Airlines ban mobile phones -- but why?

Daily Newsletters

Sign up to ZDNet UK's daily newsletter.

NEWS
As anyone who has flown has heard, using a cellular telephone aboard an aeroplane is dangerous. American Airlines warns passengers that mobile phones "may interfere with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems." Similar warnings come from Delta, United and Continental. British Airways links cellular interference to potential problems with compasses and even cabin pressure. What the airlines don't tell passengers is that there is no scientific evidence to support these claims. What concerns there are about cellular phones in aeroplanes dwell in the realm of anecdote and theory -- and to some extent in that of plain finance. There is money to be earned or lost by cell-phone companies and airlines if cell phones are used in-flight. A 1996 study commissioned by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration looked at thousands of flight records and failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. The study was conducted by RTCA, a nonprofit organisation that sets industry standards for aeroplane electronics. Plane makers Boeing and Airbus Industrie have bombarded their aircraft with cell-phone frequencies and discovered no interference with communication, navigation or other systems. One likely reason that no problems were found: cellular phones don't operate on any of the frequencies used by aeroplane systems. "The airlines are misleading the travelling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems. Using cell phones aloft on commercial and private aircraft is banned not by the FAA but by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telephone use. In prohibiting airborne use in 1991, the FCC was mainly concerned about cell phones' potential to interfere with ground-to-ground cellular transmission. The FAA has never outlawed cell-phone use in aeroplanes. But the agency supports the FCC ban "for reasons of potential interference," according to an FAA advisory. Despite the findings of the 1996 RTCA study, the FAA remains concerned about anecdotal evidence of cell-phone interference in flight records, says an FAA spokeswoman. The FAA isn't the only party still concerned. Boeing continues to advise airlines against cell-phone use in the sky. That's because the electrical charge from the batteries in most handsets exceeds the plane maker's standards. Although Boeing's tests have never shown this to be a problem, in theory the electricity emanating from the device could create interference with aeroplane systems. The airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air. The carriers receive a cut of the revenues from the telephones installed onboard. The two main providers of this air-phone service, GTE and AT&T charge about $6 (£3.65) for a one-minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates. These in-flight telephones also operate on cellular technology -- using a single aeroplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired. AT&T and GTE, which recently agreed to sell its Airfone service, decline to discuss air-phone financial arrangements, as do several airlines. But Sheehan says airlines pocket about 15 percent of all air-phone revenue generated on their planes. GTE declines to discuss Airfone revenues, but analysts estimate the unit's annual revenues at $150m. Some airlines also restrict cell-phone use on the ground, which isn't covered by the FCC ban, and which the FAA leaves to the airlines' discretion. Sheehan says he believes air carriers have resisted allowing cell-phone use on the ground because it "detracts from the revenue they get from the air phone." Airlines deny this, and say the bans are for the benefit of the passengers. "We don't believe it's a good safety issue" to allow normal cell phones, says Andy Plews, spokesman for UAL's United Airlines. "We'd like people to use the air phones."

Talkback

How much research was done before writing this article?

The first part of your article is incorrect. In 2003 the CAA (That’s the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK) released a report specifically documenting the effects of GSM Cellular telephones to aircraft navigation equipment in a closed environment, particularly the VHF and VOR/ILS (the stuff that helps you land safely). This study found that significant anomalies occurred creating an unsafe condition (basically the pilots would not be able to rely on their instruments), bugger. Now these issues were created when a mobile phone was brought within proximity of the Avionics equipment and wiring, which sadly runs from nose to tail on the aircraft.

Now the FAA might have commissioned a study to look into cell phone interference in 1996, but back then there was only approx 300 million cell phones world wide at that time. In 2005 there are approx 1.5 Billion phones with about 75% of these running on GSM. So this study has next to no influence on the argument as the majority of the incidents are in the last 10 years.

Now you also mention that Airlines create revenue from the passengers using the phones installed on board. Well duh!!! Do you actually think that if Airlines have to install some equipment on board to allow passengers to use their cell phones, then they are not going to negotiate a deal with the Telcom companies for a cut in the profits?

The real reason that the FAA bans cell phone usage is the same reason they do not like electronic devices. Not only do they operate on a wide spectrum of frequencies, but they emit random and spurious electrical radiation that could, and I only say could here, have an effect on the aircraft. Aircraft equipment is manufactured to strict controlled specifications. With all of the devices available, manufactured by any number of companies to any number of standards, there is no way to guarantee that each and every device “safe” to use on an aircraft. The fact is there is no way to regulate the devices on the market now and also every new device being released other than tighten the design and manufacturing regulations that could add millions to production costs. How many people are going to pay and extra $500 to ensure that their electrical device is “safe” for aircraft use? Can you imagine a flight attendant at the beginning of the flight announcing that “Motorolla model A,B,C etc phones are ok but Nokia phones are not” at the start of each flight?

With no ability to accurately ensure that airline travel is safe for everyone all of the time, the FAA is doing the right thing by not allowing cell phones on board. Are you willing to gamble the lives of 150 thousand people that are in the air at any minute of the day around the world?

I think not.

via Facebook 3 August, 2005 00:51
Reply

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your ZDNet UK account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy. Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Community FAQ

Get ZDNet UK's daily newsletter

Enter your email address to sign up

ZDNet UK Live

tinycg

Don't forget to check out apps like GoodReader or SlideShark either, they're indispensible for people on the go in presentation situations. Best...

42 minutes ago by tinycg on Four top iPad apps for people on the move
TerryRK

Well it seems there is something a number of us agree on. Why is the Ubuntu Unity launcher so ugly? I thought perhaps it was something to do with...

5 hours ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Freebies202

Duplicate comments are not made intentionally. Its very good to know that now you are keeping check on this problem because sometimes a commenter...

15 hours ago by Freebies202 on Microsoft fixes blog comments, speeds up blogs with open source
kevinmchapman

"the very significant number of users" and "many (most) of us" - you have no evidence for these statements. It is a fact that most users are saying...

23 hours ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Marg Menzies Harrison

Another grammar faux pas is the improper use of "you". When sitting down down in a restaurant, for example, I get cringe when the waitress...

1 day ago by Marg Menzies Harrison via Facebook on 10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid
zdnetukuser

And NOW, folks, for Canonical's next trick... Kubuntu is late. Here's a pencil. Draw your own conclusions. cf.:...

1 day ago by zdnetukuser on Linux Minterface
Moley

@kevinmchapman. The discussion here reflects the very significant number of users who really do like the traditional menu system and who wish to...

1 day ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

Er, no... It is an efficient means of finding the application/file/setting you need in one place. The icons are a simply a fallback for when you...

1 day ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

Isn't the provision of a text based search an admission by the developers that the mass of icons approach does not work? I don't need to use a...

1 day ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

"Unity and GNOME 3 both abandon the old text-based cascading menus in favour of a graphical icon-driven system." Point truly missed. Both use a...

1 day ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

whs001 - Thank you, I'm glad you liked the article. I absolutely agree with you on your first point. I should perhaps have made it clearer that...

1 day ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Dennis Nilsson

If we allow corporate interest to dictate the way our government circumvents due process against foreign entities then we should accept the same...

1 day ago by Dennis Nilsson via Facebook on ACTA stumbles in Germany
GHar123

I totally dislike pirating of works, I fear that artists will be deterred from creating works if they think that they are going to get ripped off....

1 day ago by GHar123 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
JCB33

How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local...

2 days ago by JCB33 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
Moley

@GrueMaster. I prefer horses for courses rather than one size fits all. I, and I suspect most other computer users, do not really wish to have...

2 days ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
greycynic

The product that scares me every time I have to use it is the Office 2007 version of Excel. The first bug that I found was applying the median...

2 days ago by greycynic on Ten flawed products that derail productivity
GrueMaster

Nice review and very informative. One thing I'd like to add (in reply to whs001's 1st question), the main reason to have the same interface from...

2 days ago by GrueMaster on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Frederick Wrigley

I'be been using Mint 12 since the RC came out, and I am far more happy with the Cinnamon, the Mate, and, yes (with extensions), theGnome 3...

2 days ago by Frederick Wrigley via Facebook on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
bdantas

Excellent article. One small correction, though--although a fresh installation of Linux Mint 12 will, indeed, provide the user with a version of...

2 days ago by bdantas on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Alan Ralph

In related news, the ISPs club together to get the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (ya goofed on that part, ZDNet UK) copies of "The...

2 days ago by Alan Ralph via Facebook on MPs urge ISPs to take down terrorist material