NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Occam's razor
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2014 Mar 20, 17:12 -0700
From: Gary LaPook
Date: 2014 Mar 20, 17:12 -0700
Sounds like you are talking about something different, just read the link I posted. Here is a quote:
Looks like the NPRM is talking about using the cellphones with existing ground towers as long as the airplane sends a spoofing signal to the cellphones in the cabin to make them think that they are close to the cell tower so that the cellphone reduces its power output which is what happens when using regular cell service.
There would be no reason for the airplane equipment to "CONTROL the emissions" of something else if the FCC was talking about a system on the airplane itself that was acting as the transmitting station nor would there be a reason to limit it above 10,000 feet.
gl
From: Tom Sult <tsult@mac.com>
To: garylapook@pacbell.net
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:31 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Occam's razor
- Allow mobile communications services on airborne aircraft only if managed by an Airborne Access System certified by the FAA, which would control the emissions of onboard portable electronic devices (PEDs) by requiring them to remain at or near their lowest transmitting power level; and
- Limit authorization for mobile communications services to aircraft travelling at altitudes of more than 3,048 meters (approximately 10,000 feet) above the ground."
There would be no reason for the airplane equipment to "CONTROL the emissions" of something else if the FCC was talking about a system on the airplane itself that was acting as the transmitting station nor would there be a reason to limit it above 10,000 feet.
gl
From: Tom Sult <tsult@mac.com>
To: garylapook@pacbell.net
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:31 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Occam's razor
In the link you sent about cell phone use on airplanes. Is this.
"Airlines that want to allow phone use would need to license bandwidth for equipment called a pico
cell, essentially a base station that handles wireless data and calls. Then they would need safety approval from the Federal Aviation Administration as well."
They are talking about a mini "cell tower" on the plane to comm with the ground. Not direct cell phone to ground comm.
Tom Sult
Tom Sult
Sent from my iPhone
And last December the FCC proposed allowing the use of cellphones in flight above 10,000 feet on commercial airliners. And the proposed rules would require that the cellphones transmit only at their lowest power level.
So the FCC apparently believes cellphones work from high flying airplanes even when set to the lowest power output.
But, what do they know.
gl
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/12/250469596/phone-calls-on-flights-fcc-holds-open-meeting-today
From: Gary LaPook <garylapook---.net>
To: garylapook---.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:26 PM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Occam's razor
Remember, the reason that cell phones were banned on airliners had nothing to do with safety of flight, or interference with aircraft systems. The ban came from the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, not the FAA. The reason was, that from high altitude, the line of sight cell phone transmissions would hit many cell sites, even those far away from the plane, and cause interference with cell phone calls in a very wide radius. If the cell site antennas did not receive signals from planes in flight then there would have been no reason for the FCC's concern.
gl
From: Tom Sult <tsult---.com>
To: garylapook---.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Occam's razor
Out of radar range out of cellphone range. Also cell phone towers don't point up. Cell phone reception is poor above 4000 ft AGL.
Tom SultSent from my iPhone
: http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=127300
