U.S. airlines warn 5G wireless could wreak havoc with flights

[Just Paul 4,595]

Ok as an former RF Engineer and Pilot I'll weigh in here in a greatly oversimplified way.  The real issue is the receivers in the planes don't have the correct rf filters built in.   They never did and the FAA thought it wouldn't be an issue.  The FAA doesn't understand cell system design and thought that the emissions only travel on a horizontal plane.  Unfortunately some RF energy goes "Up".  C-Band towers at the end of runways can cause issues with the receiver for the IFR approach.   2g, 3g, 4g, 5g and 6g are simply standards for the core (landside processing and network) and RAN (RF side).  To have faster "speed" you need larger contiguous RF blocks.  In 2g we had 1.2mhz channels so you would be lucky if a cell sector had 10 megabits per second. 3g it is common to have 5 and 10 mhz channels. In 4g we have some channels at 20mhz getting over 160 megabits per channel, or higher, is a reality. Opening up the C band allowed for even bigger channels along with faster modulation techniques.   You "could" build 4g gear in C Band.

 

On 12/16/2021 at 10:43 AM, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Ziply is building a fiber network in my neighborhood where we already have Comcast and I have to ask "why?, in the future home internet and entertainment will be wireless.

So wireless is not completely wireless.   Just the "last mile" to you is.   Wireless mostly makes sense for a mobile user (talking the US Market not developing nations) The cost to operate a network to deliver a bit if data is much cheaper and more reliable over fiber.  It takes less power, is less subject to outage and is easier to secure.

 

Soup to nuts the FAA issue is one where they haven't (allowed avionics to) keep up with technology.  This has come up in the past and not with just the "wireless" industry.  It's a $5 part that cost thousands to install because, well it's government.  Another solution is already there in the GPS network by using 2 sources. 

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

1 hour ago, Paul & Mary said:

Ok as an former RF Engineer and Pilot I'll weigh in here in a greatly oversimplified way.  The real issue is the receivers in the planes don't have the correct rf filters built in.   They never did and the FAA thought it wouldn't be an issue.  The FAA doesn't understand cell system design and thought that the emissions only travel on a horizontal plane.  Unfortunately some RF energy goes "Up".  C-Band towers at the end of runways can cause issues with the receiver for the IFR approach.   2g, 3g, 4g, 5g and 6g are simply standards for the core (landside processing and network) and RAN (RF side).  To have faster "speed" you need larger contiguous RF blocks.  In 2g we had 1.2mhz channels so you would be lucky if a cell sector had 10 megabits per second. 3g it is common to have 5 and 10 mhz channels. In 4g we have some channels at 20mhz getting over 160 megabits per channel, or higher, is a reality. Opening up the C band allowed for even bigger channels along with faster modulation techniques.   You "could" build 4g gear in C Band.

 

So wireless is not completely wireless.   Just the "last mile" to you is.   Wireless mostly makes sense for a mobile user (talking the US Market not developing nations) The cost to operate a network to deliver a bit if data is much cheaper and more reliable over fiber.  It takes less power, is less subject to outage and is easier to secure.

 

Soup to nuts the FAA issue is one where they haven't (allowed avionics to) keep up with technology.  This has come up in the past and not with just the "wireless" industry.  It's a $5 part that cost thousands to install because, well it's government.  Another solution is already there in the GPS network by using 2 sources. 

Not sure what you mean by this?  For years, we have had to put our phones in airplane mode while flying because the cell signals can go up.  At least two miles, in fact.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

2 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

Ok as an former RF Engineer and Pilot I'll weigh in here in a greatly oversimplified way.  The real issue is the receivers in the planes don't have the correct rf filters built in.   They never did and the FAA thought it wouldn't be an issue.  The FAA doesn't understand cell system design and thought that the emissions only travel on a horizontal plane.  Unfortunately some RF energy goes "Up".  C-Band towers at the end of runways can cause issues with the receiver for the IFR approach.   2g, 3g, 4g, 5g and 6g are simply standards for the core (landside processing and network) and RAN (RF side).  To have faster "speed" you need larger contiguous RF blocks.  In 2g we had 1.2mhz channels so you would be lucky if a cell sector had 10 megabits per second. 3g it is common to have 5 and 10 mhz channels. In 4g we have some channels at 20mhz getting over 160 megabits per channel, or higher, is a reality. Opening up the C band allowed for even bigger channels along with faster modulation techniques.   You "could" build 4g gear in C Band.

 

So wireless is not completely wireless.   Just the "last mile" to you is.   Wireless mostly makes sense for a mobile user (talking the US Market not developing nations) The cost to operate a network to deliver a bit if data is much cheaper and more reliable over fiber.  It takes less power, is less subject to outage and is easier to secure.

 

Soup to nuts the FAA issue is one where they haven't (allowed avionics to) keep up with technology.  This has come up in the past and not with just the "wireless" industry.  It's a $5 part that cost thousands to install because, well it's government.  Another solution is already there in the GPS network by using 2 sources. 

Kind of what I was thinking 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

4 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Not sure what you mean by this?  For years, we have had to put our phones in airplane mode while flying because the cell signals can go up.  At least two miles, in fact.

I was reading that it's becuse the cell phones hit multiple towers and messes up the cell system or something.  Not that I know diddly about it.

[PGA 265]

Anti-5G necklaces found to be radioactive

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59703523

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I was reading that it's becuse the cell phones hit multiple towers and messes up the cell system or something.  Not that I know diddly about it.

The reason we are instructed to put phones in airplane mode is so that they don't interfere with the planes navigation systems.  Which has happened about as many times as gas stations have blown up from cell phone use while refueling.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

4 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

The reason we are instructed to put phones in airplane mode is so that they don't interfere with the planes navigation systems.  Which has happened about as many times as gas stations have blown up from cell phone use while refueling.

so none then ?

[Dashinka 24,931]

35 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so none then ?

Not heard of any from cell phone use, but there are several videos where fires have started from static electricity.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so none then ?

None that I've ever heard of, and I like to watch all those "air disaster" videos and documentaries.  Though there could have been navigational anomalies that didn't end badly that we will never know about.  

One thing for certain though, since the advent of cell phones, the number of planes lost in the Bermuda triangle has dropped to zero.