REFERENCE 21-023/MSG-367 - Page 37

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

45 787 Cabin Zone Unit RD-AC1130-01 Boeing B787 44-21 UAL

Architecture

On B787 aircraft prior to Line Number 372, if a Cabin Zone Unit (CZU) fails, (PN RD-AC1130-01), both handsets
at adjacent doors, (i.e. 1L-1R, 2L-2R etc.), become inoperative. The FAA MMEL was revised in 2012 such that
airplanes could no longer dispatch with inoperative handsets at adjacent doors. Subsequently, Boeing redesigned
the CZU architecture on LN’s 372 and later so that a failure of a CZU does not cause both handsets at adjacent
doors to become inoperative.

Boeing states that due to the complexities in the redesigned wiring integration and architecture of the Cabin
Services System (CSS), no retrofit service bulletin is planned for the earlier aircraft. The recommendations for
earlier aircraft are to ensure that all component SB’s have been accomplished and the latest software is installed.
These recommendations attempt to alleviate the issue by reducing the likelihood of a CZU failing on the line but
do not address the core problem with the CZU architecture.

UAL has accomplished all SB’s and installed the latest software yet continues to experience lengthy delays and/or
cancellations when CZU’s fail at stations where spare CZU’s are not readily available.

Are other Operators seeing similar issues? And if so, what are they doing to address or alleviate the issues?

Boeing comments please.

*****20-122*****

Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

EVR (Enhanced VHF Radio) EVR716-11-0350A De Havilland Q400 23 ANA

Thales

Flight crew which is receiver side heard voice of transmitter side when using above frequency pairs. It means that
voice of receiver side is blocked by transmitter side. Thales SIL THAV/SIL-1240 mentions that there is a
possibility that squelch circuit would open if two frequencies selected VHF 1 and VHF 2 are separated by less
than 2 MHz but shift of ANA experience is more than 2 MHz.

ANA already informed this radio interference issue to Thales and Thales investigated this radio interference issue.
As result of Thales’s investigation, this radio interference happens due to the following reason.

If harmonic selected frequency (receiver side) of intermediate frequency (21.4 MHz) and harmonic incoming
frequency (transmitter side) of intermediate frequency (21.4 MHz) are matched, squelch circuit could be opened
around -25 dBm. EVR is designed that undesired response is less than -33 dBm in accordance with MOPS
recommendation. Hence, ANA has understood that this radio interference issue happens within EVR specification
and needs EVR design change to address this radio interference issue.

Currently, ANA has been working with De Havilland and Thales to address this radio interference issue. This
radio interference issue is safety issue for flight operation. Hence, ANA thinks that De Havilland and Thales have
to provide a solution for the operator.

Other operators, please comment if you have experienced a same issue as ANA. Share of frequency pair
information would be highly appreciated.

De Havilland, Thales and other operator comments, please.

REFERENCE 21-023/MSG-367 - Page 38

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

46 Gatelink Wi-Fi Connectivity Boeing B787 46 AAL

B737M

AA 787s use Gatelink Wi-Fi and 737Max-8 use 3G Cellular for connectivity. AA 737Max-8 do not have Wi-Fi
capability today but will be upgraded in the future.

Current AA Wi-Fi enabled aircraft are not maintaining a persistent connection when they arrive at the gate. A
thorough review of the AA wireless network has been accomplished and no issues have been found. Data
collected so far indicates this is an aircraft side issue and not a ground issue. Log analysis shows the following
issues: 1) “lost heartbeat” errors, 2) can’t poll the main/proxy server, 3) “WLAN for GATE is NRDY/DISC” and 3)
“stopping Ground Getter on GATE” often occur prior to a GATELINK_CONNECTION_CLIENT_AUTH_FAILURE.

Questions:
1. Are other Operators seeing a lack of persistence in maintaining their Wi-Fi connections when the aircraft
arrive at the gate for 787 and/or 737 MAX?
2. Have any other Operators identified the issue, determined a root cause, and corrected the issue on their
fleet(s)?
3. Has Boeing identified the issue, determined a root cause, and corrected the issue on anyone’s fleet(s)?
4. Are any other Operators interested in forming an airline team to solve this issue?

Other Operators and Boeing comments, please.

Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

47 Terminal Cellular System 2250100-01 Boeing B787 46 AFR/KLM

Teledyne B777

This item is a follow up on the already posted items on 3G/4G in 2019 and 2020 (item 19-113)

Air France KLM is not happy with the 3G solution and the delays of getting a path forward. Several times, it was
requested to investigate 3G upgrade of the existing unit by means of internal 3G module replacement inside the
TCU. As a customer, we are reluctant to accept a single option that takes several years and investment as well to
get our fleet working (path to full capabilities). According to Boeing, AID 787 EIS is late 1Q2022, retrofit normally
takes 3 months for availability. AFKL have been in contact with Teledyne for the existing upgrade option and is
feasible alternative for existing 787’s in operation.

Several questions are still unanswered:

 Updated 787 / 777 certification plan (dates)

 787 LN and CN commitment dates
 777/787 retrofit offerability for airplanes equipped with 3G TCU option: technical solution and availability
dates
 Financial condition to upgrade to 4G connectivity
 Concurrent requirement(s) on peripheral units/system (NIM, …)
 Impact on airline costs (for labor/time retrofit and new airplanes)
 Teledyne easy upgrade option of existing TCU units. AFKLM repeatedly asked for the alternative
Teledyne upgrade solution. Boeing still to respond.
 Boeing’s offer to engage 1:1 for mitigations 2022 sunset versus retrofit at airline: AFKL repeatedly asked
for the alternative Teledyne upgrade solution. Boeing still to respond.

Other Operators and Boeing comments, please.

 REFERENCE 21-023/MSG-367 - Page 39

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

48 Airbus ATSU LA2T0G20503B040 Airbus A319 23 UAL

LA2T0G20503B050 A320

United Airlines has seen a very high No Fault Found rate in the Airbus ATSUs. United would like to get feedback
from other operators and Airbus on the high NFF rate and if this is seen across the industry.

United is also requesting the following:

1. Data from Airbus on global shop findings or shop trends. Is Airbus aware of any ongoing issues that
would drive such a high NFF rate?
2. Airbus are there any changes to the current TSM/CMM that can be implemented to improve the high NFF
rate?

Other Operators and Airbus comments, please.

Item Summary Title LRU PN Vendor Aircraft ATA From

49 CVR Faults 2100-1226-02 L3 A320 NEO 23 TAP

2100-1228-02

TAP has been experiencing several CVR 2100-122X-02 faults, triggering sometimes unsuccessful aircraft
installations. The associated removal complaints are usually PFR CVR FAULT or CVR DOES NOT TEST, but the
LRUs are NFF at the test bench.

TAP is cognizant of improvements related to SB024, that upgrades CVR units to Hardware Mod 17 to eliminate
latch faults, but this modification is already embodied. Also, the troubleshooting of the NEO aircrafts fitted with the
L3 CVR PN did not detect issues related to the system, nevertheless, the experienced MTBUR of the CVRs is
very low.

Other Operators and Airbus comments, please.