Re: Coming to a neighborhood near you

Doug Semler <dougsemler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Doug Semler <dougsem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, "LWG" <les.gaw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
.