Bush Prepares for Possible GPS Shutdown

[Chris Gumm]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=

[Schmoe]

Chris Gumm wrote:
> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=


How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from the
crisis? Would WAAS stations be shutdown to?

[zatatime]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:08:26 -0500, "Schmoe" >
wrote:

>Chris Gumm wrote:
>> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>
>How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from the
>crisis? Would WAAS stations be shutdown to?
>

I'd say it'd depend on what the crisis was perceived to be, and I
doubt anyone will give anymore details than this. Be prepared for a
complete shut down, and be happy if it's only a partial.

I'm keeping my ADF for a while. ;)

z

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" > wrote
in >::

>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>

Well, if you can't intercept incoming missiles, you've got to do
something:


President George W. Bush's drive to deploy a multibillion-dollar
shield against ballistic missiles was set back by what critics
called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
years. The abortive $85 million exercise raised fresh questions
about the reliability of the first elements of the plan, an heir
to former president Ronald Reagan's vision of a space-based
missile defense that critics dubbed "Star Wars." The
interceptor missile never left its silo at Kwajalein Atoll in
the central Pacific, shutting itself down automatically because
of an "anomaly" of unknown origin, the Pentagon's Missile
Defense Agency said. About 16 minutes earlier, a target missile
had been fired from Kodiak, Alaska, in what was to have been a
fly-by test chiefly designed to gather data on new hardware,
software and engagement angles, said Richard Lehner, a
spokesman. BOEING CO., the Pentagon's prime contractor on the
project, declined comment.
(Reuters 03:50 PM ET 12/15/2004)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1036231&m=1006241c0cb0b05013437a&s=rb041215

================================================== ==============


This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
when they shut the system down?

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=

> >

> More:
>
>
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1036231&m=1006241c0cb0b05013437a&s=rb041215
>
> ================================================== ==============
>
>
> This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
> when they shut the system down?


You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of similar
to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
approach? :)

Cap

[Larry Dighera]

On 16 Dec 2004 12:40:02 -0800, wrote in
. com>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>> >
>
>> More:
>>
>>
>http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1036231&m=1006241c0cb0b05013437a&s=rb041215
>>
>> ================================================== ==============
>>
>>
>> This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
>> when they shut the system down?
>
>
>You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of similar
>to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
>approach? :)
>
>Cap

So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
procedures rely upon GPS?

[Bob Gardner]

As I understand it from the AIM, WAAS stations must receive signals from the
satellite constellation in order to provide corrections...no satellite, no
WAAS.

Bob Gardner

"Schmoe" > wrote in message
...
> Chris Gumm wrote:
>> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>
> How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from
> the crisis? Would WAAS stations be shutdown to?
>

[Jay Honeck]

This is news?

The President has always had broad powers in times of national emergency,
and can disable (or enable) some or all parts of the national airspace --
including GPS, ILS, VOR, and NDB. I'm sure they've got some contingencies
to shut down access to the internet, for that matter.

If there is a national emergency that requires shutting down GPS, completing
the approach may be the least of your worries.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff Franks]

>
> So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
> procedures rely upon GPS?

No, I didn't read that anywhere in his post. I believe his intent was to
say that it's obvious that many a liberal will go nuts about how we're all
screwed now that the government has a plan to shut down GPS (which I had
always understood that this was in place anyway). If terrorists are somehow
using our own GPS system against us, then I'm all for shutting it down (or
limiting it to military use somehow).

More the reason to keep the VOR's working.

jf

[G.R. Patterson III]

Chris Gumm posted:
>
> a link to a reporter's screwup.

Try this one instead -
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space.html

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[C Kingsbury]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
> procedures rely upon GPS?
>

Aren't you required to have means to execute a non-GPS approach at either
your destination or alternate to be legal?

The real impact of this sort of thing will be (1) to convince the
Europeans/Russians/Chinese to deploy their own GPS-type system (effectively
obviating the advantage of being able to shut down the US system) and (2) to
prevent use of GPS as a true sole-source navigation system.

-cwk.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
> procedures rely upon GPS?

Dunno about that, but according to an article in the most recent AOPA Pilot, you
can't shoot a WAAS approach without some other navigation system (like a VOR
glide slope receiver) in the plane.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> The real impact of this sort of thing will be (1) to convince the
> Europeans/Russians/Chinese to deploy their own GPS-type system

The U.S.S.R. had one at one time. What happened to it? Couldn't afford the
upkeep?

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:56:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<GDmwd.582233$D%.446179@attbi_s51>::

>This is news?
>
>The President has always had broad powers in times of national emergency,
>and can disable (or enable) some or all parts of the national airspace --
>including GPS, ILS, VOR, and NDB.

If you had read the news provided at the link in the original article,
you'd know:

The directives to the Defense Department and the Homeland Security
Department were part of a space policy that Bush signed this
month.

>I'm sure they've got some contingencies to shut down access to the internet, for that matter.

You haven't a clue how the Internet operates. There is no Internet
central authority.

[Jay Honeck]

>>The President has always had broad powers in times of national emergency,
>>and can disable (or enable) some or all parts of the national airspace --
>>including GPS, ILS, VOR, and NDB.
>
> If you had read the news provided at the link in the original article,
> you'd know:
>
> The directives to the Defense Department and the Homeland Security
> Department were part of a space policy that Bush signed this
> month.

I did read the article, and these directives are nothing new. What's new is
the media -- and you -- noticing them.

>>I'm sure they've got some contingencies to shut down access to the
>>internet, for that matter.
>
> You haven't a clue how the Internet operates. There is no Internet
> central authority.

I didn't say they could shut down the internet. I said they would shut down
your ACCESS to the internet. Surely you aren't so gullible as to believe
that the government couldn't shut down AOL, Mediacom, Qwest, and the dozen
or so other ISPs that provide 95% of Americans with internet access in time
of national emergency?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Aren't there some of the newer planes that are coming out with GPS only
panels?

mike regish

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>> >
>
>> More:
>>
>>
> http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1036231&m=1006241c0cb0b05013437a&s=rb041215
>>
>> ================================================== ==============
>>
>>
>> This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
>> when they shut the system down?
>
>
> You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of similar
> to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
> approach? :)
>
> Cap
>

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GDmwd.582233$D%.446179@attbi_s51...
> This is news?
>
> The President has always had broad powers in times of national emergency,
> and can disable (or enable) some or all parts of the national airspace --
> including GPS, ILS, VOR, and NDB. I'm sure they've got some contingencies
> to shut down access to the internet, for that matter.
>


Exactly. In your country and mine, Powers to shut down ports, roads,
bridges, airports, civil liberties, put troops in the streets, etc... have
always been there "in times of national emergency".

You have to excuse some questioning of these powers, however, because no one
is exactly sure what constitutes "national emergency". Does something
affecting 10 percent of the population constitute "national emergency"? 1
percent? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million? Does a poised hostile armed force of
100,000? A few thousand? Several hundred militants and a bunch of
rabble-rousers? Armed with mostly light weaponry? Armed with atomic bombs?

We know full well that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.... which is why democracies were born in the first place. The
use of "power" in a "National Emergency" does not scare most people....
except for the power to define what is a bona fide "National Emergency"
requiring those powers.

[mike regish]

Gotta be a "liberal" to be concerned about that, huh?

mike regish

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...

> No, I didn't read that anywhere in his post. I believe his intent was to
> say that it's obvious that many a liberal will go nuts about how we're all
> screwed now that the government has a plan to shut down GPS (which I had
> always understood that this was in place anyway). If terrorists are
> somehow using our own GPS system against us, then I'm all for shutting it
> down (or limiting it to military use somehow).
>
> More the reason to keep the VOR's working.
>
> jf
>
>

[Cockpit Colin]

> You haven't a clue how the Internet operates. There is no Internet
> central authority.

Not that many border-gateway routers connecting US backbones to the rest of
the country though, which becomes a different argument. Unlikely, but not
overly difficult to isolate the USA from the internet if need be.

[Dave S]

When Selective Availability was disabled in the Clinton administration,
regional disruption of the GPS signal was the stated
"back-up"/"alternative". This is not new news in the least.

Dave

Chris Gumm wrote:

> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>
>

[Ben Hallert]

> The U.S.S.R. had one at one time. What happened to it? Couldn't
afford the
> upkeep?

The Soviet Union began launching satellites for GLONASS, their GPS
equivalent, back in 1982. When the country went out of business,
upkeep slowed, and the original 24+3 satellite system is down to 8,
making it essentially useless. You need multiple locks to use
GLONASS/GPS for navigation, so...

There was some discussion of a new GLONASS replacement called
GLONASS-M, but it's contingent on money which is in somewhat short
supply in Russia.

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
>> procedures rely upon GPS?
>
> Dunno about that, but according to an article in the most recent AOPA
> Pilot, you can't shoot a WAAS approach without some other navigation
> system (like a VOR glide slope receiver) in the plane.

How does one get to the next approach w/o GPS if the missed approach on the
GPS approach requires a GPS?

This isn't just a "GPS shutdown" question, but a more generic "dealing with
failure" question. Still, one is legal with a single VOR and VOR
approaches can have VOR-based missed approaches.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I didn't say they could shut down the internet. I said they would shut
> down
> your ACCESS to the internet. Surely you aren't so gullible as to believe
> that the government couldn't shut down AOL, Mediacom, Qwest, and the dozen
> or so other ISPs that provide 95% of Americans with internet access in
> time of national emergency?

After dealing with numerous backbone firms: I seriously doubt that Qwest
could easily/quickly shut down Qwest. THe same is true for any of the
other backbones. AOL...maybe. It's a different kind of service, and one
could probably "attack" it via the mechanism it uses for
authentication/authorization.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

>
>> You haven't a clue how the Internet operates. There is no Internet
>> central authority.
>
> Not that many border-gateway routers connecting US backbones to the rest
> of the country though, which becomes a different argument. Unlikely, but
> not overly difficult to isolate the USA from the internet if need be.

You might be surprised. I'm aware of some very regional (ie. not too large)
"backbones" in the NYC area that have their own connectivity to some ASN
outside of the US.

Now, NYC might be unusual in the intercontinental traffic it generates. But
not *that* unusual. I expect many MANs now have pretty widespread
peerings.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave S wrote:

> When Selective Availability was disabled in the Clinton administration,
> regional disruption of the GPS signal was the stated
> "back-up"/"alternative". This is not new news in the least.

I've read of this before. But I don't see how it could be done regionally
w/o using something like jamming. Do the satellites have the ability to
block their signal to regions?

- Andrew

[Wizard of Draws]

On 12/16/04 5:41 PM, in article ,
"Icebound" > wrote:

>
> You have to excuse some questioning of these powers, however, because no one
> is exactly sure what constitutes "national emergency". Does something
> affecting 10 percent of the population constitute "national emergency"? 1
> percent? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million? Does a poised hostile armed force of
> 100,000? A few thousand? Several hundred militants and a bunch of
> rabble-rousers? Armed with mostly light weaponry? Armed with atomic bombs?
>

Our entire airspace was shut down after the deaths of a few thousand on
9-11, so we can put that down as a partial answer.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

The Wizard's 2004 Christmas newsletter
http://www.wizardofdraws.com/main/xmas04.html

[C J Campbell]

"Chris Gumm" > wrote in message
...
>
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=

I am not sure why this is news. It has been policy since before Bush was
President.

[C J Campbell]

"Schmoe" > wrote in message
...
> Chris Gumm wrote:
> >
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
>
> How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from
the
> crisis? Would WAAS stations be shutdown to?

You might be surprised at what happens if you lose RAIM inside the FAF
anyway.

If you lose the navigation radios on any approach (and it can and will
happen with any sort of approach) then the best thing to do is climb
immediately, maintaining course to the MAP as closely as possible, then
flying the missed approach procedure.

If the GPS system is shut down then you can expect to break off any approach
and revert to radar vectors.

[C J Campbell]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dave S wrote:
>
> > When Selective Availability was disabled in the Clinton administration,
> > regional disruption of the GPS signal was the stated
> > "back-up"/"alternative". This is not new news in the least.
>
> I've read of this before. But I don't see how it could be done regionally
> w/o using something like jamming. Do the satellites have the ability to
> block their signal to regions?

Individual satellites could be shut down, effectively blanking out large
regions.

[C J Campbell]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
> > procedures rely upon GPS?
> >
>
> Aren't you required to have means to execute a non-GPS approach at either
> your destination or alternate to be legal?

Yes. However, if you are WAAS equipped then there is no such requirement.

[Bob Fry]

"Jeff Franks" > writes:

> If terrorists are somehow
> using our own GPS system against us, then I'm all for shutting it down (or
> limiting it to military use somehow).

Now this line of reasoning scares me. That, and that the previous
sentence will be completely misconstrued by all the red-staters.

[Blueskies]

One thermonuclear device going off at say 100,000' will wipe out communications over a very wide area.


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message online.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> I didn't say they could shut down the internet. I said they would shut
>> down
>> your ACCESS to the internet. Surely you aren't so gullible as to believe
>> that the government couldn't shut down AOL, Mediacom, Qwest, and the dozen
>> or so other ISPs that provide 95% of Americans with internet access in
>> time of national emergency?
>
> After dealing with numerous backbone firms: I seriously doubt that Qwest
> could easily/quickly shut down Qwest. THe same is true for any of the
> other backbones. AOL...maybe. It's a different kind of service, and one
> could probably "attack" it via the mechanism it uses for
> authentication/authorization.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Blueskies wrote:

> One thermonuclear device going off at say 100,000' will wipe out
> communications over a very wide area.

A lot of the EMP damage comes from the impulse generated over long cables.
Fiber obviously lacks this problem.

Still, there are other issues (even if we ignore the policital backlash of a
US President EMPing the US {8^). For one, we'd lose a lot of our orbital
traffic (are the GPS satellites hardened against EMP?).

Scientific American did an article on this subject not too many months back.

- Andrew

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:32:25 GMT, "C Kingsbury" >
wrote:

>Aren't you required to have means to execute a non-GPS approach at either
>your destination or alternate to be legal?

Not necessarily. Depends on the GPS.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jeff Franks]

You forget...the red-staters are the one's with the guns..... :)


"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Franks" > writes:
>
> > If terrorists are somehow
> > using our own GPS system against us, then I'm all for shutting it down
(or
> > limiting it to military use somehow).
>
> Now this line of reasoning scares me. That, and that the previous
> sentence will be completely misconstrued by all the red-staters.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:31:57 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in e.com>::

>(are the GPS satellites hardened against EMP?)

Protection circuits are off the shell items:
http://www.meteolabor.ch/e/uss220e.htm . The GPS satellites, being
military in origin, would certainly include them.

[Kai Glaesner]

Schmoe,

> How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from
the
> crisis? Would WAAS stations be shutdown to?

One of the functions of WAAS (apart from accuracy enhancements) is integrity
monitoring. In the above mentioned case you would get a "integrity warning"
(in a predetermined time interval after the shutdown, IIRC 6 seconds) if the
satelites used for your navigation solution are affected, and should go
missed (or continue on an other nav-source, if operational and monitored).

Regards

Kai

[Slip'er]

> set back by what critics
> called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
> years.

I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:20:07 -0800, "Slip'er" > wrote
in <lpywd.66048$Af.42511@fed1read07>::

>> set back by what critics
>> called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
>> years.
>
>I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.
>

The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
*DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.

But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(


* The News Hour, PBS

[Thomas Borchert]

Schmoe,

> How much would that suck during a GPS approach to minimums far away from the
> crisis?
>

How much would that suck for the huge part of the rescue and police force that
totally rely on GPS and have to respond to the crisis?

Senseless fear-mongering

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Well, if you can't intercept incoming missiles, you've got to do
> something:
>

IF there are missiles. There are?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> But I don't see how it could be done regionally
> w/o using something like jamming. Do the satellites have the ability to
> block their signal to regions?
>

No, they don't. Yes, "in-theater-jamming" is the solution.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:35:49 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>Dunno about that, but according to an article in the most recent AOPA Pilot, you
>can't shoot a WAAS approach without some other navigation system (like a VOR
>glide slope receiver) in the plane.

I did not see that article, and cannot locate it just now. But I don't
understand the logic that would imply that for a TSO146 GPS unit.

Can you elaborate?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Happy Dog]

"Slip'er" > wrote in message

>> set back by what critics
>> called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
>> years.
>
> I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.


Even if they're paying for it?

m

[Kai Glaesner]

Jay,

> including GPS, ILS, VOR, and NDB. I'm sure they've got some contingencies
> to shut down access to the internet, for that matter.

Back in the old-days (when men gave birth to the internet ;-) it was called
ARPANet and it's design goal was surviving any kind of attac due to being
de-centralized...

So, guess that thing will last longer than we do..... ;-)

Regards

Kai

[Jay Honeck]

> Back in the old-days (when men gave birth to the internet ;-) it was
> called
> ARPANet and it's design goal was surviving any kind of attac due to being
> de-centralized...
>
> So, guess that thing will last longer than we do..... ;-)

I know the origins of the internet, and its supposed invulnerability.

But there are only a few dozen major computer networks providing the
backbone of the internet in the U.S. This is all speculation, of course,
but I would bet you ten bucks that there is an NSA task force whose main job
is to maintain the capability of (a) monitoring (b) defending, and (c)
disabling these networks, as needed.

Could they take down the whole internet? No. But could they prevent 90% of
Americans from seeing the internet? You bet -- at least for a time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

I'm not saying that. Just like I'm not saying there aren't VOR
approaches where the missed is based on having a working VOR. But VOR
receivers cash it in, as well. Don't recall seeing any, but there may
be some NDB approaches where the missed is based only on the NDB; I
don't shoot many of those any more. Plenty of planes have a single GPS
receiver...my response was about the similarlity between losing the
entire GPS system, and having your pretty new Garmin 430 go 'pzzzzt!'
and dark halfway into a GPS approach.

In both cases, you lack the ability to fly the published missed if the
missed is solely based on the GPS. So what? We aren't robots...we're
pilots. We think our way through things. If we're talking to approach
or tower, we tell them we lost the GPS and we need vectors for the
missed and a different approach. If we're not talking to anyone, then
we do what we can...does the airport have a VOR approach as well? Well,
given the spacing requirements between IFR traffic, then we fly *that*
missed, maybe.


I try to tell my students that one cannot prepare for *every*
possibility. That's one reason they have to *understand* what's going
on as they are doing something...not just be able to perform it by
rote. The probability of losing the entire GPS system is so low that it
doesn't even register on my radar. And the probability that I happen to
be on a GPS approach (in actual), not talking to ATC, on an approach
that has a missed procedure solely based on the GPS when they shut it
down? Probability quickly fading towards infinitely small...and if it
does somehow manage to happen? I'll find a way to deal with it, as
would you, and every other qualified pilot out there.

Cheers,

Cap

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2004 12:40:02 -0800, wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:08:48 -0500, "Chris Gumm" >
wrote
> >> in >::
> >>
> >>
>
>>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
> >
> >> >
> >
> >> More:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1036231&m=1006241c0cb0b05013437a&s=rb041215
> >>
> >>
================================================== ==============
> >>
> >>
> >> This begs the question, what do you do if you're on a GPS approach
> >> when they shut the system down?
> >
> >
> >You mean other than go missed and shoot something else? Kind of
similar
> >to what you'd do if your GPS went South on you in the middle of an
> >approach? :)
> >
> >Cap
>
> So, you're saying there are no GPS approaches whose missed approach
> procedures rely upon GPS?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> I did not see that article, and cannot locate it just now. But I don't
> understand the logic that would imply that for a TSO146 GPS unit.
>
> Can you elaborate?

Well, I found that one and couldn't find the reference I thought I read. But I
did find another article that contained this "Currently, two manufacturers of GA
avionics — UPSAT and Chelton — have WAAS-certified receivers that can be used
for 'sole-source' IFR navigation, meaning no other navigation systems are
required on the aircraft. UPSAT expects to receive certification for vertical
navigation ('glideslope') within two months. Other manufacturers will be
offering WAAS receivers soon." That states I was wrong.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

That post would have been so much more informative if it included
even a brief executive summary of the article referenced. A one
line synopsis would have had some value.

Some of us read our news with a character based reader, and visiting
a link requires cut and paste into a web browser. I don't use a web
broswer to read email or news; these are not, fundamentally, web
applications. They are plain text applications.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Michael Houghton wrote:
>
> That post would have been so much more informative if it included
> even a brief executive summary of the article referenced.

It doesn't matter - the article is BS anyway.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[[email protected]]

There is a new system in the works by the europeans, Galileo. It is
supposed to be independent of military control so you won't see threats
of system shutdown. I'm sure the pentagon is working out how to jam it,
etc.

http://www.esa.int/export/esaNA/GGGMX650NDC_index_0.html
http://www.eubusiness.com/press/EUPress.2003-12-22.1818

Let the cat'n'mouse games continue. In previous centuries road signs
were moved around and fake maps made to confuse the enemy, I doubt that
has happened in a while. But the stakes are always getting higher, no
one died as a direct result of a sign movement (the guys with guns
lying in ambush on the other hand...)

-lance smith

[Gig Giacona]

> Let the cat'n'mouse games continue. In previous centuries road signs
> were moved around and fake maps made to confuse the enemy, I doubt that
> has happened in a while. But the stakes are always getting higher, no
> one died as a direct result of a sign movement (the guys with guns
> lying in ambush on the other hand...)
>

Including the last one...

In the '80s I had a friend that was assigned to a recon unit of a USA Mech
Inf. batallion in Germany. According to him his squads primary duty if the
ballon went up what to destroy every highway, road and other such marker in
what I thought was a fairly large area of Germany.

[Earl Grieda]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:v1Cwd.276204$R05.193754@attbi_s53...
>
> But there are only a few dozen major computer networks providing the
> backbone of the internet in the U.S. This is all speculation, of course,
> but I would bet you ten bucks that there is an NSA task force whose main
job
> is to maintain the capability of (a) monitoring (b) defending, and (c)
> disabling these networks, as needed.
>
> Could they take down the whole internet? No. But could they prevent 90%
of
> Americans from seeing the internet? You bet -- at least for a time.
> --
>

In the late 1980s the military split off from the Internet and onto what, I
believe, they call Mil-net. However, I wonder how much of Mil-net (routers,
backbone, etc.) is truly seperate from the Internet. Since there are always
bugs in software/hardware (especially if it has never been tested as is the
case in shutting down the Internet) I would expect that a shutdown of the
Internet will have totally unanticipated effects on the military networks.
Since so much of society is now interwoven into the Internet we probably
will be shooting ourselves in the foot if we shutdown the Internet in a time
of crisis.

Earl G

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:23:15 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>> I did not see that article, and cannot locate it just now. But I don't
>> understand the logic that would imply that for a TSO146 GPS unit.
>>
>> Can you elaborate?
>
>Well, I found that one and couldn't find the reference I thought I read. But I
>did find another article that contained this "Currently, two manufacturers of GA
>avionics — UPSAT and Chelton — have WAAS-certified receivers that can be used
>for 'sole-source' IFR navigation, meaning no other navigation systems are
>required on the aircraft. UPSAT expects to receive certification for vertical
>navigation ('glideslope') within two months. Other manufacturers will be
>offering WAAS receivers soon." That states I was wrong.
>

This latter stuff you quote is what I thought also. As the owner of a
CNX80, I did not think other equipment was required (although, of course,
it is present).

And the vertical navigation to which your article refers has been available
on the CNX80, as a free, factory-installed upgrade, since the beginning of
October. Mine is going in next week for that upgrade process.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[C Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> There is a new system in the works by the europeans, Galileo. It is
> supposed to be independent of military control so you won't see threats
> of system shutdown. I'm sure the pentagon is working out how to jam it,
> etc.
>
> http://www.esa.int/export/esaNA/GGGMX650NDC_index_0.html
> http://www.eubusiness.com/press/EUPress.2003-12-22.1818
>

There's been noises in the past that the Chinese might want to be part of
that project, and also that the birds might carry hardware for encrypted
communication/datalink as well. That's the part that really got the DoD's
attention. A large part of our military advantage these days lies in the
incredible speed at which we can move information around securely from
bottom to top and back down again. It's safe to assume that strategic rivals
like China would get around to doing this on their own sooner or later, but
cooperating with the Europeans to do so would make a rather interesting
geopplitical statement.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
> *DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
> experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.
>
> But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(

Well, given the rather precarious attachment with reality that the Norks
have, count me as glad to see we at least have some chance of a shoot-down
in case they decide to go postal. Longer term we have to be thinking about
the Iranians as well. They're going to build their bomb sooner or later and
the missiles to carry it. Having intercept capability, even a 50-50 one,
reduces the odds that it will ever come to shooting.

-cwk.

[G Farris]

In article om>,
says...
>
>There is a new system in the works by the europeans, Galileo. It is
>supposed to be independent of military control so you won't see threats
>of system shutdown. I'm sure the pentagon is working out how to jam it,
>etc.
>


Galileo has won some European funding approval this year, so it should move
forward to at least the next stage.It is a very clever initiative, because it
plays on the Europeans' pride (particularly the French) in not having to rely
on something developed and offered (even for free) from the Americans. If it
does come to pass, it will of course be offered at high cost to users (just as
IFR users are already heavily taxed on "airway use" fees) GPS receivers will
be mandated to be "Galileo compliant" (more market share for Europen equipment
manufacturers) and it will be geared toward commercial operations, offering
little of the flexibility and cost effectiveness required by private
operators. If Europeans could see past their pride, they should hope that
Galileo never gets past the next budget hurdles, and they should become
victims, once again of slavery to free, reliable, scalable US initiatives.

G Faris

[Icebound]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
....snip...
> I would expect that a shutdown of the
> Internet will have totally unanticipated effects on the military networks.
> Since so much of society is now interwoven into the Internet we probably
> will be shooting ourselves in the foot if we shutdown the Internet in a
> time
> of crisis.
>

The infrastructures of society evolve slowly and do so with great inertia.
It is not easy to change direction quickly without unanticipated effect.

For example, trying to make a "sudden" move away from air travel after 9-11
caused a spike in automobile deaths. 1000 people more than normal died on
the roads in just the three months following (
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=24119&article_id=218392244&cat=1_7 )
..

Any big infrastructure change.... whether closing the internet or closing
down the GPS system or moving away from an automobile-oriented society....
will certainly be "shooting ourselves in the foot", if done suddenly. So
the reasons for doing it have to be huge.

So also, are the reasons for trying to foresee where the current
infrastructures *should* be changing.... (power usage and/or power
generation, for one example)... so that their evolution can be planned, or
at least anticipated. It's gonna take a long time to get there.

[Bob Fry]

"Slip'er" > writes:

> > set back by what critics
> > called a stunning failure of its first full flight test in two
> > years.
>
> I would hate having my experiments all open to public scrutiny.

If my experiments cost $80M a pop I would expect them to be open to
public scrutiny.

[Bob Fry]

"C Kingsbury" > writes:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Missile Defense Shield (or whatever they're calling it) is being
> > *DEPLOYED* now, before it is fully developed! If it were merely an
> > experiment, it's lack of performance might be more reasonable.
> >
> > But hey, it's only a trillion dollar bill.* :-(
>
> Well, given the rather precarious attachment with reality that the Norks
> have, count me as glad to see we at least have some chance of a shoot-down
> in case they decide to go postal. Longer term we have to be thinking about
> the Iranians as well. They're going to build their bomb sooner or later and
> the missiles to carry it. Having intercept capability, even a 50-50 one,
> reduces the odds that it will ever come to shooting.

The problem is this tends towards the emotional, away from the
rational.

There are always limited resources to secure our safety. Therefore
our dollars should always be funding those projects with the best
estimated marginal rate of return for security.

So the half-assed MDS (or whatever it's called), with a very sorry
history of performance and reliability, is being given tens of
billions of dollars, while obvious stuff like checking incoming cargo,
or trying to round up Russia's nuke material, is apparently
underfunded and proceeding much slower than it could. But those
aren't macho. It looks better on your resume to have done a mighty
missle project than rounding up loose nukes or figured out how to
check containers efficiently.

Islamic terrorists, and probably not even N. Korea, are not
fundamentally a military problem, but we are treating it as such.
There may indeed be military elements to reducing the islamic
terrorist threat, but military solutions should not be primary. Bush
and his idealogues are fighting the last threat, global communism, not
the current threat.

[Cub Driver]

On 17 Dec 2004 08:17:09 -0800, wrote:

>There is a new system in the works by the europeans, Galileo. It is
>supposed to be independent of military control so you won't see threats
>of system shutdown. I'm sure the pentagon is working out how to jam it,
>etc.

The Wall Street Journal has covered both these issues in the past few
weeks.

With respect to Gallileo, indeed the Pentagon was upset that GPS would
slip outside its control, but in the end the Americans and the
Europeans agreed that either could locally either system in time of
military emergency.

With respect to the title of this thread, none other than Phil Boyer
of AOPA has pointed out that the current White House initiative on GPS
is actually an improvement over the status quo, and to be applauded by
pilots.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Stefan]

G Farris wrote:

> Galileo has won some European funding approval this year, so it should move
> forward to at least the next stage.It is a very clever initiative, because it
> plays on the Europeans' pride (particularly the French) in not having to rely
> on something developed and offered (even for free) from the Americans.

Actually, it was't pride. If I recall correctly, the Europe didn't want
to re-invent the wheel but to cooperate with the USA. It was the USA who
declined to give guaranties, basically saying that GPS was crucial
military infrasturcture and that the US army would always reserve the
right to shut it down, jam it or whatever at its discretion. It was at
this point that Europe said no thanks, we're gonna develop our own
system, even if it's expensive.

Stefan

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>G,
>
>> If Europeans could see past their pride,
>>
>
>like Americans?
>

Well, if Americans could see past their pride a lot of things might change . .
But in matters specific to general aviation, I think you'll agree, being based
at EDDH, that there is a big problem in Europe with a heavy-handed
administration that fails to take personal and small business aviation into
consideration. By lumping these ops in with the bigger fish, they are
subjected to regulations and costs that cannot be supported by their mission,
and thus a whole sector of practical and profitable aviation is disappearing
(and at this writing, almost completely gone) in Europe.

No matter how you cut the cake, Galileo is an initiative that is going to cost
a lot, and because of the way fees are apportioned in Europe, it will be users
who have to pick up much of the ticket. While LAAS and WAAS approaches with
RAIM are coming on line in the US, and free to use, Europeans will have to
wait many more years, then pay high user fees and equipment costs for
something that in any case cannot be better than the GPS system.

Sometimes good management is just a matter of knowing a good thing when you
see one. By making diplomatic agreements to tap in to the GPS system, Europe
could not only benefit directly from a system that's already in an advanced
state of development, but also profit from the scale economies of the US
market for GPS navigation equipment. By building an entirely parallel system,
they have to support the costs of development, deployment and maintenance of
the system, as well as highest possible costs for a niche market in compatible
NAV equipment. To me that smacks of blind pride.

G Faris

[Stefan]

G Farris wrote:

> Sometimes good management is just a matter of knowing a good thing when you
> see one. By making diplomatic agreements to tap in to the GPS system, Europe
> could not only benefit directly from a system that's already in an advanced

As I already wrote in an earlier post: This is exactly what Europe had
tried. It was the USA who declined, basically saying: Feel free to use
it, but it's ours and we reserve the right to alter the signal or even
to shut it down at any time at our discretion. It was at this point that
Europe said no, thanks.

The future will tell whether this was a good move or not.

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

G,

I agree that GA is screwed here - but not because of pride. Just plain
dumbness.

As for Galileo, well, I used to think it was stupid European pride. In
fact, you'll probably find posts by me through Google, where I'm saying
what a waste of money it is to reinvent the wheel for the benefit of
EADS on the bill of the EU tax payer.

Then, along comes Baby-Bush announcing he might just switch GPS off at
his rather dangerous and illogical whim. All of a sudden, Galileo makes
a lot more sense. Sadly.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I have to wonder about the practicality.
A huge part of emergency response and police forces rely heavily on GPS
to do their thing. In all probability, MORE harm would be done by
switching off GPS after or during a GPS based attack.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:03:49 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Then, along comes Baby-Bush announcing he might just switch GPS off at
>his rather dangerous and illogical whim. All of a sudden, Galileo makes
>a lot more sense. Sadly.

If you are talking about the recent announcement concerning the GPS system,
upon which this thread is based, your impression of that announcement is at
odds the impression of AOPA.

Do you think AOPA's interpretation is incorrect?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Then, along comes Baby-Bush announcing he might just switch GPS off at
> his rather dangerous and illogical whim.

Which he did *not* do. In fact, he just signed a bill which orders the military
to keep it available for civilian use. See
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space.html

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> Do you think AOPA's interpretation is incorrect?
>

I don't know. All I notice is that AOPA seems to be the only voice
interpreting it this way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

G.R.,

> See
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space.html
>

I saw. And I saw
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682
&dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=

My point is this: While all of us probably knew that switching GPS off
was always an option, making it policy gives fuel to the Galileo
proponents.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:47:46 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Ron,
>
>> Do you think AOPA's interpretation is incorrect?
>>
>
>I don't know. All I notice is that AOPA seems to be the only voice
>interpreting it this way.

Perhaps you should read the report itself

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space_facts.pdf

and make your own interpretation, instead of relying on various news
services whose record of accuracy, with regard to aviation matters, has
been less than stellar.

You should also put the document in context with what has been going on in
the past.

I have no doubt that news services no longer just report the news. Rather
they interpret it according to their own agendas. I believe that is what
you are seeing here.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[kage]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> My point is this: While all of us probably knew that switching GPS off
> was always an option, making it policy gives fuel to the Galileo
> proponents.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That would be a good thing. Let's have europe pull it's own weight for ONCE!

Karl

[Marty Shapiro]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> G.R.,
>
>> See
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space.html
>>
>
> I saw. And I saw
> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004121521290001739682
> &dt=20041215212900&w=APO&coview=
>
> My point is this: While all of us probably knew that switching GPS off
> was always an option, making it policy gives fuel to the Galileo
> proponents.
>

The policy of switching off navigation aids under certain conditions has
existed since the early 1960's. The only thing "new" is that the law just
enacted adds GPS to other navigation aids, such as VOR. Read up on SCATANA
(also called SCANTANA). If you dig through some of the news releases, a
limited SCATANA was put into effect on 9/11.

SCATANA is not secret. You can read about it in part 245 of USC 32,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/32cfr245_00.html

Other references can be found at:
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch6/mil0604.html
http://www.fly-low.com/features/scatana.html

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Sully]

It would be interesting to see the differences between the one this
replaced and the current one. It was very interesting reading though
and I think this is another one of the news media's ways of creating
as much panic as possible. There has always been a policy and plan to
shut off GPS availability to keep hostile forces from using it. Yes
Clinton did shut off the degradation portion of it because there was
so much stuff available to correct for it. Even then he did reserve
the right to turn it back on whenever he wanted or it was deemed that
it was needed. Most of what I seen in this was dealing with the
possibility of the system being jammed to where it can't be used in
it's present form. Yes it did mention that it could be denied in
areas of military operations "Deny to adversaries position,
navigation, and timing services from the Global
Positioning System, its augmentations, and/or any other space-based
position,
navigation, and timing systems without unduly disrupting civil,
commercial, and
scientific uses of these services outside an area of military
operations, or for
homeland security purposes; and..." I could be wrong but I do believe
there will be a "TFR" for the military area and you probably wouldn't
want to be flying in that area any way!

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:54:09 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:47:46 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>
>>> Do you think AOPA's interpretation is incorrect?
>>>
>>
>>I don't know. All I notice is that AOPA seems to be the only voice
>>interpreting it this way.
>
>Perhaps you should read the report itself
>
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041216space_facts.pdf
>
>and make your own interpretation, instead of relying on various news
>services whose record of accuracy, with regard to aviation matters, has
>been less than stellar.
>
>You should also put the document in context with what has been going on in
>the past.
>
>I have no doubt that news services no longer just report the news. Rather
>they interpret it according to their own agendas. I believe that is what
>you are seeing here.
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dave Stadt]

"Sully" > wrote in message
...
> It would be interesting to see the differences between the one this
> replaced and the current one. It was very interesting reading though
> and I think this is another one of the news media's ways of creating
> as much panic as possible. There has always been a policy and plan to
> shut off GPS availability to keep hostile forces from using it. Yes
> Clinton did shut off the degradation portion of it because there was
> so much stuff available to correct for it. Even then he did reserve
> the right to turn it back on whenever he wanted or it was deemed that
> it was needed. Most of what I seen in this was dealing with the
> possibility of the system being jammed to where it can't be used in
> it's present form. Yes it did mention that it could be denied in
> areas of military operations "Deny to adversaries position,
> navigation, and timing services from the Global
> Positioning System, its augmentations, and/or any other space-based
> position,
> navigation, and timing systems without unduly disrupting civil,
> commercial, and
> scientific uses of these services outside an area of military
> operations, or for
> homeland security purposes; and..." I could be wrong but I do believe
> there will be a "TFR" for the military area and you probably wouldn't
> want to be flying in that area any way!
>
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:54:09 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> > wrote:

GPS has had localized areas shut down in the past for various reasons. This
whole thing is nothing new and is not worth a mention.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:13:43 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>This whole thing is nothing new and is not worth a mention.

Apparently, what's new is the fact, that GPS shutdown decisions will
now include the DOT as well as the DOD.