Just a side note amongst the stories of the tragedy.

The "banned use on board" cellphones were apparently used extensively on the 4 hijacked planes. Personal messages of sorrow and love were delivered, and the majority of what we know about what happened on board I assume came from these brave callers.

I only wish the lies we are constantly told about these phones interfering with aircraft operation were true, but all of the aircraft seemed to sadly uneffected by their use.

I hope the days of being lied to about this are over. I hope, as a nation, we will acknowlegde how useful they were here and allow their limited use on board during flight.

My understanding of the ban is not made by the FAA, it is mandated by the FCC. They do not interfere with the aircraft, but with the cell phone system.

Again, as I understand it, the system is designed so that a hand phone can "see" and "register" a limited number of towers at a time. When you get the phone in the air it can "see" and "register" with *many* more towers, causing problems with the capacity planning model of the cell phone system. There also may be issues with a cell being able to register with more than the designed number of towers.

skofarrell - that is correct. According to this article: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...347869,00.html

"The FAA has never outlawed cell-phone use in airplanes. But the agency supports the FCC ban "for reasons of potential interference," according to an FAA advisory. Despite the findings of the 1996 RTCA study, the FAA remains concerned about anecdotal evidence of cell-phone interference in flight records, says an FAA spokeswoman."

It does on to say that "There is money to be earned or lost by cell-phone companies and airlines if cell phones are used in-flight. "

It really is an issue much more complex than that and sadly, becuase most of the people telling you to turn off your phone do not understand the multiple reasons why you shouldn't use a cellphone, they just "fall back" on the interference reason.

There was an extensive discussion about mid-June 2001 of both the technical problems and the FAA/FCC issues in the United forum, but it was before the UA/AA forum troubles and I can't find it.

1.Cell phone and the cellular system are designed for terrestrial (ground based) use and REUSE of frequencies in very close quarters. At altitude planes see many cell towers and the system and phone get confused, calls can barely be made, disconnect, and the system below is massively overloaded by just a few phones doing it.
2. It is the FCC that prohibits the use of cell phone while in the air. All radio regulation have a prohibition exemption for emergencies. Hijacked planes probably qualify as an emergency.

3. If you recall from reports, they don't work very well, Ms. Olsen (AA77) had to call her husband back becuase they would get disconnected so quickly. Bad-hand offs, the airborne cellphone is a "hidden tranmitter" to much of the ground, and contant cycling between cells.
4. At least one of the "cell phone" conversations from the plane were actually using airphones. The fellow who called his mother in California from UA 93.

Additionally it has been pointed out that the hijackers were not using much of the navigational systems on the plane, and were probably flying totally VFR.

The cellular system is not designed for use at altitude (try using them from a high bluff or mountain top near a population center, they do the same thing), but the communications and quality of maintaining a call. Not just the RFI (radio frequency interference) issue, which is overused in this case but still a factor. Sadlt societies stance on RFI is that the radiating source is at fault, hence the cell phone is at fault. (Somewhat due to poor testing and the electronics lobby getting Part 15 and Part 68 J-type interference laws & policies passed).

Airphones are for planes, if you need to call, call. I do agree it is outrageous pricing, but, sorry to say, any griping about cellphones not being available in a plane is really just griping about price.

And of course, don't forget---they want you to use their phone$$$$$$$$$$

Then there is the other reason why we don't need cell phones to be used in the air. It would be simply obnoxious to have half the plane including all the folks in the front cabin yapping on the phone at the same time.

Yesterday, I was walking through St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC (it was more crowded than usual) and I see this guy sitting at one of the pews talking on his cell phone while others around him were praying in silence. In disbelief, I took four glances over to him and he finally walked out of the church to continue his conversation.

The best use of cell phones is for emergencies and extraordinary situations. If Tuesday's events don't qualify, I don't know what does.

The worst use of cell phones is loud conversations in public places (or while operating a vehicle) to call and remind someone to make 5 copies of the report for the meeting next week, or move the shovel from the back porch to garage.

For reasons explained above, cell phone use on planes can cause communication problems, not to mention be highly irritating to others. It is permissible to be out of touch for a few hours. Relax, and learn from this week's events what is truly important.

[This message has been edited by boa (edited 09-13-2001).]

All safety issues aside, personally I think the most annoying thing that could happen to me is some person sitting next to me yapping loudly for however long his or her battery would hold out for. Now this could cause air rage like never before

I happen to believe that cell phones have a very low probability of interfering with aircraft equipment. However, if there's even a 0.001% chance of an adverse effect, that means there could be some adverse effect roughly every three days (using the number I heard of 40,000 commercial flights per normal day of fight operations in the U.S.), statistically speaking.

That fact that several cell phones happened to have worked apparently without any adverse effects on the hijacked planes' equipment says virtually nothing about what the probability of a cell phone having an adverse effect on aircraft equipment.

UA 93 did indeed crash; cause, thus far, unknown.

NJDavid (and everyone else who thinks this topic is worth addressing):

I am stunned that with all that has happenned in the past few days that you have the incredible nerve to bring up "the lies" the airlines have told you about cell phones.

The country is mourning the most horrific tragedy in modern memory and your self-centered posturing is enough to make me sick.

Those of you complaining about cell phones, baggage restrictions, and mileage runs must lead such empty lives that you were not touched by what happenned on September 11.

I am equally disgusted that moderators on this board see fit to allow this type of conversation to continue.

Actually, I'm surprised that I haven't seen one of you Einsteins start a thread complaining about how you are going to cut your steak without a knife when you use your segment upgrades to 1st class in the future.

People are dead and you idiots are complaining about your these little inconveniences.

At 12:00 PM today the nation will be holding a moment of silence for the victims of this tragedy. During this silence, you should all bow your heads in shame and think more about the people that have experienced real loss this week, rather than your own petty unimportant problems.

If any of you have a soul, you will start a flyer talk donation thread, and you will all raise money to go to the victims of this disaster.

I can tell you I am not holding my breath for that to happen.

Some of ths stuff has a lot of relevance. Security will never be taken seriously over the long run unless credible actions are taken for believable reasons. Apparently pointless, foolish or unworkable measures put in place to make people feel good are a real danger.

The cell phone situation is a good example. The explanations for the ban given out most of the time just don't make sense. (I did find Unixguy's summary to be very helpful in understanding some real reasons for the ban.) That sort of thing inevitably leads to not taking other measures seriously.

Plastic knives, check-in restrictions and a lot of the other measures are also good examples. If people don't see the link between these measures and improving their security then, in the long run, they will hurt security not improve it. This stuff should be questioned.

New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone Use in Planes

In emergency situations like this week's attacks, of course, the debate seems trivial.

"It's one thing to talk about cell calls being dropped on the ground or even the disruption of a plane's communications," said Dale N. Hatfield, director of the telecommunications program at the University of Colorado. "It is quite another to imagine what those people were going through when they called their families."

http://www.newyorktimes.com/2001/09/...gy/14CELL.html

thruz1 Go back to grade school and leave your dad's computer alone. The people of this community are for the most part kind, generous, intelligent souls who have and will continue to do whatever they can to help the thousands effected by this crisis. If we choose to speculate and debate about security, inconvenience, the future of air travel, then that is how we cope with the devistation to something we all frequently do. Pontificating that airing these thoughts is bad is just inappropriate and wrong.

----

We have moderators now only because some of us seemed to be incapable of moderating ourselves!

PLEASE let's show some respect for one another, if not for each others ideas and comments! Thanks!