Answers from frequent flyer's ; Pilots

[LARED]

http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.owning/0/msg977.htm

Subject: How many may have tried cell phones aloft? Come clean, now...
From: Tim Q
Date: Mon Sep 11 16:42:13 2000


I have watched cell phones get better and better the past ten years and I
now have three (two in cars and one small brain cancer-causing handheld).
The temptation to use it in my airplane is overwhelming despite the supposed
(USA) Federal Communications Commision ban on cell phones aloft.

Obviously, nobody would actually violate the law, that's for sure,
especially me, but I'd be interested to know if anybody has ever thought
about it and maybe at least pushed the button to see if there was a dial
tone at FL 100 and maybe just tried to dial a number and maybe just talked a
little bit and maybe...and maybe...

=============

snippets

I was told to circle about a mile off of the end of one of the runways until
I saw a green light from the tower, and then proceed to land. Interestingly,
they suggested that if I didn't see a light, or had any problems, to call them
from the air on a cell phone!

........


Often mine will ring in flight (audible only because I've got the Lightspeed
ANRs on), but -- even if I wanted to "break the law" and answer it -- there
would be no way I could possibly hear them over the roar of the engine!

I use mine all the time in the plane

I have AT&T digital service and I have found that the phone gets marginal
over about the 10th floor so I'd guess it will be close to useless in the
plane anyway, so I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on the adapter.


I've found them pretty much useless below 3000 feet or so, but occasionally can
get a signal for a brief time at higher altitudes. If I get a connection, it's
only for a few seconds so it's pretty much off when I fly. A friend of mine
though even made a call while I was flying an ILS. It was IMC. The call
lasted from the IAP inbound to the runway, and the localizer/GS needles, DME,
ADF LOM, m-beacons, etc., didn't even go haywire as reported will happen by
airline personnel. Talk about cheatin' death! Whoah! I just gotta stop
living on the edge.

Just follow the discussion and this subject can be put to bed. Cell phones can work in flight

[Abe Linkman]

1. Wow! Uh, is there a point you are driving at, or is this it?

You must have spent a lot of time and energy ferreting this information.
I just have one question: who cares?

[LARED]

3. Yes, there is a point

and I didn't spend all that much time ferreting. I figured there must be a pilots forum somewhere on the internet and it was a good chance this subject had been posted. It took all of 20 minutes to find it and post it.

You and other CT DU'ers should care. I beleive it is a answer to a question that many had. Cell phones can work in flight, so along with all the other evidence available it really is without doubt that cellular calls were made on 9/11 from aircraft.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Abe Linkman]

5. "lared" -- 9-11 WAS a conspiracy. Just not by the "Cave People"

And, the fact that cell phones can, under certain conditions, work during flights on commercial airliner, doesn't prove ANY were made on 9-11. Your "other" evidence available throwaway line notwithstanding.

With what we know now about OBL, world history ("Remember The Maine", Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, "Govt's lie", says Ted Olson), and the events of 9-11, it's almost comical that people would be here on DU STILL selling the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory.
Why do you do it?

[LARED]

8. I wish, I wish, I wish

the DU proprietors provided a "broken record" smilie.

Maybe if I clicked my heels three times.

[TO Kid]

16. Best forum on the web

Professional Pilots Rumour Network

[gandalf]

2. Yes LARED. Amen LARED.

[Bob Stanford]

4. Thank You, LARED

... and I was always wondering why the CT-followers are so insulting.

All in all we do not only have some evidence against CT, but even more, we have a lot of evidence, that most of the CT-guys are distractors, hypocraticals, ignorants and worse.

Bob Stanford

[gandalf]

6. Good point.

These conspiracies nuts are just plain stupid. They think they are more intelligent than the rest of us, and that makes them feel good. Perhaps they have a dull life and accomplished nothing in reality, so at least in their fantasy they are exalted above the simple human being, because, according to their fantasies, they know a big secret. CIA/Mossad did it. Quite exciting to know this, whereas the normal American doesn't know anything.

And in their pursuit of their wild fantasies they forget all courtesy. Too bad.

You are one of the few guys here who found that out. Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Pearl Harbor, Elvis is still alive, Roswell, and MI 5 murdered Lady Di, Energy task force ... all crap.

In reality, the US is a democracy, have a basically benevolent government (sometimes they make mistakes, but only a government who does nothing can avoid mistakes), and big conspiracies are simply impossible. Someone would talk, sooner or later.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Hi Bob ---- enlighten us, please.

What evidence "against CT" are you referring to? Thank you. I'll hold.

[DulceDecorum]

13. Absolut Irony

Bob Stanford says:
... and I was always wondering why the CT-followers are so insulting.

Bob Stanford says:
most of the CT-guys are distractors, hypocraticals, ignorants and worse.

[Woody Box]

9. Big mistake, LARED, very big mistake

Just follow the discussion and this subject can be put to bed. Cell phones can work in flight

I did, and I recommend everybody else to "follow the discussion" in this pilot thread.

It took me three minutes to find out that the "pilots" are talking about small private planes like the Piper Cherokee. They do not talk about big passenger jets.

So let me tell you that the 9/11 attacks were (allegedly) committed with big passenger jets, not small private planes.

Cellphones work much better in small planes than in big passenger jets for three reasons:

Small planes are flying lower than passenger jets.
Small planes are flyling more slowly than passenger jets.
Small planes have big windows, so the angle of electro-magnetic rays getting through the window is much wider than in passenger jets.

Professor A.K. Dewdney has made his legendary cellphone test on a small plane:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9

altitude (feet) probability of cellphone call getting through
4,000 0.400
8,000 0.100
12,000 0.040
16,000 0.025
20,000 0.016
24,000 0.011
28,000 0.008
32,000 0.006

So in small planes, there is a small chance to get a connection at 10000 ft. But we are talking about big passenger jets at cruising altitude.

Do you mind if I conclude from the absence of any pilot of commercial jets reporting succesfull cell phone calls at 35000 ft that this is impossible?

Show me the pilots reporting cell phone calls at cruising altitude, LARED, show me! And don't come back before you found one!

[LARED]

11. Woody, you need to make up your mind

You've stated that no cell phone works above 3,000 feet. Now you're saying there is a 40% chance of getting a call through at 4,000 feet based on "Professor A.K. Dewdney" legendary (snicker, snicker) cell phone test.

Well what it is? Apparently you now believe cell phones can work in flight. So what's your beef?

[Woody Box]

19. Don't play silly games, LARED

We're talking about big commercial planes, the same kind of planes as the 9/11 jets. You know that, don't you?

To withstand your meticulous text analysis, I've opened a new thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11586

Are you happy now?

[nomatrix]

10. Not all cell phones are created equal

http://www.aircell.com/about/whitepapers/AirCell-TechWhitepaper.pdf

I think this gives the best graphic evidence of how a cellular service works. Aircell is a cellular phone service, but, it is different. It has an antenae mounted on the plane and a satellite to keep uninterupted communications.

Also, when you ask a pilot, you have to date it to September 11, 2001. This industry has advanced and improved in the past 3 years.

[LARED]

12. Some more

Last winter I had to pick up my plane around 1:00 AM at another
airport. My wife drove me out and was going to pick me up at
our home field. My son wanted to fly back with me so, and his
spouse would keep my wife company on the late night drive.

The women left first and we took off. Since it was such a nice
night I decided to orbit the airport watching for their headlights
when they entered the tie down area. I commented to my son
that they seemed to be taking a long time driving the 20 miles
or so. He whipped out his cell phone and phoned the gals to ask
where they were.

He had no problem making the call. Perhaps the late hour
with little traffic on the phone network had something to do
with it. We were about 2000 or so AGL over the Seattle-Tacoma
metropolitan area at the time.

I didn't realize he was going to use his phone so I couldn't
warn him it was against the law .

But the phone worked just fine--


It's my understanding that Digital phones (PCS, GSM, iDEN, etc) are not
"Cellular" systems, and that their use in the air probably does NOT violate
the letter of the law in the FCC regs mentioned. However, your service
provider may be ticked-off if you do it.

I have used my Nextel phone in the air on a couple of occasions (never on
commercial flights). I have found that it works very well (especially the 2
way DirectConnect feature). The flip fits right under my headset. I have
no idea how the phone sounds on the other end, but it's probably pretty
noisy.

I have flown well beyond the range that I can get in a car. This is kind of
surprising to me, since most service providers "down-tilt" their antennas to
prevent too much overlap of transmitter sites. I have also used my phone at
the summit of a couple different >10,000ft MSL mountain peaks, which would
probably cause the same (if any) ill effect on my providers' network.

The only annoying thing about Nextel is that the frequencies they use are
picked up by a lot of audio amp. equipment (harmonics probably), so you hear
it over the radio or whatever audio device you may be next to (computer
speakers, stereo, vhf radio, etc). Even though my phone is always on
"vibrate" ring, and sitting in my flight bag behind me, I can tell if I get
a phone call, because I can hear the RF interference through my headset. A
few of my friends' AT&T PCS are the same way).

I have a Ham radio background, and one of the things discussed is that
communications on ANY FREQUENCY is considered legal in matters of
life-or-death. I would not hesitate to use my phone if I had to.


as a transplant coordinator, i have used cell phones in planes for almost
8 years. never had a problem. of course, these were not commercial jets,
but chartered. some of the fancier ones even had phones installed in the
passenger compartment-- so what's the big deal? i have also had to answer
pages from my own plane(172) and had no problem except the NOISE LEVEL IN
THE COCKPIT!!

And for those interested in the difference between the US and Euro

The same is not true in the UK. I have tried mine and despite it showing
there is a signal it is unusual tio get a cal through, although receiving
SMS is more frequent. The system appears to chcuk you out if you are
hitting too many cells at the same time I guess. When I use it in remote
areas, it does sometimes work. As you say the high noise level in the
cockpit does tend to make it hard for the other end to hear you.


And Kiwi land

Jeez, over here (kiwiland) we're allowed, indeed encouraged, to carry
cellphones for GA / VFR ops. (When filing a VFR Flight Plan or SARWatch
they'll ask you if you have a cell phone, and the number if you respond
'affirm').

[DulceDecorum]

14. Those "pilots" are dumber than dumberest.

They admit to having broken the law on a public forum,
FOR PILOTS
and they leave their e-mail and other traceable information right there.

If it were not for the fact that the date
(September 11 2000) is designed to draw traffic to the site,
I might just think they were utter fools
instead of operatives from the Office of Strategic Disinformation.

[LARED]

15. operatives from the Office of Strategic Disinformation.

DD, you were not supposed to figure it out.

[TO Kid]

17. No laws against it

There is nothing to prohibit the use of a cellphone except the crew's discretion. There are procedures in place for dealing with suspected EM interference.

As for the 9/11 question- I have used my cell at 4500 feet without difficulty, the biggest issues are the amount of metal between your phone and the ground and the speed at which you're travelling. Also remember, that flight was nowhere near cruising altitude when the calls were made- they were descending towards their target. Given the crash location they were probably below 10,000.

[Woody Box]

18. Again: alleged cellphone call from 35000 ft

Also remember, that flight was nowhere near cruising altitude when the calls were made- they were descending towards their target.

Tom Burnett called his wife on his cellphone at 9:27, according to his wife. At 9:27, UA 93 was flying at 35000 ft, according to the transponder data. It was not descending. The speed was 500 mph.

As for the 9/11 question- I have used my cell at 4500 feet without difficulty, the biggest issues are the amount of metal between your phone and the ground and the speed at which you're travelling.

What kind of plane are you talking about? I guess it's a small plane, because passenger jets usually don't fly at this altitude. Am I right? And what was the speed of the plane?

[Bob Stanford]

20. Where did you find the transponder data?

... according to the transponder data. It was not descending. The speed was 500 mph.



Where did you find theese informations?

Bob

[Woody Box]

21. That's common knowledge

Don't you know this radio talk?

Cleveland: United ninety-three, check in when flight level three-five-zero – .

United 93: United ninety-three check in three-five-zero.

[Bob Stanford]

22. No, woody, you are wrong again

I know this radio tape.

Unfortunately you didn´t present a link. It is here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm

But it does not contain the information you are claiming! We do not learn anything about speed there, and we do not know, if that was at the same time the calls were made.

Bob

[Woody Box]

23. I never was wrong, Bob Stanford

You want to bug me, don't you? 13 posts and only ridiculous pseudo debunking:

But it does not contain the information you are claiming! We do not learn anything about speed there, and we do not know, if that was at the same time the calls were made.

1) At 35000 ft, cellphone calls are impossible at any speed. Apart from that, any deviation from cruising speed would have alerted the controllers.

2) Tom Burnett's alleged first call was at 9:27. At this time, the plane was in Cleveland airspace and controlled by Cleveland ATC Center. And its altitude was 35000 ft.

Please don't ask me silly questions again just to tease me. This is not funny, we're talking about mass murder.

[Bob Stanford]

24. Two weak points

2) Tom Burnett's alleged first call was at 9:27. At this time, the plane was in Cleveland airspace and controlled by Cleveland ATC Center. And its altitude was 35000 ft.

May be, but as far as I know, we cannot be sure that Tom Burnett did not use an onboard airphone. We have only one weak hint:

As they spoke, the call-waiting on Deena's phone clicked. It was Tom, calling from the plane on the cell phone he had nearly lost in a sporting goods store two days earlier.

Source: Jere Longman, "Among the Heroes". But I wonder if Deena not just guessed that it came from Tom´s cell phone, because Tom himself did not say which phone he was using. So this is a very weak point.

And apart from that, concerning the radio I could not find a time stamp or something like that. I´m still not sure that the plane was on 35000 ft. at 9:27.

Bob

[Woody Box]

28. *sigh*

I knew that at one point the airfone claim would emerge again.

Deena Burnett was very accurate. She was not guessing. She noted the exact timing of the four phone calls. And she knew that Tom made

- his first call on his cellphone (9:27),
- his second call on an airfone (9:34),
- his third call on his cellphone again (9:45),

according to Longman. Only the fourth call is not clear.

How did she now which phone Tom was using? She saw his number on her display (the first and third call; the second one not, so she concluded it was an airfone).

[DulceDecorum]

29. Jere Longman

is a sportswriter for the New York Times.
This, naturally, makes him eminently qualified to write the story of the events that occured INSIDE Flight 93
which allegedy took place on a Boeing 757-222, Serial number 28142 with the US registration number N591UA.

When we run the serial number 28142 through the FAA interactive inquiry website, we obtain results for three planes.
one is a Piper, N117W.
One is a Boeing, N591UA.
One is a Cessna, N9180Z.

N591UA is STILL REGISTERD and has been seeing flying around Chigago.
And the NYT fired Jayson Blair......

[Woody Box]

30. This is a hammer

Very interesting. My thoughts:

You know the difference in the wheels-off times of UA 93.

The official wheels-off time is 8:42.

The wheels-off time according to the BTS is 8:28.

The BTS links plane N591A to the 8:28 plane (i.e. it's the same plane). Its gate departure was 8:01, and nothing unusually happened. Very likely it carried passengers, but no controller seemed to notice its departure. Anyway, we don't know what happened to the plane and its passengers, but now we know that the plane survived.

The 8:42 jet is the one who sent the transponder data, so he obviously was supposed to create a wrong track. No hijacking aboard this plane.

We must discuss this. ;-)

[Bolo Boffin]

25. "Can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight"

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008297/
http://home.t-online.de/home/susanne.studt/text_5.htm

When they can get away with it, passengers often disregard those rules - as did passengers on the hijacked jets, in response to an obvious emergency. And news of those desperate calls has left many people wondering how, and how well, cell phones work on airplanes in flight, and whether their use does interfere with other communications signals. According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude.

Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles. "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight," said Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. "An excess of caution prevents us from doing so, of course, because we are so worried about the safety of air travel."

You were saying?

[Abe Linkman]

26. As I've said before...

It's a mistake to get into an argument over technical issues, because the other side can always come up with an expert who'll support a particular point of view, and in the case of 9-11 events, "Cave People Did It" supporters have a huuuuuge advantage: almost unlimited access to technical experts.

On the other hand, neither bolo nor any of his confederates has so far produced any evidence to support the "Cave People Did It" version of 9-11 -- yet, we still can't rest comfortably. Remember, the george w. BUNNYPANTS crowd still has time to "discover" Saddam's WMD, and THEY WILL. Does anyone here doubt it?

[Woody Box]

27. Sorry for the expert, he doesn't have a clue

We don't need any experts to answer the question. The reality disproves Marvin Sirbu.

[DulceDecorum]

31. Laws that some choose to ignore.

Signals emitted by the mobile phone interfere with Air Traffic Control (ATC) signals,
undermining the safety of the flight.

Very very frequently, Air Traffic Control ask the pilots to turn off their transponders.
This usually happens in high density traffic often found near airports
where the ATC screens become overloaded with data.
Now if THE ONE SINGLE TRANSPONDER PER PLANE is causing overload,
what of the multitude of mobile phones on-board?

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''

Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft - FAA AC 91.21-1
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft
operators with information and guidance for assistance in the
compliance of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Section 91.21.
Because of the potential for portable electronic devices to
interfere with aircraft communications and navigation equipment,
FAR Section 91.21 was established. It prohibits the operation
of portable electronic devices aboard U.S.-registered civil
aircraft, operated by the holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate, or any other aircraft
while operating under instrument flight rules. The rule permits
use of specified portable electronic devices and other devices
that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause
interference with the safe operation of the aircraft in which it
is operated.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/91-21_1.html

TO Kid,
in order to comply with this regulation,
YOU, the operator of the plane
MUST PROVE that the device does NOT interfere with the safety
and YOU, the operator of the plane,
MUST NOT allow intentional transmitters such as cell-phones to be used while the plane is in flight.

In other words, NO CELL-PHONES can be used aboard any US plane in US airspace while that plane is in flight. However, we are not sure if that includes the most famous plane of them all.....

At 10:41, with Air Force One headed toward Jacksonville to meet jets scrambled to give the presidential jet its own air cover, Mr. Cheney was urging Mr. Bush to avoid a quick return to Washington. He wanted the president at Offutt Air Force Base outside Omaha, which he knew from his days as secretary of defense had an extraordinarily sophisticated strategic command communications center.
At 11:45, the plane landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport, La., an intermediate stop. A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL ASKED THE SMALL POOL OF REPORTERS IN THE BACK OF THE PLANE TO KEEP THEIR CELL-PHONES OFF BECAUSE THE SIGNALS COULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO IDENTIFY THE PLANE'S POSITION.
White House officials told reporters that they could say only that the president was at "an unidentified location in the United States," a requirement that was lifted after reporters learned that local television stations had already reported the landing.
Mr. Bush appeared before the reporters for just two minutes, declaring, "Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/nyt091601b.html

Mr Bush by now knew the horror of what was happening, but not the full scale of it. At 9.36, just west of Cleveland, United 93 made an abrupt unscheduled turn and began heading south-east towards Washington DC.
Seven minutes later, as Mr Bush, his entourage and the accompanying press corps were boarding Air Force One, American Flight 77 swooped low over the suburbs of northern Virginia and slammed into the Pentagon.
<snip>
At 9.45 the Secret Service ordered the complete evacuation of the White House - United Flight 93 was still airborne and heading towards Washington. No one knew, or knows, for sure what its target was, but the obvious candidates were the Capitol buiding, Camp David - or the White House itself.
<snip>
Air Force One lifted off from Sarasota at 9.57. A few minutes earlier, the South Tower of the World Trade Centre had collapsed. It was unclear whether anyone on Air Force One - including the pilot - knew where the Boeing 747 was headed. "The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way," said an administration official.
<snip>
At 10.06, as Air Force One was still climbing, United Flight 93 nose-dived into a field near the rural Pennsylvania town of Shanksville, killing everyone on board. The passengers, it now seems clear, had rushed the hi-jackers and precipitated the crash. In doing so, they may have saved the Capitol buiding, or the White House itself, from possible suicide attack. They lost their lives and, in doing so, almost certainly saved many more. Air Force One was told the news.
For much of the next two hours the presidential jet appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board - all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices - sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles.
Mr Bush was able to call his wife, Laura, who had been on Capitol Hill waiting to speak to the Senate education committee when the attacks began. She and the couple's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna, were now in secure locations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wbush16.xml

REPORTERS TRAVELLING WITH BUSH reported that some passengers from Air Force One were left behind at Barksdale when he departed at 1:37 p.m. The entourage was slimmed down for safety, officials said.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, “The president is looking forward to returning to Washington. He understand at a time like this, caution must be taken.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/bush091101.htm

Press Briefing to the Pool By Ari Fleischer
Aboard Air Force One
1:47 P.M. EDT
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 11, 2001

Q WHO IS WITH HIM ON THE PLANE?
MR. FLEISCHER: Chief of Staff Card, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, myself, Gordon.
Q -- THAT'S IT?
MR. FLEISCHER: YES, AS I INDICATED, WE'VE PARED EVERYTHING BACK so
that we can ?
Q And does the President feel hunted or in jeopardy? I mean, he is kind of trying to stay out of ?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is looking forward to returning to Washington. He understands at a time like this, caution must be taken; and he wants to get to back to Washington.
Q What's he doing right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's talking to people on the phone from his cabin.
Q In his cabin?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q Thank you for bringing us whatever you can, in terms of information on what he's doing.
END 1:51 P.M. EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-6.html

See,
the non-existent pool of reporters in the back was forced to switch off their cell-phones,
and nobody was allowed to call the press from Air Force One
when it was under credible attack on September 11, 2001 and nobody could track Flight 77 or Flight 93
although the passengers had their cell-phones on and were making calls from them
and you cannot spell the word LIAR with using the letters ARI.