Glitch disables 10,000 military GPS receivers

If the military itself can screw up enough to do this without even trying, you
can imagine what a determined adversary could do to civil aviation
deliberately:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6537473.shtml

Just another reason to keep VORs and other navigation methods as back-ups, or
risk the consequences.

On Jun 4, 5:56*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Just another reason to keep VORs and other navigation methods as back-ups, or
risk the consequences.

Why do you even care. Is it because you can't simulate it in MSFS.

On Jun 4, 6:56*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
If the military itself can screw up enough to do this without even trying, you
can imagine what a determined adversary could do to civil aviation
deliberately:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6537473.shtml

Just another reason to keep VORs and other navigation methods as back-ups, or
risk the consequences.

It would be useful to look at the entire event, underlying causes, and
program developments before making these judgments. You may not know
there are two distinct, and soon to be three distinct, positioning
systems in place.

a writes:

It would be useful to look at the entire event, underlying causes, and
program developments before making these judgments.

It's unlikely that the military will release the details.

You may not know there are two distinct, and soon to be three distinct,
positioning systems in place.

I know that, but only one of them works decently and is likely to continue
doing so, and that's the American system.

Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It would be useful to look at the entire event, underlying causes, and
program developments before making these judgments.

It's unlikely that the military will release the details.

There were enough details in your reference to determine your conclusions
were nonsense.

You may not know there are two distinct, and soon to be three distinct,
positioning systems in place.

I know that, but only one of them works decently and is likely to continue
doing so, and that's the American system.

Sigh.

There are two distinct, and soon to be three distinct, positioning systems
in place in the American GPS system.

As for national systems, there are seven systems planned to be in place:
GPS, Galileo, Beidou, COMPASS, GLONASS, IRNSS, QZSS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 4, 11:40*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
It would be useful to look at the entire event, underlying causes, and
program developments before making these judgments.

It's unlikely that the military will release the details.

You may not know there are two distinct, and soon to be three distinct,
positioning systems in place.

I know that, but only one of them works decently and is likely to continue
doing so, and that's the American system.

Which of the two independent operating US GP Systems has your
approval, and how do you compare them with the upcoming one? I think
it was the DOD one, with precisions measured in centimeters, that was
compromised, not the one authorized during the Regan era -- his
decision, based on improving precision for long distance flights, was
made to make less likely the shoot downs of airliners as happened off
the Russian coast during his term, and that gave rise to the GPS
driven world you simulate. But you knew that, I am sure.

a writes:

Which of the two independent operating US GP Systems has your
approval, and how do you compare them with the upcoming one?

There is only one American GPS system. You may be confusing systems with
operational signals or frequencies. There are two frequencies in use, L1 and
L2, and two operational navigation signals, C/A and P(Y).

I think it was the DOD one, with precisions measured in centimeters,
that was compromised, not the one authorized during the Regan era ...

You mean the precision (P, now Y) code, as opposed to the coarse acquisition
code? These are parts of the same system. At one time, the idea was to start
with the coarse code, then improve positioning with the precision code, but
the military didn't want to extend use of the precision code to civilian
users, and also wanted to avoid spoofing, so it encrypted the precision code,
making P into Y.

The third frequency will be another dual-use frequency. Its main advantage
will be that it will provide a second frequency to civilians, which will make
it easier for receivers to measure sources of signal delay in the atmosphere.

The signals have only an indirect precision; much depends on the receivers.
For example, modern receivers obtain much better precision with the C/A code
than the original receivers, by employing various tricks. The P(Y) code has
potentially better precision because of its higher chip rate, and receivers
using both frequencies (only possible for P(Y), because the C/A code is only
broadcast on one frequency) can also correct for atmospheric effects better.

Yes, I'm a bit rusty, as it has been years since I was last into this. But
I've learned and forgotten more than most people will ever know about GPS. GPS
became less interesting to me when manufacturers started putting databases
into the receivers, eliminating the need for a lot of navigation skill, and
then every dork in town started considering himself an expert on the system.

The other two systems are Russia's shaky GLONASS and the vaporware Galileo
designed by Eurocrats, neither of which is as impressive as GPS.

In article ,
says...

Yes, I'm a bit rusty, as it has been years since I was last into this. But
I've learned and forgotten more than most people will ever know about GPS.
GPS
became less interesting to me when manufacturers started putting databases
into the receivers, eliminating the need for a lot of navigation skill, and
then every dork in town started considering himself an expert on the system.



Perhaps we can hold out hope that the same "Flash, Trash and Forget" scenario
will play out with regard to aviation in general and you will permit pilots to
chat amongst themselves without having to wade through the vast wasteland of
ignorance you cast for miles around you.

Mxsmanic wrote:
If the military itself can screw up enough to do this without even trying, you
can imagine what a determined adversary could do to civil aviation
deliberately:

So a "determined adversary" is somehow going to be installing updated
software for the military functions on GPS satellites?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6537473.shtml

Did you even bother to read the article and understand what it said?

Apparently not.

Just another reason to keep VORs and other navigation methods as back-ups, or
risk the consequences.

By that logic, if the military does a TACAN update, all the VOR's are in
danger.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...


If the military itself can screw up enough to do this without even trying,
you
can imagine what a determined adversary could do to civil aviation
deliberately:


A while back MX told us he has _no interest_ in learning to use G1000, or any
of the newer cockpit navigators. It makes sense then that he wants VOR’s to
remain in use forever and that he automatically files airways without even
thinking that GPS routing might be more efficient. This is fine - not being a
pilot he has the right to be interested in whatever aspects of aviation he
wants, but his cherry-picking method derives directly from the fact that he
does not have the responsibility of getting an airplane from A to B and is
putting him each day further behind, locked in a world no longer inhabited by
aviation. This sort of puts the lie to his incessant claim that he wants to
_discuss aviation_. He only wants to discuss certain topics he feels he knows
something about (and he does) and he appears to betray a sense of injustice
that the real world of aviation is moving on without him.