<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.<br><br><div dir="ltr">Shane</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:05 PM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:635920d8-bc79-c9a8-ed00-2de92e2d6d6a@meetinghouse.net">John
Levine wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It appears that Crist Clark
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cjc+nanog@pumpky.net"><cjc+nanog@pumpky.net></a> said:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">ProPublica published an investigative
report on it last week,
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden">https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden</a>
<br>
<br>
Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government
regulative bodies
<br>
captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The
usual stuff.
<br>
</blockquote>
That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the
actual question
<br>
of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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, ...</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://DougRoyer.US">http://DougRoyer.US</a>)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Douglas.Royer@gmail.com">Douglas.Royer@gmail.com</a>
714-989-6135</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>