Cell phone as flight recorder

[Wallace Berry]

Maybe this is old news, but it's new to me. Take a look at:

http://bonesinmotion.com/corp/

This is a service for cell phones that tracks movement and allows the
track log to be downloaded to a website for later viewing. It records
pretty much everything that our gps flight recorders do. Of course, it
is dependent on service coverage. This is targeted at personal fitness
and training markets, but might be useful for soaring. Even if it's not,
something like this might be the future of flight recording.

[Bob Greenblatt]

On 2/8/06 11:08 AM, in article
, "Wallace
Berry" > wrote:

> Maybe this is old news, but it's new to me. Take a look at:
>
> http://bonesinmotion.com/corp/
>
> This is a service for cell phones that tracks movement and allows the
> track log to be downloaded to a website for later viewing. It records
> pretty much everything that our gps flight recorders do. Of course, it
> is dependent on service coverage. This is targeted at personal fitness
> and training markets, but might be useful for soaring. Even if it's not,
> something like this might be the future of flight recording.

Well, maybe it will work, but you are in violation of Title 47:
Telecommunication
PART 22‹PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
Subpart H‹Cellular Radiotelephone Service

which states:
"§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or
any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are
airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all
cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. "

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
Bob Greenblatt > wrote:

> On 2/8/06 11:08 AM, in article
> , "Wallace
> Berry" > wrote:
>
> > Maybe this is old news, but it's new to me. Take a look at:
> >
> > http://bonesinmotion.com/corp/
> >
> > This is a service for cell phones that tracks movement and allows the
> > track log to be downloaded to a website for later viewing. It records
> > pretty much everything that our gps flight recorders do. Of course, it
> > is dependent on service coverage. This is targeted at personal fitness
> > and training markets, but might be useful for soaring. Even if it's not,
> > something like this might be the future of flight recording.
>
> Well, maybe it will work, but you are in violation of Title 47:
> Telecommunication
> PART 22‹PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
> Subpart H‹Cellular Radiotelephone Service
>
> which states:
> "§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
>
> Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or
> any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are
> airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all
> cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. "
>

Well, I'd hazard a guess that there are hundreds, if not thousands of
active cell phones aloft as I write this, so I suspect that this law is
essentially of academic interest only. One of my thoroughly rotten
friends has a habit of calling me at work from his glider as he happily
thermals overhead. Law or not, as a general rule, I do turn my phone off
when I fly. Having it on in flight tends to drain the battery and I'd
rather save the battery so I can call my crew when I land out.

The tracking service does not require that a call be placed from the
phone being tracked, not that it makes a difference with regards to the
quoted law. Also, I have read that the prohibition against operating a
cell phone in flight will eventually be lifted as analog service is
supplanted by digital.

I just remembered that most cell phones can already use gps based
services for ground navigation. I wonder if anyone (rogue scofflaw that
they are) has already tried this in flight?

In the future (and assuming no gaps in service), we may not need
on-board GPS at all. With appropriate software, a cell phone enabled PDA
could function as a flight computer with no other equipment needed (just
as a PDA with a GPS card can do now). I'm sure this has already been
thought of and I missed the discussion.

[Marc Ramsey]

Bob Greenblatt wrote:
> Well, maybe it will work, but you are in violation of Title 47:
> Telecommunication
> PART 22‹PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
> Subpart H‹Cellular Radiotelephone Service
>
> which states:
> "§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
>
> Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or
> any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are
> airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all
> cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. "

Yes, except for the fact that the "cellphones" nearly all of us have
these days are actually licensed under Title 47 Part 24 "Personal
communications services". I've never been able to find a prohibition
against use of Part 24 phones in flight (aside from FAA restrictions on
"cellphone" use in commercial aircraft), can you?

Marc

[no]

Marc Ramsey > wrote:

> > Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or
> > any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are
> > airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all
> > cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. "

> Yes, except for the fact that the "cellphones" nearly all of us have
> these days are actually licensed under Title 47 Part 24 "Personal
> communications services". I've never been able to find a prohibition
> against use of Part 24 phones in flight (aside from FAA restrictions on
> "cellphone" use in commercial aircraft), can you?

I agree with Mark. The FCC told the FAA to prohibit the use of cellular
telephones (probably for a variety of reasons). However, strictly
speaking, modern digital phones are considered by the FCC to be "Personal
Communication Service" devices, *NOT* cellular phones. Although I've never
heard of any court cases, or even anyone from the FAA or FCC weighing in
on this, I believe that it is legal to operate a PCS phone in an airborne
aircraft (as long as the PIC permits it -- the FAA still prohibits the
operation of any electronic device without permission from the PIC, in
otherwords, don't try this on an airliner).

dan

[[email protected]]

AOPA is working on this issue. Specifically on using cell phones or PCS
in general aviation aircraft while airborne. What is interesting with
cell phones is, that they can be used in variety of ways on tracking,
locating, etc. If you remember an accident that one of our F-117's was
shot down over former Yugoslavia during the Balkan war.....they plotted
its position using cell phones and the cell phone towers and the rest
was just history. Ground to air missile accepted the coordinates from
the PCS network and found its target. Pilot safely bailed out though.

Jacek
Washington State

[[email protected]]

I own a trucking company and track 10 of my trucks with Nextel (now
Sprint ) phones in partnership with a service named Xora. It takes a
public IP and the correct software in the phones. Each phone is
recieving GPS signals and connects every 10 minutes to the Xora web
site and transmits it's lat/long. I access the web site and select the
driver/phone and can view his movements that are recorded (every 10
min) and overlayed on to a detailed road map that gives his location
within probably 100 ft. I can bread crumb his movements up to about 24
hours broke dovn into 10 min. incruments on a map that can be zoomed in
or out. If he's on the cell phone it will only give me the location of
the cell site his phone is talking through. When he's out of range of
a cell site it will record his lat/long every 10 min. and when he get's
back into range of a cell it will relay his positions recorded. I can
ping the selected phone manualy about every minute or so and get a more
detailed track. The only info I can get out of this is position,
speed and time, no altitude. The map is not of topographical nature so
when I've looked at my track on the Whites or Sierras it's not near as
useful to me as a flight recorder as Win Pilot, See You or even the
Cambridge programes when linked to a real GPS flight recorder.

The information I get from the phones is invaluable, no more bull
****ting about where they were or are, I know how long they stop and
where. And very useful when my customers call up asking where their
load is. In my opinon not worth tracking a glider with though. This
service costs me about $26 per phone per month plus the cell service
fees.
Russ

[notme]

wrote:
> AOPA is working on this issue. Specifically on using cell phones or PCS
> in general aviation aircraft while airborne. What is interesting with
> cell phones is, that they can be used in variety of ways on tracking,
> locating, etc. If you remember an accident that one of our F-117's was
> shot down over former Yugoslavia during the Balkan war.....they plotted
> its position using cell phones and the cell phone towers and the rest
> was just history. Ground to air missile accepted the coordinates from
> the PCS network and found its target. Pilot safely bailed out though.

Yeah, I ain't buying that one. First off, there's no way a radar guided
missile could be easily reconfigured to simply go based on PCS network
location. Second, in the Balkans they'd probably be using GSM, whereas we
mainly use PCS. Even if the pilot had a GSM, the GSM frequencies in the
US and Europe are different so a US GSM phone won't work in Europe, nor be
detectable. Besides, that sort of tracking is *NOT* accurate or fast
enough to guide a missile even if its available. The most likely scenario
is the pilot screwed up and left his bay door opens which drastically
increases his radar echo and the missile was able to lock on to his radar
signature. They carry their weapons internally for a reason on that
aircraft.

Also, this doesn't address what Marc and I said. I believe that the FAA
regs are very specific and talk about cellular radiotelephone service.
PCS is not cellular. Show me an FAA reg prohibitting the use of PCS in
flight.

dan

[Martin Gregorie]

notme wrote:
> wrote:
>> AOPA is working on this issue. Specifically on using cell phones or PCS
>> in general aviation aircraft while airborne. What is interesting with
>> cell phones is, that they can be used in variety of ways on tracking,
>> locating, etc. If you remember an accident that one of our F-117's was
>> shot down over former Yugoslavia during the Balkan war.....they plotted
>> its position using cell phones and the cell phone towers and the rest
>> was just history. Ground to air missile accepted the coordinates from
>> the PCS network and found its target. Pilot safely bailed out though.
>
> Yeah, I ain't buying that one. First off, there's no way a radar guided
> missile could be easily reconfigured to simply go based on PCS network
> location.
>
You're right: the previous poster got it wrong. Cell phones had nothing
to do with it.

The Serbian system used conventional radar transmitters to illuminate
the airspace and a separate set of passive receiver dishes plus a LOT of
computer power to analyze the very weak diffuse reflections, i.e. to
spot an anomaly in the expected RF background where an F117's anti-radar
coating was affecting it. That showed them when one was coming and where
to aim. They knew where to site the missiles because this system had
analyzed the last three day's ops and showed them that the mission
planners had got sloppy and always used the same exit corridor.

They used optically sighted missiles, which weren't bothered by the
stealth system, to bring down one F-117 and damage a second.

This information was in New Scientist (04 December 1999).


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Martin Gregorie
> writes
>The Serbian system used conventional radar transmitters to illuminate
>the airspace and a separate set of passive receiver dishes plus a LOT
>of computer power to analyze the very weak diffuse reflections, i.e. to
>spot an anomaly in the expected RF background where an F117's
>anti-radar coating was affecting it. That showed them when one was
>coming and where to aim. They knew where to site the missiles because
>this system had analyzed the last three day's ops and showed them that
>the mission planners had got sloppy and always used the same exit corridor.
>
Ah. a bistatic system. This method is often touted as the solution,
from a defence point of view, to stealth techniques and also jamming
ones as you can, in theory, subtract all of the conflicting noises and
look at the signal over many separate paths. IIRC the woodpecker was
supposed to be one of these.

Robin
>They used optically sighted missiles, which weren't bothered by the
>stealth system, to bring down one F-117 and damage a second.
>
>This information was in New Scientist (04 December 1999).
>
>

--
Robin Birch