Re: FCC vs FAA Story

[Doug Royer <douglasroyer () gmail com>]

On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Crist Clark <cjc+nanog () pumpky net> said:
> > > ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week,
> > >
> > > https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden
> > >
> > > Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies
> > > captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff.
> > That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question
> > of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. 

The problem was that when those older radio altimeters were built, no one else was near their frequency. So their 
sensitivity to near frequency interference was not as tightly tested as newer equipment is tested. It was possible that 
a near frequency could interfere with its operation at lower altitudes.

Replacing older equipment in airplanes is not just a matter of replacing them. When they replace them in commercial 
airliners, they MUST test each type of the equipment, in the plane ($$$ per hour) and make up and test new flight 
manuals, what happens if that piece of equipment fails in flight manual section instructions, ...

I think the FAA needed more time to test the old equipment in flight, and thus needed money for those expenses. Newer 
equipment is already tested to tighter tolerances and is safe.

--
Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) Douglas.Royer () gmail com 714-989-6135

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature