 |
 | 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 / Country Specific / UK Group / March 2008'I'm On The Plane!' Phone Calls In Mid Air
The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes may become a feature of modern plane travel. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91221-1310224,00.html > The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a commercial > flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes may become a > feature of modern plane travel. > http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91221-1310224,00.html I'm glad I've already managed to travel most of the Earth as I feel I may do a lot less air travel in future or at least only on the airlines that continue the ban of mobile phones. >> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > may do a lot less air travel in future or at least only on the > airlines that continue the ban of mobile phones. Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the onboard phones, at a exorbitant price.  SignatureContinuum - Meet people from all over the world... then kill them. Free online multiplayer action game http://www.getcontinuum.com/ >>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the > onboard phones, at a exorbitant price. Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result. >>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result. Exactly .Is there to be no escape from the friggin' things . >>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result. I was under the impression they're doing it by installing a nanoCell inside the plane and having it connect to the world via the existing satellite connections they currently use... Making it just as expensive... Gordon >>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result. Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and landing or is it just a "security" restriction >>>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and > landing or is it just a "security" restriction A couple of times during 2007 my SE phone has flight mode, so I wanted to use it for music, but was told not to use it at all, as the airline(s) i was travelling with didnt accept it. So I couldnt use it. Carry my mp3 player with me everywhere still. maybe this will change Tracym >>>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and > landing or is it just a "security" restriction On the offchance that it does cause a problem (which could happen, depending on where you're sitting in the aircraft, which base station you're talking to, etc) takeoff and landing are the two worst times for it to happen because there's no room for error. If you're seven miles up and you clobber a critical flight system they've got chance to do something about it before hitting the ground. GSM mobile phones can cause interference to nearby electronics, as anyone who's held one close to audio gear will know. Given that wiring passes down the fuselage, you're going to be close to some of it. Banning all electronic devices during critical flight phases is a bit overkill, but it's simpler than getting cabin crew and Joe Public to have to determine which bits are perfectly safe. It's also not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone/ipod/game for 30 minutes or so. SignatureDave mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space) http://www.llondel.org So many gadgets, so little time >>>>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >to determine which bits are perfectly safe. It's also not that much of a >hardship to manage without your phone/ipod/game for 30 minutes or so. It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3 hours so ban the use of phones I say !!! >>>>>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>>>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3 >hours so ban the use of phones I say !!! That would depend on the personal circumstances of each individual. The issue isn't so much as whether not being able to use a phone is a hardship or not, its whether it's disturbing to other passengers. Personally, it wouldn't bother me too much on a short daytime flight, but it certainly would on a long-haul overnight flight. I notice that Qantas are also introducing the use of mobile phones in flight, but they're restricting it to SMS and Internet access only, which seems a good idea. They're also asking people to keep their phone's alerts on vibrate only. Chris >> It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3 >> hours so ban the use of phones I say !!! > > That would depend on the personal circumstances of each individual. No, not really. What are you supposed to do about a problem you hear about via your phone when you're at 35,000k ft above the Atlantic ? Ask the pilot turn around and drop you by parachute into your trouble spot ? If the conversation is a bit of good news, then it can bloody well wait until you've landed. So, either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ? SignatureMark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. > So, either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ? To stave off the boredom. Dave : > So, either way what's the point of having mobile : > access in the air ? : : To stave off the boredom. Go to sleep..? Or read a book..? Works for me. Ivor >: > So, either way what's the point of having mobile >: > access in the air ? >: >: To stave off the boredom. > > Go to sleep..? Or read a book..? Works for me. And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot blabbing "I'm on the plane!" beside you! : >: In message <6554sgF2ec1q8U1@mid.individual.net> : >: Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot : blabbing "I'm on the plane!" beside you! Indeed ;-) Ivor >>: > So, either way what's the point of having mobile >>: > access in the air ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot blabbing "I'm on >the plane!" beside you! What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and talking to the passenger seated next to him? Chris >>> : > So, either way what's the point of having mobile >>> : > access in the air ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and > talking to the passenger seated next to him? Many seem to confuse the situation; substituting prefixes. i.e. tele gets replaced by MEGA. SignatureDavid Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com >>> : > So, either way what's the point of having mobile >>> : > access in the air ? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chris You get to listen in on the conversation and the conversation is likely to be more meaningful than "Hey, I bet you cant guess where I'm calling from". >>>> : > So, either way what's the point of having mobile >>>> : > access in the air ? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to be more meaningful than "Hey, I bet you cant guess where I'm calling >from". OK, perhaps you're right. but at $4 a minute I don't think many people are going to be making long calls for trivial things like that, at least once the novelty of the new service is over. Chris >What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and >talking to the passenger seated next to him? I'm surprised you haven't noticed yet. The difference is the same as between a passenger on a train talking on a phone and talking to the the passenger seated next to him. Or between someone in an office talking on a phone and talking to someone next to him. Or between someone in a restaurant and ... Or, ... The differenece is that many (most?) people when talking into a mobile phone SHOUT and block out their surroundings so completely that they have no comprehension of the adverse effect they're having on those around them. Talking on a mobile phone in company is extremely anti-social; it's one of those things that should be restricted to consenting adults in private. Mike. [snip] : What's the difference between a passenger talking on a : phone. and talking to the passenger seated next to him? You can't hear both sides of the conversation, very annoying ;-) Actually, most people on public transport seem to raise their voices far above the level they would use normally. I once spent 30 minutes on a bus listening to some idiot female on the back seat yakking on her mobile the entire time. I reckon I could have given a blow by blow description of her entire social life for the following month for quite some time afterwards..! At least with a bus you can get off when it gets unbearable (unless you're the driver..!) - no chance on a plane. BTW if anyone ever tells me talking on the phone while driving is dangerous, I tell them that driving a double decker with 60+ screaming schoolkids is *far* more distracting..!! Ivor Snip > BTW if anyone ever tells me talking on the phone while driving is > dangerous, I tell them that driving a double decker with 60+ screaming > schoolkids is *far* more distracting..!! > > Ivor Imagine teaching them ! >>> It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3 >>> hours so ban the use of phones I say !!! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >is a bit of good news, then it can bloody well wait until you've landed. So, >either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ? You can often do almost as much as if you were in an office or hotel room the other side of town and received a phone call about something. I can think of dozens of situations where you can resolve a problem over the phone. For example, you might be a company executive being asked to make a decision on some important issue that needs your approval. You might be an engineer being asked for technical advice on an important system that has developed a problem. A lot of people traveling on business carry their laptops with them and can do at least part of their jobs as effectively on an aircraft as they can on the ground. Of course if you work as a janitor and a phone call to you normally means you're being called to clean up the vomit that some kid just spewed up in your workplace, then no, there's not much you can do about it. That's why I said it depends on the personal circumstances of each individual. Chris >It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3 >hours so ban the use of phones I say !!! Agreed I know for a fact that over a period of two consecutive days next week I am going to be subjected to mobile phone nuisance whilst traveling by train from the UK to the continent and back . I see no need for people to use or even receive calls whilst using public transport except in an emergency just the same with the smoking ban if people cannot do without a cigarette during the time they are confined to a bus or train I think they must be mental . Not being able to have cigarette between entering my home rail station and arriving in London does not bother me in the slightest same regarding my journey from London over to Brussels and I am an heavy smoker , and I most certainly will not be using my phone whilst on the train either. On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no problem but the eleven hour flight I would make just for pleasure alone would not be acceptable to me regards smoking . > On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no > smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no > problem but the eleven hour flight I would make just for pleasure > alone would not be acceptable to me regards smoking . The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours, was in the days of prop planes. >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no >> smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours, >was in the days of prop planes. Depends where - it takes 11 hours to get to the west coast in a 747. SignaturePeter : >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states : >> due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : Depends where - it takes 11 hours to get to the west : coast in a 747. ISTR it was just over 9 hours from Paris to San Francisco the last time I did it. Never again, I prefer changing in New York or Chicago. It's just too long a haul in one go, particularly if the plane is packed with screaming kids..! Ivor >: >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states >: >> due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > too long a haul in one go, particularly if the plane is packed with > screaming kids..! That sounds more like San Francisco to Paris, with a good wind. The scheduled time from San Francisco to Paris is usually 10.5 hours, from Paris to San Francisco 11.25 hours. That time less half an hour or so is usually what you spend in the air. Dennis Ferguson [snip] : > ISTR it was just over 9 hours from Paris to San : > Francisco the last time I did it. Never again, I prefer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : hours. That time less half an hour or so is usually what : you spend in the air. Could well be, it was a few years back now. Ivor >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no >> smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours, >was in the days of prop planes. Eleven hours to the west coast of the US sounds about right. Chris > <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote: >> >>> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no >>> smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no >>> problem but the eleven hour flight I would make just for pleasure >>> alone would not be acceptable to me regards smoking . >> The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours, >> was in the days of prop planes. > > Eleven hours to the west coast of the US sounds about right. Take a smoke break on the east coast....... : > On the other hand I will never fly over to the states : > due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now , [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took : _eleven_ hours, was in the days of prop planes. Those are the days Ron lives in. Ivor >>>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and > landing or is it just a "security" restriction Think it's a convenience thing. It's easier to say ALL electronic items must be turned off during take off and landing, than for the cabin crew to have to check each item to see if it's allowed or not. As someone else said, takeoff and landing are the two most critical points of the flight, where you REALLY don't want ANY chance of something interfering with critical systems. SignatureRegards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) >>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the > onboard phones, at a exorbitant price. Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you 'roam' to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost?? SignatureRegards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) >>>> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a >>>> commercial flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you > 'roam' to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost?? You'd probably be in range of too many cells on each channel, plus there's a speed limit associated with GSM that can make operation problematic on busy cells. Because it's a time-division multiplex system, your transmissions have to arrive at the base station in their assigned slot. The base tells your phone to advance or retard its transmission to make sure your transmission arrives in its correct slot. If you're travelling too fast towards or away from the base station, it can't update your phone at a high enough rate and so you'll overlap into what may be other transmissions. SignatureDave mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space) http://www.llondel.org So many gadgets, so little time > Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you > 'roam' to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost?? You'd have to roam - there aren't too many base stations in mid-Atlantic or mid-Pacific, or I suspect on the Asian steppe. In any case the beams probably don't reach upward too far - it'd be a big waste of power when they could be angled towards subscribers on the ground. Theo : >> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made : >> during a commercial flight, meaning the sound of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure : passengers used the onboard phones, at a exorbitant price. Ha..! Never once seen anyone use one of those. Anyone here confess to doing so..?! Ivor > : Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure > : passengers used the onboard phones, at a exorbitant price. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ivor My last holiday was a cruse, many of the parents kept in touch with their kids with PMR 446Mhz transceivers. SignatureGraham %Profound_observation% > Ha..! Never once seen anyone use one of those. Anyone here confess to > doing so..?! > > Ivor \ / Hands up. I did on a long haul flight from Singapore to London back in 2002 ish (being a bit of a gadget detective) was on phone for about min and half and it worked out at about £4 NEVER AGAIN and I REALLY dont want "mobiles" on planes in normal mode - "yeah Mum I can see the clouds from up ere" crap conversations. Another sacred place should be the Tube (in tunnels). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.