FAA not planning to make in-flight cellphone calls very easy

For once all that crazy government red tape might be working in our favor: sure, the FAA might ease up a bit on the rules banning cellphones from use during flights, but in order to get a waiver airlines would have to go through and test each handset that might be used by passengers to make sure that it doesn't pose a threat to aircraft navigation or communications systems. And we all know that ain't gonna happen. The FCC has been a little more receptive to people using their cellies in the air, but it's like launching a missile from a submarine: both the FCC and the FAA need to sign off on this before it can become a reality.

[Tidal @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

BAD IDEA!!! Last thing I want is to be stuck in a cattle car for hours on end with people being obnoxious on their phones!

Very Bad!

[Andy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

They should just allow text messages and that's it. Works well for almost everyone. No chatter, no prolonged airtime, the phone companies make more off text messages. I think almost everyone has text message capability anyhow, and if you don't, upgrade for 20 bucks.

[Chip Thomas @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

First of all, who are these morons that are pushing for this? If someone has seen a list of corporations pushing for this please post the link here.

Is this just the chance to offer a new cell plan for air travel that has the mobile phone companies so excited. Can they make it that much cheaper than the current system?

[sunz @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

if they do allow it . .i think it should be like smoking. there should be sections .. personally i would hate to sit next to someone talking because people tend to be rude and forget where they are. Perhaps a cell section of seating depending on the aircraft perhaps it would be seperated with those curtains like the first class is sometimes seperated. And the flight attendants should be authorized to end all conversations that are way too out of line with one of those jammer things .. lol . that would make me laugh ..otherwise i think this is a very bad idea .. very bad .. and i'd hate to think that some terrorist gets a bomb in the luggage area and sets it off with a cell call .. but alas .. perhaps i am paranoid ..

[Roopesh Sheth @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Oh god damn it! Approve the use of cell phones already!

If you don't want to listen to someone talk, bring your headphones. Or start your own conversation.

I agree with #2, to an extent. Text messaging would be very helpful.

[Fuzz @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Really bad idea! The last thing I want is to wait in line for hours only to end up with some terrorist detonating the bomb in his suitcase from his seat in the cabin!

[Ward @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The current claim for disallowing cell phone use is technical: the concern that they will cause interference (which I think is bullshit).

The problems that all the commenters cite are behavioral. If that's why cell phone use shouldn't be allowed, that's fine, but let's at least have the rules be honest, rather than claiming one reason and really meaning another. As one commenter said, allow texting. Allow short, courteous calls. But don't claim it's for safety reasons when it's not.

And really, when am I going to be able to use my iPod during takeoff and landing? Stupid FAA...

[Topmounter @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The existing in-flight phones work just fine for situations where you absolutely must use the phone, but they are just pricey enough to keep the amount of chit-chat to a minimum.

[ipodman715 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

^ I've used my iPod and CD player WITH fm radio during takeoff and landing and I'm still here to talk about it...

:)

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

#5, if he was in the cabin, he would be able to detonate the bomb anyway. What the are afraid of is that once they add signal to the cabin, people will be able to detonate a bomb from the ground.

[Andrew @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I hope that this doesn't come to pass.

I'd like to try using an airplane broadband connection tied into Skype.

[kerry @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It may seem unnecessary to some people, but I'd rather have the FAA be exceptionally careful when considering using new technologies in airplanes. If just one thing gets overlooked and a plane crashes as a result, it will not have been worth it. Using your iPod during takeoff and landing, no matter how minute the possibility of interference for the folks in the cockpit, is simply not worth dying. Likewise, using a cell phone that has not been explicitely tested for interference at all is also not worth it.

[Ward @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

If electronics caused significant interference, more sophisticated means would be employed to prevent their use. Lots of people don't bother turning off their cell phones when they get on the plane. Nothing's ever happened. If it did, you could be sure that flight attendents or sky martials would use some sort of electromagnetic interference detector to inspect the plane before takeoff and landing.

It doesn't matter if it's worth dying over or not. It's a nonissue.

[Philbee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It's not so much interference with airbourne flight safety equipment as it is with freaking out the ground cell transmitters. Suddenly a cell phone is flitting from ground tower to ground tower at a speed the system was not really designed for.

The older the aircraft, the less likely there will be an interference issue due to the reliance on control cables. The newer the aircraft and the less likely there will be an issue due to better shielding techniques employed on the flight critical equipment - despite the fact that they are more fly-by-wire.

It is still worth a test or two on the suspect flight management boxes though to ensure fly-by-wire doesn't suddenly turn into fly-by-consensus.

[Peter @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I say leave the ban in place. I don't care if there are technical reasons (which can eventually be overcome) or not. Being stuck in a plane with people chatting away would be very annoying. If you can't go a few hours without talking on the phone, you need to think about your priorities. Besides, no one I overhear is ever having an interesting conversation. If you're going to make me listen to you, at least give me something good.

[Stu @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I don't think the iPod rules are to prevent the plane from falling from the sky :D

I think it has more to do with saftey. The crew gives you the safety run down at take off, and the pilot gives you his plan. The airlines are responsible to make sure everyone knows these rules and if someone is listening to an iPod, they won't hear the rules. I am pretty sure that is the concept with CD players and Mp3 players, I might be wrong but that would also explain why you can use them during the flight.

If it was that they could prevent a safe take off if on, I doubt they would be allowed on teh plane in the first place. It could easily turn on while in your bag, or be left on during take off.

And honestly, if iPods really were a real safety concern then terrorists really wouldn't need bombs to hijack, they could simply turn on their most recent podcast.

[Pete @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I belive its mainly the FCC that has issues. At least with CDMA, when too many ground based sites can see a phone, it ties up a bunch of resources trying to service the handset. Adding a base in the cabin clears a bunch of this up.

Is someone who really wants to cause harm to the airplane systems from the cabin via rf interference going to be stopped by a law? Kinda too late if someone decides to jam the glideslope or localizer receiver from the cabin.

A bunch of people yaking on their phones is really going to be annoying. Especially the ringers.

[Festus @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

#5, Before you proclaim that everyone should be blathering away on their phones in the airplane cabin, spend some time on a commuter train listening to everyone's froggy ringtones for 2 hours a day. Then tell me you think it's a swell idea.

[Lee Gibson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

"If you can't go a few hours without talking on the phone, you need to think about your priorities."

If you can't go a few hours without imposing your will on the people around you, you need to think about your ethics.

You don't have a right to be not inconvenienced.

[Jason Coleman @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Why is everyone convinced that cell phones will make airplanes drop out of the sky? At worst, they might mildly interfere with navigation, not the engines or flight mechanics. I mean after all, the flight attendants say something to the affect of interference with navigation systems, not flight controls. That's no small difference. Further, if there was really that much of a possibility, these havoc reekers wouldn't be allowed on flights, period. I can't bring my 1" pocket knife on board because of the TSA/FAA, what makes anyone think if phones are so dangerous that they'd be so acceptable on board?

I'm not saying I want to have to put up with phone conversations during a flight, but I have to deal with them on the ground all damn day, so there's really no difference. Annoying people are annoying, whether they use their cell phone or not. Let's just cut the crap about them not being safe. It's simply a myth that the airlines don't bother to dispel.

[bigdeis @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

To Lee Gibson (#18):
Smartest statement posted about this subject EVER.

Whiny babies need to grow up and learn that many professionals (especially those of us in financial professions) are becoming increasingly inconvenienced every time we get on a plane and cant communicate electronically with clients, the home office & the outside world in general. As technology advances the scope with which we use it to conduct our everyday business increases almost lockstep (as it does with most businesses).

Some of the solutions described in other posts could be helpful stepping stones that I think are completely rational to implement over time like:
calling/no calling plane sections (I guarantee you business class would be ~95% "calling");
allowing text-based communications only (nowadays blackberrying can be significantly more efficient than leaving voicemails in many situations);
and several other suggestions

Lots of things that people (incorrectly) assume as inherent rights (not the given priveleges that they are) annoy the f&*k out of me, but I know I have to live with them because they benefit many others. Allowing electronic communication while on a flight isnt fundamentally different from any of those.

Grow up.

[josh @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I don't see the FAA as a big hurdle. It's entirely reasonable to have each cell phone tested for ill effects on plane instruments. I doubt that phone manufacturers would mind picking up the tab to be able to claim that their phone is safe for flying. It's not a barrier to airlines.

I also say that airlines should be allowed to come up with whatever rules they want about cell phone behavior. Let the market figure it out. If, as many of you claim, it becomes too annoying, people will complain and some airlines will provide quieter flights.

[esev @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It seems like all the comments have centered around commercial air travel. It sure would be convenient and actually improve safety for General Aviation pilots if the FAA/FCC would lift the ban. It would open up a bunch of new options for in flight weather briefs, changing flight plans, or just being able to call your destination to let them know when you'll be arriving. It would be especially nice for devices like AnyWhereMap (http://www.anywheremap.com) that have the ability to update their flight/weather information in real time.

[quixote @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

#18: "You don't have a right to be not inconvenienced."

Parsing out the triple negative leaves: you don't have the right to be "convenienced." Actually, you do. That's the basis of anti-begging statutes, noise ordinances, zoning laws, and the list goes on.

If cell phones are safe, by all means use them, SILENTLY. You have no more right to yell in my ear than you have to smoke in my face.

[Eric W @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Wow, #20, a businessman supports lifting the ban. I for one am shocked. Lets say I buy the house next to yours and host rock concerts at 1AM. I'm simply conducting business, so by your logic, I'm cool right?

As a previous poster mentioned, lift the ban for the technical reasons, and then reinstate it for social ones. Cell phones are the new smoking.

[pAiNkIlLaH @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It's only logical they lift the ban. If you can connect to broadband by sat from a plane with your laptop, why can't you talk on your cellphone? You trying to say the electronics in my $250 cell can bring down a plane but the chips in my $2500 notebook won't. What airline is #18 flying? Must be some new airline. If others never impose their will on you while you are flying, I don't think you fly commmercially. As far as priorities and ethics it's a plane not a church. I am using my phone not trying to summon Satin. For once I am glad the FCC and FAA are in charge of this decision instead of you people.

[fast eddie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The airlines I fly on already have telephone communication built in to every handset...

However, at $5 per minute, people only use them for important calls... Not a problem.

I would hate to sit on a plane filled with bored people whiling away the time chatting inanely...

HELLO? I'M ON A PLANE! NO, A PLANE? WHAT??? WHERE ARE YOU??? WHAT???? WHERE ARE YOU???? I'M ON A PLANE!!!

Keep mobile phones off the planes, please!