To Me, the concern is that the majority of the large passenger aircraft are
old. When the "black boxes" are pulled and replaced, the on aircraft wiring
is seldom checked from the standpoint of shielding effectivity. This would
be of concern when a poorly maintained cable going to an external antenna
passes thru the cabin. Actually, I'd think that the older "brick" analog
phones had a greater potential to overload receivers than the current low
power units.

At one time or another, I've used various transceivers in light aircraft. At
no time did they cause any problems with properly installed and operating
nav or com equipment. Some of the really old nav/com units with "crank"
tuning did have a problem years back with 2 meter ham transcievers.
(And the ham transcievers didn't like the aircraft com transmitters either!)
That was over 30 years ago! I would bet that things have gotten much better
over the years.

Some military aircraft that have high power transmitters in various bands
that do not really impact com nav equipment (for the most part) The caviat
is with systems designed to jam various kinds of electronic equipment in
other aircraft and on the ground. Turning such systems on in peacetime can
cause havoc, such as loss of microwave communications systems, ILS landing
systems, various radar systems, and degrade just about any radio frequency
based service or system.

Over twenty five years ago, a switch in the wrong position caused the dutch
government to complain to the US ambassador, who promptly complained rather
strongly to the senior USAF officer in europe. Something about the landing
system on the queen's helipad not working when a US aircraft was in the
general area.


"William Bray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is all very interesting. Is there a lawyer out there who can shed
> some light between such waivers and the FAA ruling? I was at an FAA
> meeting yesterday and asked this question. Several private flyer's
> stated they make calls through an air-cell agreement- not through their
> on board system.
> I know folks who place cell phone calls from balloons. and have never
> seen the FAA or the FCC do anything about it. This seems to be a fairly
> unenforceable law.
> I believe that my original question was if Cingular provided the same
> services as AT&T and T-Mobile do.
> At the same time I question T-Mobile's practice as they only offer
> GSM phones for this service. To the best of my knowledge, before this
> ruling, only AMPS could be used, and it was sent through appropriately
> equipped airplanes. That has been going for years.
> AMPS has been used from the air since its inception. I am a part of
> that "urban legend."
>
> [email protected] wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:06:06 -0000, [email protected]
(Cell
> > Academician) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Technically, AMPS and CDMA are more likely to
> > >work than TDMA/GSM.
> > >
> > >Legally, the ban is based on an FCC regulation,
> > >which the FAA "supports." The FCC recently granted
> > >a waiver to AirCell, which the other carriers opposed.
> > >AirCell uses AMPS with its own cells on the ground.
> >
> > >CDMA is less prone to multiple paths to the ground
> > >overloading the system than TDMA or GSM.
> >
> > That is totally incorrect.
> >
> > CDMA has nothing to do with handset logons to towers. CDMA only affects
the
> > protocol of the over the air interface and the decryption of the signal
between
> > the handset and the tower - plus some authentication rules.
> >
> > All handsets logon to multiple towers and test signal strength, and the
MSC
> > decides which tower to use - no matter the technology.
> >
> > Even ****ty Lucent Autoplex 1000's do this.
> >
> > A Network Engineer
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]




› See More: From an airplane?