I really like this question. "Interference" is such a broad term, but what is most in the context of this question and the use of cellphones will be cellular signals and things like wifi, bluetooth, etc... all wireless signals that a cell phone or laptop typically sends and receives.

Within an aircraft itself, wireless transmission between avionics equipment is not used (besides sometimes having a bluetooth enabled audio panel on small privates, to listen to music like a car). There is virtually no way for a wireless signal as small as what a cell phone uses to interfere with avionics equipment busses within the aircraft. It is far more likely that the other wires within a bundle will cause issues via eddy currents, but we have shielding for any high power wires that risk this type of issue.

Now the big dilemma, especially recently, is with the cell phone signals interfering with equipment that receives its OWN traffic from other sources, IE. GPS, VOR, ADF, etc. Every electrical device (generally speaking) that sends and receives wireless signals does so via frequencies, 2.4GHz wifi, 5G or LTE cell towers, etc. All bands of aviation equipment (comm radios, NAV radios, etc) have been easily tunable and isolated from consumer electronics, until the large 5G debacle that came up a few months ago. This was the closest that the industry got to actually having a proper bandwidth conflict in recent memory, since 5G cellular devices are high power and very close to a specific set of equipment used in aircraft called the Radio (or Radar) Altimeter. I won't get too into the technicalities (if youre interested I wrote quite a long piece regarding this here) In laymans terms, this piece of equipment uses a beam of frequencies that sweeps up and down from about 4.2 to about 4.4GHz, and shoots it at the ground. Depending on the received signals in reference to the signals it is sending at any present time, it can determine the distance from the ground that the airplane is to a very precise degree. Because of this, many things that a pilot relies on during landing are dependant on the radio altimeter readings. They are especially important during low visibility landings.

The worry was that since cellphone towers are ground based, high energy, and close to the bandwidth, that there would be interference and faulty readings received in the cockpit. However, steps have been made in most developed countries to avoid the use of 5G and aiming them directionally away from runways. I have never personally heard of a pilot who has had issue with his equipment due to 5G or any other electronic users on the aircraft. The biggest reason, IMO, that airliners ask you to put your electronics away is so you are aware and attentive to the safety briefings and your surroundings in the event that an emergency were to happen at critical flight points, i.e takeoff and landing.

TL;DR: Airplane mode does not save avionics equipment, and the likelihood of your phone affecting anything in the cockpit is nearly zero.

Aren’t most airlines globally now allowing Bluetooth and WiFi inflight? They are in Australia.
I think the historic reasons for technology off inflight was a near entirely unfounded fear of interference.
The reasons for putting certain devices away during takeoff and landing is the risk of flying objects.
The reason airplane mode is still mandated on flights to my understanding is because of the likelihood that people will start taking calls and being even more annoying during flights.

Early last year I helped lead a dual GTN750TXi with GDU install on a french made aircraft, the TBM850. The GTN750TXi system is a NAV/COMM unit with integrated GPS, TCAS, XPDR, and audio panel and the GDU was made to replace the primary flight instruments with a large screen for the pilot and copilot.

This install was certainly my most difficult, as these aircraft are not mass produced and you could tell it was not made to be worked on aftermarket. For instance, all of the existing wire did not have any identification stamping on it. In Canada, it is mandated that any wiring added to an aircraft needs to have an identifying mark (usually just some letters and numbers) at set intervals across the entire length of the wire. This ensures that you can properly route, trace, and troubleshoot by understanding what info each wire was carrying.

Not the TBM.

The TBM had baby blue wires going everywhere, all without any markings. This made integrating into any existing wiring (for instance, splicing onto an existing harness carrying engine parameters instead of replacing entire sensors) INCREDIBLY time consuming. It was also very nerve wracking when you found a wire that was cut somewhere behind the panel; obviously as part of removals we need to cut out existing wiring to old instruments, but having a cut wire hanging out and being forced to decide whether to complete taking it out (and risk needing that wire after all) was never a fun call.

Apart from this, the TBM had DOZENS of different connection styles. What I mean by this is typically, a manufacturer will decide on one style of wire termination; cannon plugs, d-subs for units, ground stud/ring terminal, AMP grounding block, grounding rail for airframe grounds, etc.

Not the TBM.

The TBM had a little bit of everything... some ground studs, some ground blocks, even some automotive knife splice grounds. It was impossible to have all the right crimpers/terminations that you might need that day, and we ended up with all sorts of goofy borrowed crimpers from all around the airport for these bizarre decisions.

The last point I'll make about the TBM is the equipment locations and unorthodox avionics placements. Usually, a small aircraft will have avionics in one of three places; in the nose of the plane (forward of the pressure bulkhead), behind the panel of the plane directly in the cockpit, or under the floor.

Not the TBM.

It had stuff all over the place. Some in the floor, some in the nose, some in the far reaches of the tail. This made it very impossible to estimate our wire length prior to the arrival of the aircraft (when we fabricate some of the harness on the bench), so a lot of our prep work was deemed worthless because the wire lengths were so wrong. A lot of wasted time and energy. The TBM is also BLOODY SMALL... so trying to get three techs in there was damn near impossible, even if we were working on seperate systems. Very little space for tools, hands, sightlines, and appendages. A lot of Rub A535 was used on this project.

Hey there! Thanks for the question and for getting our next generation up in the air safely!

I've worked for a large airline pre-covid as well as the smaller shop that I'm with now, and I've noticed that most of the really neat stuff is concentrated towards the big jets, rather than smaller aircraft like the stuff I work with now. With the stuff I have now, it has a definitive identity and it mostly works to chase the changes in policy like ADS-B and diversity transponder (basically turning the transponder from air to ground to air based, to more air to air/space based... think communication to space based satellites rather than a ground station... this gets complicated due to the differences in US vs Canadian transponder infastructure). There are a lot of cool little hidden features in the small planes, like units that can autotune to a frequency based on GPS position (it knows ground is 121.8, so you can just 'tune ground' rather than dial in the frequency), or integrated airport charts that you can pull up on your screens which completely negate the need for an EFB with charts. I also really like synthetic vision and going in that direction for IFR flying.

But the REALLY cool stuff is on the big jets.

The Airbus A220 was just coming into our fleet as I was leaving, and I was privileged evough to run a bit of maintenance on it. The thing that blew me away is that this airliner had like, 10 buttons. The rest was all automatic or virtually controlled. It was like the inside of a really really nice car, instead of the spaceship esque interior were used to seeing. And on top of that, it had about 6 physical circuit breakers, with all the rest being virtual. You could go into your maintenance menu, select the type of maintenance you were doing, and the plane would just pull its own CBs. It was wild.

But the coolest part was the onboard communication integration.

During flight, it would send any snags that it sensed to an iPad that a maintenance personel had inside a van. That maintenance engineer could see the problem, and poke around the aircraft computers for info DURING FLIGHT from the ground. The plane would then talk to a database and tell the maintainer what parts it needed, give you the maintenance reference, tell you affected systems, etc... all while the plane was happily flying to you. I have never felt so obsolete in my life, but it was DAMN cool.

EDIT: Ok, the cockpit definitely has more than 10 buttons... The image I had in my mind was a bit different from reality! In general though, the layout and general complexity of the cockpit was vastly improved compared to what I usually saw in the A320 or 757/767/777.

ACASx

There ya go…

Great question! Honestly I believe that there are fundamental safety and reputation issues with travelling by air that are simply too difficult to solve in the near future. I also believe that the market for aviation has settled at near daylight-robbery levels, and there is not enough pressure from competition to drive this down to the level where we'll be parking aircraft in our driveways anytime soon.

To elaborate on my first point; Cars are devices of inertia... you press the gas and go forward, you press the brakes and stop. You are only ever fighting one force... which is the momentum of forward or reverse travel. You can mitigate the damage that inertia causes by using seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, and headrests.

In an aircraft, you are always contending with gravity. This is a much harder puzzle to solve, as it is a constant form of acceleration that you can't resist against. And more importantly, it is always potential energy while your machine is running, but becomes kinetic very fast when the machine fails. I believe that the reason that flying is seen as unsafe and not commonplace is that when your machine breaks, you don't come to a stop but rather begin accelerating towards a very sticky situation.

EDIT: This isn't even mentioning weather considerations, traffic direction, and enforcement all of which pilots train for years to understand and integrate to. Also, we monkeys can barely stay focused and resist distraction when travelling in two dimensions... we really don't need a third.

Very good question! I'm honestly not the most up to date with ADS-B and diversity nuances (and Garmin's answer to these) besides some basic knowledge (Canada's rollout plan and the fact that diversity is required for aircraft operating in Canadian and US airspace both)However, I feel that you deserve a more fleshed out answer than I can provide this morning (and you've piqued my interest also), so I'm going to learn and get some info together for us and come back tonight with a great answer. Stay tuned!

Canadian air traffic controller here.

ADS-B mandates are on the way. Originally scheduled for February this year for Class A and B, the first mandate has been pushed back into this summer. Classes C, D, and E mandates are now "no earlier than 2026". The original dates did not, so they say, give enough time for aircraft owners to procure and install avionics.

As a controller, I like ADS-B. My job is a lot easier and safer when I can see where you are, whether IFR or VFR, and I can use rules that are much more efficient with any kind of surveillance (Radar, Mlat, ADS-B, whether ground or space-based), meaning fewer delays. Radar antennas are spread pretty far to provide optimal coverage, but leave holes, especially at low altitudes. Your 7700 squawk could go unnoticed of you're low and fast enough from a radar site. ADS-B fills many of those. Safety and efficiency are improved immensely, even if you're not in communication with ATC.

If I had my way, everyone would be using it already, but I understand costs and availability are issues. I can be patient and continue to issue holds as needed for those low-density airports.

Edit: Antenna diversity is still required. Downward-facing-only isn't good for satellites looking down from above and there is simply far too much countryside to cover with ground-based infrastructure.

It very much does not, not at this level at least. I'm sure there is a formula running in the software of these flightdecks or on the satellites that is able to calculate this, and certainly someone who builds and monitors it, but as long as I see the signal bars go green on my screens I'm a happy camper.

They can vary widely depending on airframe and package details, plus what equipment you settle on obviously. I'm not exclusively privy to that information but from what I know, a G1000 is roughly $300,000 USD to $400,000 USD for parts and labor. The G1000 is a full conversion mod with integrated autopilot, so that will be near the top end of the price range for Garmin installs.

I can say that the standard salary has certainly not gotten to a level that rivals overseas work, or even work south of the border. I know of a good handful of techs that live on Canada and work in the US, just due the substantial wage difference. I'm fortunate enough to have gotten in young and gotten on with a really generous company that meets my needs at present.

Our MRO does line maintenance occasionally, and I did daily line maintenance with the airline I worked with for a short period. Overseas work in my future certainly isn't off the table, but it's not in the cards for the next five or so years. Thank you so much for the compliments though my friend! I wish you the best of luck on your ventures in other timezones!

gotten worse if anything. went to do my apprenticeship and was offered minimum wage. meanwhile I'm making 70k+ in oil and gas for my first year on the job, and I didn't even have to move to Yukon.

If you're working at an AMO, yes

If you own your own AMO, no

5G use by consumer electronics has definite and (in my opinion) founded concern for aircraft avionics, to an extent. I'll preface this by saying these concerns have been raised and government authorities are seemingly dealing with it so as to avoid any major incidents or disruptions.

The inside scoop that I can give you is this.

5G stands for 5 gigahertz Fifth Generation (EDIT: as some commenters pointed out, I was originally wrong here. 5G stands for "Fifth Generation" and has nothing to do with the frequency range it operate in), and is simply the frequency of which the wireless signals arrive to your cell phone. 5G operates in the frequency band of 3.65-3.98GHz. Frequency in its most basic form is energy pulses, with a higher frequency having those energy pulses closer together (higher energy per time period) and a lower frequency having them farther apart (lower energy). Everything in wireless transmission uses frequency (generally), including GPS, radio navigation, and communication radio.

Now communication radio uses the range 117.975MHz (which stands for megahertz) and 137.00MHz (although the radios are tunable only to 118.00MHz and 136.975MHz, there is a buffer for this bandwidth). This means it is physically impossible for 5G to interfere with any voice communication, as the waves are so so so much different than the range which our radios are built and designed to pick up.

Now as for avionics equipment... most of our stuff is built to operate at vastly different frequencies than anything your cell phone uses, but there is one piece of tech that uses a band very close to 5G. That is the radio altimeter, as I mentioned in a comment above and also in this comment here. Radio altimeter uses the frequencies of 4.2GHz to 4.4GHz, which is less than half a GHz above from cell phone 5G towers. Also, due to the design and construction of this device, it requires utmost precision and signals that are as clean as they can possibly be. This piece of equipment is also very important for low visibility landings (at night or in weather) and is also the main method by which helicopters can autohover at a fixed altitude. All this to say; its very important that it works without interference. Cell towers are extremely high power transmitters, so the concern for these two pieces of equipment conflicting was certainly valid.

Now outside of some headaches and nasty emails between government transport authorities and telecomm companies, what does it mean for you? Well the long and the short of it is you are very, very, very unlikely to ever notice. Telecomm companies don't like building tall cell towers near airports for obvious reasons, and due to the nature of 5G it can be adjusted to be quite precise in where the waves end up. Canada and the US have already introduced mandates for 5G cell tower placement (you can read the CASA that Transport Canada put out here) and it seems that there is no official concern following these.

There’s an airworthiness directive about it. We had until the end of last year to install RF filters on susceptible radio altimeters.

I would say that it's pretty lucrative and you're in a good place for career growth. Most shops we go and contract for are hurting for in-house avionics, and we are very busy for the majority of our work year. The maintenance force in canada also has a very high average age, and there are way more guys retiring than there are people available to meet the maintenance demands. As with anything though, there are caveats and certainly ways by which you can improve your chances in getting a good job close to graduation. Do your best to have a good rapport with your instructors; their word has been enough for companies to give me a chance. The industry is small and you want to stand out as much as you can.

Talk to as many people in as many companies as you can... when I was graduating I drove to some shops and hangars around the airport and asked to visit their avionics departments... it's good to know what you might be signing on for and it helps show great inititive.

Overall I think as long as you demonstrate your desire to learn and understand, you'll find work. In this industry, your reputation is key so make sure you take small steps to build that up a little bit more every day.

The only thing I can come up with is space vs ground based navigation. Most old planes will not be equip with built in GPS (I admit I don't know what equipment these jets have) and only use VOR or ADF technology. VOR and ADF are both ground based radio navigation tools, so easily sabotaged by destroying a radio tower, meaning your planes lose navigation. GPS, though, is space based and a lot more difficult to disrupt. If I had to guess this is the reason... It's also a lot easier to preplan and map a GPS plan, as you don't need to worry about tuning VOR beacons and switching the nav source.

They are cheap, reliable, and easy to install. Especially when you are talking about a 40+ year aircraft

Sorry eh, my hoser brain missed that while I was oot having a dart

[removed]

To be frank, this is the first time I'm hearing of both Garmin's advertising of the updates over wifi, and issues with the technology. I'm quite low level, so the package and purchase decisions are typically made above my head prior to my involvement. I'll say that I've always done my software loading of any sort over usb and SD card (for no political reason besides that's just how I know to do it) and the odd time when a customer has asked for guidance with the process I've always instructed doing so via hardware storage device.

That being said, if it's a lapse in our marketing I'll perform my due diligence and bring it up to my PRM and DOM when I'm in today that this technology is potentially flawed. Thank you for the insight!

There was a great post explaining this a couple years ago but I can’t find it now. Without details, it came down to having to have a system that interacted properly with all sorts of different components from the PA system, cockpit to cabin comms, cockpit intercom, VHF radios, and all their associated microphones, speakers, amplifiers, and transceivers. To tie all these together needs compromise. To overhaul it all with new technology is just cost prohibitive at this point, not to mention ground to air communication is still analogue VHF AM.

ETA - here’s one related post: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nliql6/comment/gzium0a/

I was laid off from my previous employment with the national carrier in Canada when covid hit, but airlines are very volatile with their employment and lay-offs/recalls are commonplace. Private aviation sector has been booming in my experience, and I've never been concerned with losing my job at my current employer.

Not difficult at all! The caveat is you'll need to go to a technical school... BCIT, SAIT, and Canadore all have avionics specific programs and they'll get you well on your way. They start you from the ground up, so any electronics or mechanical background will give you a great advantage.

These schools also have open houses, so please reach out and see if it's something you'd be into! We need all the capable hands we can get.

I'm also in Alberta! There's really not much to it, it's a 2 year diploma course followed by 2 year apprenticeship with a company of your choosing. The best way to start is ask the schools about open houses! They'll give you a tour of their facilities and all sorts of info that you can use, plus you can talk to the instructors and get a feel for the industry. If you're in Alberta the two schools you'd most likely be looking at is SAIT (Calgary) and BCIT (Vancouver). I'm a graduate of SAIT so please if you have any questions, DM me and we can get more into details!

Glassdoor would probably be of more help than myself... I don't personally know any aerospace engineers, and really the only engineers I encounter would be the ones who help us develop STCs or provide them for installs, and maybe DARs who come to inspect a newly developed STC. Sorry I couldn't be of more help!

As a bassist, all I can say is that I love the low notes.

I play the alto saxophone actually!

The Garmin GFC500 and GFC600 is very very close to universal. Each aircraft install is different of course, but the GFC500 I know for a fact can be fit onto multiple types of Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and Beechcraft aircraft. Each type is different, but there are airframe specific kits and manuals that outline exactly how sheetmetal and avionics go about fitting and installing the autopilot system in its entirety.

Canadian Pacific has a holiday train that makes its way around Canada around, obviously, holiday time. It's just a standard freight train but its full of lights and decorations. I like that one because I remember it coming through every city and town I ever lived in growing up, and so seeing it today makes me appreciate and reminisce about my childhood.

I'm unfortunately not the best story teller, but point form short events I can do! And you can ask me to tell you more if any of these pique your interest!

• When I spilled hydraulic fluid in both my eyes (around my safety glasses) while rewiring an engine. I've never been so afraid of losing a sense in my life (turns out it just dries the hell out of your eyes and turns them very red)

• The first birdstrike plane that came into the hangar. Sure it LOOKED gruesome, but what I didn't expect was the SMELL...

• When a ramp agent was trying to put out a GPU that had caught fire and accidentally sprayed purple-k (corrosive fire retardant) into both engines of a parked A320, forcing a dual engine change

• Changing a wingtip navigation light on an Airbus A330 during high winds and in -40 without windchill. I really wanted that logbook sign off.

• Riding my motorcycle home at dusk, on a road adjacent to one of the runways at my home airport, and 'racing' a plane I had just finished handing over to the pilot after a sizeable upgrade. I don't think I stopped smiling for about 2 days.

• Having the entire shop see my flight simulator peripherals for my computer come in because I ordered them to the shop. I get teased to this day.

• Doing a complete install on a Piper Navajo for a survey camera before realizing the STC was developed by an engineer who happened to be one of my middle school friends from a small BC town

Hopefully some of these made you smile or sounded interesting!!

I do agree that the industry as a whole underpays techs and especially apprentices. I was extremely fortunate to find a company that allows me to live comfortably and maintain a life outside of work, but hearing stories from around the airport about new hires being paid less than fast food workers does disappoint me, especially with how desperate everyone is for good techs of all sort.

Honestly I don't have the life experience to feel like I can share a founded opinion on sustainability and compare the Canadian aviation sector to others around the world, and I think that there are a lot of underpaid professions and careers that also have definite room to grow that land outside of aviation.

Sorry if this answer seems kind of weird, I honestly challenged myself with this one and I had a hard time gathering my thoughts when it comes to financial politics

It certainly is possible, but it would be hard to start one without prior reputation. The hardest part will be trying to find companies who trust you enough to allow you to grow through them; taking extra time because you need to borrow test boxes or order parts for instance. But that being said, my company was started by two techs who wanted to do things the right way and we are doing very well now! Of course there are growing pains, but overall if you have the dedication I'm sure you'll find success.

In US, all avionics work is completed by mechanics (or A&P [Airframe and Powerplant] technicians). I'm sure there are specialized shops and nuances that I'm missing, but as far as official titles go, in the US it all falls under aircraft maintenance as far as I know.

Some do and some don't, I've met both types. In my opinion the worst combo is a penny pinching owner, an experimental aircraft type, and an Amazon cart. I wish I was joking.

Not in any capacity that is beyond what you can find online... I only recently heard about this technology and I'm currently not too concerned with knowing it, as it is not yet certified in Canada. If you're interested in hearing my opinion on it, I don't have many complex feelings as long as it passes Transport Canada certification and retains a safe track record. Autoland systems have been around for many years, but introducing them to G3000 flight decks (usually on smaller private jets) is pretty awesome. Anything that makes low visibility and complex approaches and landings easier, in my mind, keeps the passengers safer.

Calling it my 'favorite' is kind of tough, but I always felt so affected by Alaska 261 (the MD83 that had the horizontal stab jackscrew strip itself off and completely free the horizontal stab). The sheer desperation of the pilots and the way by which the plane twisted and inverted is just heart wrenching. Having such a lack of control is just an awful thought. The whole maintenace crew in my first hangar always took the jackscrew greasing task card very seriously (not that others were completed otherwise) because a lot of them were alive and some even working during that disaster (that was very seriously maintenance caused).

No, I'm not currently employed there. I'm with a small shop (15-20 guys) based out of Calgary. I'm not performing this AMA in conjunction with my company though, so I won't advertise or namedrop them here. If you are interested in the company I have it listed on my Reddit profile. Thanks for the question!

Chips make my stomach hurt. I'm a saltine cracker kind of dude, sorry to disappoint.

I use my education every day, and I also use all of the on the job training I've gotten since day one of beginning my career. I did a lot of box swapping with the airliner, but in my job now I'm always challenged with troubleshooting, fixing snags, install decisions, and relying on my knowledge to complete my work. While box swapping is a part of my job, a lot of it is also finding damaged wiring, tracing pitot/static leaks, and understanding the software that this equipment is running and being able to configure it.

I wasn't currently employed when this happened, but I will ask my coworkers and see what sort of impact it had on us!

A vast majority of systems can be tested on the ground using test boxes that simulate radio NAV signals, handheld VHF radios, and airspeed/altitude. Our test procedures are almost always included in the install documentation, so as long as we follow that we are allowed to let the plane fly as is.

That being said, autopilot and a number of other systems do need flight tests, and so at the end of most major installs we have a test procedure that we fly with the pilot who either owns or operates the aircraft.

I am not a licensed pilot, so I never get behind the controls. My boss is though, so occasionally he will taxi and perform engine run tests with us but its the owner who always does the final flight test. This also gives them an opportunity to ask any questions they might have for me, and get situated with the new system while the installer is there with them.

I put the magic smoke in the magic airplane boxes, and sometimes I let the magic smoke out and people send me home and I get a lotta emails

The pay is certainly not glamourous, unless you play your cards and get on with a big company and a good position. But even then, I've always thought that were underpaid for the work we do (the good ones) and the toll it takes on our bodies.

That being said, I've never questioned my career choice. I've wanted to be an avionics tech since I was old enough to walk, and I love my work more than a paycheck can say. I'm extremely privileged to have a wonderful fiance who allows us to have dual income, so we are both comfortable at the moment. That being said, if we ever did decide to uproot I have no doubt the earning potential of both her and I would play a part in where we decide to go.

I'm sorry to say I don't fully understand the question. To answer the first part, avionics is aviation electronics. In fact I think some of the schools that teach it are changing the title to "aviation electronics" to clear it up with potential students.

I haven't. I've seen some job postings for it, but doing so doesn't count towards maintaining your avionics license and after a while it would fall off. Perhaps one day, but for now I'll stick to the real ones I think!

Our company actually just finished a contract for a G950 (G1000 without autopilot) on a 1900D! I don't know if a G1000 is in the cards, but the two systems are nearly identical besides the autopilot that is used

Not a problem! I am in fact a civilian avionics tech. But I think any sort of aviation is something that people should be excited about! It's really quite a neat industry and the technology that we use is really fascinating to learn about.

I need a doubler first! Also can you prc them for me and drill the 7 screws I broke in the panel