Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Potential Disaster, 5G and Aircraft 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

TugboatEng

Marine/Ocean
Nov 1, 2015
11,388
US
Interesting, it looks like the FAA is concerned about 5g interfering with altimeters on many commerical aircraft.


The current restrictions would prevent the use of auto-land as well as landing in low visibility conditions.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

its a complete screw up with the USA refusing to follow international standards and wanting to do there own thing and now hitting the go away from the rest of us.
 
Time to close the skys; it'll improve the carbon footprint a bit.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
bollocks everything will keep flying anyway but will carry more fuel which will increase the CO2 burn and we are talking tons per flight
 
what is the purpose for the "need" for 5G on aircraft? entertainment?

what critical communication is needed by passengers to warrant 5g?

um, the return to sailing days is more appealing.
 
I don't think the problem is with 5G on the airplane. It's that the radio frequency used by 5G is too close to the frequency used by the ground detecting radar on board the airplane. As the plane gets closer to the ground the ground detecting radar will start to pick up the ground-based 5G signals.

Wait until the chemtrailers find out that airplanes have been blasting with 5G from the skies for decades.
 
It's not 5G onboard an aircraft that's the issue, it's 5G networks in the vicinity of an airport. And it's not altimeters exactly but rather radio-altimeters used in automated landing systems which can in impacted by the signals from 5G network cell-tower antennas.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
Back to pmover's question...what is the need for 5G? Just to make Chinese phone makers rich?
 
As far as I've been informed, my quality of life will not be improved by 5G. The utility of my next cell phone (the one I have now is already fantastic) may improve, but not in ways I can either observe nor measure.

All the other devices and systems that 5G will improve (cryptocurrency, self-driving cars, surveillance inside my refrigerator, etc.) are all things I choose to avoid.
 
For a minute the US government was working hard to keep the Chinese out of the 5g push. They claimed a security risk from Chinese hardware. It's unclear what the current government's position is. The FCC appears to be moving forward at full steam and is going to leave those affected (FAA) behind to figure out how to mitigate damages.
 
The Chinese were detected pushing a patch to equipment in Australia that was spying on communications.
 
From the BBC...

"Bosses from the world's two biggest plane makers have called on the US government to delay the rollout of new 5G phone services.

In a letter, top executives at Boeing and Airbus warned that the technology could have "an enormous negative impact on the aviation industry."

Concerns have previously been raised that C-Band spectrum 5G wireless could interfere with aircraft electronics.

US telecoms giants AT&T and Verizon are due to deploy 5G services on 5 January."


Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik
 
In the US aircraft are RF Immunity tested to RTCA/DO-160 Section 20. The category level used depends upon the manufacturer of the equipment and the customer. These tests only go to 18 GHz maximum frequency.

Most of 5G makes use of existing WiFi and 3G, 4G cellular bands below 6 GHz. But 5G includes a new "high-band" of 24 to 60 GHz (exact bands depend upon the country). Aircraft have not been tested for RF immunity at these frequencies before.
 
travel is still possible.

Its only when the viability goes below 550 meters and cloud base less than 200ft that issues occur.

Apart from that its mainly a flight planning issue with alternates. Which can be cured with extra fuel.

The first issue is also cured by fuel and diverting somewhere else.
 
Every time you think air travel could not possibly be made more unpleasant, they find a way :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Despite flying more than five million miles for work, my opinion was always that "If flying wasn't fast, it would have NO redeeming qualities whatsoever."

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
Some airports you won't notice.

San Francisco you definitely will. Fog seasons will be difficult.
 
SEATAC, I thought, was worse. Once we had to land in Boeing Field, and once we had to land in Yakima. The latter was most memorable because this tiny airport suddenly had around a half dozen jetliners, all needing refuels to make it back to SEATAC, but the local fuel supplier was used to cash on the barrelhead, or at least, a credit card swipe, but had to settle for promises from AA's headquarters that he would be paid in full.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top