4 ms·

FAA Decrees 50 Airports Will Have 5G Buffers

5 points by vanburen 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
It is amazing what a technological backwater aviation is. Leaded gas was phased out for cars 40 years ago. They still use leaded gas for piston aircraft and there is no realistic plan to end it. Boeing is still flying the 737 aircraft family from 1968. They still haven't upgraded the control systems to the modern electronic control systems that Airbus and other manufacturers have used since 1988. Any car from 1968 would be illegal to sell in the developed world because it hasn't kept up with emissions, fuel economy, safety and other standards. Incremental changes wouldn't cut it, any nameplate that has lasted that long has had multiple "clean sheet" designs. The same is true for computers, electronics, and most other products. In the case of aviation there is complete regulatory capture. If Boeing doesn't want to upgrade, the FAA doesn't make them. If American Airlines doesn't want to upgrade, the FAA doesn't make them. There is talk of making artificial jet fuel using this failed technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... Any serious work on green fuels for ground transportation today centers around alcohols, dimethyl ether and other chemicals that are practical to manufacture. The aviation industry can't be bothered to qualify new fuels so we are going to see endless excuses rather than progress in controlling carbon emissions.
- elromulous 5y ago
  So re aircraft age: does EASA have different rules? The car analogy only works so far - planes are vastly more expensive, and thus must have a longer lifespan (not to mention they're also designed and maintained to this end).
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    I think EASA usually agrees with the FAA about what equipment is OK. The FCC on the other hand expects electronic gear to not emit interference outside of its band and also that it should not be disturbed by EM activity outside the band. The FCC can put sanctions on manufacturers for this. The 737 is a unique case of an obsolete aircraft with a few problems: (1) Obsolete mechanical control system. If the 737 were fly by wire they could have made a system like MCAS that was safe. (2) Wings too low to the ground making it hard to fit high bypass engines (3) Struggles to take off even under good conditions because of wing geometry. When you hear that it is too hot in Arizona and planes can't take off they are saying that the 737 can't take off. (4) Circular cross section that is unergonomic. It is is an amazing experience to ride in the E195 or A220 which is a smaller plane than the 737 but feels like riding in a widebody. If passengers had any choice in the matter at all they would never ride on a 737 given the choice. There are numerous structural issues in the industry that have kept these superior planes out and kept the inferior 737 going strong. Boeing probably plans to make a starship for NASA in 2070 but they have no plan to replace the 737 and that's a problem.
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      Where can I learn more about this?
    - kayfox 5y ago
      >> When you hear that it is too hot in Arizona and planes can't take off they are saying that the 737 can't take off. The CRJs and ERJs are usually first to hit operational temperature limits, not the 737. Edit: Also Boeing did have a 737 replacement project, but airlines did not sign on to that project and instead wanted another 737, so thats what Boeing gave them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project

5 points by vanburen 5y ago

It is amazing what a technological backwater aviation is. Leaded gas was phased out for cars 40 years ago. They still use leaded gas for piston aircraft and there is no realistic plan to end it. Boeing is still flying the 737 aircraft family from 1968. They still haven't upgraded the control systems to the modern electronic control systems that Airbus and other manufacturers have used since 1988. Any car from 1968 would be illegal to sell in the developed world because it hasn't kept up with emissions, fuel economy, safety and other standards. Incremental changes wouldn't cut it, any nameplate that has lasted that long has had multiple "clean sheet" designs. The same is true for computers, electronics, and most other products. In the case of aviation there is complete regulatory capture. If Boeing doesn't want to upgrade, the FAA doesn't make them. If American Airlines doesn't want to upgrade, the FAA doesn't make them. There is talk of making artificial jet fuel using this failed technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... Any serious work on green fuels for ground transportation today centers around alcohols, dimethyl ether and other chemicals that are practical to manufacture. The aviation industry can't be bothered to qualify new fuels so we are going to see endless excuses rather than progress in controlling carbon emissions.

elromulous 5y ago
So re aircraft age: does EASA have different rules? The car analogy only works so far - planes are vastly more expensive, and thus must have a longer lifespan (not to mention they're also designed and maintained to this end).
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  I think EASA usually agrees with the FAA about what equipment is OK. The FCC on the other hand expects electronic gear to not emit interference outside of its band and also that it should not be disturbed by EM activity outside the band. The FCC can put sanctions on manufacturers for this. The 737 is a unique case of an obsolete aircraft with a few problems: (1) Obsolete mechanical control system. If the 737 were fly by wire they could have made a system like MCAS that was safe. (2) Wings too low to the ground making it hard to fit high bypass engines (3) Struggles to take off even under good conditions because of wing geometry. When you hear that it is too hot in Arizona and planes can't take off they are saying that the 737 can't take off. (4) Circular cross section that is unergonomic. It is is an amazing experience to ride in the E195 or A220 which is a smaller plane than the 737 but feels like riding in a widebody. If passengers had any choice in the matter at all they would never ride on a 737 given the choice. There are numerous structural issues in the industry that have kept these superior planes out and kept the inferior 737 going strong. Boeing probably plans to make a starship for NASA in 2070 but they have no plan to replace the 737 and that's a problem.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    Where can I learn more about this?
  - kayfox 5y ago
    >> When you hear that it is too hot in Arizona and planes can't take off they are saying that the 737 can't take off. The CRJs and ERJs are usually first to hit operational temperature limits, not the 737. Edit: Also Boeing did have a 737 replacement project, but airlines did not sign on to that project and instead wanted another 737, so thats what Boeing gave them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project