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

281–290 of 295 posts

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

#281

Post by Ostrogoth »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #241

What I did read is that a young inexperienced pilot was way too reliant on technology. Issue was on pilot training and the company that put 2 inexperienced pilot together.

I tend to agree. After reading the events that lead to the crash, there does seem to be a lack of experience and critical thinking. Crash location is 33.60682, -105.35674, approximately 10 miles approach from northeast to runway 33.466583, -105.521560. They allegedly had visual on runway lights before jamming resumed. Seems like they were likely unfamiliar with the terrain, and descended too low on approach, crashing into the mountain ridge line. Obviously that’s compounded by the gps jamming, but shouldn’t they have known the relative location of the aircraft based on speed and altitude?

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

#282

Post by sokoloff »

rbanffy wrote: post #279
SoftTalker wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They certainly should have known. The information about GPS jamming appeared as a NOTAM in their Foreflight (electronic flight bag application) briefing, which 14 CFR § 91.103 requires them to review before the flight.

We can't be sure whether or not they read the briefing, but the NTSB preliminary makes clear that they at least downloaded it to their EFB app.

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

#283

Post by cmurf »

jjwiseman wrote: post #272
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.

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…

The accident flight descended into hostile terrain at night and had a CFIT.

That has less to do with GPS jamming than it does accepting a visual approach from 14 miles out with an enormous mountain they couldn't see between them and the airport.

The error as I see it is abandoning the safeguards of flying a standard instrument approach procure. RNAV or ILS, the terrain clearance is backed into the procedure. They descended below minimum safe altitude.

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

#284

Post by inemesitaffia »

WheatMillington wrote: post #255
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…

Everyone seems to agree that if the GPS hadn't been inop everyone would still be alive. So to happily dismiss the deadly decisions the government made to place blame on the pilots is kind of disgraceful.

To dismiss the fact that this has been happening in the area long enough that people who were born when it started have kids is motivated reasoning.

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

#285

Post by inemesitaffia »

streetfighter64 wrote: post #98
p-e-w wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, pilots should ensure they're current at navigating without GPS because it can fail, just like pilots practice engine failure procedures and every other emergency / non-normal procedure. That doesn't mean it should be "randomly disabled" for the same reason that you don't test software in production or randomly turn off the engine of the plane. Obviously.

>randomly disabled

Didn't happen

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

#286

Post by inemesitaffia »

collabs wrote: post #224

I don't know how to phrase it in military lingo but based on what I've read here on this thread, the military must stop these tests. 1. Use self contained "unit tests" or "dry runs" if you will for day to day scheduled or training purposes 2. Do precise (far fewer) "end to end" tests only where justified like for new hardware certification, never for shits and giggles

These tests are likely older than you and occur on a scheduled regular basis.

As the report pointed out, you can even have the tests stop if you can't fly without GPS (i.e you're unqualified to fly or your backup instruments have failed) by talking to ATC regardless.

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

#287

Post by inemesitaffia »

Ekaros wrote: post #26

Makes one think about "flying cars". How well designed they will be for losing such system? How reliable any systems would be in such eventuality. For both safety of the craft and anyone near them or on ground... Especially if there is other things going on like weather conditions. Say both heavy fog and rain.

There are alternate navigation systems from SpaceX, OneWeb etc in the pipeline.

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

#288

Post by inemesitaffia »

sokoloff wrote: post #282
rbanffy wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They certainly should have known. The information about GPS jamming appeared as a NOTAM in their Foreflight (electronic flight bag application) briefing, which 14 CFR § 91.103 requires them to review before the flight. We can't be sure whether or not they read the briefing, but the NTSB preliminary makes clear that they at least downloaded it to their EFB app.

We also know that of they wanted GPS on until they landed they could have got it.

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

#290

Post by raverbashing »

rootsudo wrote: post #275
raverbashing wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not solving any actual problem besides "saving training cost" to make one aircraft feel like another one

It's like adding a device making a steering wheel harder to turn because people are used to that (with more details, of course, but that's the general idea)

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

Ask Boeing how that "cost saving" went

Post reply on HN