Man charged over Mid Air Mobile row.

[Philip Argy]

Originally Posted by Chris Roope

You lose reception about halfway up the climb and wouldn't get it back until descent at the other end, so I doubt thats the reason.

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Philip Argy

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).

Except the cells use directional antenna which are desisgned to radiate outwards not upwards. Any power that does make it up has a much smaller power level..

The thing I dislike about the mobile rules is the inconistantcy with them. In the US (well on AA anyway) and with Qantas it is fine to turn the phone on more or less when the a/c leaves the runway (on arrival of course), yet in the UK BA and BMI you are not allowed to use it until you arrive at the gate and the captain has switched off.

I was on a BA flight recently and the guy next to me powered up when we arrived and the FA came and gave him a lecture on how dangerous it was and how we could run into the terminal building as the phone interfears with the navigation system. Now I understand the rules are the rules so the guy shouldn't have done it, but the explaination left a lot to be desired and was totally untrue.

[damien b]

Originally Posted by Philip Argy

Given the proliferation of personal technology in all shapes and forms, I'd have thought a design requirement of any modern aircraft is that the avionics not be vulnerable to interference from any of these sources. It's impossible to believe that every device is always turned off on every flight, especially with many devices that are now used by children.

You can certainly design avionic systems to be resistant to external interferance, however the extra weight would reduce what airliners could carry.

The extra weight would be from shielding of wiring that is in some way providing critical information - of whch there is a lot on a modern aircraft. Some systems work with very little current/voltage flow and even minor vairations due to external interference can cause havoc.

Its easier and cheaper to basically ban electronic devices in flight.

[Raymond Rowe]

Originally Posted by Philip Argy

That may be the case with conventional GSM but Telstra's NextG network, for example, claims to work up to 30 km off the coast, so at 10 km above the ground I don't think there will be a reception problem. There could be a cell registration issue if multiple cells are almost equidistant from the a/c, and that might interfere with network access/usage, for the reasons explained in the channel re-use section of the article that Mike has linked to (which is most informative).

The only reason you cannot use a mobile on an aircraft you cannot be billed for it.We used mobiles many times When tests on the ground were done never once did we have any trouble or interference.Mobiles were even used on the tarmac. these were carried by Controllers and foreman.

[Adam P.]

I didn't think they'd invented mobiles back in those days, Ray??

[Steve B.]

Whether it can, or can not, be proven that mobile phones, or indeed any device that emits RF, interferes with the safe operation of an aircraft is not really the point.

The aircraft operator in this case considers that the operation of a mobile phone does pose a risk to the safe operation and has the legal right, through the PIC, to demand that the mobile phone be switched of. It is their aircarft and they make the rules, if you don't like the rules, travel with someone else.

It is irrelevent what the offender, or anyone else thinks, it is not their responsibility to make that determination.

I don't agree with some road rules, but I don't break those rules and then use the arguement that I don't agree with them as a defence.

This idiot should be prosecuted and if convicted should be punished for being terminally stupid and possibly endangering not only his life but the lifes of his fellow passengers.

Regards to all
Stephen

[chrisb]

There's one very good reason to turn your phone off inflight - If you don't, it'll kill your battery while the phone spends the entire flight searching for and attempting to lock onto cells...

[David Ramsay]

This idiot should be prosecuted and if convicted should be punished for being terminally stupid

It's a pity terminal stupidity isn't an offence.