Why 5G and aircraft isn't as simple as "But they do it in other countries!"

[GRex2595]

Summary

Professional Boeing 747 pilot explains why the FAA is asking for a delay to rollout of the high frequency band of 5G. Radio altimeters that are heavily used in the auto-land systems in commercial aircraft have masking that interferes with the 5G band. These altimeters use that frequency to measure the distance between the plane and the ground by measuring the time between sending and receiving the signal. The auto-land systems use this information to determine when to flare and bring thrust to idle. If the craft gets an incorrect reading, it could flare or bring the thrust to idle in a situation where it would not be safe to do so, and there was even a Turkish Airlines crash in 2009 because a bad radio altimeter reading caused the autopilot to put the thrust into idle. It's not a problem in Europe because the gap between the bands is 3 times larger than in the US, and companies flying into the US are even swapping out planes for ones that have been tested to not experience interference rather than fly aircraft that haven't been tested and approved, yet.

 

Quotes

Quote

"[A]s we get closer to the ground, especially when we're doing low visibility landings we need to know the exact height over the runway, and that's when we utilize our radio altimeters." -https://youtu.be/xaP6SMK5Qmo?t=257

Quote

"The radio altimeter is an integral part of an auto-land operation." -https://youtu.be/xaP6SMK5Qmo?t=277

Quote

"When these radio altimeters were being constructed, they were all alone in this part of the radio spectrum ... This means that the masking in the radio receivers on the radio altimeters were quite wide" -https://youtu.be/xaP6SMK5Qmo?t=359

Quote

"So why is this problem not in other parts of the world. Well, it turns out that in, for example, Europe, it's a much bigger buffer between the upper part of the 5G range to where the radio altimeters are. It's over 600 MHz. It's 3 times as big of a difference between the radio transmitters there, which makes the risk of interference much, much lower." -https://youtu.be/xaP6SMK5Qmo?t=701

Some quoted timestamps include extra information necessary for understanding the whole quote. I don't want to type up the whole 15 seconds of quote to get to the critical part of the quote.

 

My thoughts

TechLinked has covered a lot of 5G stories with a narrative that's pretty heavily skewed towards the companies that want to roll out 5G while making jokes about safety issues. Whether or not there exists a real safety issue, I think that the other side of the issue should be covered as well because it's not as simple as "5G exists in Europe and that hasn't been an issue." There are technological differences between the rollout of 5G in Europe and 5G in the US that make interference essentially a non-issue in Europe, but not so much of a non-issue in America. The FAA and everybody involved in the safe operation of aircraft operate under very low risk tolerances, so an undefined risk associated with 5G is too much risk. I don't really think it's fair to treat the FAA like they're being overly sensitive when there are lives at stake. Let's also not ignore the fact that the FAA was trying to solve this issue before the FCC started auctioning off frequencies, but the FCC went ahead with the auction anyway.

 

Sources

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by GRex2595
Remove all of the italicized text before posting.

[Qyygle]

"When these radio altimeters were being constructed, they were all alone in this part of the radio spectrum ... This means that the masking in the radio receivers on the radio altimeters were quite wide"

 

This kind of behavior is a no-go in basically all the rest of the industry. It's almost as if, the FAA had years, YEARS to test the most common altimeters for potential interference, and get on the manufacturers for shoddy work, but instead chose to... do nothing.

Yet it took them all of about ~3 days to suddenly certify swathes of the airfleet as cleared for operation when shit hit the fan? You can make the argument that we should be careful when lives are at stake, but also the FAA needs to actually do their job.

 

Failing miserably with the Boing 737 then jumping on to, 'world wide chaos, the sky is falling!' didn't do anything for their image as a responsible regulatory agency.

[IkeaGnome]

35 minutes ago, Qyygle said:

but also the FAA needs to actually do their job.

 

Failing miserably with the Boing 737

I grew up around Boeing. 
you might want to look into how much of a plane Boeing does the FAA certs for and how much the FAA does.

I’m not the least bit surprised.

[LogicalDrm]

@GRex2595, this thread has been moved to General Discussion. Seems like you have misunderstood what Tech News subforum is for. As this seems to be more talking point around single Youtube video which by itself is opinion piece.

 

Tech News subforum is exclusively for threads about news articles or other content which is supported by multiple sources talking about same thing (ie. press release with Youtube videos and tweets made about it). Anything else should be posted in correct subforum as normal discussion thread.

[GRex2595]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

@GRex2595, this thread has been moved to General Discussion. Seems like you have misunderstood what Tech News subforum is for. As this seems to be more talking point around single Youtube video which by itself is opinion piece.

 

Tech News subforum is exclusively for threads about news articles or other content which is supported by multiple sources talking about same thing (ie. press release with Youtube videos and tweets made about it). Anything else should be posted in correct subforum as normal discussion thread.

Fair enough that the video isn't really news per se, and I would have preferred that he shared the actual articles that back up the facts that he's sharing, but most of the video isn't opinion. The video covers facts related to the specific issues for why the 5G interference is an issue, and the only parts of the video that are really opinion is on whether or not the FAA was right to make their decision because planes impact lives in ways that radio signals generally don't. While we can agree that those statements are opinions, there is no opinion in how these devices work and how 5G can interact with them to produce safety issues.

 

The TechLinked channel seems to have no issue publishing the opinion that 5G is safe enough to operate in the vicinity of airports where these radio altimeters are used and making fun of the FAA for trying to prevent the safety issues. I don't understand why the description of how those devices work and why the FAA made the decision to request the delay is too much of an opinion to start sharing it.

 

At this point TechLinked is spreading misinformation with reckless abandon, and for what reason? I can't imagine that they're being paid to report that 5G isn't a safety issue.

[GRex2595]

3 hours ago, Qyygle said:

"When these radio altimeters were being constructed, they were all alone in this part of the radio spectrum ... This means that the masking in the radio receivers on the radio altimeters were quite wide"

 

This kind of behavior is a no-go in basically all the rest of the industry. It's almost as if, the FAA had years, YEARS to test the most common altimeters for potential interference, and get on the manufacturers for shoddy work, but instead chose to... do nothing.

Yet it took them all of about ~3 days to suddenly certify swathes of the airfleet as cleared for operation when shit hit the fan? You can make the argument that we should be careful when lives are at stake, but also the FAA needs to actually do their job.

 

Failing miserably with the Boing 737 then jumping on to, 'world wide chaos, the sky is falling!' didn't do anything for their image as a responsible regulatory agency.

I mean, fair that the FAA didn't do their job, and I don't think that we should be congratulating the FAA for deciding in the nick of time that 5G is a safety risk and needs to be delayed. It doesn't help that they can't pay enough to keep enough employees on payroll to meet demand, so they have to outsource to the companies that are building the tech they're certifying. However, I also don't think it's fair to report that, "other countries have 5G" with jokes about how it'll mess up flaps or something without the responsible addition that 5G in other countries is on a band that doesn't risk interfering with the altimeters. If we ignore the organizations involved in this whole mess, the issue is still that TechLinked is irresponsibly reporting why the 5G rollout is being delayed. A reasonable viewer without the full context would likely watch the video and believe that the FAA is overreacting, meanwhile 5G is a very real safety risk that the FAA isn't certain of and could very well kill people. And TechLinked is making jokes about it.

[Qyygle]

Ok, then to put it another way... Nobody has come out and actually shown interference yet.

Does the US 5G band get closer to the ones used by altimeters?

Yes

Has anyone (Airline, manufacturer, FAA) shown proof that this interference actually impacts flight operations (something that should be easy to do)?

No

 

To drag TechLinked, a private Youtube channel for making light of a ridiculous move by what is supposed to be a world-respected agency for failing to do the most basic of prep work seems superfluous.

It'd be like if regulators decided to go after gasoline distributors for Ford Pinto's exploding. Is gas the cause of these fires? Sure, but as it turns out, it's the cars (altimeters) that are dangerous...

[LogicalDrm]

28 minutes ago, GRex2595 said:

Fair enough that the video isn't really news per se, and I would have preferred that he shared the actual articles that back up the facts that he's sharing, but most of the video isn't opinion. The video covers facts related to the specific issues for why the 5G interference is an issue, and the only parts of the video that are really opinion is on whether or not the FAA was right to make their decision because planes impact lives in ways that radio signals generally don't. While we can agree that those statements are opinions, there is no opinion in how these devices work and how 5G can interact with them to produce safety issues.

Its opinion piece in same sence that column would be in traditional written media. Sharing facts along with opinions. For Tech News threads, just Youtube video from "random" channel isn't enough as its more likely to present views from certain angle than 2 news sites talking about same subject.

 

Here, "random" means small channel which may or may not present facts (doesn't provide any sources for the info in description, so would be hard to double-check unless you are already into know-how). We have no resources to do fact-checking, which is why we have guidelines about using sources that are already fact-checked (hopefully).

[Heliian]

I put this on the shoulders of the FCC.  They're the ones who are supposed to ensure that cockups like this don't happen.  

 

Simple solution is to ban 5g towers from a certain radius to the approach path.  I think it's only a few miles.  Then reassess and figure out the next step.  Maybe it's time for a refresh of Rad alt systems.  We're stuck with 5g now. 

 

 

[GRex2595]

1 hour ago, Qyygle said:

Ok, then to put it another way... Nobody has come out and actually shown interference yet.

Does the US 5G band get closer to the ones used by altimeters?

Yes

Has anyone (Airline, manufacturer, FAA) shown proof that this interference actually impacts flight operations (something that should be easy to do)?

No

 

To drag TechLinked, a private Youtube channel for making light of a ridiculous move by what is supposed to be a world-respected agency for failing to do the most basic of prep work seems superfluous.

It'd be like if regulators decided to go after gasoline distributors for Ford Pinto's exploding. Is gas the cause of these fires? Sure, but as it turns out, it's the cars (altimeters) that are dangerous...

That's kind of the point of shutting down the deployment. If we delay 5G deployment for no reason, AT&T and Verizon lose some money and people really close to airports don't get 5G as soon. If we don't delay 5G and there is an issue, there's potential for an aircraft to operate on invalid data from the altimeter which could result in an accident and loss of life.  The other two alternatives don't really need mentioning. Of the two options, I would greatly prefer not to experience loss of life for an upgrade in cellular technology.

My issue with TechLinked is not that they're criticizing the FAA or even that they're making jokes about it. It's that they're reporting misleading facts like "other countries do it" while the FAA, airline CEOs, and the head of transportation security are saying that the risk in America is too great and the rollout needs to be delayed for testing because America is not doing it like other countries. If they honestly reported the difference between the US and other countries, they can make whatever bad jokes they want, but as they are, they're basically propagating the cellular companies' propaganda.

[GRex2595]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Its opinion piece in same sence that column would be in traditional written media. Sharing facts along with opinions. For Tech News threads, just Youtube video from "random" channel isn't enough as its more likely to present views from certain angle than 2 news sites talking about same subject.

 

Here, "random" means small channel which may or may not present facts (doesn't provide any sources for the info in description, so would be hard to double-check unless you are already into know-how). We have no resources to do fact-checking, which is why we have guidelines about using sources that are already fact-checked (hopefully).

Okay, fair enough. I will keep in mind in the future.

[GRex2595]

1 hour ago, Heliian said:

I put this on the shoulders of the FCC.  They're the ones who are supposed to ensure that cockups like this don't happen.  

 

Simple solution is to ban 5g towers from a certain radius to the approach path.  I think it's only a few miles.  Then reassess and figure out the next step.  Maybe it's time for a refresh of Rad alt systems.  We're stuck with 5g now. 

 

 

I think both screwed up. The FCC for not listening to the FAA's advice to delay until testing and follow up to make sure the testing is being done with expediency and the FAA for not properly certifying equipment necessary for the safe continuation of flight. I'm sure it's not required equipment, but it's so ubiquitous and basically required for normal completion of a vast majority of poor weather flights that it should have been treated as required equipment.

[Heliian]

11 minutes ago, GRex2595 said:

FAA for not properly certifying equipment necessary for the safe continuation of flight. I'm sure it's not required equipment, but it's so ubiquitous and basically required for normal completion of a vast majority of poor weather flights that it should have been treated as required equipment.

It's required for instrument flight, it's one of the main components.  These systems were certified before 5g so it wouldn't be up to the FAA to make changes prior to this whole shenanigans.  

 

Even a basic Emi survey would have been enough to pick it up but the FCC either missed it or they knew prior about possible conflicts and ignored it due to $$$. 

[Mark Kaine]

in the end of the video he says "thats why you need to turn off your mobile phones during flight"

well except on my last flight (and some others) i was able to use my phone and so was everyone else, people clearly taking calls, etc.

 

flight was munich - rome, type was 737 , so does it depend on the aircraft or is it an american thing?

 

btw flight went without  a hitch apparently.

 

proof, sort of:  

Spoiler

 

 

bet they got bank angle alert but so cool : D

 

 

 

 

 

[GRex2595]

6 hours ago, Heliian said:

It's required for instrument flight, it's one of the main components.  These systems were certified before 5g so it wouldn't be up to the FAA to make changes prior to this whole shenanigans.  

 

Even a basic Emi survey would have been enough to pick it up but the FCC either missed it or they knew prior about possible conflicts and ignored it due to $$$. 

Hmm, I figured you could fly IFR with a traditional altimeter, but I guess just because you CAN fly the plane without it doesn't mean that it's not considered required equipment.  Good point. However, my understanding is that even before FCC sold the part of the spectrum being used for 5G, it was well known that that bit of spectrum could be used, so in my opinion the FAA should have required new certification to account for the possibility of the band being used in the future. In any case, there were some serious screwups between the two agencies that allowed it to get to this point.

[GRex2595]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

in the end of the video he says "thats why you need to turn off your mobile phones during flight"

well except on my last flight (and some others) i was able to use my phone and so was everyone else, people clearly taking calls, etc.

 

flight was munich - rome, type was 737 , so does it depend on the aircraft or is it an american thing?

 

btw flight went without  a hitch apparently.

Well, Petter is based out of Europe and flies intercontinental flights in a 747, so I don't think it's just an American thing. I think his point was more that if the entire plane is blasting off radio frequencies, we don't actually know enough about the scenario to safely say that it won't affect any instruments, so the FAA (and maybe other countries' flight regulators) requires the cellular antennas to be off for the duration of the flight (which in America is technically defined as doors closed to doors open, but nobody listens). We can pretty safely say a few people breaking the rules doesn't hurt, but if all 300 passengers break the rules, we don't know what affect it may have on the instruments. The type of plane doesn't matter because none of them were certified for all passengers using cellular frequencies. Although it seems like WiFi frequencies are getting signoff because you can use WiFi on most American passenger airlines now.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, GRex2595 said:

Well, Petter is based out of Europe and flies intercontinental flights in a 747, so I don't think it's just an American thing. I think his point was more that if the entire plane is blasting off radio frequencies, we don't actually know enough about the scenario to safely say that it won't affect any instruments, so the FAA (and maybe other countries' flight regulators) requires the cellular antennas to be off for the duration of the flight (which in America is technically defined as doors closed to doors open, but nobody listens). We can pretty safely say a few people breaking the rules doesn't hurt, but if all 300 passengers break the rules, we don't know what affect it may have on the instruments. The type of plane doesn't matter because none of them were certified for all passengers using cellular frequencies. Although it seems like WiFi frequencies are getting signoff because you can use WiFi on most American passenger airlines now.

yeah, well so i assume it may be an american thing because this was obviously a european flight (air berlin btw)

 

maybe some planes got certified, because i cearly remember i had to put my phone into "airplane mode" on other flights (747 iirc), but the last few, none of this… 

 

btw i also didnt get how we even got coverage, does the signal go that far…?  i also remember from austria onwards i didnt actually have a connection, because that cost €1.99 a day and i had that option turned off, still had a signal though. 

 

well, anyways either official or not, nobody of the crew seemed to care. : p

 

 

ps: as a sidenote i love mentourpilot, its not my favorite channel (hes no techmoan lol) but i think its actually by far the "best" channel on youtube, production value is through the roof and content top notch, also nobody can tell stories quite like him!  :3

 

[GRex2595]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, well so i assume it may be an american thing because this was obviously a european flight (air berlin btw)

 

maybe some planes got certified, because i cearly remember i had to put my phone into "airplane mode" on other flights (747 iirc), but the last few, none of this… 

 

btw i also didnt get how we even got coverage, does the signal go that far…?  i also remember from austria onwards i didnt actually have a connection, because that cost €1.99 a day and i had that option turned off, still had a signal though. 

 

well, anyways either official or not, nobody of the crew seemed to care. : p

 

 

ps: as a sidenote i love mentourpilot, its not my favorite channel (hes no techmoan lol) but i think its actually by far the "best" channel on youtube, production value is through the roof and content top notch, also nobody can tell stories quite like him!  :3

 

There's lots of weird tricks phones can do nowadays.  WiFi calling is pretty common, especially if you're using WhatsApp or other chatting platforms that do that. 5G is directional, so while older towers had a relatively short range because they had to transmit in every direction, 5G towers can transmit in specific directions and use less energy to send signals further.