They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.
Shane > On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:05 PM, Doug Royer <douglasro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> John Levine wrote: >>> It appears that Crist Clark <cjc+na...@pumpky.net> said: >>>> ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, >>>> >>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden >>>> >>>> Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies >>>> captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff. >>> That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question >>> of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. > 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. > > 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, ... > > 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. > > -- > Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) douglas.ro...@gmail.com > 714-989-6135
