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