A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GPS Interference Testing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 10th 16, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,384
Default GPS Interference Testing

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:23:46 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I suspect it's from ground based emitters.


A hand held device, perhaps the size of an Icom A22?
Cheeky *******s.
Jim
  #12  
Old June 10th 16, 05:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Kinsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default GPS Interference Testing

No, was north of Denver which is farther away from Alamagordo.

Current GPS domestic notams should be visible he

http://tinyurl.com/prds7nr

They list two sets of coordinates, neither of which match the China Lake
coordinates which were listed in the original advisory note (which is
still on the web, btw). So maybe the original China Lake testing has
been canceled, replaced by similar testing in other locations?

All the information I've seen indicates a ground-based emitter, with an
upside-down wedding cake area of interference.

Maybe the old 302 is starting to kick the bucket, seems like an unusual
failure mode though.

-Dave





On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:23:40 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

Hi Dave,

Were you within 300 nm of Alamogordo? I haven't checked the notams, but
you could have gotten zinged by some of the continuous testing which
seems to go on there. BTW, do you know where the jamming is coming
from? If it's from orbit, being low in CO wouldn't matter too much, but
I suspect it's from ground based emitters.


On 6/10/2016 8:39 AM, David Kinsell wrote:
You should be loading up on lotto tickets, Dan.

Interestingly, I had a decent flight yesterday, everything seemed to be
working fine. Up until just before the landing pattern, when GPS
altitude indication started flipping between correct altitude, and 0.

It was just a couple minutes around 23:19 zulu, 5:19 pm local. IGC
file uploaded to OLC, no problem, you can pull it from region 9 US.
Got the two green dots from OLC, plane didn't start doing Dutch rolls
or anything, but it does seem strange that my trusty 302 would choose
June 9 to start acting up. Viewing the file on SeeYou shows what I was
seeing in the cockpit.

Down low in Colorado, wouldn't have thought the canceled China Lake
testing (whose notams never seem to go away) could be involved here,
but who knows?

-Dave




On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:06:23 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

I flew my Stemme from Minden to Moriarty yesterday (after a week of
soaring!) and had GPS coverage for the entire trip. Guess I got
lucky...


On 6/7/2016 8:13 AM, Eric Bick (ZN7) wrote:
Everyone out west seen this NOTAM re GPS interference testing. Covers
most of the western US - NoCal and SoCal soaring sites, OR, Nephi,
Parowan, other - and continues throughout June on selected dates.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jun/

CHLK_16-08_GPS_Flight_Advisory.pdf


  #13  
Old June 10th 16, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default GPS Interference Testing

Wild hypothetical, what if GPS gaming is going on durning a contest and some or all contestants lose part of the logging of points on course? Years ago I was denied a Diamond distance/goal because of about four minutes where the Cambridge logger didn't log. I returned and flew that segment of the flight but was still denied. It was obvious that I could not have landed and taken off again.

Also, does the GPS jamming affect 406 ELT's? What about planes on IFR plans solely using GPS for navigation?
  #14  
Old June 10th 16, 06:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default GPS Interference Testing

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Wild hypothetical, what if GPS gaming is going on durning a contest and some or all contestants lose part of the logging of points on course? Years ago I was denied a Diamond distance/goal because of about four minutes where the Cambridge logger didn't log. I returned and flew that segment of the flight but was still denied. It was obvious that I could not have landed and taken off again.

Also, does the GPS jamming affect 406 ELT's? What about planes on IFR plans solely using GPS for navigation?


406MHz ELTs with GPS... sure possibly. But all 406MHz ELTs are also capable of SARSAT/COSPAS doppler location and have 121.5 MHz homing beacon. Practical impacts on air navigation are a much higher level concern.

  #15  
Old June 10th 16, 06:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Kinsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default GPS Interference Testing

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:01:13 -0700, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

Wild hypothetical, what if GPS gaming is going on durning a contest and
some or all contestants lose part of the logging of points on course?
Years ago I was denied a Diamond distance/goal because of about four
minutes where the Cambridge logger didn't log. I returned and flew that
segment of the flight but was still denied. It was obvious that I could
not have landed and taken off again.

Also, does the GPS jamming affect 406 ELT's? What about planes on IFR
plans solely using GPS for navigation?


You know that Embraer jet they keep mentioning in the notams? Apparently
a real problem:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...11_EMB-300.pdf

Who would have thought loss of GPS would cause flight control problems?
Losing points in some glider competition is way down on the list when it
comes to things to worry about. How about when the whole air traffic
control system becomes reliant on ADS-B and GPS gets jammed, either by
the military or maybe even some bad guys?
  #16  
Old June 10th 16, 09:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default GPS Interference Testing

The DOD has been doing this for awhile now. I flew through central Nevada near Wilson Creek a few weeks ago and it shut both of my GPS units down. We were on an IFR flight plan in touch with ATC and you wouldn't believe the ruckus it was creating. There were quite a few very concerned pilots. We just asked for vectors and got it, no big deal. Eventually we left the zone and our gps started working again. My first thought was that there was something wrong with the plane.

Personally, I think the DOD is listening in on ATC frequencies and we are part of the experiment to determine the range of some new kind of jamming device.
  #17  
Old June 10th 16, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Kinsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default GPS Interference Testing

I was N of Denver CO, which has had notams listing two centers of
activity. One appears to be Area 51, the other one Yuma Proving Grounds.

Those are so far S I can't believe they were involved, I was just a
couple thousand feet AGL when the issue popped up. But I'll be a whole
lot closer to '51 next week.

-Dave



On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:23:40 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

Hi Dave,

Were you within 300 nm of Alamogordo? I haven't checked the notams, but
you could have gotten zinged by some of the continuous testing which
seems to go on there. BTW, do you know where the jamming is coming
from? If it's from orbit, being low in CO wouldn't matter too much, but
I suspect it's from ground based emitters.


On 6/10/2016 8:39 AM, David Kinsell wrote:
You should be loading up on lotto tickets, Dan.

Interestingly, I had a decent flight yesterday, everything seemed to be
working fine. Up until just before the landing pattern, when GPS
altitude indication started flipping between correct altitude, and 0.

It was just a couple minutes around 23:19 zulu, 5:19 pm local. IGC
file uploaded to OLC, no problem, you can pull it from region 9 US.
Got the two green dots from OLC, plane didn't start doing Dutch rolls
or anything, but it does seem strange that my trusty 302 would choose
June 9 to start acting up. Viewing the file on SeeYou shows what I was
seeing in the cockpit.

Down low in Colorado, wouldn't have thought the canceled China Lake
testing (whose notams never seem to go away) could be involved here,
but who knows?

-Dave




On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:06:23 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

I flew my Stemme from Minden to Moriarty yesterday (after a week of
soaring!) and had GPS coverage for the entire trip. Guess I got
lucky...


On 6/7/2016 8:13 AM, Eric Bick (ZN7) wrote:
Everyone out west seen this NOTAM re GPS interference testing. Covers
most of the western US - NoCal and SoCal soaring sites, OR, Nephi,
Parowan, other - and continues throughout June on selected dates.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jun/

CHLK_16-08_GPS_Flight_Advisory.pdf


  #18  
Old June 11th 16, 02:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default GPS Interference Testing

My son is an engineer and is involved in contract work with ratheon out at the nellis test site. He tells me a bunch of the testing is involving ground based station deliberately jamming gps sigs to provide training for fighter aircraft in dealing with airborne gps interference.
As many of you engineer types might know, the gps system utilizes the 1.5ghz band. This high of freq provides for a very narrow bandwidth thus it propogates very well with very low power. However, due to the narrow bandwidth it is very easy to jam the signal.
  #19  
Old June 11th 16, 04:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default GPS Interference Testing

These notams have been coming out for years, but maybe the testing is finally starting to affect aircraft at a great distance from the source.

Here's an interesting article about GPS testing: https://fas.org/spp/military/program/nav/gpsjam.pdf

I also recall seeing a thread about truck drivers using GPS jammers to thwart being tracked ant these could affect aircraft nearby.

5Z
  #20  
Old June 11th 16, 02:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Kinsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default GPS Interference Testing

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:27:51 -0700, tom wrote:

These notams have been coming out for years, but maybe the testing is
finally starting to affect aircraft at a great distance from the source.

Here's an interesting article about GPS testing:
https://fas.org/spp/military/program/nav/gpsjam.pdf

I also recall seeing a thread about truck drivers using GPS jammers to
thwart being tracked ant these could affect aircraft nearby.

5Z


Right, GPS jamming has been going on for years, but it seems to be
getting worse. Yuma Proving Grounds is an Army facility, China Lake is
Navy, Area 51 I suppose is mainly Air Force.

On top of that, the notams are whacky, still showing one for Denver from
the Yuma facility, max radius is listed as 219 nm and yet they're about
700 sm apart. Badly need graphical representations of these things.

-Dave
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
4G and GPS interference Frank Whiteley Soaring 4 February 25th 11 03:47 PM
Testing the Testing of Mogas Jay Honeck Piloting 22 July 24th 06 09:38 PM
GPS interference testing Howard Banks Soaring 7 June 4th 05 06:53 PM
re GPS interference testing Howard Banks Soaring 1 May 30th 05 04:12 AM
GPS Interference Testing # 711 reporting [email protected] Soaring 8 May 28th 05 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.