Be glad you have at least one "stone age" bike in your stable.

I don't know the USA conditions.
But here it could have disastrous consequences .. Talk back to a man in Mr Dickinsons position.
He has a military Background
And even without that .One has to remember who is in charge.
I have been involved in certification procedures in mechanical and Process equipment.
The cooperation is fine and smiles ..everybody happy But if you get it wrong. Letting it slide. .And forget whose approval you need.
The hammer can come down hard.
I have heard of companies driven into closure .. By a Fascist Inspector forcing to take down pipe installations and redo it.
I very much doubt that blaming FAA is the right coping strategy.

Just do as the man says and keep quiet would be the rule.

AT&T and Verizon had previously planned to make their respective 5G services available in the US last December, but delayed launching their services while discussions with the FAA remained ongoing.

Is FAA likely to speed up ?? Are FAA likely to change their mind because of Protests from Companies ??
Perhaps it is more objective and reasonable ..in USA but I would not believe that. As a first assumption.
 
A moment to note how a change in FAA culture from a forensic based approach (Investigate accidents, make sure the causes are understood and eliminate them from the system) to a proactive system (Nothing changes til real world testing proves the change is safe). Has allowed the industry to achieve the unprecedented safety level we have become used to.
 
A moment to note how a change in FAA culture from a forensic based approach (Investigate accidents, make sure the causes are understood and eliminate them from the system) to a proactive system (Nothing changes til real world testing proves the change is safe). Has allowed the industry to achieve the unprecedented safety level we have become used to.
Are you referring in particular to the last two or three years?
 
Um can we leave the 737 max out of this?
Nope... and I see this more as the FAA overcompensating for that debacle more than anything else. 40 countries and counting are using 5g now and there's not a single instance of a rad alt getting confused.
From the FAA's letter to telecom:

"To the extent Licensees are requested to take additional voluntary surgical mitigation measures at any individual airport, Licensees shall have sole discretion to determine if any requested mitigations, adjustments or alterations will be made."

In other words, the FAA just caved. Aviation will give a list of not more than 50 airports (random number picked out of a hat?!?) to telecom for further scrutiny and evaluation. More:

"During the Commitment Period, Licensees will continue to work in good faith with aviation stakeholders to support the technical assessment of individual altimeters and airport environments and support the filing of AMOCs for both altimeter equipment and airport locations."

I read "technical assessment" as go ahead and roll your your 5g and let's see what happens.
Without any solid evidence of 5g interference... just conjecture, the FAA didn't have a leg to stand on. That telecom gave 'em another 2 weeks delay in rollout looks to me more like letting the FAA save a little face.... and I'd guess that's pretty sorely needed after the 737 MAX debacle.
 
Last edited:
It's not simple and way beyond my pay grade; 5G ( which stands for 5th generation and NOT for any specific frequency) uses many different frequencies 'round the world. A primer? https://www.rfpage.com/what-are-5g-frequency-bands/

The FAA and aviation groups say that other nations have imposed the kinds of protections that they are seeking or that the frequencies used in those countries have been located farther away from those assigned to aircraft equipment.


Shane, speaking before the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board, said flight disruptions were “guaranteed” and predicted “a chaotic impact” on aviation.

If the altimeters are considered unreliable by the FAA, federal regulations would ban many emergency air-ambulance flights, the Helicopter Association International said in a filing in the Federal Register.

Medical helicopters transport 40 000 to 50 000 people a year from roadside crashes and other sites where the altimeters are required, the group said. Those may no longer be permitted in the dozens of major cities where At&T and Verizon are introducing 5G, the group said.

Similarly, with 5G set to begin in greater Houston and New Orleans, helicopter operations that service oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from those regions could also face new restrictions, the group said. — Alan Levin and Todd Shields, (c) 2021 Bloomberg LP

5G is a big tent, much "5G " isn't really 5G.
Guess we'll know more about how this pans out shortly.
Honestly not sure that additional high power RF "everywhere" is all a good thing.
 
Not sure about USA
But is not the S*it in the fan already ....
There are protests from FAA ..which can be considered a competent "Player "
said flight disruptions were “guaranteed” and predicted “a chaotic impact” on aviation.
say that other nations have imposed the kinds of protections


Should an airliner go down 200 + people with a flight recorder data looking " weird "

Criminal negligence typically refers to conduct that leads to the risk of serious bodily injury or death to another individual.
 
There is an aviation board that investigates all crashes and determines the cause of it. If anything was 'weird' they would find the cause of it. Then suit would be filed accordingly.
'TT'
 
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
They also look at shipwreck disasters. I read their page on major losses that make the news, such as El Faro. I don't remember for sure whether they cover the NASA launches and the Apollo disasters, but I have read their reports also. They are highly qualified.
'TT'
 
I'll try and lay this out logically.... the facts anyway. The politics of it... not so much.

The concern aviation (FAA, RTCA, ALPA... etc) has is specific to Radar Altimeters (rad alt) and not to any other aircraft specific systems.
Rad alt's are used to measure height AGL (above ground level). More specifically, they're used during approaches in bad weather to let a pilot know when he's reached his "decision height".... the point at which he either continues visually if he see's the runway or executes a "missed approach" if he's still in the weather.

On CAT3 and 3A certified aircraft, the rad alt is used all the way down to the flare for landing... so yes, they are critical... and any approach requires there be 2 operable rad alts. One won't cut it. By regulation there has to be 2 so they can be compared to each other. Any disagreement between the 2 is grounds for a missed approach.

Rad alts operate in the "C" band of frequencies. More specifically, they are assigned 4.2 to 4.4Ghz in the C band
The FCC allocated and then sold off frequencies to wireless (ATT, Verison... etc) that butt up against that freq. range. Specifically, they gave 3.7 to 4.2Ghz to wireless for 5g use. Before anyone goes batshit here... wireless...5g is only using up to 3.98Ghz. They are not butting up against rad alts 4.2Ghz lower range.

So you can see, the FCC (and wireless) built in a buffer zone of just over .2Ghz between 5g and rad alts. That buffer should be plenty... and I'll note there's other systems world wide coexisting with a much smaller buffer.... including 5g in various other parts of the world. 5g in Japan, for instance, operates all the way up to 4.1Ghz and has been for almost 2 yrs now. So... less than half the buffer the FCC/wireless used.... with no reported cases of rad alt interference.
As to the politics of all this... I haven't a fuckin' clue. It's a real head scratcher.

I have found this little tidbit where wireless (specifically CTIA) argues that aviation used unrealistic scenarios to make their interference claims.... including the the testing of 40yr old rad alts.... which nobody uses anymore....

"CTIA disputed the methodology of the RTCA report, including non-identification of radar altimeter models tested by Texas A&M University’s Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (AVSI), the researchers’ choice of least-likely aircraft landing scenarios, unwarranted margins for RF interference–tolerance thresholds, and inclusion of radar altimeter models that have not been certified for 40 years, are outdated, and possibly are out of service in current aircraft fleets." Link.

So, will airplanes suddenly start falling from the sky? Not bloody likely. Will these lobyist groups... with tons of money on the line try and disrupt airline travel to make their point ? Stay tuned.
 
Perfectly good explanation for me, @Jim, but I wonder about the ASDIC systems for submersibles. Penetrating sonar equipment will be upgraded, and those men will be using a frequency on board that could be similar to the passengers on the plane. Or does this fear only correspond to grounded phenomenon?
 
Perfectly good explanation for me, @Jim, but I wonder about the ASDIC systems for submersibles. Penetrating sonar equipment will be upgraded, and those men will be using a frequency on board that could be similar to the passengers on the plane. Or does this fear only correspond to grounded phenomenon?
Not sure I understand your question.
C band emissions won't penetrate water, which is why rad alt's still work over water.
I don't know anything about ASDIC.
 
Not sure I understand your question.
Probably my misunderstanding. I was comparing the frequencies used by this system for ground approach, thinking the device frequencies were also on mobile packaging for surface travelers. Hence the interference could be possible if mobile communication on ground bled into the radar above or pinged sporadically due to false signals. I figured then that if mobile devices were permitted with passengers on a plane that carried this same frequency it would not bleed through the fuselage, or would it? I then reckoned on sonar equipment being used in the Navy and thought about the occupants there submersed and whether the similar mobile frequency devices would throw false signals through the hull. There have been a few instances where a sub ran into a rock or surfaced into another vessel. My understanding was limited to the extra frequencies, how they were carried, and thought that ungrounded signals whether above in the air or below in the sea would have a deleterious effect on false signals. About as clear as I can get, and probably would not understand the explanation if it was given. :umm: Carry on, I withdraw the question.
'TT'
 
Back
Top