Sure there is. Operational disruptions cost money. Overhype the risk, eliminate that cost, make more money.
Here is a new article from CNN that shows Emirates Airlines, specifically, is furious about not getting enough information about the 5G rollout until now. The head of the airline is saying they were basically blindsided about this at the last minute. There’s also info about the doubled power of the antennas in the US, as well as a different antenna orientation here in comparison to airports elsewhere, possibly causing more issues for flight systems.
So it’s kinda sounding like the FAA really dropped the ball here.
I’ve long been skeptical here. If there’s any valid evidence of an actual problem, it’s spectacularly irresponsible to say “Disable your cellphone’s transmissions” while making compliance voluntary. I’d guess something near 100% of flights included a passenger who deliberately ignored the request or (more likely) simply forgot to reset his phone / fumbled the process.
There have been, some of them cited in places above.
To be more precise, they DO interfere so the question is rather how much do they interfere and to what extent do they impair the function of the equipment that’s already out there. And testing this is really difficult and expensive and so far the conclusions aren’t all that conclusive. The ultimate test is in live situations across a broad range of conditions, aircraft, and airports.
To an extent, we’ve done this but it’s not currently practical to test to a high level of confidence conditions are safe. Rather, we’re trying to get to the point of testing to the point where we’re pretty sure things aren’t too unsafe.
Likewise, your cell phone DOES interfere with equipment during flight, even in airplane mode, but it’s at a low enough level that the safety/convenience trade-off is considered ok
I know people have been skeptical about cell phone interference, but it’s real. The counter-arguments all seem to be a strange inverse of the Gambler’s Fallacy. “It hasn’t been confirmed to happen yet, so it’s not going to happen ever.”
As long as electronics are involved, EM interference is going to be a factor. We just need to figure out where we want to set the risk/benefit point.
There’s a massive asymmetry in risks involved, which is not entirely dissimilar to the social dynamics of the pandemic.
Play it too safe and people complain because a relative luxury/convenience is not available (5G availability isn’t really THAT important). Play it too loose and people can be injured or killed.
Are the risks being overblown a bit too much? Possibly or even probably but it also seems like cell companies just kind of went forward full speed without regard to potential objections until somebody hyped the risks sufficiently to get somebody to pay attention.
People and companies are weird like that. You’d think there’d be a lot of close collaboration and communication through the whole process between all the players, but many of us know that’s not how our own companies would operate, much less all these airports, airlines, and phone companies.
I looked before I posted and I looked again now, but all I see is the video from a Boeing 777 pilot and a study that, on browsing thru, only seems to look at 3g networks.
Is that what you were referring to?
You know, I’m probably mixing up threads at this point. Apologies for that.
Here’s one on 5G Band-C interference. It’s the main one currently used by the FAA for precautions.
One major problem is that these groups aren’t talking to each other. The FAA has noted this issue for a few years but the FCC hasn’t done much on it. Some of that may be due to vacancies in the FCC and the politicking around that. The FCC hasn’t exactly crowned itself in glory these last few years, not just with the FAA but across a variety of topics.
Thanks much and yoiks! That’s 217 pages!
Skimmed thru it tho and it does indeed look like there’s a problem. I wish they’d start saying that it can interfere instead it may interfere; it’s a subtle difference but an important one for understanding the issue.
I’ll give the whole study a better look this evening; thanks again.
How is this not a catastrophically stupid engineering move on the part of airplane manufacturers? It’s THAT EASY to jam safety-critical aircraft systems that it’s being done accidentally?
It’s also a catastrophic fuckup on the part of the FCC, this very sort of thing being the reason they exist.
Sounds like you should read a little on the electromagnetic spectrum. Interference (and antenna design and signal processing) is not the binary thing a layperson might think.
Also: the aircraft navigation solution predated 5G using this -neighboring- airspace.
How would YOU futureproof your design?
Consider that, in the last 80 years or so, we’ve gone from AM radio to Color TV to a fully digital transition and THEN overlaid cellphone communications in there somewhere.
Indeed so.
Think about simple AM radio. The stations are 10kHz wide but it’s not really possible to have a hard cutoff. It’s common to get bleed through from neighboring stations. And there are a lot of rules and regulations about allowable power levels and so forth and these can vary depending on something as simple as operating at night (when AM signals can travel significantly further) or not. And this is incredibly mature technology that’s been around for about a century now.
I don’t know if it helps but spectra is analog but we tend to think in digital. It’s all about keeping the interference to an acceptably low level, however we end up defining that.
Well if you have a better idea than radar for a precise height above ground measurement I’m sure they’d be all ears. If you’re going to use radar though, you have the problem that it works by sending out EM pulses that bounce off a target and it is possible to fool it by having similar EM from another source going back to the antenna. The airline industry is not the military, they shouldn’t have to devise electronic counter measures for their proven systems just because a terrestrial phone system is getting an upgrade.
The radars already have their dedicated frequency band; no one is taking that away or subjecting that to significant interference. The problem is that these altimeters, according to the FAA, experience interference from transmitters hundreds of megahertz away. All radio transmissions require some kind of guard band to protect adjacent users, but hundreds of megahertz is ridiculous.
It’s not some insoluable problem. Radio altimeters which better reject transmissions outside their approved band already exist, and have been approved to operate without restriction. But apparently there are a bunch of old/crappy models out there that the airlines don’t want to replace.
Why should the airlines pay and not someone else? Because they are effectively using a public resource that they aren’t entitled to, like someone extending their house out onto Federal land and then whining when they find out the Feds want to use that land. It’s their responsibility to fix that.
They could have, though. There’s nothing in the standards to dictate the frequency range.
Essentially, this is a difference between 5G the technology suite and 5G the marketing spiel. When you see some telco advertising “5G”, they are in part telling you that they’ve billions on these new frequency bands to deploy it to. It’s nothing to do with the technology per-se, except that it had to be deployed to some region of spectrum, and the FCC recently opened up this range.
I’m not familiar with the particular models and their abilities, do you have more info on that?
At any rate, why should an airline replace its equipment in this situation? It sounds very much like the logic used by someone who buys a house next to a railway and then wonders why the railway is unwilling to change their schedule to suit the sleeping patterns of the new resident.
This. Passengers already on the ground will survive on 4G.
Another choice would be to reduce the 5G transmission power (I understand US transmitters are about double other areas).
Another possible solution is shield/adjust/move the transmitters to block or reduce emissions in the approach path area. The passenger terminals (5G users) are not in the flight path generally.
When I’m king, I’ll have a sit down with technical experts and engineers for 5G, antenna/transmitters, and radar altimeters (no %*#&ing administrators) and hash out a solution. /soapbox off.
Nothing specific. My info is from here:
The FAA has developed a process by which better performing radar altimeters that are able to reject 5G interference can be approved to operate without regard to the AD and NOTAMs. These Alternate Methods of Compliance (AMOC) approvals will be specific to a combination of aircraft model and radar altimeter model.
No. It’s more like that a railway was given a 200 m strip to operate in. And then, it was understood that there would be another 200 m gap because railroad operations are dangerous and you don’t want people getting too close. But the railway, seeing that most of their operations are in the middle of nowhere, built out another 300 m on top of that gap, and no one complained then because it wasn’t being used. But then the land did get sold and the railway is complaining that they have to pay to move their stuff.
More generally, because radio spectrum is totally finite and incredibly valuable, we should always be looking at the most valuable use for it. There is very little value in keeping around ancient altimeters when we know modern models don’t have the same problem. But deploying 5G networks is incredibly valuable to society.
According to the 5G interference Airworthiness Directive the affected approaches are:
- Instrument Landing System (ILS) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) SA CAT I, SA CAT II, CAT II, and CAT III
- Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedures with Authorization Required (AR), RNP AR IAP
- Automatic Landing operations
- Manual Flight Control Guidance System operations to landing/head-up display (HUD) to touchdown operation
- Use of Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) to touchdown under 14 CFR 91.176(a)
So it’s a much broader range than just CAT III.
A bit of a hijack, but what exactly is the supposed benefit to 5G. I’m totally fine with 4G, but maybe I’m abnormal.
I did read that. It’s unclear how common / practical these combinations are.
If this article is accurate then the vast majority of airline operations will be unaffected, at least in terms of low visibility landings. It seems a bit wishy washy on the other affects.
Among the aircraft types approved are the Airbus A320 family, the A330 and A350, as well as the A310, plus the Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, MD-10 and MD-11.
In the end, it’s all about spectral efficiency and higher data rates that gets you. There is an enormous amount of marketing fluff surrounding it that you can ignore.
I would say there are two major areas that it improves. First, dense urban environments where a lot of people are using a lot of bandwidth. And second, for fixed locations–specifically, as a replacement for DSL or cable, or even as a last-mile substitute for fiber. 4G just doesn’t have the efficiency to be really cost effective there in most cases, but 5G likely will be.