Coming to a neighborhood near you

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.