The Real Reasons Phones Are Kept Off Planes 642
jcatcw writes "Mike Elgan argues that the the real reason that cell phones calls are not allowed is fear of crowd control problems if calls are allowed during flight. Also, the airlines like keeping passengers ignorant about ground conditions. The two public reasons, interference with other systems, could easily be tested, but neither the FAA nor the FCC manage to do such testing."
funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily Tested? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations on coming up with the exact opposite meaning to the one that the statement obviously is supposed to convey.
I'm fine with the ban (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be ok with the cellphone/no cellphone section division, though. That would be cool. Or maybe a special room for people talking on the phone. That way, I could use it without bothering anyone else if I absolutely have to make a call.
And on Page 2, the real real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
however:
you know, I'd rather the government (of whichever country) err on the side of caution, actually: "Well, we can't tell whether cellphones might cause crashes, so we'll just allow them and see what happens"?
Bottom line for me: people are annoying with cellphones. Now imagine sitting next to the guy talking shite for all 12 hours of a long haul flight. I'd hijack the plane just to shut him up. Keep the ban, people can surely live without cellphones for the duration of a flight... surely?
Billions and billions (Score:5, Insightful)
What the author completely fails to address is the noise that ensues if you have ten businesspeople in first class all "doing business" on a cell phone at the same time. Are they supposed to wander the aisles and pace as they talk? Or merely talk over one another in increasingly loud voices?
There's something about a long tube that seems to suggest to people that maybe conversation should be kept to a minimum. Not only planes, but buses and subways and trains too. In my experience riding public transit, most people do not chatter on their phones endlessly. In part, I think, because there's an unconscious realization that the guy standing 6 inches away (that you can't move away from) does not want or need to hear your prattle.
Cell hopping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crowd control (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:1, Insightful)
How is this such a hard concept to grasp? It would be nice, though, if the FCC or FAA released a statement along those lines, but it might give them some unwanted feedback... I mean, who's going to admit that the real reason is because people, on the whole, are inconsiderate turds?
Re:doesn't matter, ban stupid internet people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Next
ELMER (Score:1, Insightful)
Not easily tested at all (Score:5, Insightful)
And testing individual phones isn't sufficient. What happens when 100 people all use their phones at the same time.
Re:Billions and billions (Score:5, Insightful)
As for billions in lost productivity (that number sounds rather high to me) because of people flying, big freakin' deal. Businesses have existed for thousands of years without cell phones, a few hours disconnected here and there won't put our economy into a recession.
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this fear the web thing is a bit over-stated on your part, considering some planes are going to begin having internet access, which short of shoots down the entire argument of this guy. There is far more information available via the internet then in any phone call. I think the real reason is they do not want to have any people chattering away and people complaining about them talking too loudly.
As for your terrorists comment, you simply ignore what the author is trying to say. He is saying this lack of wireless devices on airplanes is bullshit, because if they would take down planes, terrorists would have tested every device possible to try to interfere with equipment and see if you cannot bring a plane to the ground. You really should spend less time at Digg.
Re:Cell hopping? (Score:3, Insightful)
9-11? (Score:1, Insightful)
I seem to remember reports that the passengers used them to learn of the other attacks, and chose to resist, rather than letting the terrorists hit a 3rd target.
probably ineffective anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case, it'd be torches and pitchforks for the cellcos if they allow it and then it sucks.
Re:The Real Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The wiring on board is all exceptionally thin and shielded poorly - per spec, and on a great deal of commercial planes the wiring has significant corrosion.
An industry wide test for interference factors may not indicate a great deal of problems with cell phones, but it would end up resulting in the requirement for replacing the wiring in a great deal of airplanes, at an impressive cost - because planes would have to be grounded (losing revenue from air travel), gutted, re-wired, and re-certified.
If they thought it was one or two planes, the airlines might suck up the cost (assuming crowd control and airphone revenue were not factors), but we're talking hundreds of planes, if not thousands.
The fear of having hundreds of planes grounded in order to allow cell phones is the primary factor pushing against it. Everything else is window dressing.
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that we live in a global world; how do you certify that a Chinese passenger's Chinese cell phone doesn't interfere with a Russian plane's avionics flying into the US? Getting everyone on the planet to agree to these things is a pretty impressive challenge.
The REAL reason phones aren't allowed on planes... (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who regularly flies across the Atlantic, I thank them.
Re:Author is an idiot; the carrier reason is valid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Author is an idiot; the carrier reason is valid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Old airbus models had severe interference problems from old pre-GSM cellular network phones. That has been confirmed many times. I have seen that myself in the early 90-es.
2. No test has ever proven any GSM phone to interfere with plane equipment (do not care about the US ragtag of network spagetty).
3. A modern GSM base station (and EU style 3G node B) is small enough to be put on a plane. If there is a local BTS it can enforce power control criteria on any phone which it camps on. Further to this, there is at least one reject code which will shutdown and lock up a phone solid with its radio off (only really old Samsungs violate the spec and reboot, rest follows it). So having phone support and local kit on the planes is actually beneficial as it allows airlines to ensure that "interfering" mobiles are powered down to their lowest possible transmit power or are outright off.
4. The commercial reason for not having mobiles on planes is easily resolved once again by putting basestations and the airline entering into a special roaming agreement with an operator. Plenty of Timbuktu GSM operators to do so, some are actively looking into entering these partnerships. Once again - the US ragtag of cellular non-standard networks is the loser. The airline skims a portion of an outright exorbitant roaming fee and everyone is a happy camper. There is a number of airlines that already have the kit in place and/or are testing it. There are also more than one company producing these as well.
So it all boils down to crowd control and to the airline ensuring that it does not end up on the receiving end of a lot of angry customers who have just received a 90$+ phone bill for a 10 minute call from the inlaw while on the plane.
This and the fear of "organised terrorists". Not that it is possible as the current generation of kit will run any voice channels all the way to the ground and back for an in-plane call. As a result anyone trying to organise a "terrorist attack" will simply fail as the plane will run out of channels to the ground right away. This is also the reason why the producers of this type of kit keep targeting the plane market and not the much more lucrative cruise ship and ferry market. A cruise ship is not subject to stupid FAA restrictions, but it has a disproportionately large proportion of local calls (where are you, I am in bar on level 7, ok, I am on level 3).
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:2, Insightful)
j/k i just really can't stand people who say that you can't make phone calls as if that even supports their ridiculous argument.
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)
Both Boeing and Eurobus have test rigs of the actual aviation equipment in their development sites (seen on Discovery channel). It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to wave a mobile phone around to see what equipment it interferes with.
Re:funny, most inseatphones are not active. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Fears aside, I actually like not having cell phones in a plane. For one, I hate phones. Two, I hate people who spend their whole life on a phone. Three, flights are long and boring, perfect for a nice little nap. If a dozen powersuit assholes are having a phone conference in a plane, I'll be turning into a spontaneous terrorist. I don't care if I have to beat them to death with a pillow, whatever it takes to shut them up. It's already enough of a nuisance that people treat coffee shops like their own personal office these days... a guy can't have a frickin' macchiato and enjoy a book anymore with these loud pompous market-slaves invading every quiet space on this bubble.
Re:What I want... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you have to figure out how many theatres will pays the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars you'll have to charge. I'd imagine the number [of theatres] isn't very large. (IOW, I think you seriously underestimate the difficulty of installing and maintaining Farady cages.)
Sure - if the one with the cages is showing the movie I want to see.
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:2, Insightful)
Just saying...
Re:funny, most inseatphones are not active. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty easy to determine that your navigation equipment may be unreliable when it's lightning out. Not so much when someone is fiddling with their electronic device.
Re:Mythbusters already did it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Planes are not "safe" or "unsafe"; there's a contunuum of risk, the risk is never zero, and different people will tolerate different levels of risk. The regulators have the job of mediating between those different tolerances, presumably taking a steer from the respective governments and certainly taking a steer from international treaties particularly those relating to ICAO.
The upshot is that apparently the FAA considers the risk of uncontrolled cellphone use too high, but that the ban on the use brings that risk down to a tolerable level. The fact that the occasional phone will be left on is factored into that risk.
Look at the reasons the article gave for banning phones: