The scientific method says that you make observations, create a hypothesis and then test your theory. You have observed something, created a belief and then failed to perform any tests. That is an unreasonable conclusion based on the real world observable data. I noticed you failed to post your own list of air crashes caused by cell phone interference.


You have evidence that I disregard one rule as a private citizen that is senseless and idiotic. That rule is disregarded my millions of others each and every day, 365 days a year, with absolutely no documented air crashes, no documented evidence of landing at the wrong airport due to "navigational interference", no documented evidence of any death or injury related to their use, no documented evidence of any security concern due to their being allowed in flight.

What you do not have is any evidence, other than your wild assumptions, that my personal activities carry over to my professional activities.



This Federally licensed aircraft mechanic does know better than you on this. You may understand how to fly, but you don't know how to fix or maintain or test these systems. Diagnostic self tests that can be done from the cockpit are always high level tests, they are not the end all be all of testing nor do they bring you to the actual root cause of any errors.


Well then, we should ban all sorts of items for which there is no evidence or proof that they cause any problems. According to you they may lead to an accident, so they should be banned. Where would you like to start? Point and shoot cameras? Many of them have bluetooth capabilities today. Laser pointers? They broadcast a focused beam of coherent light, they might cause a crash. There are many many examples of consumer products that have no history of causing air crashes, why not ban all of them as well?

Interference can occur, the point is that you have no evidence of what is causing it. Maybe its a solar flare? Maybe its electrical activity in the atmosphere? Lightning is only lightning once it is discharged with a flash, there is significant electrical build up in the atmosphere all the time.

The problem you have is fairly common, you are confusing correlation with causation. It would be just as easy to make the connection that every single commercial air crash has had at least one pilot on board. There is clear correlation between the presence of pilots and air crashes. But that does not mean that pilots cause crashes, just that they are always present. That is all you have, correlation, but no proof of causation.

A steady stream of incorrect and unsubstantiated reports does not prove causation.


Really? Mythbusters? They are your scientific evidence? What's next? A link to Wikipedia?


Please, list the air crashes caused by your assumed correlation. It should be easy, you seem fairly well wedded to your position.



Underwear is not required in flight either. And, just as with cell phone use, underwear has not been proven to be related to any air crashes either. Should we also ban underwear?

Methinks it may be time to stop, as they say on some message boards, feeding the troll

The question then would be, Which do you see as the troll?

The one who's getting a kick out of running both of us around in circular arguments

How would you be able to hear anything over the noise from the 10 cell phone calls around you?

More importantly, why should the people around you be forced to listen to your business/meetings/training?

Having to hear other passengers conversations is annoying enough. When we hear only one side of a conversation we try to figure out what the other person said. Have you ever realized that when someone is on the phone near you its very hard to keep concentrated? Well, thats why. A Cornell University study calls it "halfalogues". I don't remember where I found it, but a simple web search should turn up the article.

I'm more concerned about the ambient noise of the plane engines than I am about other conversations. Have you ever worked in an office? There can be dozens of conversations going on simultaneously - most business people just get used to it.

I don't know how to answer this one. My phone conversation will be only one of many conversations happening on the plane. Why single out my phone conversation as the only problem? What about the couple next to you, or the screaming baby across the aisle?

It's public transportation, and there is no expectation of peace and quiet on the plane. If the phone helps me get two hours of work done while traveling, that's 2 hours I won't have to make up once I get to my destination.

Yes, I spent many years working in noisy environments - offices, ICU's, ER's.

Many of them "just get used to it" by getting louder and louder and louder.

Because 2 people sitting next to each other almost always speak more softly than someone shouting into their cell phone - just listen to the noise level rise after the "cell phones may be turned on" announcement as the plane taxies in to the gate and suddenly half the people are shouting into their cell phones.

As to the silly "screaming baby" arguement: business people outnumber babies on planes by about 100 to 1.

EXACTLY! It's public transportation not a private office! Your work problem should not be inflicted on those around you.

I agree, as a passenger I do not want to be disturbed by the person next to me talking on their cell phone, no matter how important they think their call is. It was bad enough when the airlines had Airphones at the seats, more than one time I had to put up with a businessman on the phone to the point I stopped reading my book and just stared at him and listened to every word of his conversation. He got the message real soon and ended the call.

There is a simple reason why people talk louder when using their cell phones over regular phones.

All wired phones have side tone, that�s when you hear your own voice in the headset part of the phone receiver, so the louder you talk, the louder your voice is in your ear so the natural tendency is to talk in a normal voice.

Cell phones do not have side tone, why the manufactures never put this feature in is beyond me, so the talker does not hear how loud they are talking, so the tendency is to talk louder.

Mr. Elliott

It is not about proving that interference does occur. Unless you prove that inteference won't occur, operation of the item is banned.

Yes, which would require formal testing of each model of cell phone on each model of aircraft. Expensive, and not likely to happen.

Not true. WiFi is allowed on equipped flights, and they most certainly didn't formally test every wifi-enabled device on every model of aircraft.

Yes true. IEEE 802.11 is pretty easy to quantify compared to the array of cell handsets out there, some with bluetooth, some with built in FM receivers, etc. It would be nice if we could get an AirCell rep on here as a 'guest speaker' ? They could give an idea of the certification they had to go through to get WiFi allowed in aircraft. It was worth spending money to obtain certification because obviously, GoGo Inflight is a profit making enterprise both for AirCell and the airlines that install it. Who is going to pay to certify cell phones ? Whoever profits from it. Who is that ? Oh, wait....

Just thought of *one* way. Airlines could install a small, very low power cellular base station aboard each aircraft, then charge per minute airtime charges. Do that, and I can see handsets being allowed in short order.

How are hundreds of different laptops, tablets, and smartphones, with and without bluetooth and/or GSM capabilities, with varying antenna characteristics and 802.11 substandards, easier to quantify than cell phones? I can believe there are more cell phone models out there, but it still seems like you're talking about many thousands of possible combinations either way.

You are not allowed to operate bluetooth on board aircraft, the 801.11 standards all address effective radiated power so antenna differences are irrelevant unless you are operating under specific FCC licensing to allow above standard power (which laptops don't), laptops do not have built in FM receivers with local oscillators which may cause erratic loss of ILS glideslope indication, the list of difference goes on and on...

The laws boil down to "if not specifically allowed, it's forbidden" when it comes to RF emissions on aircraft. To be allowed requires expensive certification testing, and it's not worth it without a financial incentive to the airlines.