GPS System Failure Imminent

denverpilot said:
Depending on your desire to get stuck involved in the process, gathering up locations, times, and symptoms in suspected interference problems, is always the beginning, and then knowing the right phone number to the local FCC engineer who actually cares (because some really don't...) and has the keys to the really really expensive vehicle, is invaluable.
Click to expand...
Many eons ago, that local engineer was my Dad... obviously though, that was before the days of GPS. And today, unless things have improved recently, there is no local FCC engineer; the local FCC office is nothing but a satellite office (I forget what they call them now) staffed by a skeleton crew of bureaucrats. Last I heard the only offices with real engineers were the regional offices, and the closest regional office is Chicago. (Of course, my info is at least a decade out of date.)

Sometimes it just takes letting them know there's a problem, if you're talking to the right folks. The good ones, don't have any way of knowing unless someone calls...
Click to expand...
My question would be whether they're authorized to do anything based on citizen info, or whether the FAA has to take the first step. But I agree, it might be worth a try.
 
WOW, Just WOW. The fact that he asserts the orbits of the GPS constellation are getting "wobbly" should have been a clue. An orbit is a never ending ballistic curve. To make them "wobble" would require constant application of energy in various vectors to create the oscillation. I think the straps on his straight jacket are a little loose. :dunno:
 
azure said:
Many eons ago, that local engineer was my Dad... obviously though, that was before the days of GPS. And today, unless things have improved recently, there is no local FCC engineer; the local FCC office is nothing but a satellite office (I forget what they call them now) staffed by a skeleton crew of bureaucrats. Last I heard the only offices with real engineers were the regional offices, and the closest regional office is Chicago. (Of course, my info is at least a decade out of date.)


My question would be whether they're authorized to do anything based on citizen info, or whether the FAA has to take the first step. But I agree, it might be worth a try.
Click to expand...

We still have a real Field Office, but I could see where many probably have gone away in some locations.

They do have authorization. Whether they have time, resources, and interest, is kinda the real question. Some do, some don't.

There's a rather large field office assigned to the UN, for example. We don't like it much when foreign governments bring unlicensed transmitters and use them, but imagine the stuff we learn from listening to them...

And the political touchiness of any interference problems they cause... :)
 
Threefingeredjack said:
WOW, Just WOW. The fact that he asserts the orbits of the GPS constellation are getting "wobbly" should have been a clue. An orbit is a never ending ballistic curve. To make them "wobble" would require constant application of energy in various vectors to create the oscillation. I think the straps on his straight jacket are a little loose. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Sure they wobble. They are just getting near the stall. :)
 
Threefingeredjack said:
WOW, Just WOW. The fact that he asserts the orbits of the GPS constellation are getting "wobbly" should have been a clue. An orbit is a never ending ballistic curve. To make them "wobble" would require constant application of energy in various vectors to create the oscillation. I think the straps on his straight jacket are a little loose. :dunno:
Click to expand...

On one hand, the gravity of the earth varies with location (i.e. J2 flattening), and the gravity of the sun and the moon also cause perturbations - as does the solar wind, among other causes. One could say these cause "wobbles" in a simple central-force ballistic orbit.

But on the other hand, since they are known and can be numerically modeled to desired accuracy and can (in any case) be compensated for, none will cause system failure.
 
Jim Logajan said:
On one hand, the gravity of the earth varies with location (i.e. J2 flattening), and the gravity of the sun and the moon also cause perturbations - as does the solar wind, among other causes. One could say these cause "wobbles" in a simple central-force ballistic orbit.

But on the other hand, since they are known and can be numerically modeled to desired accuracy and can (in any case) be compensated for, none will cause system failure.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time since I had celestial mechanics, (40+ years), please define a "simple central-force ballistic orbit"
 
Threefingeredjack said:
It's been a long time since I had celestial mechanics, (40+ years), please define a "simple central-force ballistic orbit"
Click to expand...

My use of the word "ballistic" was admittedly redundant. My use of "central-force orbit" was intended to mean a computation of the orbit using only the force from a single point. That can yield a "simple" equation for the motion for all of time. Hence the origin of my convoluted sentence.

Why were you studying celestial mechanics? Not too many degrees or professions have use for that knowledge.
 
wabower said:
Buzzards circle too. Don't be the reason why.
Click to expand...

LOL i'm going to have to remember that one.

I enjoyed my astrodynamics class even though i got a lousy grade in it. The actual math involved wasn't too tricky once you worked through the derivations to get to the equations. The prof made the class harder by just piling on the work. I did write a cool FORTRAN code to optimize a trajectory for landing on the dark side of the moon and another to send a shuttle to Mars I think.
 
LDJones said:
Are you suggesting those who try hang gliding without instruction might attract some buzzards?! :D
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm told that bird attacks on living hang glider pilots are not uncommon during the spring mating season, when the birds are more territorial. The rest of the year, they tend to be more accepting, or so I am told.

-Rich
 
Jim Logajan said:
My use of the word "ballistic" was admittedly redundant. My use of "central-force orbit" was intended to mean a computation of the orbit using only the force from a single point. That can yield a "simple" equation for the motion for all of time. Hence the origin of my convoluted sentence.

Why were you studying celestial mechanics? Not too many degrees or professions have use for that knowledge.
Click to expand...

I had some elective math credits to fill at the Academy and it seemed interesting. A side benefit was it made celestial navigation make more sense, and if I ever dropped my ephemeris over the side I could compute my own tables....given enough time. :D
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I had some elective math credits to fill at the Academy and it seemed interesting. A side benefit was it made celestial navigation make more sense, and if I ever dropped my ephemeris over the side I could compute my own tables....given enough time. :D
Click to expand...

Now there's a word I haven't heard in quite a while.

Is CelNav still required for maritime officers / QMOWs, by the way? I certainly hope so... even if for no reason other than tradition.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Now there's a word I haven't heard in quite a while.

Is CelNav still required for maritime officers / QMOWs, by the way? I certainly hope so... even if for no reason other than tradition.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it still is, I've been away from the rat race for a while. (I was class of '76 and retired in '08.)
 
Jay Honeck said:
One that I found especially intriguing is an ADS-B-type display that gives him realtime traffic information without the use of ground stations. It works by interrogating transponders, does not require ground stations, and is thus completely self contained.
Click to expand...

Sounds remarkably like what I have stuck on the glare shield in my airplane.

http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/12/40/
 
greghughes said:
Sounds remarkably like what I have stuck on the glare shield in my airplane.

http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/12/40/
Click to expand...

Similar, but more sophisticated.

His stories about the ADS-B debacle were enjoyable. The device he has in his panel gave every pilot the ability to have ADS-B in-cockpit information without ground signals.

No ground-based stations would ultimately lead to a radical downsizing of the FAA's scope and power. Thus, approval was denied, in favor of the clu$terf*ck we now call ADS-B.

The guy may be a loon, but it was certainly fun to quaff a few Shiner Bocks with him and his wife.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top