Can you hear me now?

March 14, 2006 10:09 AM

Safety of In-Flight Cell Phone Use Airlines are currently preparing to allow use of cell phones for in-flight calling. A Carnegie-Mellon study raises interesting questions about potential interference with critical avionics.
posted by docpops (43 comments total)

I thought the most surprising, albeit incidental finding was that, on average, three to four calls are made surreptitiously on many flights already.
posted by docpops at 10:10 AM on March 14, 2006

Exactly. Just because it isn't allowed doesn't mean that lots of people don't already leave their phones on (in vibrate mode) and make a quick bathroom trip when they feel a call coming in. And what about all those people who have laptops with built-in, always-on wifi cards? That's at least 40% of laptops in use today.
posted by clevershark at 10:14 AM on March 14, 2006

Great, just what we need: another place for people to yap on their phones with no regard to those around them.
posted by DakotaPaul at 10:21 AM on March 14, 2006

Yeah, it seems shockingly short-sighted to allow this, safety issues aside. It seems like everythig I've read supports a viewpoint of near-rabid opposition to this, even from frequent travelers.
posted by docpops at 10:24 AM on March 14, 2006

This is just a bid by the noise-canceling headphone industry.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:26 AM on March 14, 2006

Or a bid to get me to pay more money for a "luxury" flight that's cellphone-free (which I would, shamefully enough).
posted by Prospero at 10:32 AM on March 14, 2006

How about they make two areas for cell phone calls during flights? The right wing and the left wing. You can see the movie "Gone with the Wind" while you're out there too.
posted by SirOmega at 10:36 AM on March 14, 2006

Let's roll!
posted by NationalKato at 10:48 AM on March 14, 2006

I wonder, did they factor in the danger of being punched in the face?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2006

A former professor claimed that it was telecoms themselves that pushed for a cell phone ban, but not on safety grounds -- tracking and handing-off a phone going 500mph through cells of a few square miles is incredibly disruptive.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:52 AM on March 14, 2006

"Dude, What's up? Guess where I am? No, guess. C'mon man, guess. Nope. Nope. Nope. No, guess again. Nope. Okay, I'll tell ya. I'M ON AN AIRPLANE DUDE! Sweet. I'm going to Mexico, man. Okay, I gotta go. I gotta call Slappy! LATERS!"
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2006

Yes I'm interested in the technological side of this. Will there be some sort of repeaters made available on planes? I know that through most of the US, at 30,000 feet my reception is non-existant.
posted by geoff. at 11:00 AM on March 14, 2006

Oh God please no. There goes my sole place to hide from some dude's phone playing "My Humps" at top volume every twenty minutes.
posted by kalimac at 11:01 AM on March 14, 2006

This reminds me other crappy issues with cell phones. I was in Istanbul last year riding the bus. All of the larger buses I rode had no cell phone use icons. When I asked a local (who happened to be an electrical engineer) why this was, he said it was for safety reasons. I laughed out loud at the thought. He thought picking up my phone would interfere with the control system of the bus. The bus had a driver but apparently the controls somehow could be messed up by a GSM cell phone. It was really funny to me until I realized that he was serious and as an engineer trained in Turkey, he seemed to think this was alright failure mode for a bus. Why in the hell would anyone design a bus (for carrying people) that could have interference from a cell phone? It's absolutely stupid. People carry phones, phones ring without user interaction. While I have my doubts about safety, the people I rode with didn't have any doubts. I never saw anyone using a cell phone on the bus. Scare tactic for making people polite? I'm not sure. If it's really true someone really should fire the people that made the bus I was riding.

At the same time, it's clear that planes carry people. It's also clear that cell phones come with most people that fly. If a cell phone can cause issues with the plane, we have bigger issues than being annoying. Banning cell phones isn't going to stop someone from screwing up the plane either on accident or on purpose. You'd have to ban everything that could generate electrical interference.

Equipment should be robust, it should fail in graceful ways that don't result in planes (or buses) crashing or getting lost. Clearly something should be done if that's an issue.

If it's about being annoying, create a space and ask people to use their phones in that space. People already have laptops and skype (via Lufthansa wifi) on planes. Create a place for them *if someone has an issue* or everyone gets to fight a losing battle.
posted by ioerror at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2006

kato ftw
posted by prostyle at 11:13 AM on March 14, 2006

Great, just what we need: another place for people to yap on their phones with no regard to those around them.

I love pissing those people off. The other day, there was a guy in line in front of me at 7-11. The cashier was trying to maintain the guy's attention so he could efficiently complete the transaction (which I fully supported). But the phone-guy couldn't pull it off... couldn't babble on and on AND be a polite customer at the same time. So I decide to belt out "I Will Always Love You" (or whatever it's called) all Whitney Houston-style just so I wouldn't have to listen to that dildo's "hardcore businessman" (look how important I am) bullshit anymore. The cashier found it amusing, thankfully.
posted by Witty at 11:17 AM on March 14, 2006

Does that mean I'll be able to buy a cell phone jammer from SkyMall soon?
posted by clearlynuts at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2006

clearlynuts, it'd be like the Knee Defender for your ears.
posted by Roger Dodger at 11:38 AM on March 14, 2006

You can buy jammers from offshore companies already. Not that I would know anyone who would do such a thing, or ask them to bring it with them when we go to the movies.
posted by phearlez at 11:44 AM on March 14, 2006

Witty, at the video store recently one of the cashiers said "I can help the next person in line ... (sees that that person, the guy in front of me, is talking on the phone) ... who's NOT on a cellphone." The guy goes to the counter anyway and the cashier completely ignores him and waves me over. I check out and the guy keeps trying to get the cashier's attention and the cashier keeps waving other people up until the fool gets off the phone.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:47 AM on March 14, 2006

Planes tend to be noisy so actually talking -- even if safe -- on the phone is problematic. Hence, the obnoxious guy on the phone will need to talk louder and repeat himself to compete with noise.

Texting/mobile internet would be nice -- to see how delayed the connection at DFW would be etc.

I've never understood why there couldn't be some sort of shielding of the sensitive equipment. Considering the quality of the PA system, I hope there's more engineering invovled in the plane's avionics.

But I still don't believe that playing my iPod during take off and landing would be problematic. That's just bullshit.
posted by birdherder at 11:58 AM on March 14, 2006

There goes my sole place to hide from some dude's phone playing "My Humps" at top volume every twenty minutes.

But I'm playing it ironically! There's a difference!

tracking and handing-off a phone going 500mph through cells of a few square miles is incredibly disruptive

Right, which is why airlines are going to install in-flight cell stations that connect with satellites. That's why this has suddenly become relevant again.
posted by dhartung at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2006

Will there be some sort of repeaters made available on planes?

What the airlines do is install a mobile base station in the aircraft with either a satellite link to the rest of the network. This also has the advantage that the phones will be trasmitting at low power because the reception will be very good, minimising the possibility of interference with control systems...

Another article with more details
posted by nielm at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2006

Witty you are a genius. And Whitney no less. Well played.
posted by uni verse at 12:10 PM on March 14, 2006

Right, which is why airlines are going to install in-flight cell stations that connect with satellites. That's why this has suddenly become relevant again.

Thanks for the link. I'm not totally convinced about the "airlines are going to" part, though -- that article only asserts that federal regulators would allow it, and as nielm's link examines, would probably involve a new set of operators running the same old satellite phone business (huge network launch costs and not enough users).
posted by eddydamascene at 12:34 PM on March 14, 2006

I've never understood why there couldn't be some sort of shielding of the sensitive equipment.

It's worth remembering that a large percentage of the airplane fleet in service now was originally manufactured before cellphone were in common use so the need for shielding would not have been seen.

I'm similarly inclined to think it's mostly BS but retrofitting shielding to a lot of this equipment would be non-trivial and expensive. Expensive things are not well-liked in our constantly struggling airline industry...
posted by phearlez at 12:35 PM on March 14, 2006

I think that the talking would be problematic because of the noise and politeness issues, however it would be great to be able to SMS. "Still on runway... Delayed 2 hours... will SMS when I touch down"
Would have saved me a hell of a lot of time waiting at the terminal for my family when flights are delayed.
posted by TheFeatheredMullet at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2006

I've never understood why there couldn't be some sort of shielding of the sensitive equipment.

Shielding would just create another source of interference (the thing you'd want to protect is the GPS receiver, which is in constant communication with multiple satellites).
posted by eddydamascene at 12:47 PM on March 14, 2006

Okay, I used to work as an radio engineer with a telco, and now work as an EMC engineer in aviation, so some comments:

1. Yes it's annoying for the telcos, because at that height you light up a stack of different cells which artificially congests the network.

2. "I've never understood why there couldn't be some sort of shielding of the sensitive equipment" There is. The problem is that some of those bits of gear are sensitive receivers, if you stop them receiving they don't do their job. In particular if out-of-band emissions from your cell phone interfer with the ILS at landing, it makes things hard for the pilot. Combine that with bad weather or some other distraction and it can get dangerous. Same with the comms radios, sure a plane can land without comms, but combine a burst of static with an urgent call from ATC and it can be dangerous.

3. But I still don't believe that playing my iPod during take off and landing would be problematic. That's just bullshit. Bet your life on it?
posted by markr at 12:48 PM on March 14, 2006

But I still don't believe that playing my iPod during take off and landing would be problematic.

I believe that's so if the plane crashes you can hear the cabin crew telling you to get the hell out of there. The same way you're not supposed to drive with headphones on (well, without the cabin crew in that case).
posted by GuyZero at 12:58 PM on March 14, 2006

Bet your life on it

Sorry, that was lame. Look, your ipod is probably fine, particularly if it's one of the solid state ones. But you really can't be sure. Just turn it off for take off and landing.
posted by markr at 1:01 PM on March 14, 2006

Everyone likes to complain about everyone else's phone habits, but how many people here don't carry a mobile phone on a daily basis?
posted by clevershark at 1:17 PM on March 14, 2006

another place for people to yap on their phones with no regard to those around them.

People already yap at their seatmates for hours on end with no regard for those around them. At least cell phone batteries eventually run out of juice.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:31 PM on March 14, 2006

You know, I've flown four times now with an iPod on, and no one ever tells me to turn it off. Despite that I've got the distinctive iPod earbuds sitting in my ears. I guess either they assume I turned it off like a good sheep, or they really just don't give a flying fart.

Yeah, I get the "turn off all electronic devices' message that gets automatically played, or stated by the attendants - but for cryin' out loud, they never said that about Walkmen, or Discmen. And they're not saying it about my iPod either.

*drags back on topic*

Being able to SMS on the plane would rock. Nothing sucks more than having to beg my roommate to pick me up at 1am from Dulles or National because my plane was delayed on the runway in San Diego, and I couldn't A. Call or B. Get off the plane to call her.
posted by FritoKAL at 2:01 PM on March 14, 2006

Or C. give her your flight number so she could find out what time you were arriving. Oh wait, you could do that.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:08 PM on March 14, 2006

Everyone likes to complain about everyone else's phone habits, but how many people here don't carry a mobile phone on a daily basis?

Don't have one. Don't want one.
posted by Zendogg at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2006

Everyone likes to complain about everyone else's phone habits, but how many people here don't carry a mobile phone on a daily basis?

Me. I don't own one. No "personal stereo" either. But it is possible to use such things without being an annoying fuck. You just don't see it often enough.

If phones are going to be allowed on flights, they should be restricted (mechanically, not just by a rule you can try to break or negotiate about) to two narrow bands of time, one just after take-off (to let people know about delayed starts and rescheduled landings) and one an hour before landing (to remind people that you're coming). Two ten-minute periods to get the necessary stuff out of the way. Otherwise, the flight crew should be able to disable phones except for an emergencies-only setting that would let you make or receive a call but charge you a huge fee unless you could prove an actual emergency.

Maybe there should be exceptions for short-hop business flights packed with business yappers on their way to meetings, but passengers on long-haul flights should not be subjected to non-stop cell yacking.
posted by pracowity at 3:25 PM on March 14, 2006

No hyphen!
posted by allen.spaulding at 4:22 PM on March 14, 2006

No context! Say where!
posted by pracowity at 12:05 AM on March 15, 2006

But I still don't believe that playing my iPod during take off and landing would be problematic.

I believe that's so if the plane crashes you can hear the cabin crew telling you to get the hell out of there. The same way you're not supposed to drive with headphones on (well, without the cabin crew in that case).

GuyZero is correct. I have a friend who studies safety issues for the airline industry and this is the primary reason for the 10,000 foot rule, not to mention not having a flying laptop projectile if you have an aborted takeoff. Even if all cellphones and electronic devices were all of a sudden legal to use on planes, they would likely never be allowed during take-off and landing.
Whether that is enforced or not is another question, of course.
posted by xetere at 4:28 AM on March 15, 2006

Gee, IEEE Spectrum (whatever your real name is), great job pointing out to the terrists how to attack our infrastructures.

Seriously, if there's a risk to the equipment on planes from equipment that meets FCC regulations and has a power output somewhere in the milliwatt range, how much more risk is there from a device constructed specifically to interfere with the equipment?
posted by jepler at 6:41 AM on March 15, 2006

I check out and the guy keeps trying to get the cashier's attention and the cashier keeps waving other people up until the fool gets off the phone.

That cashier should get an award.
posted by Witty at 8:26 AM on March 15, 2006

Everyone likes to complain about everyone else's phone habits, but how many people here don't carry a mobile phone on a daily basis?

I do carry mine on a daily basis -- pretty much all the time when I'm out of the house. But, when it's not on vibrate, my ringer is a quiet bird song that I'm hoping is not intrusive or annoying to others. If I get a call at work or any public place, I take the call outside or as far away from others as possible (I don't want them listening to my conversation, anyway). I never use it in the car, but if I get a call and I think I really need to answer it, I pull over.
posted by DakotaPaul at 10:03 AM on March 15, 2006