Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Communications Government United States

FAA Estimates 78% of US Planes Can Now Land At Airports With 5G C-Band (theverge.com) 59

Posted by BeauHD from the frightening-frequencies dept.
The FAA has announced that an "estimated 78 percent of the U.S. commercial fleet" have been cleared to land at airports with 5G C-band, even under low-visibility conditions. The Verge reports: The agency's statement comes after a week of controversy surrounding the rollout of AT&T and Verizon's upgraded cellular tech, which saw US airlines warning of "catastrophic disruption" to travel and shipping and some international airlines announcing they'd halt flights to some US airports. At issue are concerns that some radio altimeters won't properly ignore signals from the new 5G transmitters. While there are precautions that should keep this from happening, including creating buffer zones around airports, an incorrect altimeter reading could cause real problems during a low-visibility landing.

Given the high stakes, the FAA has said that only planes with altimeters that it has tested and cleared will be allowed to land in sub-optimal conditions at airports where the new 5G tech has rolled out. [...] On January 16th, the agency announced that it had cleared two altimeters, which it bumped up to five on Wednesday. It said the cleared altimeters were installed in "some" versions of planes like the Boeing 737, 747, and 777. The FAA changed that language on Thursday, saying that the 13 cleared altimeters should cover "all" Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, MD-10/-11, and Airbus A300, A310, A319, A320, A330, A340, A350, and A380 models. It also notes that "some" Embraer 170 and 190 regional jets are covered.

The FAA is still predicting that some altimeters won't pass the test and will be "too susceptible to 5G interference." Planes equipped with those models won't be allowed to land at airports with the new 5G tech in low-visibility conditions -- which could prevent airlines from scheduling any flights using those planes to airports of concern, given the unpredictability of weather and the disruption such a diversion would cause.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FAA Estimates 78% of US Planes Can Now Land At Airports With 5G C-Band More

FAA Estimates 78% of US Planes Can Now Land At Airports With 5G C-Band

Comments Filter:

  • What are the FAA doing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @07:56PM (#62193391)

    Why wasn't this testing done 2-3 years ago? Why is the FAA scrambling now? Is there going to be a congressional investigation into this shitshow?

    • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:23PM (#62193425) Journal

      Politics.

      The US has a new secretary of transportation, appointed by Biden. The old secretary of transportation was appointed by Trump. That is the main thing driving the controversy right now.

      As to who is right technically, I have no idea, but extra testing is never a bad idea. Apparently Europe already did a similar 5G rollout and hasn't had problems.

      • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:4, Informative)

        by I75BJC ( 4590021 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:38PM (#62193455)
        Europe uses a different frequency rate for their 5G (according to the news); so their altimeters are "more isolated" from European 5G frequencies.
        It helps to know so that I don't compare apples with oranges.
        HTH

      • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:27PM (#62193551) Homepage

        Apparently Europe already did a similar 5G rollout and hasn't had problems.

        The 5G frequencies used in Europe are further away from the frequencies used by radio altimeters than the 5G frequencies that will be used in the USA. The USA had a large reserved guard band around the aviation frequencies, but the FCC decided to ignore that and sell the frequencies to cell companies anyway.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

          but the FCC decided to ignore that and sell the frequencies to cell companies anyway.

          Ouch. I would like to confirm if this really is the case. But then the FCC has become more of an agency selling spectrum than regulating it so it makes sense they sell guard bands without understanding why they were put there in the first place.

          • It's the case. $ome kind of $ystem was used to decide whether to $ell those freqs in the guard band... (aka, the auctions went for Billions)

            At the same time the FCC did that, the FAA prohibits just swapping the altimeters via certification rules. (partly safety, partly very, very expensive bureaucratic process) Aircraft operators have to pick up the poo from the clean end now with two agencies giving them a catch 22.

            In practice, the 'just' thing would have been altimeter replacement/cert gets paid for f

      • Europe has some differences. The band is slightly different in EU versus America, so it's further from the frequencies used by the altimeter. Also the EU has rules that the antennas in Europe that are near runways need to be facing away and also downwards.

        And do't just blame FAA, blame FCC and telecoms as well for not attempting to cooperate in this regard.

      • The US FCC $old the the $pectrum in close harmonics of the altimeter frequency for $ome reason, if only we had an idea what that might have been. Europe didn't auction those frequencies. Harmonics always happen; altimeters detect faint signals weaker than the 5g harmonics. It's sure to be a problem. But... the FCC got billions and took the cash. Airlines know the 'rules' are whoever has the spectrum first has priority, however for the FCC it has the rules on one hand - with expense to 'not FCC', and Billion

    • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:33PM (#62193441)

      Why wasn't this testing done 2-3 years ago? Why is the FAA scrambling now?

      No. The testing was done 10+ years ago and the results published in ITU-R M.2059-0. The FAA is scrambling now because the FCC ignored ITU-R M.2059-0 when it licensed the neighbouring band that was covered by that ITU recommendation. The FAA rightly assumed that with the standard in place no one would be stupid enough to mess with those bands. They were wrong.

      Mind you they aren't the only ones, that's the problems with recommendations. They are just that. The standards govern how radio altimeters are affected in worst case scenarios, and the recommendation was ignored the world over. Of note though is that while everyone agrees that based on the recommendation there could be likely interference, there's not yet been documented evidence of it happening, only theoretical models and simulations showing it would happen.

      Congress doesn't care. The airline industry is small fry in America.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Another Random Kiwi ( 6224294 )
        So when the FAA says [faa.gov]

        The FAA is working diligently to determine which altimeters are reliable and accurate where 5G is deployed in the United States. We anticipate some altimeters will be too susceptible to 5G interference. To preserve safety, aircraft with those altimeters will be prohibited from performing low-visibility landings where 5G is deployed because the altimeter could provide inaccurate information.

        doesn't that suggest that (a) they hadn't bothered to look at the specific equipment before this, and (b) it's the radio-altimeter manufacturers who should have evaluated their design against the ITU recommendation to ensure they had sufficient noise rejection?

        The 5G C-band licenses were 3700-3980 MHz giving a nominal 220 MHz guard band between that and the 4200-4400 MHz radio altimeters, and in practice AT&T and Verizon were deploying at no higher than 3800 MHz, so almost doub

        • I guess I should ask -- is there an RF engineer out there who could interpret (and post about) the ITU-R M.2059-0 recommendation for someone not in the field?

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

            I know and RF standards expert, but I hesitate to ask lest I corrupt Slashdot with actual facts.

        • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:4, Informative)

          by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @10:05PM (#62193619) Homepage

          doesn't that suggest that...(b) it's the radio-altimeter manufacturers who should have evaluated their design against the ITU recommendation to ensure they had sufficient noise rejection?

          The manufacturers are stuck between two immoveable federal agencies. It costs a manufacturer millions of dollars and years to get an instrument through FAA certification. If they were to go back and evaluate instruments that were potentially decades old, and that had been approved under standards applicable at the time, there is no reasonable outcome for them. One, there's no legal requirement to do so, so spending the engineering time and money on it isn't a great business move. Two, if they find a problem there probably isn't much that can be done to repair / patch / upgrade obsolete-ish electronics anyway so they look like the bad guy telling their customers they need an expensive upgrade. Three, if they don't find a problem, they can't really rely on that result anyway because it's being done outside of an official FAA testing process so it doesn't carry much legal weight.

          • You're right but it's irrelevant. The altimeter designers aren't in breach of the ITU recommendation. Quite the opposite. The ITU recommendation was written to protect altimeters and their operation (which by necessity can't just be brickwall filtered into some narrow band and happily coexist next to high power radio sources).

        • (b) it's the radio-altimeter manufacturers who should have evaluated their design against the ITU recommendation to ensure they had sufficient noise rejection?

          Maybe you should actually read the recommendation. The altimeters *do* comply with the recommendation. It was the recommendation that placed requirements on the noise floor in band (which 5G interferes with) as well as interference from adjacent bands (which 5G interferes with).

          The 5G C-band licenses were 3700-3980 MHz giving a nominal 220 MHz guard band between that and the 4200-4400 MHz radio altimeters, and in practice AT&T and Verizon were deploying at no higher than 3800 MHz, so almost doubling that guard band.

          And Australia gave them an 800MHz guardband and the ACMA modelling shows that 5G still is in interference with the ITU recommendation. And Europe also gave them a 400MHz guardband and the French modelling also shows interference. The

    • Why wasn't this testing done 2-3 years ago?

      Why did the US use bandwidth extremely close to a critical aviation safety system? Europe managed to find space for 5G without having this problem and it has far higher population densities making bandwidth demand higher.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by bbn ( 172659 )

        At least here in Denmark there are plans to auction the same space. Frequencies in the disputed space are valuable and airlines are not going to stop the use just because they want to save on upgrading the altimeter radar.

      • Re:What is the US doing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @10:22PM (#62193641) Homepage
        The issue is that the bandwidth is not really "extremely close", but it is closer than it ever has been before in the US. It's actually quite further apart than many other types of radio communication. Given an assumption of reasonable designs, both radar altimeters and 5G networks should be able to work just fine on these new bands. The issue is that detailed, real world testing on actual instruments deployed in the field was not done by the FCC. The FCC made the decision to open up the new frequencies based on models and assumptions that radar altimeters should be fine. The FAA has said that the testing has been insufficient to date, but also was not particularly proactive in doing testing early on. The agencies have mostly been moving on hoping the other would back down, and so far neither has.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tomz16 ( 992375 )

          The agencies have mostly been moving on hoping the other would back down, and so far neither has.

          The FCC already auctioned the spectrum, cashed the checks, the auction winners (carriers) invested / put up the cell equipment to utilize those new bands nationwide, etc. over the past few years. Not sure how the FAA ever saw this problem just going away.

          My problem is that it just seems like shit-all was done about this from the FAA / aviation industry over the past few years until RIGHT BEFORE the deadline to light up the networks approached. Then they started squealing and actually "checking their altim

    • Re:What are the FAA doing? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:49PM (#62193599) Homepage

      Why wasn't this testing done 2-3 years ago?

      The testing was done long ago, but no one officially had the responsibility to do anything about it, so no one did.

      The FAA had already approved all of the radio altimeters out in the field, an instrument that has been used for decades, and which there are thousands of flying every day. These were all approved under a standard testing protocol which included a large unused guard band around the radar frequencies. The FAA has said since the beginning that there was already a standard, and the instruments were tested and approved under that standard, and that changing the width of the guard bands around radio altimeters could cause interference, but that regulating frequencies in use was an FCC responsibility.

      The instrument manufacturers made instruments that met and passed the standards in place at the time they were built.

      The aircraft owners have fleets of working, approved instruments, and really don't want to and shouldn't have to pay for upgrades to these instruments that are currently working as designed just because some new noisy neighbors are moving in. There may not even be drop in replacements available for older model aircraft, requiring extensive (and expensive) rework and recertification.

      The FCC saw an opportunity to bring in $90,000,000,000 by auctioning one of the guard bands adjacent to the radar frequencies, leaving a much smaller guard band instead. They hand-waved a safety analysis literally just by saying something to the effect of "any properly designed modern equipment should work just fine", but never did any real testing of a sampling of actual radar instruments used in the field; including any that may not have been "modern" or "properly designed". They claim their techniques of modeling were sufficient, but in reality fall significantly short of the kind of testing aircraft systems are subjected to.

      The telcos claim it's not their responsibility because they already paid a shitload of money for the frequencies which they say were sold/leased legally and therefore they shouldn't have to pay for upgrades to aircraft instruments their 5G networks are now potentially jamming.

    • It was. The dipshit the last govt put in (You know, the guy who wrecked net neutrality because market forces are magical unicorns that can never have a bad result) had put in chose to ignore the results.

      • Actually my bad. It was started during that period (there was a LOT of fuss about it)

        But apparently the new FAA has been not much better.

        (Which proves my point that the Dems have become the party of Reagan, and the Republicans have become the party of .. . . well god knows what. I'm not even sure it knows anymore)

  • Marketing People Must Sell 5G!!! (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:37PM (#62193453) Homepage
    The telcos would kill everyone to make sure 5G spreads. In all of this, we don't even hear about the weather radar interference any more, because weather forecasters have less money than either airlines or telcos.
    • It was the US government who auctioned the spectrum. And the telco's paid dearly for it. 81B dollars. The question is why did the testing not get done before they sold the product?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cstacy ( 534252 )

        It was the US government who auctioned the spectrum. And the telco's paid dearly for it. 81B dollars. The question is why did the testing not get done before they sold the product?

        The testing was done years ago, and a report issued. The FCC didn't like the answer and so this October proceeded with the auction anyway.

        You have the actual answer within your question already: it's those digits right before the capital letter "B"....

        • I posted in response to a post implying it was the telco's fault. No, it was the FCC's. Don't care if the FCC management was wow'ed by a number. And really 81B is not even a big number for uncle sam. The fed printed 8T the last 2 years. 81B is a mere 1%.

    • In all of this, we don't even hear about the weather radar interference any more,

      Probably because several studies were done on this in late 2020 and all showed the initial panic and outrage from the year before to actually be quite insignificant even in the presence of severe global RF pollution (rather than the incredibly local RF pollution 5G actually causes).

      But "oops it turned out to be nothing" doesn't make for fancy clickbait headlines.

    • Where were you a couple of weeks ago?? Slashdot was extremely dismissive about the FAA claims and downvoting everyone suggesting there might be actual scienc behind the FAA's claims. Not knowing the FCC mowed over earlier objections.

    • The telcos would kill everyone to make sure 5G spreads. In all of this, we don't even hear about the weather radar interference any more, because weather forecasters have less money than either airlines or telcos.

      Technically, they would kill everyone to make sure AT&T and Verizon 5G spreads, because T-Mobile 5G is pink.

  • My combined 9/11 and 5G conspiracy theory has finally been vindicated: the government (FAA) is using 5G to keep planes from landing at airports!

    And you thought I was crazy!

  • Good enough for government work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:02PM (#62193495) Homepage Journal

    Anyone who understands the traditional 100/90/80/70 % grading scale knows 78% falls in the C range. Which is the second to lowest grade one can get without failing the course.

    Which, as anyone experienced with the US government knows, is "good enough for government work".

    For those Europeans who wonder why we don't have nationalized healthcare in the US, this is why. We have a government culture of incompetence and corruption, of putting forth only the minimum effort necessary to get by, which prevents our government from actually doing anything useful or important for the people they govern.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      78% of the time, it works every time!

    • The only thing incompetent is your comparison. This isn't "78% good enough move on", this is "we've cleared 78% so far".

      Don't compare your failing exams to a progress update on ongoing work. You look silly. Also your lack of nationalised healthcare has nothing to do with government incompetence and everything to do with vested interests preventing it.

      • Teacher: We've graded 78% of the test and so far you've gotten every question right!

        gillbates: But that's only a C!

        Is this where I make an assumption that the grandparent is a product of public (i.e., evil government) schooling?

  • I suspect it's the old ones, the ones with older altimeters. So that means a lot of small private planes are going to be grounded if the weather looks at all threatening? What makes up that 22%? Are these all old private personal planes? Maybe some older planes from other countries will no longer be allowed to take off until their altimeters are upgraded? Reduced flights to the USA from South America? Is the supply chain now further screwed up?

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Close