Coming to a neighborhood near you

[LWG]

I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
Cumberland for business. This past Thursday, I decided to drive. I took my
Garmin Nuvi GPS along for the ride. In the vicinity of Hagerstown
(Maryland) the GPS went tango uniform. The screen worked, but the unit
indicated that satellite reception was lost. A few minutes later, the GPS
came back on, but then quickly died. On the way back to Baltimore late
Thursday morning, the unit remained nonfunctional. The satellite reception
page showed absolutely no signal from any bird. I tried wiggling the little
antenna panel, thinking that perhaps the antenna failed. I have a spare
antenna from my 295 which I thought I could use to test the receiver
function. I tried recycling the GPS, but nothing worked. The unit went
through its startup procedure, inquiring about relocation since last use,
etc. Even when reception is poor, the satellite page always shows some
level of signal unless the unit is indoors. There was nothing.

I left the unit on at the satellite page, primarily because I was too lazy
to reach up and turn it off. As I was coming down the ridge towards
Frederick (east), the unit lit up, and worked perfectly since, up through
today.

For those of you not familiar with this area of the country, P-40 or Camp
David is a little north of the route I was driving, just to the east of
Hagerstown. I received an email from AOPA that P-40 was supersized the
following day, Friday, indicating presidential or VIP presence. I have seen
notams about NAS Pax River spoofing/degrading/screwing with the GPS signal
in their vicinity, but I haven't seen anything about a remote interference
with the GPS signal (but since I drove, I didn't really check recently,
either).

So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

[Tina]

Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.



On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
> Cumberland for business. This past Thursday, I decided to drive. I took my
> Garmin Nuvi GPS along for the ride. In the vicinity of Hagerstown
> (Maryland) the GPS went tango uniform. The screen worked, but the unit
> indicated that satellite reception was lost. A few minutes later, the GPS
> came back on, but then quickly died. On the way back to Baltimore late
> Thursday morning, the unit remained nonfunctional. The satellite reception
> page showed absolutely no signal from any bird. I tried wiggling the little
> antenna panel, thinking that perhaps the antenna failed. I have a spare
> antenna from my 295 which I thought I could use to test the receiver
> function. I tried recycling the GPS, but nothing worked. The unit went
> through its startup procedure, inquiring about relocation since last use,
> etc. Even when reception is poor, the satellite page always shows some
> level of signal unless the unit is indoors. There was nothing.
>
> I left the unit on at the satellite page, primarily because I was too lazy
> to reach up and turn it off. As I was coming down the ridge towards
> Frederick (east), the unit lit up, and worked perfectly since, up through
> today.
>
> For those of you not familiar with this area of the country, P-40 or Camp
> David is a little north of the route I was driving, just to the east of
> Hagerstown. I received an email from AOPA that P-40 was supersized the
> following day, Friday, indicating presidential or VIP presence. I have seen
> notams about NAS Pax River spoofing/degrading/screwing with the GPS signal
> in their vicinity, but I haven't seen anything about a remote interference
> with the GPS signal (but since I drove, I didn't really check recently,
> either).
>
> So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

[[email protected]]

Tina > wrote:
> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[DougS[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Tina > wrote:
>> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
>> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
>> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
>
> In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> radio service.
>
> However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a police
state.

In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

>
> Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
> etc. or there would be chaos.
>
> But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.
>

This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh at
me all to way to the jail <g>

[[email protected]]

DougS > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tina > wrote:
> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
> >
> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> > radio service.
> >
> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.

> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a police
> state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

> In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the practice
> of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

> > Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
> > etc. or there would be chaos.
> >
> > But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.
> >

> This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
> Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
> were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh at
> me all to way to the jail <g>

There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[DougS[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> DougS > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Tina > wrote:
>> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
>> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
>> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
>> >
>> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
>> > radio service.
>> >
>> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.
>
>> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
>> police
>> state.
>
> The topic is interference with radio services.

*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

Your statement: The US government is not bound by this [the law that states
that it is illegal to cause interference].

OK. Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not know
the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not the law
explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I presumed
case B.

>
>> In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the
>> practice
>> of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.
>
> Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with the government's violating its own laws.
Gitmo was used as an example of our blind eye in the name of "National
Security." My point is that the government starts small. (Violating laws
that noone really cares/knows about). But by doing so, the citizens of the
country are slowly giving up liberties. It sets a dangerous precedent and
allows the country to follow a VERY slippery slope.

>
>> > Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules,
>> > allocations,
>> > etc. or there would be chaos.
>> >
>> > But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are
>> > off.
>> >
>
>> This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
>> Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
>> were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh
>> at
>> me all to way to the jail <g>
>
> There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

What does it matter? You've stated that there are magic words (namely:
National Security) that cause all bets to be off. Replace "kill someone"
with "interfere with radio services" if it makes you happy.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:09:12 -0400, DougS wrote:

> Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
> interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not
> know the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not
> the law explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I
> presumed case B.


In fact, given the history of GPS, I'm not be particularly surprised to
find it legal for the US to degrade the signal, one way or another, in
times of National Emergency. It's not that long since it was degraded -
for civilian use - as a matter of course.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

DougS > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > DougS > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Tina > wrote:
> >> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> >> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> >> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
> >> >
> >> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> >> > radio service.
> >> >
> >> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.
> >
> >> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
> >> police
> >> state.
> >
> > The topic is interference with radio services.

> *And* the legality thereof.
> Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
> service.
> Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
> Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
> service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Judah]

"DougS" > wrote in
news:OaudnasLKOUmOT7bnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that
> "National Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I*
> as a citizen were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the
> cops would laugh at me all to way to the jail <g>

And yet if you actually took out Osama or one of his 52 pickup face cards,
and were able to prove it, you would quickly be released as a national
hero. They'd probably even name a holiday after you.

People have turned a blind eye to rule-breaking in the name of protecting
the "greater good" for a very long time. It is only the recent blatant
abuse of this privilege by the current administration that has made the
entire world cynical about it, and has eradicated the trust in our country
and what it stands for by its own people and world population. So now, you
can claim, like everyone else who cries wolf, that you have behaved in the
best interests of National Security or the Greater Good. But it's so played
out that no one buys that load of crap anymore.


At one time in history, America was admired as a country that stood for
courage, integrity, dignity, and true democracy, even in the face of
terror, war (won or lost), and economic despair.

Our current president, and the 2 presidents before him, have effectively
turned this country into the punchline of a very bad ethnic joke.

Maybe I am wrong, because I am too young to remember personally, but I
don't think anyone ever questioned the _integrity_ of our entry into the
Vietnam war, even though many people objected to it. And when we left, we
still maintained a decorum of respect, instead of being laughing stocks and
depicted as wild, stupid, corrupt cowboys.

No one remembers the Depression as a time when the government manipulated
the country to eliminate the middle class and further separate the rich
from the poor. Instead, the government established public services
specifically to help the poor and prevent a recurrence. There was nothing
to Fear but Fear itself...

This country has gone through many tough times in its relatively short
history. But in our pursuit of Freedom and its protection, it always seemed
as though "Right beat Might", and in the end, and we were remembered in
history for our integrity and dignity, as we progressed further forward as
a world power.

Our Great Presidents were able to move worlds with just a few words and
their own passion, integrity, and respectability.

We desperately need a Great President.

I can't say how we will be remembered in history, but I don't think it will
match our model through time till now...

[Tina]

I am old enough to remember 'Nam, and Johnson and McNamara playing
their games, sending messages, and wasting lives while doing it. The
men and women wearing uniforms were insulted by those who objected to
that war, but the real objection should have been directed at the
leadership.

It was bad policy, or no policy. Nearly every conflict model suggests
if one side goes in with overwhelming force, total bloodshed will be
reduced. It took less time to end WW2 than this conflict, or for that
matter 'Nam, because the leadership lacked the courage to plan so as
to win and give the people in uniform all they need to finish a job
with a defined endpoint.

'Nam was a shame and we have a wall with 55,000 names on it because of
failed leadership. A shrine to those who fell in Iraq might have an
identical story. We weep at the graves in Normandy and elsewhere, but
most would agree the blood shed there, although tragic, brought a
worthwhile end. At the Wall in Washington I am as likely to curse as
weep because of the stupid waste of lives.

The ending in 'Nam and Iraq to not justify the means, and one could
argue Truman erred in Korea as well.

In time the US will become a minor power, and historians in China or
whomever is the world leader then might study this country's path from
about the 1950s onward to understand our decline as a world power.
Maybe their study will help them avoid making the same mistakes.

Tina

[Ron]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:18:56 -0000, Tina >
wrote:

>Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
>would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
>when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
>
>
>
>On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
>> I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
>> Cumberland for business. This past Thursday, I decided to drive. I took my
>> Garmin Nuvi GPS along for the ride. In the vicinity of Hagerstown
>> (Maryland) the GPS went tango uniform. The screen worked, but the unit
>> indicated that satellite reception was lost. A few minutes later, the GPS
>> came back on, but then quickly died. On the way back to Baltimore late
>> Thursday morning, the unit remained nonfunctional. The satellite reception
>> page showed absolutely no signal from any bird. I tried wiggling the little
>> antenna panel, thinking that perhaps the antenna failed. I have a spare
>> antenna from my 295 which I thought I could use to test the receiver
>> function. I tried recycling the GPS, but nothing worked. The unit went
>> through its startup procedure, inquiring about relocation since last use,
>> etc. Even when reception is poor, the satellite page always shows some
>> level of signal unless the unit is indoors. There was nothing.
>>
>> I left the unit on at the satellite page, primarily because I was too lazy
>> to reach up and turn it off. As I was coming down the ridge towards
>> Frederick (east), the unit lit up, and worked perfectly since, up through
>> today.
>>
>> For those of you not familiar with this area of the country, P-40 or Camp
>> David is a little north of the route I was driving, just to the east of
>> Hagerstown. I received an email from AOPA that P-40 was supersized the
>> following day, Friday, indicating presidential or VIP presence. I have seen
>> notams about NAS Pax River spoofing/degrading/screwing with the GPS signal
>> in their vicinity, but I haven't seen anything about a remote interference
>> with the GPS signal (but since I drove, I didn't really check recently,
>> either).
>>
>> So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
>> want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
>> in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
>> frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
>> so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.
>
Where I fly in Southern California, it is not uncommon for certain
agencies in restricted areas to degrade or completely turn off GPS
signals. However, these are always preceded by NOTAM and the area of
non-operation are strictly defined. Lately, these have been cone
shaped outages originating from a point on the ground and gradually
increasing in diameter as altitude increases. The area involved
seems to be adjustable, but does not change once it has been defined
in the NOTAM. If one flies to the area you will get an immediate loss
of signal exactly where they define it, and the signal will return
when you depart the exact area defined. These guys are good.

My son was involved in some flight tests that were conducted over the
Pacific off the Southern California coast. They would get
notification that GPS was not reliable beyond a certain longitude and
watching the GPS count down while flying westerly, the signal dropped
at exactly the longitude they said it would.

So, yes, the government can and does interfere with satellite
navigation. However in our case it was always stated in advance for a
fixed amount of time, and they never have shut down the system over a
congested flight area. As far as we are concerned, it is a non-event.

Ron

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:09:12 -0400, DougS wrote:
>
>> Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
>> interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do
>> not know the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know
>> whether or not the law explicity grants the rights of interference
>> to the government, I presumed case B.
>
>
> In fact, given the history of GPS, I'm not be particularly surprised
> to find it legal for the US to degrade the signal, one way or
> another, in times of National Emergency. It's not that long since it
> was degraded - for civilian use - as a matter of course.
>
> - Andrew

GPS is owned by the DOD. It is basicly a weapons system. They have always
retained the right to degrade the signal or even turn it off. This isn't
new.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
> DougS > wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> > > DougS > wrote:
> > >> > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> > Tina > wrote:
> > >> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> > >> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> > >> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
>
> > >> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> > >> > radio service.
>
> > >> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.
>
> > >> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
> > >> police
> > >> state.
>
> > > The topic is interference with radio services.
> > *And* the legality thereof.
> > Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
> > service.
> > Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
> > Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
> > service.
>
> The FCC doesn't write laws.
>
> The FCC writes regulations.
>
> The Congress writes laws.
>
> I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
> educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
> at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
> crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
> election anyway.
>

That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
(written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?

The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
regulations and not law after all.

Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
pilots).

BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
change with the next election is flawed to say the least.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:

> So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
> > DougS > wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > DougS > wrote:
> > > >> > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> > Tina > wrote:
> > > >> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> > > >> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> > > >> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
> >
> > > >> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> > > >> > radio service.
> >
> > > >> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.
> >
> > > >> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
> > > >> police
> > > >> state.
> >
> > > > The topic is interference with radio services.
> > > *And* the legality thereof.
> > > Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
> > > service.
> > > Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
> > > Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
> > > service.
> >
> > The FCC doesn't write laws.
> >
> > The FCC writes regulations.
> >
> > The Congress writes laws.
> >
> > I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
> > educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
> > at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
> > crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
> > election anyway.
> >

> That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
> (written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
> CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
> executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
> Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
> you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
> aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
> then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?

The Federal Government must obey the Constitution and those laws
enacted by Congress that say so.

Does any Federal organization file a tax return?

Will the FAA ramp check a USAF F-16 pilot to see he has all his
documentation?

Will the FCC bust the Army because none of their field radios has
a station license?

Will the DOT bust a Marine convoy because their vehicles don't meet
highways safety standards for headlight height and bumpers?

> The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
> however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
> 463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
> impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
> other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
> through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
> around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
> without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
> regulations and not law after all.

You are not the Federal Government.

> Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
> government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
> a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
> pilots).

Life is not fair; get over it.

> BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
> officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
> or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
> regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
> presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
> change with the next election is flawed to say the least.

Then why bother to mention Gitmo in an aviation group when the topic
is GPS and "jamming" thereof?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:

> > So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> > want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> > in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> > frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> > so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.

> I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
> supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
> the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
> area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
> an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
> incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
> in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?

A. To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
no one is supposed to be in the first place, just like a gunnery
range.

B. To prevent the use of GPS guided "devices" which these days can
be assembled from stuff obtained from hobby stores.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
> Doug Semler > wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> > > So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> > > want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> > > in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> > > frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> > > so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.
> > I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
> > supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
> > the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
> > area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
> > an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
> > incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
> > in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?
>
> A. To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> no one is supposed to be in the first place, just like a gunnery
> range.

We're talking presidential TFRs here, not gunnery ranges. (You
started it <g>)

>
> B. To prevent the use of GPS guided "devices" which these days can
> be assembled from stuff obtained from hobby stores.
>

I submit that there is a higher probablity of a TFR being busted by a
pilot who erred in navigation than by "GPS guided 'devices'."

And yes, I know that GPS allowance is an "alternate," not "substitute"
method of RNAV when the applicable radio station(s) are operational.
But I can still hear the "oh **** what was that VOR freq again?" in
the cockpit when the GPS goes tits up.

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
> > Doug Semler > wrote:
> > > On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> > > > So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> > > > want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> > > > in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> > > > frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> > > > so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.
> > > I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
> > > supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
> > > the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
> > > area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
> > > an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
> > > incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
> > > in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?
> >
> > A. To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> > no one is supposed to be in the first place, just like a gunnery
> > range.

> We're talking presidential TFRs here, not gunnery ranges. (You
> started it <g>)

OK, To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
no one is supposed to be in the first place.

How's that?

> > B. To prevent the use of GPS guided "devices" which these days can
> > be assembled from stuff obtained from hobby stores.
> >

> I submit that there is a higher probablity of a TFR being busted by a
> pilot who erred in navigation than by "GPS guided 'devices'."

I never said the reasons would make any sense in the real world.

> And yes, I know that GPS allowance is an "alternate," not "substitute"
> method of RNAV when the applicable radio station(s) are operational.
> But I can still hear the "oh **** what was that VOR freq again?" in
> the cockpit when the GPS goes tits up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 3:25 pm, wrote:
> Doug Semler > wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
> > > Doug Semler > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> > > > > So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> > > > > want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> > > > > in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> > > > > frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> > > > > so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.
> > > > I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
> > > > supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
> > > > the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
> > > > area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
> > > > an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
> > > > incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
> > > > in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?
>
> > > A. To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> > > no one is supposed to be in the first place, just like a gunnery
> > > range.
> > We're talking presidential TFRs here, not gunnery ranges. (You
> > started it <g>)
>
> OK, To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> no one is supposed to be in the first place.
>
> How's that?

Better, but it was my (perhaps misguided) understanding that in these
cases GPS is (should be?) NOTAM'ed OTS. Not that a TFR would be put
in place because "no one should be there". I was under the impression
that there are specific requirements for utilizing GPS equipment as a
substitute for other means, and one of those requirements is that
there can't be a predicted continuous loss of RAIM for longer than
something like 5 minutes along the route of flight.

Jamming the GPS signal would, to me, be a continuous loss of RAIM
unless the jamming was able to be constrained ENTIRELY within any
restricted airspace, including TFRs <g>.

Hey, maybe I just figured out why Bush's TFR is bigger than Cheney's.
They need to make it bigger so that they can jam GPS signals without
grounding any RNAV flights along the outskirts.

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:25 pm, wrote:
> > Doug Semler > wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
> > > > Doug Semler > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> > > > > > So, for those of you (like me) who have become dependent upon GPS, you may
> > > > > > want to think about whether the government has a reason to block the signal
> > > > > > in the vicinity of your flight. If so, you may wish to make sure those VOR
> > > > > > frequencies are handy. The disappearance and reappearance of the signal was
> > > > > > so dramatic that my only conclusion is that the signal was blocked locally.
> > > > > I was thinking about this (and the fact that you stated the TFR was
> > > > > supersized). It seems odd to me that an entity would want to remove
> > > > > the GPS signal (since it is used for navigation) in a high security
> > > > > area. If anything, I would think that the powers that be would WANT
> > > > > an accurate signal in that area to assist in the PREVENTION of
> > > > > incursions. What would be the logic in removing an aid to navigation
> > > > > in an area where accurate navigation is absolutely required?
> >
> > > > A. To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> > > > no one is supposed to be in the first place, just like a gunnery
> > > > range.
> > > We're talking presidential TFRs here, not gunnery ranges. (You
> > > started it <g>)
> >
> > OK, To test the effectiveness of jamming equipment in an area where
> > no one is supposed to be in the first place.
> >
> > How's that?

> Better, but it was my (perhaps misguided) understanding that in these
> cases GPS is (should be?) NOTAM'ed OTS. Not that a TFR would be put
> in place because "no one should be there". I was under the impression
> that there are specific requirements for utilizing GPS equipment as a
> substitute for other means, and one of those requirements is that
> there can't be a predicted continuous loss of RAIM for longer than
> something like 5 minutes along the route of flight.

There are often NOTAM's that GPS is not available in certain areas
of the SouthWest when there are no VIP's in the area and the center
of those areas is usually someplace with either a restricted or
prohibited area around it.

> Jamming the GPS signal would, to me, be a continuous loss of RAIM
> unless the jamming was able to be constrained ENTIRELY within any
> restricted airspace, including TFRs <g>.

At GPS frequencies, it doen't take much antenna technology to keep
a jamming signal within a defined cone.

If that cone happens to extend past a special use airspace boundary
a bit, there should be, and probably is a NOTAM.

> Hey, maybe I just figured out why Bush's TFR is bigger than Cheney's.
> They need to make it bigger so that they can jam GPS signals without
> grounding any RNAV flights along the outskirts.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Doug Semler" > wrote

> I submit that there is a higher probablity of a TFR being busted by a
> pilot who erred in navigation than by "GPS guided 'devices'."
>
You have to think "greatest harm."

If someone wanders in with no ill intentions, he may or not get busted, but in
the end, no harm to the protectorate.

If someone uses gps to guide a weapon , conventional or assorted WMD, the
possibility of harm is indeed high.

True, not much chance, but even a small chance of the "greatest harm" is more
than someone in charge is willing to take.
--
Jim in NC

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
> Doug Semler > wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
> > > DougS > wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > DougS > wrote:
> > > > >> > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> > Tina > wrote:
> > > > >> >> Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
> > > > >> >> would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
> > > > >> >> when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.
>
> > > > >> > In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
> > > > >> > radio service.
>
> > > > >> > However, the the US government is not bound by this.
>
> > > > >> Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
> > > > >> police
> > > > >> state.
>
> > > > > The topic is interference with radio services.
> > > > *And* the legality thereof.
> > > > Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
> > > > service.
> > > > Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
> > > > Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
> > > > service.
>
> > > The FCC doesn't write laws.
>
> > > The FCC writes regulations.
>
> > > The Congress writes laws.
>
> > > I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
> > > educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
> > > at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
> > > crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
> > > election anyway.
>
> > That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
> > (written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
> > CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
> > executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
> > Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
> > you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
> > aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
> > then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?
>
> The Federal Government must obey the Constitution and those laws
> enacted by Congress that say so.

Isn't that what I said? By extension, they must obey the CFRs
>
> Does any Federal organization file a tax return?

Don't be silly. A federal organization doesn't fall under the
definitions of required filers.

>
> Will the FAA ramp check a USAF F-16 pilot to see he has all his
> documentation?

Just because they can doesn't mean they will (assuming that they can
<g>)

>
> Will the FCC bust the Army because none of their field radios has
> a station license?

Army field radios aren't category B

>
> Will the DOT bust a Marine convoy because their vehicles don't meet
> highways safety standards for headlight height and bumpers?

The DOT doesn't have jursidiction for this over the highways in any
particular state. Each indiviudal state does. And each state has
specific exemptions regarding military vehicles on their highways.
But neither does it mean that the convoy can go down the highway at
100 miles per hour either.


Here are some questions:
Are military ATC controlles certificated?
Do military aircraft require IFR clearances in IMC (not in
restricted airspace).


>
> > The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
> > however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
> > 463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
> > impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
> > other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
> > through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
> > around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
> > without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
> > regulations and not law after all.
>
> You are not the Federal Government.

So if I were, I could.

>
> > Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
> > government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
> > a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
> > pilots).
>
> Life is not fair; get over it.

When people try to play by the rules, and expect the rules to be
followed by all parties, but the rules are arbitrary for certain
parties, it can create a dangerous situation (see re: military flights
filing IFR)

>
> > BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
> > officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
> > or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
> > regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
> > presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
> > change with the next election is flawed to say the least.
>
> Then why bother to mention Gitmo in an aviation group when the topic
> is GPS and "jamming" thereof?

<sheesh> Ever heard of "example to prove a point?"

[Blueskies]

"LWG" > wrote in message . ..
>I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
>
>

Unless there is a national emergency in country GPS blocking is not used. You are flying a Garmin, right? Seems lots of
folks have intermittent reception issues with those. Google 396 reception or similar and see what you come up with...

[LWG]

Actually I was driving, but it was a Garmin nuvi. This was a very strange
case of "intermittent reception," if that's was it was. As I said in the
original post, I had the satellite position/strength page up for that trip,
and there was *no* signal from any of the satellites. Then, *poof* there
they were. I have never had that happen before, with that unit or the 295 I
use in the air. I've read a number of posts about loss of reception with
Garmin units, but I've never had it happen after 4 years of use. I use the
standard yoke mount and just the internal antenna.

Pax River advertises that they mess with the signal, so somebody's working
on it.

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "LWG" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I had an interesting experience Thursday. I often fly from Baltimore to
>>
>>
>
> Unless there is a national emergency in country GPS blocking is not used.
> You are flying a Garmin, right? Seems lots of folks have intermittent
> reception issues with those. Google 396 reception or similar and see what
> you come up with...
>