PDA

View Full Version : GPS Jamming West Coast USA


Ancient-Mariner
7th Jun 2016, 21:28
FAA Warns of GPS Outages This Month During Mysterious Tests on the West Coast (http://gizmodo.com/faa-warns-of-gps-outages-this-month-during-mysterious-t-1780866590)
Whilst during my sea going career I received Nav Warnings re GPS jamming by the UK military some years back, what concerns me with this test is the issue with Embraer Phenom 300 "aircraft flight stability controls".
GPS Interference Notam For Southwest - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GPS-Interference-NOTAM-For-Southwest-226365-1.html) That seems to suggest something other than simple jamming transmissions on 1575.42 MHz or 1227.60 MHz.


Cheers!

vapilot2004
8th Jun 2016, 13:38
Embraer's "aircraft flight stability control" computer system must in some way rely primarily on GPS. Odd, one would think the primary reference for any stability augmentation system would be IRU data with GPS and/or NAV inputs for position information only.

ATC Watcher
8th Jun 2016, 13:52
A bit of overreaction if you ask me . Such military exercises with tempo GPS outages are also occurring in my country and are frequently NOTAM'ed.
Not really a problem. My not-so-expensive GPS in my single engine aircraft receives and process GLONASS signals to compensate for that anyway.
I have difficulty to believe the Embraer story.

neilki
8th Jun 2016, 16:19
@ATC Watcher. Believe it Brother.. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/GENOT_7110_711_EMB-300.pdf

ATC Watcher
8th Jun 2016, 17:35
Thanks neilki, so it is true ! but who in his right mind designed such a system ?
Surely Embraer knows that GPS is owned by the US military and that in case of crisis/war they have the key to degrade it or even switch it off. So there must be a back up no ?

DingerX
8th Jun 2016, 21:45
That's pretty crazy. Even if the FAA says it, I still refuse to believe it. I mean, this ain't an airliner, but you're telling me that you get all that from jamming GPS? I mean, one or two problems, okay, but this is like giving every idiot with a couple hundred bucks the ability to build a "land immediately" box they can carry on board. Gives a whole new sense to the notion of a business meeting that "headed south".

Wageslave
8th Jun 2016, 21:51
Equally, who in their right mind certificated such a system? How widely is this business known, or is this a first heads-up?

underfire
9th Jun 2016, 00:39
widespread or anything other than very, very local jamming would take an incredible amount of power. Even if one could jam the GPS, the IRU would cover nav for quite some time. (I guess unless you are in an Embraer, which appears to just fall out of the sky)

Bushfiva
9th Jun 2016, 05:04
End-of life spec is -160 dbW at the surface, so the signals are reasonably easily interfered with. Or one could simply use the WAAS network to transmit bogus correction data, perhaps.

Dont Hang Up
9th Jun 2016, 05:41
The FAA text is annoyingly ambiguous. It refers to warning messages but without any indication of whether the crew experienced any actual control issues. One has to assume without an explicit statement that they did not, but it is remiss of them to issue a statement that "begs the question" in this way.

It is perfectly plausible that, with the loss of a suitable, synchronising time reference, the warning system became unable to function correctly and began to issue frequent and spurious warning messages.

Not a happy situation, but one that is more credible than inertially referenced control systems that not only need a GPS signal, but also malfunction without it.

chromakey
10th Jun 2016, 21:17
widespread or anything other than very, very local jamming would take an incredible amount of power. Why do you believe that? Such a jamming signal would be competing with a power-budget constrained transmitter on satellites orbiting at approximately 20200 km altitude. I see commercial "GPS Jammer" pocket-sized handheld devices that apparently function effectively with 300mW output power on omni antennas. It would be a trivial RF engineering exercise to put out something quite a bit more, you could paint such a beam on any number of targets with a directional antenna.

The L1 carrier wave is at 1575.42 MHz. (wikipedia) In the frequency allocation filing the L1 C/A power is listed as 25.6 Watts. The Antenna gain is listed at 13 dBi. Thus, based on the frequency allocation filing, the power would be about 500 Watts (27 dBW). Now, the free space path loss from 21000 km is about 182 dB. Take the 500 Watts (27 dBW) and subtract the free space path loss (27 - 182) and you get -155 dBW. The end of life spec is -160 dBW, which leaves a 5 dB margin. (GPS Satellite Power Output (http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpspower.htm))

The low power level of GPS was discussed previously here, at: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/483023-why-such-low-power-signal-chosen-gps.html

Three Lima Charlie
11th Jun 2016, 00:21
The U.S. Navy has cancelled the planned GPS outage in Southern California. The FAA and many aviation organizations put pressure on the Navy to reduce or eliminate the tests and the impact to aviation, naval, and land users of GPS.

Here is a link to the FAA notice about the EMB-300 yaw damper problem. Requires the crew to decrease speed below 240 KTS and descend.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/GENOT_7110_711_EMB-300.pdf

underfire
12th Jun 2016, 01:23
Such a jamming signal would be competing with a power-budget constrained transmitter on satellites orbiting at approximately 20200 km altitude.

You have a moving target with multiple signals coming from multiple directions. In addition, the IRU would cover the temporary outage.
Tracking and jamming one aircraft may be possible with low power, if you could track it, but to jam an area would take a wide beam, and that takes power for that altitude.

Koan
12th Jun 2016, 01:50
Our crews were getting GPS jamming a few months ago into RKSI.
It was North Korea, reportedly they get into this every few years when they are jacked up over something.

aterpster
12th Jun 2016, 12:16
Three Lima Charlie:

Here is a link to the FAA notice about the EMB-300 yaw damper problem. Requires the crew to decrease speed below 240 KTS and descend.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...11_EMB-300.pdf

I know of the individual who issued that document. I am sure it wasn't issued casually. Sure doesn't say much for the certification of that type aircraft.

khorton
12th Jun 2016, 14:40
Which agency approved the AHRS that apparently requires GPS to function correctly?

pattern_is_full
12th Jun 2016, 16:39
Per Embraer's site: 300 Certified by

ANAC (Brazil) and FAA (US) 12/2009
EASA (EU) 5/2010

I guess we've moved on from automation-dependent pilots to automation-dependent aircraft....

khorton
12th Jun 2016, 19:22
The root of the problem seems to be in the AHRS, which is I believe is a Rockwell-Collins product, TSO'd by the FAA.

underfire
13th Jun 2016, 03:49
It was North Korea, reportedly they get into this every few years when they are jacked up over something.

Yes, that Korean corridor is a bit dicey...I suppose that the power would be an issue for NKOR!

I know of the individual who issued that document. I am sure it wasn't issued casually. Sure doesn't say much for the certification of that type aircraft.
Exactly, look at who certified the 787 firebird!

Capn Bloggs
13th Jun 2016, 08:11
I guess we've moved on from automation-dependent pilots to automation-dependent aircraft....
Like Like Like! :D

MG23
13th Jun 2016, 21:53
Surely Embraer knows that GPS is owned by the US military and that in case of crisis/war they have the key to degrade it or even switch it off

Turning GPS off during a crisis would just turn that crisis into a disaster. Pretty much the whole world now relies on GPS for precision timing, and many systems would shut down soon after it disappeared.

ATC Watcher
14th Jun 2016, 08:01
MG23: I was at the ICAO meeting when the MoU was signed between the US and ICAO at the end of the 90's. the clause was there.
Since then there has been in 2007 a declaration during an ICAO assembly by a US rep that said :
Today, on behalf of President Bush, I am pleased to announce that the next generation of GPS satellites (GPS III) will deliver signals without any compromise in precision -- guaranteed. That is because the United States will remove the "selective availability" capability from that system. Eliminating this source of potential uncertainty in GPS performance for civil uses will make the system even more attractive to the world's users.

The reasoning was at the time that the US could not accept that " forgein hostile forces " use GPS to guide weapons aimed at their own troops.
This clause was also used to obtain funding for Galileo in Europe.

As far as I know ( and I welcome if someone here can correct me( the clause is still there. Everybody hangs on the 2007 declaration but GPS is still owned by the US military ( although managed by a joint US military/ civil body)
Interesting is what is written on the gps.gov web site FAQ :

The United States has no intent to ever use SA again. To ensure that potential adversaries do not use GPS, the military is dedicated to the development and deployment of regional denial capabilities in lieu of global degradation.

Hopefully you do fly an Embraer in a potential "Regional denial part of the world " .

Less Hair
14th Jun 2016, 12:57
Couldn't known positions of Navaids like VORs be used as a reference, to cross-calibrate any nav equipment on board at any time even without a valid GPS signal? That should be good at least for IFR and non precision approaches.

MG23
14th Jun 2016, 13:37
MG23: I was at the ICAO meeting when the MoU was signed between the US and ICAO at the end of the 90's. the clause was there.

Obviously they can shut GPS down. Equally obviously, it would be a disaster as many essential IT services around the world that use it for precision timing shut down within minutes to hours.

And pointless now there are a couple more systems that will work just as well as GPS for targeting bombs.

A-FLOOR
14th Jun 2016, 13:40
Less Hair: The problem is not nav precision, it is the yaw damper. No yaw damper means no autopilot, which means no RVSM.
AHRS-only arcraft with no GPS signal can still use air data, magnetometers and DME/DME autotuning to determine the aircraft's position.

Less Hair
14th Jun 2016, 13:44
Has the US military ever given a guarantee to civilian users that their GPS will work at any time? Guess no. How could certified systems onboard commercial aircraft/private jets be made dependent on working military GPS then?

megan
14th Jun 2016, 17:06
Back to sleep, it's all been cancelled.

Ancient-Mariner
14th Jun 2016, 17:14
Until the next time...

underfire
15th Jun 2016, 04:05
selective availability did not shut GPS down, it was simply less accurate.

LeadSled
15th Jun 2016, 05:02
Folks,
There is a feature article on GPS vulnerability in the latest Aviation Week, including pointing out the easy availability of cheap hand held jambers and spoofers.
Given that Airservices Australia's plans will result in us being far more dependent on GPS than any other country, it is "food for thought".

ATC Watcher
15th Jun 2016, 07:14
MG23 :And pointless now there are a couple more systems that will work just as well as GPS for targeting bombs.

True but think how many last generation GPS dependent US manufactured weapons were given freely to or "taken" by now hostile forces . Think Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq Syria, Libya, African rebel groups of all kind , etc...
I read even that recently quite a few last generation US tanks given to Iraq forces have now been taken over by ISIS, and that the same models are fighting each other in Faluja.
If you were a US military and someone was targeting your forces with one of those and you had a possibility to switch their precision off , would not you do it ?

GPS was primarily a military guidance system ( just like ORAN-C was) they allow civilians to use it but things like IT clocks synchronization of Embraer Yaw dampers was not what they had in mind when designing it.

Why do you think we Europeans spend billions developing Galileo ?

Less Hair
15th Jun 2016, 13:06
Will Galileo have a guaranteed civil availability at any time?

Ian W
15th Jun 2016, 13:22
Galileo is a civil system European Space Agency and EU have funded it. So that would indicate it is intended for civil use. One of the reasons it was initially planned was the potential unforecastable loss of GPS precision due to a US government action.

Ancient-Mariner
15th Jun 2016, 14:17
Looks like the UK MoD are having jamming exercises in July.


GPS jamming exercises | Ofcom (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/gps-jamming-exercises/?a=0)

Three Lima Charlie
15th Jun 2016, 15:56
New FAA notice just issued for Las Vegas GPS Interference Testing, June 18.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jun/NAFB_16-03_GPS_Flight_Advisory.pdf

Nieuport28
18th Jun 2016, 02:55
Exactly, look at who certified the 787 firebird!

Adolescent response at best, and totally off topic.

Capn Bloggs
19th Jun 2016, 11:11
Given that Airservices Australia's plans will result in us being far more dependent on GPS than any other country, it is "food for thought".
Given that Australia has traffic levels 1/20th of those of the USA (isn't that right, Leddie), and that Australia has a comprehensive Backup Navigation Network based on ground-based navaids, including ILSs, if the Navstar system went down, there should be no major problem getting back on the ground. As said above, if Navstar fell over, the world would stop, not just a few Aussie aeroplanes...

edmundronald
19th Jun 2016, 12:32
Although multi-standard systems are safer than single-standard , one can presume that in the event of a "warm" conflict eg. Ukraine, electronic warfare would make civiilan navigation systems the first casualty.

Whether at some point during a "warm" conflict some clever and deniable kid in Maryland will propose making team red's presidential aircraft or even a tourist craft land 100 feet under the tarmac is a different question; I am sure that neither Boeing nor Airbus like the idea, as once this bell has been rung it can never again be unrung.

Another good reason for having two pairs of trained Mark I eyeballs sitting at the pointy end of the aircraft instead of Roby McRobot.

Three Lima Charlie
19th Jun 2016, 13:36
The EC-130H Compass Call aircraft can listen to communications traffic (analog and digital) and jam almost every type of signal from VHF to radar frequencies. So there goes your cell phone, wifi and GPS within a 10 mile radius.

mickjoebill
20th Jun 2016, 11:21
Obviously they can shut GPS down. Equally obviously, it would be a disaster as many essential IT services around the world that use it for precision timing shut down within minutes to hours.

Perhaps the jamming exercise is intended to secretly test backup systems of major infrastructure?

megan
21st Jun 2016, 00:58
Australia has a comprehensive Backup Navigation Network based on ground-based navaidsAustralia relied heavily on the NDB for nav. Most, if not all, have had the plug pulled, including VOR and DME, and now rely on GPS.

Navigation Rationalisation Project | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/nrp/)

Capn Bloggs
21st Jun 2016, 01:13
So which airfields now have no ground-based navaid as of post 26 May? No need to include the ones with a nearby ground-based aid that can be used as an alternate.

Ancient-Mariner
21st Jun 2016, 09:09
Airservices say, "As part of the transition to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) by 4 February 2016, the Airservices Navigation Rationalisation Project (NRP) is switching-off 179 ground-based navigation aids, on 26 May 2016.
The navigation aids to be decommissioned include, non-directional beacons, VHF omni-directional ranges and distance measuring equipment.
GNSS is now the primary means of navigation for all instrument flight rule aircraft, which will be supported by the Backup Navigation aid Network, also known as the BNN."


Then looking at The Backup Navigation Network | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/nrp/the-backup-navigation-network/) They say,
"The remaining network of navigation aids will form the Backup Navigation Network (BNN) (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/BNN.pdf) . The BNN will be maintained and monitored by Airservices to support a GNSS contingency mode of operation, in the unlikely case where a pilot is unable to access the satellite service.
In 2004, the navigation aids that form the BNN network were selected by industry after extensive consultation, and following further industry validation in 2010, 14 additional navaids were added to the list."


They do not actually say what nav aids are used for BNN, and Australia is a large country for full radar coverage.


Also, if NDB, VOR and DME is not now used in Australia, does that mean that Aus registered a/c could have some open holes in the panel if they do not fly out of the country?

Capn Bloggs
21st Jun 2016, 14:09
Also, if NDB, VOR and DME is not now used in Australia,
Let's get this straight. This statement is garbage, and Megan knows it. There are plenty of navaids still around. I wait with bated breath for the extensive list of airports in Australia that have allegedly lost all their ground-based navads.

eppy
21st Jun 2016, 14:50
Airservices say, "As part of the transition to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) by 4 February 2016, the Airservices Navigation Rationalisation Project (NRP) is switching-off 179 ground-based navigation aids, on 26 May 2016.
The navigation aids to be decommissioned include, non-directional beacons, VHF omni-directional ranges and distance measuring equipment.
GNSS is now the primary means of navigation for all instrument flight rule aircraft, which will be supported by the Backup Navigation aid Network, also known as the BNN."


Then looking at The Backup Navigation Network | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/nrp/the-backup-navigation-network/) They say,
"The remaining network of navigation aids will form the Backup Navigation Network (BNN) (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/BNN.pdf) . The BNN will be maintained and monitored by Airservices to support a GNSS contingency mode of operation, in the unlikely case where a pilot is unable to access the satellite service.
In 2004, the navigation aids that form the BNN network were selected by industry after extensive consultation, and following further industry validation in 2010, 14 additional navaids were added to the list."


They do not actually say what nav aids are used for BNN, and Australia is a large country for full radar coverage.


Also, if NDB, VOR and DME is not now used in Australia, does that mean that Aus registered a/c could have some open holes in the panel if they do not fly out of the country?
Actually, they do specify the aids. Just open the PDF linked to on the page. For example, for Canberra they list DME, NDB and VOR as the nominated backup aids.

Three Lima Charlie
8th Jul 2016, 14:47
FLIGHT ADVISORY GPS INTERFERENCE TESTING July 12-29, 2016 Las Vegas, NV.
Notice Number: NOTC6614

FLIGHT ADVISORY GPS INTERFERENCE TESTING July 12-29, 2016 Las Vegas, NV.

FLIGHT ADVISORY
GPS INTERFERENCE TESTING
NTTR 16-05
12-29 July, 2016
Las Vegas, NV.

WhatsaLizad?
19th Jul 2016, 02:38
GPS, considering the uses worldwide, IMHO it is probably the biggest free giveaway by one country in the history of mankind.


The US should have set up a subscription licensing program. An A380? $1 million/year should cover it and go down from there based on weight. Drilling a deep water oil well and need a ship to hold station within 1 meter? $5 million flat fee should cover it. Reduced accuracy for pure safety and survival needs should be free.


Then again, the GPS services market from the EU and RU would probably get competitive quickly.

Groundloop
19th Jul 2016, 09:08
and Australia is a large country for full radar coverage.

But they do have full ADS-B coverage.

LeadSled
20th Jul 2016, 05:02
But they do have full ADS-B coverage. Groundloop,
Where ever did you get that idea.
The coverage is high level only, and strangely, where it is available low level , it seems that ATC do not use it where SSR/Primary radar is available.
There are no formal plans to extend ADS-B coverage to low levels across the country, even though CASA is now suggesting mandatory ADS-B even for VFR post 2019. This despite Government/CASA "policy" for risk based regulation and cost/benefit justification.
Given the major losses recently announced by Airservices Australia, and the shambolic state of the OneSKY plans, budgets and execution, wait for the Senate inquiry "real soon now".
Tootle pip!!

msbbarratt
20th Jul 2016, 07:10
The US should have set up a subscription licensing program. An A380? $1 million/year should cover it and go down from there based on weight. Drilling a deep water oil well and need a ship to hold station within 1 meter? $5 million flat fee should cover it. Reduced accuracy for pure safety and survival needs should be free.

Then again, the GPS services market from the EU and RU would probably get competitive quickly.

The EU considered charging for Galileo, but gave up the idea when it was clear that the only result would be that no one would use Galileo. They also considered using a completely different signal, which would have made a joint GPS / GLONASS / Galileo receiver difficult to implement, and they eventually gave up that idea too. So having set out to be completely different, thankfully Galileo will end up being a moderately improved, complimentary and usable service.

I think the US DoD was much more forward thinking ("Free GNSS for all!") from the very beginning, to their great credit, even in the days of reduced precision. The story behind Galileo gives you an idea of the mindset of the EU politicians and how the realities of life had to be beaten into them by engineers and companies, so no wonder things like Brexit happen...

Capn Bloggs
20th Jul 2016, 11:08
There are no formal plans to extend ADS-B coverage to low levels across the country,
Why would there be? 80% of the australian landmass is completely devoid of life due to no water, unlike the USA where there is a good spread of civilisation.

even though CASA is now suggesting mandatory ADS-B even for VFR post 2019
Arr, yes, the old "suggested mandatory" trick. Rubbish, mandatory ADS-B for VFR will not happen in Austrlia in any of our lifetimes. Read your email Leadsled (AS 16/06) and stop spreading furphies.

airtags
20th Jul 2016, 11:40
"mandatory ADS-B for VFR" ...................

highly (absolutely. Or should I say fully) unlikely - but it would mean we'll all be catching the train or walking & wondering what to do on sunny weekends with clear skies

AT
:E

Heathrow Harry
22nd Jul 2016, 10:36
"...unlike the USA where there is a good spread of civilisation."

I hink you mean PEOPLE not civilisation - I've lived in some of the middle parts and I certainly wouldn't use the C-word to describe them.........

LeadSled
23rd Jul 2016, 08:04
Arr, yes, the old "suggested mandatory" trick. Rubbish, mandatory ADS-B for VFR will not happen in Austrlia in any of our lifetimes. Read your email Leadsled (AS 16/06) and stop spreading furphies. Bloggs,

My dear chap, you really should read the reports of the most recent statements by the DAS.
The above being an "update" of a statement made to myself and several others in terms of " if I had my way" or words to that effect.
Indeed, the members of ASAC regard the "mandatory" being inevitable, and in the not too far distant future, certainly withing my life expectancy. See also the CASA project on the subject of "voluntary ---- VFR ADS-B" just publicly released, CASA Standards Development project: AS 16/06 --- you will find it on the CASA website, if it is up and running.
Why would there be?There shouldn't, but since when did that stop the nonsense in Canberra, where cost is never a consideration for those who will never pay it.
Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs
23rd Jul 2016, 11:12
See also the CASA project on the subject of "voluntary ---- VFR ADS-B" just publicly released, CASA Standards Development project: AS 16/06 --- you will find it on the CASA website, if it is up and running.

You don't say... I did point that its existence in my post above. No mention of mandatory ADS-B that you are scaremongering about!

LeadSled
24th Jul 2016, 08:48
No mention of mandatory ADS-B that you are scaremongering about! Bloggs,
You should really try to read what I have actually posted, before you go into full fine and overboost.

If the DAS says he wants it to be mandatory, and ASAC accepts it is going to be, given the tenor of discussions, that rather does indicate the direction, so you better write up the DAS and ASAC for scaremongering, to be fair.

And speaking of "being fair" ----- it goes like this ----- convince enough that they should voluntarily fit ADS-B where it is not currently mandatory, and when you have 20-30% or so, then, with hand on heart, and with a straight face, declaim: " We must make it mandatory, because it is unfair that X% have spent good money equipping voluntarily, but cannot get the "full safety benefits" because other aircraft owners have not spent the money".If you think this is fanciful, just have a look at the statements as to why the current ADS-B mandate, completely unjustified on any rational assessment, cannot be delayed to the US 2020 or later , as initially promised at the Tamworth rally by the Minister ( in the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister) and I was one of many witnesses ----- nothing to do with safety, just that it wouldn't be fair to those who have equipped already.

Strangely, I can find nothing in the Act or Regulations requiring "fairness" as a criteria for CASA decision making.

Tootle pip!!