FAA Fumbled Its Response to a Surge in GPS Jamming • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by posix_me_less » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 11:20 AM UTC

FpUser wrote: post #39

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.

Well the only reason military can own /pay for anything is because it takes our money in a first place. So unless there are specific security concerns civilians should be able to use whatever military tech they've paid for.

Military and government can pay for stuff also using deficit spending, which is not "our" money. It's either FED's money which they create (and thus steal value from us) or it's borrowed money from wealthy interests.

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

#122

Post by posix_me_less » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 11:22 AM UTC

mnw21cam wrote: post #117

topynate wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thing is, GPS signals are really weak at the receiver. They're technically below the noise floor, and receivers have to use shenanigans to get a usable signal at all. If you're transmitting the jamming signal, you're really close to it, and therefore it is really strong near your receiver. I wouldn't like to calculate how many orders of magnitude stronger than the real GPS signal, but it would be a lot. Generally…

> They're technically below the noise floor, and receivers have to use shenanigans to get a usable signal at all.

This is nonsense.

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

#123

Post by lolc » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 11:39 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #14

jlg23 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "The Pentagon uses its more remote military bases, many in the American West, to test how its forces operate under GPS denial."

Wouldn't it just make sense to tell them not to use GPS?

You know how we established radio-comms in the military? By debugging over cell phone links obviously :-)

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

#124

Post by lolc » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 11:42 AM UTC

minetest2048 wrote: post #78

asdff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you could download a lightweight map of the entire country. The way the selector rectangle works in my city makes it awkward to capture it well since its kinda longer east west rather than north south. If a garmin from 2002 could hold maps of the entire country, surely my iphone with 512gb of storage should be able to do it too.

Use OSMAnd instead, it can download entire country map with a click without dragging rectangles around

I'm still surprised when people are still surprised that this exists.

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

#125

Post by dustfinger » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:25 PM UTC

Can anyone identify the diagram in the bottom right of the article's image? The diagram is half covered by a form with some writing on it. The shape of the diagram has piqued my curiosity.

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

#126

Post by LeifCarrotson » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:29 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #2

What kind of deranged person messes with GPS risking to crash an airplane?

There was an issue a few years ago in Chicago where planes at the airport were losing GPS reception, which was eventually traced back to a truck driver who used a jammer to avoid fines based on GPS tracker data on the rental trucks he was assigned to drive.

He wasn't intending to crash an airplane, just avoiding docked pay for driving in traffic, using a $50 device bought online, and his route took him past O'Hare.

The perpetrators aren't playing around to try to crash an airplane, they're merely polluting an invisible commons in their own self-interest, and aviation happens to need that spectrum to be clean.

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

#127

Post by ericpauley » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:35 PM UTC

aaronfitz wrote: post #63

omegant wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The VOR MON is structured to provide a usable (for safety purposes) backstop should GPS fail, so from a safety perspective this isn’t making us more reliant.

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

#128

Post by unionemployee » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

RNCTX wrote: post #103

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 tim…

There's an incredible amount of inefficiency in the airspace system that causes massive fuel and time waste, but flying VOR to VOR in cruise doesn't seem like one of them. Airline routes are still frequently planned along airways with lots of VOR to VOR along the way. Yes, you get directs, but these only save a minute or two. If you're in a Gulfstream flying above everyone else, sure, it's "direct Van Nuys" from over NYC. Airlines don't get that treatment though.

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

#129

Post by MichaelZuo » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #108

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…

‘ 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.’

The FAA is part of the federal government. Are you seriously claiming there aren’t regulations penalizing those who submit false paperwork?

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

#130

Post by lutorm » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #114

lutorm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> ...the point of using the more precise GPS-based ADS-B positional reporting is for controllers to be able to pack airplanes closer together It's not. Edit: at least, not in the places where there is adequate radar coverage - ie. in congested areas.

Admittedly I'm not super familiar with this, but my impression is different. E.g. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/

Why is the FAA transitioning away from radar and towards ADS-B technology? ... The improved accuracy, integrity and reliability of satellite signals over radar means controllers will be able to safely reduce the minimum separation distance between aircraft and increase capacity in the nation's skies.