Bookmark this page: Add GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared to Yahoo MyWeb Add GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared to Google Bookmarks Add GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared to Windows Live Add GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared to Del.icio.us Digg GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared! Add GPS Avionics vs Lightsquared to Netscape
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by HIPAR on May 31, 2011, 6:22 pm
RTCA is a company that prepares requirements documents for aircraft
communications equipments. They will soon report the results of FAA
sponsored testing recently conducted at White Sands, New Mexico. An
executive summary of the report was recently released:

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2628

The report is expected to conclude:

'Based on tests of four FAA-certified aviation receivers =97 out of
approximately 50 models now being flown on board aircraft in the
national air space =97 and, the effects of a five-megahertz-wide
transmission from a single-city base station deployment at the upper
end of the LightSquared allocation =93is expected to be complete loss of
GPS receiver function.=94'

--- CHAS

Posted by Alan Browne on May 31, 2011, 7:59 pm
On 2011-05-31 18:22 , HIPAR wrote:
> RTCA is a company that prepares requirements documents for aircraft
> communications equipments. They will soon report the results of FAA
> sponsored testing recently conducted at White Sands, New Mexico. An
> executive summary of the report was recently released:
> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2628
> The report is expected to conclude:
> 'Based on tests of four FAA-certified aviation receivers =97 out of
> approximately 50 models now being flown on board aircraft in the
> national air space =97 and, the effects of a five-megahertz-wide
> transmission from a single-city base station deployment at the upper
> end of the LightSquared allocation =93is expected to be complete loss o=
f
> GPS receiver function.=94'

No surprise there. I doubt one could build a certified airborne=20
receiver that wouldn't get jammed by the LightSquared system.

--=20
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.


Posted by Terje Mathisen on June 1, 2011, 3:58 am
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2011-05-31 18:22 , HIPAR wrote:
>> RTCA is a company that prepares requirements documents for aircraft
>> communications equipments. They will soon report the results of FAA
>> sponsored testing recently conducted at White Sands, New Mexico. An
>> executive summary of the report was recently released:
>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2628
>> The report is expected to conclude:
>> 'Based on tests of four FAA-certified aviation receivers — out of
>> approximately 50 models now being flown on board aircraft in the
>> national air space — and, the effects of a five-megahertz-wide
>> transmission from a single-city base station deployment at the upper
>> end of the LightSquared allocation “is expected to be complete loss of
>> GPS receiver function.”'
> No surprise there. I doubt one could build a certified airborne receiver
> that wouldn't get jammed by the LightSquared system.
For every month that passes without somebody at a high enough level
saying: "Enough is enough!" and stopping this plan in its tracks, I get
more and more amazed.

Lately I've been thinking that the only possible explanation must be
that Lightsquared is looking upon this a simple case of legal blackmail:

"We have a valid license, but if you pay us enough we might be willing
to reconsider."

Just $1-$5 per GPS receiver currently deployed and sold in the future
would be a nice windfall, right?

Currently we're in the "Who blinks first?" phase...

Terje
PS. If this braindead plan actually gets deployed then I'll really enjoy
knowing that the US is paying for a amazing navigation system that is
only dependable outside the US.

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Posted by Alan Browne on June 1, 2011, 7:39 am
On 2011-06-01 03:58 , Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2011-05-31 18:22 , HIPAR wrote:
>>> RTCA is a company that prepares requirements documents for aircraft
>>> communications equipments. They will soon report the results of FAA
>>> sponsored testing recently conducted at White Sands, New Mexico. An
>>> executive summary of the report was recently released:
>>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2628
>>> The report is expected to conclude:
>>> 'Based on tests of four FAA-certified aviation receivers =97 out of
>>> approximately 50 models now being flown on board aircraft in the
>>> national air space =97 and, the effects of a five-megahertz-wide
>>> transmission from a single-city base station deployment at the upper
>>> end of the LightSquared allocation =93is expected to be complete loss=
of
>>> GPS receiver function.=94'
>> No surprise there. I doubt one could build a certified airborne receiv=
er
>> that wouldn't get jammed by the LightSquared system.
> For every month that passes without somebody at a high enough level
> saying: "Enough is enough!" and stopping this plan in its tracks, I get=

> more and more amazed.
> Lately I've been thinking that the only possible explanation must be
> that Lightsquared is looking upon this a simple case of legal blackmail=
:
> "We have a valid license, but if you pay us enough we might be willing
> to reconsider."

They don't have a valid license at all. They do, unfortunately, have a=20
fast track to certification that doesn't follow the FCC process.

> Just $1-$5 per GPS receiver currently deployed and sold in the future
> would be a nice windfall, right?

There aren't that many airborne GPS receivers that such a shakedown=20
would be profitable. Other uses of GPS can more easily avoid the=20
LightSquared fiasco signal in practice - or at least not lose guidance.

> Currently we're in the "Who blinks first?" phase...

I get the distinct impression that the aviation segment of the industry=20
is (all so slowly) getting its hackles up and will be sure to embarrass=20
the right people if the LightSquared situation persists.

For example, "After a laissez-faire attitude led us to the BP spill, is=20
the government really considering actions that could lead to a 747 full=20
of people missing a runway and crashing? Really?"

> Terje
> PS. If this braindead plan actually gets deployed then I'll really enjo=
y
> knowing that the US is paying for a amazing navigation system that is
> only dependable outside the US.

When American businesses decide to roll the government, outcomes can be=20
tragicomic.

--=20
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.


Posted by ps56k on June 7, 2011, 8:14 am
x-post to Garmin -

SO - who do we write ??? FCC commish ??

"Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote in message
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2011-05-31 18:22 , HIPAR wrote:
>>> RTCA is a company that prepares requirements documents for aircraft
>>> communications equipments. They will soon report the results of FAA
>>> sponsored testing recently conducted at White Sands, New Mexico. An
>>> executive summary of the report was recently released:
>>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2628
>>> The report is expected to conclude:
>>> 'Based on tests of four FAA-certified aviation receivers — out of
>>> approximately 50 models now being flown on board aircraft in the
>>> national air space — and, the effects of a five-megahertz-wide
>>> transmission from a single-city base station deployment at the upper
>>> end of the LightSquared allocation “is expected to be complete loss of
>>> GPS receiver function.”'
>> No surprise there. I doubt one could build a certified airborne receiver
>> that wouldn't get jammed by the LightSquared system.
> For every month that passes without somebody at a high enough level
> saying: "Enough is enough!" and stopping this plan in its tracks, I get
> more and more amazed.
> Lately I've been thinking that the only possible explanation must be that
> Lightsquared is looking upon this a simple case of legal blackmail:
> "We have a valid license, but if you pay us enough we might be willing to
> reconsider."
> Just $1-$5 per GPS receiver currently deployed and sold in the future
> would be a nice windfall, right?
> Currently we're in the "Who blinks first?" phase...
> Terje
> PS. If this braindead plan actually gets deployed then I'll really enjoy
> knowing that the US is paying for a amazing navigation system that is only
> dependable outside the US.
> --
> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"