As has been widely reported since it was announced in late December (the 22nd), the three major trade associations most directly involved have supposedly begun an effort to "work collectively to identify a path forward." Those associations were, of course, Airlines for America (A4A), Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) (see post #38 above).
Well, a little further poking around on internet resources and a technical brief by CTIA showed up. It's lengthy and detailed, but I'm posting it here anyhow...... because the conflict or, at least, disagreement about the bona fides of the safety concerns cited by FAA is a quite sharp disagreement, or conflict.
An SLF/attorney isn't going to comment on the technical matters. But -- reading the CTIA technical brief, its treatment of the bona fides of safety factors on approaches and missed approaches..... wouldn't that be within somebody else's expertise? And isn't there a factor in aviation system safety thinking that insists upon getting all the right answers first, rather than relying on a legal and regulatory-agency process to find answers that are then taken as necessarily right? (Also, the tech brief refers to "Aviation" as if it is a monolithic, unified sector, which isn't the case.)
The CTIA technical brief:
210903-CTIA-Ex-Parte-5G-Aviation-Technical-Annex.pdf
(Couple of days ago, Wall Street Journal posted an editorial scoring (I mean, commenting with heavy negativity) the Biden Administration's handling of this situation, and not excluding the Secretary of DOT or Administrator of FAA from this criticism. But for reasons WSJ doesn't have to explain, the editorial piece appeared just on the website, not in the print edition or its electronic iteration. Not dispositive of anything, but always fun to see "the business world" take on dueling heavyweight sectors of the economy.)