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

Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 295 posts

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#61

Post by teddyh »

scrlk wrote: post #29
K0balt wrote: post #17

GPS is not essential to air navigation. It’s nice to have, and there are some approaches that legally require it to be operational in order to fly them (IFR procedures) but aviation has other systems in place to guide aircraft under conditions where visual flight navigation is impossible. In this case, IMHO, the pilots had become complacent and lax in their navigational rigor because of the fact that GPS makes a lot…

To add to this, there's a good lecture called Children of the Magenta Line that discusses automation dependency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs

Better version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIusD6Z-3cU>

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#62

Post by gpm »

rdtsc wrote: post #55
ceejayoz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN threads on aviation are always a bit goofy to anyone who's actually flown a plane, yeah.

I never flew a plane just know enough that a visual approach means “visual” rules. Hitting a mountain at that point is hard to argue for blaming anyone else but the pilot error? Did I get it right?

No, you didn't, because they apparently had instrument clearance from the tower at the time they crashed into the mountain.

The only correct conclusion here is more investigation is necessary than what has been publicly published.

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#63

Post by voidUpdate »

colechristensen wrote: post #21
VoidWhisperer wrote: post #13

The final information on the crash almost reads like they hit the very top of the mountain - according to NTSB, they were about 200-250 ft from the summit, so it is possible they did still have visual with the airport until right before the impact. Whether or not GPS could've helped with this, I'm not sure - it might've allowed them to see where they were relative to the mountain better, since it was the middle of th…

Your GPS enabled flight computer will indeed yell at you VERY LOUDLY if you're about to hit a mountain. It will not allow you to get particularly close to terrain without noticing.

"TOO LOW – TERRAIN" vwoop vwoop

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#65

Post by jeffbee »

fryanyway_swe wrote: post #19

We have a competency crisis that will only get worse and worse. I myself am guilty of it. Modern life is too comfortable, there is no need to fight through and put in the hours to be an expert when you can do 50% and get 90% of the paychecke. Pilots train to navigate without GPS. Or, rather, they should...

There's always a competency shortage in this kind of aviation because the crew are inexperienced people trying to get a higher rating and a better job. The big transport aircraft are so easy to fly now, they should probably switch the rules. They can let some kid fly second seat in a 737, but only crack veterans should be allowed to touch a King Air in the dark.

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#66

Post by sokoloff »

gpm wrote: post #57
1123581321 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect might change between the preliminary and the final report?

Well for one I would expect the final report to actually come to any sort of conclusion and not just transcribe the conversations between air traffic control and the plane, and the data recorded by the plane. The preliinary report doesn't support (or contradict) the judgment that the pilots just need to "get gud" at all - it doesn't make that sort of judgment at all. For another I'd note that past investigations into…

Your last paragraph confuses a few different things.

The aircraft was completely legal to fly under IFR during the en route phase. There is no requirement for a local altimeter setting for that; center can provide an area altimeter setting (and does so on every handoff).

The lack of a local altimeter setting precluded the use of the instrument approaches (the way you transition from en route phase to landing). Both of the instrument approaches are "when local altimeter setting not received, procedure NA". That equally applies to the RNAV(GPS) and ILS approaches.

That doesn't make filing or flying a flight plan to that airport under IFR NA; it just means that you have to either cancel IFR or fly a visual approach (which, despite the name, is an IFR procedure). Both are legal and commonly done; you can even file an IFR flight plan to an airport that doesn't even have a published approach or to a point in space that isn't even an airport.

When the pilot asked for a visual approach, they were taking on the obligation for navigating to the airport and for terrain and obstacle clearance.

Smaller item: KSRR is a non-towered airport. All the relevant ATC contact was with Albuquerque Center, not with a local tower controller. (If there was a local tower controller, they would almost certainly have been able to provide a local altimeter setting, making the instrument approaches fully available.)

ILS-24: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2607/06922IL24.PDF RNAV(GPS)-24: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2607/06922R24.PDF

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#68

Post by inigyou »

K0balt wrote: post #17

GPS is not essential to air navigation. It’s nice to have, and there are some approaches that legally require it to be operational in order to fly them (IFR procedures) but aviation has other systems in place to guide aircraft under conditions where visual flight navigation is impossible. In this case, IMHO, the pilots had become complacent and lax in their navigational rigor because of the fact that GPS makes a lot…

I thought they were shutting down VORs to save money and relying more and more on RNAV (i.e. GPS) approaches.

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#69

Post by inigyou »

colechristensen wrote: post #21
VoidWhisperer wrote: post #13

The final information on the crash almost reads like they hit the very top of the mountain - according to NTSB, they were about 200-250 ft from the summit, so it is possible they did still have visual with the airport until right before the impact. Whether or not GPS could've helped with this, I'm not sure - it might've allowed them to see where they were relative to the mountain better, since it was the middle of th…

Your GPS enabled flight computer will indeed yell at you VERY LOUDLY if you're about to hit a mountain. It will not allow you to get particularly close to terrain without noticing.

You say GPS-enabled. What about a GPS-jammed flight computer? Can that do it too?

Re: Civilian plane crash in New Mexico tied to military GPS blocking

#70

Post by rootsudo »

ceejayoz wrote: post #48
jatora wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

HN threads on aviation are always a bit goofy to anyone who's actually flown a plane, yeah.

Very much goofy, especially when people here try to extrapolate ground stop / AOG / IROPS. True armchair warrior without any competence.
Post reply on HN