Cell phone calls on 9/11

[HRoark]

Hi all. I am looking for someone with some experience in wireless service engineering and capabilities.

One of the enduring rumors surrounding the september 11 terror attacks is the idea that the cell phone calls from people on the doomed planes would not have been possible.

For instance see this discussion here.

I was wondering if there was anyone on this forum with the technical expertise to evaluate these claims for validity and debunk them properly.

(I think the calls were real and the claims that they could not have been made are B.S., but I lack the technical background to support that).

Thanks.



BTW, Sorry if this is rehashing old threads, but I didn't find anything using the search funtion.

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by HRoark

Hi all. I am looking for someone with some experience in wireless service engineering and capabilities.

One of the enduring rumors surrounding the september 11 terror attacks is the idea that the cell phone calls from people on the doomed planes would not have been possible.

For instance see this discussion here.

I was wondering if there was anyone on this forum with the technical expertise to evaluate these claims for validity and debunk them properly.

(I think the calls were real and the claims that they could not have been made are B.S., but I lack the technical background to support that).

Thanks.



BTW, Sorry if this is rehashing old threads, but I didn't find anything using the search funtion.

Unless the "cell phone" was an airphone it almost immpossible to a cell phone to make a call in flight on a jet airplane. Reason one is the distance from the plane to the cell site in feet, two the plane is moving at a speed greater than the mobile can see sites to hand from one to the other. So in other words yes it was extremely unlikely that it could happen.

[HRoark]

Originally Posted by hillbilly44

Unless the "cell phone" was an airphone it almost immpossible to a cell phone to make a call in flight on a jet airplane. Reason one is the distance from the plane to the cell site in feet, two the plane is moving at a speed greater than the mobile can see sites to hand from one to the other. So in other words yes it was extremely unlikely that it could happen.

So what would the range of a typical cell tower be? I estimate that it would be within the line of sight to a site for at least 5 to 8 minutes.

According to this while it may be difficult to use cell phones in-flight, it is not impossible.

[Yankees368]

Originally Posted by HRoark

So what would the range of a typical cell tower be? I estimate that it would be within the line of sight to a site for at least 5 to 8 minutes.

According to this while it may be difficult to use cell phones in-flight, it is not impossible.

In an area like NY metro, going 500 MPH your phone would probably switch towers every 20 seconds.

[Airb330]

I've only gotten Sprint PCS service on a plane, but couldn't call out. I do think some people got in touch via Airfones, but they also said cells. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there are a LOT of hole's in the PA flight crash. This is one of them. I live near a major air force base (Dover, DE), and there are *still* rumors going around about the plane being chased by fighters (from another base), then crashing. In fact, the local news mentioned it as well, but that was only mentioned one time, then they reported it crashed and never mentioned the military planes again. Not to mention how the plane was broken up doesn't really fit with a plane crash. That's not to say the people on board the plane weren't heroic, but I think we are still missing a lot of information about that terrible day. It's interesting, but too hard to find unbiased information, or any information at all!

EDIT: Also would like to point out that the networks weren't built out so great in 2001 also...I just don't see people having cell conversations or texts.

[SNSE]

Are they possible? Yes.

That being said, there is a lot of information that is unknown, that will not EVER allow anyone to evaluate this. For example, Altitude, Speed, Heading, Position. CDMA/GSM/AirFone ?

All of these could affect a call attempt. Over rural, or metropolitan area? Close to window, or hunkered down in seat.

Do we really need to prove/disprove this? Why nitpick over one piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle? My opinion, just leave it alone.......

FYI... the AirFone systems on most commercial planes can only handle two to four calls at any given time, regardless of the number of handsets.

[Airb330]

Originally Posted by SNSE

Do we really need to prove/disprove this? Why nitpick over one piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle? My opinion, just leave it alone.......

Because something is fishy about the whole thing imo.

[NYCDru]

Considering the BLANKET cell coverage over NYC and the fact that people in the WTC could use there cell's it is conciveable that within the last 3 minutes of the crashes calls could be made. Remember, flying that low for landins is under 200 MPH.

As for at altitude at 500 MPH. I don't think thats possible.

[Andy]

Yes-cell phone calls during flights are possible, although there are many factors that can make it not work. I've used my phones at altitutes over 10,000 feet over rural areas traveling 170-220mph.

[bobolito]

You're probably more likely to be able to use a cell phone from an airplane in motion over a rural area than an urban area. Why? Cell sites in rural areas are tall, powerfull, long range towers while in urban areas they are roof-top short distance cells that cover no more than 1 mile radius in some cases. With cell positioning so close and with such short range, a plane going in excess of 300-400 MPH it would be impossible for cell phones to keep track of the handoffs. At these speeds, your phone would have to handoff between 10 or 20 towers each minute because the plane would be within range of each tower for just a couple of seconds. Cellular networks aren't designed to handoff calls from targets moving at high speeds. To complicate matters further, there's another problem in urban areas: Due to cell site frequency reuse being much tighter in urban areas like NYC, your phone will be able to easily pick up several towers using the same channel from a low-flying airplane. This alone will render phone use impossible because of the channel noise and interference produced by several towers broadcasing in the same frequency. Naturally, at ground level, your phone doesn't see this because signals don't propagate very far at ground level, so the interference is controlled.

In rural areas, however, towers are miles apart and so it is possible to have a high-speed moving cell phone at a high altitude because handoffs don't have to occur as quickly and the plane is actually within range of each cell for enough time that it gives the phone enough time to handoff. Also, in rural areas channel interference is near zero so it is unlikely the phone will be able to see more than one tower per given channel at the airplane's altitude. In addition, towers in rural areas use much more power output than in urban areas so those signals can travel far enough to reach an airplane. In some cases, cell towers in rural areas can reach in excess of 15 miles radius! However, don't forget that the spread pattern of a cell tower is designed to go horizontally around the tower because the antennas are directional, so they don't reach as far vertically as they can horizontally. But since airplanes don't have any line of sight obstacles between the tower and the plane, you can probably catch a cell phone tower signal and use it from 2 miles above ground which is just above 10,000 feet in altitude. But then again, don't forget that if the plane is going too fast, it will inhibit the use of the phone anyway. So it depends.

The planes zooming over the city during 9/11 were flying much lower than that. However, they were flying a lot faster than allowed by the FAA for those altitudes. FAA estimated the planes that crashed at WTC hit the towers at about 400MPH!

My conclusion from all this: It is possible the plane that crashed in PA had people talking on their cell phones since it was in a rural area, but there's no way the other 3 planes had anyone talking while they were flying over NYC or DC, unless they were using their phones while flying over rural areas before they approached urban territory.

[Fire14]

What about people using the phones that are on the planes already? I don't know if a cell could have been used as alot of people here have pointed out the reason's for & against this theory, but they do have phones by Verizon in the jets, maybe this is what some people were using.

[dallison]

remember there is no physical interference in a plane, and it is possible to make a call in flight, except the fcc would not be happy.
15,000 ft is only 3 miles, and 3 miles from a tower on the ground is sometimes fringe coverage, but being airborne.

[Airb330]

They did a touching story on a guy who called the Verizon people on the airfone. That makes sense. However, that story mentioned a lot of people getting messages and calls on people's cell phones. It's just fishy when you add in all the other stuff.

[SNSE]

FYI #2....

There was a short blurb on AirFax today that said Verizon will dismantle the current AirFone system by July 2005........

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by SNSE

FYI #2....

There was a short blurb on AirFax today that said Verizon will dismantle the current AirFone system by July 2005........

There goes their add-on for that service.

[Andy]

And what will happen then?

[Fire14]

Airbus is going to start using a system where people can use there own Cell phones on planes within the year, They didn't say where it will be happening or the full details, I am sure a news release will be out within the next day or 2.

[Airb330]

I saw that too Fire. Airbus is also trying to build a US plant, but will face stiff opposition from Boeing states (WA, PA, and probably others). They want to build new tankers to compete with the boring 767's, ironically using Airbus 330's (Airb330...!). I don't want to listen to people talk on the plane, but it would be nice to say "we had to go another way and will be late".

[Fire14]

Here is an article on it.

Cell Phone Use Goes Sky High

February 16, 2005 | 11:32 AM

Passengers will soon be able to use their own cell phones and laptops on commercial airliners, under a deal signed Tuesday by European aeronautics giant Airbus and a Geneva-based technology firm.

In 2006, OnAir's voice and data systems will be a standard option on all new Airbus super jumbo A380 planes, allowing passengers on short- and long-haul flights to make calls using their own phones and to access the Internet via laptops, according to Chief Executive George Cooper. The technology could also be fitted to Boeing jets.

European mobile phone users with roaming capability will be able to make and receive calls using GSM technology housed in a base station on the airplane. Most users will not be able to connect to U.S. or Asian networks because they are not generally GSM compatible. Still, OnAir believes the standard will dominate in the global market. Cooper said OnAir had "focused on the mobile phone side on GSM, because that is the dominant standard and will be for years." The company is banking on a large increase in GSM-compatible phones being sold in North America and Asia.

"We think it's likely that the day will come when, if you don't have this, you may actually not get some of those passengers," said Cooper.

OnAir estimates the global market for airliner Internet access at about $400 million annually. For mobile telephone service, revenues could be four times as high. That would make the combined market worth some $2 billion, catering to more than 700 million people.

OnAir estimates international call rates at about $2 to $2.50 per minute and text message costs at 50 cents per to send or receive. Prices for Internet access will be higher, at about $15 per flight for basic services such as e-mail and $30 for a more comprehensive service, Cooper said.

Planes can be fitted with either wired or wireless connections, but so far airlines have been more keen to use wireless because it weighs less and is cheaper, Cooper said. To log on to the Internet, a user would need a wireless-capable laptop.

Seattle-based Connexion, a rival provider backed by Boeing, offers a similar Internet service on all Lufthansa flights, allowing passengers to log on using their own laptops at comparable rates of $9.95 for 30 minutes to $29.95 flights longer than six hours.

[Cingular GSM User]

I've used my AT&T TDMA/AMPS Nokia 1260 over rural Nebraska at one time. While in the air I could only locate about 50 buildings and then a couple others farther out - guessing the ones farther out where the farms and the ones close together was the town.

But anyways, I got AT&T TDMA then switched to US Cellular TDMA, after about 4 minutes. Then I was on USCC TDMA for about 10 minutes then I went to AT&T AMPS for 2 minutes then Verizon AMPS for about 1 minute then lost my service and turned off my phone.

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by Cingular GSM User

I've used my AT&T TDMA/AMPS Nokia 1260 over rural Nebraska at one time. While in the air I could only locate about 50 buildings and then a couple others farther out - guessing the ones farther out where the farms and the ones close together was the town.

But anyways, I got AT&T TDMA then switched to US Cellular TDMA, after about 4 minutes. Then I was on USCC TDMA for about 10 minutes then I went to AT&T AMPS for 2 minutes then Verizon AMPS for about 1 minute then lost my service and turned off my phone.

But were you actually TALKING on that phone at any moment? I think anyone has been able to get a signal while flying on a plane at any moment. The problem is can you use that signal? Most of the times it won't connect when you try to dial. That's the problem!

[Airb330]

2.50 isn't that bad really. If something was very urgent, I'd pay it or pay the 50 cents to text. Btw, ALL of my texts in Europe were free (sending and receiving)...I would have used it more if I knew that!!

[SNSE]

Well, let's remember they are a LOT closer to approval for that in Europe than they are in the US. The FCC just now issued an NPRM regarding using phones aboard aircraft, subject to FAA approval. That could take over a year. Plus, there's no telling what is going to happen with land based systems providing service. The satellite link for backhaul is great, except for the cost. There's still a lot to be worked out. You won't see it here for at least 8 months or more.

[Fire14]

Battle Brewing Over Airline Cell Use

February 17, 2005 | 10:44 AM

Until recently, airline passengers were required to put their seats in the upright position and turn off all electronic devices. Now, thanks to new regulations in the U.S. and abroad, the sky is literally the limit as companies scrabble for a share of the promising in-flight cell phone and Internet connection business.
In recent days, both Connexion, a provider backed by Boeing, and rival OnAir, backed by
Airbus, have announced their upcoming flight plans. Because of notable compatibility differences, a showdown may be shaping up as travelers are forced to choose between the systems.

Most OnAir users will not be able to connect to U.S. or Asian networks because the networks are not generally GSM compatible. Airbus Chief Executive George Cooper said OnAir had "focused on the mobile phone side on GSM, because that is the dominant standard and will be for years." The company is banking on a large increase in GSM-compatible phones being sold in North America and Asia. European users have already widely accepted GSM phones.

Conversely, the Boingo Roaming System service offered on aircraft equipped with the Connexion by Boeing service does not require GSM compatible cell phones. Lufthansa, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Japan Airlines, and ANA are currently offering the service to their passengers. Singapore Airlines, China Airlines, Korean Air and Asiana have also indicated their plans to begin offering the service to their passengers later this year. Subscribers on these flights will be able to employ Boingo's wireless in-flight roaming.

"This agreement (between Boingo and Boeing) is significant because the Connexion by Boeing service is now open to customers from a variety of global telecommunications carriers who use the Boingo Roaming System, making our connectivity capability available to a broader range of travelers, while also building additional network traffic," said David Friedman, vice president of marketing and direct sales for Connexion by Boeing. "Through this and other agreements we are putting in place, the enterprise user has increased options for how to connect to the things that are important to them while mobile."

Under Boingo's Platform Services Program, service providers can offer the complete Boingo network — including the Connexion by Boeing connectivity service — to their subscribers. In addition to network access, the Platform Services Program provides service providers with customized client software and a full suite of back-office billing, roaming, mediation and clearinghouse services to allow them to deploy their own Wi-Fi service within 90 days. Currently announced Platform Services Partners include Earthlink, Fiberlink, Infonet Services Corp., MCI and Telecom Italia.

Boingo provides subscribers with true Wi-Fi roaming, giving business travelers the best choice of Wi-Fi hot spots by combining the locations of more than 88 leading Wi-Fi operators into one worldwide network, and allowing the user to roam onto any of these locations with a single subscription using Boingo's free Wi-Fi client software.

OnAir estimates the global market for airliner Internet access at about $400 million annually. For mobile telephone service, revenues could be four times as high. That would make the combined market worth some $2 billion, catering to more than 700 million people.

OnAir estimates international call rates at about $2 to $2.50 per minute and text message costs at 50 cents per to send or receive.
Prices for Internet access will be higher, at about $15 per flight for basic services such as e-mail and $30 for a more comprehensive service, Cooper said.

Planes can be fitted with either wired or wireless connections, but so far airlines have been more keen to use wireless because it weighs less and is cheaper, Cooper said. To log on to the Internet, a user would need a wireless-capable laptop.

Connexion by Boeing, offers a similar Internet service on all Lufthansa flights, allowing passengers to log on using their own laptops at comparable rates of $9.95 for 30 minutes to $29.95 flights longer than six hours.