My Interesting Passenger

[denverpilot]

This NO cellphone in planes restriction is bogus on several fronts and prove the feds are behind the technology 8 ball again.....

First,

it is my understanding the ban is for commercial, revenue derived flights only. Not private GA flights... That is why they specifically say " the captain he requested you turn off all enectronic devices" when you are flying scheduled airline service... As PIC, he/she has the final word on safety of any flight. Airline regs probably require the flight crew to make this request more then anything else.

There's definitely differences in the FAA regs between 91, 135, and 121. Someone could make a chart, but the 135 and 121 will also include the particular Certificate holder's OpsSpecs.

Second,

And maybe Nate can back me up on this.. Old style cellphones and towers had a hard time segregating a single phone recieved by several towers at once. Technology and software has pretty much rectified that issue. So that is a invalid reason for not using a cell phone in flight anymore. Another good viable reason to prove cell phones used in flight is problematic is this........... Jackson Hole's runway is less then 3 miles for the peak of the Grand Teton range.. They tower up to 13,775 msl and a good 8000 feet higher then the runway.. On any given summer day there are 100+ people who scale it and 99% of the climbers will stand on the top and use their cellphones to tell all their firends they made it... I, on the other hand can disrupt the cell system / towers / computers if I make a call from 7200msl pattern attitude in my plane... The whole logic does not jive.....

Frequency re-use is still a problem, the higher a mobile device goes. Can't get away from physics... if your device is being heard by multiple receivers, you're lowering the overall number of available channels for ground-pounders to utilize. Other things like CDMA where the frequency is shared anyway, tend to help alleviate this, but I wouldn't say the carriers are spending big bucks on any special technological breakthroughs. There's just more available frequencies in use, compared to the "bad old days" of wide channel AMPS phones.

Thirdly and most obvious....

This sentence from the link..

§ 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...

Clearly shows the BS of the FCC's logic.... A balloon, that has no electronic equipment on board a cell phone can disrupt also has a ban on cellphone use.... Anyone care to explain that one to me .

Ben.

FCC is mostly interested in protecting the network and also is pointing out that license classes are based on a particular use model. "Fixed" and "Mobile" Ground Stations are generally what mobile phone devices fall in.

There are "cell phones" that work from aircraft and have been around for a long time... and the old GTE network...AirInc's stuff, and AirCell's system, and others... They have widely spaced ground stations, are on completely different frequencies, and are specifically built for aircraft use. Those systems were always what the FCC wanted the airborne solution to be.

If you want to get REALLY over-detailed, an aircraft can fly high enough that a cell phone on board may fall into both FCC, and the Canadian authority's jurisdiction, or Mexico... for example... and one agency may allow something the other doesn't. That stuff has to go to International Treaty to back the rules changes...

So... I dunno... I can't really "confirm" your suspicion that the system can handle it better these days -- but it does. The chances of a blanket lifting of the airborne cellular rules from FCC are about nil.

 

[Amelia]

I'm glad to say that hasn't happened to me. When I fly kids who WANT to fly, they are always excited about the view, the altitude, the speed. They're taking pictures of themselves in the airplane, they're asking questions about what we're doing, what all the gauges mean, and they're saying, "You really mean it? I'm flying this airplane? Oh, wow. Awesome, man! I can't wait to tell Mom."

If young Mr. Joe Cool were more interested in texting his girlfriend than being in an airplane, I might have cut the flight short, unless I had a reason for not doing so, I would have insisted the phone be OFF and in his pocket for the remainder of the flight, and I would have given him a job that would have drawn his attention to the experience of flight. I might, being a grumpy old woman, have, once on the ground, given him a short lecture on cell-phone etiquette, and I wouldn't hesitate to explain why he had just dropped to the bottom of a lengthy 'take me flying' list, saying, "You were obviously preoccupied, and this was an expensive ride for somebody who'd rather be elsewhere. Next time, if there ever IS a next time, you'll be leaving the phone on the ground, and we'll get back when we get back, and not before. We certainly won't do anything risky, no matter how good your better offer is."

The passengers' whims, while I may consider them, aren't mandatory, and unless there's serious illness, certainly not important enough to be hasty, jump the landing queue, or take any chances. Passenger pressure and hurry-up schedules are the sorts of things that gets pilots, especially inexperienced ones, killed.

Now: Repeat after me the following useful phrases: "No, sorry, we aren't going to make it by then. Better to arrive alive, right?" "Yes, we'll leave-- as soon as the weather's decent." "Actually, we're going to circle out here and wait for that jet to land ahead of us. We'll be there in XX minutes." You'll come up with your own "I am the pilot-in-command of this aircraft, Junior," admonitions, including the ever-useful "did you need to get out right here? It's a bit of a hike back to the field. Watch that first step..."

 

[silver-eagle]

Maybe he was just sharing the cool factor. I took my mid 40's auto mechanic and his buddy for a ride up to NH to meet their families at the airport in Laconia. About half way up, they're both on the phones talking to their wives rolling along below us.
Maybe next time, take the GF also.
Depending on your relationship with the kid, you either do or don't do it again. If you do, expect similar behavior unless you leave the phone on the ground. If he really is interested in flying, maybe get him a demo ride with an instructor. He'll be plenty busy he won't even think about diddling with the phone.
As to using a phone in the air, if you have one, keep it with you. You never know when you might need it. And while we're at it, keep it charged. A dead phone in an emergency is as helpful as a brick.

 

[redtail]

You'll come up with your own "I am the pilot-in-command of this aircraft, Junior," admonitions, including the ever-useful "did you need to get out right here? It's a bit of a hike back to the field. Watch that first step..."

I love this one, gotta keep that in mind

 

[Amelia]

The important consideration isn't (IMHO) so much the legality of cell phone use, but the wisdom of letting passengers call the shots. The love-sick (p-whipped?) cell-phoning passenger who suddenly 'had to get home by 4' was a distraction, caused the pilot to become angry and forced a needless and hasty change of plans. Dangerous combination. Mr. Bagel is going to have to figure out (on the ground) how he'll deal with that sort of thing in the future. It leads to poor decision-making, poor concentration on the tasks at hand, and a greater likelihood of coming to some bad end.

 

[Ghery]

When I'm PIC, cell phones are OFF (not vibrate or silent) before entering the cockpit, and I don't need to quote a reg to support that decision.

Same here. FAR 91.21 only requires shutting off portable electronic devices if the PIC hasn't determined they don't interfere with nav/com equipment when flying under IFR. HOWEVER, I like my nav/com gear to work at all times and as an EMC engineer I know how long it could take to make the positive determination, so my rule (as PIC I can make my own, as long as I don't violate the FAA's rules) is TURN IT OFF. I make a point of having the passengers, CFI, whoever, see me turn mine off and toss it in the flight bag before I climb in the plane. Monkey see, monkey do.

when they point out the pragmatic reasoning behind not using cells, then i won't allow them to be used. can we wear a watch?! mine's digital.

There is a large power difference between a cell phone and a digital watch. Your watch doesn't require EMC approvals because it draws less than 6 nW from the battery. Something drawing that little power just isn't going to radiate much of a signal.

I thought it was only when the aircraft is being operated under IFR, but the FCC reg you linked doesn't mention anything about IFR vs. VFR.

FCC doesn't know the difference. The FAA does, and as I noted above, for us the requirement is in FAR 91.21.