Cell Phone Use on Airplanes, C-Span (7-14-05)

[Klimmer]

Just watched on C-Span2 (7-14-05) a House Transportation Subcommittee hearing concerning the PROPOSED FCC rule change on cellular phone use and the allowing of additional technology on the aircraft to make possible and enhance wire-less cell phone and computer use from air to ground or from air to satellite.

In the hearing it was openly admitted that cell-phones do not work reliably to any extent, or not at all, from aircraft except at low altitudes, hence the need to allow for and then add additional technology that would allow for this.

This is more evidence that the passengers on the 9-11 high-jacked flights could not have made cell phone contact, after cell phone contact, as has been claimed. Passengers do not have the technology yet to do this. Just can't happen. 100% failure. The electro-magnetic radio waves from cell phones are attenuated (contained) mostly in the fuselage of the aircraft, only making contact with cell towers at low altitudes, and then not very reliably.

The hearing was attended by experts testifying from commercial aviation, government (FCC, FAA), and industry/Business. Some were for the FCC proposed changes (industry/business), and some were not (especially airline pilots and attendants) for obvious safety
concerns.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Cell phone

"The electro-magnetic radio waves from cell phones are attenuated (contained) mostly in the fuselage of the aircraft, only making contact with cell towers at low altitudes, and then not very reliably."

Why are they contained in the fuselage? It's only metal. Does this mean it's easier to make a call if you're sitting by the window? What is "low altitude"? Below 10,000 feet, below 5,000 feet?

[John Doe II]

3. It certainly is not

cruising altitude of 35,000 feet or even up to 40,000 feet.
That is the altitude Tom Burnett is supposed to have done his first two calls. There is dispute over the fact that he used his cell phone.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Burnett

Some of the calls appear to have been made from a high altitude (particularly Burnett). Some of the later calls appear to have been made from much lower altitudes - when United 93's transponder was briefly switched back on at 10:00, the plane was at around 7,000 feet. Was this low enough for reasonable cell phone reception?

What is the range of a cell phone base station in the US anyway? Around 8 miles?

Why is there a dispute over the fact he used his cell phone? My understanding was that his wife said she thought it was a cell phone because he was speaking quietly and he had an earpiece type thing, so the hijackers wouldn't have noticed him. Is there any other reason it is thought to be a cell phone?

I suppose there must be records somewhere - if a credit card was used for an airphone, then the credit card company must have a record of this. Shame they haven't been made public, as this would at least clear one loose end up.

Generally, I think the hijackers and calls are genuine.

[John Doe II]

5. Sorry, my tiping error

There is absolutely no dispute over the fact he used his cell phone. Therefore his call can serve as a perfect example for a simple question: (Keep in mind that the first lasted about 30 seconds, and the second 90 seconds and he wasn't disconnected but simply hung up) How can his calls be possible?

[Kevin Fenton]

6. Why cell phone?

My understanding was that it was just an assumption he was using his cell phone. You seem to think differently.

Why is there absolutely no dispute that he used his cell phone? The first call wasn't recorded, was the second? Has a bill or other evidence from the phone company been produced? Or is it just his wife's assumption?

I think you must be more or less right about the altitude (easily above 30,000 feet).

[John Doe II]

7. Cell phone!

“Deena's caller ID told her it was Tom.” (Star Tribune, 9/11/02)

Btw all articles I found talk of cell phone (contrary to Jeremy Glick where the statements are very contradictory).
Deena Burnett clearly states it was a cell phone.
Jere Longman as well.
The Commission speaks that all airfone calls were made from coach section. Burnett was in first class.
I'll come with more details on this issue soon.
I just think that it isn't interesting to discuss CeeCee Lyles who clearly used a cell phone but Burnett is the central call as it was certainly done at an altitude that should make cell phone calls simply impossible.

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Difficult position

"Burnett is the central call as it was certainly done at an altitude that should make cell phone calls simply impossible."

I also think a cell phone call should be impossible at that altitude, but I don't know why I think it (if you see what I mean). What's the actual problem? I don't think it should be the distance, is it the speed? or the plane's skin?

There are four possible defences to the claim the passengers' cell phone calls show the hijacks were fake:
(1) A call was never made.
(2) It was from a low altitude.
(3) Cell phones might work there, you never know.
(4) It was an airphone, not a cell phone.

(1) obviously doesn't apply here, because Deena Burnett dialled 911 immediately after and there should be a recording of this call.
(2) doesn't apply either here, because the transponder was still on and the plane was several miles up in the air.
I'm going to have to invoke (3), even though I don't find it particularly convincing myself. Aren't there various types of stations that pick up cell phone signals and some or stronger than others? In a similar thread one of the other regulars said it thought it was a reasonable idea (that the cell phone calls showed the hijacks were faked), but he wouldn't accept it as proven until somebody had tried it from a plane at the same place. I suppose this position has some merit.
I'm also going to invoke (4) here. I think the idea it was a cell phone comes from Mrs. Burnett and that she might be mistaken (eyewitnesses often are IMO). Perhaps she just remembered the caller ID bit wrong, or perhaps it was for the third call, which may have been from a cell phone, even if the first two were not.

I can see you've done a lot more work on this than I have and that my explanations are hardly going to convince you, but I find myself in a very difficult position with basically these two options:
(1) Say Deena Burnett is mistaken and/or cell phones might work at high altitudes; or
(2) Say the hijacks were faked and that the fakers make an incredibly basic mistake.
IMO they are both bad, but I think (1) is the least bad, so I'm picking that for now.

[John Doe II]

9. Answers

First of all let me clearly state:
The implications of Burnett's call can't have happened like this are irrelevant to me. If all given data provides evidence that the call can't have happened then the officials have some explaining to do.
You should include also the possibility that the call happened from a different plane.
That the call was faked using a simulator of the voice.
Never mind how likely theses scenarios are they have to be added.

(1) The call to 911 was indeed recorded and FBI listened in since Burnett's second call.

(2) Agreed.

(3) All experiments condradict this. I'm no engineer but I believe the distance and the speed together create the problem.

(4) The Commission had access to Verizon data. The Commission clearly states all airfone calls happened from coach. Second Deena Burnett saw the caller ID of her husband. Certainly this wouldn't have been her impression if it was a completely different ID. Moreover as far as I know airfone don't cause any ID to show up.
The third call was still at 9:45 according to all known data still very high up.

As I said I'd refuse to choose.
It's not our job to fix contradictions the Commission didn't bother to look at. It's their job to do it. And reading the CR it is pretty obvious that they didn't want to look into this matter.

As I said I'll come back soon with an overview that should help us to get a clearer idea of the problem.

[undeterred]

10. Have you ever tried using a cell phone from a plane in flight?

I posted this question in GD a few weeks ago and got a lot of information.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3948028

See also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41531

[philb]

11. Has someone made a list of which cell phone calls likely could not

have happened, with the supposed height and speed at the time.
I think its likely some didn't happen, but haven't seen this compilation.

[John Doe II]

12. Will come VERY soon n/t

[John Doe II]

15. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x48029

I hope this will finally end the discussion who used what kind of phone.
I think based on this list people have some serious explaining to do how Burnett and others can really have made calls with their cell phones.

[Klimmer]

13. Just did an Experiment flying from SD to St. Louis to Florida . . .

On vacation at the moment. Will post my data when I get back home. I'll do the same experiment going back to San Diego.

"Accidentally" left my cell-phone on and checked for signal strength through the entire flight. Bottom line, I would not have been able to send or receive a message after the first 2000' - 3000' taking off and landing and that is being gracious. Most likely even that 2000' - 3000' the call would have most likely been dropped, the signal was jumping from zero bars to 2 or less (out of 4). After, that no signal and searching the entire flight across the country.

My parents called leaving a voice mail about an hour just before landing in Florida, and my phone didn't even go off letting me know I had a message, until we already had landed and taxiing to the gate.

Took careful notes, will post soon after vacation.

Others should do the same. In no time we could have the country covered showing cell-phone calls in flight are bunk. Doesn't happen. And when it does it is not reliable above 2000' -3000'. Most likely even then your call will be dropped.

[John Doe II]

14. Thanks for that

and looking for reading your detailed notes!
:toast: