Emirates vs 5G US

[pilotguy1222]

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-emirates-suspends-flights-to-several-u-s-destinations-until-further-notice-due-to-5g-deployment/

EK is having a few issues lately with the IAD event, and a 777 take-off abort, after no take-off clearance was given, to avoid another 777 crossing the runway. An over abundance of caution to prevent further events, perhaps?

EK is displaying the typical EK playbook by suspending flights where the 5G issue is not really a factor, unless the weather is below CAT I mins, and keeping the JFK flight ($$$) where an RNP AR approach is common (and affected by 5G)

[amc890]

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-emirates-suspends-flights-to-several-u-s-destinations-until-further-notice-due-to-5g-deployment/

EK is having a few issues lately with the IAD event, and a 777 take-off abort, after no take-off clearance was given, to avoid another 777 crossing the runway. An over abundance of caution to prevent further events, perhaps?

EK is displaying the typical EK playbook by suspending flights where the 5G issue is not really a factor, unless the weather is below CAT I mins, and keeping the JFK flight ($$$) where an RNP AR approach is common (and affected by 5G)

Rumour has it that Boeing have advised airlines that B777 op to LAX are not approved for the time being?
Anybody able to confirm this?

[daelight]

Nothing to do with EK's 'issues' - such a cheapshot. Other airlines, such as JAL, American, Air India and British Airways have also cancelled 777 flights into USA for the same reason.

[PanAmFalcon]

Either concerns over 5G is true or flights today america weren’t yielding enough profit https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dubais-emirates-suspends-flights-several-us-destinations-5g-concerns-2022-01-18/

[Chris2303]

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-emirates-suspends-flights-to-several-u-s-destinations-until-further-notice-due-to-5g-deployment/

EK is having a few issues lately with the IAD event, and a 777 take-off abort, after no take-off clearance was given, to avoid another 777 crossing the runway. An over abundance of caution to prevent further events, perhaps?

EK is displaying the typical EK playbook by suspending flights where the 5G issue is not really a factor, unless the weather is below CAT I mins, and keeping the JFK flight ($$$) where an RNP AR approach is common (and affected by 5G)

So you don't believe in being prudent and safety first then?

[Kennytheking]

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-emirates-suspends-flights-to-several-u-s-destinations-until-further-notice-due-to-5g-deployment/

EK is displaying the typical EK playbook by suspending flights where the 5G issue is not really a factor, unless the weather is below CAT I mins, and keeping the JFK flight ($$$) where an RNP AR approach is common (and affected by 5G)

JFK, LAX and IAD is operated by the A380. I am lead to believe that they have different equipment so the A380 is not affected, or has the approved equipment.

[fox niner]

KLM only flies to IAD and ATL with its 777’s effective immediately. All other airfields in the usa are off limits to our 777’s. Autolands prohibited.
Affected systems mentioned are:
autopilot, autothrottle, tcas, engine control, flight controls, egpws, tailstrike protection.
Source: internal memo

[andrasz]

Knowing a thing or two about transatlantic markets, no doubt all these airlines jumped at the opportunity to cancel selected flights without having to admit commercial reasons, 5G was a godsend excuse. Having lived through the Y2K panic and the claims of 'deadly' interference by 1G/2G mobile phones in the nineties, I'll just lean back and reach for the popcorn.

[procede]

KLM only flies to IAD and ATL with its 777’s effective immediately. All other airfields in the usa are off limits to our 777’s. Autolands prohibited.
Affected systems mentioned are:
autopilot, autothrottle, tcas, engine control, flight controls, egpws, tailstrike protection.
Source: internal memo
Is the 787 not affected? In any case it is a good thing that KLM kept the A330's...

[777JockeyIN]

Probably both...

[KATLPAX]

Isn’t 5G deployed in several regions worldwide. Dubai as I recall? No issue outside the US? Just curious. Anyone care to clarify. Thanks

[Hueymeister]

Apparently 5G roll-out delayed 2 weeks. It's a gong show tbh as there has been almost no real research into the potential effects on RADALT systems. Telecom companies have spent billions worldwide buying frequency blocks adjacent to the 4.2-4.4 MHz band RADALTs work in. The RTCA paper (Oct 20) makes for an informative read, biggest so-what is that the interference filtering/blocking varies significantly between system and a/c type, requiring long and laborious testing...something the system and a/c manufacturers are loathed to do as they'd be on the hook for costs. Here in the frozen north TCCA have established both Exclusion and Restricted zones around airports/heliports that have CAT I/II/III approaches. The AD pushed out by the FAA includes RNP approaches too, and could see the 'Not Allowed' being applied to approaches at 80 CONUS airports in the event the weather drops below 1/2 SM vis etc. Blancolirio has just put a reasonable YooToob vid out, give it a watch.

[White Knight]

keeping the JFK flight ($$$) where an RNP AR approach is common (and affected by 5G)

The three daily JFK flights from DXB are currently all operated with the 380. And we don’t currently fly RNP AR approaches on that aeroplane!

[the_stranger]

Isn’t 5G deployed in several regions worldwide. Dubai as I recall? No issue outside the US? Just curious. Anyone care to clarify. Thanks
In most areas the used frequency is different and therefor less likely to interfere.

[pilotguy1222]

Nothing to do with EK's 'issues' - such a cheapshot. Other airlines, such as JAL, American, Air India and British Airways have also cancelled 777 flights into USA for the same reason.

I am quite happy to take cheap shots at EK, and considering the aborted takeoff a little over a week ago was a near 2nd “Tenerife” with a pair of 777-300s, they are well earned.

EK could easily make the flights “Wx dependent”. Unless CAT II/III is a possibility, there is no reason to cancel every flight. As far as I am aware, none of the US airports listed use SA CAT I approaches, so unless low vis ops are active, there is no concern.
As another mentioned, the 380 might have different RA’s and 5G is not an issue, which would then make the JFK RNP AR approach list. The 320 family(CEO and NEO) are affected.

Considering BA just flew a flight to the US with a single passenger onboard, andrasz is probably spot on.

5G is all over the world. Here is a map.
https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g

[donpizmeov]

I am quite happy to take cheap shots at EK, and considering the aborted takeoff a little over a week ago was a near 2nd “Tenerife” with a pair of 777-300s, they are well earned.

EK could easily make the flights “Wx dependent”. Unless CAT II/III is a possibility, there is no reason to cancel every flight. As far as I am aware, none of the US airports listed use SA CAT I approaches, so unless low vis ops are active, there is no concern.
As another mentioned, the 380 might have different RA’s and 5G is not an issue, which would then make the JFK RNP AR approach list. The 320 family(CEO and NEO) are affected.

Considering BA just flew a flight to the US with a single passenger onboard, andrasz is probably spot on.

5G is all over the world. Here is a map.
https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g

EK is now flying some of those recently stopped destinations on the A380 to look after the passenger who had flights cancelled.
So looks like this 5G thing may be more of a problem on the Boeing.

[SpamCanDriver]

Given 5G has been implemented in many places all over the world without problems, why are they using these frequencies in the US?
Is it a different kind of 5G?
And how did it get this far without the issue of interference being addressed?

What a shambles

[KATLPAX]

Thanks Stranger, I had read US iPhones were different w additional 5g band.

[Sallyann1234]

5G is all over the world. Here is a map.https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5gBut most of that 5G is not in C band.

[ATC Watcher]

So looks like this 5G thing may be more of a problem on the Boeing.
Someone who apparently know more just explained me this is more a problem on the 777 as on this model the radar altimeter is used for many functions including one that activate flight controls incl reverses when it confirms a/c is on the ground . ( someone in the know can confirm or infirm that). But I cannot understand is how this problem surfaces today in the US. . I was attending an ICAO meeting in 2019, almost 3 years ago, where this issue was flagged, (possible frequency overlap and location 5G masts under flight path runways) by France. and mitigations plans were being drawn.

I am quite happy to take cheap shots at EK, and considering the aborted takeoff a little over a week ago was a near 2nd “Tenerife” with a pair of 777-300s, they are well earned.
We do not know the full details of that case, so unless you have them and are prepared to share them with us, comparing the incident to Tenerife is somewhat overdone I would say.

[3db]

Andrasz

1G analogue mobile phones were a major problem. At that time I was involved in flight inspection (testing Navaids, including the ILS). I calibrated our kit every month, on the test bench. Looking at the Glideslope indicator I could get it to go full scale up or down as I walked up and down the workshop, about maximum distance of 20m, with my mobile in my pocket Our kit was installed and earthed to at least the same standards found in aircraft, and arguably to a far higher earthing standard. The cellphone was not making a call, it was communicating with the base station on an “overhead” channel or 2. I have no experience with 2, 3, 4 or 5g.

[Hueymeister]

What we're being told

5G NETWORK – AVIONICS INTERFERENCE ISSUES
What:

5G high-speed telecommunication networks are being slowly rolled out across the world. It’s a fast, high-density information streaming medium that operates in the 3.4-4.0 MHz frequency range. It is short range and is susceptible to attenuation by buildings and trees, which necessitates a vast network of antennae. The associated infrastructure is both resource intensive and very expensive, so 5G implementation is going to be slow.

So What:

Most Radio Altimeters (RADALT) work in the 4.2-4.4 MHz band. The Radio Technical Committee for Aeronautics has conducted an assessment of 5G in the frequency band 3.7-3.98 MHz (Oct 2020) and found the potential for harmful interference to aviation RADALT systems. The RADALT is a mandated critical aircraft safety system used to determine an aircraft’s height above terrain or water (e.g. maritime environments). RADALT equipment can be directly integrated into several aircraft systems and functions for various flight profiles. These can include: Terrain awareness, aircraft collision avoidance, wind shear detection, flight controls, auto-land, auto-hover and transition up/down systems in rotary aircraft. Interference could lead to malfunctions in aircraft systems and a potential loss of situational awareness during critical phases of flight. Both 5G enabled portable electronic devices and ground-based antennae have the ability to compromise RADALT equipment.

Mitigations:

Worldwide testing and evaluation has been limited thus far; various nations are looking into potential 5G flight safety issues; Canada, Japan, and the USA are introducing guard bands of between 0.2 and 0.7 MHz either side of the 4.2-4.4 MHz RADALT frequency band. Canada is introducing both exclusion and protected zones around major airports and heliports that have auto-land systems (CAT I, II and III). Ground-based antennae will be tilted downwards and transmission power levels reduced. Uncrewed airborne operations (e.g. drones/RPAS) will not be permitted in the 3.45-3.65 MHz band. Individual aircraft types will require testing and certification with regard to exposure to 5G signals; this will be a time consuming and expensive process. Transport Canada will be producing maps showing 5G zones, allowing crews to plan to avoid them in the low level environment. ICAO is liaising with aircraft manufacturers to decide the best way ahead to mitigate this issue. In the interim, operators are reminded to remain vigilant regarding their aircraft behavioral characteristics and report any undesirable or objectionable aircraft behaviors observed during manual or automated RADALT systems operations.

Useful websites:

Map of Exclusion Zones and Protection Zones (SRSP-520) - Spectrum management and telecommunications (https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11726.html)
Blanclirio Yoo Toob channel put out an interesting video yesterday. Basically the FAA rescinded the 5G NOTAM as the rollout of the system has been delayed by two weeks. It would have severely restricted operations at 80 or so airports in CONUS by not allowing the use of CAT I/II/III and RNP approaches in poor weather.

[avtur007]

In layman's terms - I read the problem with 5g (specifically in the United States) is the power they use, somewhere typically in the region of 2.5 times that of other countries 5g networks. They also point the antennas up whereas other countries point them down and that means powerful signals going right into the rad alt of aircraft. This might be why USA has seemingly bigger issues with interference than other countries. Not sure why its affecting Boeing more than Airbus but at least it doesn't give you covid. I think....

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Why has EK cancelled 777s but are still flying 380s to the US?

[kiwi grey]

In layman's terms - I read the problem with 5g (specifically in the United States) is the power they use, somewhere typically in the region of 2.5 times that of other countries 5g networks. They also point the antennas up whereas other countries point them down and that means powerful signals going right into the rad alt of aircraft. This might be why USA has seemingly bigger issues with interference than other countries. Not sure why its affecting Boeing more than Airbus but at least it doesn't give you Covid. I think....
Also, the interference potential from 5G in C band is greater in the US because the 5G allocated band goes up to 3.98 GHz, whereas in other places including Europe it stops at 3.8 GHz or even 3.7GHz

[BuzzBox]

Given 5G has been implemented in many places all over the world without problems, why are they using these frequencies in the US?
Is it a different kind of 5G?
And how did it get this far without the issue of interference being addressed?

What a shambles

https://www.kdrv.com/news/national/europe-rolled-out-5g-without-hurting-aviation-heres-how/article_55d3c302-58a1-5c49-aa83-eb24f0bd4165.html

[SpamCanDriver]

https://www.kdrv.com/news/national/europe-rolled-out-5g-without-hurting-aviation-heres-how/article_55d3c302-58a1-5c49-aa83-eb24f0bd4165.html

Good article thank you

[Check Airman]

KLM only flies to IAD and ATL with its 777’s effective immediately. All other airfields in the usa are off limits to our 777’s. Autolands prohibited.
Affected systems mentioned are:
autopilot, autothrottle, tcas, engine control, flight controls, egpws, tailstrike protection.
Source: internal memo

Not a 777 pilot, but why would the engines and flight controls be affected? Aren't those usually governed by air/ground logic? With the exception of tailstrike prevention, the rest seem like pretty minor things. Certainly no reason to cancel a flight.

[SOPS]

Not a 777 pilot, but why would the engines and flight controls be affected? Aren't those usually governed by air/ground logic? With the exception of tailstrike prevention, the rest seem like pretty minor things. Certainly no reason to cancel a flight.
Flight Controls and EGPWS are minor things???!!!???. I beg to differ.

[flyTheBigFatLady]

Why has EK cancelled 777s but are still flying 380s to the US?

first the 380 and 350 are using 3 Rad Alt instead of 2 and therefore is less volatile to miss readings.

A380 is by design newer technology and there the Filter design will allow frequencies which are closer to ops frequencies of the rad alt.
there is also a design difference in the installation since at time of development of the B777 frequency of 1GHZ or more where not considered for mobile telecom and therefore electronic equipment has not been designed and tested to withstand such frequency ranges and output power level.
at design time of the A380 there had been definitiv more considerations towards these potential sources of errors.

3rd output power of Telecom Equipment:
the higher the carrier frequency the more output power you need for the same coverage area (alternatively more transmitters with less power - here does $$$ set the tone)
for higher data speeds you need higher carrier frequencies (that’s why everything up to 6ghz is of such a big intresst for telecom, as it allows to massively increase data throuput, by compared minimal increasing Transmitter density

as 5G is strongly depending on the distance between Transmitter and receiver (mobile phone) and the fact that the receiver won’t be able to significantly increase its output power, doubling the transmitter power is a cheap trick to pretend being full 5G, therefore the assumption is for $$$ driving another Industrie into trouble with no proper assest

as a further point should be mentioned: the modulation technology behind 5G
it is phase shift based and so is a radar distance measuring too, in the Same frequency Spektrum these 2 things can interfere

[DaveReidUK]

Not a 777 pilot, but why would the engines and flight controls be affected? Aren't those usually governed by air/ground logic?

See discussion of Rad Alt interaction with the air/ground logic in the main 5G thread in R&N.

[flyTheBigFatLady]

I am quite happy to take cheap shots at EK, and considering the aborted takeoff a little over a week ago was a near 2nd “Tenerife” with a pair of 777-300s, they are well earned.

EK could easily make the flights “Wx dependent”. Unless CAT II/III is a possibility, there is no reason to cancel every flight. As far as I am aware, none of the US airports listed use SA CAT I approaches, so unless low vis ops are active, there is no concern.
As another mentioned, the 380 might have different RA’s and 5G is not an issue, which would then make the JFK RNP AR approach list. The 320 family(CEO and NEO) are affected.

Considering BA just flew a flight to the US with a single passenger onboard, andrasz is probably spot on.

5G is all over the world. Here is a map.
https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g

on an airbus in general RA are always a point to observe even on CAT I
without RA the airplane goes to direct law at gear down and their is a checklist for double RA u/s
but that’s on system fail - resulting if both RA running falls measurement constantly a lot of systems will do the right thing at the wrong time

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Partial quote from Hueymeister -:
Both 5G enabled portable electronic devices and ground-based antennae have the ability to compromise RADALT equipment.“
So enhanced vigilance and enforcement from cabin crew will also be required ?

[ManaAdaSystem]

The issues with 5G in the US are related to both frequency and signal strenght. Airbus aircraft are protected against RA interference, so not affected by the 5G roll out in the US.
In Euroland this is not a problem. The rest of the world? Not sure.

[flyTheBigFatLady]

The issues with 5G in the US are related to both frequency and signal strenght. Airbus aircraft are protected against RA interference, so not affected by the 5G roll out in the US.
In Euroland this is not a problem. The rest of the world? Not sure.

well only the 380 and the 350 enjoy a better protection as these variant use 3 RA - 320/330/340 (only 2 RA) not so and are volitile to issue as well

[andrasz]

1G analogue mobile phones were a major problem...
Interesting, in the mid-nineties we did quite extensive testing for a period of about 3 months under CAA supervision with three pilots up front, making monitored Cat III approaches in VFR with 1G phones in various use configurations in the cockpit, no ILS issues were noted on any of the approaches. On the F70 we did have a couple of FMC resets which we suspected but could not conclusively link to phone interference, but that was all.

[Sailvi767]

The issues with 5G in the US are related to both frequency and signal strenght. Airbus aircraft are protected against RA interference, so not affected by the 5G roll out in the US.
In Euroland this is not a problem. The rest of the world? Not sure.
That is sure not true on the A330’s flown by my company. Lots of 5G issues including putting the aircraft into the wrong flight law and loss of trim to the stabilizer among other issues.

[BFSGrad]

well only the 380 and the 350 enjoy a better protection as these variant use 3 RA - 320/330/340 (only 2 RA) not so and are volitile to issue as well
How do 3 RAs provided better protection than 2 RAs? I'm assuming all 3 RAs have the same receiver selectivity meaning any out-of-band interference would affect all RAs equally.

[flyTheBigFatLady]

How do 3 RAs provided better protection than 2 RAs? I'm assuming all 3 RAs have the same receiver selectivity meaning any out-of-band interference would affect all RAs equally.

first this is a information from airbus safety bulletin where the protection against falls read outs is described.
on the other hand close frequency interference has a lot to do with how the signal arrives at the receiver.
A electromagnetic wave has high and lows. So while the aircraft is traveling along and so does the el mag wave it’s not for granted that all 3 RA receiver get the same disturbance.
as an excample: have you ever experienced that the radio in your car starts cracking while stoping at a red light? So you move your car just a few inches forward and the signal get suddenly better. With a second and third antenna at Slight shifted distance would solve the issue without moving. Same effect takes place here.
While with two RA only one needs to be wrong to tell the system something is wrong, it has possibly 2 correct read outs on a 380
in this case you have to consider that the system is fully functioning and therefore it compares the read outs, and fail over switching logic does not take place. At 2 RA the system cannot say which one is correct, with 3 it can.
it is not 100% protection, still 2 of the 3 can be in the same wrong but it is less likely that all 3 will receive the same disturbance at the same time as the distance is measured 100 times a second
there is also a difference of a disturbance in the same frequency band or from one which is close by. A close by band radiates side frequencies which cannot be eliminated a 100% but to a fair lower level.
they properly not effecting anything if a weaker transmitter output (like in Europe) is applied, but ramping up that output power to 2,5 of its original value does make the side radiation stronger too, which suddenly starts making problems. There are a lot of other factors as what are the signal by products of the modulation and filter characteristic and etc.

antennas and high frequency transmitters are a highly complex technology, it’s very very difficult to predict what will happen once you change one parameter, without testing and measuring.

[3db]

andrasz
Even more interesting, this was in the mid 1990’s but before Dec 1999. As part of the monthly calibration check of our navigation kit (typical aircraft commercial kit, albeit one receiver was modified for flight inspection use by the manufacturer) after calibration and everything back together with all covers on, I could reliably get my cellphone (cant remember brand/model) to move the glideslope full scale in both directions by walking up and down the workshop. The Nav kit was all on the bench, driven by appropriate sig generators (no aerials in circuit), all very well earthed. Never tried it airborne. If I remember correctly, there was an area of little or no interference within about 1-2m of the kit. However, as soon as I moved further away down the workshop the glideslope (and only the glideslops) would give false readings. The phone was not making/receiving a call, but was communication on data channels with the cellphone base station. I remember I switched my phone off, problem disappeared, hence the source was my phone, and not the cell base station. Glideslope is 330-335MHz and G1 cellphones 890-960MHz, hence 3rd harmonic interference was a likely source. Aircraft kit is built to a spec, but cellphone was built to a price, maybe the transmitter was out of spec? BTW, the workshop was at Biggin Hill, UK.

[flyTheBigFatLady]

andrasz
Even more interesting, this was in the mid 1990’s but before Dec 1999. As part of the monthly calibration check of our navigation kit (typical aircraft commercial kit, albeit one receiver was modified for flight inspection use by the manufacturer) after calibration and everything back together with all covers on, I could reliably get my cellphone (cant remember brand/model) to move the glideslope full scale in both directions by walking up and down the workshop. The Nav kit was all on the bench, driven by appropriate sig generators (no aerials in circuit), all very well earthed. Never tried it airborne. If I remember correctly, there was an area of little or no interference within about 1-2m of the kit. However, as soon as I moved further away down the workshop the glideslope (and only the glideslops) would give false readings. The phone was not making/receiving a call, but was communication on data channels with the cellphone base station. I remember I switched my phone off, problem disappeared, hence the source was my phone, and not the cell base station. Glideslope is 330-335MHz and G1 cellphones 890-960MHz, hence 3rd harmonic interference was a likely source. Aircraft kit is built to a spec, but cellphone was built to a price, maybe the transmitter was out of spec? BTW, the workshop was at Biggin Hill, UK.

You just brought it to the point - the price tag on the phone says a bit about the precession of the technology and back in the 90’s the spec where properly not sufficient not to disturb other systems, especially in that close proximity, and therefore back than it was a good advice to switch of phones while on board of an aeroplane. And an ILS is by its analog design highly volatile to disturbance.
i remember back than :
1994 something like d-net (800/900mhz analog signal modulation)
from 1995 on or so E- net or better known as GSM started take place (significantly smaller phones (800/900mhz carrier first digital modulations) transmitter density increased as power output of phones shrinked and first data applications came up.

digital signals are a rectangular signal form and therefore they are the sum of a endless number of sin waves in every third harmonic - says a low cost filter design leaves a wide spread frequency spectrum passing left and right of a carrier which spreads than into neighboring channels or even other frequency bands causing eventually disturbance there.

the way out of this is proper testing, limiting frequency bands allowed around critical areas, and enough margins between telecom and aviation frequencies. The catch here is that per definition the band of 4.2 to 4.4 GHz is part of the 5G network plan and quite essential in the current 5G rollout given the current amount of mobile used data

[3db]

The price point is always the major consideration in domestic kit. This can introduce major design compromises, mainly based on probability. You are right proper testing is the way forward, but who pays for it? The advice for g1 cellphones was turn them off on aircraft, the third harmonic for an ILS had not been investigated (at least by the cellular companies, don’t know about aviation/CAA). No marketing took place for cellphone in the aviation sector – I think everyone wanted more real world experience in everyday situations before suggesting situations that could be life or death. The size of the kit was not helpful for general personal use either, the first “pocket-able” mobiles arrived in early 1985. However at 20x8x4cm with a 15cm rubber enclosed aerial, it was a bit of a stretch to say you could put it in your pocket.

It was mid 1992 if I recall, that vodaphone introduced GSM in the UK, with other operators following a year or two later. We then started to get large reductions in kit size, but still with good performance. Never tested a GSM in the workshop, so I don’t know how it performed against an ILS on the bench. As you say, they clearly have the potential to be more disruptive to an ILS, but maybe filter design had improved? Also, power output is more accurately controlled now, mainly to extend battery life.

I was employed in aviation from May 1997 to about June/July 1999, so whilst a GSM phone was available, my luddite approach didn’t allow me to get one. I never like the thought I could be tracked via the phone (found that out in 1985) so kept my mobile to the oldest standard that still worked. At least you could turn them off and remove the battery in those days! Nothing to hide by the way, just if you want to track me do it overtly, not covertly.