upvote
I find it a bit shocking they'd be caught by surprise by a planned GPS outage. The exercise happened as intended, and all aircraft in the affected areas should have received warnings BEFORE they even took off. These are not drug smugglers - they filed a flight plan before leaving the ground.
reply
The automated weather service was also out. This made it difficult or impossible to use the ILS because they can't set the local altimeter. This was a swiss cheese chain of events. It was a moonless dark night so the mountains weren't visible.
reply
What is the normal fallback for local weather service failure? Divert to an airport with working service? Proceed, using the "nearest working" information?

How much does air pressure vary over a region, and how quickly does it change?

reply
I think it would be "fly vfr" but the main issue there is the wind direction, not the altimeter setting. In daytime you can read the wind sock while airborne but not possible at night.
reply
Would they take off if they knew GPS would be jammed midway through the flight?

Had they known they wouldn't be able to rely on GPS, all that back and forth with ATC would not be needed, and they'd already have a plan B and a plan C for navigating.

It's unfortunately all slices of swiss cheese aligned perfectly, but I'd still blame the military for poking extra holes on the GPS slice.

reply
> Would they take off if

medevac flight - there was probably some urgency.

reply
Maybe. Urgency should not trump safety. A delay in transport is not worse than a dead patient, dead medics and flight crew, and loss of an aircraft.

And I am happy to be corrected but as I understand it, in the rural west more medical transport than you might think is by air. Distances are large, and population is sparse. You can cover more area with the same number of medics using a few airplanes instead of ground ambulances. So not all air ambulance service is critically urgent, unlike what we are used to in more populated areas.

reply
https://youtu.be/Dcyup4xVQuM This was discussed during the initial reporting. While the GPS jamming is an important technical issue, the broader lesson may be pilot preparedness for degraded-navigation scenarios. This accident also highlights the ongoing debate over whether accumulating flight hours is adequately complemented by realistic defensive training for GPS-denied and other abnormal operations.

One technical point that initially puzzled me was why Spidertrax appeared to retain GPS coordinates while the FMS did not.

My understanding is that certified FMS GPS receivers use Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) and other integrity checks. During GPS jamming, the increased noise and degraded signal quality can cause the receiver to determine that it can no longer guarantee a reliable navigation solution, resulting in a NAV FAIL or RAIM warning.

A tracking device such as Spidertrax, on the other hand being a glorified telematics grade positioning device, is designed for best-effort position reporting rather than certified navigation, so it may continue outputting an estimated position using noisy GNSS data and motion filtering, even when that solution is no longer suitable for primary aircraft navigation.

reply
I too take random's words on socials over the NTSB. /s

In any case the news (and ntsb report) points that they are tied, not responsibility.

reply
They are not in a disagreement. From the report:

SRR is serviced by two instrument approaches, the ILS or LOC RWY 24 and the RNAV (GPS) RWY 24. Both instrument approach plate notes section contain the following statement: “When local altimeter setting not received, procedure NA (Not Authorized).”

IFR approach was not possible, the flight plan was unrealistic.

reply
Trust in governmental institutions is at an all time low.

Questions must be asked about how and why we got here rather appeal to submission.

reply
[flagged]
reply
The quotes are appropriate because only Congress, not executive action, can change the official name.
reply
Congress has, through inaction, approved this
reply
Not really. The official name is still Dept of Defense. The executive order applies a “also known as” because the POTUS cannot change the name. There’s nothing for congress to do because the name has not officially changed. The next POTUS can simply remove this order and it’s back to DoD.
reply
It's very relevant because it otherwise would have been plausible that they were blaming the pilot to unfairly divert blame away from an entity they had a bias for.
reply
You care enough to comment about it and ask them not to do it again because of, not only your feelings, but others too.
reply