Considering Verizon has a very sizable fleet of private aircraft, I am fairly 
certain this will happen often.

Shane

> On Jan 19, 2022, at 4:59 PM, nano...@mulligan.org wrote:
> 
>  Scott - a side note to clarify things...  
> 
> The 737 Max8 problem was NOT due to lack of testing or non-incremental 
> changes.  The system was well tested and put through it's paces.  It was a 
> lack of proper pilot training in the aircraft and its systems and some 
> carriers choosing to NOT purchase specific flight control options.
> 
> Full disclosure - my classmate was the Chief Test Pilot for the MAX8 and 
> another classmate is the current FAA Administrator.
> 
> But I digress - sorry...
> 
> If you look at 5G deployments around Japan and Europe, generally they are NOT 
> right up next to major airports.
> 
> I would like to ask ATT and Verizon senior leadership to put their loved ones 
> onto a commercial aircraft that is flying into ORD during a blizzard on a 
> Zero-Zero landing (the pilots relying on radio altimeters) and the 5G network 
> up and running and then ask how confident they are that NOTHING will 
> interfere and 5G is perfectly safe.
> 
> Geoff   
> 
>> On 1/19/22 14:37, Scott McGrath wrote:
>> I’m guessing you are not a pilot,  one reason aviation is resistant to 
>> change is its history is written in blood,    Unlike tech aviation is 
>> incremental change and painstaking testing and documentation of that 
>> testing.  
>> 
>> When that does not happen we get stuff like the 737 Max debacle
>> 
>> Aviation is the antithesis of ‘Move fast and break things mentality’ for a 
>> very good reason safety.
>> 
>> On my flying club’s plane every replacement part comes with a pedigree which 
>> is added to the plane’s maintenance log upon installation and the reason for 
>> removing the old one recorded 
>> 
>> Imagine how much easier our networks would be to maintain if we had records 
>> down to the last cable tie in the data center.   If there was a bug in a 
>> SFP+ for instance all of them, when they were installed and by who and what 
>> supplier they came from was readily available sure would make my life 
>> easier. 
>> 
>> The reasoning behind that massive pile of documents (pilot joke ‘a plane is 
>> not ready to fly until the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the 
>> airplane’) is that if a failure is traced to a component all of them can be 
>> traced and removed from service.
>> 
>> On a Airbus for instance all the takeoff and landing safety systems are tied 
>> to the RadAlt.  The EU has strict rules about where the c-band can be used 
>> as does Japan both use the 120 second rule c-band devices not allowed in 
>> areas where the the aircraft is in its beginning/ending 2 minutes of flight.
>> 
>> So the REST of the world got c-band right the US not so much
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:59 AM Dennis Glatting <d...@pki2.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 12:29 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > I really don't know anything about it. It seems really late to be
>>> > having 
>>> > this fight now, right?
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> I worked in aviation as a technologist. Aviation is resistant to change.
>>> Any change. When you fly older aircraft, be aware that the software is
>>> old. Very old. As in some of the vendors long ago stopped supporting the
>>> software kind of old, assuming the vendors still exist. 
>>> 
>>> Aviation didn't wake up one day with the sudden appearance of 5G. They
>>> knew it was comming. They, aviation themselves, are heavily involved in
>>> standards. Aviation had plenty of time to test, correct, and protest.
>>> 
>>> What aviation now wants is a 5G exclusion zone around airports, or what
>>> I sarcastically call "a technology exclusion zone," which tends to be
>>> businesses and homes. What is aviation going to do when 6G comes along?
>>> A new WiFi standard is implemented? Any other unforeseen future
>>> wired/wireless technologies? Or perhaps cell phones should go back to
>>> Morse Code for aviation's sake?
>>> 
>>> 🤷‍♂️️
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dennis Glatting
>>> Numbers Skeptic
> 

Reply via email to