Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • 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

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

Sort by date Sort by votes
irstuff said:
the FAA still hasn't proven that there even is a problem, AFAIK
Click to expand...

Its not up to the FAA to prove there is a problem. Its up to everyone else involved with making and operating the hardware to prove there isn't a problem.

Something which they won't do until forced historically.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The FAA has to approve all flight hardware, right? And I know the FCC rules govern radios: you can't transmit outside the band you're allocated (4.2-4.4GHz for the radar altimeters) beyond certain power levels, but you can receive on any band (and it's your problem if that causes you problems). So the FCC rules wouldn't ensure safety if the receiver has a wide-open front-end, they'd only stop a wide-open transmitter. And the FAA somehow missed this, and assumed that because the 3.8-4.2GHz band was only used for satellite communications it'd only ever be used for satellite communications, so now the unfiltered receivers might have problems.

The FAA never should have approved them. Resistance to interference on adjacent bands is something they should have been checking for every bit of RF equipment. But they didn't require that, so now it's going to cause massive expense to lots of people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When those altimeters were approved, there was likely not even a hint of 5G, IoT, etc., and the specific 5G band in question wasn't even auctioned until 3 years ago. But, therein lies the rub, given that the FAA, therefore, had known that this day was coming for 3 years and essentially did nothing.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When the hardware was certified there was never an ever issuer in the plans it would be an issue.

The protected area for rad alts is 3.8 up to 4.6 end of.



Everything can work any is safe world wide in that band. Apart from in the USA and Canada nest to the border.


I might add the FAA approved the hardware back in the 70's most of it in the 80's. Unless there was directive the will be absolutely zero changed since then


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
and Canada did the right thing and closed it at 3.7...

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

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So did he rest of the world....

FCC apparently knows better. Against the FAA policy recommendation and every other wanker on the planet that has a clue about aircraft.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
almost the rest of the world... [pipe]

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

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well they are not putting it in in Finland next to the Russian border incase it triggers a missile . But round St petes and Moscow they have put in a zone which keeps to the international band limitations...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This thread doesn’t really relate too much to putting phones, tablets, watches, etc. in “airplane mode.” But the concerns are maybe similar.

I’m pretty confident that most passengers give zero F’s about ensuring they do this. Which makes me think that it must be a non-issue? Or it should be that problems would be cropping up all over the place.

Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Are you willing to 'bet the farm' on someone putting their phone in 'airplane mode'? It's a problem, because it's just cropping up... due to the increased bandwidth being too much of an increase.

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

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
to be honest iff you know where else it will be an issie i would love to know..... purely for the fact my arse is strapped to these tin cans an I will take it on board ad do a manual approach can't be doing with this crap and a fully manual appariach and landing is less effort than doing the paper work for doing the paper work for the automatics screwing things up.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
phones are on in the back and in the front :D they are in a farads cage... this is different crap... we have the issue with the ipads logging onto the aircraft network these days. And we have a gsm node onboard which then drops the output of the phones from 0.5 watts down to 0.01 and it costs the punters and crew an utter fortune.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alistair... from a pilot, decades back, he referred to landings as a controlled crash...

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

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
h'mm put that down to humour, yes we all do occasional sexual assaults of an innocent runway. As we get more experienced it get less often. i have from fdm in my inbox with a 2.19 landing which was done by a 23k houred pilot Who is an utter aviator. safety office has asked me what happened?


Answer " I really don't have clue everything up to the last 2 seconds was utterly perfect then we dropped out the sky.... "

to be honest in a commercial jet a don't know we are down landing causes a shite load of issues and rips shit out of the tyrs so is actually technically a bad landing
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Agreed the only issue I have heard about with hand sets is the smoke detectors with ionising sources in them. But i think they were all replaced in 2005

The gsm log on mode which i don;t think you have in USA onboard cuts it down to next to nothing and cycle rate. Extremely sensible and safe way of doing things but apparently its illegal in FAA land
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was told by an old Navy pilot that you have to 'stick' the landings for them to be considered good. When the wheels just barely touch the runway, that's not always safe. As he said, an aircraft can either fly through the air or roll down the runway, but it can't do both at the same time.

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
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I often wish Alistair would answer my airplane questions. Until I remember he doesn’t speak American.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry I thought I had, there is no issues reported that I know of with phone handsets or other PED devices being left in none air flight mode during flight. But all regulators require them to be not connected during flight.

You will get a ditt ditt noise in some headsets which is annoying when you go through about 3 000 ft as everything logs on. And it used to kill the battery. I think the phones logic has changed these days so if it can't see a network it doesn't transmit.

Years ago they could trigger the hold smoke alarm if left on in baggage. But they changed the smoke alarms.

There is technology which the phones can connect to which is a cell base station. The phone thinks its connected to a network and has an extremely good signal so the phone logic decreases the power out put and goes into connected polling mode so it only actually transmits a few times an hour. Long haul they can connect the network via sat to the global network but the call charges are extremely high.

In the early 2000's all the regulators were making a huge fuss about it. These days they are more worried about them going on fire than anything else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I 100% appreciate your contributions here. It’s just sometimes I struggle to make sense of it =)

AH said:
phones are on in the back and in the front :D they are in a farads cage... this is different crap... we have the issue with the ipads logging onto the aircraft network these days. And we have a gsm node onboard which then drops the output of the phones from 0.5 watts down to 0.01 and it costs the punters and crew an utter fortune.
Click to expand...

Phones are on in the back and in the front = ?

What’s the faraday (farads) cage reference?

What’s the iPad issue?

And what’s this deal about a gsm node? Like the inflight Wi-Fi? What do you mean about dropping the output? The output of the Wi-Fi?

What’s a punter? And why do you mean it costs them and the crew a fortune? The crew have to pay for the Wi-Fi?

See… I’m utterly bummblefluxed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Oops409
  • Question
Net Zero Disaster 11
2
Replies
29
Views
155
Oops409
Oops409
LittleInch
  • Locked
  • Question
Disaster averted
Replies
3
Views
32
LittleInch
LittleInch
JoshPlumSE
  • Locked
  • Question
Baldwin Hills Dam Disaster - 1963 3
Replies
2
Views
33
JLNJ
JLNJ
3DDave
  • Locked
  • Question
Dive boat disaster in California... finally 1
Replies
10
Views
54
zeusfaber
zeusfaber
TugboatEng
  • Locked
  • Question
Disaster Lite
Replies
7
Views
46
TugboatEng
TugboatEng

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top