AOPA supports cell phones in GA aircraft

[Cub Driver]

From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:

AOPA Lobbies Congress For Cell Phones In GA Cockpits
Aviation Advocacy Group Says The Time Is Now

General aviation pilots should be
able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
Federal Communications Commission.

"It's a safety issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director
of advanced technology. "Cell phones and other wireless
technologies are invaluable tools for obtaining updated weather and
other information in flight. And the risk of interference with
aircraft avionics for the typical general aviation flight is very
slight."

The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
(and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
used in the air.

Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might
cause interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
the FAA has never prohibited their use. The aviation agency always
has given pilots the final authority on what portable electronic
devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA talked with several
major cell phone service providers and found no restrictions on
using their services in GA cockpits.

And for GA pilots, the safety and
convenience benefits of the wireless devices far outweigh any
minimal interference risk.

"The majority of general aviation flights are flown under VFR,
so there is seldom exclusive reliance on electronic navigation,"
said Kenagy. "Plus, the pilot isn't isolated from the passengers
and has the immediate ability and responsibility to terminate the
use of any device at any time if it is interfering with
flight-critical electronics."

AOPA told the FCC that it strongly supports the rule change and
urged the agency to take the regulatory steps to allow the
immediate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in airborne
aircraft.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Marco Leon]

I don't know about anyone else, but I can never get a [usable] signal above
2,500 feet agl. Anyone else have a different experience? I have Verizon.

Marco Leon

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:
>
> AOPA Lobbies Congress For Cell Phones In GA Cockpits
> Aviation Advocacy Group Says The Time Is Now
>
> General aviation pilots should be
> able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
> they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
> Federal Communications Commission.
>
> "It's a safety issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director
> of advanced technology. "Cell phones and other wireless
> technologies are invaluable tools for obtaining updated weather and
> other information in flight. And the risk of interference with
> aircraft avionics for the typical general aviation flight is very
> slight."
>
> The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
> (and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
> used in the air.
>
> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might
> cause interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
> the FAA has never prohibited their use. The aviation agency always
> has given pilots the final authority on what portable electronic
> devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA talked with several
> major cell phone service providers and found no restrictions on
> using their services in GA cockpits.
>
> And for GA pilots, the safety and
> convenience benefits of the wireless devices far outweigh any
> minimal interference risk.
>
> "The majority of general aviation flights are flown under VFR,
> so there is seldom exclusive reliance on electronic navigation,"
> said Kenagy. "Plus, the pilot isn't isolated from the passengers
> and has the immediate ability and responsibility to terminate the
> use of any device at any time if it is interfering with
> flight-critical electronics."
>
> AOPA told the FCC that it strongly supports the rule change and
> urged the agency to take the regulatory steps to allow the
> immediate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in airborne
> aircraft.
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[10Squared]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't know about anyone else, but I can never get a [usable] signal
> above 2,500 feet agl. Anyone else have a different experience? I have
> Verizon.

Generally, cell phone towers have the antenna pattern pointing toward the
ground, where most of the cell phones are to be found.

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver reported:
> From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:
>
> General aviation pilots should be
> able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
> they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
> Federal Communications Commission.

I can imagine the FCC reply. "We *know* you want to use cell phones in the air.
That's why we wrote a law against it."

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[xrayvizhen]

My understanding, from a source within the I.T. department of Cingular,
is that this issue has nothing to do with safety in the cockpit or
interference with aircraft navigation equipment. It has to do with the
fact that when at altitiude, a cell phone will be accessing many more
cells at one time than when on the ground which somehow prevents your
cell phone carrier from accurately billing you. This information came
to me about a year ago. If AOPA has updated information and is saying
it's OK with the carriers, then hopefully this will happen sooner
rather than later


Cub Driver wrote:
> From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:
>
> AOPA Lobbies Congress For Cell Phones In GA Cockpits
> Aviation Advocacy Group Says The Time Is Now
>
> General aviation pilots should be
> able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
> they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
> Federal Communications Commission.
>
> "It's a safety issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director
> of advanced technology. "Cell phones and other wireless
> technologies are invaluable tools for obtaining updated weather and
> other information in flight. And the risk of interference with
> aircraft avionics for the typical general aviation flight is very
> slight."
>
> The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
> (and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
> used in the air.
>
> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might
> cause interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
> the FAA has never prohibited their use. The aviation agency always
> has given pilots the final authority on what portable electronic
> devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA talked with several
> major cell phone service providers and found no restrictions on
> using their services in GA cockpits.
>
> And for GA pilots, the safety and
> convenience benefits of the wireless devices far outweigh any
> minimal interference risk.
>
> "The majority of general aviation flights are flown under VFR,
> so there is seldom exclusive reliance on electronic navigation,"
> said Kenagy. "Plus, the pilot isn't isolated from the passengers
> and has the immediate ability and responsibility to terminate the
> use of any device at any time if it is interfering with
> flight-critical electronics."
>
> AOPA told the FCC that it strongly supports the rule change and
> urged the agency to take the regulatory steps to allow the
> immediate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in airborne
> aircraft.
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net

[Andrew Sarangan]

Cell phone use from aircraft have been allowed in Canada for quite some
time.

"xrayvizhen" > wrote in
oups.com:

> My understanding, from a source within the I.T. department of
Cingular,
> is that this issue has nothing to do with safety in the cockpit or
> interference with aircraft navigation equipment. It has to do with the
> fact that when at altitiude, a cell phone will be accessing many more
> cells at one time than when on the ground which somehow prevents your
> cell phone carrier from accurately billing you. This information came
> to me about a year ago. If AOPA has updated information and is saying
> it's OK with the carriers, then hopefully this will happen sooner
> rather than later
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>> From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:
>>
>> AOPA Lobbies Congress For Cell Phones In GA Cockpits
>> Aviation Advocacy Group Says The Time Is Now
>>
>> General aviation pilots should be
>> able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
>> they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
>> Federal Communications Commission.
>>
>> "It's a safety issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director
>> of advanced technology. "Cell phones and other wireless
>> technologies are invaluable tools for obtaining updated weather and
>> other information in flight. And the risk of interference with
>> aircraft avionics for the typical general aviation flight is very
>> slight."
>>
>> The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
>> (and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
>> used in the air.
>>
>> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might
>> cause interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
>> the FAA has never prohibited their use. The aviation agency always
>> has given pilots the final authority on what portable electronic
>> devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA talked with several
>> major cell phone service providers and found no restrictions on
>> using their services in GA cockpits.
>>
>> And for GA pilots, the safety and
>> convenience benefits of the wireless devices far outweigh any
>> minimal interference risk.
>>
>> "The majority of general aviation flights are flown under VFR,
>> so there is seldom exclusive reliance on electronic navigation,"
>> said Kenagy. "Plus, the pilot isn't isolated from the passengers
>> and has the immediate ability and responsibility to terminate the
>> use of any device at any time if it is interfering with
>> flight-critical electronics."
>>
>> AOPA told the FCC that it strongly supports the rule change and
>> urged the agency to take the regulatory steps to allow the
>> immediate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in airborne
>> aircraft.
>>
>> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>>
>> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>>
>> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>> the blog: www.danford.net
>

[Grumman-581]

"Marco Leon" wrote in message ...
> I don't know about anyone else, but I can never get a [usable] signal
above
> 2,500 feet agl. Anyone else have a different experience? I have Verizon.

I've got Verizon also and I usually don't get a usable signal above 400 ft
AGL... At 1000 ft, it'll look like I'm getting a signal, but I'll lose it
before I've even finished dialing (even with speed dial)... I suspect that
the cell tower antennas are oriented more for surface signals instead of
ones above them...

[Dave]

My partner (a network engineer) used his Tablet PC with an "Edge"
card on a 50 min flight at 3500 ft with one drop (loss of signal)..

It has worked reasonably well on numerous occasions...

We have had NO issues with interferrence to on board nav gear. There
is usually some audio interference in the intercom sys with traffic
to/from the cell devices, more so if the headset wire is in close
proximity to the device.

No issue.....

(Rogers GPRS/Edge network in Canada...)

Dave


On 29 Mar 2005 19:32:18 -0600, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Cell phone use from aircraft have been allowed in Canada for quite some
>time.
>

>>> The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
>>> (and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
>>> used in the air.
>>> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>>> the blog: www.danford.net
>>

[Bob Fry]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> I've got Verizon also and I usually don't get a usable signal above 400 ft
> AGL... At 1000 ft, it'll look like I'm getting a signal, but I'll lose it
> before I've even finished dialing (even with speed dial)...

This is what happens with my cell phone (Cingular). The only time it
works is when I'm over a fairly remote area but line-of-sight back to
civilization or a freeway. I figure that the phone is getting only
1-2 towers and it works....flying over cities it gets too many towers
and gives up.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:39:53 GMT, "Grumman-581" >
wrote:

>"Marco Leon" wrote in message ...
>> I don't know about anyone else, but I can never get a [usable] signal
>above
>> 2,500 feet agl. Anyone else have a different experience? I have Verizon.
>
>I've got Verizon also and I usually don't get a usable signal above 400 ft
>AGL... At 1000 ft, it'll look like I'm getting a signal, but I'll lose it
>before I've even finished dialing (even with speed dial)... I suspect that
>the cell tower antennas are oriented more for surface signals instead of
>ones above them...

I once called my wife to tell her that I was feet wet over Great Bay
and that she could see me tour the bay if she looked out the window.

It was not a great success, but not because the connection failed. I
just took off my headset and dialed up, not realizing that all she
would hear was the roar of the engine and me shouting in the
background. She made the natural conclusion that the plane was going
down and I was making my last, 9/11-style call.

I was 600-700 feet, I suppose.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:49:56 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>I can imagine the FCC reply. "We *know* you want to use cell phones in the air.
>That's why we wrote a law against it."

Well, I suppose the FCC can write a law if it wants to, but only
Congress can pass one. I don't believe there is any law against using
a cell phone in the air, though there may indeed be an FCC regulation.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Joe Johnson]

> Well, I suppose the FCC can write a law if it wants to, but only
> Congress can pass one. I don't believe there is any law against using
> a cell phone in the air, though there may indeed be an FCC regulation.
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net

In lesislation authorizing executive agencies to regulate something,
Congress usually includes "...such regulations shall have the full force of
law," or some such equivalent language.

[Grumman-581]

"Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
ups.com...
> I have Verizon also, and I got an incoming call at 3,100 AGL a few days
> ago.

Digital or analog? I have to wonder if the antenna are oriented the same
for both of them... Was the call a success or just a ring that soon went to
voice mail? I've had calls that would ring and as soon as I answered, I
would lose the signal...

[Marco Leon]

It seems like from everyone's responses that making a cell phone call at any
sensible altitude is difficult at best. AOPA's battle seems like one with an
irrelevent goal.

Marco

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:VSx2e.13910$NW5.1486@attbi_s02...
> "Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > I have Verizon also, and I got an incoming call at 3,100 AGL a few days
> > ago.
>
> Digital or analog? I have to wonder if the antenna are oriented the same
> for both of them... Was the call a success or just a ring that soon went
to
> voice mail? I've had calls that would ring and as soon as I answered, I
> would lose the signal...
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jose]

> It seems like from everyone's responses that making a cell phone call at any
> sensible altitude is difficult at best. AOPA's battle seems like one with an
> irrelevent goal.

I disagree (that the goal is irrelevant). There is also the goal of
choosing between =prohibiting= something that is harmless but might not
work, and =allowing= something that is harmless but might not work. It
is against this backdrop that other rules are made and enforced.

We are in the former state, and should be in the latter state.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Charles O'Rourke]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > I have Verizon also, and I got an incoming call at 3,100 AGL a few
days
> > ago.
>
> Digital or analog? I have to wonder if the antenna are oriented the
same
> for both of them... Was the call a success or just a ring that soon
went to
> voice mail? I've had calls that would ring and as soon as I
answered, I
> would lose the signal...

It was digital. I couldn't hear anything because it was so loud I
didn't even bother to take off my headset, but I yelled into the phone
like a goofball ("if you can hear me I'm at 3,200 feet and I'll call
you back when I land") and the caller heard me fine.

Charles.

[Grumman-581]

Charles O'Rourke wrote:
> It was digital. I couldn't hear anything because it was so loud I
> didn't even bother to take off my headset, but I yelled into the
phone
> like a goofball ("if you can hear me I'm at 3,200 feet and I'll call
> you back when I land") and the caller heard me fine.

I've found that if you bring the engine back to idle, you have a better
chance of actually hearing the other person... Of course, this tends to
prompt you to make shorter conversations... Since I rarely get a good
signal above 400 ft AGL, it makes for VERY short conversations on my
part... Basically, something like, "I'm on short final, pull the car
around"...

[George Patterson]

Grumman-581 wrote:
>
> Digital or analog? I have to wonder if the antenna are oriented the same
> for both of them...

The old AMPS system antennae are pretty much omnidirectional, and those are the
types of phones the FCC regulation prohibits. The PCS antennae are more
directional and don't seem to pick up signals from above very well. Some PCS
phones use the AMPS network as a backup and will work pretty well in the air.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> I disagree (that the goal is irrelevant). There is also the goal of
> choosing between =prohibiting= something that is harmless but might not
> work, and =allowing= something that is harmless but might not work. It
> is against this backdrop that other rules are made and enforced.
>
> We are in the former state, and should be in the latter state.

We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that
interferes with other system customers and with the service providers. That is
*not* harmless.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Well, I suppose the FCC can write a law if it wants to, but only
> Congress can pass one. I don't believe there is any law against using
> a cell phone in the air, though there may indeed be an FCC regulation.

FCC (and FAA) regulations are considered to be "regulatory law."

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[George Patterson]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Cell phone use from aircraft have been allowed in Canada for quite some
> time.

And it will become legal in the US whenever 1) the FCC gets motivated to change
it, and 2) the wireless service providers agree that the regulation is unnecessary.

I think it more likely that the old AMPS system will gradually be replaced with
PCS and the issue will become moot.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[John Galban]

xrayvizhen wrote:
> My understanding, from a source within the I.T. department of
Cingular,
> is that this issue has nothing to do with safety in the cockpit or
> interference with aircraft navigation equipment. It has to do with
the
> fact that when at altitiude, a cell phone will be accessing many more
> cells at one time than when on the ground which somehow prevents your
> cell phone carrier from accurately billing you. This information came
> to me about a year ago. If AOPA has updated information and is saying
> it's OK with the carriers, then hopefully this will happen sooner
> rather than later
>

That was true with the old analog sites. Their antennas seemed to
point up as well as down. I used to be able to make an analog call at
cruise altitude without a problem. Of course I probably lit up every
cell to the horizon (note: only did it a few times in sparsely poplated
areas). When the PCS network was built, it seemed that they caught on
to this and angled the antennas towards the ground in most places. So
says and acquaintence who works as a design engineer at Sprint. With
the PCS phone, I've never been able to get a signal much above pattern
altitude.

I have to agree with the poster that said AOPA's quest was pointless.
Analog service is disappearing and you can't use the newer services in
the air anyway. I would think that they'd have more pressing matters
on their plate than this.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:42:13 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that
>interferes with other system customers and with the service providers.

Well, we've yammered about this for years, and it does seem that
digital does not intefere when used at altitude. And we will all be
digital eventually.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:11:57 GMT, "Joe Johnson" >
wrote:

>In lesislation authorizing executive agencies to regulate something,
>Congress usually includes "...such regulations shall have the full force of
>law," or some such equivalent language.

A regulation that has the force of law is nevertheless a regulation,
not a law.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:43:33 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>
>FCC (and FAA) regulations are considered to be "regulatory law."

Regulatory law is the same as dry rain. No such a thing.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[Jose]

> We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that interferes with other system customers and with the service providers. That is *not* harmless.

Well, if the cell companies disagree (with the FCC on this matter), then
we =are= in the former state. The new information is that the cell
companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581]

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
> The new information is that the cell
> companies are ok with letting cell
> phones be used in the air.

Probably because they know that their antenna are oriented so that they
won't receive our signals anyway... Or maybe because they will only give us
an analog and roaming signal and it end up costing us more...

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> The new information is that the cell
> companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air.


What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still
opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of
the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference
with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Jose]

>
>
> What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about.

Ok, I inferred from the note that the cell phone companies were ok with
it. My bad.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Galban]

George Patterson wrote:
>
> What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one,
is still
> opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA
seems to be of
> the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent
interference
> with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking
about.
>

I agree, George. AOPA is missing the point. The airlines would
like to lift the ban on cell phones so that they could install small
cells inside the aircraft, which would then downlink to a ground
station by a non-cell means. They would, of course, charge their
customers big bucks for this service.

AOPA seems to be under the impression that all cell phones (AMPS and
digital services) would work just fine in an airplane. That's just
not the case. The analog system still has problems with aircraft
lighting up every cell within line of sight. The digital services have
oriented their antennas downward, so that airborne phones won't
interfere with the ground system. I don't know why AOPA is even
wasting their time and money on this.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

I have Verizon and always get a signal. In remote areas sometimes I
have to be at 1000 AGL to get a reliable signal.



Marco Leon wrote:
> I don't know about anyone else, but I can never get a [usable] signal above
> 2,500 feet agl. Anyone else have a different experience? I have Verizon.
>
> Marco Leon
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>From the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:
>>
>>AOPA Lobbies Congress For Cell Phones In GA Cockpits
>>Aviation Advocacy Group Says The Time Is Now
>>
>>General aviation pilots should be
>>able to use cell phones in the cockpit while they're airborne. And
>>they should be able to do it now. That's what AOPA is telling the
>>Federal Communications Commission.
>>
>>"It's a safety issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director
>>of advanced technology. "Cell phones and other wireless
>>technologies are invaluable tools for obtaining updated weather and
>>other information in flight. And the risk of interference with
>>aircraft avionics for the typical general aviation flight is very
>>slight."
>>
>>The FCC is considering changing its rules to allow cell phones
>>(and other wireless devices such as pagers and Blackberries) to be
>>used in the air.
>>
>>Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might
>>cause interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
>>the FAA has never prohibited their use. The aviation agency always
>>has given pilots the final authority on what portable electronic
>>devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA talked with several
>>major cell phone service providers and found no restrictions on
>>using their services in GA cockpits.
>>
>>And for GA pilots, the safety and
>>convenience benefits of the wireless devices far outweigh any
>>minimal interference risk.
>>
>>"The majority of general aviation flights are flown under VFR,
>>so there is seldom exclusive reliance on electronic navigation,"
>>said Kenagy. "Plus, the pilot isn't isolated from the passengers
>>and has the immediate ability and responsibility to terminate the
>>use of any device at any time if it is interfering with
>>flight-critical electronics."
>>
>>AOPA told the FCC that it strongly supports the rule change and
>>urged the agency to take the regulatory steps to allow the
>>immediate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in airborne
>>aircraft.
>>
>>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>>
>>email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>>
>>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>>the blog: www.danford.net
>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:8WU2e.22$7b.10@trndny01...
> Jose wrote:
> >
> > The new information is that the cell
> > companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air.
>
>
> What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is
still
> opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to
be of
> the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent
interference
> with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about.

Well, they might know what can or cannot interfere with the avionics, but
not what motives the cellular industry.

Given all the news reports I hear about the service levels in the cellular
industry, are they REALLY trying THAT HARD to shoot themselves in the...ah,
....testicles?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Slow-Flyte]

Back in the old days with the analog bag phones, I seem to remember
being able to get a signal while in the air. These days, with the
digital phones, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:49:57 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>Ok, I inferred from the note that the cell phone companies were ok with
>it. My bad.

Jose, anyone in 2005 who can still use "infer" correctly is okay with
me.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net