Use of wireless communications on planes

I'm hopefully flying out the Asia tomorrow with my girlfriend. We both have nintendo DS's.

I know they have a rule saying you can't use wireless on planes. But here's my argument why that's nonsense.

The simple fact is: If wireless devices such as mobile phone, handheld games, or laptop's coulod actually affect the planes navigation systems, then there is no way in hell they would allow anyone to have these devices onboard the plane. Given that the typical DS gamer is going to be a ten year old kid and his eight year old brother, do yu really think the airline is going to trust them not to try to play against each other wirelessly for the sake of safety? It ridiculous.

Based on this, I've got no problems playing DS wireless games tomorrow. So if you do see a news report of a 777 dropping out the sky because someone used a bulbasaur string attack in a pokemon battle, then you can say I'm wrong.

So you're prepared to risk the lives of hundreds of people based on a half baked theory just so you can play with a child's toy?

I agree that it probably has no effect, still I wouldn't do it because they ask not to (and recommend not to in the DS manual)

I remember landing on a 737 once, and the pilot came on the intercom immediately after landing informing passengers that the flight crew had to take manual control of some part of the landing process, due to interference from a mobile phone signal on board.

Whether this was real, or whether it was because it was because a stewardess was annoyed by some arrogant idiot blabbing on his phone during landing, I don't know.

But either way - you don't want to annoy the flight crew, or you could have lots of 'interesting customs experiences'.

The FAA has stated that Cell Phones and wireless do not interfere with the navigation systems of an airplane. (Although I am a contractor for the FAA, this statement is not made in any official capacity - I read it in a newspaper).

My guess is that airlines don't like cellphones simply because they want to sell an overpriced service, which they will taut as being more user friendly...

The FAA decision was in the last year or two. For a non-US flight it doesn't mean beans of course.

Also, if you use a mobile phone at a filling station, it will instantly explode in an enormous fireball! :O

Yeah, right.

Loads of airlines are starting to add or already have wireless internet support onboard their planes. Also a way to use cellphones.

So yeah, it's really not a big deal.

Not all of them. Air New Zealand only have a "not during take-off and landing" rule for instance.

At navigation critical times (takeoff/landing/badweather) when the seatbelt light comes on you are supposed to switch off all electronic devices completely, and with good reason.
In normal flying conditions i would have thought a DS would be ok because you are allowed laptops with wifi. (Not sure if you are actually allowed to broadcast data from them though).

Be careful with wireless devices, they can get you into trouble in the UK with your feet firmly ON the ground let alone on a plane :P
See (>> earlier rant<<)

Cells Phones, water, mp3, are all terribly dangerous. That is of course unless you pay the company to provide that service to you.

But in any case radio interference is a fact. Planes should be well protected and so should the devices (but how can they make sure your cell pnone is fully compliant to radio inteference rules). If it's powerful enough to comunicate from the plane it is surely powerful enough to interfere.

About petrol stations and similar, well yes it does make sense. Not too likely maybe with today's technology, but yes radiotransmiters can cause an explosion.

EB8CTH

My main point though wasn't that I was going to hold the plane to ransom by threatening to start a game of mario kart. It was simply pointing out how pathetic it is to say you can't use game systems due to intefering with instruments, they don't. If they did then you wouldn't be allowed them on at all.
If you believed what the airline says, then technically a laptop is more dangerous than a machine gun!

> If it's powerful enough to comunicate from the plane it is surely powerful enough to interfere.

IF it is, then having it on or off makes no difference, the cell phone tower is pumping those signals into the air regardless of a particular cell phone being on or off.

lol, I can just picture that :)

Why aren't you working hard ...? (lol)

IPete2.

Some carriers dont mind, whilst some do - its all a bit silly really.

>>>> If it's powerful enough to comunicate from the plane it is surely powerful enough to interfere.

IF it is, then having it on or off makes no difference, the cell phone tower is pumping those signals into the air regardless of a particular cell phone being on or off.<<<<
______________________________________________________________

Sorry, I didn't explain fully. A radiotransmitter not only transmits in it's frequency, it will also emit harmonic and subharmonic frequencies, not to talk about spurious frequencies. As a matter of fact any electronic or electric device emits frequencies. And these cause radioelectric inteference.

A simple experiment, get a TV with it's own antenna, not connected to an external aerial, get a kitchen blender and watch what happens when you turn it on.

So what do we do to avoid inteference, well many things: apart from a good circuit design, you need filters, good earth, and often a metal cage. Cell Phone Towers, specialy those near airports are heavily regulated, and have all sorts of meassures to avoid inteference. So is the plane and it's instruments (didn't use to be, and onboard electronic equipment has been know to intefere with aircraft instruments). But a personal cell phone could be purchased in the grey market and not comply fully with regulations or could be malfunctioning. You can use walkmans and gameboys except at landing/taking off.

Can't see the big deal anyway, the chances of you been able to maintain a phone conversation are basicaly ziltch. Just kindly turn your cell phone off, you can always turn it back on once you get to the airport terminal.

There really isn't an argument to be made.

their plane = their rules, end of.

>>If you believed what the airline says, then technically a laptop is more dangerous than a machine gun! <<

You'll be surprised how badly laptop battery can explode..

>But here's my argument why that's nonsense.

Talk to any commercial pilot and they will tell you that they have all experienced odd navigation problems that clear up after asking passengers to turn off portable electronics.

Just because the problem isn't obvious to you, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I f&*%ing hate people that insist on using their ipuds and lameboys during landing. It's bad enough I have to sit in a cramped seat for 6 hours but to die in a smoldering fireball because Vanilla Ice has to listen to his gangsta tunes pisses me off.

To be honest, if I was on a flight and the pilot insisted I wear a pink tutu for safety reason, I probably would...

Have you ever tried wiring up any hardware that wasn't plug & play stuff? The slightest bit of interference from other electronic devices can have an impact. Sure, you insulate and properly ground your stuff but nevertheless electronics are complex systems and the more you throw into the mix the more complex the system becomes. They are simply eliminating variables ... even if they are minor variables.

Was going to say something, but I have just seen Camilla and Charles wearing the same skirt(1) and I have totaly forgotten what I was going to say.

(1) I know the word kilt.

as Physt said 100%

This whole thread reminds me of the old Dilbert cartoon where the stewardess is yelling at the pointy-haired boss to shut down his laptop immediately because it's causing problems. He refuses because he wants to land the plane safely first.

"How do you do that in Excel?"

I just saw this that reminded me of this thread:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6980057.stm
If a mobile phone can cause problems with a ventilator, imagine the problems it could possibly cause with the complexities of an aircraft. I know this is about wi-fi not mobiles but wi-fi is a more powerful version of the same thing (a microwave device).

First of all aircrafts are quite a bit more resistant to electromagnetic interference than an air conditioning unit.

Secondly, your mobile phone has significantly higher radio emission than a Nintendo DS.

"Secondly, your mobile phone has significantly higher radio emission than a Nintendo DS. "
yeah true.
(By more poweful i meant higher frequency (2-3 times) - wrong choice of words :)

I still think its a bit irresponsible during odd weather and landing though. :/

Not really. Most mobile phones these day operate on the 1.8GHz band (in Europe). Wi-Fi is on the 2.4GHz band.

Unless they can actually prove and/or specifically tell you, I don't see anything wrong with it. Could just be an urban legend that's gotten out of control, and of course people are completely paranoid of flying, even though it's the safest form of travel ever.

I thought GSM was 900Mhz in europe..

edit..
Ah ok its 900 or 1800

I read about a study they did in the US measuring cell phone use in airplanes, and they found it to be quite common, even when people were told to turn off their phones. There have also been cases where cell phones have caused intereference with some equipment on board.

The flights I've been on recently specificly asked you to turn off any electronics that emit radiosignals during the entire flight, and all electronics during take-off and landing. I guess it's better to do as they say, as there must be some reason behind it (they do it on planes that have no expensive phones on board...so that can't be the reason).

Here is my advice. Bring a book! It won't annoy the people around you and it doesn't emit any radiosignals.

Yes. But is it a good reason? I mean there must be some reason why banning smoking is so in fashion these days. And there is. It's just not a rational one.

Unless you're traveling to or from Texas or Alabama.

LOL..
"What u readin' for?"... "Looks like we got ourselves' a REEDAH!" - (bill hicks :)

..what is not rational about banning smoking?? Is it rational that I have to suffer bad smell of cigarette smoke just because someone want to satisfy need for nicotine? Or I have right for clean air as it should be?

Uh Oh. I sense a 'rumble' comming on...

2Ps worth:
Im not saying weather i think the ban is good or not. However I believe people that drive cars unnecassarily (like 1km to the shop, esp. in SUVs), are just as guilty as smokers for polluting the air, and cannot criticize them. I admittedly sometimes drive my car unnessacarily (5Km to work when i have a bike and a pair o legs) and I used to smoke, so i cant talk either.
In contrast it would be interesting to see how people would react to an enforcement of 'appropriate' vehicle restrictions for each family. Also a full ban on all 'car' engines over 1.2L because to have larger than this on a normal car is as 'pointless in the eyes of logic', as a smokers need for nicotine. (even if it is more fun :).

They tested the cellphone thing on Mythbusters.

The reason cellphones aren't allowed on planes during takeoff or landing is because, though there's no known cases of cellphones intefering with avionics, it would be too expensive and nearly impossible to test all combinations of phones and avionics equipment to allow them to give a definitive answer. So they do it just to be on the safe side.

I have a car over 1.2 litres and it is pointless but it's great fun. If it was banned I'd go "fair enough" because I know it's wrong, and I'd get an electric car and only fill it from "Green" electricity tariff.

Yeah me too (@2.0L) but im sure there would still be a big outcry by the general motoring public. There are several 'freedom of choice' vs 'common sense' issues to be played out (just like the smoking one)

smoking one is very different, especially when Im sitting in room with just few cubic meters of air and someone start smoking...its really pissing me off..im hardly breathing and my cloth taking bad smell even im not asked for it, etc etc...all in all, I trow out of my car few times smokers who doesnt respect my freeddom to breathe fresh air, much as I can have it..

NA, You have the freedom to go to a venue that does not allow smoking, it is your choice to go somewhere that does allow it. It's like going to a see motor racing and complaining about the noise.

However, in my town there are 20+ pubs and none WERE non-smoking except Weatherspoons and it's non-smoking area was "contanimated" but the smoking one because there were no walls between, like at restaurants in service stations. So my choice was non-existant. Perhaps if the law forced 50% of pubs (by lottery) to be non-smoking then I could have had a choice but that would have been unworkable for a zillion reasons. People always say you have a choice in the "smoking in pubs" issue but that was basically not true because your other venue was "stay at home" which is what I've done most of my adult life.

Rob...I understand that, what Im saying is situation where I have no choice and other person start smoking and contaminating air for all in such limited space..

Its a shame we have to resort to a law though isn't it. What the hell happened to courtesy. When i used to smoke and i thought it was a bit of an enclosed environment (except i guess the pub) I would usually ask "you mind?" If the other person said no then id spark up, if they made any indication it was not ok, i would go outside or lean out of a window depending on where i was. I swear they will have a law against jumping a cue, or wearing a rude t-shirt next.

B.O.T.:
I Still think wireless of any kind has no place on an aircraft I shall still switch off my pda/laptop when the seatbelt light comes on and keep my phone off the whole flight as instructed, by those that know more about it than me.
I am not an expert in avionic systems, em interference, atmospheric influences (and nor is anyone here) and I have no right to make assumptions when there is a small risk of endangering an aircraft.
Made up or not - truth is no one really knows due to an infinite number of variables including everything from dodgy malfunctioning wifi devices to adverse effects of atmospheric electrical disturbances) :/

You don't have that freedom. Besides unless you live way, way out in the country, air is much less "fresh" than cigarette smoke.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

That's because apparently non-smoking pubs (like in Ireland) smell of sweat and flatus - personally, I'll take the smell of cigarette smoke.

If the risk is made up, it's not really a risk is it? Either there is a risk, or there isn't one. If there was a risk, in the hundred or so years people have been flying and broadcasting radio waves, don't you think we would have discovered it by now? Simply by pure chance?

For sure! Everyone thinks they have some kind of RIGHT these days to be RUDE.

Yep heard that too but it was fine in the pubs I've since been into. Perhaps it depends on the clientele ;-)?

Article 23 Part 1: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and *favourable conditions of work* and to protection against unemployment.

That was interpreted as meaning a non-smoking work place.

How do we know if its made up or not, are you an EMF expert? im not.

Hell! I agree with that, especially nightclubs. All you can smell now in a club is BO, Farts, bad breath, stale beer, vomit and the lazers/lights look crap (school disco crap)... Bring back smoking in clubs.

? do the signals emitted cause a form of charge which in turn acts as a lightning conductor in mid flight... the only interferance i know of is audio ie over speakers which could pose a problem in emergencys when the pilot need manual guidance over flight paths..

Btw on the subject of choice

Im a smoker and pay my taxes, I hate the way things are going freedom is something you read about these days :(

I cant say what I want where I want due to the fact that some higher entity (ie in parliment) has said its not exceptable or goes against their views

To follow that thrend you are not allowed an opinion unless it follows the above or you might be (Sexist,Racsist,narrowminded,Opinionated,sizeist,ageist)

I cant eat what i want (Health oganisations are going to put heavy penalties on people who get ill my act of abuse which = living eating ect)

for gods sake thats their job and what my taxes pay for :(

I cant go where i want (this one i can half live with but) I must have Jab this jab that,passport,driving license amongst other things normally a very good financial background to take resisdence outside of the UK..
yet to get into the uk you just need to say your a plumber and your set up for life with benefits

{I cant play what i want
I cant read what i want
I cant watch what i want}

all being over powered by the laws above more and more each day :(

on the other hand non-smoking workplace is okay as you have to go to work unless you a ruddy rich and you force your fellow employees to smoke.

One thing i realy hate is people stating i would have went there if it was non-smoking :(

would you go to a pizzaplace to buy fish and chips
would you go to a chipshop to buy a curry
would you go to a indiantakeaway to buy a new set of table and chairs ?

sorry for rant :) just my opinion

frugger now im Opinionated I can almost here the sirens now :)

Maybe you're just hanging out with the wrong crowd, or maybe you're a little too egoistical. Maybe a little of both.

Not by smokers. Certainly a place where it is against the law to smoke (which is otherwise legal), is neither just nor favorable! This is no better than "white only" clubs! Where is the rabid smoking Rosa Parks?

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

Depends on what you mean by expert. But generally the way we determine truth is through empirical observation and experimentation, which is then the basis for a hypothesis. So if evidence points in the direction of a plane not being effected by mobile phones, that is the hypothesis we adopt, until it has been positively falsified.

Sure, just test your hypothesis on a plane I am not on...

They also ban cell phone use in some areas of Hospitals for the same reason, and I have personally witnessed a cell phone screw up a medical device. Sitting in my Grandfather's hospital room while he is on his deathbed. My Aunt pulls her cell phone out and makes a call, not 15 seconds later a nurse came running in because some monitor on my grandfather told the nurse's station that he was dying. Aunt turned off cell phone, monitor started working again.

Just to return to the original theme of this topic. If I was going on a long flight with my girlfriend, we'd definitely not need any kind of electronic entertainment. I can think of many much more pleasurable and enjoyable ways of having fun while on flight. ;-)

Barney

Actually I rarely encounter rude people as my friends are all on a nice wavelength, I occasionally encouter rude people at random like on a train (or on forums). As I'm trying to follow the path of emptiness I'd hope that my ego matters less to me that perhaps other people's does to them (hehe, I'm not hoping from an egotistical point of view either, so don't go there, just a self-improvement point of view) - but it is what it is I'm not gonna get hung up about it.

Barnabius: Yeah like reading or looking out the window or meditating or just trying to get your bloody ears to equalise. Am I boring?

I think he's more thinking along the lines of The Mile High Club. :P

I always thought a tiny smelly toilet cubicle is not a good place for boffing.

Yeah. People get bored on flights, I guess. :)

Tsk.. tsk.. tsk... I thought younger generations would be a bit more daring... Airplane toilet... Jeez... All you need is a blanket and a little dare...

After all, if it's an intercontinental fight and you are half way through I don't think they will immediately ditch the plane into the water and give you over to the old Neptune as the first nearby authority. :-)

Barney

no but you can be put under house arrest and get sentenced by the laws of the country whos boundry you where in...
Just remember there are places in the world where stabbing someone in the foot is not a crime

I repeat, we are in the middle of the ocean over international waters... For example, flying from US to UK and we are in German plane. Which country is responsible to execute arrest?

Barney

I am sure they would turn you over to the authorities when you land. So, you would get in trouble via the laws of where you land.

IF they catch us.. and.. the sad thing is that such "offense" would probably be treated almost the same as if we were pair of terrorists. The (civilized) world is truly mad and going down the drain... :-(

Barney

well..I always like to talk with stewardesses :) ..I had few gf's like that..screw electronic devices man... :)

If you're over international waters, you're bound by the laws under which flag the ship or plane travels. So if you're over international waters in a plane registered to a US corporation, US law will apply. If you're flying on a Japanese airline, Japanese law will apply, etc.

the whole 'international waters' or 'high sea' just means that one country isn't allowed to impose rules upon other countries in those areas -- it doesn't mean that an individual is free to do whatever they want without get arrested.

(And keep in mind -- pretty much any plane carries air marshalls these days, which do have the authority to arrest you if you are disruptive enough)

Check this out ... you were part of the cause!

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25957914&sid=6180299&tag=latestnews;title;1