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

271–280 of 295 posts

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

#271

Post by sokoloff »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #260
jjwiseman wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not interesting: they were not in restricted airspace at any point during the flight. If they were, probably the NTSB, a YouTuber, or I would have mentioned it.

The NTSB has published their report? Because they don’t lead with speculation. Ever. I do however expect so-called experts to be aware of announced no-fly zones where the military is jamming.

This was NOTAM’d. There was no TFR (temporary flight restriction) associated. It was entirely legal to undertake that flight (and could have been done safely, but obviously wasn’t).

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

#272

Post by jjwiseman »

PhaedrusV wrote: post #228
jjwiseman wrote: post #179

I run GPSJAM.org, have been studying and tracking the effects of GPS interference on aviation for the past 5 years, and I was a source for this article. I'm not a pilot and I don't work for any aviation agency. I'm very curious to see what the final NTSB report says, but their preliminary report along with commentary from other analysts seems to show that this was a crew that made bad choices and died because of it.…

The problem here is the assumption that if the US mil weren’t jamming GPS it wouldn’t be getting jammed. GPS is trivially easy to jam for any state actor, and it’s not “macho” to say that pilots always need to be able to safely conduct flights in its absence.

In this case it was an own-goal. If the U.S. military hadn't jammed this flight's GPS it wouldn't have been jammed.

Worldwide, it's an issue that is going to require changes to the infrastructure of aviation: Training, procedures, equipment. That's what I mean when I say "they should have just used VORs and ILS" shows an unsophisticated understanding of aviation safety. "Just use the training you're already supposed to have" isn't enough. We need to make sure that crew and ATC aren't just improvising when there are GPS outages. Manufacturers need to ensure that equipment has been thoroughly tested against GNSS jamming and spoofing -- The Embraer Phenom used to start "UNEXPECTED ROLLING AND YAWING OSCILLATIONS (DUTCH ROLL) AT HIGH AIRSPEEDS,"[1] after it lost GPS; recently there have been many reports of inertial navigation systems becoming "contaminated" after GPS interference such that they give completely wrong positions for the rest of the flight, even after GPS returns.

You're right that just stopping the U.S. military from jamming civilian aircraft GPS doesn't solve the problem for the rest of the globe. That will take more effort, and it's why aviation authorities and industry have been looking at the problem for years. But it would mostly solve the problem for now, in the U.S., where significant GPS interference is rare outside of military exercises.

1. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/genot_7110_...

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

#273

Post by dmitrygr »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #259
dmitrygr wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you file your flight plan, there is a box for "equipment". Put "O" there and they will not do that to you anymore. "DO" if you have DME.

This won't work in the UK/Europe. B-RNAV has been a requirement since 11 April 2011 at all ATS controlled routes and levels (previously only above FL95). The only reasonable equipment is a IFR capable panel mounted GPS. Of course the UK is extra weird because you can fly IFR in class G airspace which is quite extensive outside of terminal areas. More realistically this is VFR in IMC, with the pilot being responsible…

Oof...since 2011? Even with everyone knowing that GPS signals are -125 dBm on a good day and anyone can jam them? Jeez! My condolences. At least here stateside one can still fly IFR with a VOR/DME just fine.

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

#274

Post by cowboylowrez »

alistairSH wrote: post #200
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…

You're not wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean Uncle Sam should be dicking around with GPS jammers as a normal thing (at least not without acknowledging that doing so changes the risk profile of aviation to some extent).

there has been a general collapse of competency at the federal level lately.

sincerely,

Capt. Obvious

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

#275

Post by rootsudo »

raverbashing wrote: post #124
rootsudo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fai…

Yeah I wouldn't call MCAS automation, and that was 99.9% not on the pilots (that 0.01% was because for good or bad Boeing did have a stab trim runway procedure in place - but even then that barely was enough for the trainwreck that MCAS was)

Sorry, is software controlling MCAS not automation?

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

#276

Post by [deleted] »

cmurf wrote: post #257
dpe82 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing to add to all this is FAA has been steadily removing from service non-GPS navigation aids.

Yes, but… They are enhancing the navaids that remain. Greater range, and a documented network of airports serviced by ground based instrument approach procedures. The shrinkage of total number of navaids concerns me from a rural support perspective but less so as a pilot. What does concern me as a pilot is even the MON navaids are having maintenance issues resulting in outages.

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by cmurf »

raviolo wrote: post #267
cmurf wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but… They are enhancing the navaids that remain. Greater range, and a documented network of airports serviced by ground based instrument approach procedures. The shrinkage of total number of navaids concerns me from a rural support perspective but less so as a pilot. What does concern me as a pilot is even the MON navaids are having maintenance issues resulting in outages.

Not sure anything is enhancing. Approaches have… always been documented? What has greater range - VORs? I haven’t seen any. I think it’s reducing everything to MON that’s it.

MON adds four new SSVs: VL and VH for VORs; DL and DH for DME. There's range changes in VOR, DME, and VORTAC.

See AIM 1-1-8. NAVAID Service Volumes https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...

"documented network of airports" is a poorly worded reference to MON airports as distinguished from MON navaids.

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

#278

Post by rbanffy »

PhaedrusV wrote: post #229
dingaling wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia seldom publishes NOTAMs for offensive GPS interference

But when anyone causes gps to be degraded, a NOTAM is rapidly released.

Doesn’t help much when you just lost GPS.

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

#279

Post by rbanffy »

SoftTalker wrote: post #142
gpm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would they take off if medevac flight - there was probably some urgency.

Maybe. Urgency should not trump safety. A delay in transport is not worse than a dead patient, dead medics and flight crew, and loss of an aircraft. And I am happy to be corrected but as I understand it, in the rural west more medical transport than you might think is by air. Distances are large, and population is sparse. You can cover more area with the same number of medics using a few airplanes instead of ground a…

The losses were higher than if they hadn’t flown that night. But, then, they didn’t know GPS would be down when they were midway through the flight.

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

#280

Post by Ostrogoth »

rob74 wrote: post #125

Unfortunately I can't access the article, but this video by Juan Browne (IMHO one of the most knowledgeable and no-nonsense aviation YouTubers) also provides a very good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcyup4xVQuM What I found shocking is that there are so few road ambulances in that region that medevac flights are routinely ordered for transporting patients to keep ambulances available in case there is a ro…

I’ve spent a lot of time exploring that area of NM, and it’s incredibly rugged or desolate terrain, with low population levels that are very dispersed. Mostly ranches and wilderness.

There is a reason why the military does exercises there.

Post reply on HN