[Merged]Flight 93 - The Cell Phones that worked!

[Tweeter]

I have a hell of time getting a good connection while driving in my car.
Anything was "possible" that day.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's another reason why cell calling from a plane is bad:

Didn't the Mythbusters have an episode about cell phones - the older analog phones did cause interference, but the new ones did not, if I remember correctly.

One pilot, with a commercial line, told me that the FAA wasn't concerned about having phones on after takeoff, as much as the FCC, Federal Communications Commission, which regulates phones, radio frequencies, also does not want this. For example, this quote:

"The FAA is not alone in its prohibition of in-flight cell phone use. The Federal Communications Commission has a ban of its own, although it has nothing to do with safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air have the potential to engage multiple cell towers and thereby cause interference with calls on the ground. There is no scientific proof behind the FCC dictate, however; the agency never commissioned a study that conclusively proved its hypothesis." (from a 2002 article from Cable World)

For the life of me, I can't find information I once dug up that basically echoed that last paragraph, but the point is that I thought that "blanketing" multiple cell phone towers from altitude was an equal concern. Either way, in reference to the OP, it's true that the supposed impossibility of cell calls from altitude is a canard. If they were worried about interference, then they were pretty confident that connections could be made.

 

[dudalb]

I have a hell of time getting a good connection while driving in my car.
Anything was "possible" that day.

Argument from personal increduility. The Twoofer's favorite line.
And add me to the list of those who doubt you are old enough to drive.

 

[BenBurch]

I can prove they even worked ON 9/11/01!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112250

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

"Ah, but it was a SOUTHWEST Airlines flight! The 9/11 flights were American Airlines! This proves nothing! LOL."

fixed it for you.

 

[gumboot]

Down here in New Zealand we're likely to see cell phones being allowed on aircraft in the near future - once satellite communication equipment has been installed in aircraft. According to the people here there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that cellphones interfere with aircraft systems, and that the ban is actually a result of cellphone use at high altitude engaging multiple cell towers thus dropping land-based users from the network.

The "cellphones interfere with aircraft systems" seems akin to the "if you use your cellphone at a petrol station it will blow up" - an urban myth with no basis in reality.

 

[Myriad]

The "cellphones interfere with aircraft systems" seems akin to the "if you use your cellphone at a petrol station it will blow up" - an urban myth with no basis in reality.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case (that is to say, it's a myth). It would be just like the "cell phones might interfere with medical instruments" claim in hospitals -- which is really just an excuse to prevent the annoying noise of people talking on them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[slyjoe]

Down here in New Zealand we're likely to see cell phones being allowed on aircraft in the near future - once satellite communication equipment has been installed in aircraft. According to the people here there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that cellphones interfere with aircraft systems, and that the ban is actually a result of cellphone use at high altitude engaging multiple cell towers thus dropping land-based users from the network.

The "cellphones interfere with aircraft systems" seems akin to the "if you use your cellphone at a petrol station it will blow up" - an urban myth with no basis in reality.

This is correct. In fact, I once worked on a demonstration that flew the cell site on the plane, with the users on the ground using the flying cell to access the network.

However, if it's satellite communication equipment they are talking about, that in general is very different from a "cell phone" or "cell network" as it is typically used.

 

[TjW]

This is correct. In fact, I once worked on a demonstration that flew the cell site on the plane, with the users on the ground using the flying cell to access the network.

However, if it's satellite communication equipment they are talking about, that in general is very different from a "cell phone" or "cell network" as it is typically used.

I think the idea is they'll have a satellite network connection, and use a leaky wave antenna in the cabin so people can use their own handsets to make calls.
IIRC, they'll be offering Internet access as well.

 

[Arus808]

well, also, at the time, the seat back phones companies (GTE etc) were making a profit on the money they earned on charging customers $10 to use the phones and like $1 - $2 for each minute of use.

They probably "hinted" at the fear of interference to the airlines and FAA so that their cash cow couldn't be interrupted.

 

[deep]

I've seen quite a few twoofers claim that the cell phone calls from flight 93 couldn't have been made because a cell phone can't be used from a plane. They cite, typically, a "study" in which a CTer took some mobile phones up in a cessna and was unable to make calls. Yes, highly scientific.

[...]

CTers already think CNN is in on the conspiracy, I guess Southwest airlines is too...

Go take a look at a couple coverage maps for popular cellular providers, then imagine what that coverage map looked like in 2001. Quite a few coverage holes.

Plus, even if cellular technology was mature enough to reach the towers from whatever altitude they were at, it's quite unlikely that they could hold a call for any extended period of time, as the plane would quickly hit another one of the numerous cellular dead-zones.

I've personally turned my Blackberry on several times while airborne (to quickly check the contents of an email). In the time before I could turn off the wireless, I've noticed that I was never able to get a signal. I'm not implying that no cell phone will ever get a signal while airborne - I'm just relaying my own personal experience.

 

[deep]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case (that is to say, it's a myth). It would be just like the "cell phones might interfere with medical instruments" claim in hospitals -- which is really just an excuse to prevent the annoying noise of people talking on them.

Mythbusters actually tested this. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry about the show:

It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did interfere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, and because of all the electronic systems in a modern airplane that would have to undergo lengthy and expensive certification, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to stay on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne. It should be noted, though, that such a prohibition is being lifted in Europe.

They busted the myth, though.

 

[gumboot]

It should be pointed out that the "test" that was conducted was performed in Canada using modern cellular phones which have a significantly lower output power than 2001 era cellular phones.

It should also be pointed out that unless we know the network of the phones used by passengers on the flights, we cannot ever recreate the circumstances in order to determine success.

Anyone who has spent time in rural areas can attest that at any given location some users of a given network will get signal while other users of the same network will not, and that the same applies to users of other networks.

 

[Spud1k]

Cellphones interfering with electronic equipment isn't a myth - we have some gear in the lab that goes nuts if you use a phone within a couple of metres of it. However, I'm not saying they make planes drop out of the sky or anything; it's just that in aviation (and medicine), the tendency is to err on the side of excessive caution. The electronics on an aircraft are tested pretty thoroughly for interference as part of their airworthiness certification and once the aircraft is approved, you can't add any more electronics or radio transmitters to the plane without going back and getting it tested again. The fact they don't (currently) allow cellphones is more a strict adherence to this than anything else.

 

[gumboot]

Cellphones interfering with electronic equipment isn't a myth - we have some gear in the lab that goes nuts if you use a phone within a couple of metres of it.

This would only be relevant if we were talking about pilots using cellphones in the cockpit (incidentally there's actually cases of pilots using phones in the cockpit anyway).

Passengers are a substantial distance from all vulnerable aircraft systems and would not be capable of interfering with these systems.

I agree with you, however, that the main reason the ban on cellphones is maintained is that use of cellphones would require all systems in aircraft to undergo additional certification which would be extremely expensive.

This is not something unique to the airline industry - there are all sorts of areas where certain things are prohibited because they have not been certified as safe, yet there is ample evidence that they are indeed safe. Demonstrating that something is safe and certifying it as safe are of course entirely different things.

 

[boloboffin]

The nit picked at DU was "well, the plane was descending when the guy started making the calls."

In other words, just like 9/11.

 

[Spud1k]

Passengers are a substantial distance from all vulnerable aircraft systems and would not be capable of interfering with these systems.

I agree with you, however, that the main reason the ban on cellphones is maintained is that use of cellphones would require all systems in aircraft to undergo additional certification which would be extremely expensive.

That's the point I was getting at. It's costing the airlines quite a bit of money to satisfy the relevant authorities that an aircraft containing in-use cellphones is still safe, but I guess they figure that the investment will be returned in revenue from the phone calls made via a satellite link.

Can't say I'm looking forward to it personally. Screaming babies is bad enough, but people talking loudly on their phones as well...

 

[BigAl]

Go take a look at a couple coverage maps for popular cellular providers, then imagine what that coverage map looked like in 2001. Quite a few coverage holes.

Those maps would be accurate for callers that were on the ground. Coverage from an airplane would be much better.

 

[TjW]

Those maps would be accurate for callers that were on the ground. Coverage from an airplane would be much better.

True. And since 2001, cell sites have gotten more numerous, less powerful, and increasingly directional antennas to avoid interfering with each other.

 

[slyjoe]

...

Plus, even if cellular technology was mature enough to reach the towers from whatever altitude they were at, it's quite unlikely that they could hold a call for any extended period of time, as the plane would quickly hit another one of the numerous cellular dead-zones.

...

Flight 93 was between approximately 6200 and 5300 ft msl at the time of the cell phone calls. The cell towers in the area are in the range of 700 to 3100 ft msl.

And yes, you don't know which tower(s) were used. But you can tell which towers were there in 2001, so you can reduce the number of towers which may have been used. This also applies to not knowing which carrier/network provider was used.