Recently in Regulatory Category

"Governments don't lead the industry. The industry leads government. And if you don't believe that, then boy this is really the wrong industry to be in because they are way behind us. Did you drink the Kool-Aid this morning with Randy [Babbitt]? The government is going to tell us how much money we're going to save with this new system that they are going to make us pay for. What the? We need to start passing out Kool-Aid at all these things. The SMS Kool-Aid. The NextGen Kool-Aid," Aeronautical Repair Stations Association executive director Sarah Macleod said in reference to how FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and regulators have a penchant for telling the aviation industry how much money it will save with NextGen and SMS through investment.

Irrespective of how you feel on the matter, I'm sure you'll agree that it would be a refreshing change if everyone was this frank. I'll have what she's having :-)

By now you've no doubt heard that LiveTV is likely to be breaking out the bubbly after snagging a pretty significant deal with Continental to fit some 200 Boeing aircraft with Ka-band satellite-based connectivity (birds that happen to have LiveTV's Ku-band supported in-flight live television service, the 95-channel LTV3).

The deal falls on the heels of JetBlue's announcement last year that it will offer Ka-band connectivity across its entire fleet, working with its subsidiary LiveTV (and, like Continental, partnering with ViaSat (whose ViaSat-1 satellite launch is delayed, ahem, due to an unfortunate mishap at the factory.)

But beyond the big headlines, I'm sure some of you are wondering when these letters of intent (LOI) (yes, the JetBlue and Continental deals are both LOIs right now) will be signed.

JetBlue CEO Dave Barger gave some clarity on that issue today at the JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Defense conference, where he said the LOI with ViaSat would be firmed up in a matter of days.

Meanwhile, Aircell is pursuing its own technology path, which offers a Ku-band solution in the interim but ultimately leads to Ka, and presumably Inmarsat's Global Xpress service, due around 2015. I asked Aircell a number of questions after it's latest announcement, including:

1)     How quickly can Aircell bring a Ku-based solution to an airline at this juncture (i.e. what's the earliest if a carrier wants it ASAP)?

2)     Has Aircell applied to the FCC - and other regulators around the world - for regulatory authority to offer Ku?

3)     Has Aircell reached agreements as yet for Ku capacity with satellite operators?

4)     With regard Ka, what Ka satellites will you use for coverage over North America by 2013 (ViaSat's current and forthcoming Ka sat)?

5)     When you speak of global Ka for 2015, are you referring to the Inmarsat Global Xpress service?

6)     Will you offer hybrid solutions - i.e. ATG/Ku and ATG/Ka or, perhaps, Ku/Ka ultimately?

7)     Will the upgrade to ATG-4 satiate the bandwidth hungry users, in your opinion (i.e. Virgin America, for instance, has said it will need a lot more bandwidth than what is currently provided by Gogo when it seeks to make good on its plans for 2013.or do you think domestic carriers like VA, which have eyes on big bandwidth, will make the jump to Ka)?

Here is the company's response:

We haven't announced vendor selection.  We believe, as the world's largest IFC provider by a factor of more than 10, most vendors will be thrilled to work with us.  We also believe hybrid solutions will exist; they will be unique and highly beneficial for our customers and partners.  ATG-4 is a quantum leap, further improving our bandwidth leadership. Bandwidth demands will grow, and it will be our aim to always bring the best solutions.

Knowing that their work colleague long ago caught the in-flight connectivity bug, my co-workers have been graciously giving me plenty of notice when they see something that might be of interest to me and RWG readers.

Flightglobal's own journalist/editor extraordinaire David Kaminski-Morrow (DKM) is no exception. He has just forwarded me a fascinating presentation from Joseph Cramer, regional director, regulatory policy and international spectrum management at Boeing.

It's all about Wireless Avionics Intra Communications (WAIC). Now before you get super-excited, and think I'm talking about in-flight connectivity as we normally define it (i.e. mobile connectivity or Wi-Fi for passengers), I'm not.

WAIC is based on short-range radio technology, and its applications are defined as limited to safety applications.

Low-data rate interior applications include sensors for cabin pressure, smoke detection, fuel tank/line proximity temperature, EMI incident detection (oh, good one), structural health monitoring and humidity/corrosion detection; and controls for emergency lighting and cabin functions.

"The issue appears to be where the necessary radio spectrum band will need to lie and it's cropping up in preparatory documents for the next big World Radiocommunication Conference in Geneva, 2012," notes DKM.

Read the whole presentation here. PPT4_-_ACP-WGF24-RPW-IP09_-_WAIC_Presentation_(2)[1].pptx

Unsubstantiated rumors are circulating that the US FAA may be going above and beyond normal electro magnetic interference (EMI) testing protocol when in-flight connectivity service providers seek supplemental type certification (STC) for their systems on aircraft, and that that is the reason why Honeywell Phase 3 Display Units blanked out during STC testing of Aircell's Gogo in-flight Internet system on Boeing 737NG aircraft.

The reason for the alleged stepped-up protocol, according to scuttlebutt (i.e. not confirmed) is that regulators are concerned that terrorists would focus an intense amount of RF signals at the cockpit (think a heaping transmitter in the forward lavatory) and bring down an aircraft.

Today, at the ISTAT conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, I asked FAA administrator Randy Babbitt if the agency is quietly bolstering EMI testing standards. Babbitt says there is nothing quiet about FAA's interest in ensuring appropriate testing is done. But he, like the FAA's public relations office, does not volunteer specifics.

"We will decline to comment on the specifics involved in certifying the Aircell Gogo system," says a spokesman for the FAA.

The spokesman says that when the FAA  evaluates in-flight WiFi systems, "two of the areas we consider are interference with avionics systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing, and any vulnerability of airplane systems to intentional or accidental electronic emissions outside FCC standards."

Specifically, when  conducting EMI tests, applicants are required to:

1) Perform an airplane ground test using a portable wireless transmitter emulator.  RTCA/DO-294B defines a test procedure with an emulator consisting of a signal generator, amplifier and transmitting antenna.
 
2) The emulator antenna should be placed at each location, including the flight deck, in the airplane cabin where the access point antennas are installed, and at locations where WLAN-equipped PEDs may be operated.

3) Monitor all aircraft systems with catastrophic, hazardous, and major failure conditions, and systems required by certification or operating regulations.

4) The test is performed at three separate channels in each general WLAN operating band that will be used in the airplane WLAN installation.

Some industry observers believe avionics should be able to withstand even the most stringent EMI testing. In this instance (involving Gogo), interference with Honeywell Phase 3 DUs "should be known well before Gogo is placed on a 737", says a source, noting that such discovery should have been made in qual testing or, at least, later when the system was certified for the aircraft.

Boeing has launched a thorough review of part numbers to make sure no other avionics suffer the same issue as the Honeywell Phase 3 avionics.

However, notes an industry source, the very instance of interference between Wi-Fi and avionics is "bad news for the industry as a whole because there are a lot of people pushing for COTS [consumer off-the-shelf] technology to be brought into aircraft, and anything that carries a transmitter means that it's emitting signals."

Boeing's investigation into why in-flight connectivity interfered with Honeywell's Phase 3 Display Units (DU) during electro magnetic interference (EPI) testing is not merely limited to those particular Honeywell parts.

The US airframer, which has offered the Phase 3 DUs on aircraft since July 2009, is currently mired in the laborious process of determining whether any other airplane part numbers have the same issue, RWG can reveal.

There are three categories of systems being studied - critical, essential and nonessential required. Boeing is reviewing these systems to ensure they are not susceptible to Wi-Fi or cellular devices.

There are hundreds of systems that must be studied, and Boeing is using RTCA DO-307 - which covers Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance - as guidance.

When a manufacturer goes through qual testing in the lab for RTCA DO-307 (as outlined in the FAA's advisory circular AC-20-164), it accounts for both the frequency and energy field value at levels well beyond what a cell phone or Wi-Fi would produce if its near that equipment.

The value covers a range between 100 MHz to 8 GHz. To put that into perspective, Wi-Fi operates at 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz and cell phones operates as low as 460 MHz and as high as 2.17 GHz. So yes, the levels tested far exceed all normal scenarios, but for good reason. Who wants people with malicious intent (oh, say, terrorists) to take RF aim at the cockpit? Uh, nobody, except the terrorists.

If the equipment passes muster, it is considered to be T-PED (tranmissing portable electronic device) tolerant, and that's what Boeing and others are working towards.

If through its review Boeing discovers additional anomalies, it will be forced to further delay linefitting its aircraft with in-flight connectivity systems, a move that would have the biggest impact on Panasonic Avionics and partner AeroMobile, which fought long and hard to achieve linefit status for the latter firm's eXPhone in-flight mobile connectivity solution. (Side note: I find it rather fascinating that some people downplay such deferrals as 'no big deal'. These are expensive systems, which are ordered well in advance of delivery. Let me assure you that it is in fact a 'very big deal' to the operators that have paid for these options.)

Already, the discovery during EMI testing for Aircell's Gogo STC on Boeing 737NG aircraft that Phase 3 DUs are susceptible to "blanking" has resulted in Boeing's decision to defer since last fall  eXPhone linefit installs on Boeing 777s. Carriers impacted by the deferral include 777 customers V Australia (which was supposed to take its fifth 777 with eXPhone), Air New Zealand, Emirates, and Turkish Airlines.

Lufthansa, incidentally, hopes to have both eXPhone and Panasonic's in-flight high-speed Internet system eXConnect already installed when it takes delivery of its new Boeing 747-8s. 

Boeing's deferral of linefit installs of in-flight connectivity systems is unfortunate, but necessary not simply because of the event involving Aircell's STC, but because interference with Phase 3 DUs has also been simulated in testing with a large number of cells phones going off at the same time (a scenario that is also against all operating instructions and procedures).

Some 90 Emirates aircraft are installed with eXPhone - allowing passengers to make and receive voice calls and text messages - and the carrier has not ever experienced issues with interference with avionics. But Emirates does not allow cell phones to be switched on in the cockpit and it's my understanding that EASA is content for Emirates to place a placard in the cockpit saying just that (just as 737NG operators with Gogo must do as a condition for installing Gogo).

If the interference problem detected with Honeywell Phase 3 DUs on Boeing aircraft is indeed limited to Phase 3 DUs, there is light at the end of the tunnel for eXPhone customers.

Depending upon who you talk to, a Service Bulletin from Boeing could drop as early as next month and the issue could be cleared up by June or as late as the fourth quarter. After all, Boeing is now building brand new equipment like the 777 with the more stringent requirements in place (based on lessons learned through STC). With a new aircraft, it's far easier to ensure all systems are up to snuff.

At this juncture it would appear that the problems are being discovered on older aircraft with their many mods and STCs.

Tonight is already sizing up to be a very late night so I'm going to simply copy and paste my Flightglobal story to this blog until tomorrow morning. Clearly BIG lessons are being learned about interference through the massive Gogo retrofits being accomplished. Bloody good to know, I'd say.

Honeywell Phase 3 Display Units (DUs) have shown themselves susceptible to "blanking" during airline electro magnetic interference (EMI) certification testing of wireless broadband systems (Wi-Fi) on various Boeing 737NG airplanes, prompting Boeing to cease linefit installs of in-flight connectivity systems across its portfolio, including widebody aircraft.

Multiple sources tell ATI and Flightgloal that the blanking occurred during EMI testing for Aircell's Gogo in-flight Internet supplemental type certificate on 737NG aircraft. Aircell has declined comment, saying "this topic is not Aircell specific and, as such, we do not have any comment on the matter".

Boeing says it has deferred the activation of wireless systems that interface with passenger devices that could potentially interfere with the DU 3 displays. "Boeing has not delivered any installations that would have this issue. Honeywell has assured us that they are working to address the problem and we are satisfied that they are taking the necessary steps to do so," says Bret Jensen with BCA Engineering Communications.

A source with knowledge of the situation tells ATI and Flightglobal that Boeing has "gone through and scrubbed the avionics numbers to make sure that there are no anomalies and that the avionics will not be affected by personal electronic devices (PEDs). It has been discovered that there is stuff out there that doesn't meet those requirements yet, and we may uncover more as we go down that path".

The source adds: "There are three specific part numbers associated with the [Honeywell] display that could be installed. Those are the ones [found to be] susceptible to transmissions."

Fallout from the event is already occurring. Multiple sources tell ATI and Flightglobal that one of the conditions for STC is that 737NG operators place placards in the flight deck saying that Wi-Fi devices are to be powered off.

Another condition, say sources, is that 737NG operators are not to have DU 3 displays installed with the presence of in-flight connectivity systems, be they Wi-Fi or cellular-based.

On a Boeing Business Jet fitted with in-flight connectivity, for instance, there is a note in the log book that says Phase 3 DUs are not to be installed, but that "version 4 is fine and version 2 is fine", says a source.

Panasonic partner AeroMobile's eXPhone in-flight mobile connectivity solution, which was made linefit offerable on certain Boeing types, is not being installed until the Honeywell issue has been addressed. As such, customers of eXPhone are not receiving aircraft with eXPhone as planned. Customers of eXPhone include Emirates, Turkish Airlines and V Australia.

"We're continuing to work closely with Boeing and our partners at Panasonic to bring eXPhone to full line-fit offerability across the entire Boeing fleet," says AeroMobile.

Boeing, meanwhile, says: "Current testing by Boeing and Honeywell has determined that blanking may occur when a DU is subjected to testing procedures specified by the FAA requirements (AC-20-164) during installations of Wi-Fi systems on the airplane. Based on testing that has been conducted, Boeing and Honeywell have concluded that actual EMI levels experienced during normal operation of typical passenger Wi-Fi systems would not cause any blanking of the Phase 3 DU. This issue does not exist with the Phase 1 or 2 DU's."

Honeywell says that, during recent ground testing "at elevated power levels", the company observed a momentary blanking on the 'flat panel' liquid crystal displays that it developed and pioneered for Boeing.

"The screens reappeared well within Boeing's specified recovery time frame. The screens have not blanked in flight and are not a safety of flight issue. Honeywell is working to ensure the problem is addressed and fixed and that our technology will continue to exceed specifications," says Honeywell.

The firm stresses that there have been "no blanking incidents of in-service aircraft with the Wi-Fi system installed".

A spokesman for the FAA says: "The FAA is aware of some issues involving interference between Honeywell flight displays and in-flight WiFi that surfaced during STC testing. The FAA is currently working with both manufacturers to examine the technical data and test results. After a thorough review, the FAA will consider if further safety action is necessary."

Sources say a Service Bulletin from Boeing is expected.