And in any case, if you assume that each phone which is on has some small probability of causing problems during the flight then the chance of a problem occuring will increase roughly linearly in the number of phones. If instead of 100 phones being on, you have only 5 then you’ll have cut the chance of a problem by a factor of 20. Maybe not a bad idea.

Let’s assume that this is actually true.
Then, we all know, there are generally at least five or six phones on any flight that someone forgets to turn off. But the airlines are quite happy with this situation—- they don’t send phone nazis into your baggage checking, they don’t use electronics to probe for cell phone signals. And we have never heard of a single case of this occurring. I call bullshit.

Anything that is actually of REAL consequence on an airplane is not treated along the lines of “we’ll ask people to turn their phones off and if they don’t do so, well, we did our best”.

Public servants, worldwide, are very rarely penalised in the way she was for abuse of office. Probably because so few things count – for example wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers money doesn’t count, nor do the costs of ignoring the UN Charter.

While we are talking about US Customs & the hassle they cause:

Why have they not got the concept of “Transfer Passenger” ?

It would make queues shorter & life easier for all involved.

Many airline already have WiFi access points on board, which of course means you can Skype: I got a call yesterday from a colleague en route to China.

It does rather make the point that this is a silly rule: if you can use WiFi radio cards on Lufhansa (and chatter for free) why not a cellular radio (and chatter that the airline profits from)

The Economist article linked above went on to describe the likely use of picocells (dedicated, small basestations) on planes.
There are three advantages: – The airline gets a cut of the revenue (Roaming is lucrative) – It solves the problem of rapid handover for ground networks (as noted, there are phones acidentally left on). – Cellphones adjust their volume. To go 30,000ft they SHOUT LOUD, which makes any interference worse. If you have a local BS inside the plane then all the phones will be nice & quiet.

Incidentally, on searching for this, I found a related article on the security aspects & concerns by the excellent Bruce Schneir

None of which makes US customs more sensible.

http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html

“Carnegie Mellon Researchers Find Cell Phones Pose Greater Risk to Airplane Navigation Than Previously Believed”

“PITTSBURGH—A study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy (EPP) has found that cell phones and other portable electronic devices, like laptops and game-playing devices, can pose dangers to the normal operation of critical electronics on airplanes. The study will be featured in an article appearing in the March issue of IEEE Spectrum.”

Remainder of press release at link above.

There’s absolutely no reason the airlines would ban cell-phone use for screwing up the signal carrier’s cell network unless the airline were owned by the same corporation. Otherwise, shareholder value would be increased by highlighting the ability to fly and talk on airline X.

So please turn ‘em off for safety, if not for simple civility.

Security theatre, one suspects, though I’m sure there’s an official rationale related to the potential to co-ordinate activity or set off bombs or whatever. My gut feeling is that it’s a way to put you suitably on edge to be grilled.

You also have to switch off your phone inside any DHS/USCIS building: in fact, some offices don’t even allow you to bring them in.

Count me in with kf—-please, no. Flying is already maddening enough without cell phones. If it does happen, I predict this progression: a rash of TV commercials advertising, “You can now talk on your phone while you fly with X Airlines!” a spike in incidents of “air rage”; another rash of TV commercials advertising, “Fly in peace and quiet with X Airlines, where talking on phones during flight is not allowed!”

You should read The Economist: it’s much better than the Daily Mail, you know.

CONTRARY to popular belief, mobile phones do not pose a safety threat to airliners. On an average transatlantic flight, several phones are usually left switched on by accident, and the avionics systems on modern aircraft are hardened against radio interference. No, the use of phones on planes is banned because they disrupt mobile networks on the ground. An airliner with 500 phones on board, whizzing across a city, can befuddle a mobile network as the phones busily hop from one base-station to the next.

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2559174

Noise-cancelling earphones and something loud on the MP3 player seems to cope with most aircraft noise.