Another reason to ban 5G?

Forums › New Zealand Mobile and Wireless › Another reason to ban 5G?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#2856660 26-Jan-2022 14:18

@Beccara

The FAA have had over two years to test all this equipment successfully being used in another 40 countries. How convenient that the FCC didn't put all these conditions when the C band spectrum was auctioned. No doubt they would have received a lot less money if they had.

tieke

674 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2856664 26-Jan-2022 14:33

empacher48:

Perhaps there is an oversimplification of the certification system for updating hardware on an aircraft. It is not as simple as "just bolting on a new filter and off you go". It must be tested to prove there is no issues and those tests will go well beyond what is considered normal or even abnormal operation.

Undoubtedly - the fact is that due to safety implications, comprehensive checks are required every time approved parts are changed, so airlines are smart to stick with the "if it's currently working, don't touch it" plan.

The point of the obviously aggrieved engineer I quoted is that as this has been known about for many years and a fix should be relatively straightforward, the pressure should have been on the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to have done something a long time prior to saying at the last minute "No, you can't turn on the bands you've paid for, because it turns out our poorly filtered analogue equipment would have issues".

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2856680 26-Jan-2022 14:44

tieke:

empacher48:

Perhaps there is an oversimplification of the certification system for updating hardware on an aircraft. It is not as simple as "just bolting on a new filter and off you go". It must be tested to prove there is no issues and those tests will go well beyond what is considered normal or even abnormal operation.

Undoubtedly - the fact is that due to safety implications, comprehensive checks are required every time approved parts are changed, so airlines are smart to stick with the "if it's currently working, don't touch it" plan.

The point of the obviously aggrieved engineer I quoted is that as this has been known about for many years and a fix should be relatively straightforward, the pressure should have been on the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to have done something a long time prior to saying at the last minute "No, you can't turn on the bands you've paid for, because it turns out our poorly filtered analogue equipment would have issues".

Have a read in empacher48's post about how long it takes to make changes to aircraft systems.

Also for your benefit I'll re-post what I posted earlier in this thread.

The development and certification takes time and is costly. There are a lot of incentives to keep using something if it's already approved and working. Plus this sort of gear can expect to be in use for 20 to 30 years. Airlines and aircraft owners don't have the money to throw out and replace serviceable equipment that isn't end of life.

Better receivers will be installed in new aircraft or when a device is beyond economic repair, it's the already installed non BER equipment that's the problem. Who pays to replace that?

Radar altimeters are a bit like an octopus with respect to aircraft systems. They have tentacles that reach into other systems. It's probably not as simple as just replacing the Rad Alt. Other impacted systems may need updating too.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#2856682 26-Jan-2022 14:51

@Technofreak

So in other words C band spectrum for 5G use should not have ever gone to auction and both Verizon and AT&T have been ripped off.

PolicyGuy

1727 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2856748 26-Jan-2022 16:52

ajw:

@Technofreak

So in other words C band spectrum for 5G use should not have ever gone to auction and both Verizon and AT&T have been ripped off.

The FCC were politically charged to get 5G going as much and as fast as possible and to advantage their telcos as much as possible, and so they auctioned off more than they probably ought to have. In other countries, the C-band 5G signals go from 3.4-3.8GHz, but in the USA the FCC auctioned off 3.4-3.98GHz, an extra 180MHz bandwidth.

Also, in other jurisdictions, telcos were required to angle their signals slightly downwards, whereas there is no such restriction in the USA, so US telcos tend to orient their antennae for maximum coverage with less regard for signal 'spillage' in an upwards direction.

AT&T & Verizon got exactly what they wanted, and were prepared to pay a vast amount of money for.
The $81 Billion was not all 'profit' for the FCC, they had to pay a lot of money to satellite communications suppliers who were already licensed to use that band for SATCOM. Those SATCOM suppliers bought a whole bunch of new GEO satellites, and had to re-fit many SATCOM base stations and install replacement filters on a lot of customer ground equipment.
And those old C-band SATCOM signals were not a problem for aircraft Radio Altimeters because the SATCOM base stations use very narrow beams and exercise very great control over their frequency usage

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2856764 26-Jan-2022 17:36

Beccara:

Aviation safety regulations are written in blood.

Whilst this is certainly true, the bureaucracy and time and cost of making changes is actually costing lives. Because approval is so expensive, no-one changes anything until they are forced to. Because approval is so eye-wateringly expensive, aviation parts are also eye-wateringly expensive. (Thousands of dollars for a certified GPS module, with no more functionality than what's in your phone). So improved technology is simply not used.

But, again, according to the article, most radar altimeters are unaffected by the 5G rollout, including some that are 16-24 years old. These radar altimeters aren't "using" the C band. The only holdup was the FAA not doing the actual testing to prove it.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2856769 26-Jan-2022 17:47

frankv: The only holdup was the FAA not doing the actual testing to prove it.

Imo the FAA would look at test and certification reports from manufacturers and operators in this case. The airlines provided reports so job done imo. Standoff continued.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2856770 26-Jan-2022 17:50

frankv: So improved technology is simply not used.

.. until the next generation of aircraft.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2856899 26-Jan-2022 21:33

frankv:

Beccara:

Aviation safety regulations are written in blood.

Whilst this is certainly true, the bureaucracy and time and cost of making changes is actually costing lives. Because approval is so expensive, no-one changes anything until they are forced to. Because approval is so eye-wateringly expensive, aviation parts are also eye-wateringly expensive. (Thousands of dollars for a certified GPS module, with no more functionality than what's in your phone). So improved technology is simply not used.

But, again, according to the article, most radar altimeters are unaffected by the 5G rollout, including some that are 16-24 years old. These radar altimeters aren't "using" the C band. The only holdup was the FAA not doing the actual testing to prove it.

Your phone doesn't have RAIM nor SBAS

Edit to add

One could argue it wasn't the FAA's job to do the proving. The proving should be done by the manufacturer/installer of the 5G equipment to meet the FAA's satisfaction. Until that testing/proving is done the FAA can sit back and say there's potential safety issue, which is basically what they have been doing.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

empacher48

368 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2856900 26-Jan-2022 21:39

Technofreak:

Your phone doesn't have RAIM nor SBAS

I would love my phone to have three ring laser gyros as part of an inertial navigation system to provide ghosting of the position while you have either a RAIM outage or signal degradation.

Would certainly help when my phone gets lost while trying to navigate around tall buildings.

But that is a story for another day.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2856903 26-Jan-2022 21:59

Your phone can probably receive SBAS signals (at least most of them). Using an app like GPSTest can show you what satellites your phone is currently using and there's a section for SBAS that typically has something in it.

But SBASs are typically in orbits (or on the ground, but you probably won't pick that up on a phone) that target particular regions, like the urban canyons of Japan. So you won't find many hovering around NZ.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2856912 26-Jan-2022 22:35

SomeoneSomewhere:

Your phone can probably receive SBAS signals (at least most of them). Using an app like GPSTest can show you what satellites your phone is currently using and there's a section for SBAS that typically has something in it.

But SBASs are typically in orbits (or on the ground, but you probably won't pick that up on a phone) that target particular regions, like the urban canyons of Japan. So you won't find many hovering around NZ.

I wonder that you're getting SBAS and GBAS mixed up. Space Based Augmentation V Ground Based Augmentation. Two different systems.

Sure you might be able to see the SBAS signals but your phone cannot use them. You have to select which SBAS system you want/need to use on your GPS, (that's the case at least for the SBAS capable units I'm familiar with) plus the SBAS signals are absolutely useless outside of the geographical area they are intended for. There is currently no SBAS coverage for New Zealand though it is coming.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2857192 27-Jan-2022 15:21

empacher48:
Technofreak:

Your phone doesn't have RAIM nor SBAS

I would love my phone to have three ring laser gyros as part of an inertial navigation system to provide ghosting of the position while you have either a RAIM outage or signal degradation.

I would love it if my plane's GPS had 3 ring laser gyros too. But it doesn't. It's just a very expensive GPS.

ShadowAuror

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

ID Verified

#2857207 27-Jan-2022 15:50

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/airline-ceos-make-u-turn-now-say-5g-isnt-a-big-problem-for-altimeters/

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2857211 27-Jan-2022 15:53

Technofreak:

One could argue it wasn't the FAA's job to do the proving. The proving should be done by the manufacturer/installer of the 5G equipment to meet the FAA's satisfaction. Until that testing/proving is done the FAA can sit back and say there's potential safety issue, which is basically what they have been doing.

Well, no. It's up to the 5G users to prove that their equipment doesn't violate the bandwidth and power limits imposed by the bandwidth that they've bought. And no-one is arguing that they do exceed their limits. The problem is that radar altimeters *might* require bandwidth outside their allocated band to function correctly, and so could be affected by 5G equipment that is functioning correctly and in accord with their licenses.

As an analogy, assume that, in the absence of a neighbour, someone (radar altimeter manufacturers & airlines) has a rifle range with targets near their boundary to some vacant land. One day that neighbouring land is sold and the new owner (5G providers) wants to build their house on that piece of their land. The Council (FCC) says go ahead... their building complies with all the building codes and resource consents and so on. The NRA (FAA) says they can't build -- the land is needed for safety, although they don't know if anyone actually fires bullets across that boundary.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6