid an airstrip with temporarily dangerous ground
> conditions by using my cell to communicate with my crew. (No this
> wasn't during a contest!)

Safety communication is allowed during a contest - no problem with that
part of using a cell phone.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Rob]

There is another point on the cell phone issue. There was recently a airplane
crash that destroyed the ELT, but the pilot had a cell phone he had left on.
It was a fatal, but the family was able to call the phone and get a signal.
Using the cell phone technology to triangulate, they found the plane within
hours in a remote area. Think of it as a back up ELT when you aren't able to
be found with the ELT. It certainly sounds like the technology is now able
to handle cell phones in the air, but the law hasn't caught up with the
technology. Digital vs. analog tech.

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> The people you see erratically on the road talking on cell-phones
> aren't the only people on the road talking. Think about it a bit.
> You/we only notice the 'cell-phone drivers' who are incapable of
> multi-tasking because ther ARE erratic. Try looking at each driver as
> you pass them or are being passed. You will be surprised to find the
> majority of cell-phone talker's driving is normal.

It may be as normal as most (moderatly) drunk driving. You can and usually
make do make it home even if you are a bit woozy.

We have had quite a bit of public discussion here in Germany and a lot
of research. The result of that research after being filtered through
the legislative jungle is that using a mobile phone without hands-free
equipment while driving is now forbidden. It is also widely accepted
that using a telephone _at_ _all_ while driving is a hazard, so if there
is an accident and it is discovered that one of the drivers was one the
phone he is very likely to be assigned at least part of the blame for it
by a judge even if he was using it hands-free.

It is also interesting to note that talking to a person that is physically
present seems to be not at all that demanding. So there is no pressure to
regulate normal conversation in cars :-).

I do not believe however that this research can easily be extended to
aircraft. Mainly because the allowed time to react is generally much
shorter on the road than in the air.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Ich hoffe Sie können mir helfen. Ein Freund hat mir einen tollen
Bildschirmschoner aufgespielt, aber jedesmal wenn ich die Maus bewege
ist er weg."

[[email protected]]

Marian Aldenhövel > writes:

> It is also interesting to note that talking to a person that is
> physically present seems to be not at all that demanding. So there
> is no pressure to regulate normal conversation in cars :-).

> I do not believe however that this research can easily be extended
> to aircraft. Mainly because the allowed time to react is generally
> much shorter on the road than in the air.

The big difference it seems is that you are listening and concentrating
on ONE EAR. This distorts the visual field, and biases attention cues
toward the phone side. The visual distortion is AWAY from the phone,
so there is a large mismatch.

Using a speaker is far safer than a single ear phone.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Go]

> The people you see erratically on the road talking on cell-phones
> aren't the only people on the road talking. Think about it a bit.
> You/we only notice the 'cell-phone drivers' who are incapable of
> multi-tasking because ther ARE erratic. Try looking at each driver as

> you pass them or are being passed. You will be surprised to find the
> majority of cell-phone talker's driving is normal.


"It may be as normal as most (moderatly) drunk driving. You can and
usually
make do make it home even if you are a bit woozy."

I totally disagree with your statement that ANYONE driving while
talking on a cellphone is incapable of driving at a skill level above a
drunk driver. Absurd! You totally missed the point. Why not take a look
yourself when on the autobaun (sp?) rather than depending upon the
sensationalist media and special interest group propaganda. If the
situation there is similar to here you will see many, many drivers
performing capably even while talking on the phone. No, I don't sell
cell phones, but I do use them.

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> If the situation there is similar to here you will see many, many drivers
> performing capably even while talking on the phone.

Unfortunately you cannot see blood alcohol levels, so you cannot build
statistics by simple roadside observation.

> Why not take a look yourself

Why not ask around who has made a trip after a few beers and survived.
Still this is no indication of the safety of it.

> rather than depending upon the sensationalist media and special interest
> group propaganda.

This is not propaganda but sound research. Plus I just cannot think at this
moment what powerful special interest group might want to ban cell phones.

> autobaun

Autobahn.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Ich hoffe Sie können mir helfen. Ein Freund hat mir einen tollen
Bildschirmschoner aufgespielt, aber jedesmal wenn ich die Maus bewege
ist er weg."

[[email protected]]

There are three issues with airborne cell phones:
1: interference with multiple cells.
2: interference with avionics
3: interference with (distraction of) the pilot

All are significant. #1 was much more significant with analog phones.
One day in 1995 I was giving a glider ride, had caught a good thermal,
and the analog rang. I answered, talked to the nursing-home nurse for
a bit; the thermal was strong; as I climbed through 4K agl, suddenly
ther was a loud electronic squeal and the conversation ended. More
recently I needed to make an urgent call from an airplane with a
digital phone, and got the same squeal.
#2 is randomly significant. A pilot friend told me last month, "I was
on the ramp ready for departure and placed a call on my cell phone.
When I hit 'send' all the radio displays zero'ed out. That made a
believer out of *me*!"
#3 is self evident and has been mentioned by several posters already.

[Bert Willing]

#1 is last century.
#2 doesn't matter in a glider
#3 can be helped by switching the ringing to mute.

Carrying a cell phone in a glider can well help you to be rapidly localized
after a crash if the people looking for you know your phone number.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


> a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
> There are three issues with airborne cell phones:
> 1: interference with multiple cells.
> 2: interference with avionics
> 3: interference with (distraction of) the pilot
>
> All are significant. #1 was much more significant with analog phones.
> One day in 1995 I was giving a glider ride, had caught a good thermal,
> and the analog rang. I answered, talked to the nursing-home nurse for
> a bit; the thermal was strong; as I climbed through 4K agl, suddenly
> ther was a loud electronic squeal and the conversation ended. More
> recently I needed to make an urgent call from an airplane with a
> digital phone, and got the same squeal.
> #2 is randomly significant. A pilot friend told me last month, "I was
> on the ramp ready for departure and placed a call on my cell phone.
> When I hit 'send' all the radio displays zero'ed out. That made a
> believer out of *me*!"
> #3 is self evident and has been mentioned by several posters already.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> There are three issues with airborne cell phones:
> 1: interference with multiple cells.
> 2: interference with avionics
> 3: interference with (distraction of) the pilot
>
> All are significant. #1 was much more significant with analog phones.
> One day in 1995 I was giving a glider ride, had caught a good thermal,
> and the analog rang. I answered, talked to the nursing-home nurse for
> a bit; the thermal was strong; as I climbed through 4K agl, suddenly
> ther was a loud electronic squeal and the conversation ended. More
> recently I needed to make an urgent call from an airplane with a
> digital phone, and got the same squeal.
> #2 is randomly significant. A pilot friend told me last month, "I was
> on the ramp ready for departure and placed a call on my cell phone.
> When I hit 'send' all the radio displays zero'ed out. That made a
> believer out of *me*!"
> #3 is self evident and has been mentioned by several posters already.

I don't have an explanation for your squeals and zeros, but it's a rare
report, indeed. In fact, it's the only report of problems I've heard.

Aircraft avionics are well shielded because they have to contend with
plenty of on-board interference. This includes other avionics like
communications radios (5 to 10 watts), transponders (250 watt pulses!),
and, of course, the ignition noise of the engine. So, the paltry .5 watt
or less of the cell phone is unlikely to bother them, and that's what
most pilots experience.

Distraction is always a potential problem for a pilot, so we hope they
manage it better than many of the cell phone wielding drivers I see on
the road!


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Eric Greenwell
> writes
wrote:
>> There are three issues with airborne cell phones:
>> 1: interference with multiple cells.
>> 2: interference with avionics
>> 3: interference with (distraction of) the pilot
>> All are significant. #1 was much more significant with analog
>>phones.
>> One day in 1995 I was giving a glider ride, had caught a good thermal,
>> and the analog rang. I answered, talked to the nursing-home nurse for
>> a bit; the thermal was strong; as I climbed through 4K agl, suddenly
>> ther was a loud electronic squeal and the conversation ended. More
>> recently I needed to make an urgent call from an airplane with a
>> digital phone, and got the same squeal.
>> #2 is randomly significant. A pilot friend told me last month, "I was
>> on the ramp ready for departure and placed a call on my cell phone.
>> When I hit 'send' all the radio displays zero'ed out. That made a
>> believer out of *me*!"
>> #3 is self evident and has been mentioned by several posters already.
>
>I don't have an explanation for your squeals and zeros, but it's a rare
>report, indeed. In fact, it's the only report of problems I've heard.
>
FWIW from the uk. #1 is an issue here. I don't know if it is that the
cells prevent multiple connection or the phones don't like it but if you
get more than about 1,500 ft above the general level of the cells then
you cannot/find it very hard to - connect. #2 is also an issue as I can
hear a cell phone saying hi to the cell over the radio, be it a handheld
or a fixed mount, this means that there is enough energy from the phone,
be it through the DC supply or the received RF I haven't the faintest
idea but it happens, especially as the airband radios are AM (makes the
audio very easy to interfere with). If this can happen to the radio
then I am worried about the interference. #3 is a very strong point.

The point that has been made that a live cell phone can be used to find
you if all else fails is a good one, however, having had phones
disintegrate after a car crash I wouldn't rely on it.

Robin
--
Robin Birch