FAA Will Not Allow Use of Mobile Phones on Airplanes

[Jerry Raia]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.cellphonedigest.net/news/2007/10/according_to_les_dorr_of.php' target='_blank'>http://www.cellphonedigest.net/news/2007/10/according_to_les_dorr_of.php</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>&quot;According to Les Dorr of the FAA, the FAA will not allow use of mobile phones on airplanes in the foreseeable future.&nbsp; The comments came as he told UK&rsquo;s Telegraph Travel this week that proposals to repeal the ban on in-flight mobiles has caused such an outcry from the American public that the proposal has been dropped. Americans are very resistance to in-flight mobile because of fears that cell phones interfere with the controls of a plane. In the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) found that between January 2000 and August 2005 twenty incidents of airplane malfunction were linked to the use of cell phones.&quot;</em></p><p>This issue will never go away and I think in the end we will be able to use cell phones on airplanes.<em> </em>I would like to see the &quot;data on the equipment malfunctions&quot; the CAA is referring too. Every now and again I can hear the chirping of a GSM phone over my headset in flight that some passenger &nbsp;forgot to turn off. I have never seen any equipment problems in my plane because of it. In addition, on final approach in instrument weather conditions, the most critical part of a flight, the airplane is flying low over numerous cell sites that are transmitting to who knows how many phones, and there are no problems. This is only my opinion/observation and of course not a scientific study. Perhaps the bigger objection and certainly a valid one, is not wanting to be sitting near people yapping away on their phone for hours.</p>

[ajwalker]

I sure would like to see the "science" behind this.

On take off and landing, there are numerous electronic signals that "should" be interfering with all of the on-board instruments if what they say is true. I can't believe the area where the pilots sit (edited to avoid using the other word) pits and towers aren't shielded from random (or intentional) spikes. Especially in this age of "increased terrorist attacks". Moreover, how are all the other carriers in other countries able to pull this off? Are they flying in a different air space? Don't think so.

And I know at least some people unintentionally leave their phones on during take off and there hasn't been a reported problem.

But I do agree, I'm not sure I would want to hear people yapping away about their latest personal crisis through the whole flight. Especially when people will probably feel they have to talk louder to overcome the white noise inherent on most commercial flights.

My two cents anyway.

[ctmagnus]

****pit is one word. ;)

And look at that! It even edited it out when part of a different word! :rolleyes:

[Mike Temporale]

It's my understanding that the real problem is due to the load placed on the towers as the phone goes sailing by above. Something about the speed and rate of towers passing by below and their ability to effectively track and hand off the call to the next tower.

Regardless, I don't want to be sitting next to a chatty cathy during a 5 hour flight. I would, however like to enjoy my data plan....

[Mike Temporale]

****pit is one word. ;)

And look at that! It even edited it out when part of a different word! :rolleyes:

Ha! Too funny.:D

[Jerry Raia]

Guys, if you are afraid of the "C" word, you can call it a "Flight Deck". Now what were we talking about here? :p

[Talyn]

I'll throw in my two cents as an airline pilot.

First, the FCC bans the use due to fear of interfering with ground networks.
The FAA goes along with that, then in addition bans or regulates when certain Portable Electronic Devices (PED's) can be used, if at all.

Can RF interference alone cause the plane to crash? Absolutely not.

Can RF interference interfere with the controls? No.

Can it interfere with navigation? Yes. A CAA study found that certain RF emissions can cause up to a 5 degree alteration in what the instruments perceive. I notice fairly often (yesterday most recently) where even though the navigation system is linked to multiple satellites and ground stations, it still occasionally gets "lost" or doesn't quite know where it is. Was it the result of RF interference from PED's? I have no idea, I just know it happens. Will that cause an accident? In cruise flight, no. The only time off-hand I can see that creating a pretty serious problem is if the weather is bad and we're having to fly an ILS instrument approach down to the minimum allowable height (200' or less off the ground). ILS and other radio navigation systems are WW2-era technology and get a bit wonky on their own at times, especially around their service volume limits or when you're stacked up closely behind other aircraft. Add some RF interference and *if* (it's probably a huge "if") the plane thought it was on-course but it really was not, and you're descending at 150mph+ towards the ground and the pilots don't get visual contact with the ground or runway until 200' or less from the ground only to suddenly discover they're not lined up with the runway like the instruments said they were... potential disaster if they don't react in time. Granted, we're always fully prepared to abort the landing anyway when we're dealing with that type of approach but... things have happened.
On a side note, I've seen certain cell phones completely garble the CRT monitor displays in modern "glass" instrument systems, but those were being used by a pilot in the flight deck. I haven't seen that effect by any phone used further back than the flight deck door.

Can it interfere with communication? Yes. Especially two-way pagers, they make a very distinctive, loud noise over our headsets/speakers when they completely disrupt our communications as they send or receive signals from the ground. I have not directly noticed phones disrupting communications at all, and people do leave them on "accidentally" (yeah right, you actually think we believe that?) all the time.

Bottom line: I'm more concerned with putting up with noisy passengers yacking away during the flight when I have to ride with you in the back. Crying babies are bad enough; I'd rather someone invent a remote for babies with a Mute button than worry about allowing in-flight phone usage in the US.

[LelandHendrix]

I'm an Air Force Communication and Navigation Systems guy, and have to tell you that in theory and on paper, intereference with Comm might be a sometimes issue (depends on the aircraft really, digital interphone, radio qualities, cable routing, antenna placement...LOTS) but the navigation thing I have to believe is bunk.

VOR/ILS (instrument only landing) systems use frequencies that are so wildly different from what is used in cell comm I can't imagine anyone proving theoretical intereference.

About the plane getting lost in flight, that's not a real issue either.

The pilot mentioned a couple degrees variance. Honestly, that happens ALL THE TIME. Even with no cell phones on board. Planes wander or tell their pilots they're not *certain* where they are because of slight differences between nav sources (INUs, GPSs, ground-based signals like TACAN) and heavy aircraft have to use several sources at once.

Secret for you folk--GPS ain't right all the time, and we (the United States, who happens to OWN the satellites for GPS) can skew the data if we, ahem, might need to.

But, knowing the frequency charts like I do, and considering the different pulse modulations and duplexing of all the different freq bands and their uses, I'M ABSOLUTELY DYING to find out what these 20 reports of cell-phone induced malfunctions were.

My guess is that the definition of "MALFUNCTION" is stretched about as far as Joan Rivers's skin.

If anyone knows, please fill me in.

[LelandHendrix]

BTW--the no cell phones on board, yeah--that's verified. Preflight, flight, and ground by visual and crew, and RMI/EFI.

[Jerry Raia]

I'm an Air Force Communication and Navigation Systems guy, and have to tell you that in theory and on paper, intereference with Comm might be a sometimes issue (depends on the aircraft really, digital interphone, radio qualities, cable routing, antenna placement...LOTS) but the navigation thing I have to believe is bunk.

VOR/ILS (instrument only landing) systems use frequencies that are so wildly different from what is used in cell comm I can't imagine anyone proving theoretical intereference.

About the plane getting lost in flight, that's not a real issue either.

The pilot mentioned a couple degrees variance. Honestly, that happens ALL THE TIME. Even with no cell phones on board. Planes wander or tell their pilots they're not *certain* where they are because of slight differences between nav sources (INUs, GPSs, ground-based signals like TACAN) and heavy aircraft have to use several sources at once.

Secret for you folk--GPS ain't right all the time, and we (the United States, who happens to OWN the satellites for GPS) can skew the data if we, ahem, might need to.

But, knowing the frequency charts like I do, and considering the different pulse modulations and duplexing of all the different freq bands and their uses, I'M ABSOLUTELY DYING to find out what these 20 reports of cell-phone induced malfunctions were.

My guess is that the definition of "MALFUNCTION" is stretched about as far as Joan Rivers's skin.

If anyone knows, please fill me in.

Thank you for making those points, all of them right on. :)

[Talyn]

Exactly, the plane thinking it's "lost" is no big deal. Not sure how "off" these GPS systems consider to be "lost" but it never seems to be very much so even when we're getting "lost" indications, VOR backup and ATC radar shows us on course anyway. We're always (or nearly so) in radar contact anyway so ATC is (hopefully) watching our backs if it really hits the fan.

ILS/VOR frequencies are indeed on a totally different frequency spectrum. Like I said, it's a huge "if" about cell phones in particular, or any modern PED (laptop, ipod, crackberry) specifically causing interference. I can say that getting stacked behind other aircraft *can* make things a little wonky, but it's not every time. I haven't paid attention to factors such as "is it only behind certain aircraft types? is it only within a distance of X? is it only at X airport?" It's not distressing, it's just annoying because the autopilot aggressively chases every teeny deviation so we just get aggravated and hand-fly the ILS anyway.

One final point: while facts are all good and fine, the bottom line is the FAA/FCC call the shots. We're just trying to do our jobs, and part of that is ensuring compliance with laws and regulations. We have enough problems with first-time or infrequent fliers who nonetheless consider themselves "expert world travelers" much less the handful of people who actually know the facts and put up arguments about turning off their PED's during the required times. Sure it sucks. I'd rather listen to my ipod the entire flight rather than only the "above 10,000 feet" portion so I don't have to listen to your screaming hellion of a child or your snoring spouse. We don't argue with you at your job, just go with the flow and let us do ours so we can get you to wherever you're going and we can all get on with our lives, eh?

[gerlinda]

"Perhaps the bigger objection and certainly a valid one, is not wanting to be sitting near people yapping away on their phone for hours."

That, and not wanting my boss to be yapping at me at least one hour out of my day.