Forgot to close flight plan

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 07:10:17 +1200, Cockpit Colin wrote:

My "trick" was to write "Cancel Flight Plan" on a small plastic baggage
tag - attach it to a small bull clip with a small split ring - the clip it
onto the aircraft overhead door lock/release.

It's never failed me yet.

And the tower can read the tag with binoculars? Seems they still are not
going to be happy to have to read it, to close it.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

And the tower can read the tag with binoculars? Seems they still
are not going to be happy to have to read it, to close it.


The tower doesn't have to read it.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:09:07 -0800, BTIZ wrote:

he did not say to use the cell phone in flight, he said digging for his keys
he'll see the note with the reminder to use his cell to CANCEL his flight
plan, one can ASSUME that this means if he needs car keys he is on the
ground

and old analog cell phones had that problem...
come on up to the digital age.. no problem with multiple cell towers..

Hmmm. Care to provide some information which can support that statement?
Last I heard, cell companies have been actively lobbying to make it
illegal because it leverages far too many cell resources. On the ground,
your average cell phone will contact between 1 and 4 cells at any given
time. In the air, last I heard, it could be twenty or more. It doesn't
take too many cell phones in the air to cause capacity issues. Even if
one assumes that towers can take primary responsibility for a call, the
rate of tower change (assuming you're moving) is still causing additional
capacity demands; I assume at any rate.

Lastly, digital and analog may be somewhat of a misnomer. Digital and
analog still have to be transmitted. Normally the distinction is how the
signal in question is encoded. I'm not sure how or why a cell tower is
going to say, "hey, this is digital, so I need to ignore the signal".
Otherwise, why wouldn't it ignore your calls too? Even with gps data
being encoded (to perhaps determine range), part of the capacity equation
is decoding. If the signal is being decoded, capacity is still be used,
even if once the signal is decoded, the cell decided to ignore it.

Please, feel free to provide additional details.

I assume the, "not true", part is in reference to the legality of it?



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:44:26 +0000, Nathan D. Olmscheid wrote:

Not True.

-Nathan



Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news et:



It is illegal to use cell phones in flight (unless in an emergency).
It has to do with the phone at altitude activating multiple cellphone
receivers at once.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:59:55 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

And the tower can read the tag with binoculars? Seems they still
are not going to be happy to have to read it, to close it.


The tower doesn't have to read it.

That was a joke. Thusly the smilies that followed.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

That was a joke.


No it wasn't.

Legality and the fact that the new systems are designed much differently.
My best friend is an engineer for Qwest Wireless division. (which is going
to be shut down as ATT is buying it I beleive) The new systems will not
activate multiple cell phone receivers at once. Old Cellular possibly, new
PCS digital networks....not true.



Greg Copeland wrote in
news
I assume the, "not true", part is in reference to the legality of it?



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:44:26 +0000, Nathan D. Olmscheid wrote:

Not True.

-Nathan

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:30:22 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

That was a joke.


No it wasn't.

Hehe. I guess humor wasn't on your checklist.

Go figure.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:51:12 +0000, Nathan D. Olmscheid wrote:

Legality and the fact that the new systems are designed much differently.
My best friend is an engineer for Qwest Wireless division. (which is going
to be shut down as ATT is buying it I beleive) The new systems will not
activate multiple cell phone receivers at once. Old Cellular possibly, new
PCS digital networks....not true.



Greg Copeland wrote in
news
I assume the, "not true", part is in reference to the legality of it?



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:44:26 +0000, Nathan D. Olmscheid wrote:

Not True.

-Nathan

Did he offer an explanation as to how it's able to prevent DSP'ing the
signal so as to prevent it from being processed as your signal jumps from
tower to tower?

I've read several papers which outline the capacity issues which is the
root of the current level of lobbying. To date, I've not read anything
which would indicate that this is not a problem. How was it resolved?

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Hehe. I guess humor wasn't on your checklist.


I have an excellent sense of humor.