I have noticed a frequent pattern of the UA EYW to EWR flights, usually E170s operated by Republic, pulling up short in one FL city or another... today it was RSW, but in past days, the route has pulled up in MCO or FLL. It is a short stop and then onward to EWR. It it a fuel/weight issue out of EYW or is EYW simply out of fuel?

RobertS975 wrote:

I have noticed a frequent pattern of the UA EYW to EWR flights, usually E170s operated by Republic, pulling up short in one FL city or another... today it was RSW, but in past days, the route has pulled up in MCO or FLL. It is a short stop and then onward to EWR. It it a fuel/weight issue out of EYW or is EYW simply out of fuel?

It is a Maximum Runway Takeoff Weight issue caused by 5G. Takeoff with minimal fuel in EYW, land at short-distance intermediate stop, add fuel, and depart from a longer runway. Contact your local FCC representatives if you've been personally disrupted by 5G /s

KCaviator wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

I have noticed a frequent pattern of the UA EYW to EWR flights, usually E170s operated by Republic, pulling up short in one FL city or another... today it was RSW, but in past days, the route has pulled up in MCO or FLL. It is a short stop and then onward to EWR. It it a fuel/weight issue out of EYW or is EYW simply out of fuel?

It is a Maximum Runway Takeoff Weight issue caused by 5G and wet runways. Contact your local FCC representative.

What ever are you talking about?

RobertS975 wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

I have noticed a frequent pattern of the UA EYW to EWR flights, usually E170s operated by Republic, pulling up short in one FL city or another... today it was RSW, but in past days, the route has pulled up in MCO or FLL. It is a short stop and then onward to EWR. It it a fuel/weight issue out of EYW or is EYW simply out of fuel?

It is a Maximum Runway Takeoff Weight issue caused by 5G and wet runways. Contact your local FCC representative.

What ever are you talking about?

I answered your question with facts, and a little bit of sarcasm at the end. Not sure what you're questioning. See above, I've edited the initial post.

Here's a little more info for you since you're questioning my answer:

The Embraer 175 has a logic that inhibits certain EICAS messages in different phases of flight. These are known as K-codes. One of the phases is from 80 knots to 400 feet AGL during takeoff. This is obviously a very critical phase of flight. Many EICAS messages are inhibited during this time so that crews are not distracted by something that is relatively unimportant for that critical phase of flight. This is where 5G comes into play. Embraer has determined that 5G could cause Radio Altimeter interference, therefore making the aircraft think it's above 400 feet AGL and thus allowing unimportant and possibly irrelevant EICAS messages. One example would be a brake failure at, say, 100 knots. This scenario typically would not be presented to the pilots until 400 feet AGL because of the K-code inhibiting. If the RAs are malfunctioning with 5G, this message could appear during the takeoff roll. Now you have a flight crew aborting the takeoff with impaired/inoperative brakes. Hence, now there's a takeoff weight penalty that accounts for this worst-case scenario. EYW is the most affected with possibly 4200 lb MRTW reductions. A wet runway further exemplifies the issue.

Sure enough, this morning's EYW-EWR pulled into MIA. KC , thanks for clarification. Why was the 5G not delayed at EYW like they have delayed everywhere else?

Also, is there no safe way to override the logic in the system?

OP will find MIA stops on DL/Republic E170s EYW-LGA.

RobertS975 wrote:

Sure enough, this morning's EYW-EWR pulled into MIA. KC , thanks for clarification. Why was the 5G not delayed at EYW like they have delayed everywhere else?

Also, is there no safe way to override the logic in the system?

This seams to be a very airplane specific result of 5G interference. Most 5G interfere was expected to cause issues with landing procedures dependent or effected by the radio altimeter (low VIS/ auto land). In the spectrum of low vis/ airplane issues, EYW doesn’t rank too high- there isn’t a published ILS, and I don’t think the runway length would be suitable if an airplane was possible.

Web500sjc wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Sure enough, this morning's EYW-EWR pulled into MIA. KC , thanks for clarification. Why was the 5G not delayed at EYW like they have delayed everywhere else?

Also, is there no safe way to override the logic in the system?

This seams to be a very airplane specific result of 5G interference. Most 5G interfere was expected to cause issues with landing procedures dependent or effected by the radio altimeter (low VIS/ auto land). In the spectrum of low vis/ airplane issues, EYW doesn’t rank too high- there isn’t a published ILS, and I don’t think the runway length would be suitable if an airplane was possible.

Oh, you can certainly have a full ILS approach to a 5000 foot runway. Provincetown MA has one to a 3700 foot strip. But you are right in that there are issues other than CAT II and CAT III approaches. Any other non-ILS issues?

It looks like the E190 is not affected by 5G interference: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU ... /KEYW/KJFK

Some E175 flights have been operating without issues: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RPA ... /KEYW/KDCA

Nor is the A319 having issues: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KEYW/KORD

However, Republic's E170's have been struggling: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RPA ... /KEYW/KPBI

Mysterious!

Only some E175s have been cleared by the FAA.

Airplane models with one of the 13 cleared altimeters include all Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, MD-10/-11; all Airbus A300, A310, A319, A320, A330, A340, A350 and A380 models; and some Embraer 170 and 190 regional jets.

From: https://www.faa.gov/5g#collapse4786

RobertS975 wrote:

Web500sjc wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Sure enough, this morning's EYW-EWR pulled into MIA. KC , thanks for clarification. Why was the 5G not delayed at EYW like they have delayed everywhere else?

Also, is there no safe way to override the logic in the system?

This seams to be a very airplane specific result of 5G interference. Most 5G interfere was expected to cause issues with landing procedures dependent or effected by the radio altimeter (low VIS/ auto land). In the spectrum of low vis/ airplane issues, EYW doesn’t rank too high- there isn’t a published ILS, and I don’t think the runway length would be suitable if an airplane was possible.

Oh, you can certainly have a full ILS approach to a 5000 foot runway. Provincetown MA has one to a 3700 foot strip. But you are right in that there are issues other than CAT II and CAT III approaches. Any other non-ILS issues?

Many other non-ILS issues, but they are airplane specific. For example, the 787 and MAX use the radar altimeter for things like thrust reverser and ground spoiler deployment. There are situations where the aircraft, despite having landed, might think it is still airborne and not allow deployment of the aforementioned systems which would greatly affect performance.

The 777 has a fairly unique issue. It uses the radar altimeter for the tailstrike avoidance system, so there is a concern that the aircraft might not allow the pilot to pitch the aircraft properly because it thinks the aircraft is about to strike the runway.

Airbus aircraft have their own set of issues, though I'm not on that fleet anymore so I'm not certain what they are specifically. Our VP of Flight Operations said that Airbus radar altimeters aren't as robust as the ones on Boeing aircraft (in our fleet, anyhow) so they are restricted in a number of ways, but unfortunately I can't speculate what those are because I'm out of that loop.

RobertS975 wrote:

Web500sjc wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Sure enough, this morning's EYW-EWR pulled into MIA. KC , thanks for clarification. Why was the 5G not delayed at EYW like they have delayed everywhere else?

Also, is there no safe way to override the logic in the system?

This seams to be a very airplane specific result of 5G interference. Most 5G interfere was expected to cause issues with landing procedures dependent or effected by the radio altimeter (low VIS/ auto land). In the spectrum of low vis/ airplane issues, EYW doesn’t rank too high- there isn’t a published ILS, and I don’t think the runway length would be suitable if an airplane was possible.

Oh, you can certainly have a full ILS approach to a 5000 foot runway. Provincetown MA has one to a 3700 foot strip. But you are right in that there are issues other than CAT II and CAT III approaches. Any other non-ILS issues?

I was talking more about EYW not having an ILS as meaning that “low vis” capability isn’t needed at the airport like it may be needed in SEA. And since Low vis capability isn’t needed, then it wouldn’t be a priority for 5G restrictions.

As to the short runway and ILS, I meant to say the runway length may be an issue in low vis environments for large jets. Airlines tend to plan for more runway in low vis environments, and the buffer added to landing performance may make EYW extremely restrictive in low vis environments. For instance where I operate, if the visibility is less than ¾ SM, the ops spec says we use “wet runway” data for landing. It’s not a problem in 99% of the airports we touch- but a wet/ low vis in EYW is a large problem. Normally at EWY, we would be restricted to landing at 97% of our MLW due to runway length, if the runway is wet we would be restricted to landing to 85% of our MLW.

As to non ILS issues caused by 5G, it really depends on how the operator and the manufacture determine if the RA is considered faulty, and how that interfaces with the aircraft systems and crew interfaces and operational restrictions. The most talked about impact was CAT2 and CAT3 issues.

Well, given that so many warnings, configuration alarms, thrust reversers, spoilers etc in some aircraft use RA data in their logic tree, an untrustworthy RA could impact almost every flight on those types.

Now, this is a very interesting thread.

@KCaviator - thanks for the info.

B6 is coming out with AMOCs for the 190 today.

While AMOCs were relatively easy for the Airbus, as with everything Embraer, it was a lot more complicated and time consuming per Flight Ops.

I imagine this process is going on for 175 operators.

AMOC is Alternative Means of Compliance with regards to 5G

If a runway at an airport has an AMOC for the plane, you can disregard 5G notams