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

101–110 of 134 posts

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

#101

Post by yutyut »

ceejayoz wrote: post #31
LinuxBender wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shall consult the expert team at 4chan /s But seriously "We've been told we can't ask to stop jamming, and to just put everyone on headings." ... people inbound not ready for this can run out of fuel. Maybe the right passive aggressive response could have been to simply set a really large diameter TFR to keep civilian aircraft away assuming people check NOTAMs.

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

Yes and especially because planned GPS jams are published in NOTAMS, in my experience, well in advance of the event. Ignorance isn’t really an excuse.

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

#102

Post by RNCTX »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #82
linuxhansl wrote: post #33

As a lay person in this area... There are more navigation systems around: The EU Galileo, Russia's GLONASS, etc. Assuming it's unlikely that all system are down/jammed/compromised in the same area at the same time, receivers for multiple systems should be OK...? (Again lay person here)

GPS and Galileo have overlapping frequencies (this is by design) so if GPS is jammed then Galileo probably won't be available either. GLONASS is historically less accurate and available than GPS (at least at lower latitudes) so I wouldn't be surprised if fewer (or no) aircraft have hardware for it

I don't know of an approved GLONASS nav unit. Even if you do have one it would be a handheld device that can't talk to the autopilot or the FMS.

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

#103

Post by RNCTX »

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…

It's not so much that you can't fly from VOR to VOR, everyone knows how to do so. It's more that it's a horrible waste of time and fuel.

If you have GPS, you will get cleared direct after getting out of congested areas, usually (presuming you are capable of clearing all of the terrain between point A and point B). If you're having to fly from VOR to VOR you will fly a much more indirect route and spend a lot more time and fuel, particularly on private jets.

Hence the offer to put private jets on vectors rather than tell them to fly the old fashioned way. People on private jets tend to be people who make political contributions, who in turn tend to call the congressmen in their pocket and complain.

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

#104

Post by [deleted] »

CalChris wrote: post #99

This is jamming and not GPS spoofing. Wouldn't the navigation system 'fail' and that pilot switch over to flying by heading? I would think the civilian craft would have to be robust in the presence of spoofing (military testing). ATC would declare a certain area as GPS off, a NOTAM or something.

[deleted]

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

#105

Post by repiret »

mike_d wrote: post #83
jdavis703 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the examples given it sounds like ATC was doing things like directing aircraft in to restricted air space. Obviously the captain has final say and ATC’s role is officially just advisory. But this sounds like a bit more than a pilot who forgot how to navigate.

> ATC was doing things like directing aircraft in to restricted air space The last US government GPS denial test was large enough that it impacted ATC from Seattle to Los Angeles to Denver to Albuquerque. They didn't really have a way to route around it.

Restricted airspace, and airspace where GPS is disrupted, are different things. GPS disruptions can be vast. Unless you're flying around the Mojave, restricted airspace tends to be small and with ceilings that make it no factor for transport category aircraft. ATC should not direct planes into restricted airspace.

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

#106

Post by lutorm »

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…

What I don't understand is how this is supposed to work when the point of using the more precise GPS-based ADS-B positional reporting is for controllers to be able to pack airplanes closer together. If they do this, there will literally not be space in the sky to spread out existing air traffic to radar-based separation requirements.

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

#107

Post by takk309 »

Crosseye_Jack wrote: post #71
takk309 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 availa…

Didn't they actually remove selective availability from the new sat's that were launched. https://web.archive.org/web/20080113123316/http://pnt.gov/pu... > In September 2007, the U.S. Government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS perf…

I was unaware of that. Thank you for the bit of knowledge!

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

#108

Post by KennyBlanken »

sklargh wrote: post #62

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...

The FAA is a giant lumbering dinosaur that has done as little as humanly possible to avoid any sort of modernization while drowning General Aviation in paperwork and regulations to protect a buggy-whip avionics and engine manufacturing/maintenance/repair industry, while for decades has failed to effectively address the primary safety issues in GA. Namely controlled flight into terrain and running out of fuel.

Let me give you an example of the idiocy GA pilots face; a relative is a plane-owning pilot.

The attitude indicator in many GA planes is a mechanical gyroscope, driven by vacuum from the engine, a vacuum pump, or a static port on the side of the plane. They are absurdly expensive, high precision devices and they have a huge failure rate. Repairing them is also very expensive. For decades, we've had superior technology: MEMS based accelerometers and rate sensors. Avionics using these sensors are incredibly reliable, very inexpensive, and switching to them is a royal fucking pain in the ass because of all the regulations and paperwork the FAA requires to do it. There's a massive avionics repair industry that has been in buggy-whip status for probably three decades, and the FAA is their little bitch.

He had an engine failure because his mechanic never changed an inexpensive part that was listed as required to be replaced on every maintenance interval. It turns out that despite all the FAA regulations, an aviation mechanic can go "meh, whatever" and ignore the factory repair manual for an aviation engine, even when the manual says "this is required to be done." Furthermore, the shop was listing the work as having been done, which meant they were generating fraudulent paperwork. This was also not against FAA regulations.

So the FAA regulates the fuck out of something like replacing 1940's technology with modern electronics superior in every way, but allows mechanics to fake paperwork and ignore factory repair manuals, and Boeing gets to say "oh yeah, FAA, we totally are doing all the things we're supposed to be doing", the FAA goes "mmm hmm sounds good" and then when four hundred people are killed, exactly nothing happens to Boeing management?

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

#109

Post by redis_mlc »

anyfoo wrote: post #54
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…

Are they still taught to do NDB approaches? I thought that's been phased out, too. In fact I was told the other day that the US officially tuned off the NDBs? Does not apply to VORs then, but as you say, the fact that they get phased out more and more is concerning.

Most US pilots could not fly an NDB approach using a simple ADF today, and would end up dead in mountainous terrain.

The reason is that you have to practise doing relative bearings and wind corrections in your head, or else you fly in a spiral towards the station (unlike VOR, which displays absolute radials.) That means you will be off the protected approach path, and can hit obstacles.

If they could fly an ADF, then AM radio stations can be used if necessary. (Airlines used to pay local radio stations to do a station identification announcement upon a phone call from ops, with the radio station typically near a coastline.)

Just don't hit the radio station antenna!

Note that NDB and VOR approaches are non-precision, which means they have lateral guidance but not vertical. So with low clouds, you won't get descent info to the runway like ILS.

That's a big deal for airlines, since they have company operations minimums that may not even allow NDB approaches, which are more restrictive than standard Part 91 (GA) operations minimums. For example, there are situations where I can takeoff in a Cessna with 0/0, that airlines can't.

Great discussion forum on navigating using radio stations:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/commercial...

Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

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

#110

Post by yutyut »

RattleyCooper wrote: post #70
ceejayoz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

You’re making a lot of specious arguments. I think your laymen’s logic checks out just fine here but that’s not how aviation works…and for good reason.

Taking off with 1 of 2 engines is a lot different than taking off with inoperative avionics. The FAA and airlines dictate what minimum equipment is required for any given aircraft to be airworthy and it’s a fairly robust document that takes into account myriad situations and flight conditions.

Post reply on HN