On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:06:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/01/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Nanny State ;-)
>>
>> Thhhpt! :-)  Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>>
>>
> Reel it in, I've got a bite. ;-)
> 
>>> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
>>
>> I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem -
> 
> That surprises me.

It would depend on the tx strength of the signal, but it doesn't surprise 
me.

What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in 
my phone is useless.

>> the two reasons I've
>> heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard
>> fly- by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I
>> used to)
> 
> I've been in a turbine control room when someone used a hand held radio.
> The dials went round the clock and the annunciator board lit up like a
> Christmas tree. So I can see that being possible.

I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals 
flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed 
to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.

>> and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
>> switching towers so quickly.  The latter probably isn't as big of a
>> concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
>> (per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal
>> from one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost
>> immediately.
>>
>>
> I can't see that being much of a problem to life and safety.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message