FCC vs FAA Story

Mon Jun 6 00:14:03 UTC 2022

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> John Levine wrote: 
>>> It appears that Crist Clark <cjc+nanog at 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 at gmail.com 714-989-6135
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220605/e794e50d/attachment.html>