Phydeaux <reb@ingres.com> (05/01/91)
Hi! During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the 'roam' light was on. I tried to place a call but it didn't go through. We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'. But, when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm. I was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat! I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was, and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call. PAT]
steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) (05/14/91)
In article <telecom11.332.3@eecs.nwu.edu> reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > Hi! During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the > 'roam' light was on. I tried to place a call but it didn't go > through. We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It > would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'. But, > when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was > on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm. I > was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small > (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat! > I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if > anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation instruments. Steve Shellans Tektronix, Beaverton OR [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT]
Ron Schnell <ronnie@sos.com> (05/14/91)
In article <telecom11.356.8@eecs.nwu.edu> steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) writes: > In article <telecom11.332.3@eecs.nwu.edu> reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) > writes: >> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if >> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) > I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do > things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other > kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation > instruments. The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and Portable computers. There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50 mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest one. The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, which can't be upset by FM interference. I usually ask the pilot if I can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me. > [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next > time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will > try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned > off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being > used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] If you didn't think it was funny, then why did you encourage him? In <telecom11.332.3@eecs.nwu.edu>: > [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things > you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was, > and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call. PAT] [Moderator's Note: See my reply after next message. PAT]
Phydeaux <reb@ingres.com> (05/14/91)
> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal > law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested. Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it again ... BTW, the connection was pretty good! I guess I'll find out where I was when the bill comes ;-) We were 20 minutes out of Orlando at the time. Pat, I don't understand ... on the one hand you tell me to let you know all the details if/when I try this again. A few days later you wrote that you hoped next time I "[decide] to flex the rules a little .. try the one which says 'keep all radios ... turned off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being used.'" By the way, I don't plan on doing this again, I just wanted to see if it would work. [Moderator's Note: I changed my mind; or actually, I am sort of ambivilent about the whole thing. On the one hand, it is an interesting test, and the results -- from someone who has authenticated them through testing -- would be a fun topic here. But after originally telling you to report further results when you had them, I got to thinking it really is a bad practice and should not be encouraged. The chance of a dangerous result is probably remote, or at least about as unlikely as a dynamite explosion caused by a radio transmission, but those things *can* happen. Really, today I don't know what I think on this topic. PAT]
sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu> (05/16/91)
steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) writes: > In article <telecom11.332.3@eecs.nwu.edu> reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) > writes: [Talks about activating his cellphone in an aircraft] >> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if >> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)> > I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do > things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other > kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation > instruments. While using a cellphone in an aircraft is not a good idea (it, in fact, has the potential of denying cellular service to users over a multi-state area), aircraft navigation equipment is really very hardy. The frequency and power put out by a cellphone shouldn't have an appreciable effect on airline equipment. It may, however interfere with the equipment used in general aviation aircraft. > [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next > time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will > try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned > off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being > used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what signals trigger it. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu [Moderator's Note: They are very selective about signals, however a very close radio signal often times can overwhelm receivers in the area, overloading them with the signal from the nearby unit. I've never heard of a cell phone (or any radio) causing an explosion like this, but I guess it is possible. PAT]
Ted Marshall <ted@blia.sharebase.com> (05/16/91)
I am wandering away from cellular and telecom in general, but I feel that someone needs to respond to this. Note: I am not an Airline pilot or in any way associated with an airline. However, I am a private pilot and am familiar with aeronautical radio navigation. In article <telecom11.361.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, ronnie@sos.com (Ron Schnell) writes: > [...] The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is > pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up > the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range > navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, > which can't be upset by FM interference. [...] This is just plain wrong! Loran-C and GPS (satellite) navigation are being used in air navigation, but, to my knowledge, mostly in smaller aircraft. GPS, in particular, cannot be used 24-hours/day because there are not yet enough satellites in place. Over-ocean operations do use other forms of navigation, including inertial navigation, but almost all domestic US enroute navigation is via VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range). Also, bad weather approaches into all major and many minor airports are via ILS (Instrument Landing System). Both VOR and the lateral directional portion of the ILS use the frequency range 108-118 MHz. Note that this is right above the FM broadcast band. Now, say that you are on an airliner shooting an ILS approach with an ILS frequency of 110.1. If you have an FM receiver on board with an IF frequency of 10.7 MHz (very common) and you tune it to 99.4 MHz, it may well leak an RF signal at 110.1. That may not be strong enough to interfere, but if it is, I would not like to be in the next seat as the pilot shoots an approach in a 200-foot overcast and 1/2 mile visibility. Bottom line: don't assume that that FM broadcast band radio you brought on board won't cause problems. Maybe it won't, but you're betting many lives on that. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer.
Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl.mil> (05/16/91)
"They don't *tell* you that anywhere"? That causes concern with reference to people who are new to that. I have still from time to time seen signs about "blasting area -- turn off two-way radio".
David Lemson <lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> (05/17/91)
reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: >> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal >> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested. > Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get > at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes? It is not written anywhere that I have seen in a lot of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems literature, and several people whose LIVES are personal communication (one of whom happens to be my dad.. :-) ) (Double grin on the above statement.. :-) ) have told me that they did not believe that there is any law against cellular use in aircraft. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
George Pell <georgep@vice.ico.tek.com> (05/18/91)
In article <telecom11.361.7@eecs.nwu.edu> ronnie@sos.com (Ron Schnell) writes: > The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is > different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and > Portable computers. There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular > phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50 > mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest > one. The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is > pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up > the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range > navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, > which can't be upset by FM interference. I usually ask the pilot if I > can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me. Although you are correct about cellular phones activating cells in a large area from the air, your comments about aircraft navigation is far off track. Use of electronic equipment in aircraft is regulated by the FAA, not by airline policy. Aircraft and Aircraft Navigation Systems are also regulated and specified by the FAA. You incorrectly assume that because satellite-based systems and loran are available that airliners automatically use them for navigation. This is not the case. In the real world of flying technological advances are slow to be adopted by the FAA. Navigational systems such as the ILS and VOR's, are the primary navigational systems in use today and were designed in the '40s. They are still required to be used for navigation today, and are easily upset by near field radiation effects. If you decide on your own that your calculator/radio/scanner/computer/ cellular phone will not interfere with the navigational systems onboard aircraft, you are putting your's and everyone else flying with you's lives in danger. Your actions are negligent, and possibly criminal. I hope to never fly in the same aircraft as you. In case you doubt that I know what I am talking about, I have been a pilot since 1985, and have owned my own aircraft since 1986. Your assumptions can kill. Think again. geo N29531