FAA ADs re 5G interference
While FAA and FCC seem to have conducted a two-year face-off, neither doing anything to check whether the potential problem is an actual one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 852
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be morbid . . .
Too early to engage the question, 'how is it that the massive bureaucracies in the U.S., at the federal level, could have fumbled this situation so badly?' While enough facts for a more complete post-mortem probably aren't yet known, this SLF/att'y wants to take a swing at it.
Perhaps "two-year face-off" is very descriptive, if your context is hockey. That is, bureaucracies of this size move in slow motion.....very slow motion.
Especially where complicated technologies (and engineering too, I think) are at the center of the question or questions. Consider a comparable situation--not aviation, but really all about complicated technologies and "Engin."
The U.S. National Orbital Debris R&D Plan was made final (in form) and published in the waning days of the prior presidential administration. It was done by - get this - four (4) levels of formal bureaucracy, plus a superior bureaucratic layer. A Working Group, of a Subcommittee, of a Committee, of the National Science and Technology Council, layered over by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Council, ostensibly anyway, coordinates in and among the Executive Branch, while OSTP, again ostensibly, advises the president. How this all works really, given that the president is the head of Executive Branch..... not for today.
So, if you've indulged this comparison of bureaucratic inertia so far, do you wonder how the R&D Plan is progressing? Public comments on the plan were solicited through the Federal Register, and three-minute timeslots were available for two "listening sessions." Despite some professional and academic interest I declined to participate at all - trying to say much of anything about a complicated (to say the least) technology-focused problem set in 3 minutes, that would insult any professional audience's intelligence. (The cognitive, not artificial....)
Yet, your bureaucracy at work. So, some Slayer of Bureaus is needed, I would suppose.
Perhaps "two-year face-off" is very descriptive, if your context is hockey. That is, bureaucracies of this size move in slow motion.....very slow motion.
Especially where complicated technologies (and engineering too, I think) are at the center of the question or questions. Consider a comparable situation--not aviation, but really all about complicated technologies and "Engin."
The U.S. National Orbital Debris R&D Plan was made final (in form) and published in the waning days of the prior presidential administration. It was done by - get this - four (4) levels of formal bureaucracy, plus a superior bureaucratic layer. A Working Group, of a Subcommittee, of a Committee, of the National Science and Technology Council, layered over by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Council, ostensibly anyway, coordinates in and among the Executive Branch, while OSTP, again ostensibly, advises the president. How this all works really, given that the president is the head of Executive Branch..... not for today.
So, if you've indulged this comparison of bureaucratic inertia so far, do you wonder how the R&D Plan is progressing? Public comments on the plan were solicited through the Federal Register, and three-minute timeslots were available for two "listening sessions." Despite some professional and academic interest I declined to participate at all - trying to say much of anything about a complicated (to say the least) technology-focused problem set in 3 minutes, that would insult any professional audience's intelligence. (The cognitive, not artificial....)
Yet, your bureaucracy at work. So, some Slayer of Bureaus is needed, I would suppose.
I hope the 5G guys are made to pay for this not the aviation industry. The 5G guys want to use bands that had been allocated to somebody else before.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Seattle Times today:
And further
As fog shrouded Paine Field in Everett Monday, Alaska Air regional carrier Horizon Air was forced to cancel all commercial flights in and out of the airfield because of limitations on low visibility flying imposed to avoid 5G interference.
Horizon is currently the sole airline operating commercial flights out of Paine Field and all those are flown on the Embraer E175, a 76-seat regional jet.
The limitations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration to prevent interference with cockpit instruments have created a problem specific to that aircraft and certain airports, including Paine Field and Portland International Airport.
Horizon is currently the sole airline operating commercial flights out of Paine Field and all those are flown on the Embraer E175, a 76-seat regional jet.
The limitations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration to prevent interference with cockpit instruments have created a problem specific to that aircraft and certain airports, including Paine Field and Portland International Airport.
Whether the FAA granted clearance depended on what model of altimeter was installed on each aircraft and also how close the cell towers at each airport were to the runways.
The altimeters on Horizon’s Q400 turboprop planes — supplied by Collins — allowed those aircraft to be cleared everywhere. But Sprague said that the specific Honeywell altimeter on the E175 jet required airport-specific limitations.
“The configuration of the Honeywell radio altimeter in the E175, and how it integrates with the other aircraft systems on the E175, are such that the the likelihood of interference from the 5G signal is greater,” said Sprague.
The FAA therefore cleared the E175 to use only runways further away from the cell towers.
The altimeters on Horizon’s Q400 turboprop planes — supplied by Collins — allowed those aircraft to be cleared everywhere. But Sprague said that the specific Honeywell altimeter on the E175 jet required airport-specific limitations.
“The configuration of the Honeywell radio altimeter in the E175, and how it integrates with the other aircraft systems on the E175, are such that the the likelihood of interference from the 5G signal is greater,” said Sprague.
The FAA therefore cleared the E175 to use only runways further away from the cell towers.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E170/175s are really taking the brunt of this. As I have posted, it isn't always weather related either! Apparently so many EICAS warnings and system alarms have the RA wired into the logic tree of the E170/175 that at Key West with its short 5,000 foot runway, the type is significantly weight restricted on takeoff causing medium distance flights to have to fly over to southern FL airports like RSW, MIA, FLL and PBI to take on full fuel to reach their destination. It has to do with the possibility of a RTO and not be able to completely trust brakes/spoilers due to the RA being in the logic tree. I cannot give you the tech details accurately, so I will leave it at that.
And still the issue is dealt with in the US on the basis of 'potential' and 'possibility' and 'likelihood' of interference to altimeters, which therefore requires extensive precautions and operational restrictions.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Last edited by Sallyann1234; 26th Jan 2022 at 09:46.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And still the issue is dealt with in the US on the basis of 'potential' and 'possibility' and 'likelihood' of interference to altimeters, which therefore requires extensive precautions and operational restrictions.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Hi, well, actually, there is a report for a 3G / 4G installation. Quite severe interference.
https://www.icao.int/safety/FSMP/Mee...terference.pdf
Thus, I think that a thorough investigation of the 5G issues is warranted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 852
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Objection
Not to revisit ... let alone in any detail or depth ... the significant body of evidence presented to FCC in the May 2020 motion for reconsideration, or in the Emergency Petition filed late last year, on behalf of principal aviation interests and interested parties.
But, I will say it is simply incorrect, invalid and wrong to assert that the safe, efficient, and resilient U.S. aviation sector, or the National Airspace System, can be put into experimental mode, on the basis that commercial entities and interests have invested capital. Or that other countries have taken their own decisions.
But, I will say it is simply incorrect, invalid and wrong to assert that the safe, efficient, and resilient U.S. aviation sector, or the National Airspace System, can be put into experimental mode, on the basis that commercial entities and interests have invested capital. Or that other countries have taken their own decisions.
I don't see anyone suggesting that airlines should be experimenting. In the absence of properly constructed tests to establish acceptable parameters, the present wide operational restrictions seem to be the only safe option.
There was a two year window in which those tests should have been done, by the relevant authorities and not by the airlines. Someone now has to decide how to proceed, or the restrictions will remain.
I find myself to be repeating the same message - time to leave the thread.
There was a two year window in which those tests should have been done, by the relevant authorities and not by the airlines. Someone now has to decide how to proceed, or the restrictions will remain.
I find myself to be repeating the same message - time to leave the thread.
I recall one case many years ago - a flight crew on a Boeing aircraft started observing some very unusual avionics behavior. The cabin crew observed a passenger playing a gameboy type device - when they had the passenger turn it off the problem immediately went away. The airline actually purchased the computer game from the individual and gave it to Boeing to investigate - and Boeing could find nothing unusual about the device or duplicate any sort of unusual behavior
That being said, the FAA and FCC have done a horrible job of handling this issue...
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the Key West departures that pulled up short to refuel in South Florida have now been flying to their intended destinations nonstop. So either the 5G adjacent to KEYW has been shut down or whatever had to be done to verify the RA integrity of the E170/175 has been done.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and there is the possibility of a serious mishap, with som people not around afterwards to pay taxes.
Choices.
And still the issue is dealt with in the US on the basis of 'potential' and 'possibility' and 'likelihood' of interference to altimeters, which therefore requires extensive precautions and operational restrictions.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Has anyone yet demonstrated or reported actual interference to altimeters, of an extent to require these restrictions?
Are these restrictions to be maintained indefinitely, in the absence of proper tests?
Meanwhile the rest of the world has made its assessments, and got on with life as normal.
Now the the conditions are changing. Radio altimeters had been certified to sufficiently reject interfering signals and continue to meet required performance standards when 5G transmission in nearby wavelengths were not present. There was nothing wrong with these approvals. But not all currently approved radio altimeters type designs would be able to perform with the necessary accuracy and assurance in these new conditions.
One may point fingers only at the FCC and FAA, but remember they operate in the midst of powerful and disparate political influence by corporate interests and powerful politicians they support and rely on.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 852
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What GlobalNav said (155, above).
Also, I had not meant to be understood as saying that anyone had advocated actually experimenting.
Time perhaps will tell whether a difference that appears to exist between the FCC and the FAA is a real difference. FAA obviously is situated within and as part of the Department of Transportation, headed by a Cabinet Secretary. The head of FCC might have "Cabinet rank" (I don't know) but it appears there's a difference in operating as a component (in so many words) of the president's Cabinet, and being instead one among many federal agencies which, collectively, sometimes are referred to as "the inter-agency." In this matter, it sometimes seems like the prior administration strongly favored commercial interests in telecommunications, and applied pressure on and through FCC. Then the new administrstion took over, FAA regained its role as the heavier of the heavyweights, and because Cabinet agencies can apply more authority more quickly, FAA was effective in changing the game up.
Tom Wheeler, formerly head of FCC, published a piece a few days ago in which he asked if FAA was like the kid who "cried wolf" once too often. Perhaps surprisingly, his writing appeared to give good amount of credence to FAA and the aviation community's concerns. But overall, this tangle-up doesn't bode well for future, anticipated clashes of rival technological interests.
Also, I had not meant to be understood as saying that anyone had advocated actually experimenting.
Time perhaps will tell whether a difference that appears to exist between the FCC and the FAA is a real difference. FAA obviously is situated within and as part of the Department of Transportation, headed by a Cabinet Secretary. The head of FCC might have "Cabinet rank" (I don't know) but it appears there's a difference in operating as a component (in so many words) of the president's Cabinet, and being instead one among many federal agencies which, collectively, sometimes are referred to as "the inter-agency." In this matter, it sometimes seems like the prior administration strongly favored commercial interests in telecommunications, and applied pressure on and through FCC. Then the new administrstion took over, FAA regained its role as the heavier of the heavyweights, and because Cabinet agencies can apply more authority more quickly, FAA was effective in changing the game up.
Tom Wheeler, formerly head of FCC, published a piece a few days ago in which he asked if FAA was like the kid who "cried wolf" once too often. Perhaps surprisingly, his writing appeared to give good amount of credence to FAA and the aviation community's concerns. But overall, this tangle-up doesn't bode well for future, anticipated clashes of rival technological interests.
Of all our regular allowed airports, destination, alternate, diversion, it is about 50% that don't have AMOC, for our regular scheduled most do, quick look is only 5 that don't, and at least 1 of those doesn't have CAT II/III. It just says: AMOC provides relief from AD2021-23-12, without any explanation of the how/what was done.