U.S. Airlines Warn of 'Catastrophic' Crisis With Impending 5G Rollout, AT&T and Verizon Agree to Delay Around Airports

[albebaubles]

I still haven’t seen any articles that really explain about why this only just suddenly come up, and also why it is an issue in the first place after other countries have managed roll outs.
How have they managed it?
Is it ’just‘ the FAA being awkward for some reason, or a money issue somewhere?
Anyone stand to gain or lose from this rollout in the aviation industry?

Apparently the 777's (perhaps more, I do not know) use electronic altitude sensor that require a band close to our c-band. Europe's Cband is slower and uses a Ghz rating even further than what the airline uses - so they are win the clear.

If you ask me this is an airline screw-up, they've known about the band and FAA has for some time. Telecoms have paid for the band...

 

[Analog Kid]

I think it’s more the FAA reneged on their agreement to accept FCC decisions regarding these bandwidths, and the airlines suffering at the whims of the FAA’s waffling, and the wireless carriers not wanting to be blamed for a bunch of canceled flights beyond the airlines’ control that would be more rightfully blamed on the FAA than the wireless carriers. Either way, the airlines are screwed. It really is the FAA’s mess. The airlines and cell carriers are being taken for a ride.

WSJ article is pretty helpful:

Opinion | How to Mess Up a 5G Rollout

We’re from the FAA and we’re here to blame you for our mistakes.

www.wsj.com

Ah, I found the 258 page report and order referenced by the decidedly not helpful WSJ opinion piece:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-22A1.pdf

So, why would the WSJ not just link to the document they think supports their argument? I’ll excerpt the points I find relevant:

”A set of preliminary test results prepared by the Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute was provided to the Commission […] The preliminary results show that there may be a large variation in radio altimeter receiver performance between different manufacturers. The measured PSD levels at which errors occurred ranged from -21 to 51 dBm/MHz for the various types of altimeters that were tested.”

”T-Mobile commissioned a study by Alion to review the AVSI report […] We agree with T-Mobile and Alion that the AVSI study does not demonstrate that harmful interference would likely result under reasonable scenarios”

So there was evidence submitted that aircraft could be affected, the wireless industry commisioned a study to refute it, and the FCC sided with T-Mobile that the risk was “unlikely” under “reasonable scenarios”. Someone made a determination of risk and decided to err on the side of more risk to airline passengers.

That would make for a much more nuanced discussion than WSJ wanted to have though, I guess.

 

[albebaubles]

Just ground all flights until the aviation industry fixes the problem.

My Netflix on 5G must not be interrupted.

Your 5G is fine, it's the ultra wide band we're talking about.

 

[Analog Kid]

Your 5G is fine, it's the ultra wide band we're talking about.

This is the C-band spectrum (sub 6GHz), not the mm wave stuff (>24GHz).

Technically, there's no UWB implementation for 5G (but I see now that marketing doesn't care about what words actually mean-- just how they feel...)

 

[winglet69]

I have 9,000 hrs on B777, 2000 on B787.

If you want to know why Europe isn't having the same issues, here's your answer:

Europe rolled out 5G without hurting aviation. Here's how

And some comments from Emirates Airline president Tim Clark - Emirates among many other foreign carriers (ANA, Air Japan, Air India, etc) who have cancelled all or many of their US flights until further notice.

Emirates president: The 5G snafu is the biggest screwup I've witnessed in my career

So yeah, the US has definitely well and truly pooped the bed. Blame the FCC, FAA, or the telecoms, but it's a mess.

Turns out having tech make all the decisions without proper oversight doesn't always work out well. Who knew?!

 

[darthgreen]

Why were they pushing 5g so hard and promoting, installing antennas everywhere if it causes more issues like these including meteorological issues as well

 

[Analog Kid]

I have 9,000 hrs on B777, 2000 on B787.

If you want to know why Europe isn't having the same issues, here's your answer:

Europe rolled out 5G without hurting aviation. Here's how

And some comments from Emirates Airline president Tim Clark - Emirates among many other foreign carriers (ANA, Air Japan, Air India, etc) who have cancelled all or many of their US flights until further notice.

Emirates president: The 5G snafu is the biggest screwup I've witnessed in my career

So yeah, the US has definitely well and truly pooped the bed. Blame the FCC, FAA, or the telecoms, but it's a mess.

Turns out having tech make all the decisions without proper oversight doesn't always work out well. Who knew?!

Thanks. If anyone has a more technical source, that still would be welcome. The CNN articles read like they were written by someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about but who spoke to someone who does...

It seems to repeat what I've read elsewhere-- different frequency bands, cell tower antenna directions set to avoid interference, lower power levels... I've also read that strange phrasing of "slower 3.4 to 3.8 GHz range" somewhere, though, which leaves me feeling there's a bit of an echo chamber happening...

And why do news organizations refuse to link to primary source data? It would really help if they could just support their statements of fact with links to the regulations they pulled the facts from.

Still the statement from the Emirates president is pretty clear:

"We were not aware that the power of the antennas in the United States [has] been doubled compared to what's going on elsewhere. We were not aware that the antenna themselves have been put into a vertical position rather than a slight slanting position," Emirates President Tim Clark told CNN Business on Wednesday.

 

[Premium1]

Which other countries? Which spectrum? What power levels?

Japan, Europe? I mean it's not that hard to do a simple search and find out. Not to mention Verizon has a much larger guard band than those countries. Airlines just want another handout like always.

 

[Analog Kid]

Japan, Europe? I mean it's not that hard to do a simple search and find out. Not to mention Verizon has a much larger guard band than those countries. Airlines just want another handout like always.

That simple search must be harder than you suggest if you can’t answer those three questions and think Europe is a country…

 

[steve333]

Our government can be easily bought, even at the expense of our safety. It is truly pathetic.

 

[Analog Kid]

Our government can be easily bought, even at the expense of our safety. It is truly pathetic.

I don't see any evidence of that here. The FAA held back landing approvals until they can confirm safe operation.

I feel like this thing is getting turned more political than it maybe should be... The FCC wanted to increase available bandwidth for 5G to benefit the citizenry, so they found a place they thought they could eek out a couple hundred MHz. They developed a set of regulations around that spectrum and sold it to the highest bidders because that's how you make the most efficient use of a public resource that is best managed by a private entity.

There were incumbent users of those bands-- satellite comms needed to be relocated, and others needed to adapt in band. There are also adjacent bands, such as altimeter radar that have to deal with their new noisy neighbors and it will take time to adjust.

The FAA ensured that inconvenience won over lack of safety and announced that low visibility approach using uncertified equipment would be prohibited at high risk airports. The airlines cried out and asked for the cellular carriers to accommodate them while they continue through the process of safely updating their equipment.

All of this seems reasonable to me. I feel like the FCC sometimes plays a bit fast and loose with concerns of incumbent users and has become less technocratic as an agency than I feel they should be, but I still don't get the hyperbole being slung around. These are two private industries going through an adaptation to a new regulatory framework. I haven't seen statements from the aviation industry that their radar can't be adapted, just that it will take time. Government is getting engaged to help facilitate, but the negotiation at this stage is largely between private businesses.

And the current level of accommodation doesn't seem unreasonable either-- c-band is being deployed everywhere except for a few towers within a small radius of a small number of airports. That doesn't seem like a terribly large burden on the wireless carriers who seem to be struggling to get all their other very many towers deployed and operational anyway. Eventually the carriers will make it clear to the airlines that their patience is wearing thin and will force the change of equipment if it hasn't happened already. In the mean time, us consumers still get the same 3G, 4G, LTE, 5Ge and 5G coverage we have today in those few square miles.

 

[Kar98]

The real question is - have anyone using any 5G even noticed when they are on 5G and when they slide to 4G?

I have asked plenty here in the UK and nobody have noticed any improvements at all and can't tell if they have actually used and been connected to 5G or not - ever.

The dead spots are still the same dead spots - the downloads speeds are roughly the same - unless you are really lucky and stand right next to the antenna mast. The phone companies are still just as bad at mast deployment and roaming as they have always been. Tech can't win over bad "cost saving" management and deployment.

5G is kind of "useless" for generic use - but great for low latency applications and a few other "currently niche" applications.

Up to 50ish MBps download speeds on LTE, up to 450 on 5G. In fact I’m using it as my home internet now.

 

[steve333]

I don't see any evidence of that here. The FAA held back landing approvals until they can confirm safe operation.

I feel like this thing is getting turned more political than it maybe should be... The FCC wanted to increase available bandwidth for 5G to benefit the citizenry, so they found a place they thought they could eek out a couple hundred MHz. They developed a set of regulations around that spectrum and sold it to the highest bidders because that's how you make the most efficient use of a public resource that is best managed by a private entity.

There were incumbent users of those bands-- satellite comms needed to be relocated, and others needed to adapt in band. There are also adjacent bands, such as altimeter radar that have to deal with their new noisy neighbors and it will take time to adjust.

The FAA ensured that inconvenience won over lack of safety and announced that low visibility approach using uncertified equipment would be prohibited at high risk airports. The airlines cried out and asked for the cellular carriers to accommodate them while they continue through the process of safely updating their equipment.

All of this seems reasonable to me. I feel like the FCC sometimes plays a bit fast and loose with concerns of incumbent users and has become less technocratic as an agency than I feel they should be, but I still don't get the hyperbole being slung around. These are two private industries going through an adaptation to a new regulatory framework. I haven't seen statements from the aviation industry that their radar can't be adapted, just that it will take time. Government is getting engaged to help facilitate, but the negotiation at this stage is largely between private businesses.

And the current level of accommodation doesn't seem unreasonable either-- c-band is being deployed everywhere except for a few towers within a small radius of a small number of airports. That doesn't seem like a terribly large burden on the wireless carriers who seem to be struggling to get all their other very many towers deployed and operational anyway. Eventually the carriers will make it clear to the airlines that their patience is wearing thin and will force the change of equipment if it hasn't happened already. In the mean time, us consumers still get the same 3G, 4G, LTE, 5Ge and 5G coverage we have today in those few square miles.

Europe didn't give out C Band, we shouldn't either. 5G shouldn't have been allowed to go forward from the beginning, IMO

 

[Analog Kid]

Europe didn't give out C Band, we shouldn't either. 5G shouldn't have been allowed to go forward from the beginning, IMO

Parts of Europe did repurpose C band, they just made different trade offs. It sounds like maybe you’re someone who’s concerned by 5G more generally though… Not sure the benefits of holding it all back.

 

[1984 Mac Guru]

Can’t the pilots just put the plane in Airplane Mode when they land?

 

[OverTheHill]

It's possible that they want federal funds to update their older planes instead of spending their own money.

Yes. This is right. Because the 787 is such an old aircraft.🤦🏼‍♂️

The issue is in the level of transmission power, spectrum proximity and interference with NAV systems. Last time I checked, planes were flying long before there was cellular service. The issue has been known for years with regard to the interference. Want to blame someone, blame the FCC and their bureaucratic mess on spectrum reallocation. Aviation systems came first.

 

[OverTheHill]

Can’t the pilots just put the plane in Airplane Mode when they land?

I assume you mean autopilot which depends on the NAV components that are being interfered with To function properly.

 

[OverTheHill]

I can easily explain this. Airlines in the US will run a plane until the next flight it would fall out of the sky and don't spend money on aircraft unless absolutely necessary. So while the rest of the world has modern (shielded) technology in planes we don't. The airlines are screaming catastrophe until someone else foots the bill to get "free" upgrades.

Since the Great Recession and the ensuing industry consolidation, the US airline industry has replaced about 80% of its fleet through attrition and accelerated fleet retirements due to COVID. At $100 million to $200 million per asset, thats hardly not spending money on aircraft. The average age of the US fleet is now 14 years with a lifecycle expectancy of 25-30 years with more than 3,000 aircraft on order, most of it will be to replace older aircraft (Those over about 18 years old today) with deliveries through 2030.

 

[1984 Mac Guru]

I assume you mean autopilot which depends on the NAV components that are being interfered with To function properly.

Nope. Just being punny.

 

[laptech]

There has to be something we are not being told here because the airlines who are worried about their equipment being affected by 5G use exactly the same model of airplanes that are used by other airlines in other countries around the world and yet there has not been any major press reports of those countries airline authourites being worried about 5G. The UK's Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world and usually anything that if a major problem in the UK has the tendancy to be reported around the world and yet i've not seen or heard of anything coming from the owners of the airport or any UK airlines or the CAA complaining about 5G.

 

[827538]

I am very short on time this week, but as a pilot, I will attempt to answer a few of the questions being posted here. The FAA is tasked with protecting public safety. The band being rolled out by AT&T and Verizon is right next to the frequencies used by the special altimeter systems that we use to determine the precise height above the ground during instrument approaches, which are sometimes in poor visibility or even no visibility conditions. As it turns out, this band of 5G frequencies, if broadcasted strong enough, can and do effect our altimeters ability to read our precise height above the ground.

Most of our planes can go all the way down to 100ft above the ground in limited to no visibility before needing to see some part of the runway environment to determine if we can safely land. In some special cases, we can go even lower. Keep in mind that jet engines take a few seconds to spool up and produce enough power to execute a go-around if we cannot safely land. Now, think about just how low a plane actually is when it is only 100ft above the ground and descending (only 1/3rd of a football field) and think about what would happen if our special altimeter systems were off, even by a little bit, and how catastrophic that could be.

As such, the FAA is pulling the plug and will not allow us to even try these instrument approaches if AT&T and Verizon were to implement the bands today. We simply cannot take that risk with lives on board and millions of dollars worth of cargo. This would delay and cancel countless flights. But that leads to more: keep in mind that we go from one flight to another, and cancellations like this would cause a cascading effect of cancellations across the entire system. Think about what happens when there is a major Nor'Easter....flights on the West Coast are cancelled because of the cascading effects on planes and crews.

The solution is not as simple as "put new equipment on planes" as that takes years of developmental and operational testing, certification, and of course, big, big money. Now, whether or not someone in the government has sat on this info for years is above my pay grade...but when it comes to the immediate action by the FAA and as a result, the airlines and cargo carriers, we must halt operations (if things were moving forward as planned) because we cannot risk a crash killing hundreds of people or destroying hundreds of millions of dollars in property.

This has everything to do with public safety. And it has everything to do with keeping the current air transport system up and running.

As an electronic and electrical engineer with knowledge of this issue I think I can share why I think the FAA's actions are nothing short of lazy, bureaucratic ass covering. I should start by saying I absolutely agree with safety first.

1. The FAA has had YEARS to deal with this issue and instead sat on their hands and is now rushing to quickly certify radar altimeters as safe. They could've had this issue dealt with 6 months ago if they were in the least bit competent.

2. The C-band frequency in question was previously used by satellites and ground stations with zero guard band. With 5G ~200MHz guard band is in place which is far larger than is necessary and far larger than is what is in use in places like Japan or France. If anything your aircrafts radar altimeter should be safer than ever.

3. The Telecoms companies have agreed to a large exclusion zone than is used in places like France or Japan.

4. If the planes and altimeters were engineered and built correctly even if there was some interference they should still operate properly. Given this is Boeing and the FAA I wouldn't trust them in the slightest on this one though.

So I fully understand your reaction but your anger should be directly aimed towards the FAA, Boeing, and Airbus, the Telecoms companies have done nothing wrong.

 

[CWallace]

There has to be something we are not being told here because the airlines who are worried about their equipment being affected by 5G use exactly the same model of airplanes that are used by other airlines in other countries around the world and yet there has not been any major press reports of those countries airline authourites being worried about 5G.

We have been told - I and others have stated those somethings in this thread.

1. The US system operates on a different band than other countries and that band is closer to the systems aircraft use to determine their height above the ground.
2. The US system is more powerful than other countries so it has a greater area of effect and potential interference.
3. The US system orients their antenna to have a greater area of effect and potential interference than other countries.

Essentially, the US 5G system is different than the rest of the worlds and was designed in such a way that it is more susceptible to interfere with aircraft than the 5G systems used in the rest of the world.

 

[827538]

There has to be something we are not being told here because the airlines who are worried about their equipment being affected by 5G use exactly the same model of airplanes that are used by other airlines in other countries around the world and yet there has not been any major press reports of those countries airline authourites being worried about 5G. The UK's Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world and usually anything that if a major problem in the UK has the tendancy to be reported around the world and yet i've not seen or heard of anything coming from the owners of the airport or any UK airlines or the CAA complaining about 5G.

Look at some of my earlier posts.

This is nothing more than the FAA being completely lazy, bureaucratic and ass covering after their absolute screw up over the 737-Max. There's no dark conspiracy, just the FAA is really not fit for purpose.

 

[827538]

We have been told - I and others have stated those somethings in this thread.

1. The US system operates on a different band than other countries and that band is closer to the systems aircraft use to determine their height above the ground.
2. The US system is more powerful than other countries so it has a greater area of effect and potential interference.
3. The US system orients their antenna to have a greater area of effect and potential interference than other countries.

Essentially, the US 5G system is different than the rest of the worlds and was designed in such a way that is more susceptible to interfere with aircraft than the 5G systems used in the rest of the world.

1. It operates further away from the band used by radar altimeters, ie it should be less of an issue.
2. The telecoms companies in the US have agreed to a larger exclusion zone around flight landing paths.

This is a none issue.

 

[Reason077]

The real question is - have anyone using any 5G even noticed when they are on 5G and when they slide to 4G?

I have asked plenty here in the UK and nobody have noticed any improvements at all and can't tell if they have actually used and been connected to 5G or not - ever.

Nonsense. I’ve been using 5G in the UK since January 2020 (on the Vodafone network) and it makes a *huge* difference to download speeds. 200-300 Mbps on 5G compared to 40 Mbps (if you’re lucky!) on 4G.

5G has totally replaced my wired home broadband (I have a portable 5G wifi router). Faster AND cheaper than the DSL available in my area. It’s fast enough to stream HD games flawlessly on Stadia and GeForce Now, which just isn’t practical on 4G.

the downloads speeds are roughly the same - unless you are really lucky and stand right next to the antenna mast.

In my experience, for any given signal strength, you will get significantly faster speeds on 5G compare to 4G.

It’s true that 5G hasn’t done much to improve coverage yet in the UK, as so far it’s mostly been deployed on the 3.4Ghz band which is all about speed and capacity. As UK carriers start to roll out more low-band (700 MHz etc) 5G, it will help to fill in the coverage gaps, improve speeds in rural areas, etc.