A step above steerage

by Matt_Bishop on August 9, 2006

There are some budding investigative hacks among my fellow Timberers, I see – Jim having concluded from my reading of a free Daily Mail that I must have traveled ‘a step above steerage’ on my BA flight from London to NY. Spot on! I actually flew premium economy (World Traveller Plus), having been upgraded (probably due to the frequency of my flying) from the steerage ticket which is all that The Economist allows its journalists to have (except on flights of more than 11 hours, I think, which none of us ever take. Genius). Premium economy means more leg room, which is frankly all I want, but is otherwise identical to the steerage service – with the one great advantage that you get off the plane sooner, and so have to spend less time queueing in US immigration.

Compared to that of, say, an Arab, my experience of US immigration is admittedly a doddle. But standing in line for an hour after a long flight is no fun, with the only entertainment being celebrity spotting. Sir David Frost delighted us steerage types by trying and failing to get to the front of the queue – though a small lady mysteriously appeared (perhaps from steerage?) to carry his bags. I also saw John Porter, the son of Lady Shirley Porter, the famous Tory jerrymanderer and Tesco heiress, who has controversially just returned from exile to England. I have met John before, and had hoped for a chat – but he was led off into the dreaded private room by immigration officers. His traveling companion said that this is the fifth time this has happened, as he has a name similar to someone on the US watch list. Presumably not a terrorist – but maybe the director of a British online gambling firm or an investment bank that did business with Enron? The US really does itself no favours on the PR front.

Anyway, to my point. I tried to use my mobile phone while waiting in immigration, and was soon ordered to stop. The same happened on the plane, as we were taxi-ing to the terminal. Can anyone explain this intolerance of phones? Perhaps the immigration officers prefer silence in their halls, but there is no ban on conversation per se. As for mobile phoning on a plane, surely it is time for a consistent policy for all airlines, which clearly have no idea why they have the policies they do. Most US airlines allow phones to be switched on as soon as the wheels hit the ground, which surely makes sense if you buy the main justification offered for banning the use of mobile phones in the air – namely that they might interfere with the plane’s electrical instruments. However, my science and technology colleagues tell me that there is no way that a mobile phone can interfere with the electrics in this way, and that it is perfectly safe to use phones in the air. Indeed, several phones are usually on, inadvertently, during a typical transatlantic flight, and do no harm. Surely it is time to free the mobile phone for use in flight – though if it happens, I bet the first flight I’ll be sat next to a teenage girl from California who spends the entire flight, like, gossiping, like, to, like, her, like, friends.

{ 27 comments }

1

Ginger Yellow 08.09.06 at 9:28 am

“His traveling companion said that this is the fifth time this has happened, as he has a name similar to someone on the US watch list. Presumably not a terrorist…”

Why not, beyond the fact that the no-fly list is so full of errors?

2

Chris Bertram 08.09.06 at 9:30 am

Ditto hospitals, at least in the UK. Patients are routinely banned from using mobile phones on the grounds that they might interfere with the equipment. Consultants and other medical professionals routinely wander around the same wards and corridors using their phones with no such ill effects.

(And of course the NHS is making big bucks out to this, charging patients around 40p/minute to use the hospital’s own phone system.)

3

Henry 08.09.06 at 9:32 am

My understanding (admittedly from people more techie than myself than any grasp of the basic principles) is that there isn’t any danger to the plane from using your cellphone, but that it is a pain in the arse for the mobile companies (it can bollox up their technology).

4

rjh 08.09.06 at 9:41 am

Mobiles:

a) On airplanes it can and has been observed to interfere with GPS, sometimes ILS, etc. That doesn’t matter when taxiing, so airlines are increasingly permitting it while on the ground after landing. They don’t need GPS working for that. They do need GPS to work while flying, and want to verify that it is working before they take off.

b) In customs the issue is the fear that smugglers, etc. will use their cell phones to coordinate activities, etc. Considering everything else that smugglers are willing to try, it is likely that they will find ways to use cell phones to coordinate something.

5

Rob 08.09.06 at 9:43 am

Actually Mythbusters have shown that while unlikely, cell phones can really screw up instruments, especially during takeoffs and landings.

6

Jo Wolff 08.09.06 at 12:43 pm

While we are on such subjects, are there any recorded cases of lives being saved by lifejackets on standard commercial flights?

7

Ken Houghton 08.09.06 at 1:22 pm

jo wolff – Absolutely. Ask anyone who went into the Potomac or off the runway at Logan.

8

Chris Williams 08.09.06 at 1:41 pm

She’ll be talking, not to her “like, friends”, but to her, “like, friends?” which is about sixty percent more irritating.

9

mpowell 08.09.06 at 1:51 pm

I can verify that accomodating cell phone users travelling at 300 mph is pretty difficult the way cell phone networks are currently set up. I’m not sure if that’s why airlines ban them, but it wouldn’t be a bad reason to.

10

etat 08.09.06 at 2:27 pm

Gerrymander: “[After Gerry, Elbridge + (sala)mander(from the shape of an election district created while Gerry was governor of Massachusetts).]”

‘The US really does itself no favours on the PR front.’ Agreed. Apparently, nobody has made the connection (or is that distinction?) between Security and Reception.

11

KF 08.09.06 at 2:35 pm

Surely it is time to free the mobile phone for use in flight…

Oh, please, no. No no no. As anyone who has spent much time on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor in the last ten years could likely tell you, freeing the mobile phone for use in any confined space will result in sheer misery for the non-telephonically inclined. My favorite thing about flying, in fact, is that it’s the one time that I can really count on not having to listen to the personal business of the folks around me.

Not only that, but it’s the only time that I can count on no one being able to get ahold of me and ask me to do something.

Whether it’s true or not, I choose to believe that in-flight cell phone use is exceedingly dangerous — to my peace, if nothing else.

12

akumasmith 08.09.06 at 2:44 pm

For years in Japan they were telling people not to use mobile phones on trains because they could interfere with pacemakers which was a complete lie, but a convenient one when you want people to turn their phones off. Now they just urge you to keep them off because they are bad manners in a crowded train to Japanese people. I guess text messages are more polite.

13

akumasmith 08.09.06 at 2:46 pm

Actually, now that I think of it, if you knew enough about the instruments on the plane, and knew a bit about electronics, you could very easily alter your phone to screw up them up.

14

Cheryl Morgan 08.09.06 at 2:49 pm

One of the things about US immigration is that once you have been through Secondary (as they call it) for whatever reason they will put a mark on your record. The next time you go through, the immigration agent will see that mark and send you back through Secondary again just in case. I used to get stopped on a regular basis, even though I had a work permit. Then one trip it stopped and I’ve never had trouble since.

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

15

engels 08.09.06 at 3:11 pm

However, my science and technology colleagues tell me that there is no way that a mobile phone can interfere with the electrics in this way, and that it is perfectly safe to use phones in the air.

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

16

Rob St. Amant 08.09.06 at 3:47 pm

Surely it is time to free the mobile phone for use in flight…

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!”

17

jchuong 08.09.06 at 5:45 pm

This doesn’t apply to mobile usage on the plane itself, but I remember seeing a sign that linked the no cell phone policy in immigration to the fact that cell phones may now well be…cell phone cameras. I’m not sure what they think we’ll take photographs of, but apparently it poses a “security concern.”

18

nick s 08.09.06 at 6:00 pm

Can anyone explain this intolerance of phones? Perhaps the immigration officers prefer silence in their halls, but there is no ban on conversation per se.

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.

19

MFA 08.09.06 at 8:00 pm

Your science and technology colleagues may be interested in this:

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.

20

Evan 08.09.06 at 9:28 pm

The rules about use of cell phones on the ground are, I think, set by each countries aviation authorities.

21

chris y 08.10.06 at 1:58 am

4b: for crying in the beer, smugglers can’t text with their phones/hands in their pockets?

22

rupes 08.10.06 at 4:01 am

This is all a little too late.

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.

23

rupes 08.10.06 at 4:06 am

Another thought:

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.

24

euroscot 08.10.06 at 8:28 am

Lady Shirley Porter, the famous Tory jerrymanderer and Tesco heiress, who has controversially just returned from exile to England.

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.

25

Maynard Handley 08.10.06 at 9:33 am


a) On airplanes it can and has been observed to interfere with GPS, sometimes ILS, etc. That doesn’t matter when taxiing, so airlines are increasingly permitting it while on the ground after landing. They don’t need GPS working for that. They do need GPS to work while flying, and want to verify that it is working before they take off.

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”.

26

Anon 08.10.06 at 2:39 pm

It seems quite possible to me that having the phone be in use, rather than just on (even if it receives a call) could cause greater problems as far as these things go.

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.

27

novakant 08.11.06 at 2:32 am

while I wish they banned mobiles on the tube and trains this new guy wants to allow them on planes – the horror …

Comments on this entry are closed.