 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / May 2008CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/051308dnm etpassenger.f2feb5b0.html?npc Austin man charged after refusing to hang up cellphone during Southwest Airlines flight Monday, May 12, 2008 By SUZANNE MARTA / The Dallas Morning News An Austin businessman was charged with disorderly conduct after he allegedly refused to stop using his mobile phone on a flight Monday from Austin to Dallas Love Field. Dallas police met the plane after the pilot radioed ahead to the Love Field tower. They cited Joe David Jones, 50, president of an Austin- based environmental start-up company called Skyonic Corp., with the Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500. The incident occurred as a Southwest flight from Austin began its descent into Dallas. "After multiple requests, the flight attendants were not successful in getting the passenger to get off the phone," Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said. According to the police report, Mr. Jones was asked to turn off his cellphone and responded, "Kiss my [expletive]." When asked again, he said, "Kiss my [expletive]. Not happening." According to the police report, Mr. Jones remained on the phone about 20 minutes. When officers met Mr. Jones at the gate, he continued to exhibit disorderly conduct, police said. Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile phones except when the aircraft is on the ground. Airlines can be fined up to $25,000 if they permit cellphone use during a flight, and individuals also can face fines, Ms. King said. Mr. Jones was unavailable for comment Monday, but his spokesman, Mark Clayton, said the businessman had received a message that his father's heart had stopped beating and tried several times to reach officials in the cardiac unit where his father was being treated. "He did express regrets for any inconvenience, but due to the life and death circumstances, he felt he needed to make the call," Mr. Clayton said. Beth Harbin, a Southwest spokeswoman, said that although the carrier sympathizes with Mr. Jones' situation, "it was a safety regulation that we're required to enforce, and we're simply not in a position to make exceptions." Incidents involving passengers and cellphone use are relatively rare, Ms. Harbin said. Southwest has recorded 26 incidents of mobile-phone abuse so far this year, and only one of those escalated into a report to the FAA. While there have been high-profile examples of people using mobile phones during a flight – such as during the Sept. 11 attacks – studies have shown some potential for interference with an airplane's navigation and communications systems. In-flight cellphone use is also prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission because of possible interference with wireless networks on the ground. The FCC has considered lifting the ban, beginning in 2004, but ended those discussions last year. However, mobile-phone use has been approved by European regulators, and a satellite-based service is being tested by Air France on one of its Airbus A318 planes for flights within Europe and North Africa. The airline Emirates launched service with a similar system on one of its Airbus A340-300 airplanes in March and has said it will spend $27 million to equip its entire fleet. In the U.S., demand for such a service has been relatively low. A survey by Forrester Research showed less than 16 percent of travelers wanted to make calls during flights, compared with 55 percent who would like broadband Internet access. Forrester analyst Henry Harteveldt said the use of mobile phones in the cabin raises another risk: air rage. "No one wants to sit next to a Chatty Cathy talking about their latest conquest," he said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://skyonic.com/directorsOfficers.php JOE JONES, PRESIDENT AND CEO Joe Jones, President and CEO of Skyonic, earned a BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas and spent the first 25 years of his career in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, working at Texas Industries, Cypress Semiconductors, and others. He participated in the start-up and operation of five wafer-fabrication plants (TI, AMD, and Cypress), the development of one of the first fabless semiconductor companies (Ross Technology), and an independent outsource semiconductor company he founded (BridgePoint Technical Manufacturing). His credits include numerous contributions to the chemistry of wafer-fabrication and semiconductor testing, and his goal is to apply the low-energy lessons he learned in semiconductor development to the problem of creating a low-energy method of sequestering CO2. A businessman, as well as an engineer and an environmentalist, Joe left his position as CEO of BridgePoint when his belief in the need for clean, sustainable energy led him to begin development of the SkyMine™ technology and found Skyonic Corporation in 2005. MARK CLAYTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE RELATIONS Mark Clayton joined Skyonic as Vice President of Corporate Relations in March of 2007 after spending almost 30 years in the semiconductor industry where he worked in engineering, quality, marketing, and sales. He is alumnus of Texas Instruments, Aeronca Electronics, Silicon Materials Service, Rodel, and Wacker Siltronic. He has a BA in Chemistry from Austin College and an MA in Education, and has also worked as an educator. Mark is also a scout leader, and believes very strongly in clean energy development to benefit the next generation. > Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile > phones except when the aircraft is on the ground. Which FAR is that? >> Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile >> phones except when the aircraft is on the ground. > > Which FAR is that? The FARs are online. Try searching them. >> Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any use of mobile >> phones except when the aircraft is on the ground. > > Which FAR is that? You can find it at www.google.com  SignatureJohnT > You can find it at www.google.com No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists. >> You can find it at www.google.com > > No, I can't. Nobody can, because no such regulation exists. The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in particular). The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne cell phone use. > The Southwest Airlines spokesperson mis-spoke. She should have said that > the FCC prohibits cell phone use, not the FAA. She further mis-spoke > when she said that it was a safety regulation, when in fact it's a > regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless networks (GSM in > particular). Perhaps she was simply lying. > The airlines frequently intentionally lie about who prohibits cell > phones because it's easier for them to pretend that it's a safety issue > than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne > cell phone use. Should this type of fraud be condoned? >>> You can find it at www.google.com >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne > cell phone use. No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation. It doesn't mean the airlines can't allow cell phone or radio use, it simply requires them to satisfy themselves that the use of the equipment wouldn't be a safety problem. With the FCC regulation on the books, the airlines haven't felt it necessary to do the necessary testing of cell phones, since their use in the air is otherwise prohibited. > No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the > FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control > the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was > referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation. As I said, the FAA doesn't prohibit cell phone use. They require that electronic equipment used on board doesn't interfere with the navigation systems. Cell phones do not interfere. The Southwest spokesperson could have just said, "Federal regulations prohibit cell phone use while airborne," without having to make up stories. >As I said, the FAA doesn't prohibit cell phone use. False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not to interfere with the navigation or communication system (FAR 91.21). Note the aircraft operator part. >They require that >electronic equipment used on board doesn't interfere with the navigation >systems. Cell phones do not interfere. Non-interference must be determined by the aircraft operator; that'd be Southwest Airlines in this case. Did they make this determination? >The Southwest spokesperson could have just said, "Federal regulations >prohibit cell phone use while airborne," without having to make up stories. What story did she make up? > False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the > cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not > to interfere with the navigation or communication system (FAR 91.21). > Note the aircraft operator part. FAR 91.21 addresses portable electronic devices generally, not cell phones specifically. > Non-interference must be determined by the aircraft operator; that'd > be Southwest Airlines in this case. Did they make this determination? No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft with passengers aboard who have electronic watches. The same is true of PDAs and laptops, which continue to operate even when they are turned off. >FAR 91.21 addresses portable electronic devices generally, not cell phones >specifically. Cell phones are portable electronic devices, and are thus covered by FAR 91.21. >But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, and I'm sure >that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be safe, and yet it does not >prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So technically anyone wearing a quartz >watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft >with passengers aboard who have electronic watches. You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of portable electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft operator. So if Southwest Airlines permits wristwatches and laptops to be operated, but prohibits cell phones, then the operation of a cell phone is a violation of FAR 91.21. The Southwest spokeswoman was absolutely correct. > You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of portable > electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft operator. So if > Southwest Airlines permits wristwatches and laptops to be operated, > but prohibits cell phones, then the operation of a cell phone is a > violation of FAR 91.21. My point is that Southwest is already violating the FAR, by allowing wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it has not demonstrated that they are safe. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.] >> You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of portable >> electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft operator. So if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it has not > demonstrated that they are safe. Really. Isn't it the carrier's choice? SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Really. Isn't it the carrier's choice? No, the FAR says that the operator must determine that the devices are safe. "Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." >> You are misunderstanding the FAR. It prohibits operation of >> portable electronic devices unless authorized by the aircraft [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it > has not demonstrated that they are safe. They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." Presumably, they've made that "determination." Or, can you demonstrate otherwise? SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have > to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation > or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." And how do they do that? >> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely >> have to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the >> navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is >> to be used." > > And how do they do that? You know ... Seers. Divination. Lab tests. Goat entrails. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com >> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have >> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation >> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." > And how do they do that? By noticing that the plane works fine with those electronic watches worn by most of the passengers. > By noticing that the plane works fine with those electronic watches worn by most of the passengers. They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers. > Rod Speed wrote >>>> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have >>>> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation >>>> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." >>> And how do they do that? >> By noticing that the plane works fine with those >> electronic watches worn by most of the passengers. > They have to make the determination _before_ they fly with passengers. No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem. > No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem. The regulations don't say anything about probabilities. They require operators to determine that devices are harmless. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> They don't have to "demonstrate" that they are safe, they merely have >>>>>> to "determine" that they don't "cause interference with the navigation >>>>>> or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." >>>>> And how do they do that? >>>> By noticing that the plane works fine with those >>>> electronic watches worn by most of the passengers. >>> They have to make the determination before they fly with passengers. >> No they dont with something as unlikely as that to be a problem. > The regulations don't say anything about probabilities. They dont need to. > They require operators to determine that devices are harmless. And those obviously are. >My point is that Southwest is already violating the FAR No, they are not. How can FAR 91.21 be violated by an aircraft operator, when it explicitly gives operators the sole authority to determine what is and is not safe to operate? >by allowing >wristwatches and laptops and PDAs aboard the aircraft even though it has not >demonstrated that they are safe. You are confused between ``determination'' and ``demonstration.'' Read the FAR. As an aircraft operator, Southwest does not have to ``demonstrate'' anything. If they decide that an electronic device is safe to operate, they are free to permit its operation. If they do *not* permit its operation (as is the case with cell phones), the passenger who uses a cell phone is violating 91.21. > No, they are not. How can FAR 91.21 be violated by an aircraft > operator, when it explicitly gives operators the sole authority to > determine what is and is not safe to operate? The question is what constitutes determination. > You are confused between ``determination'' and ``demonstration.'' > Read the FAR. As an aircraft operator, Southwest does not have to > ``demonstrate'' anything. If they decide that an electronic device > is safe to operate, they are free to permit its operation. You are confusing "decision" and "determination." In article <5qfm24dr961lk6v2mkuaqr1pmeo2e057p8@4ax.com>, >The question is what constitutes determination. What do you think constitutes determination? >You are confusing "decision" and "determination." No, I am not confusing anything. "Determination" is the decision by the aircraft operator whether a given electronic device will interfere with the navigation and communication equipment. FAR 91.21 gives operators the sole authority to make this determination. In the absence of such determination made by Southwest Airlines for cell phones, operating a cell phone on board a Southwest aircraft violates FAR 91.21. There is nothing more to discuss. > No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, > and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be > safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So > technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs As is anyone with a pacemaker in his/her heart. > > No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, > > and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be > > safe, and yet it does not prohibit their use aboard aircraft. So > > technically anyone wearing a quartz watch is violating the FARs > > As is anyone with a pacemaker in his/her heart. Pacemakers were specifically exempted. In article <kurtullman-14427D.16573314052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>, > > > No. But a typical wristwatch is a portable electronic device, > > > and I'm sure that Southwest didn't determine wristwatches to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pacemakers were specifically exempted. Gee, I wonder why? I mean, if these "portable electronic devices" are dangerous, then... >> False. FAA has a blanket prohibition on cell phone use, unless the >> cell phone in question is determined by the *aircraft operator* not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > watch is violating the FARs, as are the operators and pilots of any aircraft > with passengers aboard who have electronic watches. The airline can take a pretty loose interpretation of "determine." They don't have to do some extensive investigation into the effects. Of course on any flight, there are many cell phones that have been unintentionally left turned on in carry-on luggage or in a pocket or on a belt. There is no effect on the aircraft navigation. The FCC absolutely prohibits cell phone use on commercial aircraft. The FAA permits the airline to prohibit cell phone use, but the airline could choose to allow it if not for the FCC regulation. The bottom line is that the Southwest spokesperson made it sound like "if not for the darn FAA you could use your cell phone," when in fact the FAA leaves it up to the airline's discretion. > No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the > FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control > the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was > referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation. Which regulation is that, exactly? >> No. In addition to the specific FCC regulation about cell phones, the >> FAA has a more general regulation that require the airlines to control >> the use of radio transmitting devices. The Southwest spokesperson was >> referring to that regulation. It is a safety regulation. > > Which regulation is that, exactly? That's the FAR which you've already been told about, you moron. >>> You can find it at www.google.com >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fact it's a regulation to prevent disruption of some wireless > networks (GSM in particular). It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/14cfr91.21.htm It applies to "any portable electronic device", not just cell phones. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > >>> You can find it at www.google.com > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It applies to "any portable electronic device", not just cell phones. Which is silly. Before cell phones became ubiquitous, people used those Sony Walkman cassette players and CD players all the time. I had one myself when I was a kid and I used it constantly, all during the flight, from the moment I got on the plane, till I got off. No one told me turn it off and there was no concern that my CD player might crash the plane. It was only after cell phones (and to a lesser extent laptops) became popular that suddenly every device with an on/off switch had to be shut down and put away, when in reality my iPod isn't any more a danger to flight integrity than my old cassette player was. >> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which is silly. Silly or not, the regulation exists. >>> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Silly or not, the regulation exists. Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it. > Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a > problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it. Actually bureaucratic. Always easier and safer to say no to everything than say yes to something and have some sorta 1 in a million confluence of events trigger an event that they get blamed for. Heck, the TSA was essentially built on this principal. > >>> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a > problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it. Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha. >> >>> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha. So, you would have no problem with someone turning on a PED which could cause a full scale change in the glideslope indication (full up to full down) while the aircraft is doing an approach to minimums? I've actually observed this when I did a simple experiment using parked aircraft. Some aircraft, there was no effect. In others there was. Worst case was the full scale reversal on the glideslope indicator. Another case the localizer went from full scale left to two dots right. Care to tell us what the effect of either would be on an approach to minimums. What would the effect be of the errant down glideslope indication on an ILS CAT IIIB approach to 28R at KSFO? >> Actually, it's convenient. Instead of figuring which devices may be a >> problem, they just ban them all and they're done with it. > > Ah, the kindergarten approach to government regulation. Gotcha. Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Try using a portable aircraft radio with no local oscillator. It can't possibly interfere with the communications or navigation systems, but it's still banned, and any effort to explain to the flight attendant about who it works, and why it's legal, will be unsuccessful. "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote... > Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Try using a portable aircraft radio with no > local oscillator. It can't possibly interfere with the communications or > navigation systems, but it's still banned, and any effort to explain to the > flight attendant about who it works, and why it's legal, will be unsuccessful. That's because, as was pointed out in the quoted FAA regulations, it is NOT legal UNLESS the airline says it is! >Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Try using a portable aircraft radio >with no local oscillator. It can't possibly interfere with the >communications or navigation systems, but it's still banned, and any >effort to explain to the flight attendant about who it works, and why >it's legal, will be unsuccessful. You're success at convincing anyone it's legal to operate said radio will likely be limited because it's *not* legal. The fact that it is electronic, and not on the "allowed" list makes it illegal, regardless of the likelihood of it actually interfering with the communications or navigation systems. > >> It's an FAA regulation and it's safety related. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Silly or not, the regulation exists. I never claimed it didn't. It's just one more stupid thing the government burdens the people with. > >> You can find it at www.google.com > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than to try to explain about the FCC, and why they prohibit airborne > cell phone use. Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt the network. > Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines > are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private > planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using > their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's > argument that it would disrupt the network. You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in one place is what concerns the FCC. >> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines >> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many people in > one place is what concerns the FCC. Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont. Big sports events in spades. >>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if >>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Big sports events in spades. Trains and busses aren't traveling at 150 or more MPH and you won't get nearly the cell switching as you would in an airplane. > Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and > they dont. Nope. Cell phones are essentially line of sight. You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. The theory used by the FCC (which I am not even remotely qualified to comment on the reality) was that the phones in airplanes would "see" too many extra ground stations than the terestrial ones causing all sorts of confusion, problems, dogs and cats living together. > Big sports events in spades. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote >>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if airlines >>>> are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands of private >>>> planes in the air every day and you know the people in them are using >>>> their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't buy the FCC's >>>> argument that it would disrupt the network. >>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more >>> in them, let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the >>> signal from many people in one place is what concerns the FCC. >> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont. > Nope. Yep. > Cell phones are essentially line of sight. Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc. > You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those. > The theory used by the FCC (which I am not even > remotely qualified to comment on the reality) That last has always been obvious. > was that the phones in airplanes would "see" too many > extra ground stations than the terestrial ones causing all > sorts of confusion, problems, dogs and cats living together. Pity cellphones work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those. >> Big sports events in spades. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc. At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight. There is some bouncing, which can give coverage inside buildings. >> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. > > Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are > extensively used in those. No they aren't. >> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are >> extensively used in those. > >No they aren't. Actually, they are. There's a system called Aircell which is an overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with antennas pointing upward. It's quite popular on private jets and such. I also gather that if you're in a small plane flying at a few thousand feet, rather than 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet, you can use a regular cell phone and get away with it. R's, John >>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those. >> No they aren't. > Actually, they are. There's a system called Aircell which is an > overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with > antennas pointing upward. It's quite popular on private jets and > such. I also gather that if you're in a small plane flying at a few > thousand feet, rather than 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial > jet, you can use a regular cell phone and get away with it. Yep, it works very well indeed and is extensively used in choppers etc too. >>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are >>> extensively used in those. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with > antennas pointing upward. No it isn't. Aircell uses their own frequencies (3 MHz) that they won in an FCC auction. Their equipment is not compatible with the regular cell network, and it has been fully FAA certified to not interfere with aircraft systems. > It's quite popular on private jets and such. I also gather that if > you're in a small plane flying at a few thousand feet, rather than > 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet, you can use a regular cell > phone and get away with it. Yes, some get away with it, but I wouldn't call their use "extensive". Most private pilots I know don't use their cell phones when flying. > Yes, some get away with it, but I wouldn't call their use "extensive". > Most private pilots I know don't use their cell phones when flying. Perhaps not, but their passengers do. >> Actually, they are. There's a system called Aircell which is an >> overlay on the regular cellular network using fewer towers with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >network, and it has been fully FAA certified to not interfere with >aircraft systems. Aircell has been around for a long time. Their original system is an FAA certified cellular overlay. Their new system uses the frequencies they won in the 2006 auction. To fill in the gaps on long trips, they also offer equipment that uses Iridium and Inmarsat. >I also gather that if you're in a small plane flying at a few >thousand feet, rather than 30,000 feet or more as in a commercial jet, >you can use a regular cell phone and get away with it. A couple of years ago, an alternator failed in one of our club's planes. The folks in the plane flew it NORDO and used their cell phone to call up the approach control 20 miles from the (Class C) airport. Approach control gave them a phone number for the tower, and told them to call it in 5 minutes. They called up the tower, which cleared them for landing, and that was it - the ``Nextel approach,'' as it were. shmat@xenon.Stanford.EDU (VS) wrote in news:g0ks2i$86p$1 @xenon.Stanford.EDU: > A couple of years ago, an alternator failed in one of our club's planes. > The folks in the plane flew it NORDO and used their cell phone to > call up the approach control 20 miles from the (Class C) airport. > Approach control gave them a phone number for the tower, and told them > to call it in 5 minutes. They called up the tower, which cleared them > for landing, and that was it - the ``Nextel approach,'' as it were. Our Navy ship was approaching Charleston when one of the "lesser" electricians brought up an extra alternator out of phase melting "a few things", throwing our Radio Central into total darkness. We couldn't call for the harbor pilot or Navy tugs or "request permission to enter port" because there were no sellphones in 1968. Luckily, my electronic calibration lab (aptly designated EAT) was equipped with my Heathkit HW-100 ham radio transceiver and had its own stablized power supply, sitting like a beacon in the darkness. I was given the task of trying to raise some of my ham buddies in Charleston so we could use my radio my captain's wife really loved because she could talk to him over it, regularly when we were at sea. I found, on our favorite 3903 Khz SSB, some of my friends who got one of my other friends with a Charleston phone patch (interconnects ham radio with telephone lines) to come up on another frequency sos not to interrupt the chit chat. I ran ham radio phone patches to all the appropriate commands, many of whom would not believe us, at first, until one of the shoreside captains heard my captain's frustration and fixed that in a hurry. I suppose that could be called a "ham radio approach" to the Charleston Navy Base...(c; When I ordered some new power tubes for my home made linear in the cal lab, making my station the most powerful transmitter aboard, my captain, himself, signed my requisition....sort of like having overnight service on Fedex...(c; As we were traveling alone, we couldn't simply use the flashing lights to relay to another Navy ship....there weren't any! Speaking of sellphones, in 1989 I stood in the eye of Hurricane Hugo (Class 5 major hurricane) on Red Fox Run in Quail Arbor subdivision of Summerville, SC near Charleston, on my trusty AMPS bagphone talking to people way off who were convinced by the TV talking heads we no longer existed. My ham buddies, who think they are the only way to communicate in a storm, always get mad at me when I point out my sellphone worked great throughout the storm on Sellular One...(c; .....ah, AMPS. We'll miss you..... > Luckily, my electronic calibration lab (aptly designated EAT) was > equipped with my Heathkit HW-100 ham radio transceiver and had its own > stablized power supply, sitting like a beacon in the darkness. . . . > I found, on our favorite 3903 Khz SSB, some of my friends who got one of > my other friends with a Charleston phone patch (interconnects ham radio [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I suppose that could be called a "ham radio approach" to the Charleston > Navy Base...(c; Or maybe the non-Kosher "EAT HAM" approach... > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote >>>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because even if >>>>>> airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are thousands >>>>>> of private planes in the air every day and you know the people in >>>>>> them are using their phones (if they can get a signal), so I don't >>>>>> buy the FCC's argument that it would disrupt the network. >>>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, >>>>> let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many >>>>> people in one place is what concerns the FCC. >>>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and trains too, and they dont. >>> Nope. >> Yep. >>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight. >> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc. > At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight. Its much more complicated than that. > There is some bouncing, So its clearly not line of sight. > which can give coverage inside buildings. That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings. >>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. >> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those. > No they aren't. Yes they are. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Its much more complicated than that. Not really. This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower frequencies will bend as they propagate, which is why communication with submarines was historically made with very low frequencies, (now satellite) and why high frequencies are used for short terrestrial distances. Under this principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight. >> There is some bouncing, > > So its clearly not line of sight. They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact. Signal reflection does not change that physical principle. >> which can give coverage inside buildings. > > That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings. Yes it is. There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings, particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas. The reason you can recieve a signal at all in some cases is that it comes through the windows, often reflected off of other objects. >>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes they are. They are not "extensively" used. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote >>>>>>>> Seems to me the FCC's argument is weak, too, because >>>>>>>> even if airlines are policing people's cell phone use, there are >>>>>>>> thousands of private planes in the air every day and you know >>>>>>>> the people in them are using their phones (if they can get a >>>>>>>> signal), so I don't buy the FCC's argument that it would >>>>>>>> disrupt the network. >>>>>>> You know of many private planes that have 150 or more in them, >>>>>>> let alone 300 or more. The concentration of the signal from many >>>>>>> people in one place is what concerns the FCC. >>>>>> Nope, if it was they'd ban the use of cellphones in buses and >>>>>> trains too, and they dont. >>>>> Nope. >>>> Yep. >>>>> Cell phones are essentially line of sight. >>>> Wrong. They work fine inside big buildings etc. >>> At the frequencies they use, they are definitely line-of-sight. >> Its much more complicated than that. > Not really. Yes, really. > This refers to the radio signal's ability to bend to follow > the curvature of the earth, and nothing more or less. Lower > frequencies will bend as they propagate, which is why communication > with submarines was historically made with very low frequencies, Nope, that works because those very low frequencys penetrate the water, different effect entirely. > (now satellite) and why high frequencies > are used for short terrestrial distances. Wrong again. > Under this principle, UHF frequencies and higher are considered as line of sight. Only by pig ignorant fools like you. I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. >>> There is some bouncing, >> So its clearly not line of sight. > They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact. It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal. > Signal reflection does not change that physical principle. It does mean that its not line of sight tho. >>> which can give coverage inside buildings. >> That isnt the reason for coverage inside buildings. > Yes it is. No it isnt. > There is significant loss when signals penetrate buildings, > particularly on lower floors of high rises in congested areas. Pity those arent usually line of sight of the base and it doesnt work due to the reflections either. > The reason you can recieve a signal at all in > some cases is that it comes through the windows, Wrong again with most buildings. > often reflected off of other objects. That aint how it gets inside the windows. >>>>> You get higher up, you get more towers in the line of sight. >>>> Pity cellphones still work fine in private aircraft and are extensively used in those. >>> No they aren't. >> Yes they are. > They are not "extensively" used. Yes they are. > I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it > works fine anyway. Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. > It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal. Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less of a contributor to good performance than is commonly thought; they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see "multipath interference" for more). And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for how long, exactly? Bob M. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. > Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. >>>>> There is some bouncing, >>>> So its clearly not line of sight. >>> They are clearly line of sight. There is absolutely no question about that fact. >> It aint line of sight when its a reflected signal. > Signals "reflected" by local structures are MUCH less of a contributor to good performance than is commonly thought; Irrelevant to his stupid claim that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored. > they are, in fact, generally a detriment (see "multipath interference" for more). Wrong with cellphones. > And YOU'VE been doing RF engineering work for how long, exactly? Since before you were even born most likely. >> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is >> "line of sight" in this sense. > > Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am > on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top > of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU believe that the signals are getting from you to your base at the house, in the above scenario? Bob M. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base >>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. >>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. >> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am >> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top >> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. > Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU > believe that the signals are getting from you to > your base at the house, in the above scenario? It clearly aint line of sight. Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc. Nothing like line of sight in fact. >>Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU >>believe that the signals are getting from you to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nothing like line of sight in fact. How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight? > Rod Speed wrote >>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU >>> believe that the signals are getting from you to >>> your base at the house, in the above scenario? >> It clearly aint line of sight. >> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc. >> Nothing like line of sight in fact. > How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight? The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of the base with that big building in the line of sight. >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of the base with that > big building in the line of sight. You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation. The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base >>>>>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. >>>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. >>>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am >>>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top >>>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. >>>>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU >>>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to >>>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario? >>>> It clearly aint line of sight. >>>> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc. >>>> Nothing like line of sight in fact. >>> How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight? >> The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of >> the base with that big building in the line of sight. > You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. We'll see... > As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without > the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation. Only by pig ignorant fools like you. > The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat. Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid. > Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid. So, it can go through buildings, but not a hill? And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, because they didn't think putting them at a higher elevation made any sense? Let's try this again. HOW SO YOU THINK THE SIGNAL GETS THERE? > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base >>>>>>>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. >>>>>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. >>>>>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am >>>>>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top >>>>>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. >>>>>>> Let's put it this way - how, exactly, do YOU >>>>>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to >>>>>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario? >>>>>> It clearly aint line of sight. >>>>>> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc. >>>>>> Nothing like line of sight in fact. >>>>> How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight? >>>> The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of >>>> the base with that big building in the line of sight. >>> You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. >> We'll see... >>> As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without >>> the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation. >> Only by pig ignorant fools like you. >>> The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat. >> Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid. > So, it can go through buildings, but not a hill? It clearly can go thru buildings, otherwise you wouldnt be able to use a cellphone inside a building. > And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, I was talking about a single base which is the one I use when inside my house. > because they didn't think putting them at a higher elevation made any sense? That base is already at the highest elevation possible, on the top of the hill thats on the north side of the town. Because my house is at the bottom of the hill on the flat, there is no direct line of sight between the base and my house, the top edge of the hill gets in the way of that direct line of sight and you cant see the base from my house, even if you use a telescope etc, because its back past the top of the hill that you can see from the house. > Let's try this again. > HOW SO YOU THINK THE SIGNAL GETS THERE? NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT IT AINT LINE OF SIGHT. >>And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, > > I was talking about a single base which is the one I use when inside my house. You are certain there is only one possible "base" for your cell calls? > Rod Speed wrote >>> And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, >> I was talking about a single base which is the one I use when inside my house. > You are certain there is only one possible "base" for your cell calls? Yep, its a relatively small town and I know exactly where all the bases are. >>>>And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yep, its a relatively small town and I know exactly where all the bases are. Yes, you know where the bases are, but do you know which ones could be covering your house. Can you also explain how the signal gets from the cell tower to your house, since you stated it wasn't line of site. If it's not line of site, then it is reflected from something. So, do you rely on skip to make your cell phone work at home? Tell us, please. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations, >>>> I was talking about a single base which is the one I use when inside my house. >>> You are certain there is only one possible "base" for your cell calls? >> Yep, its a relatively small town and I know exactly where all the bases are. > Yes, you know where the bases are, but do you know which ones could be covering your house. Yes, because there isnt any other base that can do that, there's only the one. > Can you also explain how the signal gets from the cell tower to your house, since you stated it wasn't line of site. Dont need to, ALL I need to do is rub his nose in the FACT that it aint line of sight. > If it's not line of site, then it is reflected from something. Wrong again. > So, do you rely on skip to make your cell phone work at home? Nope. And there is more than just reflections and skip involved with 900MHz GSM too. > Tell us, please. Not relevant to whether its line of sight or not. And just how many of you are there between those ears ? > mrtravel <mrtravel@a.aa> wrote > > >>If it's not line of site, then it is reflected from something. > > Wrong again. If it is not line of sight and not reflected (or skipped)? > Rod Speed wrote >>> If it's not line of site, then it is reflected from something. >> Wrong again. > If it is not line of sight and not reflected (or skipped)? Irrelevant to whether it clearly aint line of sight. > Yes, you know where the bases are, but do you know which ones could be > covering your house. Can you also explain how the signal gets from the > cell tower to your house, since you stated it wasn't line of site. > If it's not line of site, then it is reflected from something. Sight, not site. Cellular communications is line of sight. However "line of sight" doesn't mean that the signal can't pass through walls, etc. Depending on the frequency, the signal can go through building walls, windows, etc.. Some people don't understand the technical meaning of line of sight. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru > the hill, stupid. Since you are so smart, explain it to us idiots in enough detail that you demonstrate your superior knowledge. I'm waiting. > Since you are so smart, explain it to us idiots in enough detail that you > demonstrate your superior knowledge. I'm waiting. Hope you have some time set aside, it will be along wait. Mr. S honed his rhetorical skills by watching Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch over and over again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM >> Since you are so smart, explain it to us idiots in enough detail that you >> demonstrate your superior knowledge. I'm waiting. > > Hope you have some time set aside, it will be along wait. Mr. S honed > his rhetorical skills Yet not so well, since when he loses an argument (which is almost always the case since he is clueless about such a wide variety of subjects), he resorts to the same few lame responses, ironically, all of which describe him perfectly, i.e. "Sounds like you cant <sic> bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag." "Now you're lying. You are just trying to bullshit your way out of your predicament and are fooling absolutely no one at all, as always." "And all you manage to do is blow whatever little credibility you might have had completely out of the water." If he had honed is rhetorical skills, he could do much better. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base >>>>>>>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway. >>>>>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, >>>>>>>>> it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense. >>>>>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am >>>>>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top >>>>>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight. >>>>>>> Let's put it this way - how, *exactly*, do YOU >>>>>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to >>>>>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario? >>>>>> It clearly aint line of sight. >>>>>> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc. >>>>>> Nothing like line of sight in fact. >>>>> How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight? >>>> The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of >>>> the base with that big building in the line of sight. >>> You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. >> We'll see... >>> As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without >>> the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation. >> Only by pig ignorant fools like you. >>> The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat. >> Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid. > Since you are so smart, explain it to us idiots in enough > detail that you demonstrate your superior knowledge. No need, it clearly aint line of sight. > I'm waiting. Cant even spell w.nking. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message