I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
aircraft (even though recent studies show that such use does not
overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).
However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft? There is some concern
about cell phones interfering with avionics on commercial airliners
(the jury is still out for most scenarios), but I don't know if the
phones make any difference on a small plane. I suppose it depends on
how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
phones on a GA aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
> aircraft

Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless phone
services. Not all of them have that prohibition written in
the regs.

> (even though recent studies show that such use does not
> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).

It's less of a problem now that we've moved away from the original
AMPS (analog) cellular phone. However, the study you are probably
thinking about doesn't say what you are proposing. It is talking
about the Aircell guys identifying that THEIR airborne use (which
is not standard cellular) doesn't cause any untoward interference
to the ground based systems on the same frequency.

> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?

The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to much fancier
digital systems and antenna systems designed to really pack in the
density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just doesn't work.

Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw when
operating at high power (and they would use much less in
a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a fraction of that.
It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.

Modern GSM phones don't seem to get any coverage at altitude. When I
had my CDMA phone I could send emails when I flow over populated areas.
Now, nothing.

-Robert


Mxsmanic wrote:
> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
> aircraft (even though recent studies show that such use does not
> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).
> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft? There is some concern
> about cell phones interfering with avionics on commercial airliners
> (the jury is still out for most scenarios), but I don't know if the
> phones make any difference on a small plane. I suppose it depends on
> how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
> phones on a GA aircraft?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
>phones on a GA aircraft?

I can't get a signal at cruise altitude in the US. I can in Canada, but
I've never tried to make a call or even send an SMS.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Make backups before you try something new or interesting or experimental
or radical or if the day has a "y" in it.
-- Chris Hacking

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:27:04 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
>> aircraft
>
>Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless phone
>services. Not all of them have that prohibition written in
>the regs.

>> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?
>
>The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to much fancier
>digital systems and antenna systems designed to really pack in the
>density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just doesn't work.
>
>Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw when
>operating at high power (and they would use much less in
>a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a fraction of that.
>It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.

I once called my favorite CFII to make an appointment. When she
answered the phone, there was a lot of background noise but we could
still converse. She was talking to me on her cell phone while she was
instructing. Obviously, it can work.

Of course that was most likely at relatively low altitude in the
practice area, near civilization. Many areas where I fly there's no
cell coverage at all, on the ground or otherwise. A look at the
service provider's coverage map tells the story. Much of the area is
RF wilderness.

RK Henry

I'm confused -- I thought in a previous thread you said you lived in
Paris? If so, why does the FCC matter? (Or am I wrong about where
you live...?)

Chris
---
Mxsmanic > writes:
> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
> aircraft (even though recent studies show that such use does not
> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).
> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft? There is some concern
> about cell phones interfering with avionics on commercial airliners
> (the jury is still out for most scenarios), but I don't know if the
> phones make any difference on a small plane. I suppose it depends on
> how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
> phones on a GA aircraft?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

RK Henry > wrote in
:

> Of course that was most likely at relatively low altitude in the
> practice area, near civilization. Many areas where I fly there's no
> cell coverage at all, on the ground or otherwise. A look at the
> service provider's coverage map tells the story. Much of the area is
> RF wilderness.

Actually, I have found my cell phone to work better in God's country then
over civilization. Less cell towers to hit on to confuse the phone is my
guess.

My experiences is that the higher you go, the less reliability you get.
For me, seems that 6000 AGL is the point where the reliablity decrease
substantially. Other then my own experiences, nothing to back up to the
reasons why.

Allen

Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote in
:

> I'm confused -- I thought in a previous thread you said you lived in
> Paris? If so, why does the FCC matter? (Or am I wrong about where
> you live...?)

You are right Chris, but the dude lives in a simulated world *smile*

Allen

I've called people from about 6000 ft. This was back in the days of
TDMA. Now that I'm on CDMA it's harder. I did send an e-mail from
about 8000 ft. the other day.

--Dan


RK Henry wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:27:04 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
> >Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
> >> aircraft
> >
> >Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless phone
> >services. Not all of them have that prohibition written in
> >the regs.
>
> >> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?
> >
> >The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to much fancier
> >digital systems and antenna systems designed to really pack in the
> >density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just doesn't work.
> >
> >Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw when
> >operating at high power (and they would use much less in
> >a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a fraction of that.
> >It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.
>
> I once called my favorite CFII to make an appointment. When she
> answered the phone, there was a lot of background noise but we could
> still converse. She was talking to me on her cell phone while she was
> instructing. Obviously, it can work.
>
> Of course that was most likely at relatively low altitude in the
> practice area, near civilization. Many areas where I fly there's no
> cell coverage at all, on the ground or otherwise. A look at the
> service provider's coverage map tells the story. Much of the area is
> RF wilderness.
>
> RK Henry

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Modern GSM phones don't seem to get any coverage at altitude. When I
> had my CDMA phone I could send emails when I flow over populated areas.
> Now, nothing.
>
> -Robert
>
>

You don't have to go very high to be "at altitude" to not receive a
cell phone signal. Two years ago on July 4 at the top of the Stratosphere
tower in Las Vegas, I overheard several people remarkng how their cell
phones had roamed to analog to connect. My phone is CDMA and was not able
to pick up a digital signal, either on network or digital roaming while
analog roaming gave a solid signal. Excellent digital signal at ground
level.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> I'm confused -- I thought in a previous thread you said you lived in
> Paris? If so, why does the FCC matter? (Or am I wrong about where
> you live...?)

With respect to aviation, I ignore the place where I live, and I think
only about the USA. Everyone else is too far behind.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

RK Henry wrote:
<snip>
>
> I once called my favorite CFII to make an appointment. When she
> answered the phone, there was a lot of background noise but we could
> still converse. She was talking to me on her cell phone while she was
> instructing. Obviously, it can work.

I used to work with an instructor who would routinely conduct business
on his cell while instructing (yes, he had other issues). But like you
said, this was at low altitude in the practice area, very near multiple
towers. Reception was not a problem.

I suppose it doesn't count in this discussion, but balloons are
aircraft. Cell phones work fine and are more reliable than either
ordinary VHF radios or CB radios. Typically we are at tree tops, 100 to
say, 500 feet. I figure people are allowed to use cell phones in tall
buildings and easily hit these altitudes.


Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
>> aircraft
>
> Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless phone
> services. Not all of them have that prohibition written in
> the regs.
>
>> (even though recent studies show that such use does not
>> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).
>
> It's less of a problem now that we've moved away from the original
> AMPS (analog) cellular phone. However, the study you are probably
> thinking about doesn't say what you are proposing. It is talking
> about the Aircell guys identifying that THEIR airborne use (which
> is not standard cellular) doesn't cause any untoward interference
> to the ground based systems on the same frequency.
>
>> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?
>
> The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to much fancier
> digital systems and antenna systems designed to really pack in the
> density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just doesn't work.
>
> Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw when
> operating at high power (and they would use much less in
> a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a fraction of that.
> It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.

The FCC and the FAA have rules. The FAA is concerned with
any electronic device interfering with the aircraft nav or
comm systems,. The FCC is concerned about a cellphone
blocking hundreds of cell towers on the ground.

Using Your Wireless Phone on Airplanes FCC rules currently
ban cell phone use after a plane has taken off because of
.... and other wireless devices aboard aircraft remain
subject to the rules and ...
www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html -
17k - Cached - Similar pages


[PDF] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
considering ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as
HTML
FCC rules currently ban cell phone use after a plane
.... phone use because of potential interference to
navigation and aircraft systems. The FCC has ...
www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.pdf -
Similar pages


Cell Phones On Aircraft: Nuisance Or Necessity? Even if the
FCC finalizes its proposed rule lifting its ban on aircraft
cell phone use, the FAA has no intention to lift its
long-standing ban on the use of ...
www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/07-15-05/07-15-05memo.html
- 24k - Cached - Similar pages


Opposition To Cell Phones On Aircraft Washington, DC - A
proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule to ...
any change to the existing ban on aircraft cell phone use
would require the ...
www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2005/release90.html
- 11k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.house.gov ]


Mobile phones on aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cellphone calls are routed via the on-board SATCOM to
the ground network and ... telephones while this aircraft is
airborne is prohibited by FCC rules. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft -
24k - Cached - Similar pages


Aviation International News | Cellphones a real threat to an
....

"Stubby" > wrote in
message . ..
|I suppose it doesn't count in this discussion, but balloons
are
| aircraft. Cell phones work fine and are more reliable
than either
| ordinary VHF radios or CB radios. Typically we are at
tree tops, 100 to
| say, 500 feet. I figure people are allowed to use cell
phones in tall
| buildings and easily hit these altitudes.
|
|
| Ron Natalie wrote:
| > Mxsmanic wrote:
| >> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell
phones on an
| >> aircraft
| >
| > Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless
phone
| > services. Not all of them have that prohibition written
in
| > the regs.
| >
| >> (even though recent studies show that such use does not
| >> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally
feared).
| >
| > It's less of a problem now that we've moved away from
the original
| > AMPS (analog) cellular phone. However, the study you
are probably
| > thinking about doesn't say what you are proposing. It
is talking
| > about the Aircell guys identifying that THEIR airborne
use (which
| > is not standard cellular) doesn't cause any untoward
interference
| > to the ground based systems on the same frequency.
| >
| >> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?
| >
| > The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to
much fancier
| > digital systems and antenna systems designed to really
pack in the
| > density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just
doesn't work.
| >
| > Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw
when
| > operating at high power (and they would use much less in
| > a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a
fraction of that.
| > It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.

Note the confusion between "airplanes" and "aircraft". The former
excludes helos, balloons and gliders. The latter includes them. I'm
uncertain where people in tall buildings appear.




Jim Macklin wrote:
> The FCC and the FAA have rules. The FAA is concerned with
> any electronic device interfering with the aircraft nav or
> comm systems,. The FCC is concerned about a cellphone
> blocking hundreds of cell towers on the ground.
>
> Using Your Wireless Phone on Airplanes FCC rules currently
> ban cell phone use after a plane has taken off because of
> ... and other wireless devices aboard aircraft remain
> subject to the rules and ...
> www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html -
> 17k - Cached - Similar pages
>
>
> [PDF] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
> considering ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as
> HTML
> FCC rules currently ban cell phone use after a plane
> ... phone use because of potential interference to
> navigation and aircraft systems. The FCC has ...
> www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.pdf -
> Similar pages
>
>
> Cell Phones On Aircraft: Nuisance Or Necessity? Even if the
> FCC finalizes its proposed rule lifting its ban on aircraft
> cell phone use, the FAA has no intention to lift its
> long-standing ban on the use of ...
> www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/07-15-05/07-15-05memo.html
> - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
>
>
> Opposition To Cell Phones On Aircraft Washington, DC - A
> proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule to ...
> any change to the existing ban on aircraft cell phone use
> would require the ...
> www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2005/release90.html
> - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
> [ More results from www.house.gov ]
>
>
> Mobile phones on aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The cellphone calls are routed via the on-board SATCOM to
> the ground network and ... telephones while this aircraft is
> airborne is prohibited by FCC rules. ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft -
> 24k - Cached - Similar pages
>
>
> Aviation International News | Cellphones a real threat to an
> ...
>
> "Stubby" > wrote in
> message . ..
> |I suppose it doesn't count in this discussion, but balloons
> are
> | aircraft. Cell phones work fine and are more reliable
> than either
> | ordinary VHF radios or CB radios. Typically we are at
> tree tops, 100 to
> | say, 500 feet. I figure people are allowed to use cell
> phones in tall
> | buildings and easily hit these altitudes.
> |
> |
> | Ron Natalie wrote:
> | > Mxsmanic wrote:
> | >> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell
> phones on an
> | >> aircraft
> | >
> | > Actually, the FCC only says that for certain wireless
> phone
> | > services. Not all of them have that prohibition written
> in
> | > the regs.
> | >
> | >> (even though recent studies show that such use does not
> | >> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally
> feared).
> | >
> | > It's less of a problem now that we've moved away from
> the original
> | > AMPS (analog) cellular phone. However, the study you
> are probably
> | > thinking about doesn't say what you are proposing. It
> is talking
> | > about the Aircell guys identifying that THEIR airborne
> use (which
> | > is not standard cellular) doesn't cause any untoward
> interference
> | > to the ground based systems on the same frequency.
> | >
> | >> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft?
> | >
> | > The problem is that it doesn't work. Once we went to
> much fancier
> | > digital systems and antenna systems designed to really
> pack in the
> | > density, trying to hit them from over 1000 feet just
> doesn't work.
> | >
> | > Handheld cell phones have never put out more than 850mw
> when
> | > operating at high power (and they would use much less in
> | > a plane) and the modern digital ones put out even a
> fraction of that.
> | > It's unlikely that avionics would suffer much.
>
>

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
> >how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
> >phones on a GA aircraft?
>
> I can't get a signal at cruise altitude in the US. I can in Canada, but
> I've never tried to make a call or even send an SMS.
>
>
> --


I can't remember where I read this, but I recall that Canadian pilots
were encouraged to use cell phones in case of lost-comm to contact ATC.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I know the FCC says you're not supposed to use cell phones on an
> aircraft (even though recent studies show that such use does not
> overload multiple base stations, as the FCC originally feared).
> However, has anyone tried it on small aircraft? There is some concern
> about cell phones interfering with avionics on commercial airliners
> (the jury is still out for most scenarios), but I don't know if the
> phones make any difference on a small plane. I suppose it depends on
> how much of a glass cockpit you have. Will anyone admit to using
> phones on a GA aircraft?
>

Yes, I will admit to it, having used cell phones on GA aircraft
equipped with both glass cockpits and steam gauges. For some time,
there was a big loophole in the FCC regulations. You could not use a
cell phone, but almost nobody owned a cell phone as defined by the
regulations. What people really had was PCS phones, and there was no
FCC ban on using these in airplanes for a long time. That changed last
year and the FCC now uses the same language for PCS phones as for cell
phones (no doubt because some of us were a little too noisy about this
loophole).

Coverage with a PCS phone is spotty in a GA plane and you are likely to
lose contact every couple minutes. They are best used in emergencies
(when nobody cares about the regulations anyway -- you do what you have
to do) or for short messages or texts to revise flight plans and tell
the FBO that you are going to be late. I think the FCC would rather you
use the phone for this rather than have somebody call out search and
rescue because you did not return on time.

One thing I find incredibly entertaining: after decades of scaring the
daylights out of passengers about 'dangerous' cell phones the airlines
are discovering that allowing passengers to use cell phones could be a
profit center. So the ban has been lifted in some countries, but the
passengers won't use the service because they are terrified of making
the airplane fall out of the sky. Plus, there is the usual backlash
from the anti-cell phone crowd who insist that use of a cell phone on
an airplane is at least rude and at worst likely to kill everyone on
board. Here in the Philippines the ATA prohibits the operation of cell
phones in aircraft and you are still briefed by flight attendants that
the use of cell phones interferes with avionics.

Cell phones are also prohibited by law in banks. You could be
imprisoned for six months for turning a cell phone on in a bank in the
Philippines. Apparently there is a concern that criminal gangs could
watch for large withdrawals of cash and then telephone confederates
outside the bank. Of course, the law does not prevent anyone from
simply stepping outside the bank to use his phone.

I am surprised that there have not been more restrictions on cell
phones. They are the tool of choice for terrorists to detonate their
bombs by remote control (we just had a bunch of them in the Philippines
a week or two ago). Plus, many of them have small cameras that could be
used for surveillance and gathering intelligence. They are almost
untraceable; you can use one once and throw it away. Really, perhaps
Homeland Security needs to ban the cell phone nationwide. That ought to
protect us.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
>
> I can't remember where I read this, but I recall that Canadian pilots
> were encouraged to use cell phones in case of lost-comm to contact ATC.
>

Like I said, with the analog cell phones (or at least ones with
an AMPS fallback) it worked fine but annoyed the system capacity.
This is how the guys on Flight 93 were able to reach the ground.

Unfortunately, my last two cell phones don't have that feature
and the analog ground stations are pretty much disappearing.
The FCC no longer requires the licensees to maintain analog
cellular.

cjcampbell writes:

> One thing I find incredibly entertaining: after decades of scaring the
> daylights out of passengers about 'dangerous' cell phones the airlines
> are discovering that allowing passengers to use cell phones could be a
> profit center. So the ban has been lifted in some countries, but the
> passengers won't use the service because they are terrified of making
> the airplane fall out of the sky.

I should think you'd have to hold the cellphone right in the cockpit
to make any difference at all to the avionics, and even then, I
wouldn't expect much of an effect. I can talk on a cell phone right
next to my computers (with the covers off), and they continue to run.

> Cell phones are also prohibited by law in banks. You could be
> imprisoned for six months for turning a cell phone on in a bank in the
> Philippines. Apparently there is a concern that criminal gangs could
> watch for large withdrawals of cash and then telephone confederates
> outside the bank. Of course, the law does not prevent anyone from
> simply stepping outside the bank to use his phone.

I guess calling the cops to report a robbery in progress is out of the
question, then.

> I am surprised that there have not been more restrictions on cell
> phones. They are the tool of choice for terrorists to detonate their
> bombs by remote control (we just had a bunch of them in the Philippines
> a week or two ago). Plus, many of them have small cameras that could be
> used for surveillance and gathering intelligence. They are almost
> untraceable; you can use one once and throw it away. Really, perhaps
> Homeland Security needs to ban the cell phone nationwide. That ought to
> protect us.

Cellphones are too widely used. The general public only accepts bans
on things that are not used by the majority of people. The real risk
(or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.