Despite the on-again, off-again worries about in-flight calling interfering with an airliner's many navigational gizmos, we have to admit, there's a part of us that really loves to hear a story about what happens when someone actually has the stones to ignore federal law and breaks out the phone. That's exactly what Texan Joe David Jones did on a flight from Austin to Dallas last week, receiving a message on his cell -- which he'd forgotten to turn off -- about his father's health and felt compelled to return the call immediately. He ignored flight attendants' requests to hang up, spending some 20-odd minutes chatting away, apparently with no ill effect on the plane's ability to fly without exploding, barrel rolling uncontrollably, or falling out of the sky. We'd expected that such a blatant disregard for ignoring crew instructions would result in some jail time, but apparently the gentleman simply got slapped with a disorderly conduct ticket that carries up to $500 in fines. If we'd been in the seat next to him, we'd have probably hogtied him with his seatbelt and thrown his phone down the scary vacuum-powered lavatory toilet, but at least we know exactly what happens now when someone says "screw you" to the in-flight phone ban.

That Air France in-flight calling trial is now well underway, and it looks like there's still some kinks left to iron out. The New York Times hitched a ride on a recent flight featuring tests of the system, and found that things weren't quite working up to snuff: voice quality was said to be like "talking to a small robot," only six passengers could get a signal at a time, Blackberry email didn't work, and calls placed from the ground to cell phones in the air went straight to voicemail. That's a pretty long list for a system that's been talked about for a couple years now -- let's hope OnAir manages to clear up some of these glitches before angry passengers revolt over not only having to listen to other people's conversations, but also their screaming over bad connections.

It's been two years since we first heard that Qantas was bringing in-flight email and SMS to its fleet, and after a lengthy testing period, it looks like it's finally happening. The last set of test flights wrapped up in January, and allowing people to check in on the status of their Nigerian money transfers and send R U HERE texts apparently didn't cause any major problems, so the airline is moving to bring the tech to all Boeing 767 and Airbus A330 flights in Australia. Voice service still isn't in the cards, but considering how long it's taking to get any of this tech off the ground in the States, we'll take what we can get.

[Thanks, Chris]

This seems sort of obvious, but in case it wasn't crystal clear, a report from some company called Freesky Research points out that travelers on US airlines -- where cellphone use is categorically banned -- suffer an in-flight productivity hit versus their counterparts in Europe and Asia who are flying airlines that now allow yapping and / or data services from the comfort and convenience of their seats. The firm really makes it seem like a desperate situation, too, saying that the FAA, FCC, and other powers that be are "allowing other countries to leap ahead with in-flight productivity, while facing mounting evidence that there is no safety benefit to passengers." Perhaps what they failed to consider, though, is the safety benefit of not getting slapped by your neighbor when you're mouthing off on the celly for a good 40 minutes straight.

[Via textually.org]

The dream of being able to annoy everyone around you at 30,000 feet inched ever closer to reality today, with EU regulators recommending that member states approve a plan to allow in-flight cell phone use. Although previous studies have shown cell radios may interfere with in-flight nav systems, the new plan involves mounting a satellite-linked "pico cell" in the passenger compartment, which will allow pilots and flight crew to selectively enable cell services like voice and SMS. Unfortunately, the system only supports 2G connections, but if its successful, officials say it can be upgraded to 3G. Rollout is dependent on both individual countries and airlines approving the tech, but hopefully we'll be chatting away soon.

[Via Switched]

The seemingly never-ending "will they or won't they" saga involving the FCC, the FAA, airlines, mobile carriers, and the extraordinarily annoying plane passenger sitting next to you has taken another unexpected turn this week. On the heels of a CTIA study suggesting that so-called "picocells" placed on planes to communicate with phones won't completely eliminate paralyzing interference with ground towers, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin suggesting that the feds should hold off on lifting the in-flight calling ban. Apparently, the big issue revolves around phones operating on bands that aren't supported by the installed picocell; in the absence of that local communication, the handset goes right back to mussin' and fussin' with the traditional towers several miles below -- potentially with disastrous effects to the network and other users, never mind the fact that no one's managed to conclusively prove that aircraft systems won't be affected. For what it's worth, the chairman's suggestion is just that -- a suggestion -- and doesn't prevent the agency's commissioners from approving the move anyway. While we're the first to agree that the thought of a couple hundred passengers yakking away in tight quarters is a starkly frightening one, we're not sure it's the FCC's place to be legislating away annoyances -- let the feds do their technical due diligence, we say. Word has it the picocells can be tweaked to fix the CTIA's concerns, and if that holds up, airlines will decide individually whether to let customers dial (or, at the very least, access data services) mid-flight. From there, we'll all be voting with our dollars.

[Via Techdirt]