\r\n | mid altitude<\/td>\r\n | 3100' - 3500'<\/td>\r\n | 1\/7<\/td>\r\n | 14%<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\nConclusion: \r\n The purpose of this experiment was to probe the effect of altitude on cellphone \r\n service and to iron out wrinkles in experimental procedure. In the first instance, \r\n it looks as though there might well be a decline in service with increasing \r\n altitude. The phenomenon must now be mapped more carefully. <\/p>\r\n As far as operating procedures is concerned, it is probably best to make calls \r\n to a number you know well, to be familiar with the various status messages on \r\n each cellphone display screen, and to have someone at the other end who can \r\n log the time of the call, as well as to summarize the content. (The cockpit \r\n in most light aircraft is so noisy that one cannot always hear a voice at the \r\n other end, although I did hear my wife talking somewhat clearly on two occasions.) \r\n Also, it is important to be very organized, having a special carrier case for \r\n cellphones, writing\/recording materials, etc. The airspeed of the Katana was \r\n just a little fast for me to comfortably make the calls and stay organized at \r\n the same time. Two of the calls were made rather late in the current lap, even \r\n as we began to climb out to the next one. It would be better to have a separate \r\n person operating the cellphones. We also need a meaningful call classification \r\n system to fill the gaps between complete failure and an audible conversation. \r\n<\/p>\r\n All calls were handled by the Bell Mobility Network, which has some 25 cellsites \r\n operating in the London area. I have now located all the cellsites in London, \r\n Ontario, thanks to a very helpful set of maps provided by a local cell phone \r\n aficionado: <www.arcx.com\/sites\/><\/p>\r\n Plans are now under way for Part \r\n Two. This will involve a Cessna four-seater (with an aluminum skin), five \r\n or six cellphones of various types, an expert to operate them on my queue, and \r\n a flight plan that will explore the effect up to 10,000 feet beyond which, according \r\n to one airline pilot, there is absolutely no hope of getting through.<\/p>\r\n A. K. Dewdney
\r\n (with thanks to Corey Barrington, pilot with empire Aviation)<\/i>
\r\n'Project Achilles' Report\r\nPart Two - February 25th 2003\r\nEquipment:\r\n<\/p>\r\n - Diamond Katana four-seater (Empire Aviation)<\/li>\r\n
- cellphones: C1, C2, C3, C4 (See appendix for descriptions.)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nPersonnel:\r\n
\r\n - Corey Barrington (pilot)<\/li>\r\n
- Darren Spicknell (operator - technician for Wireless Concepts, Inc)<\/li>\r\n
- Kee Dewdney (director)<\/li>\r\n
- Pat Dewdney (ground recorder)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n
Weather: unlimited ceiling, light scattered cloud at 3,000 and 25,000 feet, \r\n visibility 15 miles, wind 5 knots from NW, air temperature -12 C.<\/p>\r\n For this experiment, we flew a circular route, instead of the elongated oval. \r\n The circle centred on the downtown core and took us over most of the city suburbs. \r\n All locations below are referred to the city centre and are always about three \r\n miles distant from it. <\/p>\r\nProtocol:\r\n At times specified by the director, the operator made a call to a specified \r\n number, stating the code number of the cellphone (1 to 4) and the altitude. \r\n The receiver recorded whatever was heard and the time the call was received. \r\n At the first three altitudes of 2000, 4000, and 6000 feet abga each cellphone \r\n was used once. At 8000 feet abga, only C2 and C3 were tried, C1 and C4 now being \r\n hors de combat<\/i>. <\/p>\r\nResults with timeline:
\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n | Time (pm)<\/th>\r\n | Call No.<\/th>\r\n | C#<\/th>\r\n | Loc.<\/th>\r\n | Operator Recorder<\/th>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:05<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | started taxi to runway<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:12<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | takeoff<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:14<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | at 2000 feet<\/b> (above-ground altitude)<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n \r\n | 5:15<\/td>\r\n | Call #1<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | success not very clear<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:17 <\/td>\r\n | Call #2<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | W<\/td>\r\n | success not very clear<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:19<\/td>\r\n | Call #3<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | SW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:21<\/td>\r\n | Call #4<\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | S<\/td>\r\n | success not clear\/ breaking up<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:24<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | climbed to 4000 feet<\/b> abga<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n \r\n | 5:25<\/td>\r\n | Call #5<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | NE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:26<\/td>\r\n | Call #6<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | success clear<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:27<\/td>\r\n | Call #7<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | NW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:29<\/td>\r\n | Call #8<\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | W<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:33<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | climbed to 6000 feet abga<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:34<\/td>\r\n | Call #9<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | SE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:36<\/td>\r\n | Call #10<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | E<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:37<\/td>\r\n | Call #11<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | NE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:38<\/td>\r\n | Call #12<\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:39<\/td>\r\n | Call #13<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | NW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:40<\/td>\r\n | Call #14<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | SW<\/td>\r\n | success clear<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:42<\/td>\r\n | Call #15<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | S<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:43<\/td>\r\n | Call #16<\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | SE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:44<\/td>\r\n | Call #17<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | E<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:45<\/td>\r\n | Call #18<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | NE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:45<\/td>\r\n | Call #19<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | NE<\/td>\r\n | success breaking up<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:46<\/td>\r\n | Call #20<\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:49<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | begin climb to 8000 feet abga (cellphones 2 and 3 only)<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:50<\/td>\r\n | Call #21<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | W<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:50<\/td>\r\n | Call #22<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | SW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:51<\/td>\r\n | Call #23<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | S<\/td>\r\n | success buzzy<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:53<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | completed climb to 8000 feet abga<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:58<\/td>\r\n | Call #24<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | SE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:58<\/td>\r\n | Call #25<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | E<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:58<\/td>\r\n | Call #26<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | E<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 5:59<\/td>\r\n | Call #27<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | NE<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:00<\/td>\r\n | Call #28<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:01<\/td>\r\n | Call #29<\/td>\r\n | C1<\/td>\r\n | N<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:01<\/td>\r\n | Call #30<\/td>\r\n | C2<\/td>\r\n | NW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:02 <\/td>\r\n | Call #31<\/td>\r\n | C3<\/td>\r\n | NW<\/td>\r\n | failure<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:02<\/td>\r\n | Call #32 <\/td>\r\n | C4<\/td>\r\n | NW<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6:15<\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | <\/td>\r\n | landed at airport<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\nConclusions: \r\n To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in \r\n general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, \r\n cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, \r\n two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 \r\n feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet \r\n but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 \r\n feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary \r\n cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet \r\n abga. <\/p>\r\n It should be noted that several of the calls rated here as \"successes\" \r\n were difficult for the Recorder to hear, witness description such as \"breaking \r\n up\" or \"buzzy.\"<\/p>\r\nSummary table
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n | Altitude (in feet)<\/th>\r\n | Calls Tried<\/th>\r\n | Calls Successful<\/th>\r\n | Percent Success<\/th>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 2000<\/td>\r\n | 4<\/td>\r\n | 3<\/td>\r\n | 75%<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 4000<\/td>\r\n | 4<\/td>\r\n | 1<\/td>\r\n | 25%<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 6000<\/td>\r\n | 12<\/td>\r\n | 2<\/td>\r\n | 17%<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n | \r\n | 8000<\/td>\r\n | 12*<\/td>\r\n | 1<\/td>\r\n | 8%<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\n * includes three calls made while climbing; last successful call was made from \r\n just over 7000 feet. <\/p>\r\n The four cellphones operated via four different cellular networks (cellsites). \r\n Because calls were made from a variety of positions for each network, it cannot \r\n be said that failures were the fault of cellsite placement. the London, Ontario, \r\n region is richly supplied with cellsites belonging to five separate networks. \r\n<\/p>\r\n It may be noted in passing that this experiment was also conducted in a radio-transparent \r\n aircraft with carbon-fibre composite construction. Failure to make a call from \r\n such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure \r\n for the same cellphone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. \r\n A metal skin attenuates all cellphone signals to a significant degree. It may \r\n safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellphones in aluminum \r\n skin aircraft (most passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower \r\n than the ones reported here.<\/p>\r\n It may therefore safely be concluded that cellphone calls from passenger aircraft \r\n are physically impossible above 8000 feet abga and statistically unlikely below \r\n it. <\/p>\r\n A. K. Dewdney
\r\n February 25\/03<\/p>\r\nAppendix - Cellphone types, networks (courtesy of Darren Spicknell)\r\n C1 Motorola i95cl - Telus Mike Network - 800 Mhz IDEN
\r\n C2 Motorola StarTac - Bell Mobility - 800 Mhz Analog
\r\n C3 Audiovox 8300 - Telus PCS Network - 1.9 Ghz CDMA \/ 800 MHz
\r\n C4 Nokia 6310i - Rogers AT&T - 1.9 Ghz GHz GSM. (Tri-Band - Has an
\r\n 1.8 GHz and 900 Mhz GSM these are European frequencies)<\/p>\r\n IDEN - Integrated Digital Enhanced Network
\r\n CDMA - Code Division Multiple Access
\r\n GSM - Global Systems for Mobile Communications<\/p>\r\nPower Levels\r\n Power output of these handsets. The Nokia 6310i and Audiovox 8300 when in digital \r\n mode will output 0.2 Watts.<\/p>\r\n When the Analog Motorola StarTac is operating it is at 0.6 Watts optimal.<\/p>\r\n When and IF the Audiovox 8300 is in analog mode it will operate at 0.6 Watts \r\n (However, this is not normally the case - you will see wattage levels around \r\n 0.52 - 0.45 approximately)<\/p>\r\nFrequency\r\n Both the Telus Mike (C1) and Motorola StarTac (C2) operate in the 800 MHz range. \r\n This will allow the signal to travel at a great distance. However, the IDEN \r\n (Mike) network has fewer site locations and is a newer Digital network. Most \r\n digital technologies operate on a \"all or none\" basis. When it has \r\n signal it will work well. As the signal fades, one hears no static, but some \r\n digital distortion just before the call drops. <\/p>\r\nNetworks\r\n Mike Network: Newer, all-digital network with modern antenna design, and fewer \r\n cellsites<\/p>\r\n Bell Mobility Analog: Older, analog network with less focused antenna design \r\n but many cellsites<\/p>\r\n Telus PCS: Newer, digital network with multiple frequencies, modern antenna \r\n design, and many cellsites<\/p>\r\n Rogers GSM: Our newest digital network with modern antenna design and many \r\n cellsites
\r\n
\r\n<\/p>\r\n A. K. Dewdney,
\r\n February 25th 2003<\/i><\/p>\r\n \r\nFrom Here. Also see: Ghost Riders in the Sky.\r\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Professor A. K. Dewdney carries out a series of experiments regarding the possibility of making cell-phone calls from planes at various altitudes. He concludes that the cell-phone calls from the "hijacked" 9-11 planes were impossible.","numcomment":11,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/05\/57842.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":57844,"heading":"XXX","article":"I guess the numerous cell phone calls from the hijacked planes, identifying the hijackers as Arab are all faked as well.<\/i>\r\n \r\nYEAP.","author":"cell phone calls faked","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2003-05-18 01:35:43","modified":"2003-05-18 01:35:43","fileurl":""},{"id":57846,"heading":"cellphones call faked","article":"that was the idea: to pesuade the public that arabs were responsible","author":"brian","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 01:42:05","modified":"2003-05-18 01:42:05","fileurl":""},{"id":57847,"heading":"The data is what the data is...","article":"...not necessarily what you would like it to be. Read the fuckin' data. Whether you like it or not a preponderence of evidence suggests that the calls were highly unlikely to have gotten through or been understandable if they did.\r\n\r\nIf you were running a "False Flag" operation wouldn't you want to create the impression that the fall guy(s) were identified as the culprits?","author":"Diogenes","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 01:42:41","modified":"2003-05-18 01:42:41","fileurl":""},{"id":57869,"heading":"and yet","article":""Read the fuckin' data. Whether you like it or not a preponderence of evidence suggests that the calls were highly unlikely to have gotten through or been understandable if they did."\r\n\r\nAnd yet they did.\r\nAs this "experiment" clearly demonstrates, cell phone communication from a passenger flight, at altitude, is ENTIRELY possible.\r\n\r\nDid you actually go through all the trouble of posting this just to prove me right?\r\n\r\nSo now we know, cellphones do work from the planes (with about the same success rate as I get from the usual shitty service here on the ground) and there now seems to be no reasonable call to doubt that the calls identifying the arab hijackers were in fact genuine.\r\n\r\nThanks Dio. Seriously. Thanks for proving my point.","author":"fresca","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 04:13:41","modified":"2003-05-18 04:13:41","fileurl":""},{"id":57872,"heading":"My name is fresca, i am a dumb bitch","article":"DId you even read the article you dumb bitch?\r\nDo airliners travel at 3000 ft during thier flights?\r\nI thought they were up a little higher (actually a lot higher).\r\nSince you are a stupid programmed bitch that never ever publishes ANY articles,,,,because you dont know shit.\r\nDo some research of your own, list some links or other reference sources,\r\nReally, you sound so stupid here, everyone just thinks that you are just a stupid bitch. hahahhah","author":"zofo","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 04:19:47","modified":"2003-05-18 04:19:47","fileurl":""},{"id":57880,"heading":"C'mon dummy","article":""Since you are a stupid programmed bitch that never ever publishes ANY articles,,,,because you dont know shit. \r\nDo some research of your own, list some links or other reference sources, \r\nReally, you sound so stupid here, everyone just thinks that you are just a stupid bitch. hahahhah"\r\n\r\nLol!\r\nWhy would I post articles? You all are in a little cave beleiving your nonsense while the rest of the entire world has moved on and accepted all the evidence and more evidence and it's not even an issue any more. A few of us come into your dark little cave to mock you. Certainly, we would never try to dissuade you of your psychotic beliefs, you're entirely too inconsequential for that.\r\n\r\nSo no, No articles. Simply mockery.\r\n\r\nCome outa the cave and we can talk.\r\n\r\nFor now you're all just targets.LOL.","author":"fresca","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 04:30:19","modified":"2003-05-18 04:30:19","fileurl":""},{"id":57883,"heading":"LOL","article":"LOL is a girly thing to keep using.\r\nIs it morning over there?","author":"Stinkbastard","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 04:34:43","modified":"2003-05-18 04:34:43","fileurl":""},{"id":57977,"heading":"Perhaps","article":""LOL is a girly thing to keep using."\r\n\r\nPerhaps but the fact still remains (thank you) that cell phone calls from flights even above 8000 feet are entirely possible according to the evidence above.\r\n\r\nThank you . Thank you.\r\n\r\nAnother ludicrous conspiracy theory easily shot down.\r\n\r\nNext.\r\n\r\n","author":"fresca","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 17:30:30","modified":"2003-05-18 17:30:30","fileurl":""},{"id":57987,"heading":"girl...","article":"all you got is spit and that don't shoot down shit.","author":"Stinkbastard","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 19:20:47","modified":"2003-05-18 19:20:47","fileurl":""},{"id":57990,"heading":"yeah","article":"that bitch is a sheep. she probably thinks the iraq war was for WMD.. heheh damn i hate stupid sheep","author":"slick","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-18 19:30:11","modified":"2003-05-18 19:30:11","fileurl":""},{"id":58032,"heading":"oh slick","article":"she's not a sheep, she's more of a weasel.","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":57842,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-05-19 05:54:45","modified":"2003-05-19 05:54:45","fileurl":""}]} | | | | |