The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Studies continue on the safety of using cell phones on airplanes, while most experts agree that concerns are overblown.
A few years ago I was caught in the roughest descent I'd ever experienced in a commercial airplane. As the pilot's voice came on, informing us that San Francisco was unapproachable and we were being redirected to Oakland, passengers began making cell-phone calls to their rides -- hiding the phones from flight attendants, of course, since a federal law prohibits cellular calls on an airplane.
After some jarring and tense minutes, we landed: in San Jose. Once again, the cell phones came out -- still in violation of the regulations -- as people called to apologize to loved ones.
But soon these furtive maneuvers might not be necessary. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently reviewing a proposal to lift the ban on using cell phones in flight. Although there is no date set for its decision, both telecommunications companies and airlines are anxious to provide more services.
So why not allow cell phones anyway? Are they actually a danger? The FCC is evaluating the possibility that cell phones could either block satellite signals or disrupt ground-based towers. To most observers, though, other potential safety issues are more worrisome. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is concerned that cell phones might produce significant radio frequency interference, possibly disrupting avionics, including a plane's Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver.
These worries were inflamed recently by an article in the March 2006 issue of IEEE Spectrum, the monthly publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The article, "Unsafe at Any Airspeed?", by Bill Strauss, M. Granger Morgan, and Daniel Stancil, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), recapped Strauss's 2003 PhD thesis, which revealed that people do sneak cell-phone calls during flight -- and that it could, in some circumstances, lead to interference with avionics systems through a process known as intermodulation.
Intermodulation occurs when two radio signals of different frequencies interact, potentially causing spikes in new frequency ranges. As Strauss and his colleagues pointed out in their article, signals within the two main cell-phone frequency ranges used in the United States (the cellular band at 824 to 849 megahertz range, and PCS at 1850 to 1910 megahertz) do not interfere with those used by most aircraft navigation aviation systems. Yet Strauss, who carried radio-monitoring equipment on several commercial flights, reported seeing intermodulation effects from cell-phone signals "in the frequency bands used by an aircraft's GPS and distance-measuring equipment."
However, according to David Carson, a lead engineer in cabin systems engineering at Boeing, the CMU report does not justify the hysteria evident in some articles on the topic. Carson is also co-chair of a special committee on portable electronic devices for RTCA, a private, nonprofit aviation consulting organization in Washington, DC. The FAA has commissioned the RTCA committee to produce a report on the inflight use of cell phones and other portable devices. The report, which examines "intentionally transmitting" devices, including cell phones and computers with Wi-Fi cards, will be completed in December 2006.
Carson notes that Strauss was a founding member of the special committee in 2003, and that part of his work there became his PhD thesis. "The thesis was an inflight study of whether transmissions from cell phones occurred," Carson said. "And the conclusion was, yeah, people do use cell phones on airplanes despite the ban."
Carson says that "the potential to have interference with airplane systems is real." But he adds that the few airplane systems that could be affected by radio frequency interference, such as the public address system and wireless tire pressure gauges, are not critical to flight safety. The RTCA released studies of earlier portable-electronics technologies in 1963, 1988, 1996, and 2004, Carson says, and each time the airline industry responded by placing better shielding around airplane electronics and adopting other mitigation strategies. As a result, no airline crash has ever been attributed to radio emissions from devices brought onboard by passengers.
Strauss acknowledges that his study is only suggestive. "It's not an 'Oh, my God' situation," he says. "But it's not a light situation either."
Guest (CRB)
Personally, I'd rather not have people shouting into their cell phones while I'm trying to work or sleep. People need to exercise a little self-discipline.
Guest (1K Bill)
Don't minize the wetware issue
How long will it be before some blowhard on the phone gets a drink tray in the mouth. Pre-boarding security will be there for a whole new reason.
Guest (Larry Sadler)
So make a "cell" for cell phone users in the plane - a flying phone booth that protects the plane and the other passengers .
Guest (PGR)
Remember when there was a "smoking" section, a place where certain people could engage in a certain dangerous and annoying act while on the plane, while the others could get away from them?
Guest (RD)
WiFi is cheaper then a PicoCell, not more expensive
This one is not even close the author must have carried a couple of extra zeros into his estimates
Guest (Mark Snedecor)
Solution to the Annoying Seatmate issue
ZipIt Inc. has a US and International patent pending on devices that would allow an airline passenger to talk on their commercially available cell phone without disturbing the passenger next to them. These are a very inexpensive and low technology devices - yet they are new, useful, and nonobvious. The airlines who want the use of phones relaxed should only allow a passenger to talk on their phones if they are using these devices. This would solve the whole social proplem of cell phones in flight.
Guest (Mark Snedecor)
For more information on the ZipIt, please contact me at Mark_Snedecor@bigfoot.com.
Guest (John Darbo)
Risk managment and the cellphone
Airlines are in the business of moving people and things "safely," therefore they are in the business of risk managment.
While some, including Mr. Carson, suggest failed PA systems or wireless tire pressure gauge sysetm are non-critical, there is documented evidence that loss of these "non-critical" systems can contribute nuisance, a.k.a distractions, that have indeed caused accidents.
Airline testing of each airplane type and intermodulation's influence on flight safety is key to managment of the risk of onboard cellphones in airplane.
Guest (Doug Hughes)
The RTCA SC-177 & -202 Spec. Committees
These special committees are staffed by volunteers from industry. Everyone is there with the agenda given them by their employer.
Air safety budgets are very small, even with the crew unions, so that aspect has been low-level, but LOUD. We have enough facts at our disposal to be heard.
The legal profession finds air safety most lucrative.
177 was during the 1990's and 202 is on going. Some attorneys were active in 177, but have avoided 202.
Some lady just got awarded $27.5M from SW Airlines because she didn't like they way they told her to hurry and take her seat.
Just wait until cell phones are allowed on board. The lawyers will all retire early.
Let the litigation begin.
Guest (Joe)
SWA won the lawsuit regarding the phrase "eenie meenie miney mo, catch a seat, we gotta go."
The current lawsuit SWA is appealing is regarding an Arab woman who allegedly yelled at and grabbed a flight attendant. The woman was arrested for interfering with a flight crew, but the charges dropped when the arresting federal officer decided he did not find the flight attendant's claims credible. The flight attendant allegedly told the officer the woman looked like a terrorist.
The woman has said she was merely complaining about poor service. I haven't heard whether she denies grabbing the flight attendant (which could possibly qualify as assault.)
Guest (Mikhale)
Where does personal responsibility become a factor in the equation. After all of the tension of 9/11 you must be a little more humble if you are of Arab decent. Or even if you appear to be of Arab decent. Every race has its stereotypes and have learned to adapt. It is their turn. Grabbing someone for bad service is unacceptable no matter what you look like.
Guest (Granger Morgan)
You left one of the author's out!
In the list of authors of the March paper on RF on aircraft, you left out one of the four authors:
Dr. Jay Apt.
Guest (Paul)
I believe if cell phones were truly dangerous, they would not be allowed on the plane at all. Think about it. In this day and age where items like lighters and nail files are not permitted on the plane, why would a cell phone be permitted if there was any legitemate risk.
It seems to me that if a terrorist could take down a plane with a cell phone, it would have happened by now. Further, it seems that electronic devices aren't subject to much scrutiny. So a terrorist could modify a cell phone or laptop to maximize interference with airplane communication systems. The reason this is not more activly prevented, is because it must not work. So if the authorities are not concerned with active electronic warfare techniques on the part of terrorists, can a cell phone really be that dangerous?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Guest (Chris Miller)
Happens all the time
I'd bet that on every flight with more than 50 passengers someone has forgotten to switch off their cell-phone. Since we do not observe frequent major problems, I'd further bet that this is not a major issue.
It's interesting that, now there's money to be made from it, airlines are all in favour of us using our cell-phones on board via the pico-cells described above. But what will happen when (as they inevitably will) one of those pico-cells fails? Won't (potentially) 100 phones all rapidly boost their signal in an attempt to contact the nearest base station 7 miles below them?
Reply
Guest (JCP)
Dangerous to users
The major danger is in others putting up with people who think we want to hear their business or who think that the louder they talk the clearer their signal is. I will make it my goal to never fly again on the first airline allowing cell phone usage in the air.
Reply