← Back to Squawk list

FAA to prohibit many flight operations due to risk of ‘5G’ wireless interference

提交时间：2 年以前

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a sweeping order essentially prohibiting aircraft, including large jets, from using certain landing and navigation systems in areas of potential interference from new “5G” cellular networks. (travelandaviation.com) 更多...

MH370

9 条会员评论

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ADXbear 2 年以前 2

Ya think the FAA AND FTC could have seen this coming and developed a different approach.. there goes Cat3 approaches.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

hal pushpak 2 年以前 2

You probably meant "FCC"

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Frank Harvey 2 年以前 -1

Superficially it seems that using 3700-3800 Mhz is still far enough away from 4200-4400 Mhz to preclude interference and I don't see there being any problem with harmonics. Even the top end of the new 5G spectrum - 3950 Mhz still seems usable without problems at 4200-4400 Mhz, especially as cell signals seem to be quite clean and precise.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Roy Hunte 2 年以前 5

Any idea what the big push for 5G us all about? Is it really necessary?

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Michael Stansfield 2 年以前 7

Streaming movies and TV would be my guess.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

JW Wilson 2 年以前 6

The Big Push, HUGE push actually, is about profit.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

mbrews 2 年以前 4

Your first word superficially gives it away. For those who actually read the FAA reports you would see there are out of band emissions. You may be blissfully unaware about volumes of potential 5G c band radiation in places like Newark NJ, with a 10 lane New Jersey turnpike running parallel to the main runways / approaches

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Frank Harvey 2 年以前 1

Thanks for the reply. I had not read the details in the FAA reports which was why I said "superficially". But the summary on 5G I had read just seemed to speak of a problem with altimeters, not with other gear and did not mention that 5G emissions were bleeding into other frequencies. I was under the impression that the FCC would not permit equipment to emit that type of interference.

I do realize that with the limited range of C-band signals that many more towers will be needed and that they might also be needed inside airport perimeters and buildings to maintain 5G cell phone coverage.

That said, and the reason for my bringing up Musk's SpaceX-Starlink within this context, is that we appear to be creating extensive systems, in this immediate case 5G, which potentially interfere with other existing important uses. But we go ahead and create the new system without considering or addressing the impact of such interference until the new system has been created and almost implemented.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

mbrews 2 年以前 2

You're welcome, Mr. Harvey. I appreciate your thoughtful, considerate reply.

I have heard (anecdotally) that Canada authorities are managing possible 5G C-band interference to air navigation in a measured, coordinated, manner.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report