Cellphones could disrupt airplane systems: study

A new study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University says the use of cellphones on airplanes can "impact a plane's navigation or other systems." This study wasn't conducted in a lab, but on actual flights across three airlines in the Northeast and found that "several" cellphone calls are typically made on commercial flights during takeoff and approach (no surprise there; that's when you get the best signal)  -- the most critical stages where accidents occur. Seems that with the assistance of the cellphone hating FAA, researchers were able to stow a broadband antenna attached to a portable spectrum analyzer in a piece of carry-on luggage. The FCC, remember, is conducting its own independent study of in-flight cellphone usage which should wrap up by year-end. Whatever, let's be clear, we don't want to sit tethered to some blowhard detailing the advantages of English style knitting over Continental, mkay? This isn't just an issue about safety.

[Via The Wireless Report]

[Greg hates Lemmings @ Mar 1st 2006 9:05AM]

Isnt, this why they TELL U TO TURN OFF UR CELL PHONE!

[Robert @ Mar 1st 2006 9:13AM]

A study showing that calls have been made doesn't show any danger. It's not as it those flights with calls crashed. What is needed in a study is a sign of causation: cell phones in use generating anomalies in other systesm. The information presented here does not show causation of anything and is therefore uninteressting. If the actual report shows causation, then egadget has done a lousey job reporting....

[lejupp @ Mar 1st 2006 9:17AM]

So what does the study actually tell us?

How can a spectrum analyzer in a suitcase proof that

|| use of cellphones on airplanes
|| can "impact a plane's navigation
|| or other systems"
?

Or is that just a dogma the FAA takes for granted (and repeats it like a mantra) while all the study really shows us is that people actually use their cellphones in the plane?

[Cedrik @ Mar 1st 2006 9:17AM]

Am I the only one who makes calls during the flight? When going from NYC to LA (a few times a year on work), I wait till I pass over chicago to make a few calls. The idea that a cell phone, which has what a .5 watt xmitter?, could somehow mess up the electronics on the jet is rather sad. That stuff should be protected from much worse. I mean they are passing over all kinds of radio on the ground, things much stronger.

[Khaytsus @ Mar 1st 2006 9:28AM]

Cedrik,

First, I *SERIOUSLY* doubt you make any successful phone calls in the air, if you do I'm sure they don't last very long.

Secondly, you realize that while the electronics in the airplane are not *messed up* their readings could be incorrect, leading to accidents (as mentioned in TFA) on take-offs and landings.

Plus, the instruments are likely shielded from external sources, but not from internal sources.

I think precaution is better than the minor convenience of you placing a call "in the air".

[Eagle117 @ Mar 1st 2006 9:30AM]

If I just put my cell phone (Cingular) next to a computer speaker it will make all kinds of noise when a call comes in or out. I can see where this same type of interference could cause problems on an airplane.

[Alex @ Mar 1st 2006 9:32AM]

I recently talked to a co-pilot for Pinnacle Airlines about this and he said that he could hear a little click in his headphones when someone was using a cell phone, but that was the extent of any interference he's ever experienced. He said the reasoning for the mandate is because there's a tiny chance that something might happen. Since we're up there at 40,000ft, it's safer to not risk it.

[Funny Bone @ Mar 1st 2006 9:38AM]

Anyway...If anyone wants to read more about knitting and some of the advantages of English style knitting you can check out this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knitting

[NNTPgrip @ Mar 1st 2006 9:41AM]

I think it affects the safety of everyone on the plane that is using a cell phone. Puts a whole new spin on "air rage". Give us internet up there, but please leave the cell phone mess out. Its bad enough I've got to be around the increasingly aweful general public, sneezing, coughing, crying babies, line of 20 people for the crapper after the "meal", etc. If I have to listen to one of the waterheads talk about abosolutely nothing, or whine about the most mundane crap, I will find something they didn't take at security and beat them over the head with it.

That just leads to jail, but now due to 9/11, even though I am not an arab, do not believe in God, and will prove I'm not Muslim will eat Bacon right in front of security, this sort of "air rage" leads to a hell of a lot of jail time. Nobody wants this sort of thing. Just keep them out, keep lieing about the interferance. Better yet, CREATE a device that visably is affected (warning lights etc.), install one in every plane, and swear that it is important to the operation of the aircraft.

[JimD @ Mar 1st 2006 9:41AM]

Personally, I don't want to be sitting next to Cedrik or any other blowhard while they are screaming "can you hear me?"

Cell phones should be banned on all flights. PERIOD!!

[warrenpeace @ Mar 1st 2006 9:47AM]

There's one simple reason that cellphones should never be allowed to be used on flights. Society's poor (and steadily declining) manners. It's bad enough they allow babies on planes.

[gork @ Mar 1st 2006 9:50AM]

No....this IS a issue only dealing with Safety. You cannot legislate etiquette. The government should never be in a place that deals with manners. Next thing you know there will be a law that you have to NOT chew gum with your mouth open. I mean you should not do that, but it's not the government that needs to do this. Government should ideally only be concerned with the safety aspects of this and NOT the fact you might be annoyed....

[SoopahMan @ Mar 1st 2006 9:51AM]

It's been admitted on the floor of Congress that the sole legitimate reason for keeping cell phones off on a plane is to prevent the annoyance of people making calls. The idea that they'll send the plane careening to the ground is just a scare tactic - "We're not asking you to be polite - people could die".

This article states this scare tactic again but again provides no proof for it - as usual, there isn't any.

The only legitimate technical concern I've read on cells being used on a plane is that they would connect to more cell towers, weakly. On a grand scale this unusual usage of the cell towers may cause disruption of the cell network in general, as the software managing the towers doesn't know quite what to do with that kind of signal.

This scare tactic is crap, and we should demand we stop being lied to.

[gork @ Mar 1st 2006 9:56AM]

Number 9.....Oh and how do you intend that babys go with there mothers from one point to another?? by Car?? From NYC to LA?? I DON'T think so!

Sorry. The government already has too much power. You bitch when they want to scan internet data for Al Qaida yet it's perfectly fine to say cell phones ain't allowed on dem der airplanes because poor little warrenpeace may be annoyed....

[havaloc @ Mar 1st 2006 9:56AM]

My old Nextel iDEN would always trip a GFCI outlet from a foot away. Is it unreasonable to imagine a similar instance where a cell phone could trip a relay, causing the spoilers to deploy mid air for example?

[Robert @ Mar 1st 2006 10:09AM]

From what I've read, the real reason cell phone calls are not allowed on flights is that the ground based antennas can't switch all of the calls fast enough. I one or two people are flying through the cells every couple of seconds, that's okay but a whole plane of them would really mess things up. Luftansa is currently testing cell phone usage on planes by installing a micro-cell on the plane.

They are also planning cell phone free seating areas to deal with the unsocialable behavior of some users.

[Andrew @ Mar 1st 2006 10:22AM]

A spectrum analyzer will show that the radio signals produced by a cellphone, are along the same signals produced by important airplane equipment. This will show that if the two are operating at the same time, there COULD be problems. Not saying there will, but there could.

The bottom line is that they tell you not to use your cellphone, so just don't use it. If I see anyone on one of my flights using a cellphone, I'm getting the air marshal involved.

[damian @ Mar 1st 2006 10:39AM]

The reason the cell companies don't like it is because the phone can talk to multiple cells simultaneously (how this messes things up I'm not sure) but it's not because of switching speed.

[Jasper @ Mar 1st 2006 10:50AM]

I for one believe that it a phone might be able to harm a air plan a 200Usd scanner at the door might be able to solve this problem and as it not installed it must be because its not needed

[Jason @ Mar 1st 2006 10:51AM]

What kind of natural radiation exposure does a plane get at 30,000 feet for a few hours?

I'd guess a lot more than 200Watts {400 cell phones}.

Why is it that a plane's electronics can survive a lightning hit but get messed up by a 0.5W transmitter?

[Jasper @ Mar 1st 2006 10:55AM]

my feeling is that if a phone might bring down a plan or somebody was guessing that might be the case all planes will have a 200Usd scanner installed at the door, until that happens I say keep it on of off whatever

[Bill @ Mar 1st 2006 11:08AM]

I'm a private pilot, flying relatively uncomplicated airplanes. I have experienced cell phone interference with my plane's communications system.

But consider this: If there's some emergency on board a commercial flight --a thunderstorm, engine failure, loss of cabin pressure for example-- that's when a lot of people are going to call their family and friends. It's not just one or two phones: It will be dozens of cell phones at the exact moment when it's absolutely essential that every remaining system on the airplane be working at peak performance. During an emergency, when the pilots are already very busy, you don't want them to wonder: Is that other anomaly because of cell phones or something else?

[Pfft @ Mar 1st 2006 11:09AM]

I will pay extra to fly on an airline with a cellphone usage ban.

"Uh huh, uh huh... yeah... yeah... I know... oh, I know... yeah.... HA HA HA HA HA "

Imagine that repeated four thousand times at the top of her nasally volume from NYC to LA.

[Roblyman @ Mar 1st 2006 11:11AM]

The FAA rules (CFR 14 Part 91.21) state that it is up to the pilot in command to determine whether certain portable electronic devices can be used in flight. As a commercial pilot I have never had a problem with someone using a cellphone in my plane until about a month ago.

Someone in the seat behind me fired up his cellphone. I got all kinds of buzzing and static in my headset, similar to the sound of putting a cell phone next to your computer speakers when a call comes in or it polls for messages/connection strength. What a pain in the a-- that was. I was entering a class D airspace and had to ask the tower to repeat their instructions. Luckily it was not busy and did not present an actual safety hazard. My policy from now on will be NO CELLPHONES in flight!

Granted, a small plane has a much greater chance of this type of interference due to the proximity of the passengers to the pilot, but I am not sure what other kinds of wiring might pass around the passenger compartment of a large aircraft that might make them susceptible to interference. Also, my cell phone has never caused this type of interference in the same aircraft, even though I have accidentally left it on in my bag in the front seat and heard it ringing.

I can tell you that in some circumstances it CAN cause a safety issue.

"November crack crack crackle crack turn right buzz crackle crackle...." might actually be "November 12345 hotel, tower, turn right immediately,737 on short final to runway 36 left. Follow 737, number two to land, caution, wake turbulence."

Not something I want to ask "Say again" for.

[CMU guy @ Mar 1st 2006 11:18AM]

http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html

""We found that the risk posed by these portable devices is higher than previously believed," said Bill Strauss. "These devices can disrupt normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital for safe landings." Strauss is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Md."

[Pit @ Mar 1st 2006 11:23AM]

Once I left my cell phone turned on on a flight from Miami to Montreal. Nothing happend, thank God, but it scared me when I saw that it was turned on when I got to the hotel.

[David @ Mar 1st 2006 11:44AM]

If they officially allow cell phone use in planes they will outfit the planes with signal repeaters so the phones use lower power and thus cause less interference. The repeaters can connect back to the ground via satellite or through a network of high powered ground based transmitters. As it is now, using a cell phone in a plane causes dropped calls for people on the ground because the airplane caller is jumping cell towers at a very high rate.Personally I hope they don't allow cell phone use in planes because it would be uber-annoying...

[dd @ Mar 1st 2006 12:10PM]

#5 Cedrik,

You dont remember all the cell calls from the 9/11 planes??
If the FAA had ANY DATA that suggested there was a risk, phones would be banned at the freaking gates.
I am sure the cockpit electronics manufacturers are stunned that their equipment is now deemed vulnerable.
I am also sure their redundant systems are tested in a RF chamber with many, many, times the power of a crappy little cellphone. The article is BS.

[tim @ Mar 1st 2006 12:30PM]

warrenpeace,

As a new father, I can say that you sir are a freaking idiot. How do you expect people with babies to travel? People with babies have right too. What a stupid analogy. Sometimes I wonder if the geeks that post on endgadget ever leave their houses to see the real world. Or are they the geek packs that drive women away in droves, with their jeans, bad haircuts, ackward body language, and leather jackets that I see roaming around town in packs?

If I see anyone using a cell phone on a plane, I rat them out to the airplane staff. I just wish the airlines took it more seriously and had jackasses who use their cellphones on planes could just be arrested and handcuffed upon landing. Since they don't take it that seriously, it must not be that much of a concern, unless of couse the airlines are just incompetent. Hum, what industry is in shambles right now?

Any electroncis that transmit RF could interfer with other electronics regardless of the frequency and power levels of said transmitter (because of rectification by dioides used for ESD protection in every IC made these days. Any semiconductor junction could rectify RF and cause cirucit malfunction), although the lower the power the lower the risk. The point is cell phones are all over the map as far as their desing goes and do all sorts of different things in the RF domain depending on the manufacturer and model. It's a big burden to test every cell phone made to make sure it is OK to use in flight. Some cell phones might pose no problems while others might cause some serious problems. And really, what is so damn important that you can't wait to talk about? Additionally there are phones for essential in flight calls already set up, though you do pay hefty rates. I don't see the need to lower peoples cost so that people can act like even more of idiots on their cell phones than they already do, say when driving down the road.

>Why is it that a plane's electronics can survive a lightning hit but get messed up by a 0.5W transmitter?

Because there is no ground return path, except through the air for a plane. It is the current in lightning that destroys electronics and sets things on fire. Planes are designed to shunt lightning current through the alumnium body where it won't harm electornics.

Lighting and RF transmission are totally different physical phenomena. Lightning is plasma throguh air. What does that have to do with RF?

In conclusion, I don't want to pay a penny more for my tickets to support the financial aspects of putting cell phones on planes. So if they can add cell phones on flights and make it safe for free, fine.

[Rob @ Mar 1st 2006 12:53PM]

Yes the systems are checked in RF chambers, etc, but as much equipment on a modern airplane is designed specifically to take in RF signals, sources of RF can cause interference. Like has been said, it isn't necessarily a total failure, but would do things like cause static in the radios, weaken GPS signal reception (making location information less precise, which could lead to increased pilot workload for several reasons), weaken other radionavigation equipment reception, etc. The most common result would be increased pilot workload, and having to deal with less than 100% equipment, which makes things tougher for the pilots and reduces overall safety.

It isn't that the electronics get scrambled like holding a magnet right next to your PC or something like that, the electronics are shielded from that. But all those antennae are there to take in radio signals, and even if a source of radio noise is at a different frequency than the equipment is meant to receive, it can cause interference. The airlines that are planning to allow cellphones must be taking some kind of precaution or at least banning cell phone use during critical phases of flight.

My personal experience is much like the user above, a passenger using a cell phone prevented me from communicating with the radios, and it caused ATC's transmissions to come in as mostly static in my headset.

In the end, it really is a case of better safe than sorry, which you will see is a paradigm that is followed a whole lot with aviation, where mistakes and problems can have drastic consequences. Additionally, current cell phone technology is not really designed to connect to cells from way up in the air where your phone can see many of them at the same time.

[Frequent Flyer @ Mar 1st 2006 1:01PM]

On my most recent flight from NY to DFW I sat next to a DHS middle managment type; I shoulder surfed his laptop the whole flight, watching him work on a PPT presentation (that sucked) regarding a training simulation attack on LA.

Near the end of the trip he put up his laptop, got out an IPOD and begain listening to his music; BTW, I had my Dell DJ on the whole flight. The stewardess came down the cabin and announced the whole "turn off your electronics, seats in the upright position, etc..". I turned off my DJ and put it in my backpack; *HE* hid the ipod under his jacket and continued listening through out the landing.

Ok, that's the end of the story, I just had to nark, nothing else happend, the radio interference from the IPOD didn't screw up our landing, etcetcetc.

[Rob @ Mar 1st 2006 1:07PM]

Fun facts about lightning, it creates a ton of RF noise that DOES interfere with aircraft radios, but only for a brief moment. Around thunderstorms I can 'hear' the buzz or click of each lightning strike in my headset. More interesting than harmful obviously.

ADF is not really used much any more, especially on commercial aircraft, but is also a good example. ADF is basically a needle that points to whatever radio station you tune in, there are specific transmitters for this purpose. Around thunderstorms the ADF will point at the thunderstorm, which is misleading if you are not aware of it. The obvious error would be to follow the needle right into the thunderstorm, not a good place to go.

But yeah damage (or not) to equipment from an actual lightning strike is an entirely different thing.

I suppose that did not have much to do with cell phones.

[Walter E. Wallis @ Mar 1st 2006 1:11PM]

People who design equipment for aircraft that does not withstand normal or abnormal signals should get into another line of work.

[Walter E. Wallis @ Mar 1st 2006 1:12PM]

People who design equipment for aircraft that does not withstand normal or abnormal signals should get into another line of work.

[warrenpeace� @ Mar 1st 2006 1:29PM]

tim,
you would force a couple hundred strangers, in a small confined space, to listen to your offspring cry for hours and I'm the idiot? I do go outside and deal with people, which is why I'm so bitter. Less sense of entitlement because you bred, thanks.

if there was a way for text messaging to be allow, but voice calls refused, I'd be for that. or maybe email services built into those little headset tv's?

or maybe people could read a book while they fly? ha, just kidding.

[ben @ Mar 1st 2006 1:39PM]

we've known this in europe for several year's now.

[Wry Cooter @ Mar 1st 2006 1:43PM]

Simply wait until you are in the terminal to make your freaking calls. Okay?

You can survive without yakking, until then. Try it.

[nein @ Mar 1st 2006 1:44PM]

I'm with #29. While of course you can't just stick your kid in the cupboard whilst you go on vacation, it does really suck for everyone else on the plane for you to bring him/her/it. My last flight, I pulled an all-nighter, thinking "oh, I'll just fuckin crash out on the plane, because I'll be so damn tired" -- no, I had this strange picture repeating in my head about what it'd look like to try throwing a baby out a plane window...

*thud* WAAAAAAAA
...
*thud*

The window was strong, but the baby was silent.

[Gummi @ Mar 1st 2006 3:05PM]

Interesting debate, but there are two issues
1. Can cell phones interfere with airplane's navigation systems or not?
2. Do people like it when people talk on the cell phone on airplanes?

I haven't seen the research on the first issue (show us a link, Engadget!) but if I read the story correctly, this was a very poorly conducted one. The fact that cell phone calls get picked up on a spectrum analyzer is no surprise, and we didn't need a big study to tell us that. The big question is whether these signals can cause the plane to make a sudden turn or screw up some meter readings. We don't know yet.

On the second issue, why would you want to ban cell phone conversations on airplanes while they are still allowed on buses, trains etc? There's no real difference between those environments. I agree it's annoying if someone sitting next to you is jabbering on the phone while you want to sleep, but again, how far do we want to take this? No cell phone conversations in the public if there's a stranger within 10 feet?

Just my 2c

[Nick @ Mar 1st 2006 5:32PM]

I think too many people (particularly Americans) come at this from too many different angles. You have the people who take the puddle jumper flights from NY to DC or Boston (two or three hours tops), and then you have the cross-country travelers (8-9 hours), and then you have the globe trotters who routinely make the trans-atlantic or trans pacific flights (easily 10-16 hours).

Making calls at 40k feet while inside the continent IS possible (I've seen it done but WON'T do it myself), as long as you're flying over a major city, but that call will be dropped just a minute or so later (highly amusing watching a woman talk for 90 seconds, look at her phone in frustration, shake it for good measure, and redial only to be disconnect another 90 seconds later). The cellular networks simply aren't capable of handling switching that fast...not on a small scale, and certainly not on a large scale if in-flight cell phone usage is approved.

Secondly, someone yakking away on a one hour flight is one thing, but if you're flying to the UK or western Europe (which I've had to do on too many occasions), eventually the creaking of the hundred-plus seats around you starts to drive you up the wall...concerns about SERIOUS air-rage become very real on a 12 hour flight to/from Budapest.

A worthy compromise might be to have a pico-cell in a small, SOUND PROOF cubicle (like the lavatories) that passengers can use to make their evidently urgent phone calls. But to make cell phone usage at the seat legal for the passengers would be tantamount to suicide for the airlines. Text messaging and mobile internet might be okay, but then you have to deal with eventual case of a nasty passenger viewing internet pr0n next to a young child flying alone...it'll happen, and oh won't the fallout be terrible when it does.

I am one of those biased Americans though. I haven't done a lot of puddle jumping, but I've been subjected to the cross-oceanic flights too many times in my lifetime. I personally prefer as much quiet as I can get aboard a plane....between the muted roar of the engines, the whine of the aircraft itself, the barely registering conversations of hundreds of people, or people moving around (I won't even mention the odd child crying), there is already enough noise aboard these flights. Having dedicated aisles for usage isn't really practical unless you intend to set up "pink-noise" generators around those aisles to cancel out as much of the conversational noise as possible...otherwise, the interior is still just a metal tube and sound WILL carry.

I'm all for internet (but not pervs doing perv things) on board, but let's treat the cell phone usage as an undesirable social activity (like relieving one's self). Let's keep it in private.

Anyway, just my to eurocents :)

[bryon @ Mar 1st 2006 6:34PM]

It wasn't terrorists that crashed those 9/11 flights. It was all the damn people using their cell phones.

[evo @ Mar 1st 2006 10:20PM]

A significant percentage of you reading this article have your cellphone within a meter of your computer at this very moment. Has your computer ever crashed when you made or took a call?

[dacmonJ @ Mar 1st 2006 11:33PM]

#39,

You are an ASS. Just because your PC doesn't "crash" when you put a cell phone next to it doesn't mean it isn't causing interference. Ever hear that annoying noise when a cell is too near a speaker, alarm clock, pc, etc? That same interference could affect cockpit voice communications or could potentially cause an instrument to give a false reading.

This could cause a huge problem if it occurred at the exact moment the pilot needed crucial information, or what if the pilot is trusting readings while fighting a system problem and a bunch of passengers decide they simply can't wait to yak on their phones?

I always laugh my ass off when I see people whip their phones out the second the plane touches down like they simply can't live without their phone on for another 5 minutes while the plane taxis to the gate.

Civilization survived without cell phones for 10,000 years I hardly think the inconveniance of not using them on a plane is going to cause too much pain for anyone but the self-absorbed egomaniacs that judge their self worth by how many calls they make.

[evo @ Mar 2nd 2006 3:51AM]

#40: Interesting that you resort to a personal attack instead of taking a moment to think. (If you practice thinking before mouthing off a little each day, it gets easier--I suggest you give it a try.)

The flight systems in modern commercial passenger aircraft, including all the instruments and flight controls, are digital, i.e. computers. All it takes is just one corrupted bit in the right place to crash a computer, yet interestingly, despite the millions of people making hundreds of millions of phone calls from right next to their computers (far closer than any passenger would be to a vital, digital flight system) the computers aren't constantly crashing when we make or take a call. You've been watching too many movies where computers exhibit temporary "interference" and "static" on their digital displays.

The buzz you hear when a phone is near speakers is the result of analog speaker wires happening to make a convenient antenna because they are the right length and at the right orientation, without any shielding. It takes far more energetic radiation than that emitted by a cellphone to significantly affect the tiny microwires inside a computer. Just because you hear some buzzing in your Radio-Shack-quality speaker wires doesn't mean that the computer right next to them is experiencing interference in its operation at all. If it were, it would crash.

Not to mention that cosmic radiation at high altitudes is significantly higher than at ground level. I used to live in Denver, and it was common for electronics to exhibit strange and erratic behavior because of the increased radiation levels even at that altitude. Commercial aircraft fly 5-6 times higher yet, but they aren't affected by this because their flight systems are hardened against random radiation flipping the wrong bit and crashing them.

I agree that people act ridiculously with their phones on planes, and so I'd also like to see them continue to be banned, but they are not dangerous to an airplane's flight systems.

(By the way, neither is your iPod or CD player. They make you put those away to make sure you can hear the flight crew.)

[Jason @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:38AM]

#40,

Apparently you need someone to "mouth off" to you since you don't know what you are talking about. Numerous components in even the most modern of aircraft are ANALOG (you know, important little bits like the fucking Pilot's communications headset), and even a digital system can be susceptible to interference.

Did you even read a single sentance I wrote? We're not talking about some "systems crash" here but cell phones causing an interference problem that interferes with the operation of the aircraft systems at a critical time.

Several pilots have already commented in this thread that cell phone interference has caused abnormality in their systems, and still you want to go on about how if a cell doesn't "crash your puter" it's safe to use in the air.

So in retrospect, you're still an ass.

[Walter E. Wallis @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:29PM]

In retro-retrospect the failure to adequately shield and protect avionics from common interference is criminal negligence. Thank God real men don't fly any more.

[Morgan @ Mar 2nd 2006 6:19PM]

The actual IEEE Spectrum publication (that the CMU press release refers to):
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069

The experiment only proves that people really use cellphones on planes, but there is interference information cited, especially on Page 3:

"the FCC and the FAA do not harmonize their regulations."

"intermodulation between some cellular phones caused emissions in the frequency bands used by an aircraft's GPS and distance-measuring equipment."

"spurious emissions from most intentional transmitters do not have to meet more rigorous FCC standards applicable to nonintentional transmitters"

[evo @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:14PM]

Jason, I haven't been in a flame war in such a long time--I think it's quite fun baiting you, so here goes again.

Obviously, many things in a plane are analog. Obviously, anything electronic can be susceptible to interference by something--as I said in my previous message. But this hardly means that it's likely to occur. Obviously, the pilot could have an aneurism at a critical moment during landing. Just because it's possible with the most minute probability doesn't mean it's anything to get worked up about.

So, if it will make you happy, I won't dispute that a cellphone, given the proper location in the plane (i.e. right next to the pilot's headset) and the perfect timing, could theoretically cause some buzzing in the pilot's headphones that would result in the inability to hear the tower clearly for all of 3-4 seconds max, thereby causing a dangerous situation. The point I'm making is that it in reality, this will never happen. Nor will any other supposed interference that requires the alignment of numerous already-unlikely events to culminate in a situation that brings down a plane.

What instead is far more likely is that something would cause a flight system computer to crash, which if it did occur, would be far more serious because it would result in loss of control of the plane or completely incorrect information display.

And by the way, the pilot that mentioned earlier his experience with cellphones was quite clearly speaking about flying a small aircraft with the passenger literally right behind him, and he had quite clearly had a great deal of exposure to people using cellphones in the plane without problems. He didn't say that it did cause a dangerous situation, only that he was freaked out when he heard some buzzing in his headphones--which were right next to the person using the phone, unlike in a commercial passenger plane. When was the last time you heard your computer speakers buzzing because your neighbor across the street or next door received a call?

Please reply; I look forward to even more desperate attempts by you to defend some point, any point, as true, regardless of its relevance to the real world. Maybe if you get a little angrier, you'll finally be right.

[Jason @ Mar 3rd 2006 10:19AM]

Wait a second, aren't you the same guy whose whole point was that if a cell phone didn't "crash your pc" it posed NO threat to aircraft systems?

Ya, I thought so.