apparently, this morning, the policy on united airlines for which wireless devices you can use changed. i say that because yesterday it was the old "anything with an on or off switch can't be used within 10 minutes after takeoff, or 10 minutes before landing. cellular phones can non be used at all during the flight until you land".
this morning, it got way more specific. i can't remember verbatim what the slightly disgruntled flight attendant on my 7am flight was reading off the card, but i do remember some of the details:
No cellular telephones may be used on the flight at any time (until landing).
No laptops with centrino or "wi-fi" technology
No devices with bluetooth may be used at any time
No "Blackberry" or "Palms with email capability" may be used at any time.
No "video gaming phones" even with "flight mode" can be used
oh, and no "noise reduction headphones" can be used within 10 minutes of takeoff or landing because those are electronic devices
at least they don't mention calculators anymore.
i was on the way back from CTIA, so maybe just maybe this was special but that seems odd.
does this stuff really interfere with communications? shouldn't that be solved by the spectrum used on the planes? if it's dangerous to use wireless devices on a plane, isn't that a fundamental problem in itself?
any why the stupid rules against using them even with "flight mode" on? what the hell is flight mode for?
we've all heard all the stories about cell phones in the air confusing towers on the ground, but why would united airlines care about that? we all know cell phones work from the air - on 9/11 many of the unfortunate victims made calls from the air - and i used to always keep my mobitex blackberry on in flight, well, so i could get email throughout my flight.
i've also heard rumors it's because they want you to use the on-board verizon airphones.
and wait a minute, wasn't boeing working on putting wi-fi on planes? i thought the DC-Frankfurt Lufthansa flight was wi-fi enabled. do 777's use a different radio technology than my 737? (i kind hope so).
being an american, raised in this culture of fear (if you believe michael moore in bowling for columbine) - i have no choice but to assume this change in policy is a direct result of what happened in Madrid ( 11-M ).
it's pretty scary, but we've all heard what happens when you put a GSM phone next to a speakerphone on a conference call, and you get an SMS. there's a definite pattern of interference that is generated. and that could be used any number of ways. there's also a some evidence that suggests al queda and it's affiliates are using cell phones to detonate devices, just using the alarm feature on these phones.
unfortunately, this makes all too much sense. the modus operandi of al queda so far has been to use the very infrastructure created by the western world against it. but an airline telling people not to use their n-gage isn't going to stop a terrorist who wants to do damage or inflict harm, and banning such devices from being carried on an airplane doesn't seem like the right answer either.
so what's my point? i'm not sure. i think my point is to see if anyone knows the real reason behind these seemingly silly and contradictory policies. anyone?
i'm far from a world authority on spectrum allocation or interference, but this comprehensive WSJ article (re-posted) appears to be a pretty definitive rebuttal of any set of technical reasons for denying passenger cellphone/laptop/whatever use on commercial flights for communications safety assurance. Plenty of commercial and social reasons remain, however. What's interesting to me is that the FCC, not the FAA, is behind the original cellphone ban. I guess I never realized that the FAA had no official regulation on the issue.
As a private pilot, i'm aware that my radio communications occur on a frequency band between 108 and 134 MHz. (Believe it or not, Steve, those 737 and 777 jockeys operate on the exact same frequency band -- the military is in a higher band, however.) All of the GSM and CDMA frequencies are much higher still (800 and up, depending on your corner of the globe), so I don't think basic air traffic control communications can be affected. That said, having all those batteries and their magnetic fields operating throughout an aircraft could very well affect some electronic and polar-magnetic systems, in theory, so some degree of standardization the airlines and the manufacturers can agree on probably wouldn't be the worst outcome. A big problem with emerging technology is lag in developing acceptable social etiquette around it. At least here in the US of A, that is.
On that note: flying in the country has become a giant pain in the ass because we regulate behavior under the assumption that "bad actors" will comply with regulations. Example: our Mayor Daley braying about the need for a temporary flight restriction to "protect Chicago from terrorists." Whenever the country goes on orange alert, the major airspace over downtown and the north side prohibits general aviation from flying there under penalty of getting a very expensive F-16 escort to an unpleasant debriefing. Pretty sure the mayor's even said something like "if the Mouse (Disneyworld) deserves protection, doesn't Chicago?" If the rule of law doesn't apply to your enemy, Hizzoner, it really doesn't amount to much, does it? If Al Qaeda wanted to take a shot at downtown, I really doubt they'd call flight service that morning to make sure the airspace is clean.
Posted by: matt at March 26, 2004 10:46 AM
4504 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 03:22 PM