AOPA supports cell phones in GA aircraft

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Cell phone use from aircraft have been allowed in Canada for quite some
time.

And it will become legal in the US whenever 1) the FCC gets motivated to change
it, and 2) the wireless service providers agree that the regulation is unnecessary.

I think it more likely that the old AMPS system will gradually be replaced with
PCS and the issue will become moot.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

xrayvizhen wrote:
My understanding, from a source within the I.T. department of
Cingular,
is that this issue has nothing to do with safety in the cockpit or
interference with aircraft navigation equipment. It has to do with
the
fact that when at altitiude, a cell phone will be accessing many more
cells at one time than when on the ground which somehow prevents your
cell phone carrier from accurately billing you. This information came
to me about a year ago. If AOPA has updated information and is saying
it's OK with the carriers, then hopefully this will happen sooner
rather than later


That was true with the old analog sites. Their antennas seemed to
point up as well as down. I used to be able to make an analog call at
cruise altitude without a problem. Of course I probably lit up every
cell to the horizon (note: only did it a few times in sparsely poplated
areas). When the PCS network was built, it seemed that they caught on
to this and angled the antennas towards the ground in most places. So
says and acquaintence who works as a design engineer at Sprint. With
the PCS phone, I've never been able to get a signal much above pattern
altitude.

I have to agree with the poster that said AOPA's quest was pointless.
Analog service is disappearing and you can't use the newer services in
the air anyway. I would think that they'd have more pressing matters
on their plate than this.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:42:13 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that
interferes with other system customers and with the service providers.

Well, we've yammered about this for years, and it does seem that
digital does not intefere when used at altitude. And we will all be
digital eventually.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:11:57 GMT, "Joe Johnson"
wrote:

In lesislation authorizing executive agencies to regulate something,
Congress usually includes "...such regulations shall have the full force of
law," or some such equivalent language.

A regulation that has the force of law is nevertheless a regulation,
not a law.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:43:33 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:


FCC (and FAA) regulations are considered to be "regulatory law."

Regulatory law is the same as dry rain. No such a thing.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that interferes with other system customers and with the service providers. That is *not* harmless.

Well, if the cell companies disagree (with the FCC on this matter), then
we =are= in the former state. The new information is that the cell
companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
The new information is that the cell
companies are ok with letting cell
phones be used in the air.

Probably because they know that their antenna are oriented so that they
won't receive our signals anyway... Or maybe because they will only give us
an analog and roaming signal and it end up costing us more...

Jose wrote:

The new information is that the cell
companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air.


What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still
opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of
the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference
with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about.

Ok, I inferred from the note that the cell phone companies were ok with
it. My bad.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

George Patterson wrote:

What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one,
is still
opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA
seems to be of
the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent
interference
with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking
about.


I agree, George. AOPA is missing the point. The airlines would
like to lift the ban on cell phones so that they could install small
cells inside the aircraft, which would then downlink to a ground
station by a non-cell means. They would, of course, charge their
customers big bucks for this service.

AOPA seems to be under the impression that all cell phones (AMPS and
digital services) would work just fine in an airplane. That's just
not the case. The analog system still has problems with aircraft
lighting up every cell within line of sight. The digital services have
oriented their antennas downward, so that airborne phones won't
interfere with the ground system. I don't know why AOPA is even
wasting their time and money on this.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)