Scott - a side note to clarify things...
The 737 Max8 problem was NOT due to lack of testing or
non-incremental changes. The system was well tested and put
through it's paces. It was a lack of proper pilot training
in the aircraft and its systems and some carriers choosing
to NOT purchase specific flight control options.
Full disclosure - my classmate was the Chief Test Pilot for
the MAX8 and another classmate is the current FAA
Administrator.
But I digress - sorry...
If you look at 5G deployments around Japan and Europe,
generally they are NOT right up next to major airports.
I would like to ask ATT and Verizon senior leadership to put
their loved ones onto a commercial aircraft that is flying
into ORD during a blizzard on a Zero-Zero landing (the
pilots relying on radio altimeters) and the 5G network up
and running and then ask how confident they are that NOTHING
will interfere and 5G is perfectly safe.
Geoff
On 1/19/22 14:37, Scott McGrath
wrote:
I’m guessing you are not a pilot, one
reason aviation is resistant to change is its history is
written in blood, Unlike tech aviation is incremental
change and painstaking testing and documentation of that
testing.
When that does not happen we get stuff
like the 737 Max debacle
Aviation is the antithesis of ‘Move fast
and break things mentality’ for a very good reason
safety.
On my flying club’s plane every
replacement part comes with a pedigree which is added to
the plane’s maintenance log upon installation and the
reason for removing the old one recorded
Imagine how much easier our networks would
be to maintain if we had records down to the last cable
tie in the data center. If there was a bug in a SFP+
for instance all of them, when they were installed and
by who and what supplier they came from was readily
available sure would make my life easier.
The reasoning behind that massive pile of
documents (pilot joke ‘a plane is not ready to fly until
the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the
airplane’) is that if a failure is traced to a component
all of them can be traced and removed from service.
On a Airbus for instance all the takeoff
and landing safety systems are tied to the RadAlt. The
EU has strict rules about where the c-band can be used
as does Japan both use the 120 second rule c-band
devices not allowed in areas where the the aircraft is
in its beginning/ending 2 minutes of flight.
So the REST of the world got c-band right
the US not so much
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022
at 10:59 AM Dennis Glatting <
dg@pki2.com>
wrote:
On
Tue, 2022-01-18 at 12:29 -0800, Michael Thomas
wrote:
>
> I really don't know anything about it. It seems
really late to be
> having
> this fight now, right?
>
I worked in aviation as a technologist. Aviation is
resistant to change.
Any change. When you fly older aircraft, be aware
that the software is
old. Very old. As in some of the vendors long ago
stopped supporting the
software kind of old, assuming the vendors still
exist.
Aviation didn't wake up one day with the sudden
appearance of 5G. They
knew it was comming. They, aviation themselves, are
heavily involved in
standards. Aviation had plenty of time to test,
correct, and protest.
What aviation now wants is a 5G exclusion zone
around airports, or what
I sarcastically call "a technology exclusion zone,"
which tends to be
businesses and homes. What is aviation going to do
when 6G comes along?
A new WiFi standard is implemented? Any other
unforeseen future
wired/wireless technologies? Or perhaps cell phones
should go back to
Morse Code for aviation's sake?
🤷♂️️
--
Dennis Glatting
Numbers Skeptic