Coming to a neighborhood near you

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

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

"LWG" wrote in message news
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...

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
news
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...