Re: FCC vs FAA Story

[Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org>]

> On Jun 6, 2022, at 09:55, John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
>
> Five years ago everyone knew that C band was coming.  A reasonable response would have been for the FAA to work with 
> the FCC to figure out which altimeters might be affected (old cruddy ones, we now know), and come up with a plan and 
> schedule to replace them.  If the telcos had to pay some of the costs, they would have grumbled but done it.  If the 
> replacement schedule weren't done by now, they could live with that, too, so long as there were a clear date when 
> it'd be done.

The FAA could have easily ordered testing to determine which RA models were affected and issued an AD prohibiting their 
use after a certain date.  Once that data was in hand, manufacturers could start working on STCs for replacements and 
the airlines could add those STCs to their next annuals, just like they did for ADS-B.  Both would have a decent case 
for demanding that the telcos pay for it, and the telcos probably would have paid up.  But that opportunity was wasted.

> Instead the FAA stuck their fingers in their ears and said no, nothing can ever change, we can't hear you.  Are you 
> surprised the telecom industry is fed up?

Exactly.  The FAA wants more delays while they do the work they should have done five years ago, but sorry, that’s not 
how politics works.  The number of daily 5G users is orders of magnitude larger than the number of daily airline users, 
so the FCC *will* win this battle.

Stephen
PPL ASEL/IR