[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2006
25-908 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Columbia
SUE W. KELLY, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
TED POE, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New BOB FILNER, California
York, Vice-Chair JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia (Ex Officio)
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Friend, Patricia A., International President, Association of
Flight Attendants-CWA, 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
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.
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 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 ground-based 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 e-mail
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.
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 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 fly-by-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
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.
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-the-ground 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.
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.
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
in-flight 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.
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 Air-Ground 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.
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
high-tech age in which we now live is offering and will
continue to offer 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 in-flight 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.
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 air-to-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 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 attendant 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.
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 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 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 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 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 fly-by-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.
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 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?
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 original-type 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 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.
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 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, AFL-CIO; 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.
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 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 in-flight 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.
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 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 in-flight
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.
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 CDMA-
enabled 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?
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 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 MD-
80 aircraft. And I guess that was up to 15 calls were
simultaneously handled. What is the effect when you have
hundreds of 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.
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.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5908.075