GPS Jamming West Coast USA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hawarden (near EGNR)
Age: 74
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS Jamming West Coast USA
FAA Warns of GPS Outages This Month During Mysterious Tests on the West Coast
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 That seems to suggest something other than simple jamming transmissions on 1575.42 MHz or 1227.60 MHz.
Cheers!
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 That seems to suggest something other than simple jamming transmissions on 1575.42 MHz or 1227.60 MHz.
Cheers!
Last edited by Ancient-Mariner; 7th Jun 2016 at 21:29. Reason: typo
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ATC Watcher. Believe it Brother.. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...11_EMB-300.pdf
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Bushfiva; 9th Jun 2016 at 06:24. Reason: spelling
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
The low power level of GPS was discussed previously here, at: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/48302...hosen-gps.html
Last edited by chromakey; 10th Jun 2016 at 21:28.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/m...11_EMB-300.pdf
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
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a jamming signal would be competing with a power-budget constrained transmitter on satellites orbiting at approximately 20200 km altitude.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three Lima Charlie:
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.
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
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...11_EMB-300.pdf
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....
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....
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was North Korea, reportedly they get into this every few years when they are jacked up over something.
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.
