Re: FCC vs FAA Story

[sronan () ronan-online com]

They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.

Shane

> On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:05 PM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer () gmail com> wrote:
>
> 
> > 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