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

71–80 of 295 posts

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

#71

Post by rdtsc »

gpm wrote: post #62
rdtsc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read this in the preliminary report

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

> The flight crew again reported they “[have] a visual on Ruidoso” at 0008:30 and that they could “go visual.” The ARTCC controller subsequently cleared the flight to SRR, cleared the flight for a visual approach, and informed them they could cancel IFR in the air above 9,000 ft msl or they could cancel their clearance via the flight service station after landing.

So you’re pointing out that they requested VFR, got clearance for it but still were flying under IFR rules? Basically the transition to VFR hadn’t completed fully?

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

#72

Post by theflyingelvis »

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?

Yes

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

#74

Post by 27183 »

rbanffy wrote: post #30
mrngld wrote: post #15

When I used to fly in Florida in the 2005-2015ish timeframe, NOTAMs for GPS interference (it didn't say that exactly but that's what it meant) were an everyday occurrence along my path, it became boilerplate. I experienced it a few times. One moment the GPS thinks you're plodding along next to Ocala, next moment it thinks I've teleported a thousand miles away, and then it'd just quit. But that's what we train for. Th…

I guess GPS jamming was not routine for them. Had they been aware of any NOTAM regarding GPS interference, they'd be prepared, and, like you said, would have VOR setup prior to leaving the ground.

Systems fail for all kinds of reasons, if you're dependent on one SPOF without any backup, bad things will happen eventually. In aviation we're taught to think this way from the very beginning. Always have a spot picked out where you will attempt to land the airplane when (not if!) you lose your engine.

Even in the absence of GPS jamming, you can effectively lose GPS for all kinds of reasons in a plane--a connector failing somewhere on the back of your panel, a wire chafing through, etc. GPS is nice, but it's probably a lot less reliable in most light aircraft than the other options.

It's been 20yr since I've flown a plane, so maybe attitudes have changed, but my instructors always stressed the importance of always being able to fall back quickly and seamlessly to a paper chart, your watch, flight computer, and basic instruments. Because you will lose everything else at some point.

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

#75

Post by rootsudo »

raverbashing wrote: post #56
colechristensen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pilots complaining about automation: several Pilots unable to fly with all the bells and whistles and getting their ass handed to them when anything falls out of the ordinary: too many

Automation because of safety, latest recent example, Boeing MCAS, cost savings led to airliners crashing, pilots didn’t complain enough then nor had the proper safety because Boeing.

You are not supposed to need all the “bells and whistles” to fly, a plane is a plane and a pilot is in left seat meaning to fly the plane. There are checklists and minimum equipment lists that state what is possible and how to handle failures and control.

You can not automate that, yet.

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

#76

Post by sokoloff »

rdtsc wrote: post #71
gpm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read this in the preliminary report https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G... > The flight crew again reported they “[have] a visual on Ruidoso” at 0008:30 and that they could “go visual.” The ARTCC controller subsequently cleared the flight to SRR, cleared the flight for a visual approach, and informed them they could cancel IFR in the air above 9,000 ft msl or they could cancel their clearan…

A "visual approach" is an instrument flight rules operation. The flight was still IFR and had requested/been cleared for a visual approach, but had not switched to VFR (which they'd do by cancelling IFR).

When they accepted the visual approach, they took responsibility for navigation and terrain/obstacle clearance.

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

#77

Post by gpm »

rdtsc wrote: post #71
gpm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read this in the preliminary report https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G... > The flight crew again reported they “[have] a visual on Ruidoso” at 0008:30 and that they could “go visual.” The ARTCC controller subsequently cleared the flight to SRR, cleared the flight for a visual approach, and informed them they could cancel IFR in the air above 9,000 ft msl or they could cancel their clearan…

Yes... though I'd include the subsequent quote "and responded that they would cancel IFR “in just a couple of minutes.”"

Also someone is correctly pointing out to me downthread that a visual approach is technically an IFR procedure under IFR not VFR flight rules (the latter basically meaning you aren't using instruments at all). I'm assuming IFR in the summary is referring to the non-visual approach (rnav or ILS) but the preliminary report is I suppose ambiguous as to that.

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

#78

Post by entrope »

27183 wrote: post #74
rbanffy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess GPS jamming was not routine for them. Had they been aware of any NOTAM regarding GPS interference, they'd be prepared, and, like you said, would have VOR setup prior to leaving the ground.

Systems fail for all kinds of reasons, if you're dependent on one SPOF without any backup, bad things will happen eventually. In aviation we're taught to think this way from the very beginning. Always have a spot picked out where you will attempt to land the airplane when (not if!) you lose your engine. Even in the absence of GPS jamming, you can effectively lose GPS for all kinds of reasons in a plane--a connector f…

I don't think attitudes have changed on that. The last PM on my current project (in aircraft navigation) was a pilot, and he always stressed that a pilot in charge should have alternatives planned for destination and means of navigation.

WSMR does enough GPS jamming that I'm surprised these pilots didn't have more experience with, or at least expectation of, it happening.

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

#79

Post by gpm »

sokoloff wrote: post #66
gpm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Yeah, sure, you're right, and good point about non-towered.

Are you suggesting however that "The flight crew acknowledged the clearance and responded that they would cancel IFR “in just a couple of minutes.”" meant the crew was informing the tower that they would transition to VFR? That seems... unlikely. I'm reading the paraphrasing here as towards declining to cancel the ILS approach they previously requested because it doesn't particularly make sense to me otherwise.

Which is really back to "this preliminary report doesn't, and doesn't even attempt to, assign blame or contain sufficient facts to do so".

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

#80

Post by p-e-w »

lbriner wrote: post #47
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…

This was the partial cause of Air France 447. Pilots were so used to "the plane won't make a mistake" that they were not aware/not trained properly about things that are nothing to do with the FMS like frozen pitot tubes and also that the autopilot has a number of "modes" which mean you need to go back to basics like altitude, attitude and air speed.

If it’s true that other navigation systems are as safe and capable as GPS, then GPS navigation should be randomly disabled in every aircraft occasionally to ensure that pilots remain fluent in using them.

If it isn’t true, then the military is partially responsible for the crash of this aircraft.

Post reply on HN