7 ms·

This seems like Boeing trying to get the government to cover their butt because they did shoddy work on the altimeters. They were allocated spectrum for the eq

This seems like Boeing trying to get the government to cover their butt because they did shoddy work on the altimeters. They were allocated spectrum for the equipment and then built a system that monopolized frequencies well outside of the allocated spectrum. I completely agree that Boeing needs to issue a recall order on all affected hardware and provide a fix. This should be painful, it is basically punishment for trying to cut corners on safety equipment.

kube-system 5y ago
Does Boeing even make the radio altimeters?
- jandrese 5y ago
  They certainly certified them on the aircraft. If it means putting pressure on the subcontractor that actually built them or finding a suitable replacement then so be it.
- gbear605 5y ago
  Unless the airlines are installing the altimeters themselves, it seems like Boeing is still the relevant company. If your car’s airbag has a malfunction, the car manufacturer does the recall even if the fault lies with the airbag manufacturer. Presumably Boeing would then go on to sue the altimeter manufacturer though.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, I am simply suggesting the accusations in the first two sentences are misplaced.
  - theYipster 5y ago
    Aviation doesn't work that way. Airlines have direct aftermarket relationships with all of the OEMs making the components on their airplanes. From a certification and warranty standpoint, Boeing is the design authority, and if there is an FAA mandated fix for 737 RAs, Boeing will have a role to play. Whether Boeing is responsible financially or logistically for the fix depends on the nature of the failure (is it limited to the component or is it a systems engineering issue) as well as the contracts Boeing has with their supply chain and their airline customers.
    - manquer 5y ago
      That doesn't seem to be practical. Maybe for some big parts like engine airlines have direct relationships but all parts including radar altimeters ? An modern commercial plane has tens of thousands of suppliers supplying millions of parts. No airline [1] could even imagine to have the staff to manage OEM relationships with that many indirect suppliers. That is what you pay Boeing for. If that was the case no airline could afford to buy more than 1 type of plane or certainly not more than one manufacturer, you would need to handle all the suppliers in the industry?! it would be incredibly inefficient to do this for them individually . --- [1] Maybe United , American or Delta could have that kind of staff, but given the airlines operating margins in the last 2-3 decades even that seems unlikely
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - theYipster 5y ago
        Commercial aviation works the way it works regardless of whether you think its practical. And you're grossly overstating how many suppliers are on a commercial aircraft. There are in total an average of 30 tier-1s on a modern airframe, and yes, airlines are expected to work with all of them. Radio Altimeters are typically made by avionics suppliers i.e. Collins, Thales, or Honeywell for Part-25 commercial airliners.
      - p_l 5y ago
        Even a private owner can effectively have (if not direct, then through agents) connections straight to OEMs, bypassing original airplane vendor. There's a reason why the only time two airplanes are identical is when they roll from assembly line as part of the very same order with same spec, and never again.
- vkou 5y ago
  It's Boeing's job to make sure that the altimeters they put into planes are fit for use. It doesn't matter if those altimeters are sourced from Boeing, General Electric, Uzbekistan, or the Moon - Boeing is the one who has to make sure they work. It's why they make the big bucks. Boeing can argue with and sue their suppliers, but that's not a problem for anyone but them and their supplier.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    The altimeters are fit for use.
    - vkou 5y ago
      They aren't, because they are not operating within their mandated frequency bands. If I made routers that flood the EM spectrum with random crap, even if their wifi 'worked' they wouldn't be fit for use, either.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        The altimeters are operating within their frequency bands. They are operating as designed and certified. The 5G towers are the ones doing the flooding.
        jandrese 5y ago
        The 5G towers aren't putting significant signal outside of their allocated bands. This would be a very different story if they were spilling signal outside of their allocations.
        mulmen 5y ago
        The problem is the 5G allocation. It infringes on a band that existing use cases rely on.
dmitrygr 5y ago
Boeing does not usually make avionics. Companies like Garmin, Collins, and Honeywell do.
adolph 5y ago
Given Boeing's reliability vector, the fix might be more painful to others than itself.
mulmen 5y ago
First, these altimeters are not made by Boeing. Second, the FCC was already involved in their development and certification. Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. You are talking about thousands of planes that have to be modified to accommodate telcos. If anyone should pick up the tab for this it is Verizon and AT&T.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. That makes their domination of spectrum far outside their range worse. If anything, threaten to retroactively charge them for all that bandwidth.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    This isn't commercially allocated spectrum. It's in reserved radio navigation spectrum which is used all around the world by multiple different users.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      It should have similar value either way.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        Yes, but it's collectively used. We don't charge anyone for it because it's a public resource.
- worker767424 5y ago
  > Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. You are talking about thousands of planes that have to be modified to accommodate telcos. Perhaps Boeing should have bid of the spectrum that their products depend on being unused. This is essentially the government leasing out previously unused federal land for mineral extraction and a nearby rancher saying "it ruins my view," only with safety concerns added in.
TheJoeMan 5y ago
To add: if you ever read an FCC label on a device it says “must be able to accept harmful interference” or similar. So I’d argue the Boeing devices are the ones out of spec, should be immediately revoked as out of compliance by the FCC, and be done with it so the masses can enjoy 5G in peace. I believe no agency should consider downstream effects of applying the law, to ensure fairness. Why should Boeing get a pass but say an out of compliance robotic lawnmower gets enforced?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- willidiots 5y ago
  That's a Part 15 label (see https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...) and it doesn't apply to avionics / radio navigation systems. (I do agree this is Boeing's issue to fix, 200MHz guard band is huge, Boeing needs filters)
- p_l 5y ago
  That's the kind of label you put on a device that can fail safely from harmful interference, in SOHO setting. It totally does not apply to aviation systems, and FCC didn't apply any of the mitigations used elsewhere in the world when 5G deployment in 3.8-4.0GHz range was allowed (it's in limited use in UK, and with restrictions near airports in Japan)
p_l 5y ago
They didn't cut corners at all - that's the thing. The allocation of the spectrum is only for transmission, and the radar altimeters in question passed that spec. It says nothing about receive, and due to how radar altimeter works, it's much, much harder to filter out interfering signals from systems like 5G (5G in case of interference will just drop maximum data rate as it filters mismatched codes or incorrect checksums, radar altimeter might return incorrect altitude)

kube-system 5y ago

Does Boeing even make the radio altimeters?

jandrese 5y ago
They certainly certified them on the aircraft. If it means putting pressure on the subcontractor that actually built them or finding a suitable replacement then so be it.
gbear605 5y ago
Unless the airlines are installing the altimeters themselves, it seems like Boeing is still the relevant company. If your car’s airbag has a malfunction, the car manufacturer does the recall even if the fault lies with the airbag manufacturer. Presumably Boeing would then go on to sue the altimeter manufacturer though.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, I am simply suggesting the accusations in the first two sentences are misplaced.
- theYipster 5y ago
  Aviation doesn't work that way. Airlines have direct aftermarket relationships with all of the OEMs making the components on their airplanes. From a certification and warranty standpoint, Boeing is the design authority, and if there is an FAA mandated fix for 737 RAs, Boeing will have a role to play. Whether Boeing is responsible financially or logistically for the fix depends on the nature of the failure (is it limited to the component or is it a systems engineering issue) as well as the contracts Boeing has with their supply chain and their airline customers.
  - manquer 5y ago
    That doesn't seem to be practical. Maybe for some big parts like engine airlines have direct relationships but all parts including radar altimeters ? An modern commercial plane has tens of thousands of suppliers supplying millions of parts. No airline [1] could even imagine to have the staff to manage OEM relationships with that many indirect suppliers. That is what you pay Boeing for. If that was the case no airline could afford to buy more than 1 type of plane or certainly not more than one manufacturer, you would need to handle all the suppliers in the industry?! it would be incredibly inefficient to do this for them individually . --- [1] Maybe United , American or Delta could have that kind of staff, but given the airlines operating margins in the last 2-3 decades even that seems unlikely
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - theYipster 5y ago
      Commercial aviation works the way it works regardless of whether you think its practical. And you're grossly overstating how many suppliers are on a commercial aircraft. There are in total an average of 30 tier-1s on a modern airframe, and yes, airlines are expected to work with all of them. Radio Altimeters are typically made by avionics suppliers i.e. Collins, Thales, or Honeywell for Part-25 commercial airliners.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Even a private owner can effectively have (if not direct, then through agents) connections straight to OEMs, bypassing original airplane vendor. There's a reason why the only time two airplanes are identical is when they roll from assembly line as part of the very same order with same spec, and never again.
vkou 5y ago
It's Boeing's job to make sure that the altimeters they put into planes are fit for use. It doesn't matter if those altimeters are sourced from Boeing, General Electric, Uzbekistan, or the Moon - Boeing is the one who has to make sure they work. It's why they make the big bucks. Boeing can argue with and sue their suppliers, but that's not a problem for anyone but them and their supplier.
- mulmen 5y ago
  The altimeters are fit for use.
  - vkou 5y ago
    They aren't, because they are not operating within their mandated frequency bands. If I made routers that flood the EM spectrum with random crap, even if their wifi 'worked' they wouldn't be fit for use, either.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      The altimeters are operating within their frequency bands. They are operating as designed and certified. The 5G towers are the ones doing the flooding.
      - jandrese 5y ago
        The 5G towers aren't putting significant signal outside of their allocated bands. This would be a very different story if they were spilling signal outside of their allocations.
        mulmen 5y ago
        The problem is the 5G allocation. It infringes on a band that existing use cases rely on.

dmitrygr 5y ago

Boeing does not usually make avionics. Companies like Garmin, Collins, and Honeywell do.

adolph 5y ago

Given Boeing's reliability vector, the fix might be more painful to others than itself.

mulmen 5y ago

First, these altimeters are not made by Boeing. Second, the FCC was already involved in their development and certification. Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. You are talking about thousands of planes that have to be modified to accommodate telcos. If anyone should pick up the tab for this it is Verizon and AT&T.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. That makes their domination of spectrum far outside their range worse. If anything, threaten to retroactively charge them for all that bandwidth.
- kube-system 5y ago
  This isn't commercially allocated spectrum. It's in reserved radio navigation spectrum which is used all around the world by multiple different users.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It should have similar value either way.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Yes, but it's collectively used. We don't charge anyone for it because it's a public resource.
worker767424 5y ago
> Third, these radars have been in operation for decades. You are talking about thousands of planes that have to be modified to accommodate telcos. Perhaps Boeing should have bid of the spectrum that their products depend on being unused. This is essentially the government leasing out previously unused federal land for mineral extraction and a nearby rancher saying "it ruins my view," only with safety concerns added in.

TheJoeMan 5y ago

To add: if you ever read an FCC label on a device it says “must be able to accept harmful interference” or similar. So I’d argue the Boeing devices are the ones out of spec, should be immediately revoked as out of compliance by the FCC, and be done with it so the masses can enjoy 5G in peace. I believe no agency should consider downstream effects of applying the law, to ensure fairness. Why should Boeing get a pass but say an out of compliance robotic lawnmower gets enforced?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
willidiots 5y ago
That's a Part 15 label (see https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...) and it doesn't apply to avionics / radio navigation systems. (I do agree this is Boeing's issue to fix, 200MHz guard band is huge, Boeing needs filters)
p_l 5y ago
That's the kind of label you put on a device that can fail safely from harmful interference, in SOHO setting. It totally does not apply to aviation systems, and FCC didn't apply any of the mitigations used elsewhere in the world when 5G deployment in 3.8-4.0GHz range was allowed (it's in limited use in UK, and with restrictions near airports in Japan)

p_l 5y ago

They didn't cut corners at all - that's the thing. The allocation of the spectrum is only for transmission, and the radar altimeters in question passed that spec. It says nothing about receive, and due to how radar altimeter works, it's much, much harder to filter out interfering signals from systems like 5G (5G in case of interference will just drop maximum data rate as it filters mismatched codes or incorrect checksums, radar altimeter might return incorrect altitude)