Any luck using phones in flight mode?

"Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Number 2 - you appear to be of the ilk - "My mind is made up - don't
> > confuse
> > > me with the facts"
> >
> > My mind is made up that I don't want to be put at risk by idiots on
> > aircraft, yes.
>
> Agreed, in general. However, you are VASTLY overestimating
> the degree of risk in the specific case in question here.

Maybe, but as I have repeatedly stated, better safe than dead, until I see
*cast iron proof* that you are right and I am wrong.

Ivor

---

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

Bob Myers wrote:

> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>Number 2 - you appear to be of the ilk - "My mind is made up - don't
>>
>>confuse
>>
>>>me with the facts"
>>
>>My mind is made up that I don't want to be put at risk by idiots on
>>aircraft, yes.
>
>
> Agreed, in general. However, you are VASTLY overestimating
> the degree of risk in the specific case in question here.
>

Like driving 45 to avoid the dangers of higher speeds.

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> no offense, but with that attitude, why fly at all. after all, there IS
an
> element of risk

Exactly - or more specifically, why worry overly much about this
particular "problem"? Mr. Jones has already been told, by a number
of people knowledgeable in the field, that there are MUCH bigger
things to worry about than whether or not a cell phone (or better,
some other sort of "wireless" device) happens to be on within the
passenger cabin.

Chicken Little isn't dead - he's just racking up frequent-flyer miles...:-)


Bob M.

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

> I'd like to see some documentary evidence before I believe anyone,
> regardless of their alleged qualifications. That which I have seen leads
> me to believe that safe is better than dead. YMMV.

In that case, we're sorry to hear that you won't be flying at
all anymore. Or perhaps not, since one less passenger
betters my chances for the elusive upgrade...:-)

Bob M.

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> not to mention the VAST frequency differences - IF WiFi were operating
> ANYWHERE near aircraft radio frequencies, _I_ would be out there beating
the
> drum. the CLOSEST frequency in common use is glideslope

Right - although I have been somewhat amused to note that there
are now a lot of things in the PC and TV world that happen to generate
harmonics right on 121.5 MHz (and by extension, 243.0 MHz)...121.5
even happens to be a standard pixel clock rate, albeit for one of the
lesser-used PC-standard video timings.

Oooops. :-)

Oh, and if you happen to have something on your person that can
overwhelm the glideslope "beam", I'd like to see it....:-)

Bob M.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And, that assumes a well-designed handset. Yahoo Groups frequented by
> cellular and two-way radio professionals have carried discussions I've
> read, which assert a major Illinois-based manufacturer of an minor digital
> system (not IS-136 TDMA, not GSM, not CDMA) and elsewhere makes handsets
> which are *very* noisy out-of-band, and which have resulted in the
> majority of complaints.

Yes, but does "very noisy" come anywhere NEAR 30 V/m unless you're
RIGHT on top of the phone in question?

By the way - for those not very familiar with just what sort of a field
"30 V/m" is: Let's say you're standing just 50 meters away from the
transmitting antenna of a 50,000 watt radio station, and further that
this antenna is successful at transmitting ALL of the power that the
transmitter is producing (which, of course, never happens in
practice). In this case, you're being exposed to somewhere around
25 V/m.

Still worried about that cell phone that might be in the overhead bin?


Bob M.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:46:44 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>I have flown many times with my PalmPhones; Tungsten W, Treo 180 and
>Samsung SPH-i300. Never has a flight attendant asked about it, except when
>it was time to shut down *all* electronica.

Yup.. it's just SO unfair.. I should make some knid of cover for my
smartphone to make it look like something else. ;-)

>Just get a PalmPhone which looks like a Palm, not a phone.

A bit on the large side to carry everywhere. I even thought P800/900
was on the large side.

Ivor Jones muttered....


>
> I'd like to see some documentary evidence before I believe anyone,
> regardless of their alleged qualifications. That which I have seen leads
> me to believe that safe is better than dead. YMMV.
>

Meanwhile, you do turn off your cellphone before you drive in to a
convenience store/filling station apron, knowing that if your phone rings
it may have the potential the lift you to Heaven upon a Pillar of Fire (or
somesuch spectatular end...)?

Do you turn it off when you drive thru highway construction zones or when
passing close to a building demolition sites, understanding that all those
stray waves of 'lectrons may set off blasting detonaters?

Why, standing there in the big glass window of the airport, looking down at
the nose of the a/c you're waiting to baord, don't you know that they may
be powering up the a/c's weather radar, pouring a blast of radiation on
your family jewels?

TMO

"Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 2) the officially sanctioned "Airphone" in the seatback in front of
> > you costs $2.50 US/minute. Perhaps the reason not to allow cellphone
> > use on-board the plane is the same reason the movie theater charging
> > $4 for Twizzlers doesn't let you bring your own candy?
>
> While this is a popular theory, it really doesn't work that way.
> The "Airphone" system operates completely separate from the
> cell network, and does not have the potential for interfering with
> that systems that an airborne cell phone does.

I understand that. My point is the overpriced Airphones are
additional incentive to restricting cellphone usage even when
conditions would otherwise permit it (i.e. taxiing, takeoff, landing,
etc.)

> The real problem
> with cell phone in aircraft is that they MIGHT cause problem by
> being "seen" by multiple cells (on the ground) at once, over a
> very wide area. The cell system wasn't designed to deal with
> such sources. Hence it is the FCC, not the FAA, that's really the
> ones concerned with this.

Actually it's both- the FCC restricts cellphone use in-flight, but
couldn't care less if they are used inside aircraft on the ground.
The FAA and airlines have the ridiculous "only while the aircraft door
is open" rules.

IIRC, I believe the restrictions were relaxed a little a few years
ago- with the permission of the pilot cellphones can now be used on
the ground during delays (even when the doors are closed), and during
taxiing after landing. This is of course optional depending on
airline and pilot whim. I think Southwest was the first to allow
this. Perhaps a coincidence, but compared to some other airlines,
comparitively few Southwest planes have Airphones installed... ;-)

Morgoth Bauglir wrote:
> The flight attendant (who presumably is not an electronics engineer) is
> going to tell you to turn off your cell phone (or any device s/he doesn't
> understand).

Which is why you must first ask the FA and show her that your phone has an
"aircraft safe" mode, after which she can decide to allow or disallow its use.
The onus is on the passenger to provide the crew with sufficient information
to show that this particular electronic toy is safe.

total paranoid crap by paranoid crapheads....


"Olivers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ivor Jones muttered....
>
>
> >
> > I'd like to see some documentary evidence before I believe anyone,
> > regardless of their alleged qualifications. That which I have seen leads
> > me to believe that safe is better than dead. YMMV.
> >
>
> Meanwhile, you do turn off your cellphone before you drive in to a
> convenience store/filling station apron, knowing that if your phone rings
> it may have the potential the lift you to Heaven upon a Pillar of Fire (or
> somesuch spectatular end...)?
>
> Do you turn it off when you drive thru highway construction zones or when
> passing close to a building demolition sites, understanding that all those
> stray waves of 'lectrons may set off blasting detonaters?
>
> Why, standing there in the big glass window of the airport, looking down
at
> the nose of the a/c you're waiting to baord, don't you know that they may
> be powering up the a/c's weather radar, pouring a blast of radiation on
> your family jewels?
>
> TMO

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > While this is a popular theory, it really doesn't work that way.
> > The "Airphone" system operates completely separate from the
> > cell network, and does not have the potential for interfering with
> > that systems that an airborne cell phone does.
>
> I understand that. My point is the overpriced Airphones are
> additional incentive to restricting cellphone usage even when
> conditions would otherwise permit it (i.e. taxiing, takeoff, landing,
> etc.)

Use during takeoff and landing aren't good ideas, since there's actually
very little time during which "not high enough to cause serious
problems with the system" would be true. (And since the problem
of interference with the system gets WORSE the closer you are
to the ground, until you're down to the point where the system deals
with you as if you're "ground-based"...well, draw the obvious
conclusion.)

At least SOME carriers (United, for instance, at least on some
recent flights I've been on) are permitting cell phones to be
switched on during taxiing AFTER LANDING - but let's
face it, unless you're taxiing for a long, long time, are you REALLY
in need to getting on the phone right away, before you can get
back off the plane - or that you simply HAVE to stay on the phone
right up to takeoff?

> > The real problem
> > with cell phone in aircraft is that they MIGHT cause problem by
> > being "seen" by multiple cells (on the ground) at once, over a
> > very wide area. The cell system wasn't designed to deal with
> > such sources. Hence it is the FCC, not the FAA, that's really the
> > ones concerned with this.
>
> Actually it's both- the FCC restricts cellphone use in-flight, but
> couldn't care less if they are used inside aircraft on the ground.
> The FAA and airlines have the ridiculous "only while the aircraft door
> is open" rules.

The airlines, more; I don't think the FAA actually specifies the
"only while the door is open" thing. They just in general require
the airlines to make sure they're operating safely, without interference,
without really defining much about exactly what that entails.

Bob M.

a_dude muttered....

> total paranoid crap by paranoid crapheads....

You are hereby certified to be humor-impaired, and an intellect below the
irony threshold (almost as blithered as puir Ivor)

>
>
> "Olivers" said

after Ivor Jones muttered....
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'd like to see some documentary evidence before I believe anyone,
>> > regardless of their alleged qualifications. That which I have seen
>> > leads me to believe that safe is better than dead. YMMV.
>> >
>>
>> Meanwhile, you do turn off your cellphone before you drive in to a
>> convenience store/filling station apron, knowing that if your phone
>> rings it may have the potential the lift you to Heaven upon a Pillar
>> of Fire (or somesuch spectatular end...)?
>>
>> Do you turn it off when you drive thru highway construction zones or
>> when passing close to a building demolition sites, understanding that
>> all those stray waves of 'lectrons may set off blasting detonaters?
>>
>> Why, standing there in the big glass window of the airport, looking
>> down
> at
>> the nose of the a/c you're waiting to baord, don't you know that they
>> may be powering up the a/c's weather radar, pouring a blast of
>> radiation on your family jewels?
>>
TMO

thats funny, every IQ test ive had i got around 128....wot does that make u
.....moron is the word....

cheers

"Olivers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> a_dude muttered....
>
> > total paranoid crap by paranoid crapheads....
>
> You are hereby certified to be humor-impaired, and an intellect below the
> irony threshold (almost as blithered as puir Ivor)
>
> >
> >
> > "Olivers" said
>
> after Ivor Jones muttered....
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to see some documentary evidence before I believe anyone,
> >> > regardless of their alleged qualifications. That which I have seen
> >> > leads me to believe that safe is better than dead. YMMV.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, you do turn off your cellphone before you drive in to a
> >> convenience store/filling station apron, knowing that if your phone
> >> rings it may have the potential the lift you to Heaven upon a Pillar
> >> of Fire (or somesuch spectatular end...)?
> >>
> >> Do you turn it off when you drive thru highway construction zones or
> >> when passing close to a building demolition sites, understanding that
> >> all those stray waves of 'lectrons may set off blasting detonaters?
> >>
> >> Why, standing there in the big glass window of the airport, looking
> >> down
> > at
> >> the nose of the a/c you're waiting to baord, don't you know that they
> >> may be powering up the a/c's weather radar, pouring a blast of
> >> radiation on your family jewels?
> >>
> TMO

a_dude wrote:

> thats funny, every IQ test ive had i got around 128....wot does that make u
> ....moron is the word....

I think the test was flawed.