Hi.
Commercial flights are not allowing at least voice conversation on board using cell phones (and is understood as would be a royal mess)

Is there any prohibition to have a 'smart' phone permanently-on, active, in a private light aircraft during flight ?

 

The phone towers do not point up. There will be a very week signal. Probably when you are near a town you can make a connection.

 

An active phone could be making occasional transmissions. If those were to interfere with onboard avionics systems there might be problems. Phones have an 'airplane mode' for a good reason; and its not just to avoid annoying fellow passengers with idle chit-chat.

 

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a crash or serious incident in which the use of an electronic device by a passenger was deemed a contributing factor. The FAA (AC Part 91.21) only prohibits the use of portable electronic devices on non-carrier aircraft when the flight is operated under IFR, but also allows the pilot in command to determine that a particular device does not pose a threat and to permit its use even then. In practice, this is usually done via a try-it-and-see-what-happens test, with the result almost always being that it's not a problem (I've never personally heard of it being a problem, but that's only anecdotal). It's widely acknowledged that, despite the ban, a significant number of passengers on commercial aircraft fail to put their phones into airplane mode, out of laziness if nothing else, and many continue to use them during flight, especially for texting.

Look at it this way -- if cell phone use really was a credible threat to an aircraft via interference with its avionics, would the FAA really be satisfied with just telling people to turn them off and trusting that they actually do? That would be like telling people that it's okay to carry handguns on the flight but to make sure they are unload before the doors are closed. Coming from the other side, if aircraft avionic systems are so sensitive that cell phone signals can disrupt them in any meaningful way, wouldn't that be an open target for adversaries to make laptop-looking devices that are little more than cell phone systems on steroids?

Cell phones actually work pretty well, at least on light aircraft at the typical altitudes they flight at (below 12,500 ft to avoid supplemental oxygen requirements). But they probably do put an added burden on the cell phone network since more towers are in view. You are also usually connected to a tower that is not the physically closes to you because of the directional nature of cell phone base station antennas, which means that your battery doesn't last as long.

 

Thanks. Ron, Alec : Known about range, known about interference. Question was :

Is there any prohibition

See that top bulge in front of the tail center of image? It is the internet access being implemented at least for a couple of years now. As a pilot told me at the terminal when I asked.
What are the hurdles, I do not know. Hope voice chatting is never allowed. But leaves a bunch of other communications open for 'business'
Somehow, image searches of the 'bulge' are rarely shown on the web. But nearly every airliner has it now. Something is coming. Last time I flew you got movies via on-board WiFi into your own smart phone. No more headrest displays.

 

An active phone could be making occasional transmissions. If those were to interfere with onboard avionics systems there might be problems. Phones have an 'airplane mode' for a good reason; and its not just to avoid annoying fellow passengers with idle chit-chat.

Actually, this is the probably the biggest factor -- the FAA even has a term for it -- The Annoying Seatmate issue. There have been a number of proposed rules changes, both by the FCC and the FAA, to lift the ban and public comment has always been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the ban in place and for the social considerations (i.e., the annoying seatmate issue). The fact they they even propose the rules changes is yet another indication that there is no credible threat to flight safety (at least from a technical standpoint -- now cabin disruptions caused by annoying seatmates might be another matter).

 

Thanks. Ron, Alec : Known about range, known about interference. Question was :


See that top bulge in front of the tail center of image? It is the internet access being implemented at least for a couple of years now. As a pilot told me at the terminal when I asked.
What are the hurdles, I do not know. Hope voice chatting is never allowed. But leaves a bunch of other communications open for 'business'
Somehow, image searches of the 'bulge' are rarely shown on the web. But nearly every airliner has it now. Something is coming. Last time I flew you got movies via on-board WiFi into your own smart phone. No more headrest displays.

View attachment 341371

But you asked about prohibitions "in a private light aircraft during flight."

Airliners often have piconets (or other cell technologies) that allow passengers to connect to an on-board base station that then talks to a satellite (hence why the bulge is on top of the aircraft) that talks to a ground station that is connected to the mobile phone network. This isn't for safety of flight, it's a convenience for passengers that they usually charge for. These systems also typically have capabilities to prevent cell phones from connecting to cell towers directly, thus forcing your calls to go through their system.

 

So, if two people in the plane are talking to each other does that qualify as "annoying seatmate"?

 

This below is supposed to be 'Starlink' If different from internet, I do not know. But on top instead of belly as they work upwards to a satellite link.



A couple of hundred WiFi active links inside an airliner may suggest not being a danger to avionics. I guess less of a danger to a light aircraft. I think...
----> https://search.brave.com/search?q=c...summary=1&conversation=55ab0b4428b0e0fe354409

 

So, if two people in the plane are talking to each other does that qualify as "annoying seatmate"?

It certainly can, but it's also human nature to be more distracted and annoyed by a conversation in which you can only hear one side because our brains naturally try to make sense of all input. A conversation in which we hear both sides is pretty easily ignored by most people. But humans rely heavily on pattern recognition and our ability to fill in the missing gaps to infer critical information, usually at a very subconscious level. So, when we only hear one side of a conversation our brains try to fill in the missing gaps in order to determine whether those gaps are important. Unfortunately, in such a conversation the gaps are not only very pronounced (half the content), but the clues are also very pronounced and so our brains have a lot of information to work with (half the content) to try to do the filling, but the task is sufficiently complex that it usually can't be done at the subconscious level and our conscious attention is drawn into the mix, hence the distraction and annoyance.

 

So, if two people in the plane are talking to each other does that qualify as "annoying seatmate"?

In my experience, people tend to speak much more loudly into a cell phone than they do to someone sitting next to them.

 

So, if two people in the plane are talking to each other does that qualify as "annoying seatmate"?

Your post reminded me of a situation many years ago while I was on a night time bus trip. There were two people in the seats in front of me that had their seat lights on and were communicating with each other via sign language. It was really annoying because I constantly saw a flurry of hand movements in the reflection in the window. I kept wanting to tell them to "Quiet down!"

I'm being snarky here. In truth, I thought it was really cool that they carried on their conversations in sign language. Wish I could have understood what they were saying.