Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21  
    Now, in that I can see some legitimacy. But doesn't serving alcohol fall under the same umbrella?
  2.    #22  
    It would if became a constant issue. I fly a lot. Often times not weekly, but with times I do....but usually a couple times a month. I cannot recall a single instance in the last 2 1/2 years where I have seen an issue with a drunk passenger. Plus they can stop serving if they think there might be a probably developing.
  3. #23  
    Here is, I believe, the crux of the issue. We don't yet know if annoyances caused by cell phone use will become a constant issue. And, even if we did, as with alcohol abuse, the individual carriers can police it.

    That's just my opinion. As you might note, one of my pet peeves is the over-regulation of personal behavior. While I see the possibility for abuse, I also see that in-flight communications can be very beneficial.
  4. #24  
    Wait? You want to start enforcing the overhead rules? It'll never happen. Too many folks would whine about having to put smaller bags at their feet, holding their coats until all the luggage has been put in the bins, and ::GASP:: being kept to 1 roller bag and one personal bag (and, folks, a purse DOES count as a personal item).
    Former: Visor, Prism, VisorPhone, Treo 270,Treo 650, Centro Now: Pre
  5. #25  
    I must say this is good news technically. As a software/electrical/aerospace engineer the idea that a cell phone could interfere with a plane's electronics was not only wrong, it insulted my intelligence. I always wanted to say "if this plane can be taken down by a cellphone, I want off now" or "perhaps the several thousand people using a cellphone within a mile of the airport should be made aware they are going to kill us all". By the way, I have had a hard time getting a signal in the air, except when taking off or landing (not that I haven't listened to the flight crew when they told me to turn my potentially lethal device off
  6. #26  
    using a cell phone on an airline flight is a long ways away... I like GSXRpilot have a hard time picking up a signal. You can get an ocasionnal SMS but that is about it. At least that is the case here on the west coast.

    Older analog and TDMA phones seem to work better... and the 850 MHZ phones have a longer operating range but worse penetration.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtswerg
    Wait? You want to start enforcing the overhead rules? It'll never happen. Too many folks would whine about having to put smaller bags at their feet, holding their coats until all the luggage has been put in the bins, and ::GASP:: being kept to 1 roller bag and one personal bag (and, folks, a purse DOES count as a personal item).
    OH, the horror of it all!
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    using a cell phone on an airline flight is a long ways away... I like GSXRpilot have a hard time picking up a signal. You can get an ocasionnal SMS but that is about it. At least that is the case here on the west coast.

    Older analog and TDMA phones seem to work better... and the 850 MHZ phones have a longer operating range but worse penetration.
    You missed the part about the picocell.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Here is, I believe, the crux of the issue. We don't yet know if annoyances caused by cell phone use will become a constant issue. And, even if we did, as with alcohol abuse, the individual carriers can police it.

    That's just my opinion. As you might note, one of my pet peeves is the over-regulation of personal behavior. While I see the possibility for abuse, I also see that in-flight communications can be very beneficial.

    As someone who does abit of traveling, it would quickly become annoying - at least in an airport lounge you can walk away to a quieter spot, but on a plane you're stuck.

    I do think it will be an airline decison - based on what they percieve as the impact on their customers and the cost f adding the equipment to provide service - my quess is that link with a ground station and repeater will be needed; which means you may not see too much of it unless the airlines get paid to acrry the gear; much like airfones. A few extra pounds is a lot of money. In addition, they'd need to deal with GSM and CDMA phones, meaning extra gear; plus the "I can't connect" whining; my guess it is won't be worth it.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by jcoffey
    As someone who does abit of traveling, it would quickly become annoying - at least in an airport lounge you can walk away to a quieter spot, but on a plane you're stuck.

    I do think it will be an airline decison - based on what they perceive as the impact on their customers and the cost f adding the equipment to provide service - my quess is that link with a ground station and repeater will be needed; which means you may not see too much of it unless the airlines get paid to acrry the gear; much like airfones. A few extra pounds is a lot of money. In addition, they'd need to deal with GSM and CDMA phones, meaning extra gear; plus the "I can't connect" whining; my guess it is won't be worth it.
    The problem that the FCC has is a 737 full of unmodulated phones at 5000 feet all trying to register on ten ground cells at once. The problem that the FAA has is all those phones operating at max power.

    Therefore, it is clear that there must be a cell on the plane. Since this cell will the closest to phones on the plane, it will be the one on which they register. One purpose of this cell is to limit the power output of the phones. Another is to resist hand-offs as the plane moves. A third will be to provide coverage wherever the plane is.

    The power output of both GSM and CDMA is modulated by the cell. However, we are now down to just these two. We no longer have to worry about TDMA or AMPS (neither of which modulate power output.) Given the current and falling cost of technology, the cost of a cell that can handle both GSM and CDMA is not, or will not be, a big deal.

    It seems to me that the big deal is going to be tying the aerial cell to the terrestial net with tolerable latency. Note that Boeing/Lufthansa have succeeded in doing this only by satellite. This is fine for data applications but has very high latency for voice.
    Last edited by whmurray; 01/18/2006 at 08:08 AM.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Therefore, it is clear that there must be a cell on the plane. Since this cell will the closest to phones on the plane, it will be the one on which they register. One purpose of this cell is to limit the power output of the phones. Another is to resist hand-offs as the plane moves. A third will be to provide coverage wherever the plane is.
    That sounds inline with the explanation I've heard. While there's concern about the interference from the cells on the plane's equipment, one of the larger concerns is the phones pinging rapidly over a large range of towers. Used to be that some FAA folks would point over at the FCC as the reason for the ban...
    Former: Visor, Prism, VisorPhone, Treo 270,Treo 650, Centro Now: Pre
  12.    #32  
    Here is an update that I find VERY interesting.....

    Panasonic Avionics Launches Aircraft Broadband Communication Service

    Panasonic Avionics Corporation announced today that it is launching a new global communication service which will provide broadband data communications services to aircraft. Panasonic is offering a new antenna system which provides superior bandwidth in a smaller, lighter and lower drag configuration. The broadband antenna system can also be paired with a direct broadcast television antenna in the same radome system for the simplest installation.

    This new broadband service will support both data and digital voice communications. Panasonic plans to support AeroMobileís aircraft mobile phone service. This new Pico-cell technology will support service over Inmarsat satellites and Panasonicís own broadband network. Panasonic will also introduce a new Wireless Access Point (WAP) to provide broadband data connectivity to passengers over a high-speed secure wireless distribution network.

    FULL STORY: http://www.slashphone.com/70/4039.html
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Here is an update that I find VERY interesting.....

    Panasonic Avionics Launches Aircraft Broadband Communication Service
    It is important to recognize the role of the pico-cell in limiting the output of both the individual digital cell phones and possibly even the population of phones on the plane. Digital cell phones reduce interference and improve battery life by limiting the power of their signal to only what is required to reach the nearest cells. They will use dramatically less power to reach a pico cell on the plane than they might use trying to reach a distant cell on the ground. However powerful the pico cell, there will be some limit to the total number of calls that it can support at one time. When this limit is reached, additional calls will have to wait.

    Keep in mind that this is more of a political issue than an economic or technological one. Adoption of such technology in the US will require the consent of a determinedly risk-averse bureaucracy. It is also likely to be resisted by noisy groups of people, pretending to speak for many, who want to protect us all from those few rude people who still talk to loud when speaking on cell phones. Connexion by Boeing, used by Lufthansa in Europe, is still not approved for use by United in the US.
  14.    #34  
    The key to the last article I posted is that they are offering wireless broadband data connections. I am all for that.

    The voice options, I totally agree with you. IMHO, they should allow data and restrict voice.
  15. #35  
    Well here something interesting. I instruct for Flight Safety International, on the CE560XL. (It's a corp. jet). Our biggest client is Net Jet Aviation. About 1 year ago all there pilots were given BlackBerry's. When they get an incoming data message (email or text) you CAN hear interferance over the headset. It DOES interfer with the communication radios. I can't say we've ever seen a problem with the navigation radios. Here the kicker if both pilots have their radios off we pick up interferance from the phones of people in the simulators next to us (about 15' away). I know someone will say that it's only in the sim, ALL the pilots confirm that it happens in the plane too.

    BTW my 300/600/650's never did this.
    Nik<hr>M100 --->M125 --->M500 --->Treo300 --->Sprint-Treo600 --->Sprint-Treo650
    <hr>
    Rom 8:31 <'><
    <marquee bgcolor=red width=150 height=5>
    1 in 150 babies born today will have some form of Autism
    </marquee>
    Unlocking Autism Mission Trips to Honduras My Space
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    Well here something interesting. I instruct for Flight Safety International, on the CE560XL. (It's a corp. jet). Our biggest client is Net Jet Aviation. About 1 year ago all there pilots were given BlackBerry's. When they get an incoming data message (email or text) you CAN hear interferance over the headset. It DOES interfer with the communication radios. I can't say we've ever seen a problem with the navigation radios. Here the kicker if both pilots have their radios off we pick up interferance from the phones of people in the simulators next to us (about 15' away). I know someone will say that it's only in the sim, ALL the pilots confirm that it happens in the plane too.

    BTW my 300/600/650's never did this.
    I think that you may find that this is interference between the data and the audio side of the radio, perhaps even the headset. When I check e-mail with my Treo (270, 600, and 650), I have heard noise in TV, computer, and car radio. What is more, I have one (Siedio combo) headset where the feed back is so bad that I cannot use it for phone calls, only listening to MP3s. The feedback is from the radio to the mic. The fewer bars I show, the louder this noise.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions