Flashermac Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-UG4DYIhwBo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 Whilst a funny sketch it does raise a few issues How can a $40 Ipod nano fuck up a multi million dollar aircraft? What about my Pacemaker? UK flights are now allowing in flight calls on GSM 1800, and no aircraft has mysteriously fallen from the sky yet. i am against mobiles in flight for two reasons 1. Have you ever been stood close to a Thai women on the BTS explaining her souring relationship with her beau for the full journey? 2. Sorry Love (to the wife) in flight mode, 7 hours of peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyinEwa/Perv Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 On topic........your devices don't fuck up nuthin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think_too_mut Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 There is no technical reason (from the iaricraft point of view) why mobiles can't be used on the planes. If they could pose any threat, they won't be allowed on board. At any time there are dozens forgotten to be turned off at any time on any plane, for more a decade like that. The only "mystery" that some (airlines) have decided is nothing is: while flying over the relays on the ground, the plane does that far faster than cars or trains, mobiles are constantly struggling to hang on the nearest one. It's the ground, not air, issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think_too_mut Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 UK flights are now allowing in flight calls on GSM 1800, and no aircraft has mysteriously fallen from the sky yet. Probably, what has happened: the airline has fitted transponders that consolidate all on board mobile attempts to contact their relays into one place. Then, aircraft software decides which one (and from which provider) it is. Perhaps, taking a cut for that service. Much like Apple does by chaining iPhone users to specific providers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioman Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 RF is cumulative, 1, 2 or a dozen or so mobiles, no real issue. 400 mobiles all burping at 2 watts a piece (they ramp the power when they cannot find a ground station) and you have quit a big gob of RF in a fairly small space. Not sure I want to be in a low frequency RF cooker. FCC says about 3mW/cmˆ2 at 900MHz is the max permissible limit, 1mW/cmˆ2 at 1500MHz http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/fcc-maximum-permissible-exposure.htm Of course once the airlines fit cell sites inside the aircraft and the phones register they throttle the level down to that needed to maintain the connection, very little inside a plane, like microwatts. Several hundred watts at 900MHz mixing with similar at 1800, 2100, 2400 whatever and the resulting products inside the non linear bits of the aircrafts own equipment could be a concern. I've seen cars lock up when exposed to about 50 watts from a single VHF transmitter, not funny when you lose the lot at 80MPH. Not sure about the ground issue, I've heard about it but never seen it properly verified. Inside that tin can of a 737 not much signal escapes, or gets in so the RF floats around inside but not much chance of hitting a ground station with it's antennas focussed downward at the ground. I can imagine it might be weird in a light aircraft at say 3000 feet where radio range would be about 67 nautical miles, that would hit quite a few base stations. Can't be arsed to do the field strength calc for 900Mhz at 67nm but there will be enough from a 2 watt transmitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think_too_mut Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 Albert Einstein said: "If you can't explain it to a 6 years old, then you don't understand it yourself". (I am not clicking on any links, just what posters talk their own). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioman Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 Context is everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think_too_mut Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 So, you don't know what the "problem" was? Or if has ever existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioman Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 So, you don't know what the "problem" was? Or if has ever existed? Referring to the interraction with grounds stations? Yes, I understand how that could be a problem but I don't know enough about how the network management would handle it. If it is a scenario that has been anticipated then presumably a solution exists. Further, I don't think a handset at 30000 feet inside a tin can will connect well with a ground station no matter the handoff speed might be above that anticipated. Do the cell service providers bitch at the airlines to have people turn their phones off to prevent network problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.