If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote: jeplane wrote: However, you should not forget that the use of cell phones aboard airborne aircrafts is banned by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. ? 22.925: (Oct 1, 2006 revision) states "Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne. When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off." 47 CFR 22.295 applies only to "cellular telephones" (i.e. the old analog things that operated in the 800 MHz band) licensed under Part 22. Most of us now carry PCS (personal communications services) phones licensed under Part 24, and as far as I can tell, the FCC has no regulations against their use in flight... My cursory Google search backs up Marc's comments (not that I doubted him - I was just curious about the details). So, unless someone can find contrary documents, this may be the end of one of our favorite perennial threads. May "Cell phone use in gliders" rest in peace. It would make sense (not that we necessarily expect the FAA to make sense). My understanding is that the major problem with cell phones on GA craft was simply that the old-style cell networks couldn't handle them. An active cell phone in the air would be within range of a bunch of different towers which caused confusion in the network, since it was built on the assumption that the ground would limit your line of sight so that you would only be in range of two or three towers at a time. Modern networks don't have this problem so this reason goes away. Of course there's still the issue of interference with avionics and such which is why they're still banned on airliners, although as I noted in a previous post, it seems that this ban isn't all that effective. For most GA pilots the interference thing isn't too important, since even if you did need them and even if they did start going wonky, you can always just turn off the phone. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
Peter wrote:
What is the maximum altitude (about) when the mobile phone becomes useless? I made a call while thermaling at 16,000 in Parowan a few years ago. Jeremy |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
On Mar 4, 8:58 pm, "Mike the Strike" wrote:
Both text messages and some 911 calls will go through with much weaker signals than needed to complete a regular call. Mike Why? Is this a technical fact or just a wishfull speculation? rk |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
snip Is this a technical fact or just a wishfull speculation? /
snip It is a technical fact. Both user equipment (your handheld mobile) and radio base stations (what they talk to) have signal thresholds for "quality of service" that must be met for normal calls (what you're paying for) to go through. These thresholds are MUCH lower for text and emergency calls for obvious reasons: text messages have no real-time requirements (and much lower bandwidth requirements), and emergency calls are, well, emergency calls; who cares about quality of service if it's an emergency. Additionally, normal calls are expected to use low uplink (transmit) power levels on average, but they still require a lot more than text messages. With modern mobile systems, power usage is EVERYTHING. If an emergency call is placed (the system is 911-aware), this power requirement is relaxed or ignored, in addition to the downlink (incoming) signal-to-noise ratio thresholds. -ted/2NO (former 3GPP Ericsson programmer) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
p.s. the 3GPP specification can be browsed he http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm.
While most of the USA doesn't yet use 3GPP, the power usage designs are prevalent in other, earlier technologies. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
Michael Ash wrote: My understanding is that the major problem with cell phones on GA craft was simply that the old-style cell networks couldn't handle them. An active cell phone in the air would be within range of a bunch of different towers which caused confusion in the network, since it was built on the assumption that the ground would limit your line of sight so that you would only be in range of two or three towers at a time. There are also interference issues with AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. At an FAA DER Seminar a couple of years ago, they pointed out that some "phones" would transmit spurrious signals off their frequency that could couple with antenna cables (shielded or not), and interfere with aircraft navigation systems (mainly VOR). It's not as simple as many think (and I'm an aero guy, not an electron guy, so I won't pretend to really understand). I was on a test flight where we determined that our telemetry transmitter COMPLETELY wiped out the reception of our $25,000.00 Ashtech GPS receiver. Older phones (and older aircraft equipment) tend to wander off of their original specifications. While most gliders don't rely on VOR, but rather GPS for navigation (some of us use windows, charts and eyeballs), the interference from "phones" may not be as much an issue -- but we've shown that it can be. The FAA guy indicated that a particular Samsung phone (now off the market, I'm told) could completely trash com and nav functions on an airlner type "ship." Autopilots have been affected, too. "Hardening" transport (airline) aircraft systems (for new models) is a serious consideration in this modern world of emitters, but always needs to be balanced against cost, weight and performance. Also, putting small "pico" cells (a small cell "tower") ONBOARD the aircraft seems to help: the closer tower causes the phone to shift into a lower power consumption mode (i.e., lower transmit power, which translates into less interference). Caution is advised. It would be a shame if your 1000k log was trashed when you called Mom to tell her you finally did it... -Pete #309 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
"309" wrote in
oups.com: There are also interference issues with AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. Most definitely. The only question is "how serious". At an FAA DER Seminar a couple of years ago, they pointed out that some "phones" would transmit spurrious signals off their frequency that could couple with antenna cables (shielded or not), and interfere with aircraft navigation systems (mainly VOR). It's not as simple as many think (and I'm an aero guy, not an electron guy, so I won't pretend to really understand). The root cause is that most of the objects in the world don't behave like a nice simple ohmic resistor where V=IR. In practice I=f(V), where function f can typically be exponential, but can be virtually any function. Examples of non-linear objects: semiconductors, joints between some metals, rusty bolts, mercury amalgam fillings, magnetic components (e.g. transformers) and there are many others! So what? Well, it turns out that this has two main consequences: 1 if there are two RF frequencies f1 and f2 impinging on the non-linear object then the object will multiply the two frequencies and radiate the results at harmonics of the frequencies and of the sum and difference frequencies (and harmonics of the sum and difference frequencies). 2 RF power can be rectified to produce a DC offset The re-radiated frequencies due to (1) are unpredictable in practice and splattered across band allocated to other RF services. Example: warships can't use all their RF equipment separately due to the rusty bolt problem. HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet because satellite comms couldn't happen when the primary radar was on, and that was the time at which the Exocet was launched. (2) may or may mot be a problem. Typical electronic equipment is able to cope with constant DC offsets associated with constant RF power. But there are problems with varying RF power. CDMA cellphones largely keep their tx power constant, varying it slightly and occasionally when the transmission path changes. TDMA systems (e.g. GSM) have pulsed RF tx power at 217Hz 1/8 duty cycle and 8 times peak power. Put one of these near to a phone or hifi or hearing aid and the results are clearly audible. Such interference can completely disrupt the operation of some equipment. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
On Mar 7, 5:09 am, Tom Gardner wrote:
"309" wrote groups.com: There are also interference issues with AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. Most definitely. The only question is "how serious". At an FAA DER Seminar a couple of years ago, they pointed out that some "phones" would transmit spurrious signals off their frequency that could couple with antenna cables (shielded or not), and interfere with aircraft navigation systems (mainly VOR). It's not as simple as many think (and I'm an aero guy, not an electron guy, so I won't pretend to really understand). The root cause is that most of the objects in the world don't behave like a nice simple ohmic resistor where V=IR. In practice I=f(V), where function f can typically be exponential, but can be virtually any function. Examples of non-linear objects: semiconductors, joints between some metals, rusty bolts, mercury amalgam fillings, magnetic components (e.g. transformers) and there are many others! So what? Well, it turns out that this has two main consequences: 1 if there are two RF frequencies f1 and f2 impinging on the non-linear object then the object will multiply the two frequencies and radiate the results at harmonics of the frequencies and of the sum and difference frequencies (and harmonics of the sum and difference frequencies). 2 RF power can be rectified to produce a DC offset The re-radiated frequencies due to (1) are unpredictable in practice and splattered across band allocated to other RF services. Example: warships can't use all their RF equipment separately due to the rusty bolt problem. HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet because satellite comms couldn't happen when the primary radar was on, and that was the time at which the Exocet was launched. (2) may or may mot be a problem. Typical electronic equipment is able to cope with constant DC offsets associated with constant RF power. But there are problems with varying RF power. CDMA cellphones largely keep their tx power constant, varying it slightly and occasionally when the transmission path changes. TDMA systems (e.g. GSM) have pulsed RF tx power at 217Hz 1/8 duty cycle and 8 times peak power. Put one of these near to a phone or hifi or hearing aid and the results are clearly audible. Such interference can completely disrupt the operation of some equipment. is that the reason why when from time to time my Motorola GSM phone pulses (not necessarily for a call) I can hear the pulse through my computer, car radio etc? If so, that could be an issue for instruments and radio in the aircraft if I understand this correctly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
Tuno wrote:
snip Is this a technical fact or just a wishfull speculation? / snip It is a technical fact. Both user equipment (your handheld mobile) and radio base stations (what they talk to) have signal thresholds for "quality of service" that must be met for normal calls (what you're paying for) to go through. These thresholds are MUCH lower for text and emergency calls for obvious reasons: text messages have no real-time requirements (and much lower bandwidth requirements), and emergency calls are, well, emergency calls; who cares about quality of service if it's an emergency. This is quite similar to the ham radio operator voice vs morse code situation. While the signal strengths of both types of signals from a single transmitter will be identical, the *usable* signal strength for code is much less. This is because if a signal is weak or if there is a lot of background noise, it is is much easier to detect dots and dashes than voice. Tony V. morse code, RIP :-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
mobile phones
"chipsoars" wrote in
ps.com: On Mar 7, 5:09 am, Tom Gardner wrote: TDMA systems (e.g. GSM) have pulsed RF tx power at 217Hz 1/8 duty cycle and 8 times peak power. Put one of these near to a phone or hifi or hearing aid and the results are clearly audible. Such interference can completely disrupt the operation of some equipment. is that the reason why when from time to time my Motorola GSM phone pulses (not necessarily for a call) I can hear the pulse through my computer, car radio etc? If so, that could be an issue for instruments and radio in the aircraft if I understand this correctly. I expect so. The GSM interference during call-setup is "di-di-di, di-di-di, di-di-di, brrr..." duration ~2s. There can and will be different interference at other times, e.g. location update, SMS rx/tx, cell handover. Whether it is a problem for instruments depends on the amount of power coupled into the instrument (filtering, orientation, range) and whether is is susceptable to 217Hz changes in DC offset. How loud it sounds is a strong function of distance, falling off at somewhere between r^4 and r^8; test it with you phone and hifi |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cell phones on GA aircraft | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 18 | October 16th 06 08:12 PM |
GET FREE CELL PHONES and CAMERA PHONES! | ssgg | Home Built | 0 | February 13th 06 02:34 AM |
Fun with Wx on Cell Phones | B4RT | Rotorcraft | 0 | October 9th 05 02:45 PM |
Cell phones in the air | Roger Worden | Soaring | 35 | March 30th 05 11:01 PM |
Cell phones with GPS | Roger Halstead | Piloting | 0 | December 24th 03 03:04 AM |