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

261–270 of 295 posts

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

#261

Post by Cpoll »

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.

As far as I know, that assumption generally holds.

If we're talking "trivially easy for a state actor," then it's not macho to say that pilots need to be able to safely conduct flights with a missing engine and a cracked windshield.

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

#262

Post by ButlerianJihad »

XorNot wrote: post #232
PhaedrusV wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US military over US territory are the only ones who can jam GPS at the scale being talked about. Anyone else firing up a jammer is going to get triangulated and arrested very quickly.

Remember the parable about the Navy destroyer vs. the lighthouse?

Who's going to arrest a satellite?

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

#263

Post by burnt-resistor »

The Phenom EMB-300 has/had a Dutch roll problem with loss of GPS, but there were some software updates that somewhat addressed it.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/GENOT_7110_...

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jun/CHLK_16-08_...

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

#264

Post by XorNot »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #262
XorNot wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military over US territory are the only ones who can jam GPS at the scale being talked about. Anyone else firing up a jammer is going to get triangulated and arrested very quickly.

Remember the parable about the Navy destroyer vs. the lighthouse? Who's going to arrest a satellite?

There are so many things wrong with this comparison I don't know where to start.

But for starters, a US Navy missile destroyer can kill a satellite.

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

#265

Post by tenuousemphasis »

cdot2 wrote: post #210
alistairSH wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

" acknowledging that doing so changes the risk profile of aviation to some extent" Isn't that what the NOTAM is?

NOTAM is itself a broken system responsible for many mishaps.

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

#266

Post by Suzuran »

PhaedrusV wrote: post #161
Suzuran wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, our government is doing their level best to make GPS the only option for air navigation. After all, we all know that technology NEVER fails, and the sooner we can turn off all those big bad old ground radars and navigation aids, the sooner we can sell all that real estate and use the money for things that the American public desperately needs, like more corporate bailouts and bathroom security cameras.

That's not accurate. Navigationally critical VORs are continuing to be maintained, they're just turning off the podunk redundant ones. VOR Candidate Retention List | Federal Aviation Administration https://www.faa.gov/ato/navigation-programs/vor-retention-li...

They are continuing to be maintained only because the FAA fought very hard for that ability. The rest of the government does not understand (or care) why the FAA wants to keep "obsolete" systems, and the FAA is subject to their legislative whims.

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

#267

Post by raviolo »

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.

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.

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

#268

Post by raviolo »

jjwiseman wrote: post #193
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how neither you nor the article affirm or deny if they plane was flying in restricted airspace either before or during the crash.

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.

Even if they were, flying in restricted airspace is not against the rules when talking to ATC.

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

#269

Post by kdmoyers »

I wonder if the military could simulate a gps failure for their own purposes without actually breaking it for everyone? Like a gizmo in each military plane that simulates gps failure for that plane only. I understand this would be complicated, especially for large exercises, but would have several advantages.

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

#270

Post by trollbridge »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #151
trollbridge wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPS is not, and never will be, reliable enough for IFR on its own. Relying on a tower in instrument conditions because GPS failed is unacceptable, because every other GPS user is in the same boat. If you’re flying IFR, you should have a working set of instruments and be using them. Why didn’t these pilots have their VORs tuned in for positioning?

> GPS is not, and never will be, reliable enough for IFR on its own. WAAS GPS (~7.6M accuracy) is reliable enough for IFR on its own that many approaches have removed legacy RF ILS equipment for instrument approaches (RNAV LPV with synthetic glidescope from GNSS). I would agree this does not apply to the vast majority of general aviation (although certified receivers supporting this are well within the reach of GA at…

And if GPS fails, you can’t land at those airports under instruments conditions. Your flight plan has to take this into account and be ready to go to an alternate.
Post reply on HN