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 >
