Bush to consider shutting down GPS in extreme emergency

[Juergen Nieveler]

Yes, that's exactly how they did it.

So you've invented underground GPS receivers?

They used normal surveying gear to fix the starting points of the
tunnels (GPS wasn't all that available when they started), and
underground they used lasers and conventional surveying gear to keep
the tunnel going straight.

So they don't care what happens to civilians? With friends like that,
who needs enemies?

Ever heard the term "Collateral Damage"?

What about civilians--their masters?

Try selling THAT to the Pentagon...

No, the state owns GPS. The Pentagon operates it, in part.

GPS was and is paid for out of the budget of the Pentagon (Air Force,
IIRC, or was it the Navy?).

The Pentagon does what it is told. If Congress told it to turn over the
GPS to Wal-Mart tomorrow, it would do so.

Try it. Get Congress to do that. Ups... Congress listens to the
President at least during this term.

You seem to attribute godlike characteristics to the Pentagon. It's
just a building filled with government employees.

Not really godlike - god doesn't have horns ;-)

The Congress and civilian administration could attempt to revert an
order to shutdown GPS, but that would take a lot of time and red tape -
in the meantime, the system would be down. It would be different if GPS
was owned by NASA - but it isn't.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it's a plain and simple
fact. You can ask the Military to assist a civilian authority, but they
CAN decline that request.


Juergen Nieveler

 

[Juergen Nieveler]

Only because accurate navigation is possible today. In the
not-so-distant past, getting lost was the number one problem.

Actually, the problem was "Getting lost and hitting stuff that you
thought was somewhere else" ;-)

But radio navigation systems are precise enough to use for navigation,
and have been available for decades before GPS was invented.

Juergen Nieveler

 

[Juergen Nieveler]

You don't need one. You take a series of GPS fixes over a long period.
The average is your true position.

At least in civilised regions using a pre-surveyed position to place
the DGPS is faster and easier

Juergen Nieveler

 

[Alan Browne]

Well, you need to look them up. The only requirement in Part 23, normal
and commuter aircraft, is that the aircraft demonstrate the ability to
climb with the critical engine inoperative, gear and flaps retracted.
There is no specification of weight, temperature, or rate of climb. The
manufacturer must provide a WAT chart to show the conditions where it can
climb. That's it. The US Codes of Federal Regulations are available at
http://tinyurl.com/3n7tx. Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, are at
http://tinyurl.com/6j27s. The various parts are a click away. Or if you
don't trust tinyurls, you can start at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.

I won't look it up, but I'll take your word for it. My understanding was as I
stated it (which seems reasonable).

Ten years ago (or so) the Army airfield in Caracas would not allow piston
aircraft of any kind to operate there. Twin turboprops or jets only (single
engine turbine helos are allowed). The twin piston accident rate with engine
failures after TO were simply too high, and the airport is in the downtown area
and the city is in a spectacular, but deep valley.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Alan Browne]

Alan Browne writes:




No airline would continue to operate if it had to run all aircraft on
only a single engine.

That's not what I said. Your selective snipping is irritating. What I said,
which is to be taken as a whole statement is: "It's exactly how to run an
airline. Most new airliners are twins. Monsters like the 777 and A330 have
huge vertical stabilizers to account for an engine failure on takeoff. Although
such failures are increasingly rare, pilots must train and refresh for the
eventuality. This is not done with passengers on board, and is mainly done in a
simulator for cost reasons."

Not for NORMAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE.

AGAIN with the snipping, Mx. AGAIN what I said, and to be taken as a whole: "Of
course they do. Engines can fail at critical points in the flight such as
immediately prior to or just after takeoff. Airspeed is low and yaw control is
poor. The aircraft must be controlled precisely and applicable procedures for
the aircraft performed (fuel cutoff, fire check, extinguish, checklists, etc.).

Engines can also be volluntarilly shut down in flight if the engine condition
warrants. (temps, vibration, other problems).
This has its own checklists as well as logistical consequences. The training
for this is as much the immediate as well as planning and strategizing what to
do next. All of this requires training and refresher courses. "

 

[Sam Wormley]

Can you show that it would be bad to at least try it?

I already did.

 

[Alan Browne]

Alan Browne writes:




A thousand times worse than nanosecond accuracy. That's the difference
between being on the center stripe of the runway and being in town.

Sigh. See "and better" above. Nanosecond accuracy has also been available, at
higher cost, for just as long.

Center stripe of the runway is not a requirement of CAT IIIc landing systems, as
desirable an objective as it may be. CAT IIIc has been available in commercial
aviation for over two decades using ILS and INS. CAT IIIc currently does not
use GPS at all, but LAAS will get their eventually, while requiring INS, as it
does today.

There is no dependance on GPS in aviation that will or can prevent a very easy
and safe landing using ILS even if that requires, at worst, changing to another
runway or airport.

You're way out of your shallow depth on this Mx.

 

[Alan Browne]

No, it can't. Before GPS, certain types of synchronization couldn't be
done.

Specifically?

 

[Sam Wormley]

Yes, but you still have to know the exact location of the DGPS station
so that it can calculate the corrections, don't you? Just putting it
somewhere and switching it on won't help.

Juergen, do you use a gps receiver yourself?
-Sam

 

[Sam Wormley]

The Internet backbone in the US is government-owned? Thank god I live
in Europe - DECIX is funded by the ISPs connected to it, which means
that politicians can argue all they like, they don't get near it


Juergen Nieveler

No--the Internet backbone in the US was, in part, subsidized by
my government with my taxes.

 

[jon]

The Alaska CAPSTONE project has resulted in the approval of sole means
for other than just strictly enroute oceanic phase of of flight.

Reference is SFAR 97 which may be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/March/Day-21/i6749.htm
Regards,
Jon

 

[Iolaos]

More expensive than nothing, of course - GPS is available for free, so
every alternative will be more expensive.

The EU has decided that it's worth the cost.

 

[Italy Anonymous Remailer]

The EU has decided that it's worth the cost.

Big deal, go fer it!

 

[Mxsmanic]

Sigh. See "and better" above. Nanosecond accuracy has also been available, at
higher cost, for just as long.

My point is that the difference is three orders of magnitude, which is
not negligeable.

 

[Mxsmanic]

It does what it gets told by the Secretary of Defense, who is only
answerable to the President.

It is also told what to do by Congress, and it gets its resources from
Congress as well.

Both the President and Congress are elected officials.

Yes, and they get told by their superiors, not by you.

Their superiors follow the instructions given to them by officials
elected by people just like me.

Just how long do you think it would take for the congress to react?

Congress can move pretty fast when it has to.

Congress doesn't have oversight over GPS ...

Congress has oversight over everything.

Congress could
protest, but that would take time - and in the meantime the system would
stay down.

What you're suggesting is treason.

 

[Mxsmanic]

No. GPS would still be available to Pentagon "customers" - it just
would be gone for the freeloaders.

Many parties in the Pentagon are freeloaders, and many outside the
Pentagon are paying customers.

But the Pentagon isn't answerable to civilians - it's only answerable
to the President ...

When did the President join the army?

 

[Mxsmanic]

So you've invented underground GPS receivers?

I wasn't there. They used GPS gear at the surface, of course.

They used normal surveying gear to fix the starting points of the
tunnels (GPS wasn't all that available when they started), and
underground they used lasers and conventional surveying gear to keep
the tunnel going straight.

They used GPS as well, which is one reason why they managed to dig the
tunnels so accurately. This was not top secret.

Ever heard the term "Collateral Damage"?

Sure, but calling it something euphemistic doesn't change the reality.

Try selling THAT to the Pentagon...

I don't have to sell it to the Pentagon. It's already the reality. It
isn't necessary to persuade anyone in the Pentagon.

GPS was and is paid for out of the budget of the Pentagon (Air Force,
IIRC, or was it the Navy?).

It's a joint venture now, civilian and military.

Try it. Get Congress to do that. Ups... Congress listens to the
President at least during this term.

I don't want Congress to do that. GPS would be far less reliable in
private hands. But the point was that Congress decides.

The Congress and civilian administration could attempt to revert an
order to shutdown GPS, but that would take a lot of time and red tape -
in the meantime, the system would be down.

Well, if people in the Pentagon are willing to go to prison for treason,
I suppose they could have their fun briefly.

Most people in the Pentagon, however, are not traitors to their country.

It would be different if GPS was owned by NASA - but it isn't.

It would be exactly the same. If Wal-Mart owned GPS, it would be much
worse.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it's a plain and simple
fact.

It's a fantasy.

You can ask the Military to assist a civilian authority, but they
CAN decline that request.

You can _tell_ the military to assist civilians, and then it cannot
decline the order.

 

[Mxsmanic]

And which GPS unit worked through 100 metres of solid rock, and another 100
of water?

They used GPS units at the surface.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Indeed. But that person would be the President, and he gets payed to
take such decisions. If he decides to do so, you aren't going to change
it.

Not immediately, but within four years. Congress can move faster,
though.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Can you show that it would be bad to at least try it?

Easily. The drawbacks of shutting off GPS are easy to identify and
quantify. The advantages--if any--are completely unknown.