Another reason to ban 5G?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

366 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2841192 1-Jan-2022 08:54

ajw:
@empacher48

We can debate this subject all day but quoting from your article.

Verizon and AT&T were due to start using C-Band spectrum 5G wireless on December 5, but delayed the launch until the new year.

“We fully expect to deploy our 5G services over this spectrum early in the first quarter of 2022,” Verizon spokesman Richard Young told The Washington Post in November.

Wireless industry group CTIA has accused the aviation industry of fearmongering and distorting facts, reported Reuters.

The group’s president and CEO Meredith Attwell Baker says 5G is safe: “There appears to be no valid scientific or engineering basis to justify a delay, and there is overwhelming evidence to support rapid deployment. 5G operates safely in the C-Band without causing harmful interference to air traffic.

”Within the nearly 40 countries operating 5G in the C-Band today, there is not a single report of 5G causing harmful interference with air traffic of any kind.”

So you’ve got the FCC, CITA and the wireless industry saying “yes there is no problem, go for it it’s all scaremongering” of course they would, they’re all on the side of the wireless companies, it’s their industry and not their problem when planes end up in people’s houses.

Yet Airbus, Boeing and the FAA are on the opposite side, Airbus saying they have had reports of interference, the FAA have put Airworthiness Directives out about the potential issue (AD’s don’t come out for any little thing as they apply to all aircraft, crew and airlines worldwide and are reserved for major immediate safety issues), airlines worldwide are advising crew about the issue. So we have the aviation industry saying “hang on, let’s investigate this further before people die”.

I know people want fast internet, but at what cost? (Not a dollar cost).

Sharesies

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

ajw

1927 posts

Uber Geek

#2841193 1-Jan-2022 08:56

@empacher48

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1103192305940/211103%20CTIA%20Ex%20Parte%20on%20C-Band%20International%20Deployments.pdf

empacher48

366 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2841200 1-Jan-2022 09:05

5G Interference Assessment Report October 2020

Quote from the executive summary (the report is 231 pages long:

“ The results presented in this report reveal a major risk that 5G telecommunications systems in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band will cause harmful interference to radar altimeters on all types of civil aircraft—including commercial transport airplanes; business, regional, and general aviation airplanes; and both transport and general aviation helicopters. The results of the study performed clearly indicate that this risk is widespread and has the potential for broad impacts to aviation operations in the United States, including the possibility of catastrophic failures leading to multiple fatalities, in the absence of appropriate mitigations. The extent of the RF interference is summarized by the worst-case exceedance of the safe interference limit of radar altimeters by expected 5G signals in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band: 14 dB for commercial transport airplanes (as shown in Figure 10-4), 48 dB for business, regional, and general aviation airplanes (as shown in Figure 10-12), and 45 dB for helicopters (as shown in Figure 10-16). Further, the impacts are not only limited to the intentional emissions from 5G systems in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band, but also the spurious emissions from such systems within the protected 4.2–4.4 GHz radar altimeter band directly. In this latter case, the worst- case exceedance of the safe interference limit is 28 dB for business, regional, and general aviation airplanes (as shown in Figure 10-25), and 12 dB for helicopters (as shown in Figure 10-29).”

This article was referenced out of Civil Aviation Australia Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 34-020 issue 5

ajw

1927 posts

Uber Geek

#2841203 1-Jan-2022 09:10

@empacher48

Australia. The 5G base station power level in Australia is 56 dBm/MHz.
8
If RTCA’s claims
were correct, Australia would be exceeding the “safe” level by 44 dB. Yet no interference
has been reported

Successful deployments domestically and internationally below 3700 MHz are relevant to the
discussion of aviation’s claims. The RTCA Report suggests that radio altimeters are already subject
to harmful interference today from operations below 3700 MHz, making domestic and
international deployments below this frequency range equally apt for comparison. Although the
RTCA Report did not evaluate altimeter performance below 3700 MHz, the receiver overload for the
worst-performing radio altimeter in AVSI’s test set becomes more susceptible with greater
frequency separation from C-Band deployments, which is not normal.14 If RTCA’s claims were true,
the altimeter driving these results would be just as susceptible to 5G signals below 3700 MHz—
where wireless services have been deployed for more than a decade. The aviation community has
failed to explain the unexpected behavior of this radio altimeter, which drives RTCA’s conclusions
in Category 2 and Category 3 devices.
If the RTCA Report were to be believed, then altimeters would be subject to interference
from deployed systems that operate below 3700 MHz. For instance, the SPN-43 federal air traffic
control radar systems have operated for decades just below 3700 MHz, emitting 10,000 times more
power than C-Band 5G deployments. Based on the aviation industry’s study, the SPN-43 radar

SomeoneSomewhere

1731 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841207 1-Jan-2022 09:21

empacher48: I’ve just read an Airbus Safety First article about Radar Altimeter (RA) interference in reference to the 5G spectrum. I can’t link the article as it is company controlled and my job is worth a lot to me.

Airbus themselves have recorded 25 instances of double RA failure in the USA where the failure occurred due to “incompatible signals received by the RA system, or outside interference from a high power transmitter”.

It may not seem a big deal having a double RA failure, but flying the Airbus the following items are lost when we loose both RA’s:

RA 1 and 2
Altitude Call Outs
CAT 2 and CAT 3 ILS capability
Auto land
Reactive Windshear Detection
Traffic Collision and Avoidance System
Runway Over run warning and protection
Normal Flight Control Law
Alternate Flight Control Law with Protections
ILS Approach Mode cannot be used by the autopilot

Only when landing gear down:
Alternate Flight Control Law without Protections - therefore flight is continued in Direct Law and Flap 3 only.

It isn’t as simple as if the RA doesn’t work you need higher landing minima, for all Airbus aircraft it is a significant reduction in aircraft performance and safety. For flight crew, the workload required to fly an approach in their configuration is significant and you are doing it without your normal safety back up systems.

Shifting to Alternate mode w/o protections and especially Direct mode is a pretty big deal in an Airbus. I'm surprised loss of RAs would cause that.

But this band isn't live in the US yet? So are they suggesting that these 25 incidents were caused by some other radio bands? Surely the focus would be on identifying those.

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841216 1-Jan-2022 09:48

It's incorrect to say this issue will delay 5G. The airlines have submitted a list of around 40 US airports. As I understand it they are asking for continuation of the existing voluntary carrier low power policy to reduce interference around these airports.

empacher48

366 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2841222 1-Jan-2022 10:02

SomeoneSomewhere:

empacher48: I’ve just read an Airbus Safety First article about Radar Altimeter (RA) interference in reference to the 5G spectrum. I can’t link the article as it is company controlled and my job is worth a lot to me.

Airbus themselves have recorded 25 instances of double RA failure in the USA where the failure occurred due to “incompatible signals received by the RA system, or outside interference from a high power transmitter”.

It may not seem a big deal having a double RA failure, but flying the Airbus the following items are lost when we loose both RA’s:

RA 1 and 2
Altitude Call Outs
CAT 2 and CAT 3 ILS capability
Auto land
Reactive Windshear Detection
Traffic Collision and Avoidance System
Runway Over run warning and protection
Normal Flight Control Law
Alternate Flight Control Law with Protections
ILS Approach Mode cannot be used by the autopilot

Only when landing gear down:
Alternate Flight Control Law without Protections - therefore flight is continued in Direct Law and Flap 3 only.

It isn’t as simple as if the RA doesn’t work you need higher landing minima, for all Airbus aircraft it is a significant reduction in aircraft performance and safety. For flight crew, the workload required to fly an approach in their configuration is significant and you are doing it without your normal safety back up systems.

Shifting to Alternate mode w/o protections and especially Direct mode is a pretty big deal in an Airbus. I'm surprised loss of RAs would cause that.

But this band isn't live in the US yet? So are they suggesting that these 25 incidents were caused by some other radio bands? Surely the focus would be on identifying those.

A lot of the changes in the normal law around the take off and landing require the RA information to provide subtle changes between ground mode, flight mode, flare mode. Hence the degradation to Alternate Law with no RA, then direct law when gear down allows the reversion into ground mode for the flare, otherwise the protections of Norma l law wouldn’t allow a proper flare.

Technofreak

6512 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2841228 1-Jan-2022 10:16

empacher48: I’ve just read an Airbus Safety First article about Radar Altimeter (RA) interference in reference to the 5G spectrum. I can’t link the article as it is company controlled and my job is worth a lot to me.

Airbus themselves have recorded 25 instances of double RA failure in the USA where the failure occurred due to “incompatible signals received by the RA system, or outside interference from a high power transmitter”.

It may not seem a big deal having a double RA failure, but flying the Airbus the following items are lost when we loose both RA’s:

RA 1 and 2
Altitude Call Outs
CAT 2 and CAT 3 ILS capability
Auto land
Reactive Windshear Detection
Traffic Collision and Avoidance System
Runway Over run warning and protection
Normal Flight Control Law
Alternate Flight Control Law with Protections
ILS Approach Mode cannot be used by the autopilot

Only when landing gear down:
Alternate Flight Control Law without Protections - therefore flight is continued in Direct Law and Flap 3 only.

It isn’t as simple as if the RA doesn’t work you need higher landing minima, for all Airbus aircraft it is a significant reduction in aircraft performance and safety. For flight crew, the workload required to fly an approach in their configuration is significant and you are doing it without your normal safety back up systems.

Thanks for that info. I aircraft I fly aren't fly-by-wire and don't have the sophistication of an Airbus. I was aware of the greater impacts of Rad Alt issues but had no direct experience/information to base my response on thus the more generic response.

While the Rad Alt is a stand alone system in that it doesn't require other systems to work it provides inputs to several systems and if the Rad Alt fails, so do those systems.

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

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841457 1-Jan-2022 14:56

Out of curiosity how many domestic planes would be affected by this?

SomeoneSomewhere

1731 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841463 1-Jan-2022 15:06

All the domestic jets are A320 family and would presumably be affected, although I haven't looked into whether there are e.g. different manufacturers of the actual altimeters - local aircraft might not be fitted with the affected models.

Not sure what effect it would have on 737s, ATRs, or Q300s. Probably marginally less.

Ge0rge

2011 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2841472 1-Jan-2022 16:17

I'm curious as to a point raised earlier that doesn't seem to have been answered yet.

If 5G hasn't been turned on yet, where have the 25 incidents that Airbus have recorded come from? What has caused them? Surely they already have a problem, and it's not with 5G.

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841477 1-Jan-2022 16:42

Ge0rge: I'm curious as to a point raised earlier that doesn't seem to have been answered yet. If 5G hasn't been turned on yet, where have the 25 incidents that Airbus have recorded come from?

Imo this is an inaccurate simplification of the current situation which is why it makes no sense. There's 5G all over the place including near these airports. US carriers have a voluntary agreement to run these sites at low power.

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841742 2-Jan-2022 09:23

FAA and Transport secretary ask AT&T and Verizon to delay C-band by two weeks After that period the govt will require corridors around priority airports - until the FAA can figure out the path ahead.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-officials-ask-att-verizon-delay-5g-wireless-over-aviation-safety-concerns-2021-12-31/

ajw

1927 posts

Uber Geek

#2841746 2-Jan-2022 09:39

gzt: FAA and Transport secretary ask AT&T and Verizon to delay C-band by two weeks After that period the govt will require corridors around priority airports - until the FAA can figure out the path ahead.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-officials-ask-att-verizon-delay-5g-wireless-over-aviation-safety-concerns-2021-12-31/

This whole scenario should have been sorted out years ago between the FAA and FCC. Its not the telecoes fault but gross incompetence by both these government agency's. Would not surprise me if this issue ends up in a US court sooner rather than later.

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2841750 2-Jan-2022 09:56

Probably true it should have been sorted out years ago. Imo this is the airlines and air manufacturers playing chicken with the government. The FCC has a responsibility to prevent interference but it's not unlimited. At some point the airlines and air manufacturers will need to install better receivers and signal processing. Probably the airlines and Boeing Airbus etc would like to postpone that until the next generation of aircraft.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6