Yes, if it's even a one percent error it is harm. Zero tolerance for error
when lives are at stake.
Sometimes I wonder, out loud.
Dale, k9vuj
On 05, Aug 2015, at 17:54, Roger (K8RI) <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com> wrote:
"“Is reduced accuracy an ‘actual harm’ in your mind?” asked another attendee."
That tells all that know, that attendee has no conception of what is required
to fly on instruments, or do an instrument approach into a busy airport with
reduced separation. Look into what GPS jammers on trucks and cars near airports
have already caused. They are easy to purchase. Then there is surveying. The
list is large where ten feet would be unacceptable. IN many cases it could mean
life or death.
Reduced accuracy is likely to result in what is called a missed approach, where
the airliner has to change from the landing configuration to essentially a take
off configuration. Then they have to fly a specific procedure to a "hold, (fly
a holding pattern until ATC can fit them back into the landing pattern.) As
the approach to landing is essentially the busiest part of the flight with the
highest workload, it is the worst possible time and the most likely place for
ground based interference. I'll spare you the specific steps, but this adds
considerable risk and workload in high traffic areas where none of the aircraft
know where they are with the required accuracy. Aircraft separation must be
immediately be increased substantially. Where do you put the suddenly excess
aircraft with no airspace for them? IOW, it creates the likelihood of a major
disaster looking for a place to happen and over highly populated areas.
The critical point? The pilots have to realize they are receiving inaccurate
information. Loss of signal is easy to detect, but error where you are
required to be within 10 feet of an imaginary line, or plus 100 feet and minus
nothing farther out.
Aircraft do have backup systems, but they all depend on GPS as the only viable
and developed ground based alternative has been scrapped. It was not just
turned off. The towers and equipment were quickly destroyed making the entire
system an "all your eggs in one basket", single point failure, vulnerable GPS
package. One direct hit from a class X CME would do the job and take years to
fix.
But if LightSquared wins, what will it mean for RFI to ham cases?
If the FCC, who is short on man power has "tied up" working on a project like
this, how many resources do they have available (people money, and time) for
ham problems? As I believe Ed said, We have to pick our battles . We need to
provide the necessary information they need to minimize the resources the FCC
would have required to get that information. Still that information must be
easily verifiable.
73
Roger (K8RI)
On 8/5/2015 3:37 AM, dalej wrote:
> "The company also wanted a complete set of data with the names of the
> manufacturers of each receiver — a change in the confidentiality arrangements
> that governed tests done several years ago when the LightSquared proposal
> first was being considered. Furthermore, the test results should indicate
> receiver resiliency and that should be made public."
>
> "“Is reduced accuracy an ‘actual harm’ in your mind?” asked another attendee."
>
> I bet they have a roomful of lawyers on the payroll.
>
> Dale, k9vuj
>
>
> On 04, Aug 2015, at 21:04, qrv@kd4e.com wrote:
>
> I respectfully request that you follow the money to
> understand why this group has access to the FCC.
>
> It's mostly partisan but not entirely.
>
> Contact your Congressmen - House & Senate, and let them
> know that you'll take a dim view at election time if they allow
> this madness.
>
> Also, contact your favorite 2016 candidate(s) and give
> them the same message.
>
> Also, contact your local EOC, public service, airport
> & private pilot groups, SAR, etc. and give them a heads-up.
>
> We live in a participatory-Republic & if we don't
> participate effectively then the crony corporations will
> eat our lunch.
>
> BTW: Also let those concerned about health harm from
> RF know that 40KW transmitters at those frequencies could
> cause all manner of unknown harm to man & beast.
>
> Make a Donald Trump/Al Sharpton big noise out there!
>
> IMHO, YMMV ... David KD4E
>
>> Your prediction is quite timely and accurate: They are back.
>>
>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4437
>>
>> Like a virus or some relatives, they never seem to be gone for long.
>> Their return does not bode well for ham RFI problems when a high profile
>> company whose product has been shown to cause dangerous interference,
>> returns from bankruptcy to do it again because Billions of dollars are
>> at stake.. If they can fight GPS and flight safety, how does our fate
>> fighting RFI look? They are not addressing solving the problem it
>> appears they are proactively fighting for the potential Billions of
>> dollars they would gain from the unfair advantage the inexpensive
>> spectrum would give them over existing companies that are playing by the
>> rules.
>>
>> As before, LightSquared blames others for their problems. They trying to
>> require those being interfered fix the problem rather than the one doing
>> the interfering. Depending on how this is settled could spell trouble
>> for the ham community. As this has some very powerful people behind
>> it, People who are well connected. I find it worrisome that we appear
>> to almost be back to square one with the GPS interference issue.
>> Remember, the FCC was originally behind the LightSquared proposal. This
>> spectrum was created specifically to work with very weak signals as are
>> the aircraft receivers where weight, physical size, and cost are
>> paramount.. It also has the appearance that the implementation of high
>> speed broadband is being sought at the expense of safety with the
>> entire, established system, including users of that system, being
>> expected to bear the costs rather than the interloper.
>>
>> It's basically the same as telling us, that if someone interferes with
>> us, we have to pay for the fix and that no spectrum is safe if there's a
>> buck to be made so it will remain a fight to keep what we have and be
>> glad the ARRL has had enough clout and connections to preserve and at
>> times, even expand the spectrum to which we have access. Let's hope it
>> remains that way.
>>
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|