[SystemSafety] GPS jamming
Mike Rothon
mike.rothon at certisa.com
Fri Jul 12 12:21:55 CEST 2019
The incident report is available on the NASA ASRS database at
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html. Search by Report Number
(ACN) for 1565516.
It was a Cessna Citation 560XL, a mid-size business jet. These are
reasonably well equipped, usually a single or dual Honeywell Primus 1000
package (when built).
I thought this system was capable of DME/DME as well, but I have no idea
how the solution would be compared or prioritised against a solid WAAS
signal.
It would seem that the action was more 'spoofing' rather than jamming,
so probably the avionics thought it was getting a good signal (I'm
speculating here though).
It is worth noting that the report was made by a qualified controller.
His / her assessment is quite definitive and chilling really.
Mike
On 12/07/2019 10:40, SPRIGGS, John J wrote:
>
> Hi Dewi,
>
> The original article does not tell us enough; if it were an airliner,
> it could not use ‘vanilla GPS’ and would have to have the RAIM
> capability mentioned in 1.7.1 of the document to which you linked.
>
> I suspect that it was one of those small aircraft that have a GPS
> antenna stuck to the windscreen, which can itself degrade the solution
> by occluding satellites.
>
> John
>
> *From:*systemsafety
> <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> *On Behalf Of
> *Dewi Daniels
> *Sent:* 12 July 2019 10:25
> *To:* The System Safety List <systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] GPS jamming
>
> I'm puzzled. I thought the whole point of WAAS (and EGNOS) was that
> the pilot would be alerted if the GPS calculated position is
> inaccurate. See section 1.7.2 of
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-WAAS-performance-standard.pdf .
> Why was the pilot not alerted in this instance? Was he not using a
> WAAS receiver? If not, why was he relying on a vanilla GPS receiver
> for navigation?
>
> Yours,
>
> Dewi Daniels | Director | Software Safety Limited
>
> Telephone +44 7968 837742 | Email d
> <mailto:ddaniels at verocel.com>ewi.daniels at software-safety.com
> <mailto:ewi.daniels at software-safety.com>
>
> Software Safety Limited is a company registered in England and Wales.
> Company number: 9390590. Registered office: Fairfield, 30F Bratton
> Road, West Ashton, Trowbridge, United Kingdom BA14 6AZ
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 12:49, Robert P. Schaefer <rps at mit.edu
> <mailto:rps at mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Thought this would be of interest:
>
> NASA report: Passenger aircraft nearly crashes due GPS disruption
>
> https://www.gpsworld.com/nasa-report-passenger-aircraft-nearly-crashes-due-gps-disruption/
>
> Along the lines of “Who the heck would jam GPS in the continental
> US?”,
>
> I’ve got an anecdotal story from one of Haystack’s scientists who
> was trying to collect GPS data
>
> (L1, L2 data is useful for measuring solar activity in the
> Ionosphere) during the solar eclipse in August 2017.
>
> He was unable to collect data because of GPS jamming. The story
> was that truckers use GPS jammers so they
>
> won’t be tracked by their employers.
>
> bob s.
>
> research engineer
>
> MIT haystack observatory
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> <mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at
> Email Information.Solutions at nats.co.uk immediately. You should not
> copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose
> their contents to any other person.
>
> NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on
> them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system.
>
> Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any
> responsibility for viruses or any losses caused as a result of viruses
> and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email
> and any attachments.
>
> NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS
> (Services) Ltd (company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number:
> 4164590) or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd
> (company number 4138218). All companies are registered in England and
> their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham,
> Hampshire, PO15 7FL.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20190712/137b157a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the systemsafety
mailing list