> This isn't a Boeing-specific issue. If Airbus has the same problem, then ground Airbus too. > Boeing doesn't even make the avionics in question. Some of the

> This isn't a Boeing-specific issue. If Airbus has the same problem, then ground Airbus too. > Boeing doesn't even make the avionics in question. Some of the manufacturers don't even exist anymore. It's not clear who would pay, Surely when the parts break, they are fixed, and if they are not fixed, then the plane is either grounded or flies in conditions such that the equipment is not required. There is a somebody who repairs, services, or replaces broken parts. These parts are broken. So that somebody fixes it. > or how you'd enforce it. You'd enforce fixing this broken part the same way you'd enforce fixing any other broken part. When the FAA finally got around to deciding that MCAS was in fact broken, they grounded the 737 MAX until it was fixed. Everybody's acting like it's not a big deal that this equipment can't handle a signal that is more than 220MHz away from their nominal operating frequency. Certainly if Hasbro wanted to sell Batman(TM) BatWalkie BatTalkies, but they were rendered inoperable by another signal that far from their operating frequency, the FCC would deny the device its operating license and it would be pulled from the market. > Nobody expected at the time we'd be blasting high-power omnidirectional signals everywhere at 4 GHz Infrastructure 5g antennas are directional. The mobile devices themselves are omnidirectional, but those are very low power devices.