Air France in-flight calling tests begin: not so great

That Air France in-flight calling trial is now well underway, and it looks like there's still some kinks left to iron out. The New York Times hitched a ride on a recent flight featuring tests of the system, and found that things weren't quite working up to snuff: voice quality was said to be like "talking to a small robot," only six passengers could get a signal at a time, Blackberry email didn't work, and calls placed from the ground to cell phones in the air went straight to voicemail. That's a pretty long list for a system that's been talked about for a couple years now -- let's hope OnAir manages to clear up some of these glitches before angry passengers revolt over not only having to listen to other people's conversations, but also their screaming over bad connections.

[Jason @ Apr 18th 2008 7:57PM]

That HAS to be Nina.

[Mark @ Apr 18th 2008 9:48PM]

mm .. older & open minded french women.

[lettcco @ Apr 19th 2008 3:26AM]

don't worry, Jack already climb aboard thru the wheel well and will come up to strangle her in the critical moment.

[The Doctor @ Apr 18th 2008 8:02PM]

Fantastic news, there isn't a single technology that I'd be happier to see vanish without trace.

[ethana2 @ Apr 18th 2008 9:41PM]

Absolutely! Cell phone networks are worthless. Just give me internet service and /I'll/ decide what I do with it. Voice? Perhaps. Text? Of course.

I just want WiFi, not cell connectivity.

[garydj @ Apr 18th 2008 8:12PM]

I hope it never works.

[Graham @ Apr 18th 2008 8:07PM]

Its...France. We should have expected this.

[Dave @ Apr 18th 2008 8:22PM]

wouldnt you HOPE that cell phones just wouldnt be able to work in-flight?
In my perfect world, there would be no in-flight calling.

[hypereric @ Apr 18th 2008 9:24PM]

I have to admit, it could have been the Paris Talk that caused the failure by itself... did anyone check for white flags in the debugging?

[Majd @ Apr 20th 2008 8:05PM]

look who's talking... an American.

lol

[Jesse S @ Apr 18th 2008 8:09PM]

If you don't want to hear people talking on planes, just get a pair of cheap in-ear monitors. Low-end Shures are only $100.

[peachepe @ Apr 18th 2008 8:12PM]

that's cheap

[Boo Radley @ Apr 18th 2008 8:30PM]

I certainly can't think of anything better to do with my money, especially considering what a good idea in-air calling is. Perhaps they could give us VOD porn with single serving packets of "hand" lotion on the plane too, that'd get butts back in the seats.

Ticket sales WILL go down if any airlines allow in air calling.

[Drew Scott @ Apr 18th 2008 8:35PM]

I doubt that ticket sales will go down if in-flight calling is allowed. Much of the tickets sales airlines make are due to necessity, not convenience. The truth of the matter is, people aren't going to stop buying airline tickets because they might have to hear other people's conversations -- after all, it hasn't stopped people from going out to eat.

[Jesse S @ Apr 18th 2008 8:36PM]

You could get ear-plugs for a few dollars.

With the possibility of screaming kids, why wouldn't you have some kind of sound-blocking device, anyway? (Not canceling, those suck for voices.)

[Lo_Opy! @ Apr 18th 2008 8:13PM]

the one thing i love about flying is the fact that most of the time it is quiet and peacful. if we can start using phones on the plane, it will suck. why cant people live without their phones for a few hours? i mean come on...

[Ryan R @ Apr 18th 2008 8:44PM]

QUIET?!

what airline are you flying?
everywhere i go in life im surrounded by people using their phones (even in confined places like trains) airplanes are the only place they are not. Crying babies make airplanes louder than anywhere else. As one commenter suggested, get a pair of good earphones and get over it.

there have been phones on planes since the 80s and nobody has minded (cost prohibitive, but dotn think it will be cheap to use your cell phone in the air) I can't understand why this subject brings out the ludites on engadget... why are they reading this site anyways?

[Dave @ Apr 18th 2008 9:44PM]

sorry, with a $2.49 "connection fee" and $1.49 after that, most people flying coach aren't going to be yapping away on the airfone that long. The longest I have ever seen ANYONE stay on one of those things for was five minutes. As a disclaimer I fly about 15-20 times a year.

I just pray that when they do allow in-flight calling (because we know eventually they will) that they just price gouge it the way they did in the early 90s with cell phones, so you only have a few people for whom it is economically feasible (who the majority of the time are somewhat more considerate than today's average cell phone user).

[Ryan R @ Apr 18th 2008 11:06PM]

in the article it says that the per minute price is 3 euro, or $4.50 per minute...

[Russ Tundra @ Apr 18th 2008 8:17PM]

I'm not being a douchbag here.. But does anyone else think about 9/11 when they are trying to make cell phone calls from the air???? Well you were able to do that back in Sept. of 2001 with no problems. (We’ve all heard the (911 dispatch from the flight that landed in Somerset, PA.

It’s a proven fact that making cell phone calls from the air is a fluke/ next near to impossible. I STILL think 9/11 was and still is a conspiracy covered up by false hate.. And I’m saddened about how many innocent people died that day and all of the soldiers over in Iraq suffering….

[Jesse S @ Apr 18th 2008 8:19PM]

Oh my fucking god kill yourself, you asshole. 9/11 a conspiracy theory? Go study for class instead of watching Loose Change.

And, planes do have phones, built into the seat in front of you. At least they did when I flew like 10 years ago.

[shanabus @ Apr 18th 2008 8:22PM]

You're not alone Russ Tundra. I've heard several stories on why those calls were possible and several more stories on how those calls were fakes from a warehouse in Ohio, Gov't think tank, etc. What ever happened that day it was nothing short of mental warfare on the American people. Phone calls are still not possible 6 and a half years later! ha!

[Fragger @ Apr 18th 2008 8:39PM]

You guys do know that when you start getting closer to the ground and out of cruising altitude calling is very possible.

[Logboy @ Apr 18th 2008 9:08PM]

You're right. It was a conspiracy...between a bunch of guys from Al Qaeda.

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 10:20AM]

@shanabus:

"from a warehouse in Ohio, Gov't think tank, etc"

You know, I didn't think about this. I bet it was the same warehouse they staged the moon landing photos in!

{with this, hypereric is going to get up, bang his head against the wall a few times, and then, foregoing his usual no alcohol before nightfall rule, go make my next cup of coffee with a healthy dose of Bailey's Irish Cream in it and lament the death of sanity}

[Cybergypsy @ Apr 19th 2008 10:30AM]

Agreed!!!

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 11:34AM]

@Russ Tundra:

OK, after the Baileys has kicked in, I think I can deal with absurdness you spewed onto this fine forum in a rational, non-sarcastic, manner:

1) most of the calls of that flight were made from the plane's provided handsets (see article sourced in #2).

2) the plane was brought pretty low by the terrorists... and I quote: "Only two phone calls, one by Edward Felt and one by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, came from cell phones — both at 9:58 a.m, shortly before the plane crashed.[19] At this point, the aircraft was ~5,000 feet above sea level" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

And that is *sea* level. As quoted in the article above, the plane crashed at 10:03 a.m, where *ground* elevation is 2,350. So, 2.3k from 5k is: 2,700 ft.

Now go call you local skydiving shop or pro and ask him/her (I already did) how far up they have been able to talk on a modern digital/GSM phone. Hint: way above that.

3) You no doubt noticed I used "modern digital/GSM phone" in the above due to your ... ummm... how should I say this tactfully... hmmmm... "rabid paranoia"(?) OK, good! In 2001 most Americans had analog phones... and here is the kicker: analog phones work much better from low flying aircraft then modern GSM. I don't even have to RTFA to deduce that they are using GSM repeaters inside the planes in the Air France tests.

Of course, none of these "proven facts", to borrow your phrase, will dissuade you from "the truth (copyright 2008, RT)". I've already debated with a (gawd, I hate admitting this) relative (BUT BY MARRIAGE ONLY) that doesn't believe we landed on the moon. When I told him {someone--close-to-me} has a parent that worked on the radar tracking code for the moon-shot, and then watched the progress in real-time, he still didn't believe me...

So I propose a solution for your quandary. Goto your nearest dropzone. Pay the $250 bucks or whatever for a tandem jump. More the likely, the jumpmaster will pull at about 5k. Whip out your modern GSM phone and try to place a call, while keeping an eye on the altimeter on the jumpmaster's wrist.

If this still doesn't convince you, then go and pay the $350 or so for your first three or four solo dives, with the obligatory training (if you really want to get into it, it'll run you about $1300 for eight or so dives before they let you jump alone (=certified)). When the four trainers surrounding you let go of each limb and give you the signal to pull, *ignore* them. They're stupid. And don't worry about the ground rushing up at you... it is just predicated on a theory, the theory of gravity.

I mean, why should a silly theory bother you when you have "proven fact(s)"?

[Russ Tundra @ Apr 18th 2008 8:22PM]

I feel sorry for you Jesse you fell into THE TRAP! thats what they want you to think.... your just to immature to open your eyes and look at the facts. and what is Loose Change???

[shanabus @ Apr 18th 2008 8:26PM]

Jesse S - c'mon seriously? Loose Change was just a tool of disinformation mixed with some plausible theories to discredit and divide anybody that raised an eyebrow to what happened that day. Open your eyes!

[Dolemite @ Apr 18th 2008 9:16PM]

Russ, Shan:

You both are so re!arded you must be Ron Paul supporters. While I think Jesse might have been kidding, I am serious, please do kill yourselves. Do humanity a favor and jump in front of a speeding bus.

[Dave @ Apr 18th 2008 9:50PM]

Well, I think Russ is one of the somewhat dangerous, ignorant people that live in the United States. Just like some believe that the CIA invented crack to corrupt intercity youth (Jeremiah Wright), there are tons of idiots in the United States. The scariest thing is, these beliefs have followers, and they vote!

Here is what I honestly think is the scariest outcome of our next election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

probably the most unrealistic idea I've ever heard, unless you really think that Russia or China are going to give up their nukes. And if you do, please, move to Canada and don't vote.

[Jesse S @ Apr 18th 2008 10:02PM]

I was not kidding. The douchebags that say 9/11 was a conspiracy should kill themselves.

[tyecies @ Apr 18th 2008 11:55PM]

Dave
I watched the video, and little to nothing was unreasonable about obama's speech. "Star Wars" missle defense has been an abysmal failure and waste of money, not to mention an IR nightmare. And how is lowering the quantity of nukes in a world a bad thing? china and russia aren't just going to give up all their nukes and go without, but whats the point of having enough nuclear warheads to blow up 1000% of the earths land mass, I think 100% is good enough.? Ditto with new nuke research, when you can blow up the world, why spend millions going for the extra megaton? Fewer nukes means fewer stockpiles of them floating around in russia waiting for a terrorist to rob one, as read up on missing fizzle materials and the state of nuclear stockpiles in Russia, and you will not be happy about it. The only thing i disagree with is that we should not cut research funding into conventional weapons, as maintaining the U.S.'s technology edge in non-nuclear weapons is very important.

[Dave @ Apr 19th 2008 12:26AM]

@tyecies

Well, it's nice to dream of a world where nations are not going to begin to develop nuclear weapons, but with Pakistan & India both having them, as well as there being a distinct chance of Iran eventually developing them, I would GLADLY pour more of my tax money into a missile defense program instead of $300 tax rebate checks for people who pay no taxes (which is currently being done) or other ridiculous social programs.

Also, what crack are you smoking to think that China or Russia will lower their stockpiles of nukes within the next decade? Have you not seen how they handle protesters in their own countries? For places with very few human rights, I find your "dreams" of them lowering their nuclear stockpiles hilarious.

[Amy @ Apr 19th 2008 10:03AM]

"The douchebags"?? How old are you? Isn't it time you got your diaper changed?

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 10:37AM]

"thats what they want you to think"

No, my misguided friend. You are thinking what they want you to think, which is not really what happened, and they don't think that and so, ala reverse pyschology, they make you think that they think that, but thinking that is what they *want* you to think, but they don't think themselves (except for a few).

Now, stop bogarting that joint and pass it around. Other's need to have their eyes opened too, you know.

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 1:43PM]

@tyecies:

"I watched the video, and little to nothing was unreasonable about obama's speech. "Star Wars" missle defense has been an abysmal failure and waste of money, not to mention an IR nightmare."

"Star Wars" as the critics painted it in the early eighties, was *supposed* to be a waste of money (at the time). The Reagan letters that have recently been made public show he knew it was quite possibly improbable at *that* time. But that didn't matter since the goal was to get the Soviet Union into a technological race that would deplete their already faltering economy (contrary to our pundits at the time who believed the Soviet Union was healthy as a horse). So the illusion was maintained that it would work, and that we knew how to do it. And guess what? Yelstin, and a few dozen promiment dissidents, have went on record as stating that the Soviet Union's demise was in part due to it's funding of trying to counter Star Wars.

And the tech foundation that was developed under Star Wars now does work. Forget the missle hitting missle crap, of which even that has more successes then failures, the jumbo jets that have been turned into giant frickin laser platforms is where it's at. This tech has already been deployed in ground-based form by Israel within the last year to protect sensitive areas.

And International Relations nightmare? Why must be be the ones who obey treaties when our signers are either DOA or cheats?

I mean, which treaty should we start with? Perhaps the most relevant to this would be the ABM treaty we signed in '72 with a now defunct, no longer existing, finished, country known as the Soviet Union. Sure, the Russians can squeal nowadays all they want, but the signers no longer exist, and then there was/is the little itty bitty problem with that treaty from the get-go: the Soviets already had an ABM around Moscow *and* worked on it before, *during* and after the signing of the treaty.

Or perhaps the weaponization of space? China just shot that one to hell, now didn't it (pun intended)? And we still haven't violated that one.

"And how is lowering the quantity of nukes in a world a bad thing? china and russia aren't just going to give up all their nukes and go without, but whats the point of having enough nuclear warheads to blow up 1000% of the earths land mass, I think 100% is good enough.?"

Reducing nukes is a great idea. As long as we keep enough on hand to pull the MAD option if some country wants to take the nuclear swing at us.

"Ditto with new nuke research, when you can blow up the world, why spend millions going for the extra megaton? Fewer nukes means fewer stockpiles of them floating around in russia waiting for a terrorist to rob one, as read up on missing fizzle materials and the state of nuclear stockpiles in Russia, and you will not be happy about it."

If this is what Obama is saying, he needs to be exposed for the clueless idiot he is. Megatons are out. Kilotons and smaller are in (actually, the smaller the better is "in" for reasons I'll give later). Both the Soviets and us knew as soon as fusion bombs came out there was no theoretical limit to their megatonnage (thousands of megatons are theoretically possible). But know one ever pushed it past 50 megs... why? Well, we never went beyond 25 megatons because our guidance was accurate enough to destroy the largest city with that size. The soviets went to a 50 meg design that had a capacity for 100 megs because their guidance wasn't accurate enough, but with the increased horsepower, it compensated for the guidance problems. And 250 is as big as anyone ever dreamed about because around that size, the possibility of blowing a hole in the earth's atmosphere arises.

The research going on now these days in nukes is to make them smaller, cleaner, and heavy-duty enough to not be rendered useless when they hit the ground after we drop them from a very high altitude with the intent of getting the bomb down to the depth of hardened bunkers. Think Iran and it's buried and heavily fortified bunkers, that is where the research is going. There is also some research going into *maintaining* our stockpile, but making the booms bigger? No. I'd be surprised if we even have megaton bombs on the ready status. ICBM's are loaded with MIRVs that have kilotons, not megatons.

"The only thing i disagree with is that we should not cut research funding into conventional weapons, as maintaining the U.S.'s technology edge in non-nuclear weapons is very important."

I'm going to have agree and disagree. Kosovo was a lone fluke. You cannot win a war with conventional bombs dropped by planes unless you have boots on the ground. Boots on the ground = blood. Blood = bodybags. Germany poured a sh!tload of ordinance from the air into London. And though he was a madman, Hitler knew in order to take England he was going to have to figure out how to invade it. It simply cannot be done when the people of that country really really don't like you. Like England, it didn't demoralize them, it just royally pissed them off.

However, there is a place for alot of funding and research into a completely non-explosive, non-polluting, crowd-pleasin' "bomb": Kinetic bombardment (aka "Project Thor", "Rods From God"). A graphite pole with fins and an embedded computer. Launched from space, think of thousand pound meterorite impact (except the meterorite doesn't burn up).

But with the advent of scramjet, space will not be an issue (and a tech hurdle) unless you want covertness... which would be nice.

Kind of makes you wonder why their top speeds are kept classified, eh?

[Jesse S @ Apr 18th 2008 8:34PM]

I feel bad for humanity.

Or have I just been mercilessly trolled?

Aren't calls working well for the UAE's airline?

[decapitor @ Apr 18th 2008 8:38PM]

how about just text messaging? wouldn't bother anyone and achieves the same goal.

[Ryan R @ Apr 18th 2008 8:48PM]

how about we quit expecting government agencies (FAA, FCC) to use their power to enforce politeness and start managing ourselves?

[Dave @ Apr 18th 2008 11:38PM]

@Ryan R

because in the US managing yourself can't exist! remember the attempt to privatize social security? yep, that was a great idea, but guess what? apparently democrats think that the average US citizen isn't smart enough to plan for their own retirement! (not to mention they love to grab money out of that Social Security piggy bank)

[Seth @ Apr 18th 2008 8:51PM]

What are the roaming charges to use the service?

[go seki @ Apr 18th 2008 9:01PM]

can I get air-miles on my phone?
but seriously who wants to listen to someone elses voice calls - text(sms) and email ought to be enough for anyone. or take it outside buddy!

[Al @ Apr 18th 2008 9:03PM]

@Graham : How can you say that, that's so stupid. I'm working in electrical engineering and most particularly on aeronautical experiments, and I can tell that succeeding in making phone calls on a plane is extremely difficult, far more that developing any other high tech devices.
But if it is so simple, why the USA haven't succeeded yet (I mean using a system widespead on every airline) ? Guess what, a cell phone emits electromagnetic waves that interfere with plane equipments, so theoretically creating a system that will let you use your phone aboard is possible, but you plane will just crash soon after taking off because of a stupid guy who made a phone call...

[Greg Spruce @ Apr 18th 2008 10:26PM]

so you're telling me that of the millions upon billions of radio waves permeating the air atmosphere, including cosmic radiation that gets through the electromagnetic field, one morons txt message could bring down such a redundant system. plus planes have mechanical redundancy, kill the electronics and a skilled pilot could still(theoretically) land that plane

[Jeff @ Apr 18th 2008 11:40PM]

@Greg:

I suggest you read up on the crashes of Birgenair flight 301 and Aeroperu flight 603 for an example of what happens when pilots lose their electronics in a modern airplane. No survivors in either accident. The big problem is when pilots are presented with conflicting information from their instruments, they often have no way of knowing what to believe. What's a pilot to do when he has both an overspeed warning *and* a stick shaker, while his airspeed indicator says he's at 300 knots?

Regardless, what kind of reasoning is it to say "oh, I'll just make this one call - what's the difference if the altimeter goes out? The pilots have other instruments that they can use." Jesus. I hope I'm not flying with you any time soon.

As for whether cell phones can interfere with airplane systems, it's been conclusively proven that they can. *Should* they? No; airplane systems are designed to be shielded, and wiring is well insulated. The problem is after 20-30 years in service (or even fewer, if some fluke of manufacturing happens), those wiring bundles can get frayed and the bare wire can be exposed in various areas of the aircraft. It's supposed to be inspected and replaced before that happens, but there are many miles worth of wiring in any airliner and much of it is well hidden - it would require disassembling the entire airplane and unbundling every wire bundle to get at all of it. Much of it is not considered critical, anyway - even if it frays, the worst that would happen would be a couple of IFE screens go dark. But a stray signal can still potentially get in and screw something up. And it's not just a theoretical. It's been tested and shown to happen. Not in every case, because some airplanes are in better shape to handle the interference than others, but no airplane is perfect either.

The planes flying in Europe that have cell phone use enabled have been certified individually, from what I understand. They probably need to be recertified every few years. And note that they still only allow six phones in use at any given time, to avoid overwhelming the shielding and insulation of the airplane wiring. Cell phones are powerful radios, and there is a big difference between the weak radio signals bouncing all over the air around us and having a large number of powerful two-way radios inside an enclosed space.

[Greg Spruce @ Apr 19th 2008 4:03AM]

false

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 9:52AM]

@Greg:

No offense, but from what I have experienced in my field, "stray" EMF radiation is a pain in the @ss...

I had a 'simple' network to install in the designated server room. Where a shiny new Lucent PBX was also installed. No machines anywhere in the building could talk to each other with any regularity over the network. On a whim, we moved the switch/servers and router out of the room. Everything now worked. Called Lucent, they basically said we were amateurs and there was no way their shiny new equipment was radiating.. it was, after all, FCC approved, and besides, their unit 'contained nothing that would generate a frequency that would interfere with networking'.

After moving the equipment, the owner regained his trust in us, and bugged the rep (who happened to be a friend of a friend) enough so that the rep finally, in disgust, sent out a tech with some wand-oscillope thingmagig to prove we were amateurs. Dialed this knob and that --- to make it pick up any frequency that would interfere with CAT-5 --- and waved his magic wand around the PBX, and wham, the PBX was leaking like a sieve on some frequency. All I know is that the tech showed me the oscillope, and I was told anything above the middle line was 'unacceptable'. The spikes were on average three-quarters of the chart. At worse, they hit the top.

PBX unit exchanged, and we moved the servers/router/switch back in and everything was hunky dory. Nobody (the tech and Lucent rep) could explain why it happened.

We almost lost the contract because of the mystery. Which would have killed the company at that time. Instead, we only lost two weeks worth of man-hours.

So even some design that is FCC approved is prone to have a flaw from the factory. I'm sure there are more stringent certs necessary for aircraft... but still, as one of the poster's pointed out, you're dealing with a powerful two-way radio, and I would add, of unknown quality/power/origin.

So who knows? I didn't like the wasted man-hours (of which I was one of the two there) and initial black-eye my company received.... So I sure as hell wouldn't casually dismiss potential interference when we are dealing with people's lives.

[Shane @ Apr 19th 2008 10:26AM]

The modulation scheme, frequency and power level will make a big difference in terms of the amount of interference caused as well.

For example...GSM phones are notorious for interfering with other electronics here on the ground. I work in audio and experience this on a regular basis. I absolutely dread having to go up to the platform at some event to tell some high-muckety-muck to turn his cell phone or blackberry OFF (not just silent) because it is interfering with the audio equipment.

Most people don't realize that cell phones are capable of this type of interference. If you have a GSM phone and have placed it close to your computer speakers for any length of time you know exactly what I am talking about. Imagine that signal getting into some critical circuit at a critical time on a plane. Cosmic radiation is nothing compared to that scenario.

CDMA phones, on the ohter hand, do not seem to be as prone to causing this kind of interference.

As Hyperic pointed out, interference comes in many forms from many types of electronics...It can be caused by what the FCC calls 'intentional radiators' (radio devices) and 'unintentional radiators' (other electronics generating spurious RF). The frequencies, power levels and modulation characteristics of these signals vary widely. All of this is a concern when in the air which is why they tell you to turn off ALL electronics until a certain altitude.

[hypereric @ Apr 19th 2008 3:29PM]

@Shane: I have noticed the part about my cell phone making funky noises over the computer's sound system whenever a call comes in on my cell phone (usually, about a second before). Also, whenever I dial out.

But I do have a question, and you seem like you would know the answer: we have been developing a messaging server to a java app on NexTel (motorola) iDen phones... so we have a ton of them in the office "going off" all the time while testing.

I don't experience any interference in my computer's sound system.

Now, knowing next to nothing about anything, why would this be? Is it because of NexTel's usage of a different type of cell network?

TIA!