3 ms·

For what it's worth, flying small aircraft at 5k feet AGL I've found cell reception to be amazingly spotty, even over relatively urban areas. I'm not sure that

For what it's worth, flying small aircraft at 5k feet AGL I've found cell reception to be amazingly spotty, even over relatively urban areas. I'm not sure that passengers asking for cell phone use on commercial flights are going to be happy with the result. I'm not sure what the big driver here - being in a metal-skinned aircraft doesn't help of course, but I also get the impression that even a Skyhawk moves fast enough that tower registration becomes iffy. There's a lot of my phone and iPad showing service appearing/disappearing at random. Sometimes I'll call the ATIS on my phone to get it before I round a mountain and it often takes multiple tries to get that call to connect, and then of course sometimes it drops right before I get the altimeter setting or something else I cared about.

sandworm101 5y ago
Cellphone service at light aircraft altitudes has gotten progressive worse over the last decades. It is because of the increased number / decreased size of cells. To prevent cross-talk between antennas, cells are more tightly focused. Less of the antennas point up enough for aircraft. If you do get reception it is probably from a more distant tower, one far enough away that you are low enough for its antennas to be pointing at you.
stygiansonic 5y ago
I heard from a cell service technician that most cell towers antennas are not really designed to radiate upwards. This kind of makes sense when you think about it, radiating up would be wasted energy. This was in the context of asking why service/signal was so bad on top of a hill. I was thinking it would have been better because of clear LoS but that only makes sense if you assume an onmidirectional pattern.
- stygiansonic 5y ago
  More info here: “It has a flat fan-shaped radiation pattern, which is tilted slightly down to cover the cell area without radiating at higher angles into further off cells which reuse the same frequencies. The elevation angle of the antenna must be carefully adjusted, so the beam covers the entire cell without radiating too far.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site Also some antenna radiation patterns here, not sure how accurate: https://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/radiation-pattern-of-a-cell-tower-antenna-7938434 https://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/radiation-pattern-of-...

sandworm101 5y ago

Cellphone service at light aircraft altitudes has gotten progressive worse over the last decades. It is because of the increased number / decreased size of cells. To prevent cross-talk between antennas, cells are more tightly focused. Less of the antennas point up enough for aircraft. If you do get reception it is probably from a more distant tower, one far enough away that you are low enough for its antennas to be pointing at you.

stygiansonic 5y ago

I heard from a cell service technician that most cell towers antennas are not really designed to radiate upwards. This kind of makes sense when you think about it, radiating up would be wasted energy. This was in the context of asking why service/signal was so bad on top of a hill. I was thinking it would have been better because of clear LoS but that only makes sense if you assume an onmidirectional pattern.

stygiansonic 5y ago
More info here: “It has a flat fan-shaped radiation pattern, which is tilted slightly down to cover the cell area without radiating at higher angles into further off cells which reuse the same frequencies. The elevation angle of the antenna must be carefully adjusted, so the beam covers the entire cell without radiating too far.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site Also some antenna radiation patterns here, not sure how accurate: https://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/radiation-pattern-of-a-cell-tower-antenna-7938434 https://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/radiation-pattern-of-...