Is it possible to use a cell phone while flying?

[Shadrach]

Just the FCC AFAIK.

http://www.tomjfisher.com/Balloon%20Flight%20Instruction/47CFRPart22Section22925.html

[cliffy]

The best I can come up with is the related FAR 14 CFR 91.21 and the A/C 91.21 B:

§ 91.21 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

( Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

© In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph ( (5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

Subject: Use of Portable Electronic

Devices Aboard Aircraft

Date: 8/25/06

Initiated by: AFS-350

AC No: 91-21.1B

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft operators with information and guidance

for assistance in compliance to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91,

section 91.21. Section 91.21 was established because of the potential for portable electronic devices

(PED) to interfere with aircraft communications and navigation equipment. It prohibits the operation

of PEDs aboard U.S.-registered civil aircraft while operating under instrument flight rules (IFR). This

rule permits use of specified PEDs and other devices that the operator of the aircraft has determined

will not interfere with the safe operation of that aircraft. The recommendations contained herein are

one means, but not the only means, of complying with section 91.21 requirements, pertaining to the

operation of PEDs.

2. CANCELLATION. AC 91-21.1A, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft, dated

October 2, 2000, is canceled.

3. RELATED 14 CFR SECTIONS. Section 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144.

4. BACKGROUND.

a. Section 91.21 (formerly section 91.19) was initially established in May 1961 to prohibit the

operation of high-frequency omnidirectional range was being used for navigation purposes. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other PEDs could be potentially

hazardous to aircraft communication and navigation equipment, if operated aboard aircraft.

Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional PEDs

aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Section 91.21, as adopted, was drafted to require the air carrier or

commercial operator to determine whether a particular PED will cause interference when operated

aboard its aircraft.

b. RTCA Special Committee 156 accomplished a study of the potential for interference from

PEDs and released Document No. RTCA/DO-199, volumes 1 and 2, entitled “Potential Interference to

Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard.” RTCA Special Committee 177 did a

further study of these devices and released Document No. RTCA/DO-233, entitled “Portable

Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft.” The finding and conclusions from these two studies

helped the FAA establish the current policy which allows the use of non-transmitting PEDS during

non-critical phases of flight. In March 2003, the FAA requested that RTCA form a special committee

to evaluate and develop guidance related to assess the impact and risks related to the use of

AC 91-21.1B 8/25/06

intentionally radiating PEDs (transmitting PEDs, or T-PEDs) that passengers may bring onto civil

aircraft. These include mobile telephones, computers with wireless network capabilities, and other

wireless-enabled devices such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDA). On October 19, 2004, RTCA

released Document No. DO-294, prepared by Special Committee 202, titled “Guidance on Allowing

Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PEDS) on Aircraft” (to obtain RTCA documents see

paragraph 8b).

c. Other activities in this area were done by the Consumer Electronics Association when in

October, 2004; they issued a standard practice to help manage the use of wireless devices on board

aircraft that would greatly enhance the flightcrew and the flying public’s ability to comply with airline

policies for portable electronic devices.

5. DISCUSSION.

a. The related 14 CFR sections in paragraph 3 allow for the operation of PEDs that the operator of

the aircraft has determined will not interfere with the navigation or communication system of that

aircraft. In addition to the originally addressed non-transmitting PEDs, this revised AC also recognizes

and provides guidance on the potential use of T-PEDS. It should be noted that the responsibility for

permitting passenger use of a particular PED technology lies solely with the operator. RTCA/DO-233,

current edition, provides government agencies and aircraft operators with recommendations for

acceptable use of certain non-transmitting PEDs onboard aircraft. The current edition of

RTCA/DO-294 identifies a process for airlines to make a determination of acceptable use of T-PEDs.

The determination of an interfering effect caused by a particular device on the navigation and

communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used or operated must, in case of an aircraft

operated by the holder of an air carrier certificate or other operating certificate, be made by that

operator (i.e., certificate holder). In all other cases, a determination must be made by the operator

and/or by the pilot-in-command (PIC). In some cases, the determination may be based on operational

tests conducted by the operator without the need for sophisticated testing equipment.

b. When safely at cruise altitude, the pilot could allow the devices to be operated. If interference

is experienced, the types of devices causing interference could be isolated, along with the applicable

conditions recorded. The device responsible for the interference should then be turned off. If all

operators collect this type of data with specific information, a large enough database could be

generated to identify specific devices causing interference. The operator may want to obtain the

services of a person or facility capable of determining non-interference to the aircraft’s navigation,

communication, or other electronic system. Personnel specifically designated by the air carrier or

commercial operator for this purpose may make this determination using the process described in

RTCA/DO-294. For other aircraft, the language of the rule expressly permits the determination to be

made by the Pilot in Command or operators of the aircraft. Thus, in the case of rental aircraft, the

renter-pilot, lessee, or owner-operator could make the determination.

6. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF PEDs ABOARD

AIRCRAFT. If an operator allows the use of PEDs aboard its aircraft, procedures should be established

and spelled out clearly to control their use during passenger-carrying operations. The procedures, when

used in conjunction with an operator’s program, should provide the following:

a. Methods to inform passengers of permissible times, conditions, and limitations when

various PEDs may be used. This may be accomplished through the departure briefing, passenger

Page 2 Par 4

8/25/06 AC 91-21.1B

information cards, captain’s announcement, and other methods deemed appropriate by the

operator. For air carrier operations conducted under 14 CFR part 121 or part 135, the

limitations, as a minimum, should state that use of all such devices (except certain inaccessible

medical electronic devices, for example, heart pacemakers) are prohibited during any phase of

operation when their use could interfere with the communication or navigation equipment on

board the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to give necessary instructions in the event of an

emergency.

b. Procedures to terminate the operation of PEDs suspected of causing interference with

aircraft systems.

c. Procedures for reporting instances of suspected or confirmed interferences by a PED to a

local FAA Flight Standards District Office or the FSDO that has certificate management

responsibility for the air carrier.

d. Cockpit to cabin coordination and cockpit flightcrew monitoring procedures.

e. Procedures for determining non-interference acceptability of those PEDs to be operated

aboard its aircraft. Acceptable PEDs should be clearly spelled out in oral departure briefings and

by written material provided to each passenger to avoid passenger confusion. The operator of

the aircraft must make the determination of the effects of a particular PED on the navigation and

communication systems of the aircraft on which it is to be operated. The operation of a PED is

prohibited, unless the device is specifically listed in section 91.21( (1) through (4). However,

even if the device is an exception from the general prohibition on the use of PEDs, an operator

may prohibit use of that PED. The use of all other PEDs is prohibited by regulation, unless

pursuant to section 91.21( (5). The operator is responsible for making the final determination

that the operation of that device will not interfere with the communication or navigation system

of the aircraft on which it is to be operated.

f. Prohibiting the operation of any PEDs during the takeoff and landing phases of flight. It

must be recognized that the potential for personal injury to passengers is a paramount

consideration, as well as is the possibility of missing significant safety announcements during

important phases of flight. This prohibition is in addition to lessening the possible interference

that may arise during sterile cockpit operations (below 10,000 feet).

7. CELLULAR & ONBOARD TELEPHONE SYSTEMS.

a. T-PEDs have considerations in addition to those listed in paragraph 6. These include cellular

telephones, citizens band radios, remote control devices, computers with wireless network capabilities,

and other wireless-enabled devices such as PDAs, etc. The Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) currently prohibits the use of cell phones while airborne. Its primary concern is that a cell phone,

used while airborne, would have a much greater transmitting range than a land mobile unit. Their use

could result in unwanted interference to transmissions at other cell locations since the system uses the

same frequency several times within a market or given operating area. Since a cell phone is capable of

operating on various cellular frequencies, unwanted interference may also affect cellular systems in

adjacent markets or operating areas.

Par 6 Page 3

AC 91-21.1B 8/25/06

b. The FAA supports this airborne restriction for other reasons of potential interference to aircraft

systems and equipment. Currently, the FAA does not prohibit the use of certain cell phones in aircraft

while on the ground. An example might be their use at the gate or during an extended wait on the

ground while awaiting a gate, when specifically authorized by the operator. A cell phone will not be

authorized for use while the aircraft is being taxied for departure after leaving the gate. The unit will be

turned off and properly stowed to prepare the aircraft for takeoff as per the operator’s procedures.

Whatever procedures an operator elects to adopt should be clearly spelled out in oral briefings prior to

departure or by written material provided to each passenger.

c. Onboard telephone systems that are type accepted by the FCC as air-to-ground equipment, which

have been permanently installed in the aircraft, may be permitted for use while airborne or during

ground operations, provided their use does not interfere with the duties of the flightcrew or cause

potential harm to the passengers. Such airborne telephone systems are installed and tested in accordance

with the appropriate certification and airworthiness standards.

8. MEDICAL-PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

a. Medical-Portable Electronic Devices (M-PED), such as automated external defibrillators (AED),

airborne patient medical telemonitoring (APMT) equipment, portable oxygen concentrators authorized

by Special Federal Aviation Regulations 106, etc., should be designed and tested in accordance with

section 21, Category M, of RTCA/DO-160, current edition. M-PEDs that test within the emission levels

contained in this document, in all modes of operation (i.e., standby, monitor, and/or transient operating

conditions, as appropriate), may be used onboard the aircraft without any further testing by the operator.

Equipment tested and found to exceed the section 21, Category M, emission levels are required to be

evaluated in the operator’s M-PED selected model aircraft for electromagnetic interference (EMI) and

radio frequency interference (RFI). All navigation, communication, engine, and flight control systems

will be operating in the selected aircraft during the evaluation.

b. The ground EMI/RFI evaluation should be conducted with the M-PED equipment operating, and

at the various locations in the cabin where M-PED usage is expected (galley, passenger aisles, etc.). If

M-PED equipment can be operated at any location in the cabin, then the worst-case locations (proximity

to cable bundles, flight controls, electronic and electrical bays, antennas, etc.) should be considered. Air carriers planning to equip their aircraft with M-PEDs will provide evidence to the principal avionics

inspector that the M-PED equipment meets the current edition of RTCA/DO-160E section 21, Category

M, emission levels, or the operator must conduct the ground EMI/RFI evaluation as described above.

Operators will incorporate procedures into their maintenance program to determine the M-PEDs

serviceability based on the equipment manufacturers’ recommendations, to include procedures for

marking the date of the equipment’s last inspection. Operators will establish operational procedures that

require crewmembers to inform the PIC when the M-PED is removed from its storage for emergency

use.

Page 4 Par 7

8/25/06 AC 91-21.1B

NOTE: For those M-PEDs using Lithium Sulfur Dioxide batteries (LiSO2) as

a power source, the batteries must be approved under Technical Standard

Order C-97 and labeled accordingly. RTCA/DO-227, Minimum Operational

Performance Standards for Lithium Batteries is available at:

RTCA, Inc.

1828 L Street, NW Suite 805,

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-833-9339, Fax: 202-833-9434

[PMcClure]

I occasionally will send texts in VFR flight. And use my cell phone on the ground for clearances, etc... I think it is legal from an FAA point of view and am not too concerned about the consequences from FCC regulations on my cell usage. 

 

On my IFR check ride, the examiner stopped my in mid taxi and told me he suspected a cell phone was on in the plane since he heard feedback into the headset. I knew mine was off (this was a check ride!) and showed him. He fumbled in his pocket and discovered his was on. Made for a good laugh and lighter mood.  

Edit - thanks for the regulation post Ross and Cliffy

[Hank]

But 91.21 (b (5) above provides an exception for whatever the PIC determines will not cause interfere with nav & comm radios. So it can be OK with the FAA while not permitted by FCC.

I occasionally have slight headset noises when I or pax forget to turn a phone off, but it's very intermittent.

So like everything else about your flight, it's your call (pun intended!

[Rik]

Legal.... Well that is a situation whereby it's open to interpretation.

 

If the Airlines can charge you for a phone call, then it's LEGAL, if they cannot YET charge you for your phone call it's deemed ILLEGAL.

 

I know you can make/receive phone calls on commercial flights in Europe. If you want to pay, Ryan Air wants to take your $$ as my phone was ringing at FL35 many a times but I was not about to answer it.

 

The domestic U.S. carriers can do the same thing, they even put a market research study to see if the consumers are willing to pay for it. Hell, they used to put phones in the back seats on the Commercial flights if you were brave enough to swipe your CC.

 

Being I fly SWA so much I get their market research survey's which are basically nothing more than a feeler for future revenue. "Would you stop using SWA if SWA was to start charging for baggage" and such questions. One recent one was "how much would you be willing to pay to use your own cell phone during flights?"

 

I was not originally wanting to know how to use the phone at 10K, but on the ground and as I've read many people that say they make calls prior to take off and after landing but no one stated how they managed to plumb that call into their headsets.

 

Just reading the current issue if "Plane&Pilot" and there's an ad for "BluLink" that seems to answer the question on how to connect the phone device to your headset.

 

Now the next question is will my new QT Halo's come with a blue tooth capability or not?

[Rik]

Another thought... There are ads for internet service while in flight... If one could swing this cost for the device, one could make a VoIP call while in flight also and it would not cost you anything other than the bandwidth your internet service sells.

[carusoam]

Internet is coming to aviation...

BK has that Internet device for something like 20 AMU...

You may need to make a lot of phone calls to break even.

[Piloto]

Do you know how many daily airline passengers do not turn off their phone while in-flight? If this was of any concern TSA would had forbid carrying them onboard. The cell phone companies don't care if your phone is on while in-flight. The cell phone network is 1,000 times more immune to interference than GPS. The cell phone in your Mooney is not the only one flying.

José

[Rik]

Mine's on. I make calls when in pattern as the phone works just fine. 

 

Don't know what height this is but once the plane rounds the 15 and enters the IE for approach into Ontario, the phone works.

 

No one in the cockpit has a way of even knowing this. SWA offers free wifi on the plane so there's no way to use a blocker to eliminate the calls.

[cliffy]

The item that caught my eye was 91.21 a (2) ("while IFR)

[Rik]

RIK,

 

Just to clarify on assumptions in your original post....the Halo does NOT have a plug for cell phone.  It is for an aux audio input ONLY!!!

 

Still waiting for it to arrive.

[Rik]

RIK,

 

Just to clarify on assumptions in your original post....the Halo does NOT have a plug for cell phone.  It is for an aux audio input ONLY!!!

 

People are mentioning a Bluetooth adapter or ? 

 

What's the scoop on this?

[Jeff_S]

The FCC issue with cellphone use stems back to the early days of wireless, when there were many fewer cell towers and the system used an analog transmission protocol that required both the phones and the towers to put out a lot of power. The concern was that someone using their phone in the air could tie up a lot of transmission facility because it would camp onto too many towers, each one trying to vie for the traffic of the phone. As we have moved to digital wireless (GSM for most folks, CDMA for those Verizon people) the number of towers has increased enormously and the power output of the phones has decreased, so even up in the air they aren't going to be captured by too many towers and the problem is significantly reduced. The FCC just never bothered to change the regs, because I think frankly the side benefit of not having someone jabbering in your ear on a commercial flight was seen as a true positive.

 

So while it's not technically legal, your cellphone will work just fine at altitude if you have any bars at all. Just realize that you're moving very fast through the cells, faster than the network is designed to switch you from cell to cell, so you will get dropped calls. And as others have said, text messages work better because they are faster, burst transactions that don't require a constant connection. I've even had good wireless data service as high as 8000', checking emails on my way across the Midwest.

[Rik]

Thanks. It appears that when I get my "Halo's" I can purchase a BluLink device and then everything can be connected from a phone (on the ground use portion) as well as a Ipad for any streaming audio and or Music... 

[Rik]

Update:

 

I received my QT Halo last Friday (Just a few days past the 2 week order date) but never had a chance to open the box as the mail came when I was out the door to catch a flight and it was not something I needed to carry on a flight over the weekend.

 

So arriving back this morning about an hour before my next flight lesson I arrived back in my office to open the box and see what's inside.

 

Nice small compact carrying case with the halo inside with a small bag of assorted ear canals, each with a tiny black tube in them.. ??. Quickly as now I only had about 15 minutes before I had to leave the office for the flight lesson, I opened the yellow instruction manual. Small and simple, yet no mention on how to put these foam ear plugs onto the tubes. ?? I was thinking do I remove the black tube, do I remove the 90 degree plastic fitting in the tubes or? Oh, better find out which one of these foam pieces  will fit in my ear.. Search the QT web site and nothing mentioned there. The black tube is about the same diameter of the 90 degree piece but... ??

 

So enough fiddling around and the clock getting closer to time to leave and I say F'it and tried to fit the black tubes over the 90 degree piece and WOW they fit... But would they stay attached when I was to remove them from my ear?

 

Who cares it was time to go and learn by fire I felt.

 

Arrived at the flight school and they said "what's that? Oh, you can always tell people who have those as they have to cup their hand over the mic to be able to talk as they no ANR, or they didn't in the past they said". I said, great reviews not a deal killer for $$ loss if that's the case so what do I have to loose? Enough of their comments, after pre-flight check it was time to put them on for real and plug them in...

 

As in the video on the QT web site I rolled the foam and inserted them in my ears. At first no noise reduction, but as the foam expanded it got quieter. Plugged into the Com, and I could hear clearly the CFI and likewise.

 

Started the engine and I could not tell any difference between the noise level with these vs the DC set the school had loaned me, in fact I never touched the volume control (forgot it was there in the rush) and I could hear the CFI's voice and instructions better than the DC set. 

 

Did the preflight run up, 4,000 rpm (Vans RV12) and It was quiet, I could communicate the checklist to the CFI as normal as anything and he could hear fine he said. 

 

Take off, 5500 rpm and cruise at 5,000 rpm and I never had a problem hearing nor being heard. I never raised my voice, never had to yell over the engine, just a normal speech tone and it was clear to both of us in the plane. After the 1.4 hr flight I asked the CFI if he had any problems hearing me during the lesson and he said no, they appear to work fine (and he loves his Boise headsets so that's something)

 

They appear to be a winner!! Light weight, adjustable (although a bit large for my head at their smallest contracted length, but nothing that warrants a problem for me) and it was easy to remove the foam canals from my ears and they did not separate from the tubes in the process. Not uncomfortable at all. 

 

Best part.. it's often the small details that count, once opened and used, it was not a chore, nor PIA to put the headset back into the carrying case and zip it back up..

 

Gotta order some spare foams, smallest one fit me. 

 

I'd order these again..

[Hank]

Another convert! I also love my Halos. Give the silicone inserts a try, too; I've had mine for almost five years and finally put in a new pair. Gave away all of the foam inserts a while back.

[Andy95W]

Five years! Wow, I just got mine last Oshkosh.

Which ones are the silicone? I've only been using the yellow foam thus far.

[Hank]

My first ones were white, then I lost one and ordered spares before finding there are more in the case. The new ones are grey. They are molded with ridges and slip right in without having to roll between your fingers. I'll take a picture Friday if you need. Look in the baggie in your case with the yellow foamies, see what else is in there.

When I bought the spare set, I think it was $3 for at least two pair. I called and left a message (they were closed), and Dr. Phil called back in less than two hours. Order received in two days! Unbelievable!

[carusoam]

Go silicone!

There is some technique that works best to put plugs in the ears...something about pulling the ear up...?

What plane are you using with 5k RPM?

Best regards,

-a-

[Rik]

Go silicone!

There is some technique that works best to put plugs in the ears...something about pulling the ear up...?

What plane are you using with 5k RPM?

Best regards,

-a-

 

Vans RV12 with a 100hp Rotax engine. Cheapest plane the school has to learn to fly in. Reading the QT website it claims the foam will do the best job of keeping it quiet? Will know more tomorrow on my next flight lesson as I will have time to try a different canal. 

[carusoam]

Dr. Phil has a couple of low cost selections you can try.

Fortunately, everybody is different.

I used the bullet shaped foam ones for a while before settling in on the silicone ones.

Cold temperatures and foam earplugs were tougher for me to get used to.

I have a lot of experience with foam ear plugs from working in loud environments. I found my most comfortable earplugs long before I got my first Halo.

Have you learned to squeeze / roll / compress (between your finger tips) the earplug first, then put them in?

You know they are really comfortable when....

- departing the aircraft, your head is still tethered to instrument panel.

At least with the bulky DCs, you always know they are on your head. With Halos, there is a risk that you will forget that they are there.

Prepare for a delightful embarrassment in a John Force sort of way. Ready some deep inner thought like "Damn those Halos, there is no head clamp to remind me before walking out with them still on...."

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

My first ones were white, then I lost one and ordered spares before finding there are more in the case. The new ones are grey. They are molded with ridges and slip right in without having to roll between your fingers. I'll take a picture Friday if you need. Look in the baggie in your case with the yellow foamies, see what else is in there.

When I bought the spare set, I think it was $3 for at least two pair. I called and left a message (they were closed), and Dr. Phil called back in less than two hours. Order received in two days! Unbelievable!

They have a new version out as well.

[gsxrpilot]

Vans RV12 with a 100hp Rotax engine. Cheapest plane the school has to learn to fly in. Reading the QT website it claims the foam will do the best job of keeping it quiet? Will know more tomorrow on my next flight lesson as I will have time to try a different canal. 

If you like the small beige foam ear plugs, you can have mine. They're much too small, so I have all of them still in the bag. I'll trade you for the large orange  ones.

[Rik]

Anyone know what this port on the bottom is for?

[Marauder]

Anyone know what this port on the bottom is for?

I think it is an audio input jack.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk