Any luck using phones in flight mode?

Did anyone ever manage to be allowed to use a smartphone on a flight
while the thing is in flight-mode? For example P800/900 or Nokia
6600/3650/N-Gage and all? It would seem N-Gage looks sufficiently
NOT like a phone to use it. :-) But I've never managed to use 3650
outside of the lavatories.

Is this ever going to happen?? PDA's ARE allowed. Note that my PDA
turns on WiFi and Bluetooth unless I specifically turn it off.. This
should be a greater risk than a phone in flight-mode? (Which doesn't
transmit anything beyond light from the display..

Note that I am of course talking about use while in mid-flight, not
takeoff and landing or even taxiing.

---

› See More: Any luck using phones in flight mode?

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Did anyone ever manage to be allowed to use a smartphone on a flight
> while the thing is in flight-mode? For example P800/900 or Nokia
> 6600/3650/N-Gage and all? It would seem N-Gage looks sufficiently
> NOT like a phone to use it. :-) But I've never managed to use 3650
> outside of the lavatories.
>
> Is this ever going to happen?? PDA's ARE allowed. Note that my PDA
> turns on WiFi and Bluetooth unless I specifically turn it off.. This
> should be a greater risk than a phone in flight-mode? (Which doesn't
> transmit anything beyond light from the display..
>
> Note that I am of course talking about use while in mid-flight, not
> takeoff and landing or even taxiing.

Please post all flights on which you intend travelling, so I can avoid
them.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Did anyone ever manage to be allowed to use a smartphone on a flight
>>while the thing is in flight-mode? For example P800/900 or Nokia
>>6600/3650/N-Gage and all? It would seem N-Gage looks sufficiently
>>NOT like a phone to use it. :-) But I've never managed to use 3650
>>outside of the lavatories.
>>
>>Is this ever going to happen?? PDA's ARE allowed. Note that my PDA
>>turns on WiFi and Bluetooth unless I specifically turn it off.. This
>>should be a greater risk than a phone in flight-mode? (Which doesn't
>>transmit anything beyond light from the display..
>>
>>Note that I am of course talking about use while in mid-flight, not
>>takeoff and landing or even taxiing.
>
>
> Please post all flights on which you intend travelling, so I can avoid
> them.
>

If the phone is in "flight-mode", this means it is not transmitting as a
cell phone. The purpose of flight mode is to use the other features of
the phone in flight. Why would this cause you to want to avoid the
flight. It would be the same as using a game boy.

"mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Ivor Jones wrote:

> > Please post all flights on which you intend travelling, so I can avoid
> > them.
> >
>
> If the phone is in "flight-mode", this means it is not transmitting as a
> cell phone. The purpose of flight mode is to use the other features of
> the phone in flight. Why would this cause you to want to avoid the
> flight. It would be the same as using a game boy.

There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on aircraft
and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one switched
on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of the
phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.

The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want to
use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least on
any plane I'm on..!

Ivor

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:12:00 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on aircraft
>and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one switched
>on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of the
>phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.
>
>The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want to
>use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least on
>any plane I'm on..!

Ok.. again: With PDA's I know FOR SURE that many of the people who use
them don't know how to disable WiFi and/or Bluetooth on them. These
devices WILL be trasnsmitting, trying to locate other devices. Yet
they are ALLOWED on planes, no questions asked.

Note that smartphones can be used for a lot more than just play games
besides making calls; you can quite comfortably download your e-mail
on them before the flight and read and answer e-mail while on the
flight and then send afterwards. Or for example reading e-books on
them. Or Avant-Go stored websites. Soon they will come with foldable
keyboards so you can actually write stuff like you would on a laptop
or PDA.

Also the smartphones I'm talking about include a function to
completely disable the phone-part of it. Meaning you can remove the
SIM (so the phone doesn't even start to look for a network) and the
'phone' application itself doesn't start up either. (Again, I'm not
asking you to believe this: many PDA's and laptops transmit lots of
things FOR SURE, and airlines don't seem all too bothered about it!)

So the situation now is that you can use N-Gage just because it LOOKS
like a game-boy. And you can use XDA, just because it LOOKS like a
PDA. However you cannot use 6600 because it looks like a phone....

Somehow this doesn't seem like a very thorough transparent policy. To
improve safety, I think greater scrutiny of network-enabled PDA's and
laptops is definitely caled for, more so than banning devices just
because some clueless flight attendant thinks something looks like a
phone.

Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on aircraft
> and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one switched
> on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of the
> phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.

Many new laptops come with Wifi or Cellular access modules.
It's no different.

>
> The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want to
> use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least on
> any plane I'm on..!

What is the difference in "danger" between using something that looks
like a phone and has other applications, or something that doesn't look
like a phone and has a phone in it? As long as the phone function is
turned off, what is the difference?

Han wrote:
> So the situation now is that you can use N-Gage just because it LOOKS
> like a game-boy. And you can use XDA, just because it LOOKS like a
> PDA. However you cannot use 6600 because it looks like a phone....

In the USA, which lagged behind in mobile technology and has just recently
caught up, people aren't used yet to phones being PDAs.

Best bet would be the print the page of your handset's manual that documents
the "aircraft" function. As you board aircraft, ask a flight attendant to
verify with captain if it will be ok to use your phone/pda combo (handing her
the sheet showing the aircraft mode stuff).

Make sure you don't have any games called "bombs" on your phone though :-)

"mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> >
> > There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on
aircraft
> > and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one
switched
> > on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of
the
> > phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.
>
> Many new laptops come with Wifi or Cellular access modules.
> It's no different.

Different frequencies. The aircraft too has radio but not at cellular
frequencies. RF at the frequencies used by phones are *known* to interfere
with avionics. They may not, but do you want to be on a plane when it's
found they do..?

> > The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want
to
> > use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least
on
> > any plane I'm on..!
>
> What is the difference in "danger" between using something that looks
> like a phone and has other applications, or something that doesn't look
> like a phone and has a phone in it? As long as the phone function is
> turned off, what is the difference?

But can you be 100% *certain* that the *radio* functions (it is RF that
interferes with the aircraft avionics) are switched off..? I don't want to
find out they're not at 30,000 ft over the Atlantic..!


Ivor (who loves flying but not crashing..!!)

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>
>>What is the difference in "danger" between using something that looks
>>like a phone and has other applications, or something that doesn't look
>>like a phone and has a phone in it? As long as the phone function is
>>turned off, what is the difference?
>
>
> But can you be 100% *certain* that the *radio* functions (it is RF that
> interferes with the aircraft avionics) are switched off..? I don't want to
> find out they're not at 30,000 ft over the Atlantic..!

How would you be 100 percent certain that the thing that doesn't look
like a phone has the phone functions turned off? Your concern seemed to
be with what looks like a phone and has other features, rather than what
looks like a game or pds, and also has phone features. Both are equally
capable of doing whatever "damage" can be done from cellphones, since
they both have cellphone capability. If phones are really that
dangerous, why does the crew rely on customer's themselves to shut them
off.

"mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >>
> >>What is the difference in "danger" between using something that looks
> >>like a phone and has other applications, or something that doesn't
look
> >>like a phone and has a phone in it? As long as the phone function is
> >>turned off, what is the difference?
> >
> >
> > But can you be 100% *certain* that the *radio* functions (it is RF
that
> > interferes with the aircraft avionics) are switched off..? I don't
want to
> > find out they're not at 30,000 ft over the Atlantic..!
>
> How would you be 100 percent certain that the thing that doesn't look
> like a phone has the phone functions turned off? Your concern seemed to
> be with what looks like a phone and has other features, rather than what
> looks like a game or pds, and also has phone features. Both are equally
> capable of doing whatever "damage" can be done from cellphones, since
> they both have cellphone capability. If phones are really that
> dangerous, why does the crew rely on customer's themselves to shut them
> off.

My concern is with anything that could cause interference with the
essential systems on the aircraft. What it looks like is irrelevant and I
made no comment on appearance.

As to why some devices are allowed and why some aren't I don't know. I
just don't want to find out something is causing a problem when I've got
no escape route..! Better safe than dead IMHO. Do you *need* the thing
anyway..? Personally when I'm on a flight I'm usually dog tired and all I
want to do is sleep, never mind phone people or play silly games..!

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on aircraft
> and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one switched
> on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of the
> phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.
>
> The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want to
> use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least on
> any plane I'm on..!

Nonsense. There is no special danger to the AIRCRAFT from a
cell phone; the reason that cell phone usage in-flight is restricted
has to do with the potential for interference with the ground-based
cell network, not that there is some special problem with cell phone
related to aircraft avionics. It has already been shown (look up the
UK CAA report on this very subject) that it is extremely unlikely
for a cell phone to interfere in ANY way with aircraft operation
(the conditions required for even slight interference require that
the phone be located VERY close to the avionics device in
question).

A cell phone in "flight mode" poses no more danger to the aircraft
operation than any other type of electronic device - and the supposed
dangers from electronic devices in general has been incredibly over-
stated.


Bob M.

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Different frequencies. The aircraft too has radio but not at cellular
> frequencies. RF at the frequencies used by phones are *known* to interfere
> with avionics.

Wrong. The frequencies used by aircraft radio (both communications
and radionavigation systems) are in the mid-VHF range, roughly
around 120 MHz. ALL types of cell phones operate at frequencies
much higher than this, and pose no special threat to avionics operation.
Interference with aircraft avionics from ANY electronic device would
come from unintended emissions, which are no more likely from cell
phones than from any other electronic device. The earlier posters'
points regarding Bluetooth and wireless LAN functions in laptops, for
instance, are very valid.

Please see the report from the UK Civil Aviation Authority,
"CAA Paper 2003/03: Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones
on Aircraft Avionics Equipment" for details (it's available from
www.caa.co.uk). The bottom line was the cellular telephone interference
is EXTREMELY unlikely to cause any significant problem with
aircraft avionics, and the conditions required for interference would
only be found if the cell phone in question were essentially right next
to the equipment being interfered with (i.e., if the pilot was using
a cell phone right next to a nav receiver, you might see some signs
of slight interference - otherwise, no).

There are very valid reasons for not using a cell phone in-flight, but
they have to do with the potential for interference with the ground-based
cell phone system, not the aircraft.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on
aircraft
> > and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one
switched
> > on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of
the
> > phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.
> >
> > The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want
to
> > use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least
on
> > any plane I'm on..!
>
> Nonsense. There is no special danger to the AIRCRAFT from a
> cell phone; the reason that cell phone usage in-flight is restricted
> has to do with the potential for interference with the ground-based
> cell network, not that there is some special problem with cell phone
> related to aircraft avionics. It has already been shown (look up the
> UK CAA report on this very subject) that it is extremely unlikely
> for a cell phone to interfere in ANY way with aircraft operation
> (the conditions required for even slight interference require that
> the phone be located VERY close to the avionics device in
> question).
>
> A cell phone in "flight mode" poses no more danger to the aircraft
> operation than any other type of electronic device - and the supposed
> dangers from electronic devices in general has been incredibly over-
> stated.

Well you can believe what you like, but don't use a phone on any aircraft
I'm on. Like I said before, better safe than dead.

Ivor

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:54:18 GMT mrtravelkay <[email protected]> wrote:

:>How would you be 100 percent certain that the thing that doesn't look
:>like a phone has the phone functions turned off? Your concern seemed to
:>be with what looks like a phone and has other features, rather than what
:>looks like a game or pds, and also has phone features. Both are equally
:>capable of doing whatever "damage" can be done from cellphones, since
:>they both have cellphone capability. If phones are really that
:>dangerous, why does the crew rely on customer's themselves to shut them
:>off.

Don't matter.

The FAA doesn't prohibit phones because of danger.

The FCC does because they swamp the cells.

--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

you smoking something good??? RF at the frequencies of cell phones has been
shown to NOT affect either communication or avionics. (many studies - the
reason for not allowing cell phones is FCC - NOT FAA - or whatever your
particular flavour of aviation alphabet soup is) The reason for not
allowing "transmitters" (more specifically "radios") on aircraft has to do
with IF (that's "intermediate frequencies") which are used when converting
the signal to audio (heterdyne) and the emissions of THOSE frequencies is
where the interference comes from. POTENTIALLY, cell phones have an IF
emission, but the frequencies (and radiated power very low) are WAY above
any NEAR the aircraft nav/com band and not even a harmonic issue. (don't
know about military frequencies, though and they don't matter here, anyway)

LEARN a little about RFI before you try to come across as an expert.

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mrtravelkay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > There are good reasons why phones are not permitted to be used on
> aircraft
> > > and I for one don't want to be on a plane where someone has one
> switched
> > > on. The so-called "flight" mode might switch off the radio sections of
> the
> > > phone, on the other hand it might not and I don't want to be there.
> >
> > Many new laptops come with Wifi or Cellular access modules.
> > It's no different.
>
> Different frequencies. The aircraft too has radio but not at cellular
> frequencies. RF at the frequencies used by phones are *known* to interfere
> with avionics. They may not, but do you want to be on a plane when it's
> found they do..?
>
> > > The purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls. If you want
> to
> > > use a game boy, whatever that is, then use one, not a phone. At least
> on
> > > any plane I'm on..!
> >
> > What is the difference in "danger" between using something that looks
> > like a phone and has other applications, or something that doesn't look
> > like a phone and has a phone in it? As long as the phone function is
> > turned off, what is the difference?
>
> But can you be 100% *certain* that the *radio* functions (it is RF that
> interferes with the aircraft avionics) are switched off..? I don't want to
> find out they're not at 30,000 ft over the Atlantic..!
>
>
> Ivor (who loves flying but not crashing..!!)
>
>
>