FAA ADs re 5G interference
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continued progress
FAA statement as of 28 January, with regard to continued clarification of operational limits:
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statements-5g
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testimony of FAA Administrator to House Transportation and Infrastructure Comm. on 5G rollout and impact of 5G generally on aviation safety. Though the Administrator's prepared remarks were brief, they nevertheless included references to efforts by FAA as well as certain aviation sector interests to alert the federal bureaucracy to anticipated problems.
link:
https://www.cnet.com/videos/faa-talk...iation-safety/
link:
https://www.cnet.com/videos/faa-talk...iation-safety/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continued issues from rollout of 5G
ALPA Pres. Joe DePete has sent strongly worded correspondence to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The letter follows subcommittee hearings last week.
“Given that the agency legally tasked with oversight of the telecommunications industry [the FCC] completely failed to provide critical information relevant to the safety of the U.S. airspace system and voluntary dialogue by private sector companies did not begin until the precise time their actions posed catastrophic harm to public safety, it is clear there is a systemic failure of governance over the wireless industry’s use of spectrum, disclosure of information, and licensing. This necessitates a redesign of the government’s authority over these providers, including granting affected agencies, like the FAA, authority to reject or modify new or expanded spectrum applications, as well as the ability to directly interact with the FCC. The hearing provided damning insight into how broken the federal radio spectrum and licensing process is in relation to aviation safety and the need for immediate reform.”
DePete also wrote, “FCC not only failed to heed our concerns, but they willfully neglected to carry out their regulatory responsibilities and ask licensees for critical data needed to plan for launching 5G while maintaining aviation safety. This failure on the part of the FCC has resulted in uncertainty, complexity, and increased workload for every flight.” DePete stated FCC never asked the wireless industry for the required data for conducting safety risk mitigation assessments. He also stated that cost for retrofitting commercial aircraft with interference-resistant radar altimeters would easily cost $100,000--$150,000 per aircraft and the FAA could take up to four years to approve this new equipment.
Some of DePete’s strongest statements were directed at the CTIA, the Washington, D.C. advocacy group which represents wireless carriers. It provided an “inadequate level of meaningful data” to “evaluate the 5G signal impact on radar altimeters” and ignored concerns for aviation safety. “It appears that [5G C-band carriers] Verizon and AT&T are beginning to understand the need to share data for the advancement of [aviation] safety, even if their trade association, CTIA, does not.”
The letter further looked into the near-term future and looming additional stressors upon the NAS. “As we look forward to new entrants to the aviation system—remotely piloted aircraft systems and drones, advanced air mobility, hypersonic aircraft, and commercial space operations—we need to make sure that these entities are also not impacted by 5G interference. A thorough review and risk mitigation of the systems used by these stakeholders is also needed before allowing 5G in the C-Band to continue expansion.”
So significant issues persist, though different factors may see the greatest emphasis - especially cost of retrofit, as well as developing standards by FAA. Little doubt cost (retrofit), and standards (new), will impact one another. Left for some other forum is any effort to address, much less redress, the bureaucratic or interagency inertia or turf-protecting (notice, as SLF/attorney I have not said "incompetence") by which this set of issues hit the fan.
“Given that the agency legally tasked with oversight of the telecommunications industry [the FCC] completely failed to provide critical information relevant to the safety of the U.S. airspace system and voluntary dialogue by private sector companies did not begin until the precise time their actions posed catastrophic harm to public safety, it is clear there is a systemic failure of governance over the wireless industry’s use of spectrum, disclosure of information, and licensing. This necessitates a redesign of the government’s authority over these providers, including granting affected agencies, like the FAA, authority to reject or modify new or expanded spectrum applications, as well as the ability to directly interact with the FCC. The hearing provided damning insight into how broken the federal radio spectrum and licensing process is in relation to aviation safety and the need for immediate reform.”
DePete also wrote, “FCC not only failed to heed our concerns, but they willfully neglected to carry out their regulatory responsibilities and ask licensees for critical data needed to plan for launching 5G while maintaining aviation safety. This failure on the part of the FCC has resulted in uncertainty, complexity, and increased workload for every flight.” DePete stated FCC never asked the wireless industry for the required data for conducting safety risk mitigation assessments. He also stated that cost for retrofitting commercial aircraft with interference-resistant radar altimeters would easily cost $100,000--$150,000 per aircraft and the FAA could take up to four years to approve this new equipment.
Some of DePete’s strongest statements were directed at the CTIA, the Washington, D.C. advocacy group which represents wireless carriers. It provided an “inadequate level of meaningful data” to “evaluate the 5G signal impact on radar altimeters” and ignored concerns for aviation safety. “It appears that [5G C-band carriers] Verizon and AT&T are beginning to understand the need to share data for the advancement of [aviation] safety, even if their trade association, CTIA, does not.”
The letter further looked into the near-term future and looming additional stressors upon the NAS. “As we look forward to new entrants to the aviation system—remotely piloted aircraft systems and drones, advanced air mobility, hypersonic aircraft, and commercial space operations—we need to make sure that these entities are also not impacted by 5G interference. A thorough review and risk mitigation of the systems used by these stakeholders is also needed before allowing 5G in the C-Band to continue expansion.”
So significant issues persist, though different factors may see the greatest emphasis - especially cost of retrofit, as well as developing standards by FAA. Little doubt cost (retrofit), and standards (new), will impact one another. Left for some other forum is any effort to address, much less redress, the bureaucratic or interagency inertia or turf-protecting (notice, as SLF/attorney I have not said "incompetence") by which this set of issues hit the fan.
Electro-Magnetic Interference can be very difficult to measure and evaluate. Even documented cases of EMI often can't be duplicated in the lab.
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...
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: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just popped up in one of my feeds today:
FAA says 5G could impact radio altimeters on most Boeing 737s
FAA says 5G could impact radio altimeters on most Boeing 737s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link to Feb. 24 2022 AD
From the FAA website, the AD when published on Feb. 24 will be available at:
federalregister.gov/d/2022-03967, and on govinfo.gov
The AD is already linked on the FAA site as well.
federalregister.gov/d/2022-03967, and on govinfo.gov
The AD is already linked on the FAA site as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EUROCONTROL "Think Paper" on subject of 5G and related
EUROCONTROL has published a position paper discussing the issues presented by 5G technology advancement.
Available on the agency's website, its social media platforms, and here:
https://t.co/ZWddVufKLL
Available on the agency's website, its social media platforms, and here:
https://t.co/ZWddVufKLL
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5G (or whatever "G") is not a technology per se. It's just a convenient banner providing a quick reference to the capabilities. The related radio access technology is more known as E-UTRA (and its derivatives). It'll be boring to dive deep into the details here (it's so huge topic) but technically, the difference between E-UTRA and the previous technology (UTRA) is very significant. Nothing in common, actually. E-UTRA is entirely different thing. It's much easy to learn and to implement, taking advantage of the computational capabilities in state of the art silicon chips. So it was a major clean-up from the engineer's perspective.
But the difference in RF spectrum usage efficiency between that two technologies is marginal. Both are good enough in that regard and both provides max. data throughput rate that is quite close to the theoretical maximum for given conditions. That's an important fact because it means that today, if you want more throughput, the only way to achieve that is to use more RF spectrum resources. You can't get noticeable gain by improving the technology itself (e.g. by inventing more efficient modulation schemes, using more advanced compression algorithms, designing better signaling protocols, and so on). The signal engineers are always happy to propose excellent technological improvements but that's simply because they are making their money from that. In fact, no additional spectrum allowance, no progress in the industry. So new wave of the spectrum wars.
I think that this particular issue will be sorted out very soon. Because it's not only the aviation community that's very upset by the new spectrum allocation, but the other corporations too. E.g. the GNSS guys are also among them, and I presume the military will also add their increasing weight to the push. So we will win the battle, no doubt. But I'm afraid we can't win the war in that way. Because if someone wants a resource very badly, he will keep trying to grab it. So he will keep trying to overturn a court decisions, to lobby for regulation changes, etc. After all, governments are elected by the business. No one will be happy, except the lawyers. It's a system problem.
Perhaps it'll be better, instead of trying to break the system, to find a ways to use it to our advantage. For instance, to set up a non-profit troll company, you can call it United Taxpayers Corporation, because each member of the club voluntarily taxes himself as much as he can to raise enough money to make a winning bid for the spectrum band on the auction. When the band is lawfully obtained, the company can install there a machine guns controlled by the image recognition software to prevent any human activity. Of course, it will not be a one time payment. Operational expenses, policing the band, providing enough physical security for the board members, guarding them against the criminals hired by the businessmen (they sure will), this all will bleed money constantly.
Seriously, widespread use of the troll company concept can cause to dramatic change in public behavioral pattern. You're paying not to get the thing but for the right to not have it. Too many useless things are out there. No wonder more and more people are starting to think how to prevent the others from making the things for profit. Clear example of missed opportunity is 4K TV (let 8K alone). Some clever guys learned how to pack excessive amount of pixels in square millimeter and wanted to make money from that. I was surprised on how welcomed it was by the public. Even with the special test images, the visual difference between 2K and 4K resolutions is barely noticeable on a screens of usual room TV size. While a 4K content requires noticeable more storage, bandwidth and eventually electricity and raw materials. So it's in fact inferior to 2K because the former is much less efficient. Now the same sort of guys are pushing for 5G to faster transmit that stuff to the tiny screens of mobile phones. Just insane. Something needs to be done to stop them. Different times, different priorities. Less is now more, etc. Welcome to the boring new world, gentlemen
But the difference in RF spectrum usage efficiency between that two technologies is marginal. Both are good enough in that regard and both provides max. data throughput rate that is quite close to the theoretical maximum for given conditions. That's an important fact because it means that today, if you want more throughput, the only way to achieve that is to use more RF spectrum resources. You can't get noticeable gain by improving the technology itself (e.g. by inventing more efficient modulation schemes, using more advanced compression algorithms, designing better signaling protocols, and so on). The signal engineers are always happy to propose excellent technological improvements but that's simply because they are making their money from that. In fact, no additional spectrum allowance, no progress in the industry. So new wave of the spectrum wars.
I think that this particular issue will be sorted out very soon. Because it's not only the aviation community that's very upset by the new spectrum allocation, but the other corporations too. E.g. the GNSS guys are also among them, and I presume the military will also add their increasing weight to the push. So we will win the battle, no doubt. But I'm afraid we can't win the war in that way. Because if someone wants a resource very badly, he will keep trying to grab it. So he will keep trying to overturn a court decisions, to lobby for regulation changes, etc. After all, governments are elected by the business. No one will be happy, except the lawyers. It's a system problem.
Perhaps it'll be better, instead of trying to break the system, to find a ways to use it to our advantage. For instance, to set up a non-profit troll company, you can call it United Taxpayers Corporation, because each member of the club voluntarily taxes himself as much as he can to raise enough money to make a winning bid for the spectrum band on the auction. When the band is lawfully obtained, the company can install there a machine guns controlled by the image recognition software to prevent any human activity. Of course, it will not be a one time payment. Operational expenses, policing the band, providing enough physical security for the board members, guarding them against the criminals hired by the businessmen (they sure will), this all will bleed money constantly.
Seriously, widespread use of the troll company concept can cause to dramatic change in public behavioral pattern. You're paying not to get the thing but for the right to not have it. Too many useless things are out there. No wonder more and more people are starting to think how to prevent the others from making the things for profit. Clear example of missed opportunity is 4K TV (let 8K alone). Some clever guys learned how to pack excessive amount of pixels in square millimeter and wanted to make money from that. I was surprised on how welcomed it was by the public. Even with the special test images, the visual difference between 2K and 4K resolutions is barely noticeable on a screens of usual room TV size. While a 4K content requires noticeable more storage, bandwidth and eventually electricity and raw materials. So it's in fact inferior to 2K because the former is much less efficient. Now the same sort of guys are pushing for 5G to faster transmit that stuff to the tiny screens of mobile phones. Just insane. Something needs to be done to stop them. Different times, different priorities. Less is now more, etc. Welcome to the boring new world, gentlemen
Since the recent US Supreme court decision hobbling the EPA’s regulatory authority appears, according to some reports, to also affect the FAA and I assume the FCC I wonder how that will further muddy the waters
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway this all is at a very early stage indeed. To make it more complex, most UE integrates multiple modems, one for each supported radio access technology. So there are a GSM modem, a WCDMA modem, and an OFDM modem. The UE can switch between them very easy, as needed. For instance, in early years of LTE, it was used exclusively for data calls. So for every voice call, the UE had to fall back to WCDMA, using the same tower. Voice call support was added to LTE much later, under the name of VoLTE feature. But the old equipment can still be in the field. Next, two LTE flavors are defined, FD and TD (the latter is primarily for use in China). Again, two slightly different radio signals. Definitely there are something more I'm not aware of.
For sure it will take years and years to come up with a more-less meaningful results. A huge and expensive efforts. Very happy I don't have to take a part.
Last edited by aek; 4th Jul 2022 at 17:45. Reason: missed [
SpaceX is in a fight with legacy Internet SATCOM providers - including Viasat - who are making representations to the FCC to "share" (I think SpaceX would say "trespass on") some frequencies SpaceX is using for Starlink.
In this submission, SpaceX say
THE (FEDERAL COMMUNICATION) COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY OVER SPACE SAFETY IS UNTESTED
...
As the Supreme Court has recognized, though afforded wide latitude in its supervision over communication by wire and radio, "the Commission was not delegated unrestrained authority," and the public-interest standard "is not to be interpreted as setting up a standard so indefinite as to confer an unlimited power." Rather, the Commission is required to evaluate license applications taking cognizance of matters within the Commission’s expertise as envisioned by Congress. ... The Commission should ignore Viasat’s misguided invitation to stretch the public interest standard past the breaking point, which would put the Commission’s authority over space sustainability at risk.
...
As the Supreme Court has recognized, though afforded wide latitude in its supervision over communication by wire and radio, "the Commission was not delegated unrestrained authority," and the public-interest standard "is not to be interpreted as setting up a standard so indefinite as to confer an unlimited power." Rather, the Commission is required to evaluate license applications taking cognizance of matters within the Commission’s expertise as envisioned by Congress. ... The Commission should ignore Viasat’s misguided invitation to stretch the public interest standard past the breaking point, which would put the Commission’s authority over space sustainability at risk.
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, almost forget to mention the most important factor in any outdoor activity. Weather. One of the advantages the E-UTRA technology does provide is better power management. Every UE periodically measures quality of the received signal and reports the results back to the tower. So both can adjust the parameters of radiated signal, including Tx power, to maintain reasonable error rate in the channel. In that way, the system can quickly adapt to the changes in signal propagation conditions, which are obviously weather-dependent for the frequency band in scope. So there is the possibility that in certain weather conditions (heavy rain, fog, etc.), when the information provided by the victim device is most important, the UE will generate more interference
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remarkably quickly, as it happens.
SpaceX is in a fight with legacy Internet SATCOM providers - including Viasat - who are making representations to the FCC to "share" (I think SpaceX would say "trespass on") some frequencies SpaceX is using for Starlink.
In this submission, SpaceX say
I.E. the FCC's authority would be "at risk" of the SCOTUS finding it has no power at all in this area, in line with their recent EPA ruling, if 'someone' were to take it all the way to the SCOTUS.
SpaceX is in a fight with legacy Internet SATCOM providers - including Viasat - who are making representations to the FCC to "share" (I think SpaceX would say "trespass on") some frequencies SpaceX is using for Starlink.
In this submission, SpaceX say
I.E. the FCC's authority would be "at risk" of the SCOTUS finding it has no power at all in this area, in line with their recent EPA ruling, if 'someone' were to take it all the way to the SCOTUS.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, almost forget to mention the most important factor in any outdoor activity. Weather. One of the advantages the E-UTRA technology does provide is better power management. Every UE periodically measures quality of the received signal and reports the results back to the tower. So both can adjust the parameters of radiated signal, including Tx power, to maintain reasonable error rate in the channel. In that way, the system can quickly adapt to the changes in signal propagation conditions, which are obviously weather-dependent for the frequency band in scope. So there is the possibility that in certain weather conditions (heavy rain, fog, etc.), when the information provided by the victim device is most important, the UE will generate more interference
Because of the significantly higher 5G frequencies, the wavelength is much shorter, with the consequence that shielding appropriate for 4G signals, suddenly starts to let 5G radio waves leak through, causing interference. Compare that to the cable TV signal distortion with the 4G introduction, solved by improving the TV cable shieldings. Note: Not all 5G frequency bands are higher in frequency as the 4G, some share, etc.
Add to that, that the 5G bands tend to be much nearer in frequency to the aviation/GPS vulnerable frequencies (combined with the broader 5G modulation spectrum used for a channel and as such more adjacent channel interference), and it is understandable, the 5G introduction is not a simple "let's go", as has been done until now.
The present concerns are not relating to 'significantly higher frequencies' but to C band, between 3 and 4 GHz. The precise relationship between the mobile and aeronautical services is documented in detail earlier in this thread. There are indeed long term plans for much higher frequency bands for 5g, but they are still in the field of research.
As for interference to GPS, the new cellular band at 3GHz is much further from the GNSS band than the older cellular bands. There doesn't seem to be any interference related to to those. Indeed modern smartphones have cellular radios and GPS receivers working within the same device.
As for interference to GPS, the new cellular band at 3GHz is much further from the GNSS band than the older cellular bands. There doesn't seem to be any interference related to to those. Indeed modern smartphones have cellular radios and GPS receivers working within the same device.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The present concerns are not relating to 'significantly higher frequencies' but to C band, between 3 and 4 GHz. The precise relationship between the mobile and aeronautical services is documented in detail earlier in this thread. There are indeed long term plans for much higher frequency bands for 5g, but they are still in the field of research.
As for interference to GPS, the new cellular band at 3GHz is much further from the GNSS band than the older cellular bands. There doesn't seem to be any interference related to to those. Indeed modern smartphones have cellular radios and GPS receivers working within the same device.
What do you mean, IF 5g gets approved? It's been in use around the world for a couple of years!
It's far too late now to discuss this in such generalities. The potential for interaction between C band cellular and the aeronautical service just above in frequency is very well known, and discussed in great detail further up this thread.
It's far too late now to discuss this in such generalities. The potential for interaction between C band cellular and the aeronautical service just above in frequency is very well known, and discussed in great detail further up this thread.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean, IF 5g gets approved? It's been in use around the world for a couple of years!
It's far too late now to discuss this in such generalities. The potential for interaction between C band cellular and the aeronautical service just above in frequency is very well known, and discussed in great detail further up this thread.
It's far too late now to discuss this in such generalities. The potential for interaction between C band cellular and the aeronautical service just above in frequency is very well known, and discussed in great detail further up this thread.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Canada uses different frequencies than the US and at lower power levels. The 5G towers are also configured differently for transmission.