# Airlines treating you like a sack of potatoes? There's a reason



## CHamilton (Dec 20, 2012)

In-flight Wi-Fi made possible by sacks of potatoes



> Boeing has to perform meticulous tests in its cabins to make sure in-flight Wi-Fi signals don’t affect plane navigation and communication systems, but how exactly does it perform its tests? As it turns out, with thousands of potatoes. According to the Los Angeles Times, Boeing fills its cabins with 20,000 pounds worth of potatoes to simulate the effect of the human body. The potatoes accurately depict how our bodies would reflect and absorb Wi-Fi signals as they travel through the cabin, allowing Boeing to better optimize its equipment as a result. The strange method has also dramatically shortened testing times — what took two weeks before now only takes a matter of hours.


----------



## railiner (Dec 23, 2012)

While the testing is primarily concerned with WiFI (which the airlines will sell or perhaps include as a perk for first class, or high level repeat passengers), I am wondering if they are also testing for the use of cell phones, or RF receivers use on board (which is free). The debate continues from various sources as to what if any interference those may cause with the airplane's nav or com systems....


----------



## Anderson (Dec 23, 2012)

railiner said:


> While the testing is primarily concerned with WiFI (which the airlines will sell or perhaps include as a perk for first class, or high level repeat passengers), I am wondering if they are also testing for the use of cell phones, or RF receivers use on board (which is free).	The debate continues from various sources as to what if any interference those may cause with the airplane's nav or com systems....


I've long been under the impression that the main reason there's been so much resistance on the cell phone front was actually the Airfone services on board being a revenue source for someone. Again, as I understand it, the whole argument for the cell phone ban, at least from a safety perspective, is based around a single crash with coincidental timing and weak causation links.


----------



## railiner (Dec 23, 2012)

I haven't seen airphones lately.....are they still around? Used to be one for every row of seats, or at least near the lav's....

At least with WIFI, you can make calls via Skpe, at far less cost than the airphone rates......


----------



## jis (Dec 23, 2012)

I wonder how many people actually turn their phones off. On the last flight I was on, the 8 people that I could see around me, at least 6 just put their phone either in the Airline mode or worse just in vibrate mode, and everything just went merrily along. When we landed everyone's phone was instantly available for use!


----------



## railiner (Dec 23, 2012)

The flight attendant's, in their 'spiel', tell us that if our electronic device has a switch, to turn it off during takeoffs and landings. And phones or other radio-frequency devices such as beepers, radio's t-v's, etc. are never allowed.

Wonder what I should do with my wristwatch, that has a time signal radio receiver built in, that calibrates my watch each day, remove the battery?


----------



## saxman (Dec 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > While the testing is primarily concerned with WiFI (which the airlines will sell or perhaps include as a perk for first class, or high level repeat passengers), I am wondering if they are also testing for the use of cell phones, or RF receivers use on board (which is free).	The debate continues from various sources as to what if any interference those may cause with the airplane's nav or com systems....
> ...


Electronic devices have long been banned from flights much before cell phones even existed. In fact even on small GA airplanes if you're on an IFR flight plan, (meaning being with ATC at times) electronic devices must be off at all times, according to the law. It didn't really have much to do with the Airfone service. The whole argument against cell phones has nothing to do with a crash.

Plus even if the ban is lifted for phones, it's impossible to get a tower signal up there. All that happens is that you drain the battery nice and quick.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 30, 2012)

saxman said:


> Plus even if the ban is lifted for phones, it's impossible to get a tower signal up there. All that happens is that you drain the battery nice and quick.


I was on a flight several years ago where we were in a holding pattern due to severe weather. An older woman in the seat next to me got out her cell phone and had a 15 - 20 minute conversation with her daughter, who was picking her up. The call did get dropped several times, but she just called her daughter back. While this was going on the flight attendants walked back and forth in the aisle, totally ignoring the rogue caller.

Admittedly we were in a holding pattern and therefore at a lower elevation, but she seemed to get pretty good coverage.


----------



## railiner (Dec 31, 2012)

I think that you would have excellent reception while in the air. Perhaps too good. I think one of the concerns with airborne cell phones is that at the altitude and high speed you would be traveling, would be a swiching problem from one cell to another. I think the FCC is concerned over that aspect of it, while the FAA is concerned with navcom interference.


----------



## TimePeace (Dec 31, 2012)

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/f-a-a-rules-make-electronic-devices-on-planes-dangerous/?ref=technology


----------



## railiner (Jan 1, 2013)

Hmmm. I think I'll have to go deep into my 'archives', and dig up my ancient "Archer" crystal radio set, and bring that aboard a flight and challenge them......since it produces zero radio frequency energy, it is not an "electronic device", and therefore is legal to use....  .

Now before you all warn me not to try it, don't worry, I won't, as no doubt they wouldn't have a clue about it, and would treat it as a threat....


----------



## TimePeace (Jan 1, 2013)

railiner said:


> Hmmm. I think I'll have to go deep into my 'archives', and dig up my ancient "Archer" crystal radio set, and bring that aboard a flight and challenge them......since it produces zero radio frequency energy, it is not an "electronic device", and therefore is legal to use....  .
> 
> Now before you all warn me not to try it, don't worry, I won't, as no doubt they wouldn't have a clue about it, and would treat it as a threat....


Yeah - one of those those old crystal sets would look a lot like a bomb on the xray machine!


----------

