PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
Starlink review was by Walter White from New Mexico
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Starlink Mini
- Thread starter YellowJacket RV9
- Start date
That's another consideration as well. If it's generating a WiFi hotspot, it's probably intending that to work over a range sufficient to cover an area a lot larger than the cockpit of an RV, and not with a focused beam.
Of course I say that typing on my laptop with my cell phone sitting next to me on the table. Both are >12" away from my body, so who knows.
Well, actually, there have been... This is older information, but the lesson is still true today; what you're seeing may be older than you think, and using Wx radar to try to dodge trouble can be a bad idea.
Nexrad Weather Radar Linked to Small Plane Crash Deaths
Federal transportation experts are warning that a weather radar system used in many small planes may have caused the deaths of at least two pilots whowww.aboutlawsuits.com
Even with airborne weather radar you can get into trouble. It's not the tool, it's the monkey. I've flown with a lot of professional pilots who don't understand storms, radar, tilt management and ultimately risk.
For anyone considering using these tools for mitigating weather risk, I highly recommend watching Archie Trammell's videos:
https://www.radar4pilots.com
Even with noahhl's better analysis, I have to admit that I'm reluctant to put either the satellite RF or wifi RF that close to my head in the RV-7 cockpit. It's not necessarily rational, it just is.
I wonder if I can make a tinfoil hat that will fit under my headset? Or maybe I paint my head with this stuff or wear one of these...
Dave
Last edited:
I have a mini on the roam plan, it's great, we use it at the airport and plan to throw it in the back of the plane for trips, but no plans to try to use it in flight. It's going to let me/us take longer trips from work into more remote areas and fly-ins and still be able to have an effective internet connection for work. It's frankly just what we've been waiting for.
Same here. I'm axiously awaitingMusk's cell phone (satellite-based) service for all the same reasons.
Looks like 13.4 inches is needed.
Attachments
I remember him in that video mentioning that he does not run it while he is in the plane due to concerns with being directly under/near it during operation as a potential health concern. He basically said he powers it on after landing to get service while in a remote location. I’m not educated enough on the topic to give an opinion on whether it being in your immediate vicinity while operating is harmful to your health, but I’m sure someone here may have some input.
Part of the snip you nicely attached states "Users must not operate the Starlink Kit within the safety zone of an airport."
This would seem to be relevant to the use case being discussed here - i.e., are those using these things really going to have them in the "off" position at all times inside the proverbial fence?
In any event, can anyone indicate what the actual specific issue is/might be for such a "must not operate" statement?
My educated guess is that the perceived issue is with 2.4 GHz/5 GHz wifi signal interference with GPS, TCAS, ATC radar, ADS-B, and most importantly, aircraft radar altimeters that operate around those frequencies. For example, existing radar altimeters have such poor RF filtering that they're vulnerable to RF interference several hundred megahertz away from their operating frequencies; that's the reason for all those 5G RADALT NOTAMs you see in your preflight briefings.
I've never heard of a limitation like this being stated or enforced in the US. If this is an EU approval, can someone in Europe can help with a better definition of "airport safety zone" or clarify the reason for this language?
Dave
Last edited:
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
OK now we are finally talking about something in my wheel house.
Given the small size of the antenna, there will probably be considerable side lobes. This means that there will be considerable radiaition directed to your head. I would put a small metal shield between the antenna and your head. (Tin foil hat, seriously)
It one gets head aches, or prone to cancer or starts seeing red areas of the skin on the back of thier neck, then this is too much exposure. Unfortunately, the worst problem will be cancer from the exposure, and this is not detectable until its too late. I would heed the Starlink warning and put it in a wing tip. Gosh, cant believe there are people putting this in the baggage compartment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you want to quantify this assessment based on the published numbers? Starlink does have radiation warnings on their larger more powerful antennas, though not on the smaller consumer oriented terminals.
I haven’t done the math but I’d be shocked if this was any more of a concern than holding your cellphone to your head.
This is a temporary location but wanted to get some numbers at difference orientations. This is in the back of a 14A. I did comply with the minimum body distance warning. Downloads at the 4 compass points where 141, 132, 71, and 109 Mbps with around 12 Mbps upload and 26 - 30 latency. Tried 2 USB C to 5.5-2.1 plug and no joy. Even my 5.1-2.1 cigarette socket adapter would light the led on the antenna but would not connect. At rest my ships power is at 13.4 volts and with voltage drop was concerned this would be an issue. Units draws ~ 4 amps and the 5.5 mm jack and wiring looked pretty small. I might have been able to get it to work once the alternator comes alive and outputs 14.2 volts but decided to try and fix the issue so made-up jumpers using 16 awg wire and my own socket and 5.5 plug and this worked fine even at resting voltage. As others have mentioned don't try the Amazon cables using USB C technology with the mini.
I made these tests at 4,000 ft turned off the cell coverage even though it appeared I would not get a signal. Sirius XM came in fine and even made a quick video call and that also worked well. Eventually this will go into a wingtip or the tailcone (I have a Showplnes fiberglass tailcone) on my 10.
I made these tests at 4,000 ft turned off the cell coverage even though it appeared I would not get a signal. Sirius XM came in fine and even made a quick video call and that also worked well. Eventually this will go into a wingtip or the tailcone (I have a Showplnes fiberglass tailcone) on my 10.
Attachments
Last edited:
Note that radiation effects are cumulative.
It's really hard to predict the health hazards of the cumulative effects of the various radiation sources over a lifetime.
Apparently the higher the frequency, the more energy? I think I saw 14 GHz for Starlink in an earlier post in this thread?
I can appreciate arguments both for and against our radiation "saturated" environment (3G, 4G, 5G, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc., etc.).
At least we're no longer bathed in radiation from old TV and computer CRT screens
It's really hard to predict the health hazards of the cumulative effects of the various radiation sources over a lifetime.
Apparently the higher the frequency, the more energy? I think I saw 14 GHz for Starlink in an earlier post in this thread?
I can appreciate arguments both for and against our radiation "saturated" environment (3G, 4G, 5G, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc., etc.).
At least we're no longer bathed in radiation from old TV and computer CRT screens
There was an issues a few years back about a huge low level orbit satellite constellation that was opposed by the FAA due to the closeness in frequency to some major aviation used frequencies and therefore could potentially cause interference. If I remember right the FCC approved the frequency allocation anyway over the FAA’s objection. Was that Starlink?
Just makes me wonder about potential issues with all my other RF I use in the cockpit.
Based on my day jobs experience with RF radiation, I would definitely not put this kind of a transmitter in the cockpit just above my head.
Just makes me wonder about potential issues with all my other RF I use in the cockpit.
Based on my day jobs experience with RF radiation, I would definitely not put this kind of a transmitter in the cockpit just above my head.
Nope, that was Lightsquared, now known as Ligado. The concern was that because their signals were adjacent to GPS operating frequencies, they might bleed over and cause all sorts of problems with navigation systems.
HTH
ds
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
This was actually worst than you describe. There claim was that all old GPS receivers, were defective in that they would respond ( get interference) from their “legal” new system; therefore all old gps receivers would need to be replaced at owners expense.
Although this argument ignores the other FCC rule, “ Do no harm to existing systems”
Happy to report that it seems to work well over inland water…on the way to Mackinac Island over Lake Michigan…whilst posting this very message
Pilot135pd
Well Known Member
You call that situation a CON while others might put it in the PRO column of the Starlink features section.
Just another data point to my Starlink experience...
- In the flight I posted above, I started the Starlink antenna while over land and thought that may have kept the service going over water. On the way back from Mackinac Island, I explicitly started it over water....started up just fine and worked flawlessly.
- I do not recommend the antenna on the glare shield, for obvious reasons, but also there is noticeable interference on my intercom which one could assume be effecting other things. When I moved the antenna to the baggage area, the interference went away. I leaning towards a wingtip install but want to remove the antenna for other use.
I was reading all these giddy replies and said, "No, really not sure I need this." But then, a couple of days ago, when I read about this T-Mobile deal, I did get a little giddy in anticipation.
How are you all planning on powering this thing? I saw one poster get it to work with plane power but I’m taxing my 40A alternator as it is with my panel etc. power banks?
If you don't have ~3.5 amps to spare this or various other home brews would work well. Uses on average 40 watts.
Makita Battery Adapter - Starlink Mini
Power your Starlink Mini with any Makita battery using the Outer Space Battery Adapter. No longer worry about consistently having to find a power source to use your Starlink Mini. Attach two batteries for double the run time Made out of ASA plastic for durability Low voltage protection for the...
outerspacesupply.com
It does look like the data speeds on direct-to-cell will be significantly lower. Not sure how that would affect some of our possible use cases, but worth noting,I was reading all these giddy replies and said, "No, really not sure I need this." But then, a couple of days ago, when I read about this T-Mobile deal, I did get a little giddy in anticipation.
Does anyone know if it would fit in an RV-8 wing tip non batwing?
People on this forum have tested it in flight. Do you think they changed something?
The StarLink mini plan is different, and specifically allows use up to 250mph.
Yep...this just happened in the last few days...they have a 100 MPH limit on it now
I flew to work the other day and it was still working great. Finished my trip this evening...Starlink booted up just fine and after about 5 minutes online I got the "too fast...slow down" warning. After slowing below 100 mph, it came back online. Rebooting restores service for about 5 minutes, and you get the warning again.
It seams the cheapest plan that allows aviation use now is Mobile Regional at $150 a month for unlimited land use and $2/GB for mobile aviation and oceanic, or the mobile priority plan.
Last edited:
If true it will be sent back. They have a 30 day return policy.
Sometime between Thursday and today they imposed a speed limit -- flew ~3 hours with it on Thursday and worked great, today it says I'm moving to fast (at ~125 knots groundspeed at that point) and shuts off after five minutes.
Someone on another forum asked support and they claim it's still a 250 mph limit, but the plan description was changed in the past few days to list aircraft use as not allowed for the Roam plan. I'll give it a couple days to see what shakes out but then it'll be going back while I'm still in the return period.
Starlink should consider raising the speed limit to 225 mph or so for the Mini Roam 50GB plan, this would allow a large percentage of general aviation aircraft to use the service without cutting into the lucrative Jet market service plan.
As it stands now with the 100mph speed limit, it just crossed over to the nice to have, but too expensive for the average GA pilot.
As it stands now with the 100mph speed limit, it just crossed over to the nice to have, but too expensive for the average GA pilot.
Most people have understood that the account terms for the mini roam plan clearly excludes aviation use, and that if it worked they were essentially getting away with something. It looks like that didn't last long.
The terms explicitly prohibit ALL kits from aviation use, yet they now have aviation availability on Mobile Regional and Mobile Priority, and only recently advertised the Roam 50GB plan as non-aviation, so the terms do not fall in line with what they're currently selling. The speed limit of the plan is explicit. The 250 mph limit was intentional and the change to 100 mph likewise. Starlink moved the goal post...I'm guessing they get a bunch of returns and cancelations until they sort out the aviation use market. It seems they made the same moves with the nautical market.
The terms of service provided with the mini did prohibit in-motion usage (3.3) but then the next paragraph (3.4) stated install requirements and install warnings for "Moving Vehicles". MOST of us felt mini was going to be different and not lock out movement capability like previous Starlink antennas. Seems the marketing department has decided if you can afford a plane or boat you can afford to pay 3+ times more, safety be dammed. (Similar to Sirius for aviation products) What's next for Starlink block any movement over 10 mph?
TOS were clear in excluding aviation unless authorized. I'm not disputing the recent changes, just stating that aviation was an exemption on the mini roam plans. They made changes to authorize aviation on more expensive plans.. The aviation plans are too expensive for my needs, but I'll probably keep the unit because it works well at my hangars and I like to work there.
I'm not talking about in motion...specially aviation was an exception and it was published if anyone was interested enough to actually look. Social media blew up over the last few weeks with aviation uses and Starlink made their move to 100mph to restrict unauthorized aviation use, which was always a risk. Nobody but pilots will care about the change from 250 to 100.
I don't disagree that this will lead to returns. People expected to get away with something forever just because they were getting away with it at the time.
Section 3.3 of the TOS, this is not new language.
Last edited:
TOS were clear in excluding aviation unless authorized. I'm not disputing the recent changes, just stating that aviation was an exemption on the mini roam plans. They made changes to authorize aviation on more expensive plans.. The aviation plans are too expensive for my needs, but I'll probably keep the unit because it works well at my hangars and I like to work there.
I'm not talking about in motion...specially aviation was an exception and it was published if anyone was interested enough to actually look. Social media blew up over the last few weeks with aviation uses and Starlink made their move to 100mph to restrict unauthorized aviation use, which was always a risk. Nobody but pilots will care about the change from 250 to 100.
I don't disagree that this will lead to returns. People expected to get away with something forever just because they were getting away with it at the time.
Section 3.3 of the TOS, this is not new language.
TOS 3.3, is what I was talking about when they explicitly prohibit ALL kits from being used in aviation use or installation...
This emphasized statement means every single kit is prohibited from use in aircraft, even if the kit designated for said use (notwithstanding the foregoing). I believe this statement is to solely to limit liability in the event the kit is not properly installed...it was never intend to prohibit use in aviation, obviously, since they have explicit plans and speed limits for aviation use. The plan comparison table was only recently changed to include Roam 50GB prohibition, and Mobile Regional and Priority inclusion.
They move the goalposts...they said as much, out load, by explicitly changing the limit from 250 mph to 100 mph.
I don't care what they do, or what they charge. My beef is the fact they moved the goal posts. I have a couple more weeks to decide to keep a very expensive device. If I decide to keep it, and pay for aviation use, will they move the goal post again and I have a $600 paper weight? That's why I'm calling BS! (bait and switch
)
Last edited:
I'm shocked!
TOS 3.3, is what I was talking about when they explicitly prohibit ALL kits from being used in aviation use or installation...
This emphasized statement means every single kit is prohibited from use in aircraft, even if the kit designated for said use (notwithstanding the foregoing). I believe this statement is to solely to limit liability in the event the kit is not properly installed...it was never intend to prohibit use in aviation, obviously, since they have explicit plans and speed limits for aviation use. The plan comparison table was only recently changed to include Roam 50GB prohibition, and Mobile Regional and Priority inclusion.
They move the goalposts...they said as much, out load, by explicitly changing the limit from 250 mph to 100 mph.
I don't care what they do, or what they charge. My beef is the fact they moved the goal posts. I have a couple more weeks to decide to keep a very expensive device. If I decide to keep it, and pay for aviation use, will they move the goal post again and I have a $600 paper weight? That's why I'm calling BS! (bait and switch
Fair enough, it's true they moved the goalpost for anyone who had a non-aviation use with movement over 100mph. All two or three of those people should probably be really mad. Your aviation goalpost was always prohibited. It seems disingenuous to stand on principal with 'move the goalpost' as a litmus test, while knowing a use was violating TOS. Principle applied only where expedient for an argument.
Anyway, based on this it seems like your decision is an easy one, return it now. They are unlikely to authorize aviation use on the reasonable Mini plans. It's wishful thinking. If they ever change that, you can just buy again at the time. Good chance it's cheaper then anyway.
Last edited:
I think mine is going back too...I would do Mobile Priority, which still has the 250 mph limit, but there is nothing explicit that allows aviation use and the TOS prohibits it. I'm guessing they will move that goalpost soon also. It would be nice to know what you're buying.They also just bumped unlimited $165. I think mine is going back too.
NORDO Industries LLC
Well Known Member
FWIW, the price bump to $165/mo now allows in-motion without having to pay an additional $2/gig for Mobile Priority. You also now can use it in other countries and 12 miles offshore for up to 2 months at a time.
The $50/mo for 50 GB plan is still there, and overage there is still $1/GB.
Both still allow service to be started/stopped on a month-by-month basis.
Also, they now have an official 5 Meter (16.4 feet) USB-C power cord for $31 (requires that the source be able to supply 20v 5A). The advantage of the Official Cable is that there’s flanges on the dish side for weather sealing.
The $50/mo for 50 GB plan is still there, and overage there is still $1/GB.
Both still allow service to be started/stopped on a month-by-month basis.
Also, they now have an official 5 Meter (16.4 feet) USB-C power cord for $31 (requires that the source be able to supply 20v 5A). The advantage of the Official Cable is that there’s flanges on the dish side for weather sealing.
To Starlinks credit...they issued a full refund, including the $50 for Roam service
I can now confirm that they are advertising Mobile Priority to work up to 250…
I ordered mine a few weeks back and it arrived a few days ago. I was quietly hoping that maybe we may have been forgotten about down under but unfortunately it shut down at top of climb.
I can report that it works just fine otherwise sitting on the passenger seat.
So I’ll box it up and send it back. It’s awesome but I can’t justify 5x for Mobile priority.
I can report that it works just fine otherwise sitting on the passenger seat.
So I’ll box it up and send it back. It’s awesome but I can’t justify 5x for Mobile priority.
As long as the terms of service restrict aviation (They specifically call out greater than 100 mph up to 250 mph for non-aviation usage is ok), we will always have at risk discontinuation of service (and a $600 paperweight) and if it does continue to work 3 times + the previous cost. Mine is going back. Did work well before they capped the speed at 100 mph.
Agreed, mine is on the way back. I'm going to wait on T-Mobile's cellular over satellite.
