Military jamming ADS-B traffic and TCAS?

[luvflyin]

Gen/Adm: "there is this cat out in Wyoming who seems to know just a little to much, can you do something about this"

CIA: "we'll see what we can do, have you got any background worked up on him yet?

 

[Seanaldinho]

Just as a thought, the notam does say it will be in effect 200 miles out to sea. My bet is it is in use over the water and they are just covering their ass and letting everyone know of the possibility.

 

[N801BH]

Gen/Adm: "there is this cat out in Wyoming who seems to know just a little to much, can you do something about this"

CIA: "we'll see what we can do, have you got any background worked up on him yet?

ha....

The CIA can't even find Wyoming on the map...

 

[Sundancer]

Sigh.

There are long-standing GPS notams in various parts of the country that pop up on a regular basis.

If it's affecting TCAS but not the FAA's ability to query and see transponders, it's probably a signal on the ground on 1090 - if it were 1030, it would block the interrogation, if it were in the air on 1090 it would block the reply to FAA ground station. Just blocking 1090 in airborne receivers is enough to cause issues with ADS-B, too.

Probably some kind of wide-are EW testing or training exercises.

BTW, IFF has caused issues for 30+ years. Look at where Little Creek is located in relation to the ORF runways. Now think about what might happen if someone at Little Creek left IFF turned on....

Well said, but apparently lost on the loonies. . .

 

[Turningfinal]

Sigh.

There are long-standing GPS notams in various parts of the country that pop up on a regular basis.

If it's affecting TCAS but not the FAA's ability to query and see transponders, it's probably a signal on the ground on 1090 - if it were 1030, it would block the interrogation, if it were in the air on 1090 it would block the reply to FAA ground station. Just blocking 1090 in airborne receivers is enough to cause issues with ADS-B, too.

Probably some kind of wide-are EW testing or training exercises.

BTW, IFF has caused issues for 30+ years. Look at where Little Creek is located in relation to the ORF runways. Now think about what might happen if someone at Little Creek left IFF turned on....

Blocking GPS isn't even remotely similar to interfering with a highly successful safety system like TCAS.

Just because ATC can see you doesn't mean you're in the clear. Controllers make mistakes too, and plenty of Operational Errors (OEs) have resulted in TCAS RA's.

http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar7/papers/p_131_S.pdf

 

[petrolero]

Has AOPA pushed back on this? It at least merits a WTF letter.

EDIT: AOPA is a four-letter word around here. I'm not looking for a monkey knife fight over AOPA. But they do this kind of thing so it's a logical question. Ditto for NBAA and ALPA, maybe EAA and other alphabet groups.

 

[James331]

Tin foil at its best. Wouldn't expect anything less from a lot of people on POA. We should all be dead from Ebola by now.

You even read the NOTAM? Service "may" become unreliable. Might be that it doesn't affect our TCAS or ADS-B at all. If it does, it's called looking out the window or using something called ATC radar. I suppose you never would have flown on the airlines or gotten your certificate prior to the tech we have today. Planes must have been falling out of the sky left and right 20 + years ago.

What do you think happens when ATC radar goes down for maintenance? In some cases if center doesn't pick it up, you get non radar procedures. The sky isn't falling, they're just using a backup system to the primary (radar) system in the NAS. It's not optimal, but it doesn't endanger lives either.

Did you think maybe the testing might be looking for security vulnerabilities? Vulnerabilities that affect us all and not just the military.

It amazes me your disdain for the military when probably the greatest advance in navigation (GPS) was created by them and provided to us. Some of the medical items your crew uses never would have been invented without the military. But hey don't worry about that, it's easier just to bad mouth an organization you were never part of.

Tin foil hat? Do you even know what that means?

So I'm saying it's a conspiracy?

Dude, it ain't a conspiracy when it's all written in plain English in a NOTAM.

Choosing to jam up safety equipment a few states wide.... not exactly protecting the American people.

Go test this stuff away from the NAS, it ain't rocket surgery.


But I hey, if one doesn't blindly support the military/government, the "terrorists" win and you must be a nut job right?

 

[Silvaire]

For those who are completely freaking out over this I'm curious - how many of you actually have ADS-B or TCAS and are based in or plan to fly in the affected areas?

 

[petrolero]

For those who are completely freaking out over this I'm curious - how many of you actually have ADS-B or TCAS and are based in or plan to fly in the affected areas?

That question is moot and one need not be "completely freaking out" to recognize that this is an enormous NOTAM. At least two relevant questions are...

1) does it materially affect safety, and
2) is there really a need for the NOTAM to be that broad and that intrusive for that long?

That's why I'm asking if the alphabet groups have written to ask WTF yet. Because if the answer comes back as "can't tell ya" then it requires them to turn to elected representatives.


.

 

[Silvaire]

No, I'm asking the people who are completely freaking out.

 

[petrolero]

No, I'm asking the people who are completely freaking out.

Matters not. Do you agree or not that the NOTAM is overbroad and degrades safety materially?

 

[James331]

No, I'm asking the people who are completely freaking out.

Don't think anyone is "freaking out" just a few people taking issue with a bad NOTAM.

Actually I think it's kinda funny, the big push for people to buy ADSB (marketed on safety), then this NOTAM (marketed on security). When national security makes you less safe, ya got a problem

 

[docmirror]

For those who are completely freaking out over this I'm curious - how many of you actually have ADS-B or TCAS and are based in or plan to fly in the affected areas?

Well, I'm not freaking out about this, but here's a situation. I'm not playing in ADS-B, but my mode-C, enabled txp is transmitting 1200 out to the world, so that I really AM playing in the system. If this causes another plane which is accepting ADS-B, and that plane crashes into me due to a scramble of the ground based TIS signal, well, it seems to me we are all affected.

Not sure why this is a pilot-against-pilot thing, because I suspect everyone sees the benefit of airborne TIS, whether they choose to equip or not. The only exceptions I could see are the NORDO primary target people with no txp at all. Which may be me in the foreseeable future. If I don't get to play in class B or C, why would I bother with having a txp in my plane anymore? One more thing to fix, one more thing to get cert, one more cost. The only thing I see of benefit is that OTHERS will get to use my 1200 squawk for TIS services. Good enough reason I guess.

 

[Velocity173]

Tin foil hat? Do you even know what that means?

So I'm saying it's a conspiracy?

Dude, it ain't a conspiracy when it's all written in plain English in a NOTAM.

Choosing to jam up safety equipment a few states wide.... not exactly protecting the American people.

Go test this stuff away from the NAS, it ain't rocket surgery.


But I hey, if one doesn't blindly support the military/government, the "terrorists" win and you must be a nut job right?

Yeah I am saying you think it's a conspiracy. Nice edit on your original post by the way.

Your comments on the military are always the same. They're the real enemy and not the terrorists. They're intentionally endangering lives.

First they're not endangering lives. Second, where in that NOTAM does it say they're targeting our TCAS. Test might not even have to do with TCAS or ADS-B. We may have an unintentional interference. We may not.

If you're flying VFR, look at the frickin window backing up your ADS-B. If you're flying commercial, ATC will provide the traffic backing up the TCAS and look at the frickin window.

Sorry that your little gadgets that you rely upon so heavily might be unreliable for a short period of time in a limited area. What a huge inconvience for something that might actually be a test on a system to save lives.

 

[bullwinkle]

First they're not endangering lives. Second, where in that NOTAM does it say they're targeting our TCAS. Test might not even have to do with TCAS or ADS-B. We may have an unintentional interference. We may not.

Mmmkay. Let's put it this way. Let's say you, as a citizen, built some HAM radio rig that unintentionally spewed a bunch of RF and affected TCAS and ADS-B over a wide populated area, say a Class B.

1) When the FAA + FCC + FBI + NSA + whoever figure out what happened, do you think that the indictment that would certainly be handed down would NOT include language about how you compromised aviation safety, and endangered lives?

2) If you knew that your radio rig had this potential, and requested a NOTAM from the FAA, do you think they'd allow it, or would the risk be deemed too great and your test would be squashed?

I think we all know the answers to both questions.

 

[Velocity173]

Mmmkay. Let's put it this way. Let's say you, as a citizen, built some HAM radio rig that unintentionally spewed a bunch of RF and affected TCAS and ADS-B over a wide populated area, say a Class B.

1) When the FAA + FCC + FBI + NSA + whoever figure out what happened, do you think that the indictment that would certainly be handed down would NOT include language about how you compromised aviation safety, and endangered lives?

2) If you knew that your radio rig had this potential, and requested a NOTAM from the FAA, do you think they'd allow it, or would the risk be deemed too great and your test would be squashed?

I think we all know the answers to both questions.

The one overriding factor in all that regardless if it were intentional or unintentional, is that citizen would have no reason at all to interfere with the service with a HAM radio. He wouldn't have the authority. I'd say if we're unintentional, he'd get away with a slap on the wrist and not to do it again.

Everyone assumes the worst in all this like the DOD has nothing better to do than interfere with TCAS / ADS-B. Of course they're safety benefits. No one is denying that. Anyone bother to think, well maybe this is to enhance the system or maybe it's to test for vulnerabilities on military aircraft located 200 miles out to sea. And oh yeah, by doing that it "may" interfere with our stuff for a whole month. Just like GPS NOTAMs, they're doing testing limited in scope and duration.

As I said earlier, considering so many things we've gotten thru military research such as the modern day radar we have today from WWII, I think we can cut them some slack.

 

[petrolero]

Mmmkay. Let's put it this way. Let's say you, as a citizen, built some HAM radio rig that unintentionally spewed a bunch of RF and affected TCAS and ADS-B over a wide populated area, say a Class B.

1) When the FAA + FCC + FBI + NSA + whoever figure out what happened, do you think that the indictment that would certainly be handed down would NOT include language about how you compromised aviation safety, and endangered lives?

2) If you knew that your radio rig had this potential, and requested a NOTAM from the FAA, do you think they'd allow it, or would the risk be deemed too great and your test would be squashed?

I think we all know the answers to both questions.

They would deny it for you and me and should do so unless we can demonstrate some really BFD reason why the benefits outweigh the risks and costs. IMO this NOTAM should require a BFD reason. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. When it comes to secret **** done by our government, the only means we have of keeping an eye on them is through our elected reps and, failing that, the courts.

If a news story ran something like:

"Aircraft Collision Avoidance System to Shut Down for Month" it would make a lot of people want to hear the justification for such a big outage.

Those most affected by this, which includes many millions of airline passengers, should demand to know what the justification is and get elected reps to find out whether it's really national security or notional security.

 

[bullwinkle]

The one overriding factor in all that regardless if it were intentional or unintentional, is that citizen would have no reason at all to interfere with the service with a HAM radio. He wouldn't have the authority. I'd say if we're unintentional, he'd get away with a slap on the wrist and not to do it again.

Everyone assumes the worst in all this like the DOD has nothing better to do than interfere with TCAS / ADS-B. Of course they're safety benefits. No one is denying that. Anyone bother to think, well maybe this is to enhance the system or maybe it's to test for vulnerabilities on military aircraft located 200 miles out to sea. And oh yeah, by doing that it "may" interfere with our stuff for a whole month. Just like GPS NOTAMs, they're doing testing limited in scope and duration.

As I said earlier, considering so many things we've gotten thru military research such as the modern day radar we have today from WWII, I think we can cut them some slack.

Slack yes. Not a blank check.

My point was that if you said you were testing a cure for cancer, such an outage would be denied to you. The MIL just says "we're doing it and we're not going to tell you why" and the feds just mumble "oh, okay."

 

[James331]

They would deny it for you and me and should do so unless we can demonstrate some really BFD reason why the benefits outweigh the risks and costs. IMO this NOTAM should require a BFD reason. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. When it comes to secret **** done by our government, the only means we have of keeping an eye on them is through our elected reps and, failing that, the courts.

If a news story ran something like:

"Aircraft Collision Avoidance System Shut Down for Month" it would make a lot of people want to hear the justification for such a big outage.

Those most affected by this, which includes many millions of airline passengers, should demand to know what the justification is and get elected reps to find out whether it's really national security or notional security.

Exactly.

If you ran that headline you would have congress critters doing some warp speed back peddling and flip flopping like fish.

Is also wager that NOTAM would go away rather quickly, especially if it made mention in the first sentence of the government contractor who's system was being tested.


"Aircraft Collision Avoidance Saftey System to Shut Down for Month for Raytheon"

Maybe lead up to it with this

"And at 5' o'clock why the government let Raytheon jeopardize air travel safety"


Speaking of which, it would be nice to know what contract company was pushing for this NOTAM.

Slack yes. Not a blank check.

My point was that if you said you were testing a cure for cancer, such an outage would be denied to you. The MIL just says "we're doing it and we're not going to tell you why" and the feds just mumble "oh, okay."

 

[docmirror]

Ok, now I'm going to put on my tin foil hat, but it's just going on loosely, and not zip tied down.

Your congressperson is told that this is a possible danger to the flying public. They look into it. Boeing/LM/Raytheon are identified as the background for this new gizmo. Your rep calls the public affairs at the company and is told that they would like your full cooperation, and by the way, that cooperation is represented by the re-election support that they provided last go around, and the support that is coming this term.

Who is your congresscritter going to support? You, a little spamcan flying no-money investing private pilot? Or Boeing/LM/Raytheon that can send xim thousand of re-election dollars? Duh

 

[Turningfinal]

First they're not endangering lives.

I want to know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to go through to conclude that when the DOD is intentionally operating a system along the entire eastern seaboard for a month that clearly has the potential to interfere with TCAS.

How do you suppose the potential to inhibit TCAS RA's does not jeopardize safety and put lives at risk? The whole reason TCAS was mandated to begin with is because planes were colliding, even under positive control of ATC during visual meteorological conditions.

 

[Silvaire]

Matters not. Do you agree or not that the NOTAM is overbroad and degrades safety materially?

I ask a simple question and your answer is "matters not" followed by another question?

So I'm guessing that nobody here has ADS-B or TCAS and is going to in any way be affected by this. A bunch of typical hullabaloo about nuthin'

 

[Velocity173]

I want to know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to go through to conclude that when the DOD is intentionally operating a system along the entire eastern seaboard for a month that clearly has the potential to interfere with TCAS.

How do you suppose the potential to inhibit TCAS RA's does not jeopardize safety and put lives at risk? The whole reason TCAS was mandated to begin with is because planes were colliding, even under positive control of ATC during visual meteorological conditions.

The impetus for TCAS was because of specific midairs that occurred in the 50s in no radar airspace. The ATC system has significantly improved since then regardless of TCAS.

Not having TCAS fully operational or even completely inop doesn't put lives in danger. If that were the case, airlines wouldn't have it listed as an MEL item that generally requires 3 days to get fixed. Write it up in the book as deferred maintainence and move on. Probably a couple of points increased risk on their RA form.

Once again, you guys can spin the language of the writing in this NOTAM any way you want but it doesn't say anything about complete shutdown of the system. Speaking of. So what if the NOTAM said their might be interference in TCAS / ADS-B due to system maintainence / testing? That would be fine but if those DOD guys are involved they can't be up to anything good right?

 

[ralarcon]

Wow...over five entire states for a MONTH?!?

Funny thing is that I think that has happened to me twice already, first time flying near a MOA, near Jumbolair in Florida I get an audible traffic warning look at my TCAS , bogey at same altitude no directional info. Clearly got me a bit concerned because it appeared on my map display as if it was right on top of me, looked everywhere, and hoped I did not hear a crunching sound. Nothing happened could not see any traffic. Then 2 weeks ago flying out of Sebring , in the vicinity of the Military restricted area, about 2000 ft AGL, same thing, got my attention, again nothing visually,warning faded a few seconds latter. These incidents did not freak me out , but they got my attention. Maybe its related to this NOTAM.

Cheers

 

[N801BH]

Funny thing is that I think that has happened to me twice already, first time flying near a MOA, near Jumbolair in Florida I get an audible traffic warning look at my TCAS , bogey at same altitude no directional info. Clearly got me a bit concerned because it appeared on my map display as if it was right on top of me, looked everywhere, and hoped I did not hear a crunching sound. Nothing happened could not see any traffic. Then 2 weeks ago flying out of Sebring , in the vicinity of the Military restricted area, about 2000 ft AGL, same thing, got my attention, again nothing visually,warning faded a few seconds latter. These incidents did not freak me out , but they got my attention. Maybe its related to this NOTAM.

Cheers

Probably beta testing the products before the big show.....

It would not surprise me to see them practicing the jamming around the Avon Park MOA... IMHO.

 

[ralarcon]

Probably beta testing the products before the big show.....

It would not surprise me to see them practicing the jamming around the Avon Park MOA... IMHO.

Agree !

Cheers

 

[petrolero]

Ok, now I'm going to put on my tin foil hat, but it's just going on loosely, and not zip tied down.

Your congressperson is told that this is a possible danger to the flying public. They look into it. Boeing/LM/Raytheon are identified as the background for this new gizmo. Your rep calls the public affairs at the company and is told that they would like your full cooperation, and by the way, that cooperation is represented by the re-election support that they provided last go around, and the support that is coming this term.

Who is your congresscritter going to support? You, a little spamcan flying no-money investing private pilot? Or Boeing/LM/Raytheon that can send xim thousand of re-election dollars? Duh

Depends on how many of us they hear from and how public the story is made. They always play these calculations. The individual voter from outside their district probably rates the lowest on their GAF-o-meter. But organizations, and certainly news stories, get more attention.

If the reasons are classified then it needs to be referred to members of whatever committees deal with it.

But it needs to start with AOPA, ALPA, EAA, and NBAA asking WTF the justification is for such a massive NOTAM. That's if all those alphabet groups can stop shafting each other long enough to pay attention.

 

[N801BH]

Depends on how many of us they hear from and how public the story is made. They always play these calculations. The individual voter from outside their district probably rates the lowest on their GAF-o-meter. But organizations, and certainly news stories, get more attention.

If the reasons are classified then it needs to be referred to members of whatever committees deal with it.

But it needs to start with AOPA, ALPA, EAA, and NBAA asking WTF the justification is for such a massive NOTAM. That's if all those alphabet groups can stop shafting each other long enough to pay attention.

 

[docmirror]

Depends on how many of us they hear from and how public the story is made. They always play these calculations. The individual voter from outside their district probably rates the lowest on their GAF-o-meter. But organizations, and certainly news stories, get more attention.

If the reasons are classified then it needs to be referred to members of whatever committees deal with it.

But it needs to start with AOPA, ALPA, EAA, and NBAA asking WTF the justification is for such a massive NOTAM. That's if all those alphabet groups can stop shafting each other long enough to pay attention.

Boeing/LM/Raytheon can give enough to make any congresscritter ignore all those acronyms. I've seen it. You've seen it. So, good luck with that. I'm not saying we shouldn't raise a fuss, and make waves but the gen-pop cares less about small planes hitting each other as long as the debris doesn't fall on their house. So - I still predict zero penetration by any GA or business aircraft lobby.

Sorry

 

[N801BH]

Boeing/LM/Raytheon can give enough to make any congresscritter ignore all those acronyms. I've seen it. You've seen it. So, good luck with that. I'm not saying we shouldn't raise a fuss, and make waves but the gen-pop cares less about small planes hitting each other as long as the debris doesn't fall on their house. So - I still predict zero penetration by any GA or business aircraft lobby.

Sorry

Agreed....

Altho most "gen-pop" kids live in theirs parents basement.. it is not really (their) house...

 

[Sundancer]

Matters not. Do you agree or not that the NOTAM is overbroad and degrades safety materially?

Nope. It probably is "overbroad" out of an abundance of caution, to cover an area that likely exceeds tha which t they expect to be affected.

And nope again; a "posdsble" degradation of TCAS doesn't materially affect safety. TCAS is a minor adjunct to the NAS. Heck, a total shutdown isn't a material imoact on safety. . .

 

[denverpilot]

Boeing/LM/Raytheon rep: "We've got this hot little digital scrambler that can fake locations in the new ADS-B/TIS system, and we are just DYING to try it out in the national airspace! It could show no plane where a plane really is, and it could show a 100 planes where there aren't any! Woohoo!"

Digital "scrambler"? For an unencrypted, easily spoofable, low speed data transmission? Haha. ADS-B spoofing is pretty easy, really. Jamming, even easier. It isn't rocket science... Or... Is it?

You even read the NOTAM? Service "may" become unreliable.



Did you think maybe the testing might be looking for security vulnerabilities?

You almost got it. You hit one clue.

But who needs to look for a vulnerability in an already insecure system? Nope. You can do that in a lab.

Or even just read the design docs and see it's insecure.

I want to know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to go through to conclude that when the DOD is intentionally operating a system along the entire eastern seaboard for a month that clearly has the potential to interfere with TCAS.

"Might interfere..."

"Multiple states affected..."

It's likely an airborne intermittent test folks. Read between the lines.

How far is line of sight at those frequencies and what altitude covers a large swath of the announced area?

Might even be a spot beam test from orbit. It's about the right size for that technology's antenna state of the art.

Perhaps an "asset" has both an appropriate band transponder and antenna to try some things out.

Whatever it is, there's hints at an "above ground RF source".

Doesn't really matter to me what they do. Just sayin'... looks airborne or higher to me.

Someone whined here wondering why such topics turn normal folk against normal folk, and that one is easy, too: Because nobody here has a choice in the matter anyway, certainly not to whether or not to pay for it.

Speaking of that, someone else said they were impressed the military built GPS for us all. GPS' tech was well known in civilian circles for a long time.

The need to spend lots and lots of money on launches was the tipping point. Not the tech.

And of course the use of nuclear toys on board added another layer of bureaucratic fun.

But in the end, it was well known how to do it. They just had to decide it was finally time that you paid for it, back then.

They do what they please. It's nothing personal.

 

[Sundancer]

"Do as they please" has some truth to it, and sounds good, like a sound bite. Real world, it isn't that simple. There are multiple stakeholders, diffrent agendas, and most of the players are serious about doing things rationally. If for no greater motive than to cover their butts.

Likely more than a few organizations are involved, and so a lot of folks had some say in the manner and method. Certainly too many folks for something truly stupid to be pulled off without challenge.

If "they" royally muck something up, one of the other players will throw 'em under the bus in a heart beat.

We don't hold referndums on every national decision, so yeah, Fed agencies aren't particularly accountable, beyond the political consequences if they go too far, too often, and get noticed doing so.

But this event doesn't rise to the level of even a minor outrage. . .

 

[denverpilot]

"Do as they please" has some truth to it, and sounds good, like a sound bite. Real world, it isn't that simple. There are multiple stakeholders, diffrent agendas, and most of the players are serious about doing things rationally. If for no greater motive than to cover their butts.

None of that changes "do what they want to do". It's just a few bureaucratic conference calls away.

There is no claim in the statement that "do what they want to do" doesn't involve lots of bureaucratic inefficiency prior to the event.

 

[Silvaire]

This is one of those cases where a whole lot of people are gonna be involved and you ain't one of them.

 

[jesse]

Digital "scrambler"? For an unencrypted, easily spoofable, low speed data transmission? Haha. ADS-B spoofing is pretty easy, really. Jamming, even easier. It isn't rocket science... Or... Is it?




You almost got it. You hit one clue.

But who needs to look for a vulnerability in an already insecure system? Nope. You can do that in a lab.

Or even just read the design docs and see it's insecure.




"Might interfere..."

"Multiple states affected..."

It's likely an airborne intermittent test folks. Read between the lines.

How far is line of sight at those frequencies and what altitude covers a large swath of the announced area?

Might even be a spot beam test from orbit. It's about the right size for that technology's antenna state of the art.

Perhaps an "asset" has both an appropriate band transponder and antenna to try some things out.

Whatever it is, there's hints at an "above ground RF source".

Doesn't really matter to me what they do. Just sayin'... looks airborne or higher to me.

Someone whined here wondering why such topics turn normal folk against normal folk, and that one is easy, too: Because nobody here has a choice in the matter anyway, certainly not to whether or not to pay for it.

Speaking of that, someone else said they were impressed the military built GPS for us all. GPS' tech was well known in civilian circles for a long time.

The need to spend lots and lots of money on launches was the tipping point. Not the tech.

And of course the use of nuclear toys on board added another layer of bureaucratic fun.

But in the end, it was well known how to do it. They just had to decide it was finally time that you paid for it, back then.

They do what they please. It's nothing personal.

Right, the real capabilities of ADS-B based on it's design is well, very limited. Much is being sold as to what benefits it will provide is a total joke. There is no "trust" in the system at all - absolutely NOTHING is in place to ensure or verify that the data is actually legit.

It's really an embarrassment to what the technical community is capable of providing IMO. Nobody in their right mind would put a dollars worth of risk on such a poorly designed system.

 

[jesse]

Digital "scrambler"? For an unencrypted, easily spoofable, low speed data transmission? Haha. ADS-B spoofing is pretty easy, really. Jamming, even easier. It isn't rocket science... Or... Is it?




You almost got it. You hit one clue.

But who needs to look for a vulnerability in an already insecure system? Nope. You can do that in a lab.

Or even just read the design docs and see it's insecure.




"Might interfere..."

"Multiple states affected..."

It's likely an airborne intermittent test folks. Read between the lines.

How far is line of sight at those frequencies and what altitude covers a large swath of the announced area?

Might even be a spot beam test from orbit. It's about the right size for that technology's antenna state of the art.

Perhaps an "asset" has both an appropriate band transponder and antenna to try some things out.

Whatever it is, there's hints at an "above ground RF source".

Doesn't really matter to me what they do. Just sayin'... looks airborne or higher to me.

Someone whined here wondering why such topics turn normal folk against normal folk, and that one is easy, too: Because nobody here has a choice in the matter anyway, certainly not to whether or not to pay for it.

Speaking of that, someone else said they were impressed the military built GPS for us all. GPS' tech was well known in civilian circles for a long time.

The need to spend lots and lots of money on launches was the tipping point. Not the tech.

And of course the use of nuclear toys on board added another layer of bureaucratic fun.

But in the end, it was well known how to do it. They just had to decide it was finally time that you paid for it, back then.

They do what they please. It's nothing personal.

Right, the real capabilities of ADS-B based on it's design is well, very limited. Much is being sold as to what benefits it will provide is a total joke. There is no "trust" in the system at all - absolutely NOTHING is in place to ensure or verify that the data is actually legit.

It's really an embarrassment to what the technical community is capable of providing. Nobody in their right mind would put a dollars worth of risk on such a system.

It'd take me a purchase or two on amazon, a six pack of beer, and an evening to paint 1,000 enemy fighters off our coast (which might just crash the whole system). Hell I know several teenagers that could do it quicker than I could.

ADS-B is not adequate to accomplish much of anything other than push nexrad data to my iPad that I have no way to verify is actually legit data.

 

[Sundancer]

Geez, I'm no FAA fan, by any means, but I'm certain more than a few "bureacratic conference calls" went into this. Likely the process was inefficient, since that's a core characteristic of gov't at any level, in every country. . .but a few MOUs, comm plans, scheduling considerations, and serious thought went into the mix. . .

ADS-B spoofing? You may be right. . . do much the same to GPS with $25 in parts and a car battery. Neither would bring the system to it's knees.

Getting our shorts in a bunch over more serious threats and bureacratic nonsense, thatI'm all for.