Question to all frequent users of big commercial planes

Did you ever hear a cellphone ringing in a big commercial airplane at travel altitude?

This is NOT the same question as my last one; this one is more precise: We're talking about big passenger jets, like the ones on 9/11. Some people might have misunderstood my first question (like LARED, presenting a chatroom where owners of small planes like the Piper Cherokee exchange their experiences).

Please excuse my semantic nonchalance.

Though I don't travel as frequently as I used to.

I've tried it.

and he said that the waves (or whatever you call them) will only go just slightly higher than the cell tower. So, unless they start installing cell towers at 40,000 ft., we're out of luck.

... like http://www.pprune.org/

Bob

We don't need any experts to answer the question. Everybody who flies frequently can do that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Quite funny, kid.

Or do you want to be put ignore lists before you reach 12 posts, because you contribute nothing?

a) I think you are aware that the question "have you heard a phone ringing and a resulting dialog in an big commercial plane during normal flight conditions" can indeed be answered by everyone who has flight experience.

b) Pilots are not experts on the design parameters of cellular digital phones. So regarding the question if phones work during flights, they are as knowledgeable as any other frequent flyer.

There was a lot of NIMBY around here about cell phone towers so I'm somewhat aware of where they are.

I visit a local nature preserve (Elk Island National Park) and it's several kilometers to the nearest cell phone tower. My cell works fine.

This has to do with the club-shaped antennas. Cellphones are not designed to work high in the air.

The shape of the antenna has little to do with signal propagation.

Granted, CB'ers and short wavers use vertical and horizontal antennas to affect signal polarization, but at the high frequencies cell phones use, this isn't an issue.

Your question will resolve nothing. It is not even remotely scientific, it is barely anecdotal. So what in the world do you expect to establish with the question?

This is what we know about cell phones in aircraft

They can work. How well depends on a number of conditions. Aircraft height, cell tower availability, type of cell phone used, Nextel, digital, analog etc. We know that the higher the altitude the lower the probability that one can get a good cell connection. No where is there anything to indicate it is not possible to connect in flight from normal flying elevations.

This is what we don't know

The exact altitude of flight 93 when the first call was made. We know it was near 35,000 feet, but we do not know exactly what altitude it was when the call was made. Also keep in mind altitude is based on elevation above sea level. Cell towers are not located at sea level. So it is likely that given the geography of the area where the first call came in, the cell tower was at least a few thousand feet closer to the aircraft than the altitude would indicate.


So, to summarize

We know cell phones can work in aircraft subject to many different factors. The answers you get to your question cannot validate your position, and even if you prove through rigorous research that making a cell call at 35,000 is improbable it still means nothing as one minor anomaly against the overwhelming amounts of evidence that the "official Story" about flight 93 is pretty close is just that a trival tidbit.

Good luck

Your post is nice, but lacks a certain amount of quantitative accuracy.

They can work. Right. How well depends on a number of conditions. Right. Aircraft height, cell tower availability, type of cell phone used, Nextel, digital, analog etc. Right. We know that the higher the altitude the lower the probability that one can get a good cell connection. Right. No where is there anything to indicate it is not possible to connect in flight from normal flying elevations. Wrong. All your statements are only valid below 3000 ft. Above 3000 ft, cellphones don't work in big airplanes. They don't work at 10000 ft, and they don't work at 35000 ft.

The exact altitude of flight 93 when the first call was made. We know it was near 35,000 feet, but we do not know exactly what altitude it was when the call was made. Right. Maybe it was just 34950 ft. Also keep in mind altitude is based on elevation above sea level. Cell towers are not located at sea level. Right. So it is likely that given the geography of the area where the first call came in, the cell tower was at least a few thousand feet closer to the aircraft than the altitude would indicate. Right. But this few thousand feet (2000? 3000?) don't help to establish a connection. The distance to a high flying aircraft is still 30000 ft plus something .

We know cell phones can work in aircraft subject to many different factors. Right. And most of the time, the factors are not good enough to allow cell phone calls. The answers you get to your question cannot validate your position Wrong. Simple empiric research can validate my position , and even if you prove through rigorous research that making a cell call at 35,000 is improbable impossible! it still means nothing as one minor anomaly snicker against the overwhelming amounts of evidence snicker that the "official Story" about flight 93 is pretty close is just that a trival tidbit. This "minor anomaly" means that the story of the "heroes" is nonsense and has to be re-written.

According to his "legendary" test.

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9

Altitude (feet)=== probability of cellphone call getting through
4,000 =========== 0.400
8,000 =========== 0.100
12,000 ========== 0.040
16,000 ========== 0.025
20,000 ========== 0.016
24,000 ========== 0.011
28,000 ========== 0.008
32,000 ========== 0.006

Woody stated

Above 3000 ft, cellphones don't work in big airplanes. They don't work at 10000 ft, and they don't work at 35000 ft.

Obviously cell phones can work above 3000 feet. So you need to explain, in a quantitative way of course, how cells phones work in BIG and small planes below below 3000 feet but the only work in small plane above above 3,000 feet.

Your turn.

At 20,000 feet we're getting 1.6 dial-up connections for every 100 attempts. So the odds are against even one passenger getting through at that level.

The Project Achilles Flight team



In February 2003, A.K. Dewdney chartered a light plane and flew in the airspace above London Ontario - an area extensively serviced with cellphone stations.
His goal was to test the feasibility of claims that cellphone calls were made from planes at high altitude in 9/11.
Here Dewdney is seen before take-off with colleagues.

Your table, by the way, doesn't list empirical data. Dewdney didn't go up to 30000 ft with the planie. His empirical data are here:

altitude (feet) percent success
2000---------------75%
4000---------------25%
6000---------------17%
8000--------------- 8%

His comment:

Private pilots flying light aircraft are nowadays familiar with the fact that they may use their cellphones to make calls to the ground, at least if they are not higher than one or two thousand feet. Above that altitude, calls get rather iffy, sometimes working, sometimes not. The higher a pilot ascends, the less likely the call is to get through. At 8000 feet the pilot will not get through at all unless he or she happens to be using a cellphone with the same capabilities as C5 (See appendix A.) But even that cellphone begins to fail at 6000 feet. Calls from 20,000 feet have barely a one-in-a-hundred chance of succeeding.

My statement:

Above 3000 ft, cellphones don't work in big airplanes. They don't work at 10000 ft, and they don't work at 35000 ft.

is also based on simple empirical data and doesn't contradict Dewdney's findings at all. Cellphones work better in small planes than in big ones for several reasons. Why is this so hard to grasp for you?

Above 3000 ft, cellphones don't work in big airplanes. They don't work at 10000 ft, and they don't work at 35000 ft.

is not supported by the empirical data.

The data stops at 8,000 feet; is based on a different cell tower configuration then the one seen by flt 93; uses a limited number of cell phone configurations; was performed in a small plane; and was performed by someone that has an obvious agenda.

In fact this data actually works against your statement, as it clearly shows the cell phones can work above 3,000 feet and in fact work close to 8,000 feet.

I flew commerical back and forth from the midwest to California every 2 weeks for a year or so, plus a lot of regional flights as well as going on a fews trips to Europe and Japan and never once heard somebody's cell phone ring at cruising altitude. These were on everything from puddle-jumpers to 747s.

In fact, on at least a half dozen occasions, I inadvertantly left my cell turned on (i know, bad, bad me) and each time when we were on approach, i'd hear my phone go off with it's little bee-beep to let me know I had a message. That always happens once my phone gets in range again after being out of range.


And another thing... somewhat related to this thread. I heard that Ted Olson said something about receiving a call from his wife from the airphone (the one in the back of the seats) and he said that she called collect. Said something about how she had to do that because she didn't have her credit cards with her or something. From my experience, those airphones won't even work without a valid credit card to activate them. I know, I've tried. Anybody know anything more about that?

on edit: just to clarify, the airphone handset would not even be released from the cradle, without a valid credit card.

parasim says:
on edit: just to clarify, the airphone handset would not even be released from the cradle, without a valid credit card.

That may be true for mere everyday mortals, but Barby the Harpy was inhuman.

Finally, on June 25, 2001, Tucker filed a petition for certiorari review in the Supreme Court, which denied both the writ of certiorari and the stay. By order dated July 2, 2001, the 43rd Judicial District Court of Parker County, Texas, scheduled Tucker's execution for September 11, 2001. The week before his scheduled execution, Tucker filed a last minute claim in state court. Because of the national events that occurred on September 11, the Court of Criminal Appeals was unable to rule on Tucker's pending state claim. In light of the national tragedy, Governor Perry issued a one-time, thirty-day stay of execution. Then, on October 10, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Tucker's pending last-minute claim. At the expiration of the Governor's 30-day reprieve, Tucker's execution was re-scheduled for November 14, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. To date, there are no pending claims in either state or federal court.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/newsarchive/2001/20011107tuckerfacts.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to halt Tucker’s punishment. His lawyers sought an 11th-hour reprieve from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which also closed early Tuesday after the terrorism attacks. Tucker had said in a recent death row interview he would not welcome the reprieve.
http://archive.theeagle.com/americas_new_war/local/091101executionhalted.htm

Tucker was scheduled to be executed on 11 September 2001, the day that terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and caused other destruction in Washington, D.C. and southern Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court had already denied Tucker's appeal, and Tucker himself had expressed a wish to drop his final appeals. Nevertheless, his lawyers filed another appeal a few days before his execution date. Governor Rick Perry issued an emergency 30-day stay, citing the terrorist acts and the fact that the courts were closed, preventing the appeal filed by Tucker's lawyers from being heard.
http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/254.asp

Government offices, including the federal courts, were shut in the immediate response to the attacks on New York and Washington Sept. 11, the same day Tucker had been scheduled for lethal injection. Gov. Rick Perry gave Tucker a 30-day reprieve, fearing the courts would not be able to respond that day to any 11th-hour plea from attorneys for the condemned man.
http://www.nhcadp.org/00742_tucker.htm

At his office in the Justice Department, Solicitor General Theodore Olson had just signed off on a brief in a pending tax case. At the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was presiding over what could have been a contentious meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference. Downstairs, the clerk's office was settling in for a routine day, including the handling of a last-minute death row appeal from Texas.
Within moments on Sept. 11, the Supreme Court community, which likes to think it stands apart from the rest of Washington, D.C., was swept inexorably into the awful vortex of the nation's day of terror.
The institution shut down, with Court police scrambling to the rooftop armed with shotguns to face off against threats unknown. The Judicial Conference meeting was ended abruptly, and a death penalty lawyer in Texas was left frantically calling the clerk's office to no avail. The governor of Texas finally stayed the execution because of the high court's unavailability.
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701i.html

0855 AM > Flight 77 is hijacked about this time, over southern Ohio - it begins to turn back to the east, cuts off its transponder, and fails to respond to air traffic controllers. The FAA loses track of the plane and does not notify NORAD that it’s been hijacked for almost a half hour.

0920 AM > At FBI headquarters in Washington, a hastily assembled team of 250 agents begins investigating the 9/11 attacks. Checking passenger lists against INS records, they soon notice that several Arabs on the hijacked flights - including Mohamed Atta - had recently lived in Germany.

0924 AM > About a half-hour after the plane’s transponder was shut off, the FAA informs NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked and appears to be headed for Washington. In the prevailing confusion, no attempt is made to alert or evacuate possible targets in Washington, including the Pentagon. At the same time NORAD orders Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to scramble fighters to cover Washington - though it's not clear if the scramble order is in response to the approach of Flight 77. See 0930 AM

0925-0930 AM, very approximately > Conservative commentator Barbara Olson places two calls to her husband Ted - the Solicitor General - from Flight 77 to tell him that the plane has been hijacked. After the first call, Ted Olson quickly notifies the Justice Department. These are the only known calls from Flight 77.

0933 AM > Air traffic controllers at Washington’s Dulles Airport detect a fast-moving unidentified aircraft approaching the capital from the east - which proves to be the hijacked Flight 77. The controllers notify the Secret Service, and shortly afterwards two agents literally pick up Vice-President Cheney by his arms and drag him into a bunker under the White House.

0945 AM > The White House is evacuated. The initially orderly evacuation dissolves into panic as Secret Service agents begin screaming at people to run. A White House guard is heard shouting “Incoming, incoming, get out of here!” “The fear on these guys’ faces was unbelievable,” said one onlooker. For the rest of the day, calls made to the White House switchboard connect to a recording asking callers to hold for an operator, after which the line goes dead.
=At about the same time, very shortly after the Pentagon crash, the House Sergeant-at-Arms orders the immediate evacuation of the Capitol Building. Some members of Congress huddle under trees in a park across from Senate office buildings.

1022 AM > State Department, Justice Department, and World Bank offices are evacuated in Washington, DC.
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

Observant readers will note that
Ted Olson was himself IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
when he made the calls TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
to let them know about Flight 77.
Apparently, the 250 FBI agents who were reading Arab names from the manifests were VERY too busy to respond.
http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm
We do not know why Barbara chose NOT to directly inform the Justice Department switchboard or the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, of her predicament.
Barbara was no stranger to the internal workings of the Justice Department. She knew her way around its corridors and power-brokers and the proof of that is the "fact" that she managed to get a call through whereas the authorities in Texas failed and were therefore FORCED to grant a stay of execution. You do know that those Texans were most put out by the granting of that reprieve. They sure do like the executions down thar and plan to keep leading the nation in snuffing out local criminals.

In her third year of law school, she somehow managed to finesse herself into an internship with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice in Washington. And, as a very brassy and gusty intern, she managed to be the only employee of the government of the United States willing, feisty and fearless enough to personally serve the papers on the PLO mission to the United Nations in New York announcing that it was being expelled from this country -- because they were terrorists. How Barbara loved to tell that story to her friends at Cardozo!
http://www.fed-soc.org/BKOlsonMemorialLecture/bkolsonlecture-111601.htm

And yet, when faced with imminent peril,
she chose to hide behind her so-called husband.
I find that odd.
Methinks that the entire phone call story grew exponentially.

Barbara risked having her neck slit to warn the country of a terrorist attack. She was a patriot to the very end.
This is not to engage in the media's typical hallucinatory overstatement about anyone who is the victim of a horrible tragedy. The furtive cell phone call was an act of incredible daring and panache. If it were not, we'd be hearing reports of a hundred more cell phone calls. (Even people who swear to hate cell phones carry them for commercial air travel.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml

And so,
in view of the information provided to us straight from the mouth of Ann Coulter,



we can only gape in admiration of the wonderful superpowers of Barby the Harpy,
the original ünterwench.

According to Ted ,his Barbie was endowed with many talents......

"Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be. Is there any other place on earth where someone could do all these things in forty-five years?"
Ted Olson

But it looks like Ted forgot to mention the one other inbred talent that Barbara displayed so admirably on 9/11........

Her biological compass.......


"When Olson called her husband back ,she said the plane was circling and moving in a NORTH EA STERNLY direction."
www.billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/bostonglobe112301.html

But Barbie was not the only 9/11 passenger to exhibit this innate skill........

Not to be outdone, Tom Burnett ,of flt 93 was only too keen to demonstrate that Barbie was not the sole possessor of this unique
talent........

Tom Burnett speaking by cell phone to his wife Deena Burnett
"I cant tell...I can see a field..."
"We are turning around we are turning back to New York"
"We are going back to the Trade Center"
"No..no....no..... wait we are going back the other way"
"We are heading .......SOUTH......."
"Okay I have to go"

Flight 93: A Reconstruction(T.V Documentary)(2002)

Rather than the attenuation of signals emanating from cell-phones at high altitudes, it is the integrity of those who claimed to have received these calls that is doing the actual "attenuating".

Although everything that I stated in my post is absolutely true (I have never heard cell phones going off at cruising altitude), I have since spoken with my business partner (and best friend)'s husband who is an aerospace engineer, test pilot, avionics expert and aircraft certifier. He also is a rabid ABB hardcore liberal, so he has no reason to make excuses for the current regime. However, he is neither LIHOP or MIHOP (yet) and thinks 9/11 was just a major screwup by incompetents.

Anyway, I asked him about using cell phones on planes and he says he knows that it is indeed possible to not only connect but also carry on a conversation with a cell phone at lower altitudes. He does this all the time in general aviation aircraft.

However, when I asked him about doing the same at cruising altitudes, although he thinks it is possible, he is not quite as sure. He can't remember if he's made calls at that altitude before. He said that he was going to look into it and let me know. In fact, he invited me to go with him on a "test flight" and we'll do a little experimenting. I'll be sure to try to report back in this forum what our findings are.

interesting sidebar: although he says that they don't want you to use cell phones on planes because it might screw up the communications (pretty unlikely), he thinks it is primarily because they want passengers to use the airphones on the plane so they can make money from it and they don't want the disruption of everybody talking on their phones constantly.

also, on the issue of not being able to use the built-in phones on planes without a valid credit card, that is true for some, but not all, of the various in-flight phones. There are indeed some that you can use to call collect without a credit card.


The reason why I had to amend my post is because although I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, I do not consider myself a nutcase, so I like to stay pragmatically open-minded about this stuff and when presented with facts will reconsider my postion on the subject.

However, since I distrust all "expert opinion" that I find on the web equally, I try to personally ask questions to people that I myself know and trust to get to the bottom if it is at all possible. Since I know a lot of engineers of all stripes, I usually get some pretty convincing answers to many of my questions.

That said, I am still pretty much LIHOP and leaning MIHOP after all the personal research that I have been doing on this subject literally since the morning of 9/11.

There still are many, many unanswered questions, to be sure. (and don't even get me started on Skull and Bones and the Hegelian Dialectic theory... :evilgrin: )