Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#61

Post by xoa »

Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #43
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that mean that Putin's flights can't use GPS to navigate? But maybe he worries more about someone intercepting his plane than he does about crashing due to a navigation mistake. And his risk assessment may in fact be accurate...

Presumably Putin's flights, on Russian-built aircraft (specifically the Il-96), use GLONASS? Of course, the VC-25A used as Air Force One has a cockpit station for a navigator, specifically so that it can use old-style navigation methods if access to GPS and other navigational aids is lost. Putin's modified Il-96-300PU may well also have one.

Yeah, the original 747s flat out had a sextant port in the roof. Could navigate by the stars the old fashioned way. Given how crazy precise (and expensive) inertial guidance systems were developed for ICBMs in the Cold War I have to imagine though they have one on Air Force One, along with an automated celestial guidance system for recalibration. The AIRS (advanced inertial reference system) used in the LGM-118A Peacekeeper missiles have to be some of the most mindblowingly precisely made machines in human history. Drift of something like 1.5/10000° per hour! .003° per week (not that they'd ever run that long obviously, ICBM and all). At any rate, highly precise IGS is doable for enough money, even with older tech though these days I'd assume they're using fiber optic gyros or something like that. It's a neat area.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#62

Post by sklargh »

The FAA is actually pretty good at regulating "known" things within its remit. It is however, exceptionally bad at regulating unknown things, so it has a defined process to make things known.

One of the most dangerous conditions at the FAA is when an unknown thing evades the FAA's process by which to make it known and understood to the FAA. It takes the agency a long time to grasp and assess. See 737 MAX, UAS...

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#63

Post by aaronfitz »

omegant wrote: post #56
ryandrake wrote: post #36

> "Aircraft are greatly affected by the GPS jamming and it's not taken seriously by management," reads one report. "We've been told we can't ask to stop jamming, and to just put everyone on headings." This is the military practicing, but I would hope that civilian airline transport operations are also robust to GNSS unavailability or denial. Even private pilots in little Cessnas are taught to navigate using radio-nav…

We still have inertial and radio beacon navigation(VOR, ADF, ILS) , you are always able to disconnect the gps data from the computer. Obviously GPS is allowing much more precise route and approach navigation, all without ground equipment. New rules and rutes have been developed the last 15 years to take advantage of GPS precision and global availability. But current airplanes still keep all the old systems in place a…

The waves of deactivations on the ground stations have already started. We're on a trajectory of GPS over-reliance.

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/navigation/the-faa-i...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/23/vor...

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#64

Post by RattleyCooper »

ceejayoz wrote: post #59
RattleyCooper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? It's technically designed to fly with 1 engine, so what's the problem? Knocking out a pilot's GPS gives them one less tool in the event that other instruments fail. It's like saying "shouldn't you always be ready for backup hydraulics to fail?". Taking a backup system offline isn't an ideal situation.

> Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? Yes. They are designed for that, and have procedures in place for when it happens, just as they do for a GPS failure. (Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS ) I would not be OK with a pilot who didn’t plan for the possibility of engine failure. If you run out of fuel because your GPS is jammed, ther…

You miss the point entirely. No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. If one goes out in flight they'll usually find a place to land bc it's understood that if that last engine dies then that's a bad situation. Which is the entire reason they have backups in the first place.

I'm not arguing about whether it's possible, I'm arguing whether it's smart. Airplanes have backups, and yes they can run on those backups, or else what would even be the point of having them? This kind of goes without saying...

If planes are DESIGNED to have backup systems, in case there is a failure, then do you think it's smart to arbitrarily remove one of said backup systems?

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#65

Post by topynate »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #21
tweedledee wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s for military protection. I had a flight canceled due to GPS jamming. I think it was to protect a U2 flight. Putin also flies around with GPS jammers.

Wouldn't that mean that Putin's flights can't use GPS to navigate? But maybe he worries more about someone intercepting his plane than he does about crashing due to a navigation mistake. And his risk assessment may in fact be accurate...

It should be possible for the jammer to subtract off its own signal rather more effectively than anything which doesn't have access to the pRNG it uses to generate the interference.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#66

Post by takk309 »

andrepew wrote: post #19

Can someone more familiar with the situation explain why they jam GPS at all? You'd think the vast industry around the military could replace actual jamming with training aids. Even if the bespoke training tools are expensive, I doubt they're as expensive as an airliner wandering in to an active missile range. Not to mention the economic disruption to air traffic throughput.

Remember, GPS is a military tool first. Civilians get to use it at the militaries discretion. They could turn the selective availability (which was turned off in 2000) back on and remove a lot of civilian accuracy. Maybe civilian pilots are the ones that need to training aids more than the military. It seems to me that they should be able to navigate without gps in a safe manner.

Edit: fixed term for selective availability.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#67

Post by ceejayoz »

RattleyCooper wrote: post #64
ceejayoz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? Yes. They are designed for that, and have procedures in place for when it happens, just as they do for a GPS failure. (Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS ) I would not be OK with a pilot who didn’t plan for the possibility of engine failure. If you run out of fuel because your GPS is jammed, ther…

You miss the point entirely. No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. If one goes out in flight they'll usually find a place to land bc it's understood that if that last engine dies then that's a bad situation. Which is the entire reason they have backups in the first place. I'm not arguing about whether it's possible, I'm arguing whether it's smart. Airplanes have…

> No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation.

That's a different question.

If you're knowingly flying into GPS jamming - these jamming operations are apparently announced via NOTAMs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002) - you should be planning ahead even more.

A pilot is responsible for having enough fuel in case of an emergency, like the GPS unit crapping out. Anyone running out of fuel due to GPS jamming was ill prepared for other emergencies.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#68

Post by ceejayoz »

loeg wrote: post #37
ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people inbound not ready for this can run out of fuel Shouldn't you always be ready for a GPS (or other instrument) failure?

Instrument failures are rare and might impact a handful of aircraft; GPS jamming impacts every aircraft in the vicinity. ATC might have capacity to plan low fuel-consumption flight heading paths for a small number of aircraft, but not 100%?

ATC / radio failures happen. If ATC can't plan a route for you, you're still the pilot in command and responsible for finding a diversion airport and getting down safely, and for having had enough fuel to deal with traffic while doing so.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#69

Post by asdff »

sklargh wrote: post #60
joncp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well keep in mind that US GPS was developed by and is owned/operated by the US military. They're just letting us use it.

Half-joking that Uber and [Tech Major]s' Map products are among the greatest government subsidy stories of all time. Those satellites are expensive!

I wish I could use my phone on GPS only. Somehow the damn thing still needs a cell connection despite having the hardware allegedly.

Re: FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming

#70

Post by RattleyCooper »

ceejayoz wrote: post #67
RattleyCooper wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You miss the point entirely. No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. If one goes out in flight they'll usually find a place to land bc it's understood that if that last engine dies then that's a bad situation. Which is the entire reason they have backups in the first place. I'm not arguing about whether it's possible, I'm arguing whether it's smart. Airplanes have…

> No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. That's a different question. If you're knowingly flying into GPS jamming - these jamming operations are apparently announced via NOTAMs ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002 ) - you should be planning ahead even more . A pilot is responsible for having enough fuel in case of an emergency, like the GPS unit crappi…

Lol, I'm not saying pilots CAN'T operate without GPS (I fly hang gliders and I used to fly with literally no instruments at all).

Think of it this way. A person can live a normal life with 1 arm, 1 leg or even 1 eye or ear. Is it ideal? Probably not. If you lose your other arm, leg, eye/ear it's going to cause many more problems than just losing 1.

Losing any backups in aviation is a less-than-ideal situation. That was the only point I was trying to make. OF COURSE pilots can operate a plane without GPS, my god I'd hope they could. I feel like that kind of goes without saying.

Post reply on HN