IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, EENG 386, Dr.

Stephanie Claussen
10

Page 1 of

Electromagnetics

Electromagnetic Interference Associated with Cellular Phone Usage on a

Commercial Aircraft
Taylor J. Ray1
1

Electrical Engineering Department, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA

AbstractElectromagnetic interference (EMI) from personal electronic devices (PED) on commercial aircraft is a
reoccurring issue. Ever since compact radio receivers were found to have the capability to disrupt VHF omnidirectional
range (VOR) and other onboard avionic systems in the 1960s, limitations on the use of PEDs on commercial flights
have been enforced. With the ever increasing demand for information and communication, the question as to whether
use of cellular phones and other PEDs by consumers on commercial aircraft has reemerged. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) currently allows airline operators to authorize the use of PEDs on aircraft given the operator has
determined they will not interfere with navigation or communication systems on the aircraft. Nonetheless, the use of
PEDs is prohibited on most airlines during takeoff and landing and the use of cell phones with a transmitting signal is
banned completely. This report will mathematically analyze the electromagnetic interference of cellular signals with
aircraft navigation systems and further discuss the implications of using cellular devices on commercial aircraft.
Index TermsElectromagnetics, Antennas, Avionic Navigation, Cellular Phones, Radio Interference

I.

INTRODUCTION

The demand for communication and instantaneous

information has increased dramatically over the past 10 years.
Thus, the quantity of wireless communication and electronic
devices, such as cell phones, has increased exponentially.
One area that has remained free of cell phone usage is
commercial airline flights. Despite pressure and resistance
from passengers, airline operators do not allow any cell phone
transmission between takeoff and landing and limit the use of
all PEDs during critical flight sequences.
The ban of cell phone transmission is questioned by
many consumers due to the average persons reliance on
technology in their daily lives. The ban on cell phones during
flight is left in the hands of airline operators by the FAA. It is
stated that airline operators may permit the use of any PEDs,
permitting they assure the devices will not conflict with
navigation and communication systems [Ely 2005]. Rather
than conducting research to confidently lift the ban on cell
phones and other PEDs, most airline operators have opted to
save time and money by just leaving the ban unchanged.
Investigation as to whether cellular devices have the
potential to interfere with avionic systems, specifically the
VOR navigation system, are conducted here to determine the
validity of the continued ban of PEDs by commercial airline
operators. Other information concerning the use of cell
phones at high altitudes will be included to supplement the
results of the study.
Corresponding author: Taylor J. Ray (taray@mines.edu).

Early investigation into EMI with avionic systems

indicated that it be advantageous to shield systems from
external and unavoidable interference, such as lightning
strikes and high intensity radiated fields from radar and
broadcast transmitters. Due to numerous incidents from such
interference, the FAA has placed strict regulation on lightning
protection in aircraft design. This includes substantial
shielding on key electronic systems to avoid any potential
damage from high intensity electromagnetic fields. Because of
this, the likelihood that a radiated electromagnetic field from
something as low power as a cell phone is infinitesimally
small. However, these EMI shielding precautions are unable to
account for radio interference, which is the primary concern of
the FAA and Federal Communications Committee (FCC).
The aircrafts communication and navigation systems are
particularly susceptible to interference from transmitting PED,
such as cell phones, because they are not shielded from
external sources. Aircraft antennas are design to transmit and
receive over long distances, which makes them sensitive to
interfering signals.

II.

METHODS

Determining the electromagnetic interference of cellular

devices with avionic systems required investigation into
radiated electromagnetic interference. Conducted EMI, which
is caused by direct contact between the two conductors in
question, is unlikely when considering the use of PEDs on an
airplane because they operate off battery power and are
contained in the cabin of the vessel. Therefore, radiated EMI
is investigated in depth.
As discussed previously, the systems most susceptible to

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 2 of 10

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

There are no other signals besides the VOR ground

signal and the cell phone signal being transmitted.
The planes shielding and the body of the aircraft do not
affect or mitigate either signal.
The plane is flying at 10 km above the VOR and the cell
phone in question is onboard the plane at 10 m away.
The VOR signal is transmitting at 1000 W and 110 MHz
The typical frequency band for VOR is 108-137 MHz An
arbitrary frequency was chosen
The typical cell phone is transmitting at 200 mW and the
maximum cell phone is transmitting at 2 W.
The onboard antenna is tuned to aircraft frequencies.
Namely, the length of the antenna is around half the
wavelength of the VOR signal.
All antennas are omnidirectional and receive and transmit
signals equally in all directions. This is a fair assumption
because VOR is actually made up of an array of
hundreds of antennas to cover all points in the sky. Also,
it is impossible to generalize the direction that the cell
phone and VOR signal are coming from because the
planes position is dynamic
The polarization of all RF signals are the same.

With these simplifying assumptions being made, it is

possible to calculate the power of each of the transmitted
signals at the airborne receiving antenna using (1) [Ulaby
2010].

S rec =

GPtrans
4d

(1)
G is the gain of the transmitting antenna and d is the distance
of the signal from the source. The magnitude of the electric
and magnetic field were calculated by using (2) [Ulaby 2010].
1

E0=( S rec377 ) 2

H 0=

S rec
377

( )

1
2

(2)
To reconstruct the sinusoidal pattern of the electric and
magnetic fields, each magnitude and frequency were entered
into (3).

X ( t )=X 0 cos ( 2 F )
(3)
F is the frequency of the signal and Xo is the magnitude
of the signal calculated in (2). For the calculations in this
report, the electric field will be used. The magnetic field is just
a scaling of the electric field, so it is unnecessary to show both
fields. Keep in mind that the magnitude of the magnetic field is
1/377 times the electric field.
Figure 1 shows the constructed signals from the electric
field of the typical cell phone and the VOR ground signal at
the aircrafts antenna. The interaction of the two signals is
shown in magenta.

Sinusoidal Construction of Electric Fields

VOR Electric field

Combined Electric Field
Cell Phone Electric Field

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
|E| [V/m]

interference from transmitting PEDs are the communications

devices. One of the systems of much concern is the VOR
navigation system because of the vital importance of its
proper operation during approach for landing. The ground
antennas for the VOR system are omnidirectional, which
means they have less gain and transmitted power than other
directional antennas that are used for aircraft communication
and navigation. Therefore, the VOR system will be tested with
cell phone EMI to verify its proper operation if PEDs were
allowed on commercial flights.
A key component in determining the EMI from a cell
phone is the antennas used for the ground and airborne
communication. RF interference will only be measured at the
aircraft because cell phones typically transmit at around 200
mW of power and would be almost negligible at ground towers
10 km below the plane. To measure the interference at the
plane, the following assumptions were made:

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

500

1000
1500
2000
Time [microseconds]

2500

Fig. 1: Electric Field of signals in question

Figure 1 clearly depicts the interference caused by the

cell phone signal, despite it having a much lower magnitude
than the VOR. Even more surprising is that the interference is
only from one cell phone. If multiple cell phones were on
during the flight, the disturbance would be even worse.
Fortunately, antennas work as somewhat of a bandpass filter,
allowing mostly frequencies near an integer multiple of the
wavelength. One of the most common design specifications
for a bipolar antenna is to use a length that is equal to half the
wavelength of the signal it is trying to receive. For an antenna
receiving signal in the avionics band, 108 to 137 MHz, the
antenna will be designed to be around 2.45 meters in length.
The frequency response of the signal can be approximated
using (4.1).

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 3 of 10

S ( )=

15 I 20
R2

[(

l
l
cos
cos ( ) cos
/sin ( )

) ( ))

Comparison of Signal after Filtering by Antenna

Original Signal from VOR

Reconstructed Signal

0.8
0.6

[(

0.5 1
Rsignal ( 1)= cos
VOR

))]

(4.2)
Using (4.2) and the wavelength of the VOR signal and the
cell phone signal, it was found that the frequency response in
the VOR range at 110 MHz was approximately 1.0, and the
frequency response in the cell phone range at 800 MHz was
approximately 0.1726. Using these values, an approximate
bandpass filter was constructed to mimic the antennas
frequency response to the ranges in question. Figure 4 in the
appendix shows the bandpass filter of the antenna.
Now that the frequency response of the bandpass filter
has been found, it is possible to take the convolution of the
approximate bandpass filter and the frequency response of
the interaction of the two signals. The frequency response
was found by taking a Fourier transform of the signal and can
be seen in Figure 3 in the appendix. The multiplication of the
bandpass filter and the frequency response of the combined
signals will give us the frequency response of the signal
received by the antenna. The convolution of two signals in the
frequency domain is just the multiplication of the signals.
To obtain the received signal from the antenna in the time
domain, the inverse Fourier transform of the filtered signals
frequency response is taken with the same sampling rate.

III.

RESULTS

The result of the convolution of the bandpass filter and

the electric field in the frequency domain is shown in Figure 5.
Note that some of the magnitude of the higher frequency
signal has been filtered out due to the physical characteristics
of the antenna described earlier.
The last step is to find the inverse Fourier transform of the
signal received by the antenna to go from the frequency to
time domain. It is important to keep the sampling frequency
the same between the two transforms as to not distort the
signal. Figure 6 shows the reconstructed signal compared to
the original VOR signal that was transmitted at the ground.

0.4

|E| [V/m]

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

500

1000
1500
2000
Time [microseconds]

2500

Fig. 6: Comparison of the original signal sent from the VOR ground
station to the signal received by the antenna with one typical power
cell phone interfering

It is clear that one cell phone running at typical power has

negligible interference with the VOR navigation system.
However, that is only one, very small case. To account for the
worst case scenario, analysis was conducted with the
situation where everyones cell phone on a plane is operating
at maximum power. A Boeing 737, which is the most produced
commercial aircraft, can carry up to 215 passengers. Figure 6
shows the interference at the aircrafts antenna with 215
maximum power cell phones in operation simultaneously.
Note that this will only happen when all of their signals
constructively interfere. In other words, none of the signals
have any phase offset. Keep in mind, that the scenario shown
in Figure 7 is a combination of all worst case scenario
situations to see if any interference at the antenna is possible.
Comparison of Signal after Filtering by Antenna

Original Signal from VOR

Reconstructed Signal

6
4
2
|E| [V/m]

(4.1)
Equation (4.2) is simplified by taking the ratio of the power
density, S, of the two input signals that are interfering with
each other and plugging in and the length of the antenna
[Ulaby 2010]. Theta is assumed to be /2 radians for both
cases to maximize the power from each signal. This
assumption derives from the fact that the antennas are
omnidirectional. Since the antenna is designed to be half the
wavelength of one of the signals, the equation for the ratio of
the power density detected by the antenna can be simplified
to (4.2).

0
-2
-4
-6
-8

500

1000
1500
2000
Time [microseconds]

2500

Fig. 7: Comparison of the original signal sent from the VOR ground
station to the signal received by the antenna with 215 maximum
power cell phones interfering. This is an example of the worst case
scenario of EMI from onboard cell phones and is only a measurement
of the signal received by the antenna.

Figure 7 would be a cause for concern without modern

electronic technology. Fortunately, with advancements in
modern signal processing and circuitry, the antenna is not the

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 4 of 10

only filter acting on the received signal. Since all avionic

communication is allocated to the frequencies between 108
and 137 MHz, post processing bandpass filters can be used to
filter out the rest of the noise from the interacting signals.
Even if the worst possible case were to happen, the majority
of the signal will be filtered because the frequency of the cell
phone (800 MHz) much greater than the frequency of the
avionic communication. Figure 8 in the appendix shows the
same signal received by the antenna as is in Figure 7, but with
the post processing filter applied. Notice that the noise from
the cell phones is completely mitigated. From Figure 8, it is
clear that the technology is in place to avoid most
electromagnetic interference that could arise from the use of
cell phones on aircraft.

A. Discussion
One issue that remains is the current standard for cell
phone towers around the world. Cell phone towers on the
ground are currently set up in a hexagonal grid of cells, where
nonadjacent cells often share the same frequencies [Keith
2004]. Figure 9 shows an example of two grids that may
possibly have the same frequencies.
This is not a problem when cell phones are on the ground
because, by line of sight, the signals cannot reach the other
tower. However, when a plane flies over these towers, a cell
phone may be able to connect to multiple towers at once,
which causes a crowding of the cell towers. Typical grids cells,
which measure around 26 square kilometers, carry around
800 separate frequencies. When a cell phone connects to a
tower, it uses two frequencies, which lowers that number to
around 400 channels per tower. Signal crowding could occur if
all 215 passengers on a flight were to connect to multiple
towers over a large cities.

aircraft signals.
Another consideration is the response of airline
passengers to the potential use of cell phones on an aircraft.
In a survey conducted in 2013 by Quinnipiac University in
Hamden, Connecticut, American voters opted to remain
without their cell phones while in flight by a 59-30 percent
margin. Even voters ages 18 to 29 voted against the usage of
phones with a 52-39 percent margin [Smith 2013].
It is possible that Americans value the silence of
electronic devices in such an enclosed space and would
rather forfeit their right to use their cell phone than have to
listen to their neighbors conversation.

IV.

V.

Fig. 9: Hexagonal grid pattern typical of cell phone towers. The two
orange blocks contain the same frequencies for cell phone
connections

One proposed way of fixing the possible crowding issue is

to equip commercial aircraft with their own miniature base
station, or picocell, which would relay cell phone signals to a
satellite or cell tower on the ground that is set up to handle

CONCLUSION

It is apparent that the likelihood of EMI from cellular

phones with aircraft navigation and electronic systems is
unlikely, especially with modern signal processing techniques.
Future research could be done to investigate EMI with other
navigation and communication systems. Additionally,
investigating the EMI from other PEDs, such as laptops, would
be advantageous to the study. Further investigation into the
effects of airborne cellular activity on cellular towers would
also be of interest.
With the response of voters to allowing the use of cell
phones on commercial flights and the possible issues with
current cellular phone grids and the lack of conclusive
evidence across all areas of EMI with other aircraft navigation
and communication systems, leads to the conclusion that
more research and information should be collected before
proceeding with the lifting of the ban.
One consideration should be to make the reasons for the
ban apparent to the general consumer to assure them that the
use of their cell phone, though not catastrophic, is not
recommended due to issues that could arise from its use in
the air. Educating the consumer would be the best way to
prevent backlash and naysayers.

REFERENCES

F.T. Ulaby, E. Michielssen, U. Ravaioli, Fundamentals of Applied

Electromagnetics, 6th Edition New Jersey; Prentice Hall, 2010.
J.J. Ely, Electromagnetic Interference to Flight Navigation and
Communication Systems: New Strategies in the Age of Wireless,
Hampton,
Virginia:
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration, 2005.
P. Smith, Keep Cell Phones Off Planes, American Voters Say 2-1,
Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More People Spending
Less On Holiday Gifts. [Online Article] Dec. 2013, [2014 Apr 16],
Available at HTTP:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us12112013_anr2s9.
pdf
R.D. Keith, How cell phones work, [Online Webpage] 2004, [2014
Apr 16], Available at HTTP:
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall04/keith/Works.htm

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 5 of 10

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 6 of 10

VI.

APPENDIX
4

A. Figures

x 10

Frequency Response of the Signal Recieved by Antenna

8
7

E(w) of added signals

x 10

6
|E(w)|

|E(w)|

5
4

1
0
-0.015

-0.01

-0.01

-0.005

0
Frequency

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.005

0.01

0.015

Original Signal from VOR

Reconstructed Signal

0.4
0.2

Antenna Bandpass Filter

|E| [V/m]

Comparison of Signal after Filtering by Antenna

0.6

Fig. 3: Frequency response of the interaction of the cell phone and

VOR ground signal

0.9
0.8
0.7
Magnitude

0
Frequency

Fig. 5: Frequency response of signal received by the antenna after

convolution of the interacted signal and the antenna bandpass filter

1
0
-0.015

-0.005

0
-0.2
-0.4

0.6

-0.6

0.5
0.4

-0.8

0.3
0.2

500

1000
1500
2000
Time [microseconds]

2500

Fig. 8: Worst case scenario signal interference with post processing

bandpass filter.

0.1
0
-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0
0.005
Frequency [MHz]

Fig. 4: Approximate Bandpass Filter

0.01

0.015

IEEE MAGNETICS LETTERS, Dr. Stephanie Claussen

Page 7 of 10

B. MATLAB Code

close all
%% Finding signal magnitudes
% Maximum Cell phone signal
Fc = 800;
G_c = -3;
typical cell phone
G_c2 = 10^(G_c/10);
d_c = 10;
Pt_c = 2;
S_c0 = G_c2*Pt_c/4/pi/d_c^2;
density at distance.
E_c0max = sqrt(S_c0*377);
source
H_c0max = sqrt(S_c0/377);
source
% Normal use cell phone signal
G_ctyp = -3;
typical cell phone
G_ctyp2 = 10^(G_ctyp/10);
d_ctyp = 10;
Pt_ctyp = 0.2;
S_ctyp0 = G_ctyp2*Pt_ctyp/4/pi/d_ctyp^2;
E_ctyp0 = sqrt(S_ctyp0*377);
H_ctyp0 = sqrt(S_ctyp0/377);

%in MHz
%in dB. Maximum gain of
%convert from dB to standard
%in m. Distance from antenna
%in W. power transmitted
%in W/m^2. Equals power
%in V/m at distance d from
%in A/m at distance d from

%in dB. Maximum gain of

% Ground communication signals to plane

%VOR: One of the more important navigation systems on an aircraft that
%relies on a radio signal from ground stations.
Fvor = 110;
%in MHz
G_vor = 45;
%in dB. Maximum gain of VOR
antenna array.
G_vor2 = 10^(G_vor/10);
%convert from dB to standard
d_vor = 10000;
%distance from antenna in m
(assumed to be 10km)
Pt_vor = 1000;
%in Watts
S_vor0 = G_vor2*Pt_vor/4/pi/d_vor^2;
%in W/m^2
E_vor0 = sqrt(S_vor0*377);
%in V/m
H_vor0 = sqrt(S_vor0/377);
%in A/m
% Recieving antenna: Tuned to aviation frequency band (108-137 MHz)
c = 3*10^8;
%speed of light in m/s
WL_vor = c/Fvor;
%VOR wavelength
WL_cell = c/Fc;
%cell phone wavelength
l = WL_vor/2;
%wavelength of recieving
antenna
ratio = (-cos(pi*l/WL_cell))^2;
%ratio of cell phone frequency
recieved
%% Create Analog Signals
E_cellt = @(t) cos(Fc*t*2*pi).*E_ctyp0;
E_cellmax = @(t) cos(t*Fc*2*pi).*E_c0max;
E_vor = @(t) cos(t*Fvor*2*pi).*E_c0max;

%% Sampling Analog Signals

Fs = 200*max(Fc,Fvor);
ww = [-1:1/Fs:1];
x = linspace(0,18181, 2000);
E_celltt = E_cellt(ww);
E_cellmaxt = E_cellmax(ww);
E_vort = E_vor(ww);
E_combination = E_celltt + E_vort;
hold;
plot(E_vort, 'b');
plot(E_combination, 'm', 'LineWidth', 2);
plot(E_celltt, 'r');
ylim([-1 1]);
xlim([0 2893.73]);
legend('VOR Electric field', 'Combined Electric Field', 'Cell Phone
Electric Field');
title('Sinusoidal Construction of Electric Fields');
xlabel('Time [microseconds]');
ylabel('|E| [V/m]');
hold;
Es_cellt = fftshift(fft(ifftshift(E_celltt)));
%typical cell phone
discrete signal
Es_cellmax = fftshift(fft(ifftshift(E_cellmaxt)));
%maximum cell phone
discrete signal
Es_vor = fftshift(fft(ifftshift(E_vort)));
%typical vor dicrete
signal
Es_combination = fftshift(fft(ifftshift(E_combination)));
figure;
plot(ww,abs(Es_combination), 'LineWidth',3);
xlim([-.015,.015]);
grid on;
title('E(w) of added signals');
xlabel('Frequency'); ylabel('|E(w)|');
%% Create bandpass filter
Fmax1 = 2*Fvor/Fs;
Fmax2 = 2*Fc/Fs;
bandwidth1 = .2*Fmax1;
bandwidth2 = .2*Fmax2;
fcL1 = Fmax1-bandwidth1/2;
fcH1 = Fmax1+bandwidth1/2;
fcL2 = Fmax2-bandwidth2/2;
fcH2 = Fmax2+bandwidth2/2;
BPF1 = @(w) ( ((w<=fcH1) & (w >= fcL1)) | ((w<= -fcL1) & (w>= -fcH1)) );
BPF2 = @(w) ( ((w<=fcH2) & (w >= fcL2)) | ((w<= -fcL2) & (w>= -fcH2)) );
BPF = BPF1(ww)+S_ratio*BPF2(ww);
figure;
plot(ww,BPF);
xlim ([-0.015,0.015]);
xlabel('Frequency [MHz]');
ylabel('Magnitude');
title('Antenna Bandpass Filter');

Filtered = Es_combination.*BPF;
figure;
plot(ww,abs(Filtered),'LineWidth', 3);
xlim([-0.015 0.015]);
grid on;
title('Frequency Response of the Signal Recieved by Antenna')
xlabel('Frequency'); ylabel('|E(w)|');
%% Reconstruct signal recieved by antenna
Y = fftshift(ifft(ifftshift(Filtered)));

figure;
hold;
plot(E_vort,'c','LineWidth', 3);
plot(Y,'r','LineWidth',2);
%ylim([-1 1]);
xlim([0 2893.73]);
title('Comparison of Signal after Filtering by Antenna');
legend('Original Signal from VOR','Reconstructed Signal');
xlabel('Time [microseconds]');
ylabel('|E| [V/m]');
grid on;
hold;