Potential Disaster, 5G and Aircraft 6

[TugboatEng]

Interesting, it looks like the FAA is concerned about 5g interfering with altimeters on many commerical aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-5g

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

We've flown in and out of Yakima a few times. My wife's mother used to live just South of Yakima and we flew up there a couple of times to celebrate birthdays and such.

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I don't know but all these marine airports can be hit. The ones in mountains can do as well with adiabatic fog. And it can last days.

I don't have the North America plates pack on the jepps so can't look at the charts.

It all comes under low visibility procedures and there are something like 27 items have to have a tick in the box before you can do a low viz approach.

The amount of additional hardware and surveys that airports need is colossally expensive. Lighting is upgraded. Full surveys in the approach sector, Backup generators, airport layout, automatic system monitoring. As pilots we don't know what they actually need. We just have to hear low viz procedures in force cleared CAT II or III approach from ATC and they tick all those boxes.

The aircraft has a status recorded in the tech log with the engineers ticking all those boxes. They sometimes downgrade aircraft and there is a requirement that we do a few simulated LVP approachesand record it and then the aircraft is released. its is a significant increase in maint costs to keep the aircraft current and approved. Don't know how it changes just know its a lot of cash.

Then the crew needs to be current and qualified. Which is 5 approaches with various failure and then a manual landing every 6 months and the in the next 6 months we have to do a couple real or simulated ones in the aircraft. From the pilots side they are not that technically difficult.

And the last thing is the company needs to be approved to conduct them.

This is hitting the airport side of things. I am sure some airports with approaches over water will be able to do a risk assessment and then do a month of simulated data gathering and then get the approval back.

Some airports can never get it because of terrain issues issues in the approach sector.

I rarely do them for real. Maybe done 2 real ones in the last 800 hours flown. Some pilots though that have a home base at a fog magnet airport it will be daily in spring and autumn.

The huge affect it will have is on alternative planning. We have to go 1 level up from the best approach available. So if the best approach is Cat IIIa which is 50ft cloud base and 175meter horizontal viz we just need CAT II mins at alternates which is 125 ft cloud base and 350 meters viz.

Cat 1 is 200ft and 550 meters and if that's all that the airport is qualified you then have to go up to RNP approach or god forbid a VOR or NDB approach which RNP is very dependant on local rules but usually starts about 700m viz and 250ft cloud base.

There is also a limit to have far away your alternate can be but thats getting into ETOPs rules which I am not qualified for so our alternate is always within 1 hour flying time of destination. It shouldn't be a factor in the USA as you have a similar concentration of airports as Europe if not more.

So it causes airlines to have to load more fuel which increases weight which increases fuel burn and decreases traffic load available. And for a 30 single isle aircraft jet fleet the savings in fuel can be 10's of millions a year. Long haul it can be 100's of millions.

Some company's even though the aircraft is certified don't get approval because the maint and training costs make it uneconomic.

The pax will end up having to pay for it in increased ticket prices and getting caught up in diversions more often.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Found the FAA for you to have a look.

https://nfdc.faa.gov/nfdcApps/services/ajv5/airportDisplay.jsp?airportId=sea

But similar to Europe they don't release the LVP data to everyone only to approved operators. And to get it you have to have a contract with a chart provider such as Jepps.

I did think about posting a example of one of my plates but there might be issues with copyright etc.

 

[hokie66]

This issue won't go away.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/18/business/airline-cancellations-5g/index.html

 

[dik]

Could they just restrict the cell towers from within, say 5km of the airport, or whatever distance is safe? Surely the FAA could do this as part of their mandate.

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

-Dik

 

[dik]

and increases carbon footprint. There may come a day in the not too distant future where air travel will be severely impacted.

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

-Dik

 

[Sparweb]

Surely the FAA could do this as part of their mandate.

That's not in the FAA mandate. Not even close. The FAA regulates aircraft and airports.
The relevant cell towers are privately owned, on private property, and regulated by the FCC.

Since you might be in Canada, dik, consider translating this into the other English language: You are suggesting that Transport Canada tells Bell or Rogers what to do. Now it sounds like nonsense, right?

 

[dik]

A bit, but if it affects aircraft and airports, then there should be some mandated restriction. The could be done by building bylaw requirements. It doesn't matter if it's private property.

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

-Dik

 

[dik]

From Canadian news, the government doing it in a responsible fashion:

"While the U.S. is about to launch 5G in the 4.2 to 4.4 gigahertz range, Canada’s latest spectrum auction was only for speeds of up to 3.7 gigahertz, which means Canada’s mobile internet is slower, but doesn’t come as close to the range that would interfere with airplane technology."

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

-Dik

 

[AusG]

This sounds like another version of the battleship and the lighthouse radio conversation..."your move". The aviation industry figures they can play the public safety card anytime and it will be the communications boys and girls that have to change course.

 

[hokie66]

I hope so.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

to be fair the aviation industry although they haven't paid for it have been using that block and have it defined for over 50 years. Along with loads of VHF frequency's for radio telephony coms. Which have changed to 8.33 bandwidth to get better usage out of them.

And the telecoms have known about this since the start.

They should never have plotted that course in the first place. But they want to change the whole of the world so they can do what they want to make money.

FCC is run by politicians which change with every change in power. So does the FAA. FAA is more restricted by international law so even if the pols could be persuaded to change the block they can't because nobody else in ICAO wants to change.

To be honest if the FAA hadn't just dealt with the max I suspect they would have not done anything. And more than likely there wouldn't have been a fatal accident, and all the near misses would have led to upgrade programs but everything would keep on flying. These days they can't afford to have a smoking hole in the ground especial with a full load of US citizens in it.

The biggest issue is it will cost literally billions to change all the hardware to be able to work with what the telecoms want. And it won't take a couple of months it will take years. To be fair though I would say the hardware does need to be modernised.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

it seems that some aircraft wavers are only for American registered aircraft.

The international long haul seem to have a tweak for 787 but 777 is a no go. So they are cancelling flights.



I don't think the telecoms have a hope in hell of forcing this one through.

They have a point that the FAA had two years to sort it out but in realty I don't think even that would have been long enough. Plus the FAA was in the guts of recertifying the max.

Bit of a stalemate to be honest.

 

[BrianPetersen]

Since you might be in Canada, dik, consider translating this into the other English language: You are suggesting that Transport Canada tells Bell or Rogers what to do. Now it sounds like nonsense, right?

Transport Canada can't tell Bell or Rogers what to do, but the CRTC can - and, evidently, did (by not auctioning that frequency spectrum).

 

[Sparweb]

Exactly. Which is a hint that the "urination" contest happening between the FCC and the FAA is not happening in other countries. Which is something that non-US people tend to think of, when reading about the problems in the USA. When the media point out that "other countries don't have a problem", we think, "Ya. In our country the radio regulator didn't pull this stunt on their other government colleagues."

 

[itsmoked]

A sharp RF company could redesign a board or add a retrofit board that would completely eliminate this entire issue with regards to the old radar. So ridiculous.

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, I heard somewhere on the news today (or it might have been yesterday) that the government got something like $84 billion for that extra 5G spectrum that they were able to lease to people like AT&T, Verizon and the other wireless carriers, and they're now in a position where they can't ask for the money back because the wireless carriers have already invested billions in infrastructure. However, the FAA has been warning the rest of Washington for almost five years now, that this day would come. The FCC's position appears to be that the FAA and the airline industry has had nearly five years to get ready for this, taking the steps necessary to accommodate these changes. The FCC seemed to be saying that their responsibility ended the day they published the technical specifications of how 5G was going to be implemented in the US and when they expected the roll-out to take place.

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

They are in sealed certified boxes. And then every company needs to get a TSO to fit them them if its even an option for them to fit it. Most don't have the approvals to open the box. So its strip one of them out and send them off which will take months and the planes can't fly for more than 3 days with one missing. And when the first one gets back the next one will get sent off.

And as for sharp RF design the bulk of them are 1990 certified apparently. Even my super new A220 has an effected Collins rad alt in it.

The band has been internationally protected since the 70's, Expecting everyone in the world to meet the cost of the FCC wanting to sell it was never going to happen.

Collins Avionics and Honeywell who make the bulk of the rad alts out there are both US centric producers. If they didn't do anything then what hope has the rest of the world?

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

As an example of how long things take to change.

in 1999 there was a change from 25 kHZ band spacing on the VHF to 8.33 spacing in upper airspace above 25 000ft that took until 2007 to complete. In 2014 they started forcing everyone to convert below that level its still not complete because a lot of military aircraft haven't done the change.

You think the civi aviation are a pain in the bum. The Mil gear has even more issues to get changes put through.

 

[IRstuff]

A sharp RF company could redesign a board or add a retrofit board that would completely eliminate this entire issue with regards to the old radar. So ridiculous.

Retrofit or redesign isn't the issue, per se, it's the requalification of the hardware and associated documentation that's expensive. Unless it's an exact form/fit replacement, there are possible additional costs to validate airworthiness. And through all of that, the FAA still hasn't proven that there even is a problem, AFAIK.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm