5G is downing our planes!

[Cudzoziemiec]

As if giving us all Covid wasn't enough!

Two days before Verizon and AT&T plan to deploy more segments of their new 5G mobile internet technology, leaders of the nation’s largest air carriers warned again on Monday that thousands of flights could be grounded by interference from the technology and that “the nation’s commerce will grind to a halt.”

In unusually sharp terms, the airline industry implied in a letter to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and other top federal officials that Verizon’s and AT&T’s plans could add to the disruptions in the global shipping network that have fueled inflation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/business/airlines-5g-warning.html

The apparent problem is that "new C-Band 5G technology could interfere with critical airplane instruments such as radio altimeters – which judge the distance from the ground to the bottom of the flying vessel – and have an impact on low-visibility operations." I've no idea whether this is correct or not but if we assume it is – why on earth is it only being raised now? Surely this would have become apparent a couple of years ago? So is this a) hysteria b) crap reporting or c) something specific to equipment used only in the US?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

It is almost entirely a US problem, due to their mobile phone frequency allocation.

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=489950 understandably discusses the matter.

[Kim]

Shirley even in USAnia there are processes for working out whether a prospective new frequency allocation is likely to cause problems for existing users?

*googles*

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/dc7bd4f27e5f107486257221005f069d/379cfb187d16db10862587b4005b26fc/%24FILE/AIR-21-18R1.pdf


That sounds awfully like such a process working as intended, albeit in a last-minute panic kind of way.


(Presumably lower C-band is attractive for 5G for much the same reason as it's used for RADAR...)

[Cudzoziemiec]

To note the 5G band in Europe is 3.4-3.8 GHz

USA it's 3.7 to 4.2

The rad ALTs work at 4.2 to 4.4.

I don't have a clue who decided that 4.2-4.4 was for rad alt.

I think it was a UK invention which is why it fits in with the European frequency allocation.

Seems to hint at the problem. But wasn't this obvious years ago? Did nobody speak to the airlines when they were allocating frequencies in the US and were the airlines asleep when it was done?

[Kim]

Seems to hint at the problem. But wasn't this obvious years ago? Did nobody speak to the airlines when they were allocating frequencies in the US and were the airlines asleep when it was done?

I think you're underestimating the capitalism of the situation.  There's a shitload (presumably an imperial shitload, because USAnians) of money to be made selling off spectrum.  Biggles will probably be fine.  Probably.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Yeah... but there's a shitload of money in aviation too, especially in the USA.

[Kim]

Yeah... but there's a shitload of money in aviation too, especially in the USA.

Not for the FCC (or whoever).

[Mr Larrington]

Makes sense... by Mr Larrington, on Flickr

[Cudzoziemiec]

Rofling at the "vaccine based 5G chemtrail beam". 

[rogerzilla]

US 5G has a slightly higher upper frequency limit, and a LOT more radiated power, than UK/EU 5G.  Hence the issue.  Basically, they screwed up   

[Ham]

Linked to in the forum post mentioned by LWaB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=942KXXmMJdY

Or, what TimC's YouTube channel might look like

[TimC]

I'm not starting a YT channel for aviation - the subject is covered to an adequate sufficiency already!

This is really a political battle. The FAA haven't investigated and approved the radio altimeters in about 55% of the current US fleet as being proof against C-band 5G interference. Therefore there's a legal issue about whether they can be safely used, and of course the insurance industry is going to wash their hands of it if they are used. The airline industry can't afford to be uninsured, and they (probably quite rightly) don't feel that they should stop flying those aircraft that have not been cleared.

The US runs a very, very clever and comprehensive electro-magnetic aviation test facility at Albuquerque, and it can simulate pretty much any electronic interference scenario that can be envisaged. It would be a relatively simple matter to test and approve (or reject) the radalts that are currently suspect, but it will be expensive - and who pays?

That, I suspect, is what this is all about.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Thank you Tim.

[Beardy]

Why would an airline by aeroplanes with instruments that don’t have full approval, or indeed why would manufactures be equipping aeroplanes with uncertified instruments? I can’t imagine either scenario exists and as the radio altis were in use (and presumably licensed and certified) then I’d suggest it is encumber on the users of the new tech in the adjacent frequencies to prove that they are not interfering with existing equipment.

As Tim says, the likelihood is that the phone operators don’t see when they should pay for the testing when they bought the spectrum from the government and the government are refusing to pay, so those impacted (ie the airlines) are getting a bit antsy in public to try and force the issue.

[matthew]

My guess is the instruments are accredited but that the accreditation did not require testing against interference in the particular frequency band and power input of an American 5G mast. So now the FAA needs to change the accreditation standard and the manufactures need to get the new test undertaken so that the insurers will allow the planes to fly. This is expensive and who pays? The airlines who need to fly, the instrument manufactures who need to keep the instruments accredited so they can continue to sell them (what about discontinued products?), the telecoms companies who are introducing the interference or the regulator who sold off adjoining frequencies allowing the interference?

In practice the telecoms choosing not to turn on the masts under final approach is a good compromise (unless that's where your business is) as this allows everyone more time to sort themselves out, determine if any of the instruments are vulnerable, and adapt the fleet of aircraft. But the question of cost is still open and the travel industry isn't exactly well placed to swallow costs at the moment.

[TimC]

Why would an airline by aeroplanes with instruments that don’t have full approval, or indeed why would manufactures be equipping aeroplanes with uncertified instruments? I can’t imagine either scenario exists and as the radio altis were in use (and presumably licensed and certified) then I’d suggest it is encumber on the users of the new tech in the adjacent frequencies to prove that they are not interfering with existing equipment.

As Tim says, the likelihood is that the phone operators don’t see when they should pay for the testing when they bought the spectrum from the government and the government are refusing to pay, so those impacted (ie the airlines) are getting a bit antsy in public to try and force the issue.

Yes, exactly that. All of the aircraft in the US (and foreign visiting) airlines are certified in the current electromagnetic environment. Other countries, as I understand it, are not using C-band 5G, so the issue hasn’t (yet) arisen elsewhere. The frequency band changes have been requested and paid for by the telecoms industry and allowed by the government (in exchange for a wodge of dosh ), so why should the aviation industry pay what will be a very substantial bill?

It’s been put off again, so we’ll see who wins. My guess is the telecoms industry will have to modify their technology in the region of airfields, and the aviation industry will be given some time to proof their equipment against C-band 5G, so the bill will effectively be shared - except by the Federal Government, who are the main financial beneficiary, at least in the short term!

[tatanab]

Despite a last-minute compromise with Verizon and AT&T brokered by the federal government that will at least temporarily limit deployment of 5G cell service around airports, limitations on airplane operations at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport still take effect at 9 p.m. Pacific time Tuesday.

Thanks only to the reasonably clear weather, significant flight cancellations are not anticipated at Sea-Tac on Tuesday night or Wednesday, said Bret Peyton, Alaska Airlines director of flight operations engineering and fleet technology.

But in a chaotic rollout of the new 5G network service, Federal Aviation Administration flight restrictions remain in place that, from Tuesday night forward, will stop many airplanes from landing at Sea-Tac if the weather deteriorates so that the cloud ceiling is below 200 feet.

And Boeing has issued instructions to airlines about flight restrictions on its airplanes that have already caused some foreign airlines to stop flying 777s into the U.S.

A partial quote from the Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/chaos-at-sea-tac-airport-still-a-risk-despite-5g-wireless-deal/

[TimC]

Interesting. Not exactly a great time of year to be making Lo-Vis Ops impossible for much of your planned traffic, especially in the PNW. If and when flight cancellations start to bite, locally-elected representatives may find that both businesses and individuals in their constituencies regard continuing their access to travel as more important in the short term than gains in mobile bandwidth.

[Beardy]

In days of yore, in the UK at least, this would absolutely be for the telecoms operators to sort out. Cross bandwidth interference would not be tolerated and would be enforced by (in the UK) the Home Office although, because the tech was a bit noisy anyway, gaps were left between operations bandwidths to allow a certain amount of latitude, but even that would be policed.
Newer technology and an increased pressure for bandwidth seems to have resulted in these buffer zones shrinking, or even disappearing, so the tolerances on the tech need to be tighter at added cost. This is something the telecoms firms seem to have overlooked and the government no doubt ‘forgot’ to advise on when the band C frequencies were sold.

[TimC]

I think there’s a particular problem in the US in that every government department has significant chunks of reserved bandwidth, and they are very reluctant to give any of it up. That makes it very difficult for the telecoms industry to exploit new technology. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on them to ensure that what expansion is allowed doesn’t disadvantage other users, particularly something as safety-critical as aviation. However, the federal government seems very reluctant to get a grip of this, which may be a reflection of Biden’s tenuous grip on power.

[ian]

There are large parts of the US where it's always 1957 (and that's not just the kitchens).

[Cudzoziemiec]

It does sound as if the FAA and the FCC really ought to talk to each other a bit more.

[Mr Larrington]

There are large parts of the US where it's always 1957 (and that's not just the kitchens).

There’s a substantial chunk of it where it’s still 1857, or at least the inhabitants would like it to be if only to erase the memory of that pesky C Darwin.

[Moleman76]

I think you're underestimating the capitalism of the situation.  There's a shitload (presumably an imperial shitload, because USAnians) of money to be made selling off spectrum.  Biggles will probably be fine.  Probably.

please do note that after the events post-1776, certain imperial measurements are not commonly used by we former colonists.  We do hold on to inches, feet, yards, and miles, but no longer do we use many of the imperial units of volume.  No, we've inflated the very measurements, such that 'your' 100 imperial gallons are 120 of ours.  That mere act of redefining the units leads to our sh!tloads having a larger numerical expression.

"one would think" (optimist, eh?) that it could be possible to alter the 5G transmitters near airports to not use the full bandwidth, but just the part at the lower end.

Now that this is out, wait for someone to weaponize their 5G cellphone to lure aircraft to the ground in unpleasant ways.

[Mr Larrington]

And yet you fall about laughing* when a BRITON uses the word “fortnight”

* Belgians do the same when they hear the name “Geoffrey Bird”.  No-one knows why, not even other Belgians unless they were being excruciatingly polite to my grate frend Geoff.