U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–908 PDF 2006

CELL PHONES ON AIRCRAFT:

NUISANCE OR NECESSITY?

(109–28)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 14, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Friend, Patricia A., International President, Association of Flight AttendantsCWA, AFL-CIO ..................................................................................................... 26

Guckian, Paul, Senior Director, Technology, QUALCOMM, Inc. ........................ 26

Knapp, Julius, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal

Communications Commission ............................................................................. 8

Koch, Greeley, President, Association of Corporate Travel Executives .............. 26

Parsky, Laura, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, accompanied by Patrick Kearney, Senior Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .................................................. 8

Sabatini, Nicholas A., Associate Administrator for Aviation Saety, Federal

Aviation Administration ...................................................................................... 8

Watrous, David, President, RTCA, Inc. ................................................................. 8

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 36

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 37

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 104

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 107

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Friend, Patricia A .................................................................................................... 39

Guckian, Paul ........................................................................................................... 82

Knapp, Julius ........................................................................................................... 89

Koch, Greeley ........................................................................................................... 94

Parsky, Laura .......................................................................................................... 96

Sabatini, Nicholas A ................................................................................................ 109

Watrous, David ........................................................................................................ 118

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Lonny Glover, National Safety

Coordinator, statement ........................................................................................ 122

Cingular, statement ................................................................................................. 128

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, statement ............................................ 129

Overview of Public Comments on the Airline Cell Phone Ban ............................ 135

(1)

CELL PHONES ON AIRCRAFT: NUISANCE OR

NECESSITY?

Thursday, July 14, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to welcome you to the

House Aviation Subcommittee hearing this morning. The topic of

today’s hearing is Cell Phones on Aircraft: Nuisance Or Necessity?

And today’s order of business in our hearing will be, first of all, we

will have opening statements from members, and we have two panels of witnesses. I am also informed that I think we are going to

have votes in about 20 minutes, so hopefully we can get through

opening statements. We will get to our first panel of witnesses and

move the hearing along. I have an opening statement I will begin

with. And, again welcome, everyone.

Over the past few years, unfortunately, the flying public has had

to contend with an increasing amount of noise on aircraft from

their seat mates who travel with an array of portable electronic devices—and I think we have got a bunch of them set to go off here.

We have got my Blackberry. We have, this is an iPod, I guess the

younger generation is familiar with this. And then you get to hear

these on your flight, which is a Gameboy and then a cell phone

going off all at this same time.

So these are some of the noises that the average passenger has

to contend with. So I think it is kind of fitting today that the Aviation Subcommittee will consider some of the many social air safety,

national security, law enforcement, and even finally I guess one

more noise pollution issues that have been raised by the Federal

Communications Commission’s proposed rule that effectively repeals its longstanding ban on the use of cell phones and other wireless communications devices on board aircraft.

Since 1991, the FCC regulations have prohibited the use of certain cellular phones and wireless communication devices on aircraft

out of concern that such devices interfere with ground-based cellular networks. In December, the FCC proposed a rule that would

effectively lift its ban, and citing new technologies that would prevent cell phones and other wireless communications on board aircraft from interfering with ground-based cellular networks, which

is the FCC’s primary concern.
2

The Federal Aviation Administration regulations also prohibit

the use of cellular phones and portable electronic devices with

radio transmitters because of the possibility that such devices may

interfere with the critical aircraft navigations avionics and communication equipment. Due to this overlapping jurisdiction, any

change to the existing ban on the use of cell phone or other wireless communications devices on board aircraft would require approval of both the FAA and the FCC.

While the FAA has not followed the FCC’s lead in proposing to

end its own aircraft cell ban, the FAA recently certified on a trial

basis the use of a small aircraft mounted transmitter which is

called a pico cell, that would allow a certain number of passengers

to use their personal cell phones, also their Blackberry hand-helds

and other personal digital assistance, I guess they are called PDAs,

that again with this mechanism they believe it wouldn’t interfere

with avionics. I hope to learn more about this promising new technology from some of our witnesses today.

In addition to the pico cell technology, the FAA recently certified

a high-speed wireless or—well, Internet or Wi-Fi system which has

been developed by United Airlines and Verizon. In addition to allowing passengers to send and receive e-mails and surf the Web,

this technology is capable of Internet-based voice communications

commonly known as voice over Internet protocol, or VOIP. That

would allow passengers to make and receive telephone calls with

very special equipment without again generating interference with

avionics or ground-based cellular networks.

Over some 7,800 interested parties, including airline passengers,

business executives, law enforcement officials, cell phone providers,

pilots, and flight attendants, and others submitted comments and

reply responses to the FCC’s proposed rule. These comments raised

a number of very important law enforcement, national security, air

safety, and some basic social issues that our witnesses will address

this morning.

I might say that the annoyance issue which I alluded to earlier

is by far the most common concern raised by both the flying public

when we consider lifting an aircraft cell phone ban.

Flying has become increasingly inconvenient and stressful for a

number of reasons, including the rising passenger loads, fear of terrorism, long lines, and often intrusive and irrational screening procedures at the Transportation Security Administration checkpoints,

flight delays, last-minute cancellations, and lost baggage, and generally, unfortunately, sometimes increasingly poor customer service

by—I will edit this and say—some of the airlines.

Understandably, many passengers are protective of the solace

they feel when they finally reached their undersized seats and

crack open a skimpy bag of—well, I guess U.S. Airhas given up

pretzels and some have given up peanuts. But whatever they get.

The last thing most air passengers want is to be forced to listen

to their neighbor chat on the cell phone about their ailments, their

dating problems, the latest reality TV show, or an up-to-the-minute

estimate of time of arrivals for the duration of the flight.

Flight attendants also are very concerned that proliferation of

the mundane cell phone chatter within the limited confines of an

aircraft will inevitably lead to not only again passenger discomfort
3

but possibly incidents of air rage, which, unfortunately, the flight

attendants would be forced to police.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have raised several national security and law enforcement

concerns in their joint comments to the FCC. DOJ and DHS are

concerned that criminals or terrorists could use cell phones, PDAs,

other Wi-Fi connected devices to coordinate an attack or, unfortunately, as we have seen in some cases where they detonate remote

controlled improvised explosive devices on an aircraft as they did

in the Madrid rail bombing last year and as we learn more about

again some of the incidents relating to the London bombings last

week.

The agencies are also seeking the ability to conduct court-ordered

electronic surveillance of suspicious passengers’ voice and data

transmission, which, in itself, also raises a number of concerns.

At the same time, we have to remember that many of the calls

from passengers of the four aircraft that were hijacked on September 11th were made with cell phones and provided invaluable information to authorities and also to loved ones. The cameras that are

built into some of these cell phones as we have also seen most recently can provide key evidence for law enforcement investigators.

In piecing together the details of the hijacking of the United Flight

93, the 9/11 Commission relied mainly on the record of FBI interviews with people who received cell phone calls from heroic passengers who mounted an assault on the terrorist hijackers and

whose objective as we know was to crash the 757 into either the

Capitol or the White House. It is also important to keep in mind

that many of the passengers on the four aircraft hijacked on September 11th were able to say their final goodbyes to loved ones on

their personal cell phones.

Moreover, it is important to note that PDAs or other wireless

communication devices would enhance the ability of our Federal air

marshals to share intelligence on suspicious passengers or respond

to actual terrorist attacks. Since 2002, Congress has appropriated

millions of dollars to the Department of Homeland Security to research and develop air-to-ground communications technologies that

would also allow these Federal air marshals to use wireless communications devices without causing interference with groundbased cellular networks or airplane avionics.

If the FCC and the FAA were to approve the use of cell phones

and other wireless communication devices on aircraft, the ultimate

decision to allow such devices in flight would fall to the airlines,

which, unfortunately, are divided on the issue. And regrettably

today ATA, the Air Transport Association, has declined to participate in this hearing. To address the annoyance issues, some of the

airlines and cell phone providers have also proposed a tap but not

talk policy that would allow airline passengers to use their cell

phones, their Blackberries, and PDAs only to send and receive email messages and access the Internet. That is another option that

we will probably hear about.

So I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses, hearing

from the panelists, the two panels that we have assembled. And

with that beep of one of these electronic devices, I will recognize

Mr. Costello.
4

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think

I am going to have to call my office and cancel the phone call that

I asked them to give to me. And I think Mr. DeFazio is probably

going to have his phone ring next. So you have trumped us on that.

Let me just say that I think you have accurately described the

purpose of the hearing and some of the issues involved both pros

and cons of lifting the ban. I would just say that I do have an opening statement, I will submit it for the record.

I have very serious concerns about lifting the ban, both from the

standpoint of safety and social consequences. I think that we

should listen very closely to not only the FAA, but also the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. There

are many issues that they have raised concerning the security

issues that we should pay particular attention to. And let me just

say that I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses,

and hopefully I will be going to the floor very shortly; hopefully I

will be back at some point because I do have some questions.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank

you for calling this hearing. I was one of the more than 7,000 who

sent a letter or comment to the Federal Communications Commission in very, very strong opposition to the lifting of this cell phone

ban. And I can tell you, I come down very strongly on the nuisance

side of this equation. I remember reading a couple of years ago that

Amtrak tried out a cell phone free car on its Metroliner train from

New York City, and so many people rushed to that car that they

immediately had to add on another cell phone free car. Around that

same time, I read about a restaurant in New York City that

banned cell phones from one of its dining rooms, and the next day

it had to double that by adding on a second dining room because

so many people wanted to participate.

Among the comments to the FCC, passenger Richard Olson wrote

the Commission: A fellow passenger’s signal was breaking up, so

his remedy was to talk loudly. The flight attendant had to ask him

to quit using the phone. On the ground, we can walk away from

these rude, inconsiderate jerks. In there, we are trapped.

The Boston Globe wrote about a conversation that Gail James of

Shelton, Washington found on one flight. She said, quote: I was

seated next to a very loud man who was explaining his next porn

movie on his cell phone. Everyone on the plane was subjected to

his explicit blabbering. Should cell use during flight be allowed, we

had all better be prepared for a whole lot of air rage going on.

A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll found that 68 percent were opposed to lifting this ban; only 29 percent in favor.

Now, cell phone technology is, in many ways, a wonderful thing.

It can be used, as we all know, to help in emergencies, to let someone know that they are going to be late for an appointment, to call

for directions when you are lost. But I also wish that we had much

more cell phone courtesy. I think most people do not realize that

they talk much more loudly in general on a cell phone than they

do in a private conversation. And almost everyone has a cell phone

today. A former Knoxville city councilman told me at the first of

this past school year that three young girls were in the office at
5

Fulton High School in Knoxville saying they could not pay a $50

activities fee, but all three of the girls had cell phones on which

they were probably paying $50 a month cell phone bills. Today, cell

phones are heard going off, I have heard them go off at funerals,

weddings, at movie theaters, restaurants, congressional hearings.

One was even answered by a reporter asking President Bush a

question, and apparently it caused President Bush to get very

upset as it should have. Gene Sorenson wrote recently in the

Washington Post, quote: I don’t mean to interrupt your phone conversation, but I thought you should know that I can hear you. I

would close the door, but I can’t seem to find one on the sidewalk,

the path at Great Falls, in line at Hecht’s, or at table 4 by the window. It is not like I’m eavesdropping. As titillating as it sounds, I

am not drawn into your conversation about yoga class, tonight’s

dinner, or Fluffy’s oozing skin rash.

Although cell phones have been around for a while, we still associate one with privacy. Put one to your ear, and you will think you

are in your kitchen, office, or, what was called a phone booth. But

take a moment to look around. You are in public.

On June 21, Robert McMillan wrote in The Washington Post

about some of the comments to the FCC, and he quoted Steven

Brown who described the perfect trajectory of what he called hell:

Just imagine that ring conversation being mere inches from your

head and on both sides of you while occupying the middle seat for

a five-hour flight from L.A. to New York. Hideous.

In addition, I know there are security concerns and some concerns regarding possibly the effect on aircraft avionics. But I hope

that we do not lift this ban, and I hope that it becomes very clear

in this hearing that there is a great deal of opposition to this proposed change. And I thank you very much for calling this hearing.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is

not an issue of first impression for this committee. I remember a

number of years ago we had a hearing on cell phones. We had a

professor from Embry-Riddle who said—sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Yeah. No, we are in this thing. Yeah. No, it will be. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Bye, yeah. Yeah. All right. See you. Bye.

Mr. MICA. You are just lucky you didn’t do that with Mr. Young.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know. I would have been in deep trouble. We are

going to put Chairman Young in charge of this issue.

But that is the point. I mean, and he told us and at the time I

was suspicious that we were being held captive by the industry to

these air phones, you know, and their extortionate charges. But he

said, convincingly, that there was a possibility, particularly in a flyby-wire aircraft, small but possible, of a damaged cell phone or

other transmitting device causing a problem. Now they are trying

to deal with that with this pico technology, I guess. But I am not

sure that totally addresses his problem. I think the committee will

need to hear from him again and ask him whether this addresses

some of these potential safety concerns. There are enough problems

with cell phones and the potential with cell phones on planes. I

don’t think anybody wants to take a chance a plane might go down
6

because some idiot is having a totally trivial conversation. So that

is one point.

I remember when smoking was allowed on planes, and the numbers sounded very similar to what was earlier cited here in the

polling 68% to 29%. And yet—and in fact it was even a little higher

against smoking, I believe. But everybody was subjected to the

smoke. I remember when people would sit near the smoking section

and they complained to the flight attendants, and the flight attendants would call the pilot, and finally the pilot a lot of times would

just declare the plane was going to be nonsmoking, and everybody

on the plane including a lot of the people in the smoking section

would cheer. But the airlines would tell me, oh, we can’t do anything about that. It is about competition. And, by God, you know,

we will lose passengers if we ban smoking. So they would never go

there.

I worry about the same crack in the door here. One irresponsible

airline might decide to allow a free-fire zone for cell phones, and

then the others would say, oh, my God, it is a competitive thing;

we might lose passengers. I would argue the opposite as the chairman and former chairman documented. You might well drive people to the other airlines if you allow the cell phone usage. I mean,

I fly transcontinental almost every week. I just can’t imagine six

hours and some odd minutes sitting next to somebody hearing

about a lot of things I really don’t want to hear about. You know,

I think you are going to have problems with air rage, and then this

whole issue of sort of the foot in the door.

Certainly transmitting data or text, that is, if we have addressed

fully all of the potential safety concerns and there isn’t even a one

in a million chance the plane is going to go down because of a damaged unit or lose control, then we might go in that direction. But

I would hope in echoing the earlier comments that we will not

allow voice, because I worry that, if it is allowed, that some of the

weak knees in the airline industry will look at it as an edge to try

and get a foot up on their competitor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Kuhl.

Mr. KUHL. I pass.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. The nuisance and the value of cell phones is of course legendary by this time, everything from the ring to conversation in decibels that are calculated to go above what is happening in the room

so that the person on the other end can hear you and you can

annoy everybody else.

We have got new technology, we need a new code of conduct, and

I think this hearing helps us to move in that direction.

I am also concerned, frankly, about with what this new technology can do in ways that were never imagined before like detonate explosives. I think it is worth considering that this may no

longer simply be a matter of nuisance but could go far beyond that

at a period when we are still in the post 9/11 era. I note that Mr.

Chertoff announced yesterday that the 30-minute rule, no matter

what your own emergency, you have got to stay in your seat only

if you happen to be taking off or coming in to the District of Columbia for 30 minutes.
7

Mr. Chairman, this was a perfect example of how we get stuck

no matter what this committee does. And this committee had done

its work. We had hardened the doors, billions of dollars of on-theground security where you have got to do it or it simply is not

going to get done, even guns, a very controversial notion of some

pilots able to have guns has taken us more than 4 years to say,

oh, by the way, if you have to go to the john, you can go when you

are coming in or going out of Washington. I mean, what would

have happened, of course, is if somebody got up and forgot, the

whole plane was going to get panicked because, oh, you rose when

you weren’t supposed to rise and people were threatened that the

whole plane would have to turn around. Invariably I can see that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do remind our witnesses that this committee felt even more strongly about general aviation, and there was

an announcement that within 90 days from, I don’t know, it was

about a month or perhaps six weeks ago, that some general aviation would be able to come into the Nation’s capitol. That is just

like the 30-minute rule, only applicable here. Here, the charter

matter, the general aviation matter only applicable here, sending

out the clear message: We don’t know how to protect our capitol.

There was some rumbling that maybe something was happening

even to that announcement of a change. I will want to hear and

I am sure the committee will want to hear about that.

If I may say so, the cumbersome, nonsensical restrictions on general aviation as it came into here were almost laughable. It reminds you of the 30-minute rule. So I will be very interested—I

have three other committee hearings going on at the same time—

as to your progress on general aviation opening in the Nation’s capital more than four years after 9/11. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. And I thank all the members

for their work on the 30-minute rule and also for reopening Reagan

National to civil and general aviation again. It does take a long

time to get some of these long overdue changes.

Are there any other opening statements?

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Millender-McDonald.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much. I would like to

just go on record saying that I think it is also a nuisance; that

when I travel 12 hours a week from here to California, I appreciate

the time away from my cell phone. And of course Gameboys are a

different story. But I really do think that all of these devices should

be turned off during flight time. I think it is not only a safety feature, I think it is a security feature. And with the Gallup polls

showing that 68 percent of Americans are opposed to cell phone use

on aircrafts, I think we should adhere to that. I look forward to the

witnesses. I do have a statement to submit for the record, and I

ask unanimous consent to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, your entire statement will be made

part of the record.

And if there are no further opening statements, we will turn to

our first panel. We do expect some votes here shortly, but we might

be able to get through a couple of the witnesses.
8

We have Mr. Nicholas Sabatini who is the associate administrator for aviation safety of FAA. Mr. Julius Knapp, deputy chief,

office of engineering and technology with the Federal Communications Commission. Ms. Laura Parsky, and she is a deputy assistant

Attorney General, criminal division, of the Department of Justice.

And accompanied by Patrick Kearney, and he is senior policy advisor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And, finally, David

Watrous, president of RTCA.

STATEMENTS OF NICHOLAS A. SABATINI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FAA; JULIUS KNAPP, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; LAURA PARSKY,

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICK KEARNEY, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND DAVID WATROUS,

PRESIDENT, RTCA, INC.

Mr. MICA. Welcome.

The procedure will be we allow basically five minutes for presentation. If you have a lengthy statement or additional information

you would like to have made part of the record, please feel free to

request that through the Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Sabatini, with FAA. And you are recognized.

Mr. SABATINI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Costello, and Members of the Subcommittee.

It is a pleasure to review FAA policy and rules regarding the use

of portable electronic devices, or PEDs, on aircraft and the possible

impact of a proposed rulemaking by the FCC to relax its ban on

the use of certain cell phones on aircraft. Above all, I am here to

represent the safety of the flying public and flight crews.

Let me be clear. Regardless of the final outcome of the FCC’s

proposed rulemaking, the FAA’s safety regulations regarding PEDs

on board aircraft will remain in place. FAA has the authority and

the expertise to assure the highest standards of safety.

To prevent potential interference with aircraft communication

and navigation equipment, the FAA has regulations prohibiting use

of PEDs with some limited, specified exceptions. Our regulations do

allow limited use of PEDs when the aircraft’s operator has shown

that the use will not interfere with the aircraft’s navigation or communications systems. This general exception sounds deceptively

simple. I assure you, it is not. Unlike older aircraft, with their

cable and pulley flight control systems, today’s airliners are modern ′′fly-by-wire′′ aircraft. These modern aircraft depend on clear

electronic signals to translate pilot control input to the aircraft control surfaces.

The FAA will continue to work with other agencies, such as the

FCC, and industry consensus groups, such as RTCA, to stay out

front on this issue. We want to ensure technology developed to facilitate cell phone and other types of communication from aircraft

do not interfere with on-board systems or with communication and

navigation.
9

To understand the risks that PEDs can pose for aircraft, it is important to understand electromagnetic interference. All electronic

devices emit electromagnetic waves.

PEDs fall into two groups, intentional and unintentional transmitters. Intentional transmitters emit to interface with other devices or systems. Examples are cell phones, two-way pagers, and

wireless modems. Unintentional transmitters are all other electronic devices such as games, laptop computers, and Personal Data

Assistants. Unintentional transmitters emit electromagnetic waves

whenever they operate.

Here is the issue. The aircraft’s onboard control, communication,

and navigation systems can be affected by intentional and unintentional PED emissions. The chance of this occurring is greater with

intentional transmitters such as cell phones. To prevent possible

interference during the critical phase of flight, that is takeoff and

landing, we recommend air carriers prohibit the operation of any

PED during these phases of flight.

Under FCC rules, an air carrier may permit passengers to use

their cell phones when an aircraft is on the ground. Passengers

must turn off their phones once the aircraft has left the gate.

With advances in cell phone technology, FCC now believes its

rule banning 800 megahertz cell phone use in flight may be lifted

provided certain issues are mitigated by onboard equipment installation, such as a ′′pico cell′′ installed on the aircraft that acts as an

antenna for onboard callers. The ′′pico cell′′, or similar equipment,

would limit the frequency output of cell phones onboard the aircraft

and ensure cell phone transmissions would not interfere with

ground networks, which would address FCC’s concerns.

FAA is not changing its rules. If an air carrier elects to take advantage of the FCC’s proposed rule and allow cell phone usage during flight, the carrier must determine which phone models will

work on its onboard system, and that the system will not interfere

with the aircraft’s navigation or communications systems. The air

carrier must also determine whether the system meets FCC requirements. Thus, in the context of the proposed FCC rule, an air

carrier will have to obtain FAA certification of the pico cell equipment as part of the aircraft. This is consistent with current FAA

certification processes. Providing passengers with new communication technology raises what FCC Commissioner Copps refers to as

the ′′annoying seat mate issue.′′ This is largely a social issue, yet

there are safety implications. We are concerned that, should inflight cell phone use be permitted, flight attendants could be distracted from their critical safety responsibilities if they are called

upon to deal with irate passengers.

Mr. Chairman, FAA will continue to assure safety by enforcing

and maintaining its regulatory oversight on the use of all PED onboard aircraft. This concludes my testimony. And I am happy to

answer any questions that you and the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we will hold questions. We will try

to get Julius Knapp in before we go to votes. So welcome, sir. You

are with the Federal Communications Commission, and you are

recognized.
10

Mr. KNAPP. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member

Costello, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the FCC to discuss the regulatory structure and engineering parameters related

to cellular phones on aircraft.

The FCC is an independent U.S. Government agency directly responsible to Congress pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934

as amended. The statute charges the Commission with the regulation of interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Within the Commission, the Office

of Engineering and Technology, or OET, is responsible for technical

aspects involved in managing the use of the Nation’s airwaves or

radio spectrum. In carrying out this responsibility, OET works in

collaboration with other bureaus and offices within the Commission

to evaluate the potential for radio interference among various radio

services and equipment. The Commission’s rules at Section 22.925

prohibit the use of cellular phones in the 800 megahertz band on

aircraft except for aircraft on the ground. The Commission codified

these rules in 1991 after concluding that the interference caused by

in-flight use would be disruptive across a wide area and affect

large numbers of users on the ground.

Although the Commission prohibits the use of cell phones while

airborne, its rules provide 4 megahertz of spectrum in a separate

frequency band for use by the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.

The Commission recently provided for phase-out of the existing AirGround Radiotelephone Service and restructuring of the band to

allow the provision of broadband services on aircraft by one or two

new licensees. In addition, the Commission has granted a waiver

to AirCell, Inc., that permits AirCell to offer air-ground service in

spectrum allocated to the cellular radio service using specialized

plane-mounted antennas and handsets which are employed primarily on private aircraft.

The Commission’s rules do not address potential interference to

aircraft communications and avionics systems including all radio

and electronic devices. The FCC defers to the FAA to regulate devices and activities that might interfere with the safe operation of

the aircraft as you have already heard.

On December 15, 2004, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to consider whether new technological developments warrant changes to the current rule prohibiting airborne

usage of cellular handsets. The Commission closed its initial comment period on May 26, and reply comments are due on August 11.

In this proceeding, the Commission has received comments from

over 7,000 individuals and more detailed substantive comments

from about 30 parties which we are in the process of reviewing.

The NPRM invited comment on whether technological advances

that have occurred since the original adoption of the rules could

permit operation of wireless handsets and devices including those

used for broadband applications on aircraft without causing interference to terrestrial radio services. The notice also invited comment on several potential technical approaches that could permit

such operation.
11

In addition, the Commission requested comments on whether or

not any restrictions adopted should apply to handsets and devices

operating under other parts of the Commission’s rules.

As I mentioned, the Commission received a large number of comments. Many individuals expressed concern that allowing the use

of cell phones on airplanes would be a nuisance to other passengers. A number of commenters that addressed the substantive

interference issues argued generally that, under certain conditions,

the use of cell phones on aircraft would not pose undue interference

to terrestrial radio services.

In the NPRM, the Commission stated that any steps the Commission ultimately may take will be subject to the rules and policies of the FAA and aircraft operators with respect to the use of

personal electronic devices including cell phones. Even if the Commission were to adopt rules pertaining to the use of wireless equipment on aircraft, airborne use of such equipment will not be permitted unless it is in accordance with the FAA rules and requirements. Moreover, the Commission, the FAA, or the airlines could,

in modifying and prohibitions against the use of cell phones on aircraft distinguish between voice and data communications in order

to minimize nuisance to other passengers.

The Commission also recognizes that law enforcement has filed

comments in response to the notice indicating that use of cell

phones and other radio devices onboard aircraft could pose concerns relative to the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act and to Homeland Security. The Commission will carefully

consider these important concerns as the proceeding continues.

The Commission appreciates the interest of this subcommittee in

the current rulemaking. The Commission’s staff will study this

matter in light of the comments that we have received. And this

concludes my testimony, and I am pleased to answer any questions

members of the committee may have. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.

What we are going to do for the other three panelists is we are

going to recess for approximately 20 minutes, maybe about 5 after.

Take a quick break, and then we will get back to Ms. Parsky and

the other witnesses. So we will stand in recess while we have these

votes.

[recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the subcommittee back to order.

I would like to apologize for the delay. We were hearing from our

first panel of witnesses. I will recognize now Laura Parsky, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Welcome, and you are recognized.

Ms. PARSKY. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I

appreciate the opportunity to join you today to discuss the use of

cell phones on aircraft and some of the attendant and critical law

enforcement public safety and national security issues we hope will

be considered carefully.

The Department of Justice appreciates this subcommittee’s leadership in examining these issues. As we all are aware, the hightech age in which we now live is offering and will continue to offer
12

tremendous opportunities and efficiencies in communications technology. The use of wireless telecommunications services in particular has proliferated in recent years.

The Department of Justice recognizes that the ability to use

wireless telephones in flight would offer the public tremendous convenience and flexibility. Further, the ability to enhance communications on board aircraft could significantly increase the capabilities of public safety and Homeland Security personnel who protect

our citizens on those aircraft.

However, it is an unfortunate reality that despite the tremendous benefits new technologies bring to our society, there are always some who will misuse these technologies for criminal and

sometimes lethal purposes. It is, of course, no secret that today’s

terrorists and criminals use cell phones, among other communications devices, to coordinate their illicit activities. The ability to use

cell phones for this purpose in the air adds another dimension to

terrorist coordination efforts.

Because of the realities of today’s world, we believe that if inflight cell phone use is to be allowed, reasonable steps can and

should be taken to minimize risks to our national security and public safety. With the institution of important protective measures up

front, the use of advanced communications technologies on board

aircraft can provide great benefits to both private citizens and law

enforcement alike.

I would like to share with you a few of the measures that we believe would make this service safer for all concerned.

First, unfortunately, we can anticipate that criminals and potentially terrorists will attempt to misuse cell phones on board aircraft

to facilitate their unlawful activities. In such instances, lawfully

authorized electronic surveillance is an invaluable and necessary

tool for Federal, State and local law enforcement to protect national

security and public safety.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,

known as CALEA, maintains law enforcement’s ability to conduct

court-ordered electronic surveillance despite changing telecommunications technologies by requiring telecommunications carriers, including cellular and other wireless carriers, to build into

their technologies to have the capabilities necessary to allow law

enforcement to implement court orders for electronic surveillance.

Although CALEA would apply to cellular and other wireless carriers in the context of air-to-ground communications, the Department of Justice has asked the FCC to insure that CALEA would

remain effective in emergency situations on board aircraft in-flight.

In addition to insuring timely interception capabilities, law enforcement should be able to maximize its ability to respond to the

unique circumstances of a crisis on board an aircraft in flight. Unlike on the ground, in the event of a hostage situation or bombing

threat in flight, law enforcement cannot physically surround and

penetrate an aircraft moving hundreds of miles per hour through

the air. In such situations, obtaining knowledge about on-board

communications and some control over those communications become critically important for law enforcement and can influence

time-sensitive decisions about how to respond to the threat.
13

Therefore, in order to maximize law enforcement’s efficacy in responding to threats on board aircraft, the Departments of Justice

and Homeland Security have requested that if the FCC allows airto-ground cell phone service, it requires certain operational capabilities for such service. These additional capabilities include, for

instance, the ability expeditiously to locate on-board cell phone

users, interrupt, redirect and or terminate cell phone calls, and

identify the origin and destination of cell phone calls to and from

an aircraft.

Another area of concern for law enforcement, public safety and

national security, is the risk that a terrorist could use a communications device as a remote-controlled, improvised explosive device. Although we recognize that the potential for terrorists to do

this already exists, the risk of RCIED use may at least in theory

be increased as a result of the ability of aircraft passengers now

to use effectively personal cell phones in flight. Therefore, we have

recommended a number of steps that could help reduce the risk

that a terrorist could reliably trigger RCIEDs on board aircraft in

flight.

I want to touch briefly on just one more area. In recent months

there has been significant attention given to the effect that in-flight

wireless phone use could have on the overall atmosphere of flights

and the conduct of passengers, such as an increase in air rage incidents. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have

recommended that the FCC, in consultation with the airlines, establish rules and policies to diminish the probability that law enforcement’s on-board mission will either be complicated or compromised unnecessarily by disputes concerning in-flight cell phone

use.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you

again for the opportunity to testify today and for your attention to

important national security law enforcement and public safety

issues related to the use of cell phones in flight. We look forward

to working with you and the FCC to address these issues going forward.

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, we will hold questions.

I guess you brought Patrick Kearney with you. Nice to see him.

You are not going to make any comments, are you Pat?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, sir, happy to be here today representing

Homeland Security.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will recognize David Watrous, President of RTCA. Welcome,

sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. WATROUS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Aviation Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear

before you today on the subject of cell phones and similar portable

electronic devices. I have prepared a written statement for the

record, and that has been made available.

From an aviation perspective, the airborne use of cell phones and

similar devices can be characterized as a tradeoff of safety versus

convenience. Safety is always paramount. Given that priority,

RTCA is working to find ways cell phones can be safely operated
14

on board aircraft. We plan to have our recommendations regarding

airborne use of cell phones available for FAA by December of 2006.

By way of background, RTCA is a utilized Federal advisory committee. Our products are developed by volunteers, mostly engineers, collaborating in a functioning peer review type of environment. FAA uses our recommendations as a partial basis for certifying avionics. Other government and private sector entities use our

products when making a variety of aviation decisions.

Portable electronic devices, especially those that intentionally

send out signals such as cell phones, have the potential to interfere

with avionics. Although PEDs have the potential to interfere with

multiple aircraft electronic systems, it is easiest to grasp the impact of interference in the context of aircraft navigation.

When the weather is bad, pilots totally depend on signals from

navigation-related avionics to safely fly the plane. Interference can

prevent the reception of radio navigation signals or, worse yet, can

distort those signals. The risk from interference is greatest when

the aircraft is closer to the ground, when it is taking off or landing

in bad weather. Should PED interference occur during that period

of time, the pilot could unknowingly guide the plane toward a nearby mountain or building, rather than to a safe departure or landing.

RTCA committees have addressed the potential of PED-induced

interference four times since the 1960s. In the past, we have focused on potential interference from hearing aids, portable dictating device, portable radios, laptop computers, games, CD players.

Each of those committees has concluded that electronic devices, especially digital electronics, have the potential to emit radio frequency signals and interfere with sensitive aircraft communication,

navigation, and control systems.

There are two primary aspects associated with potential PED-induced interference. One is linked to the relative power of the PED

signal. The other is related to the design and use of portable electronic devices. The signal from a passenger-carried electronic device, although being a very small signal but being transmitted inside the airplane, has the potential to overwhelm the signals used

by aircraft systems. This is especially critical if the aircraft is navigating using signals from far-away satellites.

There are also fundamental differences in the design approval

and use of avionics first as portable electronic devices.

Avionics and flight control components are rigorously qualified

before they are certified for aircraft use. These certified aircraft

systems are then operated by trained professional crews.

Portable electronic devices are not qualified to the same standards. Furthermore, PED users generally are not familiar with the

operating parameters of their handheld device or the potential hazards of operating that device when airborne.

RTCA’s current effort is primarily focused on analyzing potential

interference from cell phone and some PDAs. Mr. David Carson of

the Boeing Company and Mr. James Fowler of U.S. Airways are

leading our activity. The committee includes approximately 150

members from essentially every segment of the aviation and consumer electronics communities. We have got folks from the avionics

manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, pilot and flight at-
15

tendant associations, regulatory agencies, consumer electronic device manufacturers and various industry associations.

Our committee is working to do three things: to assess the impacts that transmitting portable electronic devices can have on aircraft operation; to develop strategies to mitigate identified potential

interference; and to work with the regulatory authorities to approve the safe use of transmitting portable electronic devices.

The committee is now collecting data, performing analyses and

developing repeatable processes to replace anecdotal information.

In summary, sir, RTCA is working with FAA and FCC and is developing recommendations that maintain or improve aviation safety and can accommodate the desire to use wireless technologies on

board the airplane.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important subject. I would be pleased to address the questions, sir.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I thank all of our panelists for their testimony.

What we will do now is proceed with some questions. Let me

start first from the—I would ask the technical side, Mr. Sabatini

and maybe Mr. Watrous and Mr. Knapp, we have two systems that

are either being used or tested, one is with the pico technology and

the other is with the, I guess, the Verizon-United activity. Have all

of your agencies checked off on the technologies that are in place,

and are they safe?

Mr. Sabatini.

Mr. SABATINI. We have been working with QUALCOMM and

American as well as Verizon and United Airlines. While those companies are testing, we are now studying the results of those tests

to determine further—

Mr. MICA. You don’t have any pico in operation on an aircraft or

tested on an aircraft?

Mr. SABATINI. Not as a matter of routine, sir.

Mr. MICA. But are there some on an aircraft being tested?

Mr. SABATINI. On American Airlines, we have the pico system.

QUALCOMM, yes.

Mr. MICA. Okay. And we have the Verizon-United?

Mr. SABATINI. Right. That is a voice over, WiFi IP.

Mr. MICA. Right. That is also on aircraft now?

Mr. SABATINI. It is on a Boeing 757 that is being tested.

But, again, I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, those are being

tested, and they have not yet demonstrated to the FAA—

Mr. MICA. But you can’t say whether from a safety standpoint

yet you have not determined that both of those systems are, in fact,

safe with the technology and protections that they have incorporated in the equipment?

Mr. SABATINI. Exactly, sir. We are not ready to move forward exactly and say we are ready to commit.

Mr. MICA. When do you think you will have that evaluation complete?

Mr. SABATINI. That would depend on how rapidly the folks,

QUALCOMM and Verizon and the respective carriers, proceed with

furthering their application with us. They need to determine and

demonstrate to us that they have satisfied all the rigorous test

standards that are in place for them to demonstrate.
16

Mr. MICA. Now, was I told that the WiFi, again, the Verizon,

that that may already been on some European aircraft and in use?

You don’t have any say in that, or do you have any say in that?

I guess FAA can say that you can’t turn that on or use it in U.S.

airspace, is that the case?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, if it was going to be a system operated by

a U.S. air carrier, then certainly they would be subject to the rules

that apply here in the United States.

Mr. MICA. So, right now, they just have to turn it off if they have

got it?

Mr. SABATINI. Exactly. FAA Part 91 is under general operating

rules, and I would contend that a foreign air carrier operating in

these United States must demonstrate the same thing.

Mr. MICA. Okay. Mr. Watrous, you were introduced as RTCA,

and that was—I guess, originally stood for Radio Technical Communications for—or Commission for Avionics. You are the technical

side. What is your current opinion of the two technologies that are

being tested? Have you reached any conclusion?

Mr. WATROUS. No, Mr. Chairman. The conclusion—

Mr. MICA. When and where will you be in reaching a conclusion,

as far as time? Do you actually get into any certification or approval of this equipment?

Mr. WATROUS. We have this group that is open to the public for

participation. They met as recently as a week or so ago. They are

collecting the data, analyzing the data. They are involved—and, in

fact, the QUALCOMM folks and others are participating in that activity.

At the present time, we expect to have recommendations in December of 2006. The reason for that is it gets to be a pretty complicated sort of a problem, depending on the type of device, the aircraft, the environment, et cetera.

As far as certification—

Mr. MICA. Is there a certification process that you have or,

Nick—or, Mr. Sabatini, I guess you get into the approval for aircraft and you get into sort of the equipment?

Mr. WATROUS. Yes, sir. I think it is reasonable to say that the

recommendation that will come from RTCA will be one of the criteria but not the only criteria used by the Federal Aviation Administration to determine whether or not these devices could be safely

used on board the airplane.

Mr. MICA. So you make some type of evaluation. I guess there

are all different types of technology.

Mr. WATROUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Then I guess it would vary among—if you have different frequencies or different models and things of that sort.

Then, Mr. Sabatini, FAA would get into yes or no for use of this

specific equipment on the aircraft; is that correct?

Mr. SABATINI. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Now, the other—first, I want to cover safety, because

that is primary importance. We have to know whether turning

these cell phones on puts us at some safety risk. I have thought

about this. You know, I would venture to say I probably—I left my

cell phone on in my briefcase or something, realized when I got

on—I mean, got off, that I still had a cell phone or a BlackBerry
17

on. I would venture to say any large aircraft, somebody has made

the same error, so these planes aren’t dropping out of the sky as

a result of my forgetfulness or mistake or others. So there is quite

a bit of this transmission already going on.

I have always wondered, is that safe? Does it really pose a risk—

if you can’t say with any honest definition at this point that it

does? Mr. Sabatini.

Mr. SABATINI. We do have a recorded incident where—

Mr. MICA. You do.

Mr. SABATINI. It was a regional jet, Canadair regional jet, being

operated in Bosnia where shortly after departure they received a

fire warning. They returned and executed an emergency landing. It

was later determined through an investigation that a cell phone in

the baggage in the luggage compartment, so to speak, was left on.

That was the determination; and we then subsequently issued an

advisory, an air worthiness directive, to correct for the aircraft and

to prevent that kind of susceptibility.

Mr. MICA. But nothing domestic?

Mr. SABATINI. Nothing domestic. However, there is test data that

certainly strongly suggests that these devices and the electromagnetic field that it produces does, in fact, interfere with our systems.

Mr. MICA. We have sort of progressed, because I remember at the

beginning there was no cell phones allowed at all in an onposition

when the door closed. Also, when you landed, until you got to the

door. You have modified that to a degree. You said that—I think

someone said in testimony that the biggest threat or problem might

be during takeoff or landing, again due to the massive amount of

avionics. So you have sort of made progressive changes in your regulation, is that correct, Mr. Sabatini?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, the regulation is the same as it has always

been. There is a regulation that allows an air carrier to make a determination that these devices that they wish to allow to be used

on board the aircraft are not, in fact, interfering with the aircraft’s

systems.

Mr. MICA. So they can already allow this?

Mr. SABATINI. Theoretically. But the technology is not there once

you get to an airborne condition. Then we have the issue with the

FCC in terms of terrestrial interference.

Mr. MICA. So it wasn’t a change in your policy that airlines,

when you land now, you can—many of them say you can begin

using your cell phones as soon as the aircraft is on the ground.

That wasn’t a change in your policy?

Mr. SABATINI. It was not a change in our policy. It is what was

already permitted by the rule.

Mr. MICA. Another—yes, safety is very important.

I think, Ms. Parsky, the question of use of cell phones for some

type of terrorist or criminal activity on board an aircraft, are you

checking with both this RTCA group and also FAA? Do you coordinate your efforts so that any device that is used or approved has

elements that give you some protection from a security standpoint,

or are you just an outsider in this process?

Ms. PARSKY. Well, most of our communications are with the providers themselves. We work with a great number of the providers
18

to advise them to what we believe the legal requirements are, for

what they need to be able to provide to law enforcement but also

to help them to voluntarily comply with law enforcement needs. So

it is through those interactions with the providers.

Mr. MICA. FAA checkoff, for example. Like you said, they might

want to be able to have the some capability to turn all cell phones

off at once. You are not checking with the folks that are approving

this, either setting some—an evaluation or certification and saying

that we are requiring this as a sort of a standard from a national

security or security standpoint?

Ms. PARSKY. Well, through the FCC, there are several areas

where the FCC looks to the Justice Department to provide a national security assessment. So to the extent that these providers

are also being regulated by the FCC, that would come to us to examine what the national security implications are. I am not aware

of the same procedures through the FAA, but I may be mistaken.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Knapp, is that your responsibility?

Mr. KNAPP. One of the things that we looked at as part of the

licensing process is CALEA compliance; and where law enforcement has raised concerns, we insure they are addressed before the

license is issued.

Mr. MICA. Now, if you—after you finish your process, say that we

don’t have any concerns, then who does that responsibility fall to,

FAA?

Mr. KNAPP. Relative to the issues that Justice—

Mr. MICA. Security, right.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, the securities. Generally what has happened is

the licensee or the respective licensee discusses directly with law

enforcement their compliance with the statutes. Our experience has

been, in every case so far, that their concerns were addressed. Once

that happened, then we were in a position to grant the license.

Mr. MICA. I may have additional questions. We will probably

submit some for the record later.

Let me yield now to Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On this 757, United-Verizon WiFi, how is the WiFi transmitted

from the plane? Is that one of these pico cell devices or how is it?

Is it a satellite uplink or how are they doing that? Anybody know?

Mr. SABATINI. Congressman, it is not a pico cell. It is basically

an Internet connection that works just as you would have an Internet connection at home, except that it is wireless.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, no, I mean, the Internet—I am on the plane.

I have my laptop. I am in a, you know, WiFi zone. Okay, that is

the airplane. The question is, how does the airplane, you know, coordinate and transmit that data? I mean, they are using some kind

of broadband technology of some sort. It must be—is it satellite?

Satellite?

Mr. SABATINI. Yes. It is satellite.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. All right.

Mr. SABATINI. And it is a system that meets FAA approval for

supplemental-type equipment to be installed on the aircraft.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I am just trying to get a handle exactly on

how that worked. Okay, so if it is a broadband WiFi connection and

I want to use voiceover Internet protocol, who is that up to? If you
19

have certified this device for the plane, who is going to control

whether or not someone is using a head set and microphone and

talking over the Internet through their laptop computer?

Mr. SABATINI. Once the air carrier has demonstrated to the FAA

through this rigorous STC process that our concerns for the safe

operation of the aircraft are satisfied, then that carrier may permit

the use of voiceover. It then becomes a social issue. The concern

that we continue to have is in this use of voiceover, could flight attendants be drawn into an altercation and could this possibly interfere with crew members and interfere with their responsibilities?

So, to that extent, I have a continuing safety concern in that regard.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So first we would certify the electronic safety of

these devices and their capability, and then there would be another

level of review if an airline said we actually want to begin to apply

this, and we intend to allow voiceover Internet communication?

Mr. SABATINI. Again, if they have demonstrated that there is no

interference with the safe operation of the aircraft, they may allow

the use of that voiceover as well as the text messaging piece of it.

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Now I don’t remember the name of the

gentleman from Embry-Riddle. Perhaps Mr. Watrous knows or perhaps you were here, Nick. I don’t remember. But we did have a

hearing on this previously, and he had done a lot of research on

these issues.

He said a damaged cell phone or computer or other PED could

cause a problem because it would be transmitting in a way that it

wasn’t, you know, it is not supposed to. So the question would be,

is that still a concern? And if that is a concern, how are you going

to verify that all of these myriad individual devices that people

bring on—

I mean, first, I guess you would have to satisfy each device and

say if this was properly working, you could use this device. But

how does one determine whether a device has ever been dropped,

damaged, there was a problem with the shielding, modified by the

consumer or something like that that could cause a problem? How

are we going to know that when people bring these things on the

plane and want to start using them?

Mr. SABATINI. We place that responsibility on the air carrier.

They are required to not only comply with all the rules and regulations, they are expected to operate at the highest levels of safety.

They must demonstrate that when they come to us and tell us that

they have developed these tests through an installation through

STC, for example, and that they would identify the makes and

models that would be permitted on board the aircraft. It would

then be up to the air carrier to police that only those makes and

models are being used on that aircraft.

Mr. DEFAZIO. This is a nightmare.

So the flight attendants can be walking all up and down the

aisles. They can have five different BlackBerries, determining

which version—I mean, they all transmit, some radio, some cells,

some different—some frequencies are different. So they will have to

be scrutinizing for model numbers. You know, everybody pull out

the device you want to use. I have got the list. I walk down and
20

like I put a checkmark on your forehead or something. You can use

it. I will remember when I come back I said it was okay for you.

That is a concern. But it still doesn’t go to the issue that the professor—and I think the committee needs to, you know, get back in

touch with this gentleman. I am sure the committee staff can dig

up his name—that if a device has been damaged, which isn’t necessarily visible, it still doesn’t get to that.

He was saying these devices as regularly configured, cell phones,

it is very improbable that they could cause interference with a flyby-wire in a catastrophic wire navigation. But if damaged it is

more probable, and the damage could be not at all visible. It was

dropped. It was modified. You can’t tell by looking at it.

I mean, how are we going to get to that level of concern? Are we

going to have some kind of detector on the plane in addition to the

detection device that looks for random signals that are, you know,

stronger or outside the realm of what should be going to the device

transmitting from the plane and then we would suddenly—like

maybe shut something down because it detected a random—I

mean, how are we going to deal with that?

Mr. SABATINI. It certainly is a very difficult question to answer,

sir. But we have and would require of the air carrier that they address these issues.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I guess we—that will be interesting to see

how they purport to answer that issue.

Mr. Watrous, you are more technically inclined than we are. Do

you have any comment on this line of questioning and these concerns?

Mr. WATROUS. Well, sir, we clearly don’t have an answer to that

question. It is a very difficult question to deal with. But part of this

committee activity that is under way is looking at the various combinations and permutations of signals and what reasonably could

go wrong, how to mitigate that sort of a thing. In many respects,

that is the reason why it is going to take so long to come to some

kind of a recommendation.

Clearly, there are probably—well, clearly there are multiple potential solutions to the problem. One is to make sure from analysis

and testing, data collection, that we have a pretty good grip on

what the variety of interference could be.

Then, as is the case in aviation—and Mr. Sabatini is far better

qualified to speak on the subject than I am—after dealing with the

technical issue, then there are some also potential policy decisions

that can be taken. They might be able to mitigate the problem in

the most risk-sensitive duration of flight, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. This is a big hurdle. I have got to admit,

and the Chairman might or might not remember, but I am a convert on this issue. You know, I initially bridled at the monopoly of

Airphone, the crappy service and the extortionate price they

charge. I always thought it would be good—this is sort of, you

know, before the emergence of massive consumption of cell phones

and sort of the emergence of the people who abuse the privilege of

a cell phone to the detriment of everyone around them. But I did

engage very much on that issue, because I was interested in breaking the monopoly.
21

But this professor from Embry-Riddle was very firm in saying,

you know, there is a possibility that you could cause serious interference with a fly-by-wire critical operation with—particularly coming from a damaged or modified device.

So we will have to track him down, that testimony down—he had

done some research on this—and certainly put him in touch, if he

isn’t already, with you folks. Because previous to that I had been

convinced this is all about gouging the consumers with the earphone, which wasn’t a very acceptable alternative.

But now I have got a new set of concerns here that I think we

are going to have to deal with, since he raised that safety issue.

I just want to be sure.

I really hate to think that someone who is carrying on about

their date last night has a damaged unit and it causes a critical

malfunction and we lose a plane because someone just couldn’t

wait until they landed on the ground to talk about how great last

night’s date was. That is just incredible.

We will hear from the flight attendants in the next panel to talk

about the social issues, which I think is another difficulty.

Just—again, being a technical person, I heard or have read that

there is—you wonder why people are shouting into their cell phone.

I have been told that the reason is that because, unlike a land line,

it doesn’t have feedback, so you don’t think you are talking as loud.

Is that an explanation that you have heard, or why do people shout

into their cell phones?

Mr. WATROUS. Sir, I have heard the same explanation, but I am

not qualified to speak on that. I believe that we have a gentleman

from QUALCOMM later on the panel, and he is certainly far better

qualified to deal with it.

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. That would be another requirement if

they wanted to use these things on planes, that they would have

to build in whatever it is they use to reduce the shouting.

The FCC, are you familiar with what causes this phenomena of

shouting on cell phones?

Mr. KNAPP. Not as to why they shout, but it is a two-way link,

same as a telephone. You should hear—

Mr. DEFAZIO. But there is something about this, this article I

read, something about a feedback thing built into a hardwire phone

that was left out. But we will ask that, maybe QUALCOMM

knows.

Mr. KNAPP. Sure.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been generous with your time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is for Justice or Homeland Security. In light of the FAA recently approving this wireless satellite interconnect WiFi that has

been put on some of the United flights, do you have concerns over

a terrorist detonating a bomb or some type of wireless explosive device? Would this be wireless system or is your main concern cell

phones?

Ms. PARSKY. Well, I think, as we have tried to make clear both

in our comments to the FCC and in my testimony today, we are
22

concerned about the potential for any explosive devices to be used

on airplanes, and there is certainly that risk today.

When we are looking at rolling out a new technology and doing

it in the very sensitive and unique context of an airplane, we are

looking for ways that that risk potentially could be increased. What

the focus here is is the increased connectivity, so the potential that

there would be a reliable connectivity between those on the ground

and those in the air, in the WiFi context, to the extent that is increasing the connectivity, there could be an increased risk.

But I think, as we laid out in our comments, some of the security

measures that we are looking for to mitigate those risks are specific to devices that a passenger brings on board his or herself. So

not something that is built in but something that the passenger

could bring on and could potentially manipulate.

So there is a range of risks that are involved, and what we are

trying to do is that, as these new technologies are rolled out, to

bring to the attention of both the carriers and the regulatory bodies

some of the measures that can be put in place so that we mitigate

those risks up front.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you know exactly what those devices

would be on the wireless network system or how it would be used

to detonate one of these explosive devices?

Ms. PARSKY. Unfortunately, I don’t know the technical specificities of the difference types of explosive devices. But what I can say

is, with the increase in connectivity, it can cause potentially an increased risk. Certainly if it is not through a device that is already

installed in the plane, but a device that you bring on the plane, a

passenger brings on his or herself, that could also increase the risk.

But I am afraid I am not familiar with the specific mechanics of

it.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.

Mr. Sabatini, you mentioned that you are leaving some of this up

to the discretion of the air carriers. You know, people right now

who are very sensitive to the cell phone use, or maybe it is just me,

especially when you hear things like the London bombing and the

different improvised explosives that is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world, they are very sensitive to

phone use. I know we are going to get more into the social part of

it at a later date—or later time today, but if you are on an airplane, it is very annoying sometimes if you have got a chatterbox

sitting next to you or maybe a small child. I can’t imagine somebody sitting next to me talking in Arabic or some other foreign language on a cell phone for a one-and-a-half-hour flight.

Also, you know, the FAA has certain regulations that it has always put, such as maintenance and, I guess, glide patterns, different things that all airlines have to abide by. If an airline was

going to—I am not saying any airline would, certainly not American or anyone else—would put safety, maybe, behind customer

service a little bit, that was willing to do that, do you think that

is an unfair advantage that the FAA has given some of these airlines to do, rather than what we as the public, the flying public,

especially, look at the FAA as somebody that looks at our safety

above and beyond everything else that goes on with the airline industry?
23

Mr. SABATINI. Well, clearly, the FAA statutory authority is limited to safety. Once an air carrier has determined through testing—and it is a rigorous standard testing that we apply—then they

would receive certification to use that system on their aircraft.

The aspect of the social issue is one over which I have no statutory authority. However, in considering that, it does begin to provide or give us concern that flight attendants could be drawn into

altercations in settling matters between irate passengers. That

does give us concern. If that were to be the case, we would go back

to the air carrier and ask them to tell us how they are going to prevent those instances from continuing to occur.

It is not just a choice that an air carrier can make to just arbitrarily choose to authorize the use of phones. First of all, it is voluntary for them to use. So in answer, I think, to your question

about unfair competition or unfair advantage, as long as an air carrier is able to demonstrate to us through their testing under the

rigorous standard that we will apply, they would be authorized to

permit the use of PEDs. From a safety point of view, they must assure us that the PEDs are not interfering with the safe operation

of the aircraft.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. One last question, Mr. Chairman.Ms.

Parsky said that they don’t really know right now what type of devices that it would take to maybe use a wireless system to cause

some problems. I am assuming that, since the FAA has got all

these rigorous tests, you know what these devices are that would

be immediate danger or could cause danger by interacting with this

wireless network or be able to be used over a wireless network?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, I wouldn’t be familiar with what those illegal

devices would be, but we would impose and have the requirement

that an air carrier demonstrate to us and determine that the systems that they are going to ask to be installed on the aircraft to

allow the use of cellular phones meet the standards.

So it is up to the air carrier to decide, of the many hundreds of

makes and models, which makes and models they would allow to

be used in that approval. It would then be incumbent upon them

to have the procedures in place to advise their passengers that

these are the makes and models that are approved for use, and it

is up to them to police that only those are being used.

I understand that the technology may, in fact, prevent the use

of those systems or cell phones that are not compatible with what

has been approved on board the aircraft for transmitting a signal.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But your rigorous test, you think, is rigorous enough that it sifts and eliminates and vets through all these

things that could be used?

Mr. SABATINI. I think the best way to answer that question, sir,

is to tell you that our rigorous testing standards apply for originaltype certification of an aircraft. That today we have the safest air

transportation system in the world, and it is that kind of standard

that we will be applying.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Poe.

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions.

We all know there are thousands and thousands of flights in the

United States every day, thousands of people in those planes. I
24

would daresay that probably in every one of those situations there

is somebody that had a computer, a GameBoy, a BlackBerry, a cell

phone or two or three that is left on, probably in every flight.

Has there ever been an instance in the United States where any

of those items have caused a problem with that aircraft? Do we

know of any situation where that problem has ever occurred because somebody left a cell phone on or a computer or a BlackBerry

or Blueberry or GameBoy or any of those things?

Mr. SABATINI. As I said earlier, sir, there is only one recorded instance, and it was in Bosnia. Here in the United States—that same

type of aircraft is operated here in the United States. It is a

Canadair regional jet. The only data that we have is anecdotal.

The other data that exists is through testing, which is going on

in cooperation with the RTCA, which is a consensus group and

which has many representatives from the industry to bring to light

those kinds of issues that you are addressing, sir.

Mr. POE. So it has never happened that you know of in the

United States.

Mr. SABATINI. That I know of.

Mr. POE. Yes. Would you agree that there is probably somebody

on an aircraft that has purposefully or accidentally left one of those

computer devices on?

Mr. SABATINI. That is a probability.

Mr. POE. Yes.

As far as the other question I had, Ms. Parsky, following up on

Mr. Westmoreland’s comments, we are all concerned about air safety. But what makes us think if some outlaw is on a plane that

wants to use a computer device like a phone to do us harm that

they are going to turn it off because somebody tells them to? I

mean, it defies logic that, if that is going to occur, they are not

going to turn it off. They will go down to the lavatory and do whatever they have got to do.

So I ask that question because are those capabilities, in your

opinion, now possible to cause damage to an aircraft by somebody

using a cell phone, whether it has been modified or tampered with

or not? Are those capabilities—do those capabilities currently exist?

Ms. PARSKY. Well, I think that, as I have said, this technology

is a growing, burgeoning technology. So what we are looking at is

an increased connectivity. So to the extent that today you might

have the ability to connect from very low altitudes in an airplane

to the ground without any type of enhanced technology, some of the

technologies that have been discussed today would increase that

connectivity and provide it more reliably from higher altitudes.

So, as of today, unless they are experimenting with some of these

technologies on the particular aircraft you are flying on, you would

not be able to go into a lavatory and get a reliable connection. If

some of these new technologies were put in place, that would be

able to be done more reliably.

I think the one important point that I want to make is that what

law enforcement’s position is here—there are some increased risks,

such as the diverse ways that these types of technologies could be

used as an explosive device, but then there are also some opportunities.
25

So as this new technology is rolling out, what we are asking is

that the industry—that the regulatory bodies take into consideration some of the enhancements to law enforcement’s capabilities

that could be provided with these valuable technologies at the same

time. So that in these very delicate situations there are capabilities

that are built in so that we are better able to protect the public.

Mr. POE. Well, let me just ask it a different way. Are there current abilities to take a cell phone and not necessarily get a signal

but use it as a device to detonate some other object on the plane

or interfere with the frequencies, that cause the plane to go down

instead of up? Any of those things—so there are current capabilities using some type of Blueberry, BlackBerry, GameBoy, computer, all those things that we know about. Can you use one of

those devices to do harm to the aircraft currently?

Ms. PARSKY. There is always the possibility that there will be

some creative use of a device, a watch or something, anything else

that someone may be carrying on board; and the screening procedures will be in place so those items will be detected before they

get on board. So DHS may be able to speak a little better to the

screening procedure, but whether it is a cell phone or nocuous object that someone is carrying in their bag, there is always the potential.

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you.

Do you want to address that? You look like you want to answer

that question.

Mr. KEARNEY. I am not sure what gave you that impression, sir,

but I would mirror the comments that you have just heard. I would

also say that it is not a new threat. What you are referring to, our

layered screening system is in place to mitigate the risk of use of

these electronic devices for that sort of interference you had suggested; and as we move down the road, improve our screening, deploy new and better technologies, we will get better at it.

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank you.

There being no further questions for this panel—

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Did you have any?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just along the last line of questioning, as I understand, it was sort of a two-part question.

One, we have located the professor at Embry-Riddle who testified

previously about the potential for interference with critical flight

systems. We will be getting in touch. I would just read his name

into the record.

But also the second thing was, can you use a cell phone as a—

you know, can you call another cell phone and use it as a triggering

device? Yes, I mean, we went through that in Iraq for a while until

they started jamming cell phones and automatic door openers.

They have gone through a series of things. Anything could work

that way.

I think the point Ms. Parsky is making is that, right now, it is

entirely reliable that you are going to reach that unit on the plane,

but if you are going to enhance that plane’s capabilities, it wouldn’t

be reliable and you could choose a particular point during the flight

at which you wanted to take that plane down. This is just another
26

element of risk, is what you are saying. You know, I mean, there

are a lot of risks.

We won’t—we were just visiting all the issues about explosives

on planes and how bad our system is, the fact that we are not looking, as the Chairman and I have talked about many times, for plastic explosives in carry-on bags with passengers, et cetera, but that

is another issue for another day.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Again, we—

Mr. DEFAZIO. I was just going to read his name. Could I?

Mr. MICA. Yes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. It was Albert D. Helfrick—H-e-l-f-r-i-c-k—Professor

at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

As I started to say, we have raised a number of issues today; and

I appreciate your testimony. You are contributing to the question

whether or not cell phones should be permitted on passenger aircraft.

I think we still are looking for some answers to some of those

points that were raised today. We will probably have some additional questions that we will submit to each of the panelists. There

are also some gray and security areas that we may want to question you about in a nonpublic forum.

But I appreciate the cooperation of each of the panelists. Again,

I apologize for the delay during the votes.

What we will do is excuse you at this time, and we will call our

second panel.

Mr. MICA. The second panel of witnesses today consists of Patricia Friend. She is the International President of the Association of

Flight Attendants with CWA, AFL-CIO. Mr. Greeley Koch, President of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives. Mr. Paul

Guckian, who is the Senior Director of Technology at QUALCOMM.

I would like to welcome our witnesses in the second panel.

Again—well, Ms. Friend, I know, has been here before. But if you

have any lengthy statements or material you would like to be made

part of the record, you could submit it through the Chair. We try

to get you to summarize your statements in approximately 5 minutes. That leaves us some time for questions.

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA A. FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS - CWA, AFLCIO; GREELEY KOCH, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE TRAVEL EXECUTIVES; AND PAUL GUCKIAN, SENIOR

DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY, QUALCOMM, INC.

Mr. MICA. So, welcome back, Patricia Friend, again, representing

the International—actually, she is the International President and

representing the Association of Flight Attendants. Pleased to have

you. Maybe we will get to find out whether we should not only arm

the pilots as we have done but now that we may have cell phones,

we may need to arm the flight attendants.

Welcome, and you are recognized.

Ms. FRIEND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr.

DeFazio. Thank you for the introduction. I can now skip that part.
27

I am here to testify today to voice our strong opposition to the

lifting by the FCC and FAA of bans on the use of cell phones on

airborne aircraft. Lifting the ban on cell phones on aircraft is a bad

idea. It would not only create a nuisance, potentially interfere with

aircraft operation and enable a possible tool in the terrorist arsenal. It would impair the flight attendants’ ability to maintain order

in the cabin, undermining aviation safety and security.

Our flight attendants have reported to us numerous incidents of

conflict over turning off cell phones before takeoff. Many of these

result in the removal of passengers from flights. These incidents

cause delays, theydistract attention from crew safety briefings, and

they undermine crew authority. In the closed quarters of the airline cabin, with passengers already concerned about security and

confused about when and where they may and they may not use

cell phones, tensions do run high.

In a very recent incident, a very belligerent passenger refused to

turn off her cell phone prior to takeoff despite repeated requests by

the flight attendant.

Following final safety checks and an additional cabin announcement to turn off all electronic devices, the passenger continued her

call and refused to stop. Finally, after the flight attendant notified

the captain and he threatened to return to the gate, the passenger

did shut off the cell phone.

In another case, a captain encountered a navigation problem during initial taxi away from the gate area. He pulled off the taxiway

and ran system checks. Three separate announcements were made

to shut off all electronic devices. However, one passenger continued

to talk on their cell phone. The passenger behind him alerted the

flight attendant, who communicated finally the seriousness of the

problem to the passenger, persuading him to turn off his cell

phone. Although it is uncertain whether the navigation problem

was related to the cell phone, the system did clear up once the

phone was turned off, and the flight proceeded.

These are just two of the many incidents that happen on a daily

basis on board the thousands of flights in this country. All of these

incidents suggest that declaring open season for cell phone use on

board aircraft threatens to create an unmanageable situation, undermining order in the cabin, and jeopardizing aviation safety.

As has already been noted here this morning, over 7,800 written

comments from the public, industry, and government agencies have

been submitted in response to the proposed FCC rule change. The

vast majority of those comments strongly favor keeping the ban on

in-flight cell phone use. This is consistent with a national poll that

we cosponsored with the National Consumers League of airline

passengers earlier this spring. That poll found that 63 percent of

air travelers want to keep cell phone restrictions in place, and said

that cell phone use in the cramped confines of the airplane cabin

would be annoying and divisive. Seventy-six percent of business

travelers identified the number one problem of allowing cell phone

usage on board the aircraft as creating a disruptive, noisy, and annoying environment.

Among some of the poll’s other findings, 78 percent agreed that

cell phone use on board the aircraft could lead to increased passenger unruliness and interfere with the flight attendants’ ability
28

to maintain order. Eighty-seven percent were alarmed when they

were informed that pilots have reported many cases of problems

with navigational equipment possibly caused by cell phones or

other electronic devices used in flight. Seventy-eight percent of

those polled believe that cell phones might distract passengers from

hearing life-saving instructions in an emergency, and 78 percent

believed that allowing cell phone usage on board the aircraft could

help terrorists execute a hijacking plan more effectively.

But it isn’t just the public and the flight attendants that agree

that cell phone usage on board the aircraft is unnecessary. In a letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, Cingular executive vice

president Paul Roth wrote: We believe there is a time and place for

wireless phone conversations, and seldom does that include the

confines of an airplane flight.

Law enforcement experts report that allowing public use of personal cell phones on airborne aircraft could actually facilitate terrorist activities.

The Association of Flight Attendants categorically rejects the notion that cell phone use on an aircraft is a necessity. Allowing cell

phone usage would result in the vast majority of our time, effort,

and energy being diverted from important safety and security duties to becoming an in-flight cell phone enforcer.

We urge this subcommittee and all of Congress to work with the

FCC, the FAA, and other government agencies to ensure that existing bans on the use of cell phones on board commercial airplanes

in flight are kept in place.

One further thing to consider from the poll that I previously referenced is that 90 percent of the respondents agreed that if inflight cell phone use is approved, the aircraft should be fitted with

systems that would allow the flight crew to instantly disconnect all

cell phone calls during safety and emergency announcements.

I ask the Chairman to accept our written testimony and attached

comments where we outline our concerns in much more detail.

After you have had an opportunity to examine this document, we

are certainly available for further clarification. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony and your entire statement. And the information will be included as part of the record,

without objection.

Mr. Greeley Koch, president of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives. Welcome, sir. And you are recognized.

Mr. KOCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I would just request

that my full statement be entered into the record, and I would just

summarize my comments.

Mr. MICAS. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. KOCH. Thank you. I am speaking today on behalf of the

2,500 members of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives,

who represent the business travel interests of major corporations,

as well as the aviation, hospitality, surface transportation, and support industries of the travel sectors in 30 countries around the

world. Our association seeks to maximize the corporate return on

travel investment while boosting the productivity and effectiveness

of the business traveler on the road.
29

Business travelers derive the most out of their travel time

through a number of electronic devices that are an extension of

their offices. The cell phone is undoubtedly the most common of

these. Judicious use of the cell phone will convert isolated hours

spent in flight into productive, revenue-generating potential, especially on long flights. Fifty-three percent of our members responding to a poll indicated that business travelers would be more productive through cell phone access while in flight. Ninety-two percent of our members overwhelmingly indicated that they would

favor a move permitting text messaging or type, not talk, either via

cell phones or BlackBerry-type devices, allowing travelers to access

critical e-mail while en route.

ACTE is not insensitive to the concerns of others who predict

that the airlines will reverberate with endless musical tones of cell

phones or, worse, incessant loud conversations. Our association recommends that any cell phone use on commercial aircraft require

mandatory use of a headset, and that cell phones be set for silent

ringing in the vibrating mode. The prescribed in-flight use of cell

phones could be detailed in seat-back cards, in-flight magazines, or

the announcements at the beginning of each flight. I think eventually the public will become informed, and the process will become

standard operating procedure.

Allowing the use of cell phones en route will undoubtedly accelerate the development of a more advanced technology to mask background noises. Noise-canceling electronics for microphones and earpieces are already commercially available for the recreation market, and these enable individuals to speak and be clearly understood in a normal voice tone against a variety of strong background

noises. The cost and availability of these devices will drop as market demand increases. There could even be a revenue-generating

opportunity for the airlines in having headsets available for purchase or rental on each flight.

So, on behalf of ACTE, we request the continued review of regulations regarding the cell phone use on commercial aircraft with

the headset caveat, or to recommend an action allowing the transmission of text.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that just ends my summary comments.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will hear now from Paul Guckian, senior director of technology with QUALCOMM.

Welcome. You are recognized.

Mr. GUCKIAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the Aviation Subcommittee. I am honored to testify before the subcommittee today on behalf of QUALCOMM, Incorporated.

QUALCOMM is a leading developer and supplier of digital wireless communication products and services, and is the innovator of

code division multiple access, CDMA, a technology that has become

the world’s standard for the wireless communication industry.

I would like to discuss today the research and development that

QUALCOMM has conducted in the area of wireless communications for aviation use.

QUALCOMM is an original member of RTCA Special Committee

202, and our participation in this committee and interaction with
30

other industry groups has led QUALCOMM to engage in a program

of development, analysis, and testing to assess the potential for mobile phone interference with aircraft systems and also with terrestrial mobile phone networks.

In addition to evaluating today’s interference scenario whereby

cell phones are left on while the aircraft is in flight, QUALCOMM

has been doing research and analysis into the onboard pico cell

concept. A pico cell is a very small, low-powered unit that uses

standard cellular technology to provide coverage in small areas

with a high number of users; for example, in buildings or in cruise

ships. Such a device can be installed in an aircraft to provide connection to passenger wireless devices. The pico cell signals are then

connected to the ground through a licensed air-to-ground link, either satellite or terrestrial-based. A CMA onboard pico cell enables

both voice and data services, data services being text messaging,

Internet access, e-mail, and multimedia downloads. The onboard

pico cell can be configured to support data services only and prohibit voice, if necessary.

From June 2003 to the present, QUALCOMM, in partnership

with companies such as Boeing and American Airlines, has conducted significant test programs on board commercial and general

aviation aircraft using CDMA, pico cell, and multiple CDMA

phones. We have made both ground-based and in-flight measurements of cellular and PCS frequencies. On July 15, 2004,

QUALCOMM and American Airlines conducted a successful inflight proof-of-concept demonstration of the CDMA pico cell technology. Reports from the various test programs and demonstration

have been submitted to the RTCA and also to the FCC for review.

The test results to date are promising. The on-aircraft testing

has resulted in no detectable interference to aircraft systems from

CDMA technologies. QUALCOMM supported NASA Langley in a

test and analysis program that they performed on 3G mobile

phones, and NASA reported that in most cases the phones’ unintentional transmissions have better safety margins than laptops

and PDAs that are approved for airborne use today in certain segments of the flight.

One key feature of CDMA technology is the range of the closed

loop power control. When CDMA phones are close to the cell tower,

or the pico cell in the case of the aircraft cabin, they transmit intentional signals at power levels as low as microwatts. This very

low level of power significantly reduces the potential for interference to the aircraft systems as well as the terrestrial networks.

Other technologies do not power control down to the levels of

CDMA and so present a higher potential for interference. Further

work is required to determine what level of interference is tolerable

by the terrestrial carriers. QUALCOMM believes that it should be

up to the wireless carriers to decide whether they want to accept

a low level of interference in exchange for the revenue-generating

opportunities.

QUALCOMM will continue to support RTCA SC-202’s work to

evaluate compatibility between transmitting passenger devices and

aircraft systems. We are also pursuing collaborative test programs

to evaluate multiple-technology pico cells, which will include

CDMA with GSM and Wi-Fi access points.
31

QUALCOMM is aware of the number of public interest issues

that have been raised, and we would like to offer a few comments

in this area. QUALCOMM would like to highlight the fact that

data services are a key component of wireless connectivity, and today’s 3G cellular and PCS networks have evolved to support these

key services. The same data services that are offered today by the

terrestrial service providers would also be enabled through the use

of a CDMA pico cell on board the aircraft. This would provide passengers with in-flight access to text messaging, e-mail, Internet access, games, et cetera, on their personal phones, PDAs, or CDMAenabled laptops. The multiple devices shown by the Chairman in

the opening comments are converging into one device, and that device is the cell phone. Even if cellular and PCS connectivity is not

authorized or provided on the aircraft, the passengers will want to

use the nonwireless features of the phones, such as games, music

player, personal organizer, and preloaded media content.

In conclusion, QUALCOMM, in collaboration with the aviation

industry, has done considerable research on the question of interference to avionics and terrestrial wireless networks for the use of

CDMA devices and pico cell technology. The system shows promising capabilities for allowing aviation passengers to use a wide

range of mobile devices while in flight without compromising the

safety of the aircraft or the reliability of the terrestrial networks.

Some additional work needs to be completed, and we stand ready

to assist government agencies in completing the necessary research.

It is important to note that today’s mobile phone has many capabilities beyond voice. Increasingly, consumers are relying on their

mobile device for such applications as text messaging, e-mail, Internet access. These applications are available today and will become

the expectation of flying consumers as the use of mobile electronic

devices and 3G data services continue to grow.

It is therefore imperative that government regulations address

the complex safety and public interest issues related to the use of

portable electronic devices. We applaud the FAA and the FCC for

undertaking reviews of the regulations in this area. And this concludes my testimony.

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you.

And as a follow-up, let me just start with a question. You believe,

Mr. Guckian, that it is just a matter of time and technology that

we will be using both cell phones and text messaging and other capabilities of electronic devices on aircraft, and it can be done safely?

Mr. GUCKIAN. Mr. Chairman, the work that we focused on is on

our own CDMA technology as a complex problem when you look at

other wireless technologies that are involved. The GSM community

has done a lot of work, and that is where we hope to collaborate.

Mr. MICA. One of the biggest objections seems to be that people

tend to shout, as Mr. DeFazio said, or raise their voice to use their

cell phone. And we already have people talking. I mean, you can’t

bind and gag people and make them be silent for the duration of

their flight. And I have been inconvenienced by a numbered of conversations I don’t need to detail here today. But is that also a technical problem that can be resolved?
32

Mr. GUCKIAN. You know, the question that was raised earlier

about the sight-tone effect, and do cell phones have the same feature as the landline? They do have sight-tone effect. And so from

the technical side, that feature is there. Our observations have

been that the aircraft environment is noisy, and it is the free ear,

if you like, that is perceiving this high level of noise that is causing

passengers to talk loudly.

In the American Airlines demo, we had a number of press and

VIPs, and they all began to talk very loudly. The phone is very

tuned to voice frequencies. They very quickly adapted to reducing

their voice level almost to a whisper, and as the people on the receiving end realized there was distortion as a result of them talking so loudly.

Mr. MICA. The other thing, too, we have seen the use of cell

phones when the plane lands now, and I think many people find

that convenient because possibly they have someone who has been

circling the airport to pick them up, or you are late, or you can better coordinate your connection with those who are meeting you.

That doesn’t seem to have disrupted airplane humanity as we

know it, has it?

Mr. GUCKIAN. On the social issue side, I think we defer to the

flight attendants, the people who are having to manage those social

issues. I think for the personal passenger that still can be irritating.

Mr. MICA. I have seen even, Ms. Friend, a few flight attendants

making cell phone calls when the plane lands; in fact, heard them

calling someone they were either meeting. And, again, it doesn’t

appear to be—now that they have opened up that little window of

opportunity from the time the aircraft lands until it gets to the

boarding point. So, again, it is becoming a more common practice,

and maybe not that irritating once people are accustomed to it. Do

you think they will get used to it or not?

Ms. FRIEND. I think the key point in what you are talking about

is it is a short window of opportunity. It is a very limited period

of time. So for the 5 minutes or maybe 10 that it takes to taxi the

aircraft in and park it, I think people are willing to tolerate the

sort of—it is all a part of the getting ready to get off the airplane

process. I think that is different than a 7-1/2-hour flight over the

Atlantic in the middle of the night where you would like to sleep,

but someone else would rather conduct business on the cell phone.

Mr. MICA. You can’t bind and gag folks. I have been on transatlantic flights where they stay up all night talking and drives you

crazy. I have been on domestic flights from here to Florida, and

people’s conversations are very loud and disturbing.

Ms. FRIEND. And if they don’t have anybody with them to talk

to, then they would be able to call somebody on the cell phone and

talk to them.

Mr. MICA. Have you all adopted a policy against the so-called tap

and not talk?

Ms. FRIEND. We haven’t. We have discussed the distinction between actually talking on the cell phone and being able to e-mail,

use a BlackBerry or whatever. We are waiting for the results of the

RTCA study, which they have said they will not be finished with

phase 2 until next year. So clearly that is very important to all of
33

us in the aviation industry, what their recommendation is about

the overall safety of the use of these electronic devices.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am pleased to hear that you are keeping an open

mind on that, and I think that may be—and I understood from Mr.

Guckian that that would be a sort of—and also from Mr. Koch his

fall-back position if you are not going to allow voice, but at least

allow data transmission if it is safe, and if we can totally qualify

that it would be safe with various devices.

Mr. Koch, did you ask this question in your poll: Would you approve of the use of cell phones on airplanes if you frequently were

seated next to someone talking very loudly and incessantly during

a transcontinental airplane flight?

Mr. KOCH. We did not ask that question.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think you might get a different answer. I mean,

people are saying it would be convenient, and I will just use it for

business purposes, but they are not thinking of people who use cell

phones for recreational purposes, which is becoming more and more

common as the price of using cell phones drops. I mean, there are

people who never go anywhere without a cell phone in their ear

and carrying on a conversation. And we have already come up with

the problems that are being documented in terms of driving and

distraction and those sorts of things.

So I just think that vaulting into this environment, and, as was

said previously, is a loud environment, you know, which would

probably have people talking even more loudly than they do walking down the street or sitting in restaurants and other places. So

I think you might want to sort of check that out with your constituents before—because I get a very different reaction in talking to

business travelers and other frequent fliers. I find very few who

feel that they need to have access to voice. They would like to have

access to data. I mean, data is more succinct communication; you

can get the critical stuff out there. But I just kind of question that

statistic.

But anyway, thanks for being here, and we will continue to wrestle with this. And my intention first and foremost is safety, and I

am going to be following up with the gentleman I talked about earlier and his concerns, and being sure that those are addressed, and

any review of this technology, and answering all those questions.

It is interesting to hear that CDMA loop issue would prevent a

stronger transmission, you know, if there was a proximate device.

But, of course, if there isn’t a proximate device, then the CDMA

would have the same signal strength as other systems; is that correct?

Mr. GUCKIAN. Yes, that is correct. At equivalent power levels.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Guckian, I understand that the FAA approved a pico cell

network designed by your company for a charter flight using MD80 aircraft. And I guess that was up to 15 calls were simultaneously handled. What is the effect when you have hundreds of
34

calls handled at one time on a large Boeing 747-like plane? Is the

technology there, the cost, capacity limitations, things like that?

Mr. GUCKIAN. The pico cell technology that we use for the American Airlines proof-of-concept demonstration has a capacity of over

100 simultaneous calls. The limiting factor is the air-to-ground

link. And we were using the Global Star satellite system, and that

system, airborne system, did have a bandwidth limitation that

would only allow 15 simultaneous calls. So the pico cell itself will

support over 100 calls; and if the bandwidth to and from the aircraft—and I would give an example of something like Connexion by

Boeing that has megabits per second—then they could certainly

support up to 100 calls.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Ms. Friend, Amtrak and other commuter trains

have designated quiet cars. You know, I guess it kind of calls to

mind in the old days when you had no smoking and smoking sections on the airplane and however that worked. I mean, is there

any thought of anything like that, or configurating maybe an area

next to the bathroom or something where there is an area that you

can go—well, you know, some sort of thing to kind of segregate

things where somebody didn’t want to do that?

Ms. FRIEND. There is no ability to create separate quiet cars on

board an aircraft cabin. And the reason we now have no smoking

instead of smoking and no smoking sections is because it doesn’t

work, because somewhere on that aircraft cabin those sections have

to meet, and there was no way to protect the other occupants of

the airline cabin from the effects of second-hand smoke. And just

as there would be no way—because if you are sitting in the last

row of the no cell phone section, the people right behind you are

the first row of the cell phone section. So we don’t have the same

ability in an aircraft cabin as Amtrak has to really segregate the

situation.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Koch, you know, again, Ms. Friend and others

have raised the question of having the annoying seatmate. And certainly if you are—myself, the Members fly as much as anybody. To

be sitting in the middle seat with two people perhaps chatting

away on either side certainly could be annoying.

You talked about using headsets, requiring passengers—or having headsets, that you could maybe do that down. I guess the question comes, what about the ones that don’t have the headsets?

The other thing is that in your polling—refresh my—how does

that run in the sense of what kind of numbers are you seeing?

Mr. KOCH. We were seeing numbers, 53 percent supported repealing the ban. And when you look at those numbers, because it

was so close—

Mr. BOOZMAN. Was that on specifically cell phones, or was that

on BlackBerries and that kind of technology?

Mr. KOCH. That was on cell phones. And then 92 percent were

as far as BlackBerries, repealing that ban. And I think because the

cell phone was so close, you know, people do look at the airplane

as the last bastion of quietness, if you will, while they are traveling, unless you do get the seatmate next to you that wants to talk

the whole flight. And so I think that is where we were seeing the

polling being as close as it was.
35

But then the Members were also saying, if we do have the text

capability—because we somehow want to remain productive. And I

think that is what is important to the business traveler is it is

sometimes about choice. You know, most of the time you just want

to read or fall asleep, but then if you are in that business, still you

also want to have the chance to continue it or to respond to it.

And I think, as far as the headsets, we are advocating that once

you look at the safety issues, then we do think that there does need

to be some sort of concern about the respect on board, and that

headsets or whatever that can be developed to make the conversations be normal-type voice conversations instead of the shouting, I

think, would go a long way to making the environment much more

better on board the aircraft.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. You know, the other thing is, I mean,

even in the context of different flights, you know, a 2:00 flight is

different than a 6:00 a.m. flight where you probably got up at 3:00

or 3:30 to get through security and the whole bit.

So, again, we thank you all so much. Thank this panel and the

other panel for being here. So, again, thank you for your input, and

the meeting stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

Æ