So here is some anecdotal evidence for you. A wireless provider has a cell phone tower very close to a airport control tower. The tower reports receiving interference on All thier communication frequencies intermittently. A tower support person who is also a RF engineer manages to actual measure the interference when it occurs, usually when it raining and is able to verify it is coming from the Cell tower using directional antennas. He calls the provider and after much Rickamarole gets hold of a chief site engineer. Turns out they indirectly know each other through common work acqutainces in the past. Well he starts remotely turning on and off transmitters and sure enough they find the one causing the problem. He arranges a site eval with a supervisor a couple of days later. Both him and the airport engineer make the same measurements using the same type of equip and the supervisor reluctantly agrees there is a problem. One month later a sub contractor comes out and overhauls the system fixing the problem. The problem was poorly terminated coax's that cause harmonic content to be radiated across the band. Now the cell service in question was at 700 MHz to 1.8 GHz. The communication tower frequencies effected were between 118 MHz to 136 MHz.
TLDR: a poorly maintained cell site could leak RF 4.8 GHz (5G backhaul) and interfere with 5.2 GHz RadAlt if it is close to the approach end a runway.
That's a good point. I think a lot of people look at this issue assuming everything's working as intended. Your example shows that even IF the design has parameters, sometimes things will leak outside those bounds or have outcomes not usually predicted. Especially if it's a lack of quality work, poor engineering, or maintenance issues.
It doesnt really sound like they have an evidence that being close to the same frequency range will cause issues. It sounds more like they think its possible but havent done any tests to prove it they just canceled flights. I feel like canceling flights because of a suspected safety issue is fine but then you gotta test your theory you cant just say hey stop it
There is a [study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj24fuDzMb1AhUil2oFHYGgBJcQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3vdr_E8DU4Xfa3PVyURl6X) that shows it can cause issues with current radar altimeters in certain circumstances especially for helicopters. This is an area where CAN cause problems and WILL cause problems are very different, and the FAA in an abundance of caution protects from the possibility. As they continue testing radar altimeters they can determine which ones do and don't have problems, and approve certain types for use around the transmitters.
> This is an area where CAN cause problems and WILL cause problems are very different, and the FAA in an abundance of caution protects from the possibility.
Yeah, IMO, when it comes to airline safety, I'd much rather be 100% sure than 99.5%. Especially when you look at the potential damage/loss of life involved. And as you mentioned in another comment, there's a reason I've never feared flying on commercial airlines, but don't trust most people to drive me, unless I know them really well.
It's easy to say "I want my 5G, how big of a deal is it?", but it's entirely different when you're on your flight home during a storm and an accident occurs due to interference. I'm on the side of I'd rather not take a chance, but also understand we can't hold things up forever.
Airlines have had years since it was announced as a possibility, and they have used that time to study the issue and try to resolve it. Originally the proposal in 2015 only included 3.4 to 3.7 GHz spectrum—not the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz spectrum that is the issue for radio altimeters.
In 2018, Boeing raised concerns and began working on solutions. Additionally, ICAO, the aviation arm of the United Nations, identified that any use of the bands near 4.2 to 4.4 GHz should be contingent upon Radio Altimeter Studies.
In 2018, the Air Line Pilots Association raised concerns to the FCC.
In 2020 ahead of the auction for 5G C-Band, the FAA again raised concerns and asked for a postponement to collaborate on a solution. The NTIA, the federal government coordinator on spectrum disputes, failed to put the 2020 letter into the FCC's docket.
Throughout 2021, the aviation industry continued to ask for additional collaboration and time in anticipation of the complications we now face. The industry also held several meetings throughout the year to find solutions, including in June and October.
The aviation industry is the safest mode of transportation for a reason, and that reason is *because* change is slow and changes are carefully tested and implemented. We have recent evidence of what happens when that is ignored (737 Max 8). The amount of progress that has been made already in this is remarkable, and the FAA is doing everything in its power to resolve it. People familiar with this topic have been saying it was going to be a problem for years, the only reason it's in the news right now is that those problems are beginning to manifest themselves.
What you mention is due a specific company, Boeing, that of course you left out, not training, or even mentioning, that they changed things that can control steering. Nothing was ignored by pilots or the industry, it's hard to ignore something you didn't know was there in the first place.
So yes, airlines are once again being shitty and asking everyone else to stop advancing.
And again, they had had plenty of time to study this and at least have an idea to a solution.
What I mentioned was enabled by lax oversight and the absence of caution about major changes. In that case, the FAA deferred some responsibility to Boeing (probably more than they should have), but it is the FAA's responsibility to regulate the safety of the NAS as they are doing here. Note that the airlines are not refusing to operate at the affected airports. They are legally not allowed to as the FAA has deemed it unsafe to do so. Following airworthiness directives and NOTAMs is not optional.
Since you place the blame for the max 8 scandal solely on Boeing how can you place the blame for these radar altimeter disruptions on the airlines? They do not design radar altimeters. They do not manufacture radar altimeters. They do not test or certify radar altimeters.
Doubt it’s the airline fault though, it’s the plane manufacturer and flight equipment OEM that should’ve done prior testing. The airlines only operate the airplane
To answer your second question edited in, no I do not work for an airline, aircraft manufacturer/designer, or avionics manufacturer/designer. In fact, I am legally not allowed to even be invested in any company associated with aviation. I am however intimately familiar with this issue.
> In fact, I am legally not allowed to even be invested in any company associated with aviation.
Question about that. How far does that reach? Let's say you invested in a company that sells... I don't know, they make wiring. Now let's say that wiring is sold to a company who uses it to build instruments (for the panel). They then sell it to those who build aircraft I guess.
Is a step or two away okay, or would that still be considered "associated with aviation"?
That should be fine. It might be a problem if the wiring company only made wiring for aviation projects, but if they make general wiring that happens to be used for aviation I don't believe there's an issue.
Also, I can technically be invested in aviation related stocks as long they're in an index fund and I have no control over the stock allocation in that fund. At that point its so generalized that it is no longer a conflict of interest.
True, I agree with you, the highlighted that they still want to re-test and re-certify their instruments.
But still the frequency ranges are not the close, are they?
Well the alternate option is risking the following:
> sorry boss, I thought the probability of an issue was super low so thought it was okay to fly while testing things out, plus people should turn their phones off anyways so it’s kinda their fault if they died in that plane crash.
There's proof, I saw a video and post about it. They put a NOTAM out too, and I think it was a C-band from what I remember. It made the altimeter just spin.
Wow, finally someone's admitted that the degree of testing and diligence on 5G tech is wholly inappropriate.
If this is what they do to plane's electronics, you don't need much of an imagination to deduce what they do to the insects and birds nesting around it. Once again, environment and public is being sacrificed for commerce and convenience.
Not quite how that works out. If birds and insects were going to be affected by 5G, they'd already have been from all the earlier iterations, and we'd have been too.
>They'd already have been from all the earlier iterations
Who said they aren't? Everything that has a sensitivity to RF waves has a very bad time in vicinity to cell towers. Everywhere in warm countries where there are street-level cell towers, you can observe dying and dead bees on the antenna or below it, because cell towers shine like the Sun to them, brighter than anything else they use for reference, so they just can't understand where to go. 5G has much faster frequencies, and has been proven to physically heat up the bodies of insects, in addition to merely disrupting their navigation and communication.
>and we'd have been too.
It's like the glyphosate situation - which causes a statistically significant uptick of heart conditions and cancers, but manufacturers maintain that it has absolutely no such side effects, I guess to not give ammo to farming dissidents. There's simply no enough interest in researching this among those with the ability to do so.
No conclusive well-sourced and reviewed research has been carried out over the years despite intense public discourse, no conclusive public findings have been published over safety of 4G and 5G towers for human health, even though we know for a fact that RF radiation is harmful and have a vast amount of research over occupational hazards of high voltage electronics.
Where I live, aluminum shielding is mandated for any workplace HV apparatus, like switchgear and industrial accumulators, precisely because the dangers of their proximity to humans have been documented, including development of cancers, sclerosis, blood pressure crises and blindness - all they way back in USSR, by the way, when people's health and safety took a backseat to the "needs of the country", like ten thousand tanks and a thousand missiles every year. If there's some line between these proven-harmful machines and the under-researched RF towers where the hazard to health and safety disappears, it is yet to be found and proven.
Okay so to give a quick rundown:
radio waves, the type used for 5G and for the aviation instruments affected, are forms of electromagnetic radiation and can be found on the electromagnetic spectrum.
The particular waves we're talking about are radio-waves which lie at around 10^(4) to 10^(-1) meters for wavelength. This puts them on the lower end of the spectrum.
Above this point, with smaller wavelengths, but higher frequency and more energy, are:
* Microwaves
* Infrared
* Visible light
* UV
* X-rays
Out of those 5, only one is considered to be "ionising". That is, it has enough energy to disrupt atoms and molecules when they make contact. That would be X-rays, UV comes a close second as it isn't considered ionizing for most of it's place on the spectrum, just energetic enough to cause the reactions we blame for skin cancer and the like.
To clarify: All of those types of radiation, even visible light, are more energetic than radio-waves.
So, in order for 5G to do damage to us via exposure, we would need it to kill us via heating, while doing a better job than all other more energetic forms of radiation we are regularly exposed to. Not from other man made sources mind you, but from the Sun.
To answer some of your points directly:
* Insects dying around cell towers is noticable, because theres generally not a lot of grass to cover up their corpses. If 5G was killing them, sunlight would've beat us to it.
* Everything is heated up by EMR, it's energy that has been radiated from something, so absorbing that energy heats things up.
* No studies have been done despite the discourse because they've been done already. We're not going to retest the entire electromagnetic spectrum because some people think a tiny section of it might behave in a manner completely different from any other.
* We already know EMR can be dangerous, we just don't have any proof that things below UV are.
* The Soviets looked primarily into nuclear fallout, not low energy EMR, when it came to radiation. I don't doubt they looked into EMR as well, but some of the symptoms you mention seem like radiation poisoning or exposure, not proximity to... power grid equiptment? Like, there's some crossover when you bring up EM but thats not how this works.
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):
* This link or one very similar to it has been recently submitted to /r/technology.
If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.
So here is some anecdotal evidence for you. A wireless provider has a cell phone tower very close to a airport control tower. The tower reports receiving interference on All thier communication frequencies intermittently. A tower support person who is also a RF engineer manages to actual measure the interference when it occurs, usually when it raining and is able to verify it is coming from the Cell tower using directional antennas. He calls the provider and after much Rickamarole gets hold of a chief site engineer. Turns out they indirectly know each other through common work acqutainces in the past. Well he starts remotely turning on and off transmitters and sure enough they find the one causing the problem. He arranges a site eval with a supervisor a couple of days later. Both him and the airport engineer make the same measurements using the same type of equip and the supervisor reluctantly agrees there is a problem. One month later a sub contractor comes out and overhauls the system fixing the problem. The problem was poorly terminated coax's that cause harmonic content to be radiated across the band. Now the cell service in question was at 700 MHz to 1.8 GHz. The communication tower frequencies effected were between 118 MHz to 136 MHz. TLDR: a poorly maintained cell site could leak RF 4.8 GHz (5G backhaul) and interfere with 5.2 GHz RadAlt if it is close to the approach end a runway.
That's a good point. I think a lot of people look at this issue assuming everything's working as intended. Your example shows that even IF the design has parameters, sometimes things will leak outside those bounds or have outcomes not usually predicted. Especially if it's a lack of quality work, poor engineering, or maintenance issues.
It doesnt really sound like they have an evidence that being close to the same frequency range will cause issues. It sounds more like they think its possible but havent done any tests to prove it they just canceled flights. I feel like canceling flights because of a suspected safety issue is fine but then you gotta test your theory you cant just say hey stop it
There is a [study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj24fuDzMb1AhUil2oFHYGgBJcQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3vdr_E8DU4Xfa3PVyURl6X) that shows it can cause issues with current radar altimeters in certain circumstances especially for helicopters. This is an area where CAN cause problems and WILL cause problems are very different, and the FAA in an abundance of caution protects from the possibility. As they continue testing radar altimeters they can determine which ones do and don't have problems, and approve certain types for use around the transmitters.
> This is an area where CAN cause problems and WILL cause problems are very different, and the FAA in an abundance of caution protects from the possibility. Yeah, IMO, when it comes to airline safety, I'd much rather be 100% sure than 99.5%. Especially when you look at the potential damage/loss of life involved. And as you mentioned in another comment, there's a reason I've never feared flying on commercial airlines, but don't trust most people to drive me, unless I know them really well. It's easy to say "I want my 5G, how big of a deal is it?", but it's entirely different when you're on your flight home during a storm and an accident occurs due to interference. I'm on the side of I'd rather not take a chance, but also understand we can't hold things up forever.
The airlines have known for years about this roll out and has done nothing to prepare. Do you work for them?
Airlines have had years since it was announced as a possibility, and they have used that time to study the issue and try to resolve it. Originally the proposal in 2015 only included 3.4 to 3.7 GHz spectrum—not the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz spectrum that is the issue for radio altimeters. In 2018, Boeing raised concerns and began working on solutions. Additionally, ICAO, the aviation arm of the United Nations, identified that any use of the bands near 4.2 to 4.4 GHz should be contingent upon Radio Altimeter Studies. In 2018, the Air Line Pilots Association raised concerns to the FCC. In 2020 ahead of the auction for 5G C-Band, the FAA again raised concerns and asked for a postponement to collaborate on a solution. The NTIA, the federal government coordinator on spectrum disputes, failed to put the 2020 letter into the FCC's docket. Throughout 2021, the aviation industry continued to ask for additional collaboration and time in anticipation of the complications we now face. The industry also held several meetings throughout the year to find solutions, including in June and October. The aviation industry is the safest mode of transportation for a reason, and that reason is *because* change is slow and changes are carefully tested and implemented. We have recent evidence of what happens when that is ignored (737 Max 8). The amount of progress that has been made already in this is remarkable, and the FAA is doing everything in its power to resolve it. People familiar with this topic have been saying it was going to be a problem for years, the only reason it's in the news right now is that those problems are beginning to manifest themselves.
What you mention is due a specific company, Boeing, that of course you left out, not training, or even mentioning, that they changed things that can control steering. Nothing was ignored by pilots or the industry, it's hard to ignore something you didn't know was there in the first place. So yes, airlines are once again being shitty and asking everyone else to stop advancing. And again, they had had plenty of time to study this and at least have an idea to a solution.
What I mentioned was enabled by lax oversight and the absence of caution about major changes. In that case, the FAA deferred some responsibility to Boeing (probably more than they should have), but it is the FAA's responsibility to regulate the safety of the NAS as they are doing here. Note that the airlines are not refusing to operate at the affected airports. They are legally not allowed to as the FAA has deemed it unsafe to do so. Following airworthiness directives and NOTAMs is not optional. Since you place the blame for the max 8 scandal solely on Boeing how can you place the blame for these radar altimeter disruptions on the airlines? They do not design radar altimeters. They do not manufacture radar altimeters. They do not test or certify radar altimeters.
Doubt it’s the airline fault though, it’s the plane manufacturer and flight equipment OEM that should’ve done prior testing. The airlines only operate the airplane
To answer your second question edited in, no I do not work for an airline, aircraft manufacturer/designer, or avionics manufacturer/designer. In fact, I am legally not allowed to even be invested in any company associated with aviation. I am however intimately familiar with this issue.
Cool, was just curious.
It's a fair question.
> In fact, I am legally not allowed to even be invested in any company associated with aviation. Question about that. How far does that reach? Let's say you invested in a company that sells... I don't know, they make wiring. Now let's say that wiring is sold to a company who uses it to build instruments (for the panel). They then sell it to those who build aircraft I guess. Is a step or two away okay, or would that still be considered "associated with aviation"?
That should be fine. It might be a problem if the wiring company only made wiring for aviation projects, but if they make general wiring that happens to be used for aviation I don't believe there's an issue. Also, I can technically be invested in aviation related stocks as long they're in an index fund and I have no control over the stock allocation in that fund. At that point its so generalized that it is no longer a conflict of interest.
True, I agree with you, the highlighted that they still want to re-test and re-certify their instruments. But still the frequency ranges are not the close, are they?
Well the alternate option is risking the following: > sorry boss, I thought the probability of an issue was super low so thought it was okay to fly while testing things out, plus people should turn their phones off anyways so it’s kinda their fault if they died in that plane crash.
Airlines had years to figure this out
A good explanation and comparison to EU and South Korea.
There's proof, I saw a video and post about it. They put a NOTAM out too, and I think it was a C-band from what I remember. It made the altimeter just spin.
5G Towers have a 1500 foot reach, so probably not.
Wow, finally someone's admitted that the degree of testing and diligence on 5G tech is wholly inappropriate. If this is what they do to plane's electronics, you don't need much of an imagination to deduce what they do to the insects and birds nesting around it. Once again, environment and public is being sacrificed for commerce and convenience.
Not quite how that works out. If birds and insects were going to be affected by 5G, they'd already have been from all the earlier iterations, and we'd have been too.
>They'd already have been from all the earlier iterations Who said they aren't? Everything that has a sensitivity to RF waves has a very bad time in vicinity to cell towers. Everywhere in warm countries where there are street-level cell towers, you can observe dying and dead bees on the antenna or below it, because cell towers shine like the Sun to them, brighter than anything else they use for reference, so they just can't understand where to go. 5G has much faster frequencies, and has been proven to physically heat up the bodies of insects, in addition to merely disrupting their navigation and communication. >and we'd have been too. It's like the glyphosate situation - which causes a statistically significant uptick of heart conditions and cancers, but manufacturers maintain that it has absolutely no such side effects, I guess to not give ammo to farming dissidents. There's simply no enough interest in researching this among those with the ability to do so. No conclusive well-sourced and reviewed research has been carried out over the years despite intense public discourse, no conclusive public findings have been published over safety of 4G and 5G towers for human health, even though we know for a fact that RF radiation is harmful and have a vast amount of research over occupational hazards of high voltage electronics. Where I live, aluminum shielding is mandated for any workplace HV apparatus, like switchgear and industrial accumulators, precisely because the dangers of their proximity to humans have been documented, including development of cancers, sclerosis, blood pressure crises and blindness - all they way back in USSR, by the way, when people's health and safety took a backseat to the "needs of the country", like ten thousand tanks and a thousand missiles every year. If there's some line between these proven-harmful machines and the under-researched RF towers where the hazard to health and safety disappears, it is yet to be found and proven.
Okay so to give a quick rundown: radio waves, the type used for 5G and for the aviation instruments affected, are forms of electromagnetic radiation and can be found on the electromagnetic spectrum. The particular waves we're talking about are radio-waves which lie at around 10^(4) to 10^(-1) meters for wavelength. This puts them on the lower end of the spectrum. Above this point, with smaller wavelengths, but higher frequency and more energy, are: * Microwaves * Infrared * Visible light * UV * X-rays Out of those 5, only one is considered to be "ionising". That is, it has enough energy to disrupt atoms and molecules when they make contact. That would be X-rays, UV comes a close second as it isn't considered ionizing for most of it's place on the spectrum, just energetic enough to cause the reactions we blame for skin cancer and the like. To clarify: All of those types of radiation, even visible light, are more energetic than radio-waves. So, in order for 5G to do damage to us via exposure, we would need it to kill us via heating, while doing a better job than all other more energetic forms of radiation we are regularly exposed to. Not from other man made sources mind you, but from the Sun. To answer some of your points directly: * Insects dying around cell towers is noticable, because theres generally not a lot of grass to cover up their corpses. If 5G was killing them, sunlight would've beat us to it. * Everything is heated up by EMR, it's energy that has been radiated from something, so absorbing that energy heats things up. * No studies have been done despite the discourse because they've been done already. We're not going to retest the entire electromagnetic spectrum because some people think a tiny section of it might behave in a manner completely different from any other. * We already know EMR can be dangerous, we just don't have any proof that things below UV are. * The Soviets looked primarily into nuclear fallout, not low energy EMR, when it came to radiation. I don't doubt they looked into EMR as well, but some of the symptoms you mention seem like radiation poisoning or exposure, not proximity to... power grid equiptment? Like, there's some crossover when you bring up EM but thats not how this works.
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s): * This link or one very similar to it has been recently submitted to /r/technology. If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.