Mayhap, but on 9/11/01 the cell phones in the planes worked just fine.
Ah, I should have read Musicat’s reply less quickly.
It’s a lie I hope they keep on telling. First because I will quit my job and become a hermit if I am forced to travel in a pressurised metal shlongg at ungodly altitudes listening to everyone talk about their hemorrhoids and business deals. And second because we already have the foaming-at-mouth pit threads about how it’s a constitutional right to take cell calls in movie theatres, by gum, and cells in planes means Revenge of the Cellphone Pit Threads, which is how it’s now a constitutional right to take cell calls en route.
Actually, that 2nd one would probably be really entertaining but it still doesn’t change the fact that I will simply quit travelling by air if cells are allowed during flight. I also someone like my father, who travels 2 days of every week, would be extremely upset at that type of change. Frequent business travellers usually have a rhythm and routine.
And here’s a reference to the Federal Aviation Regulations regarding the use of portable electronic devices (because I’m a stickler for these things, and I was just forced into studying this stuff to get my private pilot certificate):
In other words, the regulation prohibits use of devices which interfere with aircraft systems, and then leaves it up to the carrier to determine which devices those are. I think that in the absence of proof that cell phones don’t interfere with navigational equipment and whatnot, that the airlines would certainly want to cover their asses.
Check out this study (under the “Background” section, below the two small lists) for examples of instances when “PEDs” were thought to have caused interference.
I think the way that regulation is worded, an airline would actually have to show that a cell phone doesn’t interfere before it could allow them. The airline can’t just decide that cell phones are ok no more than it can decide that a portable NDB transmitter is ok. They would have to show that they had taken reasonable steps to determine that all cell phones are not capable of interfering with the aircraft’s navigation and communication equipment.
What we in fact know, is that cell phones can interfere with communication equipment. They make that “dit dit dit” interference when talking to a cell tower. I have heard this through the intercom of the aircraft I fly and it can be distracting, particularly in the middle of an instrument approach when radio communication and cockpit workload is high.
Based on that, any determination an airline made that a cell phone does not interfere with navigation or communication equipment would be incorrect. Therefore the rule prohibiting cell phone use is coming directly from the FAA and the airline should not be blamed in anyway for any percieved inconvenience or misleading statements.
From post #2 of this thread:
This is an important point. If there were any real evidence that these devices actually cause problems, it would be criminally irresponsible simply to ask that they be turned off - it would instead be necessary to confiscate all of them, and to carefully inspect and verify that this had been done.
See Cecil’s column: Why aren’t you supposed to use a radio receiver on an airliner? from 1987. He’s talking transistor radios, there weren’t cellphones back then (or they were just in developmental and extremely expensive stage). My guess is that technology has changed, both for the airplane instruments and the passenger toys.
However, FAA regulations don’t change quickly: note that we’re still subjected to a lecture on how to use a seat-belt, even though they’re mandatory in cars now. Is there seriously anyone on the plane who needs to be told how to fasten a seat-belt? My point is, once a regulation is in place, it’s way difficult to undo it. Governmental inertia is a powerful, powerful, force.
Not to detract from your broader, valid point, but these days, there might be quite a few people who wouldn’t know how to fasten an aeroplane seat belt. Given the number of seats on a plane, and the number of flights the average person takes in a lifetime, you can safely assume there are a few first time fliers on each flight. Then there will be people (especially young ones) who are only familiar with spring-loaded retractable automotive lap-sash belts, and not the older style lap only manually-adjusted ones. Even the average kid who sits in the centre of the rear seat of a car that has a manual lap belt probably has had it set by a parent and is the only person who ever uses it, so he just clicks it in and is done. On a plane though, the last person might have been an obese businessman or a waif of a child, so adjustment is needed. I think the seatbelt announcement probably has a place, but then again, all airline announcements remind me of that Billy Connolly routine: “We’re on fire, upside down, and hurtling towards the Atlantic Ocean, but I’m alright! I’ve got my seat belt on!”
I used to be skeptical about cell phones and avionics. However, when I went to work for NASA, I met the guy (worked in the same branch) who is the primary investigator regarding avionic radio interference, and I’ve personally seen his research. There is truth to cell phone and wireless computer network interference, but it won’t make the plane crash. It does mess mess with the systems used for instrument approach finals, particularly GPS based systems. The older systems work in other RF bands, and aren’t susceptible, and still get the job done.
Of course, the airlines will tell you that using any of that stuff will cause a nuclear holocaust just to make you more compliant. Swatting mosquitoes with a sledgehammer, and all…
Laden?
Yes, since they’re not exactly like the ones in cars. And people like my Mom need to be reminded of how the one in my car works, anyway… :smack: I mean, it’s not like, being the same make and model as Lilbro’s car, they have identical seat belts, ei?
One of my college courses was “Intro to Electronics”. A friend who was majoring in Electronic Engineering identified it as “Into my ass, this covers my three yearlong Analogic classes! What do you freaks call advanced?” Anyway, one of the subjects was electronic noise; its types, causes, how to solve it. When I went to review the exam, the professor asked “these examples, they’re real, aren’t they? I’d be real surprised if anything this complicated was invented” Yep.
-
A turnstile that on Sunday mornings I could use only for 45rpms. If I set it at 33, instead of the record I’d get the neighbor who was a ham radio aficionado (he owns his own commercial station now).
-
A radio/tape player that would occasionally spout words that sounded like conversations over radio, for about a minute. A random conversation “… yeah, Sarge owes me like 500 for that bet, but I think the Captain won more…” identified the radio as most likely to be the police station on the same block, rather than taxis. Patience determined that the words came up when
- I was listening to tapes,
- the tape was exactly in the middle,
- the radio had been left on RAC105FM.
I don’t remember what the other examples were, but probably you could have taken 100 radios of the same model, placed them in the same spot, and not gotten that particular interference.
It’s a complicated thing, noise. And when I’m at the most complicated parts of a trip at a height equivalent to several mountains, I’d rather not play with the pilot’s toys, eeeh?