FAA Warns of Aviation Safety Risks Without US Mandate On 5G Limits (reuters.com) 52
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) wants the U.S. telecommunications regulatory agency to ensure a delay in some 5G C-Band transmissions from smaller operators. Reuters reports: Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen said the agency wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to mandate voluntary mitigations that AT&T and Verizon agreed to earlier this year mandated for 19 smaller telecoms and other spectrum holders. In a previously unreported letter dated Friday, Nolen cited industry data established "aviation safety would be compromised if the U.S. government does not codify certain additional operating limits in the 5G C-Band environment."
Concerns that the 5G service could interfere with airplane altimeters, which give data on a plane's height above the ground and are crucial for bad-weather landing, led to disruptions at some U.S. airports earlier this year. Nolen's letter warns that without the FCC mandating the mitigations "the FAA would be forced to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public, raising the likelihood of flight disruptions across the United States."
Concerns that the 5G service could interfere with airplane altimeters, which give data on a plane's height above the ground and are crucial for bad-weather landing, led to disruptions at some U.S. airports earlier this year. Nolen's letter warns that without the FCC mandating the mitigations "the FAA would be forced to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public, raising the likelihood of flight disruptions across the United States."
When will this end? (Score:2)
Re:When will this end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only solution is take the lobbyists for the FCC and FAA and put them into no holds barred cage match.
Re: (Score:2)
Only solution is take the lobbyists for the FCC and FAA and put them into no holds barred cage match.
Lobbyists need to settle their differences on the moon... then never return to earth...
Re:When will this end? (Score:5, Insightful)
On what grounds would the FAA win?
"We fucked up, we allowed airliners to operate with equipment that is woefully out of spec, was warned about this situation a decade ago and did ... nothing about it, so now we need authority over the FCC to stop this being an issue"?
This is the FAAs bitter pill to swallow, they should get on with swallowing it.
Re:When will this end? (Score:5, Insightful)
You bring up some valid points, but fail to mention that this may not have been so easily apparent to FAA when they allowed these airplanes to get into the sky. Remember, some of these planes are decades old.
Maybe it should be FCC who should sue FAA instead. But, at the end of the day, human lives are worth more than the need of carriers implementing 5G, at least in the vicinity of airports. It seems to me that there indeed needs to be a court order or FAA ruling forcing airlines to update their airplanes. But until that happens, 5G needs to not be on around airports.
Re: (Score:1)
But, at the end of the day, human lives are worth more than the need of carriers implementing 5G, at least in the vicinity of airports.
Yeah, communication is useless .. until the day you need to call 911.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're relying on 5g to make a 911 call you're fucked.
Re: When will this end? (Score:1)
Because nobody ever made a 911 call before 5G was invented.
Dumbass.
Re: When will this end? (Score:1)
Is your phone a Motorola DynaTAC or something, supporting analog AMPS? At some point all phones will require 5G minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody ever made a 911 call before 5G was invented.
Non Sequitur. If your only phone available is a cell phone now, then you might not have any service, Or might have spottier service/difficult to get a signal if 5G is turned off you might not be able to call 911.
In the past we had landlines too, but they are going away. People phased out the old technology -- Providers like ATT even want to retire all the copper, so POTS service will totally disappear, eventually everything will be VoIP and
Re:When will this end? (Score:5, Informative)
Airworthiness directives are issued all the time to ensure airliners are continuously safe to fly - this is one of those situations where the equipment could have been replaced over the past decade during routine maintenance.
Aircraft do not roll off three production line and "that's it, no changes", they are updated all the time to resolve issues just like this. A pitot static port is discovered to be faulty, an AWD is issued and they are replaced fleet wide. A fuel heat exchanger is discovered to have an icing issue affecting thousands of aircraft and causing a crash, an AWD is issued and it's replaced. Someone flies aircraft into buildings, an AWD is issued to ensure secure cockpit doors.
This should have been an AWD a decade ago.
Re: (Score:3)
The other option is to declare these airfields "VFR only" unless you have an updated radar altimeter with the narrow-band filters for the nearby 5G Band C signals.
The other option is for the FAA to send out Notice to Air Missions (NOTAMs) when the 5G Band C transmitters are installed and inform pilots that the airfield is changing to "VFR only" for aircraft relying on the older, outdated RA equipment. There are plenty of "VFR only" airfields around the country that do not have ANY kind of approach or landi
Re: When will this end? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzzt. At the end of the day, airlines running out of spec equipment shouldn't be allowed to fly. Who knows what else is out of spec?
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, airlines running out of spec equipment shouldn't be allowed to fly. Who knows what else is out of spec?
The equipment in question is not "out of spec." The equipment is certified by the FAA for the application that it is being used for.
Re: When will this end? (Score:2)
But the FAA erroneously signed off on it. This happens all the time - parts get discovered to have a fault, and the FAA puts out an airworthiness directive saying effectively âoeweâ(TM)re uncertifying this part, hereâ(TM)s the one you should use now.â
Re: (Score:2)
But the FAA erroneously signed off on it. This happens all the time - parts get discovered to have a fault, and the FAA puts out an airworthiness directive saying effectively âoeweâ(TM)re uncertifying this part, hereâ(TM)s the one you should use now.â
THIS.
The FAA acts like "No problem here so it MUST NOT be our problem. Move along."
The FAA should have gotten out in front of 5G technology and researched the potential impacts on aircraft electronics. After all, cell phone tech has been around HOW LONG NOW?
Even recalls on auto issues by NHTSA are handled better than the FAA is handling this radar altimeter issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If the altimeters operate outside their assigned frequency bands, yes they absolutely ARE out of spec and defective. The fact that some airline cost-cutting, quarterly-bonus-boosting execs found and paid off a corrupt government bureaucrat to sign off on that gear in no way changes the fact that they fail to operate within the spec.
Re: (Score:3)
> this may not have been so easily apparent to FAA
> when they allowed these airplanes to get into the
> sky. Remember, some of these planes are decades
> old.
Irrelevant. By operating, in any capacity, outside their assigned frequencies, the altimeters were defective from day one; whether "day one" was three decades ago or three days ago. They should never have been purchased, installed on an aircraft, or allowed to fly in the first place. Absolutely zero of the blame here is on the FCC, the cel
Re: (Score:3)
No.. The FAA as well as all the airlines had plenty of notice this was happening.. The telecoms bought the right to operate on frequencies, thus they already paid to do so. Blocking providers from using property they paid for would not be legally acceptable.
The action is simple: The airlines need to ground the potentially defective planes in question until it can be confirmed they are in spec, and the FAA needs to Order and enforce tha
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the FAAs bitter pill to swallow, they should get on with swallowing it.
Also could be FAA probably didn't have resources, i.e. no additional money for people to work the details on 5G (some of this stuff can be very esoteric or difficult to see how it can be one of the "pieces of swiss cheese line up" to a accident). Or maybe telcos have lots more money devoted to lobbyists and control of FCC (commissioners are political appointees) than what aircraft companies have. Reminds me back in the days when Lightspeed wanted to implement their new system using freq close to GPS. Every
Re: (Score:3)
We fucked up, we allowed airliners to operate with equipment that is woefully out of spec
There's nothing out of spec about how the airliners are operating. In fact the first issues about RALs getting interference wasn't because of anything measured, it was because someone grabbed the ITU spec for radio altimeters and 5G spec and proposed assignment and ran them through a simulator.
Everyone is following the spec, it's just the FCC which seemed to have not read both of them.
Re: (Score:3)
If the altimeters followed the spec, then the guard band in place would be enough - they dont, so its not. The altimeters listen well down below the guard band, and they arent supposed to.
So yeah, its about the airliners being out of spec.
Re: (Score:2)
A certificated radar altimeter is not out of spec. Period. End of story. That is why it is certificated.
That is false, so it's easy to see why you're cowardly and anonymous.
The FAA and FCC have their own specs. It can be within FAA specs but not within FCC specs.
Who has authority here when the FAA has authority over air, and the FCC has authority over RF? I don't know, but I know the situation is more complicated than you are making it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Who has authority here when the FAA has authority over air, and the FCC has authority over RF
The FCC has authority first ALL radiators have to follow the FCC rules. If it flies, then it also has to follow FAA in addition to FCC rules.
As for the 5G... the FAA has no authority if it doesn't Fly and isn't attached to an airport, other than the requirement That stems from FCC rules - tall structures which create a Physical obstruction above 200 feet be registered with the FAA; The FCC is the one that Re
Re: (Score:3)
Adjacent channel interference is a function of power, not merely bandwidth. You can only have perfectly sharp filters (in a spectral cutoff sense) with infinite delay. The RALTs are perfectly able to tolerate the level of transmission power that was previously licensed in that adjacent band -- but the FCC decided that it should increase that by many orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
If the altimeters followed the spec, then the guard band in place would be enough - they dont, so its not.
The airlines are following the spec. This issue was identified when someone simulated the 5G allocation against the ITU spec, nothing to do with airlines or any equipment. It was literally a comparison between the spec and the FCC's assignment.
Re: (Score:2)
On what grounds would the FAA win?
"We fucked up, we allowed airliners to operate with equipment that is woefully out of spec, was warned about this situation a decade ago and did ... nothing about it, so now we need authority over the FCC to stop this being an issue"?
This is the FAAs bitter pill to swallow, they should get on with swallowing it.
How did the FAA fuck up?
The FCC allocated this bandwidth to Boeing decades ago who built radio altimeters which work just fine. They work just fine in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and Australia... Because the communications authorities of these countries limited the C-Band to prevent it from interfering with a system that is already in operation.
This is the FCC's fuck up and they need to tell the Telco's to suck it up.
Boeing needs to recall receivers (Score:2)
No need to go to court. Tat would solve nothing.
Boeing needs to recall receivers, and fit them out with the proper filters that were necessary to begin with.
Ninnies (Score:1)
And what happens... (Score:3)
When these planes fly over every other country that has 5G now or in the future?
Re:And what happens... (Score:4, Interesting)
Only the US uses the C band. Here in NZ, 5G is being rolled out without issue.
Re:And what happens... (Score:5, Informative)
When these planes fly over every other country that has 5G now or in the future?
Most other countries have a larger guard-band between 5G and RALs. The USA used an extraordinary high frequency for 5G services. But since you ask maybe look to a country like France. You won't have a problem there as they banned 5G transmitters with certain beaming patterns in certain locations near airports for specific approaches, because it turns out it was a bit of a problem there as well.
OMG, the FAA would have to do it's job! (Score:2, Insightful)
"...the FAA would be forced to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public..."
Isn't this exactly the FAA's Job? Wasn't this the FAA's job when the potential risk was identified years ago?
Clearly every other country should refuse to allow these dangerous U.S. aircraft into their air space.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly every other country should refuse to allow these dangerous U.S. aircraft into their air space.
Every other country doesn't have this problem because they either chose appropriate 5G frequencies or banned transmitters of certain configurations near airports.
Why did the FAA wait? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This starts way earlier than 2020 - it was known that the C Band would almost certainly be used a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind 2020. The assigned frequency band for these altimeters has been set since DECADES ago. The airlines decided to boost their quarterly reports by buying defective substandard kit that, by operating in any way outside its assigned band in the first place, fails to meet its spec. Well, now their corporate malfeasance has come home to roost. They need to fix their own defective aircraft themselves. And if the next quarterlies are down and some C-levels get a smaller bonus because of the expense f
Follow the money... (Score:1)
Re:Follow the money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Two problems with that. First, part 15 applies to unlicensed operation, and the altimeters are licensed. Second, that is not a technical statement, it is a regulatory one. The first part means that if your unlicensed device is causing interference with a licensed operation, even if it is operating perfectly and is entirely 'within spec', you must stop using it. The second part means if your unlicensed device is being interfered with by a licensed operation, even to the point of not working, tough - you get no regulatory protection.
Now, who licensed both the altimeters and the telecoms? The FCC. It is them that screwed up here.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, who licensed both the altimeters and the telecoms? The FCC. It is them that screwed up here.
The FCC licensed them each to use their own respective bands, but the affected radar altimeters are sensitive to RF outside of their allocation. It is the FAA that screwed up here.
Re: (Score:1)
Now, who licensed both the altimeters and the telecoms? The FCC. It is them that screwed up here.
The FCC licensed them each to use their own respective bands, but the affected radar altimeters are sensitive to RF outside of their allocation. It is the FAA that screwed up here.
Well... I think the manufacturers of the radar altimeters screwed up, omitting the filters that would have avoided this problem. The FCC is somewhat culpable as well for failing to regulate the performance of receiving devices used in sensitive applications, but since that is the case, one could legitimately argue (as you do) that the FAA should have been the extra level of oversight, Unfortunately they're mostly shills for the airline/aircraft industry.
Re: (Score:1)
False. The use of the bands including bands outside of normal operation is subject to international telecom standards. The ITU standard for RALs gives the specific requirements for out of band operation and this was one of the reasons the neighboring band was used universally for satellite to earth communications. This technology and it's use predates 5G by 2 decades. This technology and it's use goes well beyond the FAA and is used and mandated the same way globally.
The FCC fucked up here by shitting on a
Conspiracy theories much? (Score:2)
So now even the government believes the 5G conspiracy theories?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Many years ago it was decided they'd allocated all the bandwidth they could to public and the rest of it went to the military. So now the problem is, since the military absolutely will not give up any of it's mostly unused spectrum; that they have to start cutting the small slices up. The FAA chose to do nothing despite the warnings this was happening...which started during the 3G era. They're now trying to play victim.