The Mythbusters just tried to test cell phone functionality on an airplane

But according to the hosts, federal law prohibits turning on a cell phone in the air, even under controlled circumstances or in a private plane. At risk of prison, the experiment will never be done.

Why?

the question is do they interfere with pilot/atc communications?

It was busted. Airplane wiring is shielded.

I think they wanted to also test if someone could make a call from the air at 600mph, but the feds said no.

cell phone tower antennas are configured to radiate and receive signals in a plane (the geometric kind of plane), like a pancake. Although, not *that* flat. The speed of an airplane factored with the radiation pattern of the cell-tower antennas makes it very hard to get a signal. I have left my phone on several times and turned it off mid-flight. I have never seen a signal from a plane, although I suspect when taking off or coming in for a landing you could get one.

will screw up the plane's electronic systems. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but wise to avoid the risk. Must be something to it, since they're so strict.

computer speakers and call it.

They can put out quite a signal.

yowza

Or not.;-)

a good way to find out if it's really a problem, is it?

Cell phones should not be used on airplanes. Trust me.

Or if you don't trust me, trust the IEEE. An organization of over a hundered thousand electronics engineers, and they think it's a bad idea.

Redstone

but it would also piss off alot of knee-jerk types

Just to set the record straight.

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.

For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"

Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations.

In substance, the Aviation Week report creates yet another embarrassing hitch in the official story.

this topic is shuffled to oblivion.

Look, on 9/11, physics took the day off.

Are we clear? <--sarcasm

You're bad. :spank:

I'm still fvcked up over Conway, OK?

I mean, what the hell.

Do Conway and Dennis Miller get together for strategy sessions or what?

http://www.slate.com/id/1008297 /
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-501431.html

It's the single biggest issue we should be addressing. It's the pretext for the destruction of our civil liberties and our illegal war in Iraq, and yet, even here on DU, it's relegated to the 911 bunker of conspiracy theorists and crazies.

No shit It will never be completed, we can't have the official story of 911 proven wrong now can we? :sarcasm:

comunicated on 911? Who was called on the Penn. plane, and how?

I don't think that cell phones would be reliable at 30K feet. The antenna arrays on cell towers are highly directional and it would be a waste of precious transmitter power to sent signal upward.

I don't know whether cell phone use on planes is dangerous but I hope they never allow it. The damn things are crowding into my space as it is. Every fool talking on a cell phone thinks they have to shout and it is awfully tiresome listening to one side of an inane conversation.

went to the back of the plane and was talking on a cell phone.

I recall wondering how she made the phone work.

Even if it was the plane phone, they have never worked for me and they are so big anyone would be able to tell you were on it.

ONLY person from any of the 9/11 planes that spoke about hijackers and boxcutters.

Hmmm...

Here he is in happier days--Florida, 2000.



Bush's lawyer, Theodore Olson, argued Monday that the state court engaged in a "wholesale revision of Florida election law" after the November 7 election. David Boies, representing Gore, replied that the court simply was trying to act fairly and interpret state law, ahead of Tuesday's deadline to select presidential electors.,,,,

Olson pressed his point from the hearing: "This is very much a federal issue. What happens in Florida affects people all over the United States," Olson told reporters. "The president is the one person, along with the vice president, elected by all of the people in the United States, and there is abiding national concern with the fairness and legality of the process."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/president.election/

Yes, they were all, all honorable men.

to hit in NYC is a myth? And the ones on flight 93 who called home and called UAL are made up?

Barbara Olsen was NOT the only person on any of the 9/11 planes that spoke about hijackers and boxcutters. But it's convenient for some people to believe so.

No one would build a myth around a Bush administration official's wife for political purposes, would they?

:sarcasm:

“I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm

which is probably the case, collect calls could be made from them.

Stop asking questions and using logic.

Agent Mike doesn't like that!

From that altitude you lock in to a lot of towers, and risk scrambling part of the system.

of 163 hours!

But at least there wasn't a consensus about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x416789

As a practical matter, I've left my on many times while in flight and Im still walking around (yea shoot me)

The airplane is still in an airplane. It still has wings. It still has engines powered by liquid fuels that burns. Nothing about a cell phone changes the physics of the airfoils that everybody is sitting on.

Worst case is that it causes confusion in navigation from one of many redunandant nav aids. But thats why they have redundancy. In other words one insturment will MAY give a spurious reading in which case its switched off and the other half a dozen methods of navigating are used. And the key word is MAY. In fact a cell phone has never been shown to cause interference with nav aids (yes it has been tested albeit not on a television show).

The reason for this rule is so that it doesnt confuse the cell tower system by connecting to too many towers. Even this is somewhat archaic, as it was made in rule when cell phones were MUCH more powerful than they are today (back in the analog days)

.... in a plane at altitude is not likely to work at all. Plus, the plane would be moving through cells so fast, it would barely have time to switch into a cell before it was time to switch to the next one.

Airlines don't want them used because the RF they emit could cause interference with their own navigation and communications systems.

Leave your cell phones off when flying :)

Ok, maybe they cause interference when used during flying sometimes, but the certainly claim they were used on 911. And are they claiming they'll do permanent damage to the electronics? Otherwise wouldn't the instruments be ok once the phone was turned off? So a trial experiment can be done. Why not allow it?
I've read several times that they don't work by people who've tried it.

... that there was any issue of "permanent damage".

As an Amateur Radio licensee for 40+ years, I understand radio, RF and computers. Using a cell phone on a plane is a really bad idea. It's not that it is LIKELY to cause problems, it's that it is POSSIBLE, and nobody really wants to risk endangering a flight so some dipshit can yak on his phone.

Edit: I stand corrected: I did a google of Barbare Olson on 911, I found this on one of the many sites...


"The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT <0606 GMT> on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.
Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill."

I guess she was NOT on her cell phone if we are to believe what they told us about 911,

As if.
Wonder where she really is?

And you think it's annoying losing a signal when driving on the highway!

It would be almost comical witnessing the signal trying to maintain contact with the different relays!

Some commedian should develope a routine about it - it would be hilarious.

... hasn't a freaking clue how cellphones even work, or they wouldn't say such dumbass things :)

makes more sense than the story the gov. gave us. :shrug:

it's cynical bastards like you who make me doubt the Bush administration.

Thank you.

and quit being so cynical about the Bush Administration, this was just a tv show
called "myth Busters"
LOL ;) ;) :evilgrin:

Look, I have come to terms with my Neil Young fixation... et tu?

of thousands of calls made per day until something was finally done about it. People can't/don't/won't follow simple directions and those things would be going off every five minutes.

So, the logical answer is that they simply won't get a signal.

Used my cell phone about a year ago on a plane. My friend who was traveling with me used hers too. Both worked fine.

People don't follow rules. I've never been on a plane where anyone checked to see if my cell phone was on or off, or did anything more than issue the standard "Federal law prohibits use of cell phones on commercial aircraft" warnings. How many people on the average packed airliner? A few hundred? Anyone who thinks there aren't at some people on every flight who do not turn off their phones, and/or attempt to use them, just doesn't know human nature.

Just as you stated...and it isn't just MAKING calls, as you stated. If you leave your phone on, and the phone supposed still functioned, INCOMING calls would set that phone off, too. BUT IN NEVER HAPPENS! Why is that? Because 100% of airline passengers follow the rules? No way in hell.

DS1 makes a most compelling point. The reason you never hear cell phones ringing on planes has nothing to do with 100% compliance, rather, 100% failure to function.

Were those different?

It happens in theatres, churches, meetings, school. It happens ALL the time! You don't think that people who get on airplanes forget to turn them off sometimes?

Has ANYONE EVER heard a cellphone go off while you're in an airplane?

I didn't think so.

I've recieved text messages in the air when I forget to turn the phone off. And I've sat next to people using two way pagers or crackberries. I'm suprised that the airlines don't provide WiFi, actually.

I've traveled extensively (and so have many of my collegues). I've never heard a cell phone 'ring' on an airplane, neither has anyone that I know (and trust) that I've asked.

So, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree".

that's you flat out calling me a liar.

Far be it from me to argue with you...

Prove what you claim. (I'm not asking you to 'prove an absence of something' - you claim that you get text messages and that cell phones ring and there is a 'live caller' on the other end - prove it! Anecdotal evidence, yours, mine, or anyone else's isn't sufficient).

next to someone on a plane talking on a cell phone? Lets keep the ban on!

Sheesh.

left my cell phone on while flying.

At altitude, it generally indicates I'm not within range of a tower.

Cell phones DO NOT MAKE PLANES CRASH. That's one of those bullshit things that I cannot understand. There apparently have been one or two incidents in which there's a distant possibility that cell phone transmissions maybe, might have, it's a hypothetical chance that there was some kind of interference with the plane's avionics. So of course, using common sense, those in charge simply panicked, assumed that cell phones were to blame and banned their use.

People really did call from the hijacked planes on September 11, 2001, but mos, maybe all of them were using the air phones that used to be on board. They've all since been disconnected and mostly removed, I understand. And the reason given for their removal was that so few people used them -- the cost was outrageous at best, so I'm willing to believe that.

A lot of times people are careless about what they actually say. Cell phone, air phone, what's the difference? Unless you're trying to build a case that no one called from the planes and it was really a drone that crashed into WTC2, and a missile that crashed into the Pentagon and so on.

But, to repeat: cell phones don't make planes crash and are possible usable in flight. I know I've heard them ring once or twice in flight.

"I know I've heard them ring once or twice in flight."

:rofl: :rofl:

...and I survived every crash!

:toast:

organization in the world, the IEEE?

Care to provide some credentials explaining why you know more than they do?

PS: If you don't know the difference between how an airphone works and how a cellphone works, I doubt that you have those credentials.

Redstone

I've left my phone on many times and I'm fine. Cellphones do not make planes crash. If they did I'd be long dead by now. If all it took were consumer electronics to bring a plane down we'd be dodging planes as we walk the streets on a daily basis.

have cancer, so the people who say smoking causes cancer are wrong."

Bad logic, there.

Redstone

Quite a few of them make no sense.

I'm an air traffic controller and, as of about a month ago, we have to turn off our cell phones when on the control room floor. Supposedly, they can interfere with our (wired, not wireless) headsets. Complete bull.

Lots of peopld do.

Cellphones will not make a plane crash.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

So say the experts. Flight 93 at 30,000 feet? Um...a cell phone call that lasted 13 minutes. The chance of it happening is .08%...but who the hell are we to question...

Move along...now...move along...

And you can't do it. You get no service when you are in the air.

Cell phones aren't guaranteed to work at altitude, but they can. It's been proven.

I've used a phone @ 5,000 feet (above sea level)near Chicago.

Also, I've heard of pilots using them on the flight deck at altitude.

Also:

http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html

The researchers found that on average one to four cell phone calls are typically made from every commercial flight in the northeast United States. Some of these calls are made during critical flight stages such as climb-out, or on final approach. This could cause accidents, the investigators report.

They work, just not reliably.

:hi:

Your link supports posts 29 and 30. Any chance you could videotape use of a cellphone at altitude to end this stupid debate once and for all?
(not that some people wouldn't say the video is fake);)

The FAA can be touchy about some things, and they have a nasty habit of pulling pilot certificates at times...

Thought I'd take a chance that we had a maverick in our midst. ;)

edit: I think there's enough evidence already to make the videotape unnescessary. Plus, 'they' wouldn't believe it anyway.

Didn't try to make a call, and the signal was intermittent (lasted a couple of minutes at a time) but I did have 2-3 bars, which always alows me to make a call on the ground.

her plane was being hijacked on 9-11? I think several of the 9-11 victims made calls from cellphones while in the air.

He probably lied about his wife's calls. What a man...

There also wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon either. It was a cruise missile. By whom? Um.... move along...move along...nothing to see here.

Just another lying Repuke.

A cruise missile doesn't do that kind of damage.

There was a large hole in the side of the building. The jet engines (made of titanium) melt at 1600 degrees...jet fuel at 1000 degrees...you do the math. Somehow the jet fuel was able to reach an impossible 1600 degrees to melt the jet engines? Wow! Cool!

Why did Rumsfeld refer to the missile that hit the Pentagon that morning.

Why was there no wings on the site. Not one clue of luggage. Why were initial reports at the site wondering how there was a plane crash when there was no evidence of one.

It was a missile, dude. Do some homework. Where are the wings? Where is the pre-crash wreckage before the "plane" hit the building, which was fairly unnoccupied at the time due to renovation.

Why were the windows -- the ones in the direct path of where the planes wings & engines would have been -- not broken following impact?

And, the other big question: Why was there no damage to the lawn at the Pentagon? (And why was the perfect lawn then covered with gravel?)

I lived in Arlington at the time. My sister in Law lived in the flight path of the plane.

THe plane clipped trees in her neighbors yard as it came in.

Really, I do understand the absolute hesitancy to believe what one must believe once the lipstick is removed from the pig. It is so much easier to sit and believe what has been stated repeatedly and what so few refuse to question. I understand this because I was not one of those who immediately went looking for another theory. What convinced me that things aren't exactly as I'd been told, was the fact that my mind couldn't reconcile the many, many questions which still remain.

Here is the truth: It is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 mph. Why? Ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects (just to name a few -- but go ahead and research on your own).

Do a search on what happens to commercial airliners when they do happen to clip trees and/or light poles. (Hint: There was a plane in November 2004 that was supposed to pick up former Pres. Bush in Houston. It clipped a single light pole --- the plane never arrived.)

Whenever you're ready to hear more: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

Where did the wings go? No suitcases, luggage, fuselage... tell me what happened to the plane? It magically disappeared?

The official lie is that jet fuel melted the plane. However, parts of the plane's fuselage are made of titanium, which burns at about 1600 degrees. Jet fuel burns at about 1000 degrees. Is this faith-based science to think that jet fuel somehow attained 600 more degrees magically to burn the titanium portions of the plane?





Other plane crashes look more like this:

name ONE with ZERO actual plane or body parts found? Lockerbie? Plenty. KAL 007? Lots washed up on shore. The Iranian airbus? Bodies the U.S. evilly declared were "planted". TWA 800? Bodies and wreckage.

Somehow, nothing in D.C.

The rational behind bannning cell phone use on aircraft is because cell phones at altitude and traveling at speed cause the ground reception towers to have to switch too quickly screwing with the system.

It is not about the avionics on the airplane.

Current proposals for use of cell phones on aircraft include an on board reciever in the aircraft that would relay the signal much like a cell tower does, or more like the way the airphone system works.

You may or may not be able to get a signal in and out of a plane at 30,000 feet, but it's dicey. The transmitter (your phone) is in an enclosed "Faraday cage" 6 miles above the terrain traveling at some 500 mph. A prolonged conversation would be unlikely.

A google of this will bring up many discussions pro and con.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-306-FAR.shtml

Numerous contrary reports notwithstanding, there IS an FAA regulation in place.

On the ground you are within reach of roughly 4 towers, in the air, its more like 100. Cell phones in the air can slow down the phone service for people on the ground.

I know I have. If all it takes is a cell phone to bring the plane down we have WAY more shit to be concerned about than a phone.

All have failed.

I've accidentally left my cellphone on while crusing at 35,000 feet and saw the time on the phone's clock change to the next time zone...getting its signal from the ground.

The problem isn't if the signal can make it from the plane...it's the reliability and quality. Who hasn't had their cellphone calls cut off by moving into the wrong location or changing directions....this is one of the biggest problems with cellphones on planes. Since the plane is so high and relies on line of sight the cellphone signal in the plane would be constantly jumping celltowers and systems and create a real mess.

The airlines have had their own in flight cellphones for years and part of the reason they didn't want private cellphones was so they could monopolize this business. For an industry that can't break even, this is a big revenue maker that they want to control. I just read that several airlines are talking about introducing cellphone/internet in flight service (for a fee, of course) later this year.

The "messing with plane functionality" is now an old wives tale. It goes back to the days when planes had primitive radio and guidence systems that could be disrupted by the simple tuning of an old AM Radio. This problem became moot with the advent of integrated circuits and now digital systems. The real concern is that a cellphone signal could mess up the radar tracking system...but even that is highly disputed.

...The theater wants you to buy thier overpriced drinks, letting you bring your own pop and snacks is bad for the bottom line; same thing with phones on planes, they want to monopolize use in order to fleece you.

sure, one cell phone won't do anything, what about 250, with 100 blackberries and a few wireless modem connections?

The signals on most of these units are in frequency ranges far different than used by the radar and flight navigation and communications systems.

The problem with cellphones in planes right now is the issue of line of site. Let's say you're flying over Kansas...the line of sight out your window may take you all the way to North Dakota...and your signal could catch one of dozens of celltowers in that footprint...but it would change as the plane kept moving. 250 of these signals surely would create havoc, but not on the plane, but for the cellphone towers in a 200 mile area.

The solution is simple and already in use...a combination of a wireless router system connected with the plane's own communication system...in effect turning the plane's system into both a cellphone site and internet portal. This could allow people on planes to use their phones and other wireless devices with minimal interuption. The real issue still is economic as the airlines see the profits to be made in leasing in-flight wi-fi and cellphone services.

In the editorial section of the print edition, that a study was done by a university that showed that cellphones DO interfere with communications and positioning systems on airplanes. The Trib came out in favor of the FCC taking a serious look at the study and uphold the ban.
The Professor

The whole theory that the cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes were faked has been completely demolished so many times, it gets old. Its such a limb to be out on, too, to have to argue that the planes were really remotely piloted, then when people said "what about the cell phone calls," to have to argue that the cell phone calls were all part of an elaborate hoax. If cell phones don't work on a plane, why set up an elaborate hoax involving an impossibility? But no, the theorists make the argument that the story that there were cell phone calls proves that the crashes were faked because cell phones don't work on planes, basing their entire argument on a premise that is just plain false.

DemoTex, a professional pilot, has stated over and over that cell phones work just fine at altitude, he has used them and flight crews often use them.

The distance to a cell tower wouldn't change that much due to being 6 miles up. If you were 10 miles from a cell tower, then the altitude would only add about 1.5 miles to the total distance. (Pythagoras is our friend!)

So yeah, they'd work just fine. The point of this study was that they do, indeed, interfere with plane operations, and if everyone were using one, the probability of serious interference would rise.
The Professor

Modern aircraft use shielded cable that is unaffected by RF interference. That's a fact.

Why do I find it odd that this story appeared the day after the Mythbusters show about the same subject. Did the article mention the show? What university did the study?

It's in today's Chicago Tribune. I will tend to stick with the academics on this one.

And, let's remember that Mythbusters (which is one of my favorite shows) is done to keep the concepts simple, and that neither guy is actually a scientist. Most of the experiments are solidly designed, but there are flaws in some of the methodology, from time to time. And, they are limited to the amount of time and number of experiments they can run since they so many projects to film over the course of a season. They do not do exhaustive studies, and they don't claim to.

The purpose of this study (from the paper) was to determine if positioning and communications systems would see problems from this. Since those require antennae, no amount of shielding will prevent interference.

In addition, all good quality audio and instrumentation cabling is shielded, but even the RF from flourescent light can cause interference, even if just by evanescence.



The Professor

Even at 35,000 ft a cell phone in the on position is still seeking out a signal. Whether you are on a call or not. THe issue is not the phone calls it's the acquisition pulse.

Too many cell cellphone in the on position does throw a curve ball at Navigation data from transponders on the ground. 15 or twenty cell phone on is not a problem

80 or 90 certainly would be.

Signal dies pretty quick, cellphones can't be used from an airplane, nor do they effect the airplane.

If an airplane has issues with radio signals then we are in big trouble.