Thank you for the CTIA assessment, WillowRun 6-3. Itīs as described, as study that shows up possible faults at other studies....in great detail. Some , rather astonishing, and so even to one not fully familiar with dB and other radio-science things.
I fully support your question about the safety : ....And isn't there a factor in aviation system safety thinking that insists upon getting all the right answers first.....
Thatīs how it used to be. Airbus and Boeing bend airplane wings until they break, to be shure that the right answers were given by the computer models, even at 2.5 times design load, or so, for example.
That kind of thinking would lead to tests, real world test of real aircraft flying over and near 5G towers transmitting at higher than nominal power to confirm that everything was safe - with a couple of passenger phones working in the aircraft in normal mode, not airplane mode. Yes, the passenger devices should all be in a airplane - safe mode, but with 2-300 passengers and at least as many phones and what not...who believes in 100% correct switching ?
That beeing said, the thinking seems to have changed. safe until proven dangerous ....thatīs the new mantra, it looks like. EASA has a Safety Info Bulletin here:
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2021-16
In that, they write: -quote- At this stage, no risk of unsafe interference has been identified in Europe. -unqoute-
Thatīs comforting .... until you consider the wing-bending example above. In analogy, it might be that īairplanes are safe as no case of a wing breaking has been observedī.....because they just didnīt encounter any turbulence yet.
Slightly strange change of thinking.
So, Iīd really like to see some real-world tests to enshure that 5G , operated with US paramaters, including some faults in antennas + aircraft, is safe. Some towers have to be put up, switched on, and aircraft + helicopters need to fly .
K
Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
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.)